First Day Out With the Fujifilm X-E1

[Photo-John]

Some cameras just demand to be used for street photography.



This was shot RAW with the 18-55mm zoom lens at ISO 200.

[Photo-John]

The view from Salt Lake's main library doesn't inspire everyone.



This one was also shot RAW at ISO 200 with the 18-55mm zoom lens.

[Photo-John]

Here are some low light images taken with the X-E1. The first two were taken at ISO 3200 and they haven't been pushed too much in post. The third was taken at ISO 1250 (Auto ISO) and it's been pushed pretty hard in Lightroom and Photoshop. The images I uploaded are pretty big so if you want to get a closer look just click on them to see the large version.

[Photo-John]

Here are a couple more architectural images from the Salt Lake City and County building. It's a beautiful old building, built in 1892. I need to start exploring the inside, too. I'm sure there's lots of good stuff in there. I especially like the detail photo here. Click on it to see it big - you can see all the 100+ year old chisel marks.

[Photo-John]

I love the SLC library. It's such a great place for photos. They don't mind photographers wandering around and it's becoming a regular place for me to visit when I have a new review camera.







These were all shot RAW at ISO 200 then massaged in Lightroom and Photoshop.

[Photo-John]

Here are a couple more. The last one is especially for Greg McCary - not because he needs a bail bondsman - because it's his kind of photo

[geraldb]

Ken Rockwell said in his review of this camera, "Blah color rendition, much duller than Canon, Nikon or iPhone 5. It's optimized and great for people photos, but too dull for photos of things. The X-E1 excels in crappy light, but its colors don't look very good in good light. Even when set to HIGH color, it is subdued and doesn't respond well to adding saturation later."
From these images and others that I saw elsewhere so far, I can see what he meant.

[Photo-John]

From these images and others that I saw elsewhere so far, I can see what he meant.

You can always be counted on to be diplomatic, Gerald. Thank you

By the way, these photos are not at all straight out of the camera. They've all been tweaked to my own taste in Lightroom and Photoshop. So you can't blame the look on the camera. You have to blame it on me.

[geraldb]

Diplomatic?, noway. Don't take it personal, my comment was meant to be about the camera not your photographic skills.

[Photo-John]

Diplomatic?, noway. Don't take it personal, my comment was meant to be about the camera not your photographic skills.

My point wasn't really about my own photographic skills. It was more about you almost never having anything nice to say about any camera other than the one you own. And as far as image quality goes, if you look at my OM-D photos, you'll probably find that they have a very similar look, since everything I post here has been tweaked so it looks the way I like it and not the way the camera engineers thought it should look.

[fotomatix]

Ken Rockwell said in his review of this camera, "Blah color rendition, much duller than Canon, Nikon or iPhone 5. It's optimized and great for people photos, but too dull for photos of things. The X-E1 excels in crappy light, but its colors don't look very good in good light. Even when set to HIGH color, it is subdued and doesn't respond well to adding saturation later."
From these images and others that I saw elsewhere so far, I can see what he meant.

"Vive la différence" as some say. Mr Rockwell, as you and I, are entitled to our own opinions which are within the 'eyes of the beholder'. For every Rockwell, I can think of at least 2 other pundits that say the rendition of color, dynamic range, and overall image quality the X-E1 delivers, are 'outstanding'.

[geraldb]

My point wasn't really about my own photographic skills. It was more about you almost never having anything nice to say about any camera other than the one you own. And as far as image quality goes, if you look at my OM-D photos, you'll probably find that they have a very similar look, since everything I post here has been tweaked so it looks the way I like it and not the way the camera engineers thought it should look.

Some people think that if you're not nice then you're rude, there are many shads in middle John. One of those shades is "telling it as is; truth".
You sometimes think you can dictate on people what to say. You think members are here to serve your site, work for your interest, and falls under your supervision. You own the site not the members of it, Captain.
As an advise, you shouldn't advertise that those colors are of your liking because people won't trust your judgement of colors which is essential in reviewing new cameras which you rarely do anyway. However this is not the critique forum, is it?. My comment was only in regard to color.

The truth doesn't need diplomacy to be said, you need diplomacy to not say it. Diplomacy is a "low" conduct that is often fails to protect the good (that has everything to lose) in order to break a deal with the bad (that has everything and got nothing to lose). If you want to know what smiling pretentious diplomats can do?, look at our dysfunctional world because their work is almost never about the "truth". Sometimes diplomacy is necessary for saving lives at wars and such, but shouldn't be a requirement when stating a simple opinion about color.

Colors should come out of a camera as a top notch because that gives room for choices and the photographer can works his way down. In some cameras such as mirrorless Sony (that I had and sold), colors are so bad that if I worked my way up or pushed it hard in editing, the image collapses completely and goes where I didn't want it to go. Out of camera colors can be as flexible as a rubber band or as tough as a wire.

[Photo-John]

I took these last night at a family event where people were watching a 3D TV set. It was the perfect situation to see what the camera is capable of in really bad light. Both of these images have been pushed pretty hard in post. The first, taken at ISO 3200, held up very well, I think. The second image, take at ISO 6400 and pushed more than a stop in post, is at or past the reasonable limit. I probably should have increased the ISO a stop, but I was shooting RAW and the X-E1's expanded high ISO settings are only accessible in JPEG mode. It's a great photo for showing where the limit is, though. If I had been able to expose properly, it might have looked ok. But obviously, you don't want to push an X-E1 ISO 6400 image very hard.

[geraldb]

I have 60" 3D Samsung. You should watch "Sanctum" produced by James Cameron, it's available for free on Comcast's "On Demand". Its 3D is breath taking.

[fotomatix]

Hearing the 3.0 firmware really improves the auto focus. Please give us some feedback if and when you can. Thank you.

[Photo-John]

Hearing the 3.0 firmware really improves the auto focus. Please give us some feedback if and when you can. Thank you.

I have heard the same thing but I had to return the camera to Fujifilm so I can't test it myself. Sorry about that

[Greg McCary]

They look good to me I actually like the X Tran images. What do you think John can you tell a difference? Which lens are you using? I feel the Fuji lenses are the best compact lenses on the market.

[Photo-John]

They look good to me I actually like the X Tran images. What do you think John can you tell a difference? Which lens are you using? I feel the Fuji lenses are the best compact lenses on the market.

I think the X-Trans sensor image quality is great too, Greg. I think it's the second best APS-C sensor on the market, after the Nikon D7100 sensor. The only lens I had when I was reviewing the Fujifilm X-E1 was the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 kit lens. And that's, by far, the best 18-55mm lens on the market. It's nothing at all like the other 18-55mm kit lenses,, which are all pretty mediocre.