that is at ISO 3200 ??? really ??? that is stunning
ISO is an overrated and frequently misunderstood concept. An ISO 6400 shot of white/bright fur will look better than an ISO 800 shot of a dark alley. That's because ISO is simply informing about the amount of signal amplification/gain that was applied over the sansor's base sensitivity (which is arbitrary, too). However, bright image areas deliver a much stronger signal than dark ones. So amplifying the dark parts of an image is much trickier than amplifying bright ones.
There are plenty of people out there with an agenda to either praise or bash a certain camera. As proof, they often provide samples with a certain ISO setting in the EXIFs. However, real experts know that these ISO settings mean nothing at all. Let me show you:
This image of my screen was taken with an X-E2 at ISO
3200, f/11, 1/30s:
This image of the same screen was taken with an X-E2 as ISO
200, f/11, 1/30s:
As you can see, the X-E2 is more than four stops brighter than the X-E2. Obviously, Fujifilm is vastly inflating ISO numbers in the X-E2, whereas Fuji's X-E2 does not. So I highly recommend not to buy a Fujifilm X-E2 ever, get a Fujifilm X-E2 instead, as it offers more than 4 stops better ISO performance than the X-E2.
Please note that both images are straight out of camera JPEGs, no PP, all EXIFs are intact and accessible on Flickr if you care to click on the image.
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
XF-1 ordered, Tan, from Currys to collect from local store tomorrow. No branches anywhere vaguely near me have any in stock. I get the impression they may not be around for much longer so if anyone else wants one it may be wise to strike soon 
