text:
Fujifilm X-T10 Review
1 Introduction
|2 Next
The Fujifilm X-T1 was a landmark camera in many ways, with it's extremely high resolution electronic viewfinder, great image quality, weather-sealed body, and engaging control system (we even gave it a Gold award). It's fairly commonplace for camera companies to follow up successful launches of high-end products, such as the X-T1, with a slightly-stripped down, more reasonably-priced alternative that uses many of the same components; a younger sibling, if you will. The Fujifilm X-T10 is exactly that.
At its core are the same 16MP X-Trans CMOS II APS-C sensor and EXR Processor II. It carries on the SLR-like tradition (as opposed to Fujifilm's more rangefinder-like cameras), and offers ample control points, customizable buttons, a tilting LCD, and of course, Fujifilm's much-loved film emulations. Fujifilm is aiming it at hobbyist and a younger generation of creatives: essentially those who might not be able to afford (or don't want to spend more than $1000 on) the X-T1, but still want the same image quality it offers.
Fujifilm X-T10 key features
- 16MP X-Trans CMOS II APS-C sensor
- EXR Processor II
- ISO 200-6400, plus 100 - 51200 expanded (JPEG only)
- 2.36M dot OLED electronic viewfinder with 0.62x (equiv.) magnification
- 3" 920k dot tilting LCD
- 7 programmable function buttons
- Digital Split Image and Focus Highlight Peaking
- New zone AF in AF-S/AF-C; wide (tracking) for AF-C; Eye Detection
- Full HD movie recording (1080/60p, 36Mbps bitrate), with built-in stereo microphone
- Built-in pop-up flash
- Wi-Fi connectivity with remote control from a smartphone or tablet
- Magnesium alloy body
As expected, a large number of the key features associated with the X-T10 are identical, or very similar, to those of the X-T1. One major feature, a vastly improved AF system, was first announced as a firmware update for the X-T1 a few weeks ago. Every one of those AF updates come standard in the X-T10. They mainly concentrate on improving AF performance in low contrast situations as well as adding the ability to track subjects across the frame. This is the first time Fujifilm has offered any sort of real subject tracking capabilities to its cameras.
The X-T10 also sports a brand new graphic user interface that offers customizable display icons. Other features includes front and rear control dials that can be clicked inward, essentially giving each dial a secondary function. Also, as of launch, Fujifilm claims the X-T10's EVF has 'the World's shortest lag time' at just 0.005 secs.
Compared to X-T1
The X-T10 is available now for $400 less than the X-T1's list price. That's a nice chunk of change saved that could be invested in lenses or other accessories. So what do you sacrifice?
Fujifilm X-T10
Fujifilm X-T1
|16MP X-Trans CMOS II sensor
|16MP X-Trans CMOS II sensor
|EXR Processor II
|EXR Processor II
|ISO range (expanded)
|ISO 200-6400, plus 100 - 51200 expanded (JPEG only)
|ISO 200-6400, plus 100 - 51200 expanded (JPEG only)
|Body material
|Magnesium alloy
|Magnesium alloy
|Weather sealing
|Custom function buttons
|Viewfinder specs
|2.36M dot OLED EVF with 0.62x magnification
|2.36M dot OLED EVF with 0.77x magnification
|LCD specs
|3 inch, 920k dots
|3 inch 1040k dots
|Pop-up flash
|Flash sync port
|Burst rate
|Body price at launch
While both cameras offer 2.36M dot OLED EVFs, the X-T10's is smaller, using optics that offer 0.62x magnification, vs the 0.77x magnification of the X-T1's EVF. If 0.62x magnification sounds familiar, that's because the Fujifilm X30 compact has the exact same EVF, with the same magnification.
You'll also lose the extensive weather-sealing of the X-T1. This sacrifice is a bit less obvious, as the X-T10 has a very impressive build-quality and feel, on par with the X-T1. Interestingly, it is not made in Japan like most of Fujifilm's high-end gear. The bottom reveals it is instead manufactured in Thailand. Other differences include a slightly less high-res LCD on the X-T10, 920k dots vs 1040k dots on the X-T1.
On the flip side, the X-T10 does offer some advantages over its big brother, including a pop-up flash, that new graphic user interface in the viewfinder, and a smaller, lighter body; 381g vs 440g. It's not an earth-shattering difference, but it is certainly noticeable.
The two cameras are laid out in very similar fashion. Both offer 3 control dials on top, with plenty of custom function buttons located around the camera body. The X-T10 has seven customizable buttons in total, compared to six on the X-T1. In terms of direct controls, the X-T10 has a dedicated shutter speed, exposure compensation and drive mode dial.
Kit options and accessories
The Fujifilm X-T10 will be available in either black or silver in a variety of different kit options. The silver, by the way, is a brand new coating that is slightly lighter in color than the 'titanium' coating of the X-T1.
The body only is set at $800, kitted with a Fujinon 16-50mmf/3.5-5.6 OIS it will cost $899. With the nicer Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS, it will cost $1099. Interestingly, the X-T10, body-only, will retail for exactly the same price, at launch, as another new APS-C ILC: the Nikon D5500.
Fujifilm is also offering two different accessories as of launch: a leather case and a hand grip. The hand grip is essentially the same design concept as the ones released for the X-E2 and X-Pro1 back in January, 2014. It affixes to the bottom of the camera body and doubles as an ArcaSwiss-compatible plate. Pretty sweet. The leather case is also quite well-thought-out, it offers a door to access the battery and memory card, without having to take it off, as well as a tripod socket.
Oct 24, 2017
Sep 6, 2017
May 16, 2017
May 3, 2017
I own it
I want it
I had it
Discuss in the forums
I have owned this camera for a few months and found out that you are so right in that it is a pleasure to use, makes me wanna pick it up and shoot and takes great pictures.
One thing I have found out in my camera is that in high contrast scenes it tends to underexpose as if it meters for the brightly lit parts of the frame. Due to the handy exposure compensation dial, I correct this without even taking my eye from the viewfinder but I consistently find that It is quite pronounced as I feel I need to correct by about +1 stop to bring the exposure to my liking.
i am really confused between sony a6300 and fuji xt10. i normally do street and documentary photography(where at times i encounter low light and low contrast situation). i use single af points mostly. i dont care for megapixel and high bust mode. all that i really want is 1) good auto-focus speed and accuracy 2) good image quality raw and good dynamic range 3) good low light performance. and one more thing, in my country,India, somehow the sony a6300(70k) is quite cheaper than fuji xt10(80k). So, what do i choose, plz help?
Thank you DPREVIEW! You just saved me a lot of money. I normally shot a Canon 5DsR and wanted a smaller travel companion. I compared the image quality of the XT-10 and various Olympus & Lumix offerings using your lab testing tool. The X-T10 was better hands down. Then I rembered that I had a Canon G7X laying around. I'm only interested in real world results and since I do a lot of A2 printing I compared the X-T10 to the G7X where I hade to up-scale the X-T10 get the same print size at 300 dpi. At these settings it turns out the G7X is better than the X-T10 even when you pixel peep. This apply to the native ISO which is where I find myself 99% of the time. Instead of spending 2000+ USD for camera and lenses I can now use my 24-100 mm GX7 and only spend money on a table top tripod. In printing up to A2 I actually have a hard time to distinguish my 5DsR files from the ones coming from the G7X.
Just going through this review, and I'm impressed by the performance (According to the review, but have yet to take on out for a "test drive" myself). The one part that bothers me the most is that the reviewer focuses on the OOC JPEGs, and I guess that's fine, but many people (at least the ones I know) don't use the OOC JPEGs that much and much rather work with the RAW files, I hope that Adobe has fixed whatever issues there were for this camera by now as I'm seriously considering one. I would probably be getting the better 18-55 f/2.8-4 if I do for the low-light performance. I'm also wondering about print size, if someone can verify the largest print you can expect before distortion or loss of quality occurs. I don't expect to print large (as most of my work will be for on-screen use/viewing), but may ocassionaly like to print a 11x17 print or something around that size. 16MP is, however, the lowest I would go in terms of resolution, despite it's advantages in pixel size.
I have printed 20x30 with a 12 mp camera lol.
I'm not saying you can't print images with a 12MP, but the question then becomes how good is the quality of those prints (image quality) in particular, for the media and viewing intent. If it's smaller, then 12MP might be fine, but 12MP might not be enough for a large reprint (say 4x3 ft)...
@sirhawkeye64 I wouldn't push 12 mp much past 20x30. Although there are options to upres.
However I am someone that loves printing, and I print a fair bit. Very rarely is anything past 20x30 used by people. 4 by 3 feet is quite large and people don't usually dedicate that much real estate to one picture.
I would be fine pushing past 20x30 with 16mp, although I haven't had cause to.
I was just using 12MP as an example.... I agree that anything more than what you said wouldn't be a good print (unless modifications to the image were made, but even then so, that might not be enough). Heck, even my 16-24MP shots from my DSLR(s) I don't like to print much beyond 11x17. But also most of my images are processed for screen viewing (I've only done a handful that were targeted specifically for printing).
You have to sharpen a little more, and I find prints come out darker for some reason. But I HAVE printed a 12mp cameras image to 20x30 and it looks great and gets compliments.
Don't get me wrong... I like the XT10 when I had it, but the one thing that sort of bothered me was the 16MP. And since I do landscapes mostly (and the Fuji was intended to be a backup/second camera to my D750), I was looking for something with a bit higher resolution (to allow enough pixels for sufficient cropping etc). I'm looking at the XT20 now, since they gave it a 24MP sensor. The only other concern is the cost of glass, where I'd have to invest in another lens system....
We have come (too) far when ISO 6400 is "rather limiting" in Raw mode. For all intended purposes – quite literally – 6400 is miles and miles and miles past what anyone needs, 99 % of the time. And that goes for anyone who holds a camera – with professional photography it's even less true. Someone who calls herself/himself a professional photographer, and claims she/he is limited by ISO 6400, is of course not a professional photographer.
I needed it tonight. I was taking pictures indoors at night with a long zoom at f/5. Yeah, I know - the solution is to get a faster long zoom. But those can get pretty expensive. I was at ISO 6400 and was wishing my d7000 didn't totally fall apart at higher ISOs.
But that's kind of the problem here. Photographers (of all kinds, me included unfortunately) wish all their cameras wouldn't "totally fall apart at higher ISOs". I would love for my little point-and-shoot to do noiseless 102,400 ISO – and I'm sure that in a decade or so that's close to reality. But isn't that just vulgar? Isn't photography about finding and using light? Photography is NOT about going to dark places with expensive equipment hoping for excellent results. Work around your limitations, be creative, don't go around waiting for Canon announcements about new, higher ISO capabilities.
So, then I should just lower my expectations for what is possible?
I do not know, you can expect whatever you want, whatever makes you happy. Just don't claim you're limited by ISO 6400. If you feel you are, maybe a change in perspective (or method) is the way to go. My original sentiment still stands:
A good or professional photographer claiming she/he is limited by ISO 6400, is not a good nor professional photographer, sorry.
Then the D4 and D5 should have come topped out at ISO 6400. Yet somehow people (even professionals) talk about how good it is at higher ISOs. Gasp! How could it be - why would they even bother with those ISOs. Well - they must suck.
So we didn't have pro photojournalism work pre-ISO 6400? I don't even get why I bother arguing here, because this is too stupid. I suspect you think that I think ISO 6400 and above is bad or unnecessary. That is of course not the case. It is unequivocally a good thing to have the choice of shooting at for instance ISO 1000000 (or above). I just called out the ridiculousness of claiming that it's limiting to photographers (and I define this as the average working photographer) to shoot at ISO 6400 or below. OF COURSE it can be limiting to SOME photographers SOMETIMES. But to claim it as a general limitation is dumb.
Going simply from the camera's manual, I believe the following is misleading: "In my limiting testing of the X-T10's subject tracking capabilities across the frame using AF-C [a bunch of stuff] Furthermore, when the camera is set to Wide/Tracking, it only uses contrast detect AF. "
According to the manual, the contrast-detect-only AF is for AF-S, Wide mode. As far as I can tell, in AF-C (Tracking mode) the phase-detect sensors are still used.
Notably, in CH burst mode, *only* the phase-detect sensors are used. That significantly limits the area of the viewfinder that the subject can be tracked across during a high-speed burst.
Picked this body up along with the 35f2, 90f2, and 16f1.4 today. I have been a long time Sony fanboy and shoot the A7 with most of the FE lenses. I bought the Fuji as a second system to use. I went with Fuji because of the great lens selection, sizes, and prices. Plus the camera puts all the controls at your finger tips. It has only been one day but I feel like selling all my sony gear and going all out fuji. I need to wait for the honeymoon period to end but dang, this is a great camera to shoot with. My only gripe is that it is so small and has almost no finger grip so the 90mm makes your wrist and fingers tired only after a short time. I ordered the fuji grip for it so hopefully that helps. I see an x-t2 in my future.
Any followup thoughts on xt10 vs ff Sony? IQ , body controls, handling, AF speed?
Yes I do. As much as I love the xt10 I bought the xpro2 and can't put it down. It is faster in every way and is simply pleasure to shoot with. So much so that I take it everywhere. The xt10 feels sluggish in comparison and it isn't a sluggish camera. So it just sits now. I don't miss my Sony FF at all.
The image quality is equal. All the Fuji lenses are faster so I can shoot at lower ISO settings compared to my A7. Even at 6400 I like the noise grain and color better on the Fuji.
I find the Fuji controls on both bodies much nicer and handling is better than any camera I have used before. I would say my A7 was a little fast at AF than the xt10 but the xpro2 feels a lot faster. It focuses better in low than the A7 as well.
The Fuji lenses make the system though. They are top notch. Fast, sharp, well built, Aperture ring on them, small, and priced well for what you get.
I don't miss my sony system at all. But the X-Pro2 is really the camera body I would recommend.
Ive been using this body for a few weeks now and can pleasingly report that this camera paired with Fuji lenses is incredible. Here's my summary:
1) The body is easy to get used to, buttons fully programable, and feels small but ok in the hand. The only gripe I have is that the SD position is less optimal than the XT1. You can program any button to replace the dedicated ISO button if you want.
2) the files are very good, either jpeg of raw. I'm using LR to process raw files, and use few presets.
3) The lenses i have are the 18-55 f2.8-4, the 35mm f1.4 & the 50-200 f3.5-5.6. All of them render incredible results. They all surprised on the upside. The 18-55 is very very sharp - the sharpest kit lens I've tested. The 50-200 is comparable to my 70-200 f4 Canon, and I've shot sports with this lens and XT10 with extremely good results, despite the smaller buffer than the XT1. The 35mm is about as good as you'll get. No words describe how good this lens is.
why you dont talk about the problems??
i mean the biggest,waxy skin tone problem
this is the only thing that dont let me buy a fuji
agreed on the skintone waxiness. Other colors are dull, can't even bring then to normal shooting RAW format. They have a long way to go to get to the level of Canon as far as color goes.
I have had the X-T10 for about a week now and compared the pics to my E-M5 II and Lumix GX8 and have found the X-T10 output to be fantastic.
I've noticed none of the so-called "waxiness" issues that have been mentioned with the one exception of shooting the Queen Elizabeth exhibit at the local wax museum.
i have the olympus em1 and just purchased the X-T10, i know this will probably upset the diehard oly fans but this camera takes the wee wee out of a £600 more expensive camera. it performs better in every way i have owned the fony a6000 and that was in my opinion very similar to this for photos as i don't do video. but the build of the fony was cheap. the thing is its just your opinion that matters, if you are happy with your camera then thats the one for you. and I'm happy with the X-T10.
The wax thing is actually the fault of adobe not fuji. Adobe are having issues with non bayer sensors. Google irident developer vs lightroom.
I have noticed waxiness even converting with Capture, not sure if Adobe is the problem here.
I have just bought X-T10 yesterday (along with the kit lens) !! and this is my first ever interchangeable lens camera :D
My question is, how good is it for photographing Milky Way? Anyone has some samples?
Thank you !
As long as you have the right lens its good, i suggest googling "milky way calculator"
And the wider the lens in mm the better as well as the lower fstop example: 2.8 instead of 5.6
One more thing to ad for Fuji is touchscreen. I would like there to be an option to tap where you want to focus and take a photo in one single tap.
Would like to see an updated sensor in the next year's model and an improved af speed & accuracy.
I personally wish for a magical af adapter for nikon and canon mount lenses, which I have plenty of.
Cameras operating system is still laggy at times, my camera gets confused when I want it to wake up so I have to turn it on and off all the time... What's that all about Fuji?
I just bought this camera and I would like to list all the problems I have encountered for which I think there should be an update:
1. RAW files are 32mb, we need a compressed RAW file
2. AF-L doesn't work in Face Detection Mode
3. Face detection mode isn't reliable
I wonder if fuji guys are reading these comments...
Lightroom RAW converter isn't good for Fuji, what are these guys doing...? Im going to cancel my subscription as soon as I figure out what to do with RAF files. I am thinking of going with Capture One at this moment.
Otherwise it's an outstanding camera!!!
Try Iridient, it works just great with Fuji files.
The Irident developer contacted me and a windows version is coming very soon.
Buffer limited during 8fps burst. - WAH! How many bursts do you need all at once.
Maximum ISO limited to 6400 - WAH! When do you need to shoot at 6400 ISO. I've shot film and digital for years and still rarely go over 800, 1600 at night.
Poor video quality - WAH! You bought this for video? Fool.
No touchscreen - WAH! Just WAH! My Minolta SRT doesn't have one either, you don't hear me complaining.
16mp is out resolved by other cameras. - WAH! Fuji has shown its sensor can hang with the big boys. But really, how many photographers are doing 20x30+ prints using this camera.
Man up, learn to use the camera. Be realistic about your expectations and don't sweat the cosmetic hype.
Actually i do want to make large prints using this camera, at least 17" x 22". I haven't bought one yet. Still researching.
If you do not crop your photos you can print up to 65 x 44 cm, in a good quality. My largest print was a poster in high quality 150 x 50 cm to get the required number of pixels I did use 5 photos.
couldn't of put it better. i think people don't buy cameras to take pictures nowadays, it appears they just join some kind of brand cult. personally i buy what i think is the best tool for the job, and at present thats the fuji x-t10.
I often use iso 6400. Im shooting indoor sports in bad light and a party tommorrow.
I dont need more than 1 second burst at 8fps for sports so no complaint there.
Video? Good enough for the novice for family moments.
Touch screen? Would be nice for selecting the focus point but not a must have for me.
16mp? Enough for me, I prefer a better sensor (less noise) with the same megapixels.
I agree 100% with your points, except the last one.
Sensor resolution does not affect only printing. It also helps, among other things, with cropping which is important to some, like me, who use this as a surrogate for longer focal lengths. So I would prefer the sensor to use the full potential resolution offered by the glass in front of it, or as close as possible. I am not confident 16 Mp is enough to use most of Fuji lenses resolving power (which I would pay for and need).
nice cam
I own neither a x-t10 or an a6000, but your comments on the final words comparing them honestly don't seem too objective.
Basically it sounds like the Sony is better in nearly every objective measurement minus EVF and *maybe* build quality. Also you say they launched at similar prices, but that means nothing, right now you can get an XT10 body for $800 and an a6000 body for $450. Even if the Fuji drops $50-$100 in the next month or so that's still a huge price difference, comparing a historical price to a current price makes no sense.
To me this all sounds of the Fuji is "cooler" to use but less capable (using your own word). For some reason since Fuji ha been launching retro designed cameras I've seen this distortion field around comparisons, as if this retro cool factor somehow factors into an objective camera comparison beyond a single area of comparing the look and design.
These comparisons aren't as objective as you'd hope. Nobody uses cameras "objectively" either. We aren't objective creatures, we are meatsacks with grubby hands and mushy brains and we have to hold stuff and look at stuff and think about stuff to shoot, some people do all of that differently, in fact. We also have aesthetic preferences, which do matter to us and others around us in many cases.
Though I mostly agree with you, due to everyone being so extremely subjective it's *that* much more important for reviewers to compartmentalize their objective and subjective aspects of the reviews. It's fine saying that you really dig the look and feel of the Fuji personally, but when you say objectively the a6000 is more capable and refuse to compare the actual market price (where the a6000 is nearly half the price or 2/3rds even minus an expected Fuji price drop in the near future by retailers) and they say they are a toss up, well that seems like a horrible comparison summary to me.
I'd be perfectly fine with something along the lines of I personally would have a hard time choosing but right now you can get the a6000 an overall more capable camera significantly cheaper, etc... Instead I got the toss up vibe based mostly on personal preference and though I want to see that in a review a skilled reviewer can communicate both separately.
Fair point about contextualizing the emotional aspects of a review, but it seems to me they are already doing that. You pointed out that they admit the Sony is more capable, what more do you need? If capability is your main concern then your decision is made and you can ponder the mysteries of why some people would choose Fuji later.
Personally I'm glad reviewers take time to describe the Fuji cameras aesthetic/emotional properties. I bought a NEX 6 because it was so capable but it had no soul and I preferred my old Rebel so I returned it. For people who do photography for love or just want to love their cameras the Fuji's offer a very real value in that the cameras somehow make people feel happier than other brands.
On paper it looks that way, and yes the Fuji looks more hip. But after taking a few pictures with the X-T10 and the A6000, you quickly find out that the Fuji is superior and is more then a cool thing to hang around your neck. The image quality difference is extremely easy to see (colors, noise, sharpness) and the X-T10 wins every time (even without have to pixel peep). Hands down, Fuji wins the image contest.
Yeah, the greatest difference is in the AF performance of A6000. I wonder why Fuji changes their kit lens, from the super sharp (best kit lens hands down compared to other brands imho) F2.8-4 18-55mm to this 'almost the same as other kit lens' normal F3.5-5.6 16-50mm. This was the cool factor that made me buy the older (and much cheaper)XE1 / XE2 compared to A6000. Better lens = better IQ, well, strictly in the kit lens / package-buy category at least.
Great camera - far prefer the ergonomics of it to the X100S or XE1 I had previously. Feels very good in the hand: compact, light and stable. I only shoot jpegs and they're excellent once you've played with the settings to suit your taste. Superficial stuff but the camera looks far better in the all black version.
I love how the silver+black version looks, so we disagree only in that I like both colors :D
Personally I liked the rangefinder format of the X-E1 better, and wish the X-T10 was a bit wider, but the extra dial on the top plate is really valuable so it's worth it. The DRIVE menu on the X-E1 was a nightmare and had way too much stuff in it.
People usually think im shooting film when i had the x100s so they did not ask me to remove my "roll" out lol :)
So how's the AF performance of the X-T10 compared to the Nikon D5500? Especially in low(er) light situations?
In still photography and good light the XT10 should be neck and neck with the Nikon probably even faster. As the light goes down the Fuji will probably start to be a few ms behind the Nikon.
However in CAF the Nikon will be noticeably better in tracking accuracy. Its also easier to track with an optical viewfinder.
Do note that I haven't extensively used either camera and these are my personal opinions only.
The Fuji X series cameras are not known for their excellent autofocus. For me the autofocus speed is fast enough, but the accuracy is a bit of a let down. The X-T10 misses a little too often (so do the other Fuji cameras). Try to take multiple shots of a subject in dim artificial light. Even when you don't move the camera, a lot of shots will be out of focus.
Autofocus on Fuji X is very good for mirrorless. However, we need the next generation to match up or beat dslr's like the D5500. And then with some super Fuji updates we can maybe get close to a D750 focus wise... that's 2016/2017.... So it's a good time to invest in a camera. I sold all my nikon stuff and have been shooting for 6 months Fuji only. Wonderfull stuff it does, but AF is one thing that will improve towards dslr the coming year. its not there yet... But I don;t need fast focus, its fast enough to get my kids on a photo. the rest is studio and portrait for me, and some weddings
Lower light d5500 wins, i used it in low light with a 70-200 f4 shooting ice hockey, it kept up. How low? With a full frame im at iso 5000 + 1/1000 f4
jpegs are dead. no fine detail due to agressive nr even at the lowest iso...16mp outdated sensor..competitors are way above it in both resolution and DR...price is too much for what is offered.
That's not my experience.
For me, all camera JPEGS have been dead since the introduction of RAW. The only time I use a JPEG, is when I export an edited image from my computer. Most people that are serious about resolution, noise reduction and dynamic range shoot RAW anyway. I haven't found any mirrorless competitor in the same price range that delivers image quality as good as the Fuji X series.
I've both Sony A7ii and Fuji X-A1 + M1,,,A7 jpegs are full of fine details, whereas fuji ones are smeared...but raws are very good of course.
I was shooting RAW but now I am going to shoot jpeg + RAW. I will try not to do any post production, since all the editing can be done on the fly.
Thanx Fuji for that!
@ijustloveshooting: You are not comparing apples to apples here. A useless comparison. Don't compare an APSC sensor to a full frame sensor that also has a higher pixel count.
i work with a company who is the fuji supplier for the UK and i love this camera the lightweight body and the way it is easy to set up. there are some things that need changing on it to make it 100% but this is a good camera to change from if you want a lightweight decent camera!
Custom settings - have you configured some custom configuration your find productive and time saving? How about sharing your settings so less experienced photographers might benefit?
The "Custom Settings" feature is pretty useless in Fuji cameras unfortunately, because it can only save a few settings and they are mostly the JPG-only ones that have no effect on RAW files (DR, Film sim, Highlights etc.).
Because you can't name them, and the active one isn't displayed during use (only during selection) they are barely useful even if you want to save sets of the allowed settings. Personally I find it more of a hindrance than a help, and with the configurable Q menu on the X-T10 (and other recent Fuji cameras) I'd rather just remove it entirely so I don't accidentally trigger it.
Instead I set up my Q menu with duplicates of the actual settings I want to use so that it's faster to access them when needed.
If you weren't referring to the "Save Custom Settings" feature then sorry, there are a lot of useful features in the camera that we could talk about, most of them just can't be saved as sets :)
All that said, here's the one set of settings I found useful in "Save Custom Settings": Manual flash settings for use with my YN-560 manual flashgun.
White Balance: Daylight
In the end I didn't use it very often though, since it was only two settings and I started gelling my flashes to match ambient light rather than depending on WB:Daylight :P
Most requested missing feature - I've owned my X-T10 since the first day is was deliverable. As an alternative to my Nikon D7100, it is doing a nice job. Low noise at high ISO for available light photos, half the weight of my Nikon (which I use regularly). So my first call to tech support was to inquire about the photo review feature. When one uses the electronic viewfinder, the only way to review the photo just taken is via the viewfinder. The camera will not switch to the LED display to allow us to "chimp" the photo. Tech support says "no the camera has no such setting and this is the most often requested feature request they receive".
You'll get used to it! The feature you want isn't really needed by users of the camera, the only reason they would include it is to satisfy DSLR converts who aren't used to EVF yet.
How would it be better to remove the camera from your eye and use the LCD to review? It would be slower, you would lose your composition and the LCD is WAY lower resolution than the EVF, so even for reviewing fine detail it's better (try it someday when you are reviewing photos, the EVF lets you assess fine detail better, though it's uncomfortable to use it for long periods).
Just remind yourself that reviewing in the EVF is the obvious choice with a mirrorless camera like the X-T10, you'll learn to appreciate the smoothness of the experience.
FWIW It's funny but not surprising that tech support considers this a common complaint. You're certainly not the first person I've heard complain about this, and I bet it's a common conclusion for people with decades of DSLR experience.
For people just getting started with ILC though there's no complaints, because the behavior is natural and it's "chimping" that is the strange choice, driven by limitations of past cameras (i.e. uselessness of EVF tech until recently) not by the ergonomics of photography, which of course are being invented as we go, since there was no instant-review on film camreas ;)
I agree and even as I mentioned the difference from DSLR I was thinking maybe I'd adjust. I guess it's just more difficult for those of us using both mirror less and DSLR. Maybe I'll try increasing the review time.
If anything I'd recommend you keep it nice and short. Part of the transition is getting used to the fact that you ALWAYS "chimp" with the EVF, rather than deciding for each photo whether to look at the LCD like you would on a DSLR.
The longer the review time the more disruptive it becomes, and the less interesting since 90% of what you see during review is the same as what you saw before firing the shutter.
For me the goal is to habituate to getting all the exposure right before firing (obviously) then quickly assessing critical sharpness/timing (facial expressions) during the short review period, then switching into full playback mode on the LCD when I need to zoom in to check focus or review multiple images.
Good luck!
@xeriwthe My impression is you are joking around and trying to point out that all the cameras can "review" images on the LCD by going into playback mode. Is that right?
If so my impression was that OP wanted the INSTANT review to happen on the LCD, like it would on a DSLR, not just playback review.
Fuji has never had a way to do instant review on the LCD (i.e. no review in EVF, but if you look at the LCD the image will be there for a couple seconds). There's a good reason why they never would have even considered it too: The original cameras were totally slow at switching from EVF to LCD and basically froze for a second each time you did so. Instant review on the LCD would have been so slow and buggy people would probably have thought it wasn't an intended feature :S
FUJI has been using the same old SONY 16MP APS-C sensor almost from FUJI's first Mirror-less years ago.
When will SONY update FUJI's sensor?
Yes, but the sensor is also one of the best. I own both the current 24 mp sensor and a camera with the 16. The 16 is honestly better. The 24 mp sensor shows noise even at base ISO. The color IMHO is better from the 16 as well. I dunno, I think 16 was the magic number, but that's just my opinion. I also don't understand why people want more megapixels. More MP=earlier diffraction limits.
There's something embarrassing about knowing that my brand new camera can't actually take better pictures than my out of date X-E1, it just feels wrong.
On the other hand I loved the photos from my X-E1, and all my complaints were about ergonomics and AF and missing features like Wifi, electronic shutter etc.
I'd rather Fuji wait 'till they've got somethign really amazing to replace the 16mp with than have them wasting tons of energy releasing new sensors with a 2% improvement to noise and pointless megapixel bumps like Sony/Canon.
When they have something that behaves like a 5DIII I will want it desperately, until then I'm happy with the old sensor wrapped in a modern chassis.
>>> "but the sensor is also one of the best",
FUJI does not make APS-C sensor. All Fuji uses same SONY sensor as SONY used for NEX6, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>"I'd rather Fuji wait 'till they've got somethign really amazing to replace the 16mp with than have them wasting tons of energy releasing new sensors with a 2% improvement to noise and pointless megapixel bumps like Sony/Canon.".
SONY replaced NEX6's sensor for a6000 is not for " 2% improvement to noise" but AF performance:
- Hybrid AF system with 25 contrast-detect and 179 phase-detect points
- Phase detection covers a much larger area.
- better AF tracking performance (with new engine) - 11 fps continuous shooting with subject-tracking
FUJI is too old and dated comparing to SONY.
Ming Thein made the same observation concerning the 16mp and 24mp sensors. He found the older, lower-res model to provide superior IQ in color reproduction and reaching parity in detail retrieval due to less mushiness from noise...
I mean, even DXO acknowledges the old sensor can achieve superior results. See scores for the D7000 vs. the 5 year newer A6000.
Mike FL, I do not understand where you read that Fuji's sensor is the Sony NEX sensor. Fuji may outsource who makes their sensor, but that doesn't mean the two systems use the same sensor.
The sensor has undergone a recent "modernization in fabrication techniques" which means that the specifications stayed about the same but the construction uses improved techniques for small improvements. So no, it is not the same sensor, just the same megapixels.
Also, note that improvements to autofocus occur due to improvements in the focusing motor, the algorithms, or the processing speed... but not due to changes in the sensor. The sensor only supplies input data.
Now, you could painfully argue that a better low-light sensor would perform AF better in low light... but then you can argue that the f/stop changes how well a camera can autofocus and it just gets yuckier from there.
(Why dxo doesn't test Fuji)
Tempting system. Oh so very, very tempting. And that gorgeous glass... Fuji is doing a lot of things very, very right.
I got tempted and pushed the button at Amazon. This is my first Fuji coming from Canon, Nikon, and Olympus (and also had the Sony a6000). I can tell you the reputation is everything I expected and more. I was quite skeptical about the 'Fuji look' and Fuji JPEGs, but let me tell you the image quality is nothing like I have ever seen before. Having just sold my Canon 6D, I can tell you the Fuji beats it across the board. Samples on the web don't do it justice, you have to use one for yourself - oh and that EVF - it's stunning.
that's plain biased...fuji jpegs are awful with agressive nr..no fine detail, dead at %100 view.
Your comment sounds biased against. My experience is that the JPGs are great.
ijustloveshooting: largely it's due to sharpening and NR, since most people (sensibly) aren't looking at the jpegs at 100%. Turn down or off the in-camera noise reduction and sharpening and it significantly improves at full size. DPR doesn't compare jpegs using those settings. The film simulation also matters.
Video capabilities should not be taken into account when reviewing Fujifilm cameras. I know of no Fuji shooter who bought a Fuji camera to shoot video. Fujis are for taking photographs. Period. The video buttons on my 3 Fujis (the first one bough in 2010) are virgin.
There's no reason to be so strict about this rule. They do have video functions and they do take video, so it's only fair for people to assume that the function works properly. Unfortunately "works properly" is relative and many feel the Fuji video system is so terrible it doesn't even compete with P&S video.
Every Fuji review needs a warning that the video sucks and a demo of the "jaggies" and moiré that are so easily triggered by the sensor design/mediocre programming. I think in this case they were fair in the conclusion: It's a big problem, but not everyone cares, so decide based on that.
Personally I love my Fuji cameras and don't want to switch, but would REALLY like to be able to use the video features without embarassing myself. I'd like to be able to experiment with video without buying a second system.
I do extensive video recording only three times in the year, just for local oriental dancers, and after the switch to Fuji I had to do it with the X-T1 (I´m not crazy enough to buy a specialized capable camera for such a rare occasion). The general video quality is really not good, with lots of flaws, but the system with full manual video controls, and the great optics, is not a total mess. When carefully set up, it can be used and the results are not a real tragedy - and in the end, those people who are interested on the clips are no video professionals, and are very satisfied with the results. Of course I would not use it to make a movie :-) but there is some potential and I really hope that the future sensor will be much more able in video.
I was grateful for the video ability of my Fuji X30 when I spontaneously decided to do video recording at the funeral of jazz legend Ornette Coleman a few months ago. I had no plans to do any video at all but the music was so great I ended up taping every performance. Who cares about the quality when I was able to capture a once-in-a-lifetime event like this. Here is the first one I did and the rest are all up on youtube:
X30 just might have BETTER video than the X-T10 because it doesn't use the X-Trans array on the sensor, it (along with the X-A2) uses a standard bayer array. At least you won't have toxic moiré caused by the lack of AA filter.
The X30 does use the X-Trans array, so it may not be a better choice for video.
As for the OP's suggestion that video capabilities should be disregarded in reviews of Fuji cameras, I think that's absurd. Not many people might buy a Fuji to shoot video, but the feature is there, so some people will want to use it once in a while. And if Fuji cameras were great for shooting video, then of course a lot of people would buy them for that purpose.
Revenant you are right about the X30! Sorry I didn't think they used X-trans on the 2/3 sensors, must have been thinking of the X100 or something.
Also agree that saying "people don't buy Fuji for video" doesn't mean it's not important, it just means Fuji is losing tons of customers who rightly know that Fuji cameras are useless for video. If they were at least decent at it people would be emotionally torn rather than quickly decided against.
The main problem with the X30 video is not the quality (which is much better than X20, but still not more than average), but the exposure inconsistence and autofocus unreliability. The only solution is to use manual focus, and also set all parameters manually, then you can be sure that the camera settings stay the same while recording. When something automatic is set, every little change of composition causes (not always, but mostly) a wild autofocus or exposure change. Of course it is possible to control the video manually, but even then the use is not easy - but in a important moment, everyone would be glad about it.
I think it is totally appropriate since most folks by a system to do both since it is offered on almost all cameras now. Buyers should be warned of the limitations of the camera as far as video goes. Kind of like Nikon not allowing aperture control during shooting. It can seriously limit functionality.
Also, context for video is key. Does this camera produce video that compares to that of leading DSLRs? No. Does it produce video that will exceed pretty much every casual user's expectations? Yes. Remember it wasn't too many years ago you had to buy a separate device to record even CRAPPY video.
I bought an X-T10 with XC 16-50 & second hand 27mm pancake prior to a holiday in the states, my wife refused to let me drag along my 5D3 and all the baggage that goes with it, so glad she did, I shot Jpegs for 3 weeks, never chimped , never got the urge to check my progress apart from a few lunch time wifi uploads to fb via iphone, I can honestly say I am blown away by the quality of this little camera, well worth 500 quid.
There are haters on here, plenty of them, they spend all their free time bitching, pixel peeping & pet photographing.
For those sat on the fence looking for a small form factor quality camera the X-T10 & 27mm pancake will fit a baggy front trouser/shorts pocket..
Or put the 35mm f/1.4 on there and be able to take a picture of anything anywhere. That's my favorite one-lens. Not pocketable by any means, but shockingly capable of sharpness and making things glow in low light.
Great review, as always.
I was wondering about your statement that "All the reasons that make the X-Trans sensor great for stills, make it not so good for video" — could you please elaborate on that?
For example, does the bayer pattern allow for a video-optimized sensor readout that is not possible with a X-Trans pattern? More importantly, does this mean that there is little hope of seeing a firmware update that will address the video issues?
The sensor pattern is designed to naturally avoid moiré without the need for an "AA" filter between the lens and the sensor, which gives you extra sharpness.
That same pattern seems to not help at all with moiré in video, so unlike with stills any fine texture (grates, blinds, stripes and even denim) end up having distracting distortions ("optical illusions" recorded by the sensor) moving around in them.
Maybe Fuji could improve the situation with software, but it doesn't seem particularly likely. The solution for stills is "hardwired" into the sensor, so the solution for video probably needs to be physical as well.
Of course, moiré isn't the only problem with Fuji video, there's a host of bad UI choices that make it nearly useless regardless of the distortions, but moiré is the part being referred to by "all the reasons"...
Thanks for your replies.
In that case, would a "cropped" video mode that uses only the central, 1080p-sized portion of the sensor, be a possible solution? Presumably, using only part of the sensor's pixels would reduce the data rate, such that proper demosaicing would be feasible in real time at 24 FPS?
...then again, I don't know how the sensor readout actually works, and maybe it is not possible to read out only part of the sensor data.
Fujifilm said in interviews that video is one of their main focuses for their next generation of cameras (probably meaning X-Pro 2 and beyond).
The main problem according to their engineers is sensor readout speed. A higher readout speed means that the image data is available sooner for things like downscaling, autofocus, various processing steps (as well as lowering noise and improving DR), things which all must be done at high speed for video. Their CFA pattern is notoriously difficult to create an efficient and accurate demosaicing algorithm for, and since sensor output for video must be downscaled (which is performance-intensive) before being recorded, readout and processing speed is critical.
I think the problem with Fuji's current video implementation is that they compromise demosaicing to save time, leading to artifacts from the unique CFA. The balance between battery life, image quality and processing speed is tough for these cameras, but should improve in the future.
mrullmi: Cropped video is definitely possible, but most people wouldn't want to crop to 1080p (approx. 8x crop). You would zoom in quite a bit, as well as losing some detail and messing with DOF. The output would be similar to what you see when using the magnification button for manual focus.
A great little camera, X-T10 :)
I bought two and used them regularly for six weeks while travelling, and it was just great. 50-140/2.8 on one; 10-24/4 on the other; hardly a missed shot, and the pictures came out great and just as expected (I have some experience with Fuji X).
Brought along a 5D mkIII just in case, but hardly ever used it. So in the future this is my travelling gear, the whole Fuji kit (feels like it) weighs less than 5D with 70-200/2.8, and even if the Fuji kit will not replace my Canon gear altoghether, X-T10 is a bargain if you want high iq and easy (still; I don't do video) shooting in a small and light package.
I find the user interface on X-T10 better than X-T1, never got used to all the double dials on the latter. The X-T10 feels smaller in hand than the X-T1 for a minute or two, then you never think about it again. No problem using a big lens like 50-140 on it.
People can "like" your Fuji confirmation bias till the cows come home. Fact is that other cameras give you true raw, the data from the sensor as is. Fuji does not. They apply a bunch of noise reduction to fool people into thinking that their camera has a better noise performance. It is called cheating!
No need to get your nickers in a knot, it was a bit of tongue and cheek...... and yes I am bias towards Fujifilm, nowadays I predominately shoot jpeg, and I've yet to see a camera (apart from Olympus) that renders out of camera jpegs as good as Fuji, but not all is fantastic with Fuji, when it comes to video they're not so good, and to be blunt they're crap, probably the worst on the market, thats why I bought a Panasonic FZ1000, and if I still wanted to play around with RAW files then I'd probably would have kept my Nikon D700 or I would have invested in an upgrade, but I really couldnt be fussed about with RAW anymore, I'm content with Fuji jpegs, all I'm wishing for now is they get their video up to par with other makes
When a camera takes better pictures by default I don't call it cheating I call it better pictures.
FF cameras aren't cheating by having a bigger sensor, pro cameras aren't cheating by offering RAW and Fuji isn't cheating by pre-optimizing their RAW files. All are just ways of improving the images and making life for the photographer easy.
I love my RAW files cooked! Now that Lightroom supports the film simulations it's even better, I can start from a fully flavored image and still have the ability to edit it and change the colors/expsure all day long.
Re: cooked raw, everyone cooks their RAWs to varying degrees; it's a necessary step in recording the image data properly. There are several steps to RAW capture, including readout from the sensor, signal amplification, quantization, compression, demosaicing; when shooting JPEG there is also gamma adjustment, tone curves, noise reduction, sharpening, further compression, local contrast adjustment in some cases, etc.
I think Thom Hogan (bythom.com) knows a bit about this sort of thing, and IIRC according to him Nikon does do something or other regarding noise reduction to their RAW files. I am not sure what Canon does, since their RAWs are frankly ugly. M4/3 cameras surely do various tricks, but I don't know what. Fuji seems to use add noise reduction as ISO grows, especially color NR, but they are the only ones who don't use any RAW compression (thus their huge 30MB files and short burst counts). Sony is the worst, and uses lossy compression, a broken quantization algorithm + NR.
I like Fuji and I love the idea of a small cam -- I've been saying the best cam is no cam at all for a long time, and a small cam is second best -- but I do need to actually track moving subjects, and I'm underwhelmed.
Every year I get the feeling "next year will be better, mirrorles will finally catch up to mirrored for sports."
So, maybe 2016?
Daylight with 45 1.8 and em-5 mark 1 sports were no issue in single. I always pushed the button the entire way down without waiting for a green box, nailed every shot in perfect focus. To bad the sensor size though.
Is there any other APSC camera that shoot JPEG this good OOC, with interchangeable lens option, with so many quality lens options available, in this form factor (small with built in flash, a hot shoe, flippy screen) at this price point? I think X-T10 should get gold like A6000. I know it has better AF system and video, but Fuji lens kit (and lens availability) and JPEG quality should even it out. And also since this is digital camera review not digital video camera review, image and lens quality should have much more weight than a video feature in determining the final score.
DPR has a policy that cameras are marked against similar category cameras and not all cameras, for the obvious reason that comparing the 5DS v. OMD EM10 just makes no sense.
In that context it would be nice if DPR stated the score excludes video then gave X-T10 what it deserves as a still camera.
Either way though who really cares. If you read the review you know that they love this camera, that they love the stills and that it's a nuanced tool that doesn't excel at everything. The score is fair IMHO. I love my Fuji but when people ask it's often not what I recommend.
The eye sensors are easily corrected if one feels a problem with them. I have done it on A7 and A6000. Just a tiny piece of black tape over part of the sensor.
Are Fuji still cheating with ISO on this camera as they've been found to do systematically on other models in the X line over the past few years?
Fujifilm and Olympus are using ISO SOS (standard output sensitivity), Nikon and Canon use ISO REI (recommended exposure index), which is actually more arbitrary than SOS.
However, even the more standardized SOS (18% average saturation in an sRGB JPEG shot with average metering w/o exposure compensation) allows a variation of ± 1/3 EV, so two different cameras using ISO SOS could actually render exposures with brightness levels that differ 2/3 EV from each other and yet still both be considered accurate.
MikeFL: Fuji cheats, systematically across multiple camera models and several production years, according to DPReview (and others).
DPReview has only reported a single Olympus camera with anomalous ISO, on the other hand, and no one else I'm aware of has credibly corroborated that result, leading many to suspect its accuracy.
Get your facts straight next time.
flysurfer: while you're right about who's using which techniques to set exposure index (at least the last time I checked), the issue with Fuji is that, according to DPReview and others, Fuji has systematically fallen outside of the 1/3 EV range of allowed leeway (under exposing, natch) with multiple camera models over a span of multiple years.
That's not the case with Olympus.
"Get your facts straight next time"? as far as I can see:
1. You do not own different cameras including Fuji and Oly
2. You do not know how to look/check the ISO variation across multiple cameras by you own eye from your cameras or Lab results from others including DPR
3. you do not know camera ISO performance as all
4. All of above.
Pick one please. You can do that much I think. texinwien!
Oh no, Fuji and Olympus "cheat" on their ISOs. Let the tooth gnashing and self-flagellation begin. Photography is no longer possible; what is the world coming to?
I don't understand this, because my experience with an X-E1 is that it often underexposed by around 1/3 stop, choosing too low of an ISO by the same amount compared to other cameras (though I don't dispute anyone's claims, it was probably just my sample). That's the opposite of what should happen if they are cheating on ISO: the ISO should match but the shutter speed would be low.
That aside, boost a Fuji RAW by 1/3 or 2/3 EV and see if it makes a difference (esp. after noise reduction). Below ISO 6400, it probably won't, since as stated by DPR the noise performance beats most other cameras so they do have some leeway, cheating or no. Their RAWs are malleable re: exposure to the extent where I just don't care if it underexposes even by several stops, unless the histogram is piled on the left at proper exposure (eg. night shooting). Still, I've had little trouble processing slightly underexposed ISO 6400 RAWs (even using the in-camera JPEG engine) into something nice. YMMV, as always.
Yes but a photog did a test in iceland and by brightening the image up to the same as a canon 760d the noise levels were identical.
nice one
It's 2015 - get over it.
The EVF in the X-T1 and X-T10 are really good.
looking forward to see what they do with the next XPro
I tested out an XPro1 a couple of years ago. It has a magical feature where it can switch between EVF and OVF. I started out as believing in the OVF as a must-have and the EVF as a novelty, but over the two weeks I was using it, I found myself using the EVF more and more.
And the EVF in the X-T10 is much more modern and better on all counts — let alone the even larger one on the X—T1.
So, recently, I switched to the X-T10 as kind of a longer-term experiment. I'm coming from the very nice 100%-view pentaprism in Pentax cameras, and there are many things I miss from the old system and areas where Pentax definitely does things better (balanced by things where Fujifilm does other things better, of course). But the viewfinder just plain isn't something I even think about being different. The EVF is perfectly fine.
Most of the optical finders I have looked through on lower-end DSLRs are really grim, especially on mass-market Rebel-grade cameras. Many of these do not even use a prism design. Compare with a Nikon F3, F4, or Leicaflex to see a bright finder. So why is there a continuing obsession with optical finders?
Because I still use my F2 and F 3 bodies.
Because the TV screen jumps and aggravates/triggers dizziness and vertigo problems.
Because I like optical finders as well as the ground glass on my larger cameras.
Add in the X10 body is just too damn small. The X-Pro1 was tolerable but the smaller bodies are almost impossible for some of us to use if we have larger hands.
> Because the TV screen jumps and aggravates/triggers dizziness and vertigo problems.
Some people might be extra sensitive to this, but for me at least, the current high-refresh-rate EVF screens make this a complete non-issue. If you're basing your opinion on last decade's EVF, I encourage you to look again.
> Add in the X10 body is just too damn small.
Note that we're talking about the X-T10, not the X10, which is a very different compact camera. But assuming you mean tthe X-T10... sure. It's not big. You may prefer the X-T1.
Tried the X-T1 and the finder is the problem. Size as well. The 1 Series Canons are the right size for my hands.
When I try friends lit up creen/finder cameras at night and in dimly lit places they destroy my night vision.
I'll stick with optical finders as they work for me.
Deadorff: I know exactly what you mean about the screen brightness destroying night vision, it is frustrating and also makes judging the proper WB harder. I get around that by reducing the EVF/screen brightness as low as it goes before going night shooting, which mostly fixes the problem unless it's nearly pitch black (though in that case, an optical finder has its own drawbacks).
The other side to that is that you can more properly visualize the scene at the exposure you want with an EVF at night, whereas with optical, what you see is probably *not* what you get unless you are being very careful about meteringl. With something like the A7S, you also practically have nightvision. Nice for astrophotography.
Weird colors ? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xt10&attr13_1=nikon_d7200&attr13_2=canon_eos7dii&attr13_3=samsung_nx1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.5591776385270717&y=-0.8163225036710718
Isn't it weird that the X-T10 and the a6000 both scored 80%, but the Fuji got a silver award and the Sony got a gold for the exact same score?
Not really. If you read the explanation of the scoring system, you'll find out what it means.
The simplest way of to explain is that the score is calculated mainly from objective assessments of the camera. Click to compare the two cameras in the scoring widget and you'll discover that they both achieved 80% very differently.
The award is the reviewer's assessment, based on their experience of it and its peers, and focused on the kinds of photographers we believe will be looking at the camera (these expectations should be spelled out in the review).
There isn't an exact match between the two: otherwise the award would just tell you the same information with less precision. However, there is a connection: it's unlikely a low scoring camera could be so well-suited to a group of shooters that it could still get an award or that a camera that scores really highly would be considered so unsuitable by the reviewer to not get one.
Yes, I was surprised at the silver award as well, and I use a Sony A6000. Granted, I love my camera and don't see myself selling it off just yet (unless they bring back a triple dial successor to the Nex-7).
But having had my hands on the X100S and X20, I realize that despite Fuji's firmware interface being somewhat irksome, the actual shooting experience is indeed quite a treat. This is especially so if you're a manual shooter, right down to the focusing. It's not quite there yet, but it's about the closest equivalent of shooting with a manual film SLR on a digital system.
I would believe Sony is better choice for Manual Focus lenses. Just peaking and othe r MF aids work a bit better.
Still the Fuji ergonomics as you say are very very nice and do tempt me quite a bit.
X-T10 is an ugly duckling which will never grow to be a swan compared to X-T1. Neither of them is for raw shooters though.
It's not ugly, that's just an overreaction because it's kind of "square" compared to the other Fuji cameras. In person it's just as beautiful as the original X-E1, and I get even more compliments on my X-T10 than I did on my X-E1.
It's wonderful having a cute/neat camera, it makes people happy and curious and I get better pictures of them because of their good attitude.
The idea that Fuji cameras aren't for RAW shooters is pretty silly. The RAW files are great and Lightroom support for the film simulations makes it fun and easy to get somewhere great without too much work.
You can also start from bare grey RAW like Canon gives you, if you enjoy processing every single shot.
I hope very much that Fujifilm continue this concept in future models. For me the key feature is the very good OOC jpegs & film simulations, also the EVF and swivel screen. Also the overall very good build quality. (High-end AF is not important on this kind of a Camera).
If one can use a TV screen & do post-processing in-camera without the need for an addtional computer & software then that is a huge benefit for any user.
I don't think Fujifilm has to jump on the 4K bandwagon, just decent enough Video qualtiy would be good. Also the ability to record a short sound clip with a still image is very nice to have and would be technically easy to do.
What I would like to have is film-simulation bracketing, so that I do 5 shots in rapid succession using various film simulations & settings. At the end of the day I could then just choose which ones I want to keep. More stuff like that, neat features to have implemented by exploiting existing hardware thru better software.
My X-E1 has a feature like that. It allows me to take 4 shots with different film simulators(thought I don't think it saves the RAW). I would think the X-T10 would also have a feature like this.
Cool, thanks for that Info.
"What I would like to have is film-simulation bracketing, so that I do 5 shots in rapid succession using various film simulations & settings. ."
EXACTLY what I asked for Stephan!
Somebody asked why I would want all that: my reply was 'asks sports shooter why they want motor drive!- CHOICE- EASY choice!
I don't want to have to delve into their fiddly internal raw convertor when I could just use the cheap memory card to save all the versions I might like.
Maybe not all shots all days but when I can't predetermine which version jpeg I ant along with saving a RAW file then hell yeah - great idea to just supply the lot. Boom boom boom.
I thinking especially good for street, where you might want bright colours for one shot, skin tones for the next, mono, for the next etc or a version of each.
Glad that at least ONE other person sees the use for this
The X-T10 actually does have film simulation bracketing almost exactly like this. It can only do three different options, though, not five. And unfortunately, this mode disables RAW.
I do wish the in-camera RAW processing had as many options as Pentax's does — I was surprised to read the praise for it in this review, because it's comparatively very limited. Pentax also immediately updates a preview (which fills the LCD, rather than being a very tiny thumbnail) as you change settings, not only after you make all of your choices. I hope Fujifilm implements this in a future version.
@123Mike — I said raw processing _options_. :)
Why would you want film simulation bracketing, when the in-camera raw processor lets you change the film simulation after the fact? Bracket exposures by aperture or shutter speed if you must, but if you want to try different film simulations, just shoot raw & retouch after the fact. That's what I do.
I'm happy for you that that is your preferred method and that you have time to use this way - but your mind set and situation are very different to mine. We don't want the same things.
I am already pretty fed up with all the PP I do already anyway- in fact that is why I'm using Fuji's excellent in camera jpg convert automatically in the first place.
MUCH easier to peruse all the options already created and chose the best on a full size screen, with full sized computing power and to just to delete the ones you don't want after the fact than faff about on a tiny screen pressing tiny buttons and taking year and a day to trawl through hundreds of images trying out different film styles to see which works best for that shot
What's the big deal? Memory is cheap FFS! Just give me better film bracketing - I want it and so why the resistance?
Fuji offer me best in class jpgs off the peg so why on earth offer 3 film simulations but prevent 5 when 5 are available? WHY? makes no sense at all.
You must love deleting images. I hate culling and managing multiple copies of the same thing. Much rather open the file in Lightroom and pick a simulation at that point on the big screen after making any obvious corrections first.
To each their own of course, I'm not against this silly feature as long as it doesn't get in the way.
That said, calm down! Three is plenty to deal with. If you want to get mad about bracketing you should focus on the exposure bracketing, which only goes +-1 stop which is barely worth doing.
A good review but I feel one point is missed. Fuji refuses to put better bracketing in their cameras and it drives me nuts. 3@+-1 is not good enough, the bare minimum should be 3@+-2 and better yet 5 or 7. For some reason this is something Fuji will not listen to anyone about, and many people do have the same complaint. I wish big photo review sites like dpreview would make light of that problem and hopefully it would help push Fuji to fall in line with everyone else on a simple function.
Fuji needs IBIS/better low light focus/speed and a friendly Xtrans.
I agree with IBIS, that would be a welcome adittion.
Focus speed is better since FW4.0.
And why is the actual Xtrans not "friendly"? Do you mean the bad demosaicing in Lightroom? That's not the fault of Xtrans, it's the fault of Adobes engineers. Other RAW converters have great results with the "unfriendly" Xtrans files.
I have an X-E1 and X-T1 plus several Fuji lenses. I love them all, but I more often shoot with my Sony a6000 simply because the lenses are so much smaller and lighter for walk-around and travel purposes. I don't understand why Fuji's lenses are so much larger when both cameras are mirrorless and have APS-C sensors.
High quality lenses need a lot of glass, that's why Fuji lenses are bigger. But smaller lenses are also there (14, 18, 27, 35), and the new 35/f2 will also be smaller.
oh come on- we want high quality glass but don't want to pay for it- thats whinging!
Those small lenses ARE very reasonably priced!
14mm F2.8 899,-
18mm F2 599,- Panasonic 14mm F2.5 248,-
27mm F2.8 449,- Panasonic 20mm F1.7 299,-
35mm F1.4 599,- Panasonic 25mm F1.4 599,-
35mm F2 ?? Olympus 25mm F1.8 299,-
prices are from BH, Sorry but i see a significant gap in prices. Just the 35mm seems reasonable. The 27mm is what i would call outrageously priced.
Luckily their 18-55mm kit-lens is so good i have no reason to buy any of these primes.
so buy panasonic
Please don't look at Leica lens prices!
I think BarnET has a point about the over-priced nature of Fuji lenses. Nothing to do with their worth or quality (I have 7 of them), but more the fact that they often do crazy deals or reductions on them. For example I picked up an X-M1, 16-50, 50-230 AND 27 for £450. Sold most on ebay, meaning I paid £50 for the 27, which is a long way from it's RRP. I also bought 3 lenses and got £500 back. Clearly some of the lenses could be cheaper if they can afford to do these mad deals (I'm looking at you, 27mm).
of course they COULD be cheaper, so could Canon lenses and others.
But I'd rather they made decent money and invested in top notch lenses than turn out a load of mediocre uninspiring glass for a pittance
people don't buy leica cos its CHEAP (or even affordable). Fuji might not be Leica but at least they're making an effort
anyway what are you on about with ebay and the M1 lenses-these ARE cheap lenses, the fact you managed to make a deal on it has nothing to do with it
Chasing the cheap buyers is a loser's game. The volumes Fuji produces are far smaller than others and they see themselves positioned against Canon and Nikon. Thus , by comparison their prices are fair. Panasonic is trying to buy market share and in truth their lenses ARE cheaper to make.
Panasonic is not alone in the m43 system.
They have to compete with Olympus prices too.
Then people are also complaining about m43 lens prices. Saying that becouse they have a smaller image circle they should be cheaper then Dslr lenses.
be aware that Canon and Nikon have very cheap prime lenses in their line-up. Some of them are remarkably good too.
Canon 24mm f2.8 for instance a bargain at 149,-
Now some of those fujifilm lenses are the equiv. to Canon's L glass. And they are worth that premium.
23mm 56mm and 90mm seem to be the best examples.
BarnET your price examples aren't very good comparisons IMHO. They have similar equivalent focal lengths, but the equivalent apertures are WAY off. All m43 lenses have effective apertures (both in terms of light gathered and DoF) much higher than the f-stops listed implies.
If Fuji made an 18mm f/4.5 maybe it would cost $250 too.
It costs money to put good glass in front of a big sensor, and Fuji pushes it further by having very high standards of sharpness.
If you can't afford all their fancy primes then that's okay, because even the 18-55 f/2.8-4 is going to outperform most of those m43 primes in terms of light gathering anyway ;)
18mm F4.5?! It's not the equiv. of that
5/1.5= F3.33 So you doubled the actual difference.
If your gonna bitch about light gathering at least apply the crop factor both ways.
I have the 18-55mm and i love that lens. But saying that it will outperform most of those primes in terms of equiv. light gathering or depth of field is just mathematical BS.
18mm F2.8
27mm F4.2 compared to 28mm F5 Fuji wins
27mm F3.2
40mm F4.8 vs 40mm F3.4 Panasonic 20mm wins
35mm F3.6
50mm F5.4 vs 50mm F2.8 Panasonic wins big time olympus too with F3.6 equiv.
55mm F4
85mm F6 vs 85mm F3.4 Again very obvious win for the m43 prime.
So it wins at 18mm and it loses in terms of light gathering at all other prime focal lengths.
Pick a math lesson before starting a stupid argument for no reason.
Congratulations on disproving the least important claim I made (that the kit zoom is as good as $1400 worth of prime lenses). You're right that I didn't calculate all values, my point was that it's not that far off and all in a single lens. How do the kit zooms from m43 compare when you do aperture equivalence? Want to math it out?
Notably you don't mention how much more you get from the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 compared to the m43 25mm f/1.4. I bet it's a good lens, but it seems good fast lenses are expensive on m43 even when they have less light+dof.
I didn't start a stupid argument I started a complex one, but you seem to love ad hominem attacks. I didn't start it for no reason either, I mentioned it because it's easy for people to be confused by "equivalent" lenses that seem similar but are fundamentally different from/worse than each other.
Maybe more importantly, there are no AF lenses even available that give the effect of something like the 35mm f/1.4 or 56mm f/1.2 for m43, you just don't have that as an option.
Also interesting is your list had nothing to match the Fuji 14mm, and certainly there's nothing even close to the 16mm f/1.4 in terms of wide angle DoF control. Neither are cheap lenses from Fuji but I'd rather have a system where they are available as options.
My real point: The reason to buy m43 isn't because the lenses are better value, because once you factor in DoF/IQ they aren't more affordable, just less good and appropriately priced.
A good reason to buy m43 is because the lenses are genuinely tiny and you value that weight/size gain. Another good reason is if you are satisfied with that level of quality/control and want to save money.
About the 35mm i did mention it was a good deal a week ago.
I also said the 27mm is outrageously overpriced. I said that becouse 1 it's 449 vs 299,- for a lens similar in size and focal length. Which happens to be faster even when taking the smaller sensor into account. F4.2 vs F3.4 equiv.
about the 14mm HiFi named those 4 primes.
You can get a F2.8 olympus Zoom that covers that range or a Rokinon/Samyang 10mm F2.8. Great lens but it's designed for a Dslr so it's large and heavy.
Panasonic does have a 42.5mm F1.2 lens. And there are F0.95 manual focus lenses available too. Problem is that Panasonic gave that F1.2 a stupid price tag.
But then m43 has a 42.5mm F1.7 and 45mm F1.8. I reckon a lot of Fujifilm Users would love to have the option of a light 56mm F1.8 at 399-499 right?
Me and my XE-2 included. This weekend i have the Olympus 45mm glued on a Gx7 while using the XE-2 with the 18-55 to cover wide to normal in a photoshoot.
> Panasonic does have a 42.5mm F1.2 lens. And there are F0.95 manual focus lenses available too. Problem is that Panasonic gave that F1.2 a stupid price tag.
Wow yeah, I didn't know about that one (announced after I settled my research and picked Fuji). Looks impressive but like you say, the price isn't a selling point at all considering the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 is way cheaper AND obviously will give more DoF control and light. Wow, it's also HEAVIER and LONGER than the Fuji 56mm! That's not what I was expecting. The takeaway to me: Fuji is pretty good at making high end lenses if not cheap midrange ones. Once you decide to invest they give you something worth investing in.
I think we both know those f/0.95 lenses are neither practical nor affordable :P I could go out and adapt a true leica lens to my Fuji if I had $3k and all day to focus :P
> I reckon a lot of Fujifilm Users would love to have the option of a light 56mm F1.8 at 399-499 right?
Yeah definitely, we can agree on that! There's a lot of people begging for a cheap+light trinity of 23mm f/2, 35mm f/2, 56mm f/2 lenses to go with the f/1.4-f/1.2 set, though really the 27mm and 60mm are what those people don't realize they want. It's too bad the 60mm is a weird duck with the slow focus on older cameras (apparently the new FW for the X-T* cameras improves it dramatically) or it would be an obvious starter choice.
Personally I just adapted a basically free manual 50mm f/2 for bokeh and made do with the 18-55mm 'till I could afford to start investing in high end primes. It's fun and all these mirrorless cameras are great at making do with MF.
I looked at the 60mm F2.4 and even tried it. But the AF motor is a problem. Optics are top notch but the F2.4 gives me the same seperation as the mm43 bodies. (identical to the olympus 45mm f1.8.)
That lens is quiet fast and precise. 3 things the 60mm is not. So yeah i would buy a 56mm F2 Hell i would rush to the shop right after the announcement to reserve one. The 27mm is not what i want. It's not fast not great and very expensive. I'd rather stick to my 18-55 all day long then switch it out for that.
I agree completely about the 18-55mm dissuading me from buying the cheaper primes, it's so good that I'd rather make do with it than switch out for one stop of light.
If the kit lens was f/3.5-5.6 the 60mm f/2.4 would be a much more obvious buy, as would the 18mm f/2. As-is you kind of need a high end prime just to get something that the kit lens doesn't give you already. IMHO this is a feature not a detriment though! I got my X-E1 for $800 including the 18-55mm, which was a big part of the reason I chose Fuji.
By comparison the kit lenses from Olympus and Sony (the other two brands I considered) struck me as nearly useless and I felt like I'd need to buy new lenses right away. I barely use the Fuji 18-55 now that I have 16+35mm f/1.4 primes, but when I was starting out it was priceless.
I bought the XE-2 mostly becouse the 18-55mm zoom. To lesser extent i really liked my brief time with the 55-200 F3.5-4.8 It's just head and shoulders above most mirrorless telephoto lenses. Exception are of course the F2.8 constants of some brands.
I could buy the XE-2 with this kit-lens for the equiv. of buying that same lens in m43 (i would have bought the olympus 12-40mm otherwise.
But since i lovd the fujifilm rendering in B&W and solely used the Gx7 with primes anyway i tried this instead.
And the quality of that lens speaks louder then words. It truly is not your average kit-lens. I have just 1 complain with mine. Barrel distortion at 18mm. That is it's 1 and only flaw.
Nice. All I'll add is that once you try one of Fuji's wide primes you may re-assess the quality of the 18-55mm :P
The 16mm f/1.4 is neither small (it weighs more than the X-T10) nor cheap (it also costs more), but the contrast, color and sharpness are a joy to edit compared to the 18-55mm, which always feels "grungy" or something by comparison. Maybe it's just f/1.4 making everything glow but damn the photos just make me feel good ;)
and another thing....
( ;) )
I now use the M1 with just the 27mm lens on it, small , handy with excellent image quality and hey - not expensive!
Still toying with whether to ditch the big DSLR and jump hp altogether, but that fast glass is looking good to meee
What Fuji needs, a new sensor. Maybe 1/8000. It sure does not need glass, it's lens are from very good ( only a few) to excellent (most). Fuji should get a good sensor, like Samsung.
I find suprising that in the review RAW quality is judged only by the Adobe support of it. If so many people are too lazy to test some other RAW developers, mainly Capture One or Iridient, is not a position DPR should support. Lightroom is not the standard of industry. Photoshop was, but now is endangered by the crazy subscription policy. In the past Adobe has been an essential building force for the whole digital photography movement. But now I find it erratic in decisions, just as if they had lost vision.
the tests I did at home with LR actually surprised me how good they were after all the complaints Id heard. I even tried a demo of C, couldn't see any advantage at all - and the UI is poo
LR is not the standard of the industry?
What data can you point to? C1 is popular but I doubt it exceeds installs over LR.
Capture1 costs 10$/month just like Lightroom, but LR comes with Photoshop AND LR Mobile+hosting. If price is the concern I don't think Lightroom is in big trouble.
You're definitely wrong about the industry if you think LR isn't the standard. Sure it's not the only choice, but there's a whole lot of people who don't want to switch away from it just to try out a new camera system.
That said I am satisfied with the support for Fuji in LR. The problem with your photos is you and your lack of imagination, not the RAW processor.
Capture one is not just the standard, it's practically mandatory in medium format commercial shots. You will lose contracts for not having it. LR is not quite the equivalent in its market segment, but close, however that has nothing to do with its quality IMHO. Capture One and Iridient Developer are incredibly good. The workflow and interface are very different and I feel that is what prevents LR users from getting the most out of them when they try it, it certainly takes time to acclimate.
Webm agree with what you're saying, though "equivalent in its market segment" isn't really the important question, since the market segments are vastly different in size. Maybe there are thousands of medium format users who would only use C1, but there are tens of millions of LR users, many professional. That there is more competition in the non-medium-format market can be explained by it's comparatively enormous size.
I'm surprised the review didn't mention two problems that become immediately obvious after just a short period of shooting with camera.
1. The exposure measurements. I noticed X-T10 in many situations underexposes compared to previous X-E*, X-A* models. I often have to boost brightness by +0.5 or more in LR. Previous models were very good nailing the exposure, this time Fuji is more like Sony constantly underexposing.
2. The focus precision isn't good: I found camera back focused in too many pictures. I put it head to head against X-A1 and the latter didn't have this problem. I was using a single central point in AF-S mode. I think it's even worse in other modes.
Could 1 be a result of abandoning the ISO-cheating phenomenon DPR has observed?
My X-Pro 1 underexposes too, and if memory serves, so did the X100S. Check the histogram when you chimp and compensate accordingly.
Sounds like the result of continued cheating to me. That's exactly the behavior we'd expect - chronic underexposure - if Fuji hadn't changed their cheating ways.
DPR: why no word on whether or not Fuji cheats with ISO on this camera as they have systematically done with others in the X line over the past few years?
Which metering mode do you use?
Evaluative. I've seen worse, but the problem is clearly and obviously that the firmware is designed to underexpose and then amplify using the camera's strange DR modes. I think I can see what Fuji were trying to achieve, but I prefer to have accurate metering and set ISO/aperture/speed as appropriate; I hate cameras that try to second guess me!! That said, if you shoot raw, set the DR to 100, ISO 200 (or whatever you need for shutter speed) then the cameras work OK, but you need to review your histogram and compensate...
I don't think it's right to say the images are "underexposed", or that it's an attempt to cheat ISO numbers. The very few people who obsess about those numbers online aren't a big concern; people aren't likely to buy this camera over that value anyway.
Instead, they're part of the film simulation look Fujifilm is going for. They simply choose a lower exposure than you might as the default. The existence of a physical EV compensation dial makes this easy to change if you don't like it — you can leave it dialed up a notch.
I do wish, instead, that they'd made this a tunable parameter of the film simulation modes — not to harp on this too much, but.... Pentax does exactly that (there's a seven-point scale from low-key to high-key).
Hi Matthew,
The main problem here is that the camera manufacturers have agreed up on a standard by which the exposure index should be set. Fuji has, according to DPReview and others, systematically failed to follow that standard in a way that would favor JPEG images from their cameras in terms of image noise when compared cameras from other makers who follow the standard.
If there wasn't a standard, or if Fuji decided to call their ISO something other than 'ISO', thereby making it clear that they were using something other than the ISO standard to set exposure index, things would be fine. But as long as they call it 'ISO' while failing to follow the rules of the standard, 'cheating' seems like a completely fair word to use to characterize what they're doing.
i can´t say that any of my fuji cameras (i used) "underexposes", on the contrary, if you just use matrix metering they very often totaly blow highlights and give a very punchy, contrasty and bright image. on my 5D3 on the other hand i am most of the time at +1EV compensation, or even more, to get the result i want.
I feel like I've noticed a similar effect compared to my X-E1, when I get home I'm boosting exposure on more photos than before.
That said I suspect it has more to do with the updated EVF, which now auto-compensates for different situations. Previously my sense of exposure while shooting was heavily influenced by the appropriateness of the EVF brightness setting, whereas now I need to get used to the more neutral brightness it chooses for me.
Either way, time to start paying more attention to the histogram!
Can we get an option to make the histogram bigger? That's what I need.
|Madrid subway by MAGMATCICO62
from Your City - Public Transport
|Incandescent Bulb by Kukla
from Illuminate- Macro only
|Curiousity by PERCY2
from Macro - Your Best Macro Ever
|Hoar Frosted Trees by sabishiT3T
from Cold
There's never been a better time to shop for a new camera, but the number of options available can be overwhelming. In this series of buying guides we've provided customized recommendations for several use cases, from shooting landscapes to buying a first camera for a student photographer.
Shopping for a camera with a set budget? No problem! We've rounded up our favorite cameras, broken them into price brackets and picked the best of the bunch.
Looking for a lightweight compact camera that's easy to bring with you anywhere? Or maybe you're smartphone-shopping and want the one that takes the best picture. And what if you want to shoot from above? In these buyers guides we have recommendations for the best compact cameras, smartphones and drones.
Despite reports to the contrary, analysis of DPReview images by our friend Jim Kasson confirms a disappointing fact: Sony a7R III is still a Star Eater. But there may be some improvements.
As the saying goes: A photo is worth a thousand words. And if you're sending that photo through Facebook Messenger, your thousand words now look twice as nice after today's update to 4K resolution.
Get to know the new Leica CL in short order by giving our 90 second 'First look' video a watch.
Leica has just released the CL, the forth in its series of APS-C L-mount cameras. Despite sharing a name with a camera released in the mid-70s, the new CL is a thoroughly modern ILC, with a 24MP sensor and built-in electronic viewfinder.
The Leica CL is a 24MP rangefinder-style mirrorless camera, which sits alongside the TL2 in the company's APS-C lineup. We've been using one for a few days – check out our gallery of images.
While it shares a name with one of Leica's most popular and affordable cameras of the 1970s, the new CL is separated from its namesake by more than just years. We've been using one for a few days - click through for a detailed first-impressions report.
We're counting down our top 10 most popular sample galleries of 2017, and the #4 ranking goes to the Leica M10.
Sigma is discounting 13 different high-performance 'Art' series lenses from today until November 30th. The company is calling it an 'unprecedented' sale.
See DJI's 'AeroScope' drone-tracking technology in action. This is the system that DJI says can help law enforcement and airport (among others) track and identify rogue drones.
iPhone X owners can already accessorize their new phone with high-quality smartphone photography lenses courtesy of Moment's new lineup.
Considering buying Sigma's exciting new 16mm F1.4 DC DN Contemporary lens for crop-sensor E-Mount and M43? Check out these official full-res samples first!
Vimeo has just added support for 8K HDR 10-bit content, making it possible to show up to 75% of the colors the human eye can perceive vs the usual 35%. Take THAT YouTube.
The holidays are coming, but your gear isn't cutting it? It's time to treat yourself!
We're counting down our top 10 most popular sample galleries of 2017, and sitting pretty at #5 is the Fujifilm X-T20.
See some of the most iconic black-and-white photographs throughout history brought to life by a community of colorization enthusiasts and professional retouchers in the new book Retrographic.
Shopping for a photographer? Whether you are one yourself or not, chances are you could use some ideas. From stocking stuffers on up, we've got some photography gift suggestions for every budget.
We're counting down our top 10 most popular sample galleries of 2017. Drum roll please... the #6 spot belongs to none other than the Sigma 85mm F1.4 DH HSM Art.
Read the story behind this gorgeous wedding photo captured at Trolltunga in Norway by husband and wife duo Priscila Valentina Photography. The 14 hour hike in the rain that preceded this shot was TOTALLY worth it.
Go behind the scenes with filmmaker Nick Arcivos, who recently created a beautiful cinematic short film in Paris using only the iPhone X, a couple of gimbals, and a few lights. The results are very impressive.
A Bay Area startup offering a pay-by-the-photo camera service cleverly addresses the pain points photographers experience when they pick up their first DSLR. But can it survive the smartphone?
It's been a big year for software innovations, dual cameras and huge displays. Take a look at our picks for the top smartphone cameras and why we think they stand out.
We're counting down our top 10 most popular sample galleries of 2017. At the #7 spot is the ready-for-any-weather Olympus Tough TG-5.
By combining his skills as a time-lapse filmmaker and an engineer, Julian Tryba created this out-of-this-world creative 'layer-lapse' of New York City that alternates between night and day in time with the music.
Canon Japan's new lineup of novelty camera-themed gifts was just revealed online, including a lens mug and lens thermos, two retro camera-themed USB drives, and a picnic mat.
The Profoto A1 most certainly isn't for everyone [...] But for those who are used to using the Profoto systems, and want something that pairs seamlessly with the strobes you already have, there is no better companion.
Fujifilm has asked a US district court to clear it of any wrongdoing, after allegedly being threatened with trademark litigation by Polaroid.
While a couple of our reviewers are out testing the Sony a7R III in Arizona, back in Seattle we slapped the camera in front of our studio scene to get a close look at its image quality. See how it stacks up against the competition.


text:
Program Type: Shareware
Release date: 2008-05-22
GameFalls.com presents new original colorful animated screensaver. Professional 3D graphics, cool music, funny dancing dinosaur, amusing animation, picturesque landscape satisfy the most exacting tastes. Download and trial period are free.
Publishers Description:
Do not loose the opportunity to try new animated amusing original well-done 3D screensaver by GameFalls.com! Dinosaurs do not disappear completely; they continue to live at the uninhabited islands. One of them, cute and quick – Arnold – managed to stole a tape-recorder at the drifting sailer and now he has a lot of fun, pasturing and dancing. Calm blue sea, green island, rich colors, picturesque landscape, white sailer, cool music, funny animation – GameFalls.com has done its best to give you a lot of pleasure. Please register this great screensaver to get new animation, dances and to get rid of the nag screen.
Keywords: Screensaver, screen saver, free download, dino, 3D, shareware, dinosaur, animated, desktop, 3D graphics, picturesque landscape, animation
More on Dino Island
This is the primary download URL given by the publisher of Dino Island
1 Cool File periodically updates the software information and pricing of Dino Island from the publisher thus some information might not be up-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it. Software piracy is theft, Using Dino Island password, crack, registration codes, serial numbers, key generators is illegal and will prevent future development of Dino Island.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The success of San Diego State's basketball teams is remarkable.
On one memorable weekend in Las Vegas, the men's and women's teams won their respective Mountain West Conference Basketball Tournaments and earned berths in their respective NCAA tournaments.
The men enter tournament play today at 6:45 p.m. against the University of Tennessee in Providence, R.I. The women will face the University of Texas at 4:11 p.m. Sunday in Austin, Texas.
The parallel feel-good stories, engineered by coaches Steve Fisher and Beth Burns, are especially welcome succor to an SDSU athletic department that has lurched through a woeful, scandal-plagued decade.
They may, in fact, be among the first green shoots signaling a turnaround in the school's athletics program, which has had to siphon away university and state resources to cover roughly half of its $31 million in annual expenses.
There is the hiring of new Athletic Director Jim Sterk, meant to bring stability to a department that has had three previous leaders since 2003, two of whom were forced to resign amid scandals.
There are the fledgling indications that football coach Brady Hoke may be righting a program that has had 11-straight losing seasons and suffered steadily declining ticket revenue.
And now, two teams will compete in the high-profile NCAA basketball championship tournaments.
We wish all the best to Fisher and Burns and their young charges.
But regardless of whether they win or lose in Rhode Island and Texas, they already have contributed mightily toward the revival of a moribund athletics program.


text:
Texaco Press Release - Texaco Awards Two Contracts in Preparation for Phase Two
LONDON, May 10 - Texaco today announced that it has awarded a seismic acquisition contract to Geotex, a Kazakh seismic company, and a drilling contract to Precision Drilling International in preparation for Phase Two of its North Buzachi onshore field appraisal program in the Mangistau province of Western Kazakhstan.
Commenting on the contract awards, Mark L. Johnson, Vice President of Texaco North Buzachi Inc. said: "Texaco has a successful track record in developing projects of this nature and we are keen to establish this field's potential. The award of these two important contracts will lead the company into Phase Two of North Buzachi's appraisal program later this year. It will also secure local employment, further demonstrating Texaco's commitment to the Kazakhstan oil and gas industry.
"The awarding of these contracts has been subject to strict safety and environmental standards that reflect Texaco's dedication to safety and protecting the environment. Contractors are required to employ Kazakh workers wherever possible as part of the North Buzachi field's commitment to contributing to the local community," said Johnson.
Texaco has awarded local company, Geotex a contract to conduct two- and three-dimensional seismic data acquisition. Equipment is currently being mobilised for parameter testing with full-scale acquisition of seismic data scheduled to commence during May. The work, which is expected to take approximately seven months, will initially be conducted over a 92 square kilometre area and will employ a local workforce of 280 people.
In addition, Texaco has awarded Canada-based Precision Drilling International a contract to drill vertical, directional and horizontal wells over a two-year period. Precision Drilling's super single rig, PD 709, commissioned to do the work is particularly suited for drilling applications in environmentally sensitive and inaccessible locations. It was also designed to a high safety standard and has operated for three years without a lost time incident. As part of Texaco's conditions for awarding the contract, 80 percent of the workforce will be local Kazakhs.
Texaco is operator with a 65 percent interest in the North Buzachi field with Nimir Petroleum Limited holding the remaining 35 percent interest.
Updated: May 2000


text:
After giving you yesterday a preview of the aNYthing x Neckface cap, we show you today the upcoming collaborative t-shirt with artist Ryan McGinley. The t-shirt will be released as part of the aNYthing Summer 2009 collection. After the jump some more images of the t-shirt.
aNYthing x Ryan McGinley "Cat" T-Shirt
Highsnobiety Style


text:
Raahi designers have over 10 years of experience with graphics design as well as 10+ years in leadership with South Asian organizations and Dance teams. Raahi's has been on the Executive boards and Choreographers of SASA, ISA, HSC, Raas Teams, Bollywood/Fusion Teams, and are always collaborating with other leaders in the industry. Over the past 5 years, Raahi has also worked with the biggest desi dance competitions in the nation. As the official apparel designs/sponsors for BOB V and dD 2009, Raahi provided designs that every team at each competition loved.
Although Raahi specializes in the desi market, we also have experience working with all types of projects ranging from a design for individuals to tshirts for hundreds of people in any organization. We have made, logos, party and event flyers, business cards, greeting cards, and of course apparel designs for groups like Relay for Life, Alpha Kappa Psi (business fraternity), Washington University Senior Class, Midwestern University Medical Students, Interfaith Day of Service, and more. You can see some expamples of our work in our porfolio and our capabilities through our case studies. Also checkout our original desi tees that helped us launch this company!


text:
Album Rating: 4.0the more I listen to this, the more excited I get to see them with ensiferum
Album Rating: 4.5You lucky bastard.
Digging: Gamma Ray - Land of the Free
Album Rating: 3.5Good review as per usual Mikesn. Consistent quality is what I like to read! I may check this out if I'm feeling bored.
Album Rating: 3.0it's solid but i never choose to listen to it...when it pops on i'm happy but it's nothing too special, just fun and viking
Album Rating: 3.5Live for the Kill is soooooo good. This is definitely my fav from Amon
Album Rating: 4.0Incredibly solid album, better than WOOOS (lol@acronym)
The "More Amon Amarth Reviews" section featured four different albums that all pretty much had the same cover art lol. pretty good review btw.
Can I post my review for this or do I have to wait for the American release date?
Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Offif it's out in your country then you can post it
Album Rating: 4.0"Guitar-centric melodic death metal (you know, the kind with actual death metal)"
You could not be more right!
Great review, terrific album!
We're the Guardians!!!!!
We got you the first time.
Album Rating: 4.0yeah i know sorry complete accident :-(
Album Rating: 3.5This album is awesome. Wish I'd ordered the package with the bobble-heads now.This Message Edited On 09.17.08
Album Rating: 4.5PhantomLimb, you're avatar is the best thing I've ever seen in my life. Captain Spaulding rules!
Album Rating: 3.5^ Thanks. My only complaint is that it's not big enough.This Message Edited On 09.17.08
Album Rating: 4.5You know what, your avatar makes me want to watch that movie lol.
or a DragonForce/ACDC-type band that has written perhaps three songs over their careers
I actually really like this
Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z