RichRMA: More fake ISO's? It's probably time for Dpreview to begin testing actual ISO's of these cameras instead of covertly changing illumination levels to match each other.
"At higher ISO settings, the X-E2 produces cleaner images than the D7100, even when compared at a common output size. However, given the longer exposure the Fujifilm requires, it's also telling to compare its performance to the D7100 set one ISO setting lower, where the difference is much smaller. It's a similar story with the EOS 70D, with more comparible results if you drop the DSLR's ISO by 1EV to more closely match the exposures."
We've included a test of ISO in the majority of our reviews for the past couple of years.
The fact that you then quote us referring to that testing, suggests that we're aware of this.
And we don't change illumination levels - we brightness match the images by changing exposure and we explain this (and, if I remember correctly, the rationale for it), in the article linked from the top of each comparison page. Which doesn't seem terribly covert to me.
Combatmedic870: There's just a couple of things in video they need.It can be done via a FW update and make the xe-2 and xt-1 overall better multipurpose cameras and appeal to a wider audience. 1. 24p,25p,50p. This is the biggest one. Easy fix2. Allow manual.3. Better codecs. Meaning more then one.
Until they sort out the demosiacing for movies, no amount of frame rates or codecs will help.
Mike Sandman: Nice review - thank you. I have an NEX-6 and am thinking about switching. After this review, still thinking... One thing the review may have covered but which I missed -- how do you change the shooting mode (Aperture preferred, speed preferred, etc).? There doesn't seem to be a dial for this.
@Mike Sandman - as S_Michaelsen says, it's a question of telling the camera which parameters you want it to control.
Turn the shutter dial to 'A' (Auto) and it'll be in aperture priority mode, turn just the aperture dial to 'A' and it's in shutter priority. Turn both to 'A' and it's in Program.
SF Photo Gal: Not that I care really, but curious how the X-E2 gets a score of 80 and Gold, yet the GX7 received a 78 and Silver; the GX7 was criticized for having only a 2 axis IBIS and none for video, yet the X-E2 doesn't have IBIS at all; GX7 has a tilting touch screen and the X-E2 is fixed and no touch feature; GX7 has far superior video and seems the IQ is about the same, and they seem to be in the same "class" so what's up with that?
Part 1: Scoring
Use the widget in the scoring panel to compare the scores and you'll see the GX7 outscores the X-E2 in terms of features and video (which is consistent with the points you've made). It also leads the Fujifilm in terms of Wi-Fi and value.
However, the X-E2 scores a touch higher in terms of image quality and ergonomics/handling. Since our scoring is weighted towards image quality, that's enough to see the X-E2 get 1% more in the overall score.
Part 2: Awards
The awards are based on how well the camera's reviewer thinks it fits what we believe to be its intended market. Silver means *we believe* a camera is very good, Gold means *we believe* it's great.
Do I believe the X-E2 is better-suited to its target market than the GX7? Absolutely. The control system is better worked out (the GX7's is fussy by comparison), and the X-E2's EVF makes the shooting experience much nicer. That, plus the slightly nicer image quality? That's enough to make the difference in award.
kewlguy: For such an extensive review, why hasn't DPR tried other RAW converters for Fuji? Clearly ACR is the worst of all for processing X-Trans files including X20/X10. There are Iridient Developer, C1 Pro, PhotoNinja, and others. Of course, from the review I could see DPR loves OOC JPG too much.
We did look at C1 Pro and didn't see the 'clear' difference you indicate.
Equally, we're not about to start depending on a Mac-only piece of software - Mac users may be more common in photography/graphics circles, but they're still a sub-set of users.
We're not going to start cherry-picking pieces of software for our main studio test scene, but include some C1 conversions in the X-T1 review.
Don Karner: So, is everybody a sports shooter now?
@Don Karner - I didn't mean to chide you for making mistakes (I'd leave myself pretty open to accusations of hypocrisy if I did), it's more that I'd responded to your post as if you were making a criticism of the camera or review that I didn't understand.
Only later did I spot the connection between your post and the earlier one.
As tough as the crowd is, I'm sure everyone loves your reviews.
I'd like to share an idea. Time & budget permitting, I was wondering if you guys would entertain the thought of including a 'Tips and Tricks' section for the particular camera - the best settings and uses for certain types of shots (portrait, landscape, night time, increase in body sharpness to prevent, etc).
Now I know this adds an additional layer of work and time - but no other review web site does this (and probably because it would be so exhaustive) but since you guys already do a pretty comprehensive review, you guys might have insights that others may not. Could help and differentiate it from the other websites that do exactly the same thing.
Just a thought,4054
@RStyga - We are trying to identify which sections of the reviews we could cut back on. The problem is that the most useful sections are usually the most time-consuming. We're doing what we can, though, as there is still a backlog of cameras we really want to review.
gerard boulanger: Hmm..2 stops of DR less than X-Pro 1...
If you read to the bottom of the page, there's a comparison between the X-Pro1's Provia and Astia tone curves and the Provia one in the X-E2.
Krich13: Does this camera allow Exposure Compensation in Auto-ISO mode in the Manual regime (user-selected shutter speed and aperture)? Does it allow shot deletion at any level of magnification (X-E1 didn't)?
@Krich13 - in fairness, it's taking a while for manufacturers to get their heads around the idea of allowing an auto mode in Manual.
It's a good idea, and something we'd like to do. At present, the challenge of reviewing all the major cameras is overwhelming, but we're trying to make the whole process more efficient, so that we can be more prompt with our reviews *and* have time to offer some sort of insights for users.
No, it just uses a higher-contrast tone curve in the shadow regions.
The underlying DR of the sensor is the same, it's just that Fujifilm has chosen to make its default Film Simulation 'punchier.'
If you like the smoother shadow response, you can use the Pro Neg. Std Film Simulation or shoot Raw (as explained in the review).
bluevellet: We can no longer compare the scoring with other cameras?
This should now be fixed. Sorry.
@Krich13 - The camera does not honour the Exposure Comp. dial when in Manual with Auto ISO.
Pressing the delete button when zoomed-in will jump back out and check whether you're trying to delete just that or all images.
SharkWeek: Are the low ISOs overstated or just the high ISOs?
All the ISOs are less sensitive than you'd expect.
chocobanana: @DPreview test crew,
Did you use ACR 8.4 for the test RAW conversions? If yes, did you see any improvements in conversion quality from previous versions?
If you look at our test scene, the X-E2's shots were processed with ACR 8.3, the X-T1's were processed with 8.4 rc. If you see any huge differences, we'll reprocess. My understanding was that the main change with 8.4 was the addition of 'Film Simulation' simulations.
In what sense?
Or was this intended as a reply to Jimmy jang Boo? (If so, may I commend the 'Reply' button to you?)
Dimit: I've played with it for an hour or something..it's a fine camera with 2014 standards BUT someone has to say this (since DPR suprisingly doesn't admit):BUILD QUALITY IS AND FEELS CHEAP!...sorry guys,better wait for a couple of years to get a descent car build-wise than a chevy right now!!!
I disagree with you on that. The X-A1 and X-M1 feel a bit flimsy 'round the edges but I wouldn't say the same of the X-E2.
rhlpetrus: For some reason I can't see any of the test images in the DR or RAW conversion comparison pages.
Try again now. It appears a process I thought was now redundant is still necessary.
helltormentor: DP reviewers, Can you please tell us why you insist on converting X-Trans RAW files by ACR? It might be a good converter for other RAW files but, certainly, it is not for X-Trans files. I, myself, am very thankful for all the efforts that you put into shedding light on camera's capabilities but the truth is, when it comes to Fuji cameras, your evaluation cannot help photographers to make their minds because ACR outputs leave a lot to be desired. I am well aware that there is always a big inertia against changes but if conservativeness was the way to choose, we still had to shoot with pinhole cameras. If you don't have to stick to ACR for commercial reasons, please switch to a better RAW converter for X-Trans files. Otherwise, save your time and energy for reviewing cameras with conventional Bayer sensors since your reviews on them are truly informative.
@helltormentor - I didn't *anywhere* imply that our system is 'fine.' The phrase 'This is the most meaningful and least bad compromise.' states quite the opposite.
However, your analogy is flawed. It would be fairer to say that we make all contenders play a simple buy very popular game (say football/soccer), where some are slightly less familiar with the rules than others.
Your suggestion involves having to watch every contender play a range of sports, then show them playing the one we decide they're best at.
Everybody playing football pretty reasonably is more readily comprehensible than watching a field on which the referee has decided some players should play football, others should play grid iron, while others play a mixture of rugby league, rugby union and Aussie rules.
plasnu: In RAW, Magenta is extremely strange, why?
@Just a Photographer
We *did* use the ACR8.4 beta - it's the only version of ACR to support the X-T1.