Interesting. Same score as the X-Pro but a slightly higher award. Not that it matters, but I wonder if they re-considered the X-Pro with the newer firmware, newer lenses, etc, if they'd have bumped it up as well? Or maybe they gave the XE1 the higher award because it does basically the same stuff at a lower price? It seems like they re-reviewed, or revised the review, of the X100 after a bunch of firmware fixes had come down the pike.
Purely academic, of course, but it made me wonder slightly.
-Ray
Interesting. Same score as the X-Pro but a slightly higher award. Not that it matters, but I wonder if they re-considered the X-Pro with the newer firmware, newer lenses, etc, if they'd have bumped it up as well? Or maybe they gave the XE1 the higher award because it does basically the same stuff at a lower price? It seems like they re-reviewed, or revised the review, of the X100 after a bunch of firmware fixes had come down the pike.
Purely academic, of course, but it made me wonder slightly.
-Ray
By Shawn Barnett (27 min ago)
Good question. The X-Pro1's a pro-targeted camera, so it fits into a different category. It is therefore judged for its suitability to that category. We consider the X-E1 more of an enthusiast camera, and as such it rises to a gold.
I was just listening to the last podcast episode we did. I think Bob and Terry both predicted the X-E1 in that one, saying that Fuji was going to bring out a less expensive model with EVF only (without the hybrid viewfinder).
Interesting answer to your question over there:
I personally LOVE the OVF and wouldn't buy an XE1 without it, but its definitely a bit of a beast in an interchangeable lens camera, it takes a bit of a learning curve even with the cleaner X100 version, and I can fully understand people who just wouldn't want to bother at any price.
I was one of the ones who would rather go without the hybrid viewfinder. For me a big part of the beauty of the Fujis lies in their simplicity of controls, and I don't want to have to make choices when it comes to view.
I feel the same way. I prefer an OVF unless the EVF is going to give me live view exposure simulation, but more important is a camera that gets out if my way when I'm shooting which is what drew me to the Fuji controls in the first place. After handling both cameras I determined that the higher spec EVF was the way to go because I couldn't see myself switching back and forth between the OVF and EVF all the time depending on what lens was on the camera, how close my subject was, etc. I do prefer the size of the X Pro but I also liked saving some money to put toward another lens
And now they're sort of debating amongst themselves too... I'm such a troublemaker!
-Ray
Debates on DPR?! That's a huge step up from the usual rantings. I'd say you are a miracle worker
Not the inmates, the guys running the asylum. Two of the DPR staff writers. One finally conceded that they need to revisit the X-Pro review in light of improved raw support and, one presumes, other FW improvements.
I don't switch between the OVF and EVF often either, but when I need to for a close up or when I'm using the 14mm, it's such a quick flick of the lever that I don't even think about it. But I can inderstand not wanting to deal with it too.
-Ray
There is one little thing though - while I like the EVF and find it very useful, whenever I put the camera to my eye, or switch back to the OVF, I feel a little lift of happiness.
"Indeed Fujifilm claims the X-E1 and X-Pro1 now offer AF speeds competitive with benchmark cameras such as the Olympus OM- E-M5."
They should be sued for issuing such nonsense... I shot the X-E extensively this week with the 35/1.4 (both running the latest FW) and they were painfully matching my rather pedestrian AF'ing NEX 7. The GX-1 I still have leaves both *in the dust* in ANY kind of light or situation... This trend of shameless lying and misinformation is getting really annoying from manufacturers and reviewers alike (the same has irritated me with people ooohing and aahing over the new Sony PDAF which, once actually measured, harldy brings any improvement over the previous module, and none in low light). Damn.
"Indeed Fujifilm claims the X-E1 and X-Pro1 now offer AF speeds competitive with benchmark cameras such as the Olympus OM- E-M5."
They should be sued for issuing such nonsense... I shot the X-E extensively this week with the 35/1.4 (both running the latest FW) and they were painfully matching my rather pedestrian AF'ing NEX 7. The GX-1 I still have leaves both *in the dust* in ANY kind of light or situation...
"Indeed Fujifilm claims the X-E1 and X-Pro1 now offer AF speeds competitive with benchmark cameras such as the Olympus OM- E-M5."
They should be sued for issuing such nonsense... I shot the X-E extensively this week with the 35/1.4 (both running the latest FW) and they were painfully matching my rather pedestrian AF'ing NEX 7. The GX-1 I still have leaves both *in the dust* in ANY kind of light or situation... This trend of shameless lying and misinformation is getting really annoying from manufacturers and reviewers alike (the same has irritated me with people ooohing and aahing over the new Sony PDAF which, once actually measured, harldy brings any improvement over the previous module, and none in low light). Damn.