There are 3 images taken which each of the 3 new lenses. It goes to 1600 :) Couple of them appear over-processed, maybe it is because they were shot as jpegs with film simulation on.
Fujifilm Press Release:
Valhalla, N.Y., January 16, 2012 – Fujifilm North America Corporation Electronic Imaging Division today announced that the new, revolutionary . . . read more
Wow, his must be the most serious case of X-Trans sensorophobia on the whole wide Interwebs. I still have a lot of respect for much of what he otherwise does, but when it comes to the X-Trans artifacting issue he clearly fails to see the sum of the image (heh): As a total, Fuji's sensor produces some gorgeous images, a fact that is stated in confessions and declarations by numerous pro, avid and generally accomplished photographers. I can point you to a zillion galleries and essays, but I choose just one for now and rest my case: Check out Dave Piper's gallery of images he got with the X-Pro1.
"Why bother with a problematic sensor? Or a company that can’t get its act together and just pay Adobe $250K a year or whatever to deliver exceptional results from ACR (if this is even possible, which I begin to doubt). This dog doesn’t hunt. Get a Sigma DP1/DP2/DP3 Merrill and enjoy real resolution with zero artifacts, totally clean, not even Bayer sensor demosaicing yuck. Or get a D600 or D800E system which isn’t that hugely different in size, but has a full frame sensor. I see no point in investing in a 2nd-tier system with a sensor that forces photographers to jump through hoops." . . . read more
Dave Kai Piper is famous for his award winning model & portrait work and also known to work with only 'with natural light or an Orbis Ring Flash'. So, here's his wonderful X-Pro1 gallery, but at least the dozen or so images I've checked out so far are all shot with a Nikon D700., according to their EXIF. The disparity is compounded by the fact that each file name contains the words 'fuji-Xpro1'.
Since the same EXIF information is repeated in photo after photo, all shot on the same day, with a 85mm lens, at ISO 200 and 1/200 sec speed, it makes this probably a case of EXIF manipulation gone wrong, but it still begs the question: Why?
Update: Dave Piper sent us this message:
"Hello Sir, I can clear up this problem - All of the photos in the gallery had been placed onto a template in photoshop ( all of the photographs in my portfolio have been laid out this way