Fuji My score: X-a1 or X-m1?

T

tarkhan

New Member
Hello! I'm new here because i want score X-a1 or x-m1!
But x-m1 or x-a1???
I m a young photographer with a young passion for photography! i haven't got a good camera, and now a lots of my friends say me:"A mirrorless? Please! Buy a canon/nikon reflex entry level!" but i love fuji models and i think that mirror less is the future of photography: quality, thickness, weightiness!
So X-a1 is the entry level but now there are only 80 euros difference than x-m1 ( it likes me more in grey version ). So the question is the x-trans sensor! There'isn't special shots for me, but i prefer landscapes ( and the xtrans sensor doesn't work very well with green )! The future for fuji is the x trans and what's sense buy a traditional sensore?
 
For 80 EUR, I'd opt for the M1.

Both kit zooms are pretty good, btw, so a good dual kit deal (16-230mm) is what I'd be looking for.
 
I went with the XA1. Why? Because it was basically $200 after selling off the kit lens. I have an XE2 and I had an XM1 along side the XA1. The XM1 is very very close to the XA1 and the XE2 is every so slightly better in terms of high ISO noise. But they're so close... and adobe products work with the XA files much faster. So I'm sticking with the XA1 as my pocket camera with the 18mm. So far I'm loving it.
 
Wow tomorrow X-a1 360 euro X-m1 510 euro! So my score is: X-m1!
Special prize for xe1 for 550 euro but no video, no wifi no smart for me :(
 
jacobsen1 said:
I went with the XA1. Why? Because it was basically $200 after selling off the kit lens. I have an XE2 and I had an XM1 along side the XA1. The XM1 is very very close to the XA1 and the XE2 is every so slightly better in terms of high ISO noise. But they're so close... and adobe products work with the XA files much faster. So I'm sticking with the XA1 as my pocket camera with the 18mm. So far I'm loving it.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I just bought an X-A1 recently while at B&H Photo in NYC. It's turned out to be a terrific camera and I am very impressed with the image quality. The reason I bought it over the X-M1 was simply that it was $200 cheaper. I put that savings towards the 27mm pancake, which has turned out to be a surprisingly good lens, and a perfect companion for the X-A1. I will probably sell the kit lens as well. The 27mm pancake is really compact, fast, and versatile. I expect it will stay on the X-A1 90% or so of the time. Check out my recent shot of San Francisco at night from Treasure Island taken with the X-A1 and the little pancake.
 
I vote X-A1 even though I shoot the X-M1. I make large prints of some of my work and want the acuity of the X-Trans -- but that would be the main reason for X-Trans. If you are a beginning photographer and won't be printing very large prints, I doubt you're going to see the difference between X-Trans and Bayer sensors.

With the money you saved, you have something to put towards protective filters, ND filters, or tripods or whatever -- or the beginnings of a fund to buy an additional lens.

So, I vote X-A1.
 
I also vote for the X-A1, and while I am a big fan of X-trans, I'm not sure one would see a practical difference in real-world photography between an X-A1 and an X-M1. It reminds me of the distinction between statistically significant and practically significant. While one might be able to demonstrate a statistical difference, all that matters in the end is if there is a practical difference. Is a truly excellent photo going to be made or broken because it does or does not have an anti-aliasing filter in front the sensor? I'm inclined not to think so.

To get the absolute best out of X-trans files, in my experience, and I've been shooting with X-trans since early Nov 2012, you really need to use Capture One 7.1 or later or Iridient Developer (I personally prefer Capture One) for the best RAW conversion; I use Capture One for for my mission-critical quality photos.

But the Bayer sensor on the X-A1 means that you can get really excellent RAW conversion results using Adobe Lightroom, which has a lot of advantages and is the app that most folks, including me, are most familiar with.

With the exception of it's price point, I personally don't think of an X-A1 as a camera targeted towards beginners, I think it's an entry level model to be sure, but even Toshihisa Iida, senior sales and marketing manager at Fujifilm said in a recent interview they were surprised at the image quality they were able to obtain the from X-A1. And certainly the X10 and X100 had superb image quality from their Bayer sensors as well. I think one may be able to extract more detail from an X-trans sensor in an absolute sense, and I certainly really, really love the image quality from my X-Pro1, but I am not sure the delta in image quality is actually practically significant in the real-world. Certainly the folks producing beautiful images with the Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3 cameras are producing quality work to that effect as well.
 
Agreed -- with the addition of Photo Ninja as a RAW converter for Windows folks as well (who can't use Iridient). Like you, I use something outside of Lightroom for those "special" images.

I shot with micro four thirds cameras for about a year or so (which is a lot of photos) and made 24x36 inch prints that are nice -- but APS-C in any variant at the same resolution is easier to process, and in the case of X-Trans produces a cleaner print at that size. X-Trans does make a difference when you get very large IMO.

The other way to approach that is of course with more pixels, lol -- which I prefer not to do at this time, nor do I need to with the Fuji's.
 
I agree, John.

I have an Olympus OM-D E-M5, and while it's image quality is excellent, and it truly is excellent, in my personal opinion, the image quality from the Fujis, particularly the X-Trans sensor cameras, is nothing short of magical. The image quality reminds me of when the original Canon 5D came out; many cameras produced excellent image quality at that time but there was magic in 5D files.

And your comments about the advantages of the Fuji APS-C sensors from the size perpective are spot-on as well. While my OM-D performs well with respect to dynamic range and noise performance, it simply cannot match my X-Pro1 for noise performance and dynamic range. In fact, nothing I've personally shot with can; though that has to be qualified by the fact that I've not shot with a Nikon D800 or Canon 5D MkIII (yet). Also regarding sensor size, while I feel the larger APS-C sensor makes a notable difference compared to the Micro-4/3 sensor, the differences in image quality between the Fuji APS-C sensor and "full-frame" are nowhere near as compelling. So much so, that after a considerable time of consideration of getting a 5D MkIII to supplement my pro-level 1D Mk II N, after getting my X-Pro1, I really don't feel any need to get a full-frame camera whatsoever. Fuji has struck gold with the perfect synergy between sensor size, image quality, noise, and dynamic range with the 16 megapixel APS-C X-trans sensor, and thankfully, have not fallen into the trap of more and more megapixels, which they did years earlier when they discontinued after only 6 months the amazing litle Fuji F31fd.
 
entropic remnants said:
The other way to approach that is of course with more pixels, lol -- which I prefer not to do at this time, nor do I need to with the Fuji's.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, 100% agree. At this point all full-frame means to me is even bigger, heavier lenses at the same focal length or lens speed. I already have that with my Canon L glass and am trying to move in completely the other direction: smaller, lighter, more compact. And every pro I know and shoot with is trying to do the same thing. Last thing I want to be doing is hauling big-*ssed glass around again because I am shooting with a "full-frame" camera.
 
I'll be interested to hear over time how the X-T1 fares with AF tracking which is the one place mirrorless has had a serious deficiency for the most part. Not something I generally need, but Fuji does appear to be "advancing the art" of mirrorless in much the same way that Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic have.

It could help make mirrorless dominant which I believe is the inevitable outcome and even Canon and Nikon will finally make a credible mirrorless. The Nikon 1 System is fine, but not even trying to be a DSLR replacement.

I do think that Fuji started to do the "too many bodies" thing and it was interesting to see in that recent interview on DPReview the statement that Fuji realizes they were doing that. Might slow down the pace of releases and what we do get should be much more refined (like the X-T1) now that Fuji has moved up the learning curve. I'm still very happy with my X-E2 for now so I won't be making a move but I will be watching.

With the lenses already being so very excellent, I'm really glad I started shooting the Fuji. There are an increasingly narrow range of circumstances where I miss my DSLR's anymore -- in fact it's very rare.

One thing though: the dedicated IR sensitive AF sensor of the DSLR's allowed for external AF illumination from LED's on a flash unit that weren't blinding. The lack of that on mirrorless seriously hampered me at a wedding I shot and rather took my by surprise although I should have anticipated it. I was ready to chuck my Fuji gear against the wall I was so frustrated and barely pulled off the photos I wanted at the reception due to the relative darkness of the room. Really wanted the AF assist lights I had on the Nikon system I used to shoot! Hopefully, that too will find a technical solution but if I did accept a wedding job (which I generally won't anymore) I'd rent a DSLR and flash for the reception.
 
entropic remnants said:
I'll be interested to hear over time how the X-T1 fares with AF tracking which is the one place mirrorless has had a serious deficiency for the most part. Not something I generally need, but Fuji does appear to be "advancing the art" of mirrorless in much the same way that Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic have.

It could help make mirrorless dominant which I believe is the inevitable outcome and even Canon and Nikon will finally make a credible mirrorless. The Nikon 1 System is fine, but not even trying to be a DSLR replacement.

I do think that Fuji started to do the "too many bodies" thing and it was interesting to see in that recent interview on DPReview the statement that Fuji realizes they were doing that. Might slow down the pace of releases and what we do get should be much more refined (like the X-T1) now that Fuji has moved up the learning curve. I'm still very happy with my X-E2 for now so I won't be making a move but I will be watching.

With the lenses already being so very excellent, I'm really glad I started shooting the Fuji. There are an increasingly narrow range of circumstances where I miss my DSLR's anymore -- in fact it's very rare.

One thing though: the dedicated IR sensitive AF sensor of the DSLR's allowed for external AF illumination from LED's on a flash unit that weren't blinding. The lack of that on mirrorless seriously hampered me at a wedding I shot and rather took my by surprise although I should have anticipated it. I was ready to chuck my Fuji gear against the wall I was so frustrated and barely pulled off the photos I wanted at the reception due to the relative darkness of the room. Really wanted the AF assist lights I had on the Nikon system I used to shoot! Hopefully, that too will find a technical solution but if I did accept a wedding job (which I generally won't anymore) I'd rent a DSLR and flash for the reception.
Click to expand...

John,
I can tell yours and my sensibilities are pretty closely aligned! ;)

I agree that Fuji probably came out with too many bodies too soon with the X-series, and they should consolidate down a bit. Customers don't like TOO many choices. It absolutely does get confusing for buyers. Just go to a big box store and try to pick out an HDTV these days. It's an exercise in frustration. I also agree with Iida-san that Fuji will be better served on putting R&D resources into extending the lens system. I would expect we would see that X-M1/X-A1 series consolidated down to one body, and the X30 may be last of that series we will see. An X-M1, X100-series, X-E2, X-Pro1, and X-T1 lineup would probably make more sense from a product portfolio perspective.

Lastly, and most importantly, getting into the Fuji X-series completely refreshed and revitalized my interest in photography. After a decade of shooting with a full-on pro Canon kit doing pro motorsports photojournalism and a lot of hard, backbreaking work, I was feeling jaded and most importantly, disengaged.

The Fuji X cameras, with their hands-on controls and superb lenses took me back to my roots of learning photography with my fully manual OM-1 and manual focus lenses. The X-cams required me to intellectually re-engage with the process of making images, and I personally find that very gratifying.

And the image quality and lenses as so exceptional with the X-series, that the only time I use my Canon pro gear anymore is literally at trackside shooting racing action.
 

Similar threads

Lightmancer
    • Like
Fuji I just scored an X-M1
Replies
3
Views
1K
bilzmale
bilzmale
Biro
Fuji Fuji XF Lenses on X-M1/X-A1 Bodies
Replies
1
Views
1K
Lightmancer
Lightmancer
L
    • Like
Fuji X-M1 vs X-A1, I know
Replies
5
Views
2K
lezshoot
L
Back
Top