Fujifilm X-E1 review by Thom Hogan at Sans Mirror: If you're into Leica lenses, the X-E1 is like the X-Pro1: with the Fujifilm M-mount adapter and the built-in lens corrections, these X-Trans cameras are the best crop sensor Leica M-mount option out there

After Diglloyd, Thom Hogan is the second one of the 'heavy guns' reviewers to discover serious image quality issues on the X-E1. But Their opinion is contrasted by the myriad of others, some of which swear by this camera, and many of them have the images to back up their claim. So, who's right and who's wrong? Are Diglloyd and Hogan just nitpicking, or is their point of reference too far removed from the X-E1 league? Thom has been surrounded by High-end Nikons for decades, and Diglloyd, well, some dub him a Leica fanatic.

Ultimately it is up to one's individual eye and taste to decide what's really good and worthy. Also of note, the image quality issues refer mostly to RAW files, a known fact since most of the top players (Adobe, Apple, Acdsee, Phase one, DXO) in the image processing field have proper-or any support for Fuji's raw format:

"About the only performance piece that changes is battery performance. With the X-Pro1 I'm able to squeeze out some additional shots by avoiding using the EVF. With the X-E1, the EVF or LCD are always powered when you're shooting, so there's a constant draw on the battery you can't avoid. Curiously, Fujifilm doesn't put the CIPA specs in their brochures for the two cameras, probably because 350 shots doesn't look all that great for high-end cameras like these. An X-E1 user really needs to carry extra batteries handy if they want to do a full day of serious shooting. I'm averaging just over 300 shots a charge on my X-E1 in early testing, about the same as I was getting with the X-Pro1 using the EVF.

I should point out that the X-Trans sensor issues are still pretty much the same as they were when I did the X-Pro1 review. First, the X-E1 uses the same exact sensor, so the sparse color matrix is also exactly the same, and so are the raw conversion options. As I write this, I would still say that we don't have a truly optimized raw converter available, and some products, such as Apple Aperture (and any other product that relies upon the Macintosh OS X raw camera support), don't support the X-Trans at all. That means that color smearing and unwanted artifacts are still present in some X-E1 shots. I discuss this fully in the X-Pro1 review, but nothing has really changed since then."


Photo ID Database: 
Selected Items
Click to close the selection preview
Compare List
Teleconverters: Click to see the selected items
Click to Compare the selected items
Flashes: Click to see the selected items
Click to Compare the selected items
Lenses: Click to see the selected items
Click to Compare the selected items
Cameras: Click to see the selected items
Click to Compare the selected items