It's the exact same sensor as the X-Pro 1 and X-E1 physically, though the X-M1 has a newer image processor (same one as the X100s), so it's not surprising there's a small edge. I haven't shot it side by side with my X-E1 yet to confirm/refute that site's assertions.
The only thing they 'low ended' on the X-M1 is the removal of the viewfinder and the switch to a plastic build rather than metal. The control switch is kind of a wash for the most part, though a little odd. In many ways, the X-M1 is superior to the models above it: it's faster, has shorter shutter lag, processes images faster and writes to the card faster, it has a higher resolution and tiltable rear LCD....
The 16-50 isn't quite as good optically as the 18-55 IMO (so far), but it's not that far behind. I am finding that the 18-55 is sharper at the wide end and the 16-50 is actually a little better at the long end, but I find the range of the 16-50 more useful.
im happy that the 16-50 i a good lens.
i sold all my nex7 stuff an switches to the X-e1 + 35mm.
so a not so expensive 16-50 will be a nice addition.
plus my 55 1,2 asph.
So I did a quick ISO test (not scientific...may do a tripod mounted one to confirm stuff later)...and there's very, very little difference between the two cameras. The X-M1 might have ever so slightly more detail at ISO 6400 with very slightly lower noise, but if it's there, it's a minimal advantage that you'd only ever see side by side at 100%...color is identical. This is shooting RAW. The JPEG processing may be tweaked on the X-M1 (and I am assuming they had different JPEG settings on their test), but the RAW sensor performance is near identical.
I think the lens does well enough at 16mm. It's such a rare picture that the extreme corners are critical in an image and these look plenty good enough. I'm glad I ordered it.
The lack of EVF makes me slightly worried but if I'm honest, I use the tilt LCD on my OM-D 95% of the time and the EVF only rarely when it's too bright out and I'm shooting eye level which is almost never.
I am a bit worried about the no touch screen, really wish it had one, I use the touch AF points so frequently.
Yeah...it'd be nice if it had a touch screen. One nice thing is that the camera is really set up well for 1 handed operation, so switching AF points is quite fast and easy. It's a pretty fun camera overall. For a $100 adder, the 16-50 is a great lens...I just am not sure if it's worth the $400 people may decide to shell out for it separately. I'd probably save up for the 18-55 instead unless you absolutely needed 16mm, but for me, who doesn't use a standard zoom that much and doesn't want to shell out $700 for a lens I'll only occasionally use, it's quite good. You can certainly get very good images with this combo. The IS is pretty good overall. Sometimes I'm getting it to be funky at around 1/20s, but only sometimes. Otherwise, it does very well...generally 1/8 sec and 50mm is sharp, so it's pretty good IS.
Ok; my confusion - maybe it is the camera after the x-m1 that has the low-end sensor ?
Jman13 wrote:
It's the exact same sensor as the X-Pro 1 and X-E1 physically, though the X-M1 has a newer image processor (same one as the X100s), so it's not surprising there's a small edge. I haven't shot it side by side with my X-E1 yet to confirm/refute that site's assertions.
The only thing they 'low ended' on the X-M1 is the removal of the viewfinder and the switch to a plastic build rather than metal. The control switch is kind of a wash for the most part, though a little odd. In many ways, the X-M1 is superior to the models above it: it's faster, has shorter shutter lag, processes images faster and writes to the card faster, it has a higher resolution and tiltable rear LCD....
The 16-50 isn't quite as good optically as the 18-55 IMO (so far), but it's not that far behind. I am finding that the 18-55 is sharper at the wide end and the 16-50 is actually a little better at the long end, but I find the range of the 16-50 more useful. ...Show more →
I think the A1 or something like that is coming with a standard Sony sensor with a CFA. That's supposed to be even cheaper than the M1 but it will be X-Mount. Perhaps same body as M1 I think?
My M1 comes in hopefully Thursday but maybe Friday. I'm going out to Fire Island this weekend so I hope it comes in before then.
I think the lens does well enough at 16mm. It's such a rare picture that the extreme corners are critical in an image and these look plenty good enough. I'm glad I ordered it.
The lack of EVF makes me slightly worried but if I'm honest, I use the tilt LCD on my OM-D 95% of the time and the EVF only rarely when it's too bright out and I'm shooting eye level which is almost never.
I am a bit worried about the no touch screen, really wish it had one, I use the touch AF points so frequently.
I always find it rather interesting how on certain cameras I use either the LCD or the EVF nearly exclusively (when they have the option that is) but then on another camera, can be the other way around.
On my little Nikon V1, I use the EVF nearly all the time, but when I had the OM-D, I often used the LCD, and same with my XE-1, its quite often handheld with the LCD, even though it has a nice EVF, but now on my RX1 its nearly all EVF as well and on my Sigma, even if it had a VF option, I think I'd always shoot it using the LCD.
Same goes with the Ricoh GR I've got, I can't say I miss a VF in the slightest on that camera, just something about the way I hold it, and the way I shoot with it makes me happy to hold it arms outstretch and do a bunch of grab shots. I couldn't imagine using my RX1 in that same manner though.
So many people often state a preference, as in they won't even consider a camera if it doesn't have a VF, but I just find myself finding it really only matters on a camera by camera basis and not as an absolute
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah...it'd be nice if it had a touch screen. One nice thing is that the camera is really set up well for 1 handed operation, so switching AF points is quite fast and easy. It's a pretty fun camera overall. For a $100 adder, the 16-50 is a great lens...I just am not sure if it's worth the $400 people may decide to shell out for it separately. I'd probably save up for the 18-55 instead unless you absolutely needed 16mm, but for me, who doesn't use a standard zoom that much and doesn't want to shell out $700 for a lens I'll only occasionally use, it's quite good. You can certainly get very good images with this combo. The IS is pretty good overall. Sometimes I'm getting it to be funky at around 1/20s, but only sometimes. Otherwise, it does very well...generally 1/8 sec and 50mm is sharp, so it's pretty good IS.
Its a bit of a double edged sword for me, because like you, I don't really use a standard zoom that often, but there are times where the versatility makes sense, as does having IS. Fast primes are well and good but if you want to shoot with some more DoF handheld, they don't work so great.
Thing is though, that while the 18-55 is for most purposes "better", its also a bit of a more, shall we say, boring (no offense to 28mm) than 24mm.
So in a way, I'd no doubt use the 18-55 even less often because of its range, where the 24mm equiv wide end gives me a little more reason to wan to keep the lens mounted and maybe not switch to the 14mm as often.
However, I do like optical quality, so I'd learn to the 18-55, but then I'm not wanting to spend that much because I don't think I'd use it that often so its a bit of a circular logic problem for me lol
millsart wrote:
Its a bit of a double edged sword for me, because like you, I don't really use a standard zoom that often, but there are times where the versatility makes sense, as does having IS. Fast primes are well and good but if you want to shoot with some more DoF handheld, they don't work so great.
Thing is though, that while the 18-55 is for most purposes "better", its also a bit of a more, shall we say, boring (no offense to 28mm) than 24mm.
So in a way, I'd no doubt use the 18-55 even less often because of its range, where the 24mm equiv wide end gives me a little more reason to wan to keep the lens mounted and maybe not switch to the 14mm as often.
However, I do like optical quality, so I'd learn to the 18-55, but then I'm not wanting to spend that much because I don't think I'd use it that often so its a bit of a circular logic problem for me lol...Show more →
I feel the same way...which is why I went with the 16-50 in the kit. If I keep the X-M1...I get a great second body for my Fuji system that I can grab when I want a smaller camera, (will probably use it primarily for single lens shooting, probably mostly in concert with the 16-50...but it also serves as a nice backup should I need it) and I get the lens for $100. If I sell the X-M1 after a week, then I get the lens for like $150-200 and that's fine too. Both are far better than spending $700 on a lens I won't use that much, even if it is optically better. I'd rather spend $700 on the 55-200 (which I may buy later this year...)
FlyPenFly wrote:
All Fuji chargers (BC45W, BC50, BC65N) are replaced at a rate of 17% to 21% per year. No other charger is over 2%.
Hmm not cool!
From LensRental Blog.
Hmmm....interesting. I tend not to use my Fuji charger at all actually. I use the one that came with my Wasabi Power spare batteries. Works great and it's smaller.
I find I use the 18-55 quite a lot, but that probably will not be the case once the 23mm and 56mm primes are out. I guess the 2/3 stop aperture advantage compared to the 16-50 is worthwhile, and I don't care much about the 16mm/18mm difference, as I'll pretty much always prefer the 14mm for wide shots.
If I were to pick up an X-M1, I'd probably get the 16-50mm if only because it seems like a good lens and worth the $100 extra. But I'd probably keep the 27mm glued to it. It is kind of tempting.
I think my next lens in the system will either be the 14mm F2.8, Zeiss 12mm F2.8, or the 10-24mm F4.
The 23mm F1.4 is intriguing but it will depend on size/cost. I'm really very happy with the Canon EOS-M's 22mm F2. It's spectacular not just for the price.
Both are very good, but the Fuji's the better lens. I'd only get the Zeiss if you absolutely needed the wider angle. The 10-24 will no doubt be very good, but the mockups look huge.
I definitely use the charger than came with my replacement batteries-- because it is smaller.
I think the X-M1 is a bit of an odd duck mainly in how it is priced (though I guess this is a smart intro-grab-the-dollars price right now). That you can get a brand new X-E1 for $799 +tax/ship from a shop, or just under $700 brand new/nearly new from a seller here or on eBay, or fairly used but good condition between $600 and $650 pretty regularly has an impact on how I think about the X-M1. Once it's in the $500 new, $400 used range, it all of a sudden looks much more appealing as a second/backup X-camera to me.
I guess one argument could be that it mainly competes on size, but I ONLY feel that way if you're comparing X-M1 + pancake to X-E1 + 35mm. The lenses are a much bigger impact on size than the small body-size difference. Size-wise, I'd take an X-E1 + 27mm pancake over an X-M1 + 35mm 1.4...
Compared to the X-Pro1, however, size is a better argument from where I'm standing.
Some more with the X-M1 and 16-50. The third shot has a tiny bit of camera shake, but I was pushing the IS a fair bit. The one thing I'm noticing about this little zoom is this: while it isn't the sharpest lens on earth, it doesn't draw like a typical kit lens. I don't know if that makes sense. Most kit lenses seem very sterile...they might be sharp, but they have plenty of CA, color is flat, contrast is just a bit harsh or far too soft, etc.... This draws like a high end lens for the most part, it just lacks the critical sharpness of a truly high end optic. Overall, I'll certainly take it.
Feels a bit cheap for $800. Definitely does not feel as nice as my E-PL5 did in overall build quality. Is this the first Fuji being made in Thailand?
The lens is absolutely not worth $400 alone in terms of just material quality, not sure about image quality as I haven't shot anything yet. Zoom does feel about the right tightness.
The control layout is pretty fantastic but the Macro button is Stupid. Also worried that these button writing will fade out with use, it's not embossed.
My overall impression is that overall material and build quality isn't as good as even a NEX-3N... about as good as a C3, maybe slightly better.
