Cant believe lack of interest in these...are they really that bad a camera?
Thing is the files may look amazing when pixel peeped at 100% or even 200% - but for average web display or even small prints, would anyone notice the difference? If you make large prints then it might make more sense - but then again I have seen large prints from 'old' 12mp cameras that still look great.
These cameras sound interesting, particularly for architectural or landscape use at base ISO - but they come with a lot of limitations - no viewfinder, terrible battery life, noisy at anything above ISO 400, longer workflow etc. I think one review summed it up well - "not a very good camera but a very good image making device". (But only for certain types of images).
They sound like they would also be a good camera to stick on a tripod and use for long exposure night photography of cityscapes etc - but the shutter speed range is 1/2000 to 30 seconds and no bulb mode (I guess the sensor gets too hot and/or creates too much noise even at base ISO??).
But if you want the image resolution and you do a lot of landscape or architectural stuff on a tripod then I can see the appeal at £300 - could be a good option for hillwalking for example due to the fairly low weight and size - much easier than carrying a D800 in your backpack.
Simon may I ask what your work flow is with the raw files?
I open them in the Sigma software, make a few minor tweaks including the "Fill Light" slider which gives a subtle HDR effect, remove all sharpening as it's not required, and save as a 16-bit TIFF. .
Yes, I push the sharpness slider all the way to the left. The zero point doesn't mean zero sharpening. The files don't really need much in the way of sharpening, and what they do need I prefer to let Photoshop handle.Do you mean you set the slider to a negative value like -1 or -2 or leave it at zero? At zero it looks to me like there is some raw pre-sharpening already applied by the Sigma software.
Its a good camera but images were just that bit nicer from the sony..I wont use the xf1 above 800 unless my life depended on it whereas with the sony you could.From a handling point of view the xf1 is very nice probably more comfortable due to being slightly bigger.Af is pretty snappy and it does produce some lovely photos.Like the rx100 the speed drops off very quick as you zoom in so f1.8 only usable at the widest end but handy to have.I would say macro is better on the xf1.The exr modes are fun and some are genuinly usefull as well.For the money its a steal!Stuart - off topic - but was just wondering how the Fuji XF1 compares to the RX100 you had? At a third of the price it's certainly a lot cheaper! I think my RX100 is great but not sure if it's getting enough use to justify keeping it.
Well I'm convinced..also like the quirkiness of it so going to pick one up next week..anyone recommend a nice snug case for it and is the hood worth getting?