# Retro styled Fuji X-E1 compact system camera pics



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

Rumoured to be a X-Pro 1style but without the fabulous hybrid viewfinder, the X-E1 packs an EVF viewfinder and does look rather spiffing:












http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/new-fuji-x-e1-pictures/
http://photorumors.com/2012/08/27/fujifilm-x-e1-specifications/


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

I considered getting one of these, but there were drawbacks to it, for a camera of that price.

So I went for the used Pentax. I've come to realize that there are things that a digital simply cannot do, especially in photos with lots of contrast between shadow and really bright highlights.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So I went for the used Pentax. I've come to realize that there are things that a digital simply cannot do, especially in photos with lots of contrast between shadow and really bright highlights.


Unless you're making colossal prints in particularly challenging conditions, you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between film and digital at the high end of the scale now - that's why the vast majority of pros switched to digital ages ago.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> Unless you're making colossal prints in particularly challenging conditions, you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between film and digital at the high end of the scale now - that's why the vast majority of pros switched to digital ages ago.


 
I think a lot of pros switched for the ease of use, and the ability with digital to shoot mega multiples. Some pros made the switch back when the technology of the digital wasn't anywhere near what it is today.

As well, I think the discontinuation of Ektachrome played a factor for some. I've read of pro photographers who babied their little stashes of Ektachrome for as long as they'd hold out.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

Also, I think the rise in digital manipulation of images made shooting digital seem the logical choice.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> Unless you're making colossal prints in particularly challenging conditions, you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between film and digital at the high end of the scale now - that's why the vast majority of pros switched to digital ages ago.


 
I don't know how much time you spend viewing images on flickr or similar sites; but I think it's quite easy to distinguish between film and digital images, for the most part.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

I loved film and my OM2 is still my favourite camera ever, but I can take much better photos on my OM-D. Apart from some niche users, film has long been surpassed by digital for its ease of use and quality. I'll never go back to film.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> I loved film and my OM2 is still my favourite camera ever, but I can take much better photos on my OM-D. Apart from some niche users, film has long been surpassed by digital for its ease of use and quality. I'll never go back to film.


 
Ease of use, yes. Quality, I disagree, except maybe at the very top of the line, like the Hasselblad 50 megapixel camera.

But it sells for $40,000


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't know how much time you spend viewing images on flickr or similar sites; but I find it quite easy to distinguish between film and digital images, for the most part.


You must be looking at pictures from really shitty digital cameras then because most people can't tell any difference at all - particularly at such a relatively small viewing size.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 31, 2012)

I was at a street photography workshop run by a guy called John Free on Monday, who's been taking pictures for forty years, and he was talking about the first time somebody brought in a picture from a digital camera, 8MP at the time. He burst out laughing and the person thought he was laughing at the picture, only he says he was laughing because the quality was so much better than the film he'd been used to.

Even I find the image quality difference really obvious between my film and digitals, and I'm comparing what would have been high end kit a couple of decades ago with film to reasonable prosumer stuff now. Whether it _matters_ or not is a different issue though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> You must be looking at pictures from really shitty digital cameras then because most people can't tell any difference at all - particularly at such a relatively small viewing size.


 
No, Nikons, Canon EOS etc.

Check out this guy. To me, it's obvious that he uses film - which he does.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinsdisgustin/page2/

I've participated in a few photo critique groups; and the photos that get the best acceptance are often film images, when you look into the medium being used.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Ease of use, yes. Quality, I disagree, except maybe at the very top of the line, like the Hasselblad 50 megapixel camera.


I'd wager that you'd be unable to tell the difference between a high end digital camera and a 35mm film camera if you were presented with 10" x 8 prints from both. Most people can't tell the difference at all. That's why almost all pros switched to digital.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I was at a street photography workshop run by a guy called John Free on Monday, who's been taking pictures for forty years, and he was talking about the first time somebody brought in a picture from a digital camera, 8MP at the time. He burst out laughing and the person thought he was laughing at the picture, only he says he was laughing because the quality was so much better than the film he'd been used to.
> 
> Even I find the image quality difference really obvious between my film and digitals, and I'm comparing what would have been high end kit a couple of decades ago with film to reasonable prosumer stuff now. Whether it _matters_ or not is a different issue though.


 
The first 8mp cameras came somewhere around the mid 2000s; but there's been digital cameras of smaller megapixel size around for some time before that. Had Mr. Free never seen an image from a 2mp camera before that?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> I'd wager that you'd be unable to tell the difference between a high end digital camera and a 35mm film camera if you were presented with 10" x 8 prints from both. Most people can't tell the difference at all. That's why almost all pros switched to digital.


 
If you're talking a 40k Hasselblad, I suspect you're right.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If you're talking a 40k Hasselblad, I suspect you're right.


I said 35mm film.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The first 8mp cameras came somewhere around the mid 2000s; but there's been digital cameras of smaller megapixel size around for some time before that. Had Mr. Free never seen an image from a 2mp camera before that?


I don't know, I'm just repeating something that an experienced photographer said. (He doesn't use a digital now btw, he uses an old Nikon F3, because of the focussing, the finder and the speed and ease of use.)

From personal experience the difference in detail is just silly nowadays, at least with consumer scanners. There's just no comparison. I also know that for me that rarely matters - I might not be able to read the text on a label of a shampoo bottle across the room from the shot, but does that make a picture good?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> I said 35mm film.


 
I think the best film cameras these days are medium format.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't know, I'm just repeating something that an experienced photographer said. (He doesn't use a digital now btw, he uses an old Nikon F3, because of the focussing, the finder and the speed and ease of use.)
> 
> From personal experience the difference in detail is just silly nowadays, at least with consumer scanners. There's just no comparison. I also know that for me that rarely matters - I might not be able to read the text on a label of a shampoo bottle across the room from the shot, but does that make a picture good?


 
Not necessarily, no.

In the end, personal preference plays a huge part in creativity. For my part, I'm looking forward to working in film again.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 31, 2012)

There will always be a difference.

The quality thing is very subjective. Digital can do stuff film can't. Film can do stuff digital can't. For me, it's the intrinsic value of a negative that counts. A tangible thing. Of all my posessions it was my negative archive I put the most importance on. They are very different media. I binned all my CD's and digital storage, because they are already worthless from my own point of view.

This camera (re; the thread) is retro styled for a single reason only.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2012)

While I admit I am seduced by the retro styling, the thing that Fuji have brought with that in their recent X-series cameras that I really like is a shutter speed dial. With an aperture ring on the X-mount lenses and an Exposure Compensation dial, you get direct control of basic shooting parameters. 

You can see what your shutter speed is without having to look in the viewfinder. It really bugs me when I have to do that.


----------



## contadino (Aug 31, 2012)

I think it's a really good looking camera. The top feature I look for by a nautical mile is an eyepiece. Screen-only viewfinders are crap, especially when the light is good. Nice to see that Fuji understand that. So many of the 4/3rds manufacturers don't.

Still, I'll wait until some photographers with a bit more knowledge/experience than me have done some proper reviews before deciding whether I'd want one (if I had the money.)


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think the best film cameras these days are medium format.


Great image quality but not so good for sports or street photography though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Not necessarily, no.
> 
> In the end, personal preference plays a huge part in creativity. For my part, I'm looking forward to working in film again.


 
IMHO the difference between high-quality digital and film is this: That with film, *if* you're a keen user of a certain emulsion you can anticipate almost exactly the characteristics of your print because you understand how that emulsion works as part of your process - it's why photographers use, for example, Fuji Velvia when they want colour saturation, or Kodak Tri-X 400 when they want moonochrome with grain. With a digital, a lot of that becomes a software issue, either "in-camera" or on the computer.

In terms of quality, though, the usual way a pro can spot a digital over a film pic is generally to do with "bandwidth", where film still has a slight advantage in total spectral reproduction, but that's about it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think the best film cameras these days are medium format.


 
For studio or planned shots, perhaps, but they're not much cop for action shots or "on the street" photo-journalism.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 31, 2012)

cybertect said:


> While I admit I am seduced by the retro styling, the thing that Fuji have brought with that in their recent X-series cameras that I really like is a shutter speed dial. With an aperture ring on the X-mount lenses and an Exposure Compensation dial, you get direct control of basic shooting parameters.
> 
> You can see what your shutter speed is without having to look in the viewfinder. It really bugs me when I have to do that.


Do you really adjust your shutter speed manually a lot?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 31, 2012)

Retro styling. *yawn*

Can't somebody come up with something new that isn't hideous?


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Retro styling. *yawn*
> 
> Can't somebody come up with something new that isn't hideous?


Cameras were 'retro styled' for around a century and that's because it's the best form factor.That's why I like using my OM-D more than my bulky Nikon D300.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Retro styling. *yawn*
> 
> Can't somebody come up with something new that isn't hideous?


I really, really miss having an aperture ring around the lens and would love it if all my cameras had a +/- exposure compensation dial on the top plate too.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> I really, really miss having an aperture ring around the lens and would love it if all my cameras had a +/- exposure compensation dial on the top plate too.


Mine does, press a button and rotate the rear dial.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 31, 2012)

Fuji have some experience with Electronic Viewfinders. My first digital camera a Fuji Finepix 4900z had an EVF and it worked very well. That must be some 10-15 years ago.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Mine does, press a button and rotate the rear dial.


I'd rather miss out the 'press a button' bit and be able to feel the setting.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Fuji have some experience with Electronic Viewfinders. My first digital camera a Fuji Finepix 4900z had an EVF and it worked very well. That must be some 10-15 years ago.


The one on my OM-D is miles ahead of all the other ones I'd used. I'd prefer optical, but an EVF has its advantages.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Do you really adjust your shutter speed manually a lot?



If I'm shooting in Manual mode, yes; and one of the reasons I don't do often is because the controls on modern cameras make it more awkward than it could be.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 31, 2012)

cybertect said:


> If I'm shooting in Manual mode, yes; and one of the reasons I don't do often is because the controls on modern cameras make it more awkward than it could be.


For me in manual I have the two rotating controls in front (first finger) and behind (thumb) my right hand, one for aperture and the other for shutter speed.

It is one of the reasons I like Manual mode so much.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

With my OM2n, I could adjust both aperture and shutter speed in the pitch black because it was simply a case of remembering how far the dials went. It's still my favourite ever camera.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> With my OM2n, I could adjust both aperture and shutter speed in the pitch black because it was simply a case of remembering how far the dials went. It's still my favourite ever camera.


I still have an OM2 and a couple of OM 1 bodies which I have not used for a while. The great thing about the 'around the lens' shutter control was that everything you needed was around the lens. Olympus took the idea from their own (and other's) point and shoot cameras.

You could always tell what shutter speed you were on because the control ring has two lugs - one each side. When the lugs were horizontally level, the shutter speed was 1/30th of a second. You could tell by feel. It was that kind of thinking that appealed to me about Olympus. I preferred the OM1 in retrospect because of its mechanical shutter. If the battery died the camera still worked, you just needed to use your brain to work out the exposure setting.

I have used a lot of 35mm SLRs but I agree the Olympus OM is the best of the lot. The worst were those Russian and East German doorstops that stowpirate loves so much.


----------



## Firky (Aug 31, 2012)

That camera is gorgeous.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I preferred the OM1 in retrospect because of its mechanical shutter. If the battery died the camera still worked, you just needed to use your brain to work out the exposure setting.


The OM2 had one mechanical 1/60 shutter speed setting which proved to be an absolute life saver when I unexpectedly found myself as the main photographer at a wedding and the batteries went dead!


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

I have to say I was almost going to buy the OM-D anyway because it reminded me so much of my OM2/OM4 cameras.
Thankfully, it'd also one of the best digital cameras you can get.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2012)

I have been sorely tempted on more than one occasion to buy an OM-1, but it would mean having yet another lens system to buy into in addition to my Mamiya 645 and Canon FD and EF glass.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> For studio or planned shots, perhaps, but they're not much cop for action shots or "on the street" photo-journalism.


 
Take a look at the history of street photography. Most of it was done with film cameras.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Do you really adjust your shutter speed manually a lot?


 
With an SLR, I adjust shutter speed and aperture for every shot.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> With an SLR, I adjust shutter speed and aperture for every shot.


Oh I don't, if they are just snapshots I sometimes leave on P mode and let the camera decide.

If they are intended as special shots I do adjust pretty much most things for each shot.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> Great image quality but not so good for sports or street photography though.


 
I think they're pretty multi purpose...

http://photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00YYER


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Take a look at the history of street photography. Most of it was done with film cameras.


There are two different histories there. I can think of one photographer - Paul Strand who did street photography with a still camera and also documentaries on movie film. Even in his case the two areas of work are separate. The history of street photography is overflowing with images from still cameras and the list of photographers is too vast to start giving examples.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> There are two different histories there. I can think of one photographer - Paul Strand who did street photography with a still camera and also documentaries on movie film. Even in his case the two areas of work are separate. The history of street photography is overflowing with images from still cameras and the list of photographers is too vast to start giving examples.


 
There are so, so many.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q0DMbp_WqeU/T1y3Vz44BtI/AAAAAAAAh8U/s3kcA1-EqHA/s1600/Herzog_Bogners.jpeg

http://cdn2.all-art.org/photography/fotography/weegee_first_murder36.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/2483459258_b6ebe00964_o.jpg

http://www.interviewmagazine.com/files/2009/06/08/img-shore-1_19115476173.jpg


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/2483459258_b6ebe00964_o.jpg


 
TBF, that one was about as carefully staged a shot as any advertising image. O. Winston Link had synchronised multi-flash (bulb! not electronic) setups waiting for the precise moment the train passed.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2012)

And editor's comments related to medium format film cameras.



Johnny Canuck3 said:


> http://www.interviewmagazine.com/files/2009/06/08/img-shore-1_19115476173.jpg


 
Stephen Shore was shooting 35mm (I believe a Leica) at Warhol's Factory.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There are so, so many.
> 
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q0DMbp_WqeU/T1y3Vz44BtI/AAAAAAAAh8U/s3kcA1-EqHA/s1600/Herzog_Bogners.jpeg
> 
> ...


You did not read my post properly. I said myself that the list is too vast to give examples. Perhaps you did not read the whole sentence about Paul Strand. I was referring to him as one who did both still and film street photography.

One of your examples by O Winston Link is not street photography which is usually about people. His work was about the last steam trains. The people splashing in the water in the foreground were not the real subject and possibly weren't there at the time when he set up his elaborate flash equipment. I saw his exhibition when it came to London many years ago.

Edited to add: I see that cybertect has mentioned Link's flash technique.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The people splashing in the water in the foreground were not the real subject and possibly weren't there at the time when he set up his elaborate flash equipment.



Yes, I thought I had heard stories that the shot was assembled in a darkroom from more than one individual exposure, but I wasn't sure about it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

cybertect said:


> TBF, that one was about as carefully staged a shot as any advertising image. O. Winston Link had synchronised multi-flash (bulb! not electronic) setups waiting for the precise moment the train passed.


 
Fair enough; the point I'm trying to make is that film is fully able to capture live action, street scenes etc. Link's image might be stitched together, but at least part of it includes a live action shot of the people in the water.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

cybertect said:


> And editor's comments related to medium format film cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen Shore was shooting 35mm (I believe a Leica) at Warhol's Factory.


 
To repeat: my original point was that the bulk of street photography: the history of it, if you will, was done on film.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2012)

If you're going to pick photographers who used medium format for street photography, the posthumously-celebrated Vivian Maier wouldn't be a bad place to start, but there's Brassai, Bert Hardy and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Diane Arbus who spring to mind.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> To repeat: my original point was that the bulk of street photography: the history of it, if you will, was done on film.


For sure, but digital has only been of adequate quality for the last 15 years I would think.

I bet the vast bulk of street photography in 2012 is being done on digital.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

weltweit said:


> For sure, but digital has only been of adequate quality for the last 15 years I would think.
> 
> I bet the vast bulk of street photography in 2012 is being done on digital.


 
No doubt: but as you say, digital has only been around for about a decade or a bit more.

Photography has been around since the late 1800s.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> To repeat: my original point was that the bulk of street photography: the history of it, if you will, was done on film.



I think there have been some crossed wires going on between you and VP/editor/me

The thread of conversation that led there was this




editor said:


> I said 35mm film.





Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think the best film cameras these days are medium format.





editor said:


> Great image quality but not so good for sports or street photography though.





ViolentPanda said:


> For studio or planned shots, perhaps, but they're not much cop for action shots or "on the street" photo-journalism.





Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Take a look at the history of street photography. Most of it was done with film cameras.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 31, 2012)

I can remember when Canon had the 30D out, don't recall the pixel count (there may have been a 20D before it) but the quality was great and film photographers started switching, not all but many.

There are still photographers using film, while there is film available there will be.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

cybertect said:


> I think there have been some crossed wires going on between you and VP/editor/me
> 
> The thread of conversation that led there was this


 
Goes back further, where I expressed enthusiasm for my new[old]SLR and the things that film can do. A discussion ensued about the pluses and minuses of digital vs film.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 1, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Goes back further, where I expressed enthusiasm for my new[old]SLR and the things that film can do. A discussion ensued about the pluses and minuses of digital vs film.


Johnny Canuk3, I have misunderstood what you were talking about when you talked of 'film photography'. I thought you were referring to 'movie film' as distinct from still film. This is why I talked about Paul Strand who did stills as well as movie documentary film.

I did not realise that you meant film as distinct from digital photography. Of course you are right, the majority of 'street photography' has a long history on still film and plates going back to the late 1880s. It may however be not as long in the future before the increased productivity of digital photography means that there are more - numerically, digital photographs of street photography as well as photographers. Perhaps the recorded and remembered history of such photography will discard more as it goes through, there being a limit to what people will regard as the 'canon' of photographers.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 1, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Johnny Canuk3, I have misunderstood what you were talking about when you talked of 'film photography'. I thought you were referring to 'movie film' as distinct from still film. This is why I talked about Paul Strand who did stills as well as movie documentary film.
> 
> I did not realise that you meant film as distinct from digital photography. Of course you are right, the majority of 'street photography' has a long history on still film and plates going back to the late 1880s. It may however be not as long in the future before the increased productivity of digital photography means that there are more - numerically, digital photographs of street photography as well as photographers. Perhaps the recorded and remembered history of such photography will discard more as it goes through, there being a limit to what people will regard as the 'canon' of photographers.


 
Two countries separated by a common language.

There will be a huge proliferation of street photography, thanks to digital [unless it's made illegal, of course]. But I think that people like Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau and Arbus, will retain their places as masters of the genre.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Take a look at the history of street photography. Most of it was done with film cameras.


 
The post I was replying to said "I think the best film cameras these days are medium format.". I merely pointed out that *most* street photography wasn't taken with medium format cameras, because of camera size and limited exposures (even using 220).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The post I was replying to said "I think the best film cameras these days are medium format.". I merely pointed out that *most* street photography wasn't taken with medium format cameras, because of camera size and limited exposures (even using 220).


 
We definitely had our wires crossed, then.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 1, 2012)

People just don't really make cameras designed for street photography in medium format. The Fuji GS645S that I have is actually manageable, apart from the fact that you only get 15 shots per roll - one of the GA series which had autofocus would probably be better. But there aren't many examples. When film was getting fast enough the 35mm format had become the most compact and practical, and technology was good enough to get good detail if you focussed properly.

I could go out and take street pictures with a Lubitel TLR, and the individual pictures would be fine, but there wouldn't be as many of them, and there would be just one per instance - winding the roll on by hand just doesn't allow for follow-up shots.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 6, 2012)

Well, the X-E1 has been officially announced

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/0...-trans-mirrorless-camera-with-OLED-viewfinder

Rather attractive as an overall package.


----------



## editor (Sep 6, 2012)

$1,400. Ouch!


----------



## cybertect (Sep 6, 2012)

$100 more than the OM-D is still retailing at in the US.

I expect the UK SRP to be about £1200-£1250 with the zoom


----------



## editor (Sep 6, 2012)

cybertect said:


> $100 more than the OM-D is still retailing at


It's a lovely camera but it is rather burdened with a vastly reduced range of hugely pricey lenses.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 6, 2012)

cybertect said:


> I have been sorely tempted on more than one occasion to buy an OM-1, but it would mean having yet another lens system to buy into in addition to my Mamiya 645 and Canon FD and EF glass.


 
[cough] Having said that, with any luck I should have a fairly tidy OM-2N with new seals and mirror bumper and a Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 arriving in the post today.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2012)

Fuck me. It's HUGE.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 7, 2012)

On the other hand, the OM-D and the Sony Alpha are tiny.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> On the other hand, the OM-D and the Sony Alpha are tiny.


...like proper old cameras.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 7, 2012)

editor said:


> ...like proper old cameras.


Well, it's not a complaint, but there's only so thin and small a 35mm could ever be. The OM-D is slightly smaller than the OM-2 iirc (and lighter) - the Sony is _tiny_.

It's funny looking at tourists going round with cameras like little postcards stuck onto the back of huge lenses. At this rate I think in a few year's time, there will be cameras basically like lens caps, and you'll be holding the lens like a telescope.


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2012)

I think the Sony looks awful whereas the Olympus gets the balance just right. And that's only because it's just like an old SLR.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 7, 2012)

I'm not a fan of the Sony look either tbh. Also no EVF.


----------



## dweller (Sep 7, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm not a fan of the Sony look either tbh. Also no EVF.


 
I'm not a fan of the Sony look but the nex7 pictured does have an EVF in the left hand corner.
So does the upcoming nex6


----------



## editor (Sep 7, 2012)

Indeed it does. And it's a very good one too.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 8, 2012)

dweller said:


> So does the upcoming nex6



Apparently, the X-E1 has the same Sony OLED EVF unit as the NEX6, which is the same resolution as the one in the NEX7, but with a bit more contrast range.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 8, 2012)

I take it back then! Still am unlikely to purchase.


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2012)

I don't like the ergonomics of the Sony NEX range at all. Those two unmarked dials on the top plate seem completely unintuitive.


----------



## cybertect (Oct 24, 2012)

cybertect said:


> I expect the UK SRP to be about £1200-£1250 with the zoom


 

FWIW: Park Cameras have the black XE-1 body advertised at £799 and with the kit zoom lens at £1,149.00.

Early reviews are pretty positive.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/fuji_x_e1_review.shtml

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/...-e1-review-with-x-and-m-lenses-by-amy-medina/


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 24, 2012)

twelve hundred quid with a lens

and people ask me why I use film


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

Lovely camera, but that's a mental price.


----------



## cybertect (Oct 24, 2012)

Mental?

It's the exact same price as the cheapest you can buy the OM-D kit, and that's been on the market for several months now.

Body only is £200 cheaper than the OM-D.

I'm contemplating selling my Canon 70-200 2.8 and buying one or the other, with the NEX 7 as a a possible third option. Mostly for use with legacy lenses to replace my G2.

I really need to spend some time with my hands on them, though.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

cybertect said:


> Mental?
> 
> It's the exact same price as the cheapest you can buy the OM-D kit, and that's been on the market for several months now.
> 
> Body only is £200 cheaper than the OM-D.


Well, we all have different perceptions of value. The OM-D appears to offer a lot more for my needs than the X-E1.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

I'd be delighted to own an X-E1, but I have to say I find the back looks somewhat cluttered.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 24, 2012)

cybertect said:


> Mental?
> 
> It's the exact same price as the cheapest you can buy the OM-D kit, and that's been on the market for several months now.


Tbh that has a mental price too.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Tbh that has a mental price too.


Pretty sure I'll get it all back in photo sales though. More importantly, using the camera gives me a whole load of pleasure. And that's what it's all about at the end of the day.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 30, 2012)

editor said:


> Pretty sure I'll get it all back in photo sales though. More importantly, using the camera gives me a whole load of pleasure. And that's what it's all about at the end of the day.


Yes, definitely. Sorry, I've been a bit mardy about camera prices recently as I'm a bit skint


----------



## what (Dec 30, 2012)

had a play with an x100 and an XE-1 over christmas. Both absolutely lovely cameras.
The X100 produces stunning pictures. The XE-1 had the 35mm f1.4 on it, absolutely fantastic bit of kit.
Just need to save a load of cash now.


----------



## dweller (Jan 7, 2013)

I do like these Fujis.
Handled an x100 in Jessops and it was just right.
The new x100s and x20 compact (details leaked a couple of days ago) look pretty nifty too.


----------



## tom_craggs (Mar 2, 2013)

Just bought the x-pro 1 today to replace all my canon DSLR kit - it's going to take a while or get used to the electronic shutter and focus by wire but the image quality is sensational. The 35mm 1.4 on the Fuji is really a stunning lens.


----------



## tom_craggs (Mar 2, 2013)

*evf not electronic shutter.....obviously!


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 2, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Retro styling. *yawn*
> 
> Can't somebody come up with something new that isn't hideous?


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2013)

tom_craggs said:


> Just bought the x-pro 1 today to replace all my canon DSLR kit - it's going to take a while or get used to the electronic shutter and focus by wire but the image quality is sensational. The 35mm 1.4 on the Fuji is really a stunning lens.


Be sure to post up some of your pics!


----------



## what (Mar 3, 2013)

Apparently the latest update of light room now works fully with the Fuji raw files. Be interesting to see the results


----------

