Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Holy mother of Moses, look at this:

http://www.komputerswiat.pl/media/2013/281/3144375/dscf9920.jpg

JPEG, shot with the 16-50 kit lens!

Camera: x-a1

---

Last edited by Unregistered User; 08-11-2014 at 12:00 PM.

[AldaCZ]

roflcopter! Sharp!

[wowtip]

From what I read the Fuji "kit lens" isn't a kit zoom as in what we expect from Canon/Nikon/Sony and even Pentax. To say it looks very decent is an understatement. And the more expensive 18-55 is reportedly even better,

Then, their 35 + 56mm primes combined with fuji sensors really is something I need to think about.

I really like how there is no intrusive brand logo on their cameras. I guess a corporation of Fuji's magnitude and success can afford to play elusive. And unlike Olympus they seem to be in the media for all the right reasons:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/140807/fuji...ight-ebola-rep

---

Last edited by Unregistered User; 08-10-2014 at 06:14 PM.

[DanGleabols]

Didn't you start a thread asking about issues with the x-a1? Is this take 2?
Anyways, I haven't got an x-a1 so I'm probably just repeating what you've already read! I, like you, have been pretty impressed with the camera and so have done a lot of research on it. The camera has fantastic picture quality and the high ISO capabilities are amazing. All in a £360 camera ( I only know UK prices) they also have a deal on, in the UK, where if you buy it from an authorised dealer you can claim a free 50-230mm!

Where's the rub? Here's the negative points I found;
1) Reviewers tend to complain about the controls, particularly the dials, not being enjoyable to use - I.e. Whilst image quality may compete with DSLRs the shooting experience doesn't. You might not need the DSLR shooting experience so it might not matter.
2) The big thing for me is; the native lenses are meant to be great, but have you seen the prices? I don't think you are particularly spoilt for choice either. Sure you can probably use adapters and legacy lenses, but will you get the best out of the sensor?
3) Lack of view finder... Personal preference, I guess!
4) It kind of has the "Small body, big lens" syndrome that usually puts me off mirror less. I have no problem with reducing controls and offering no viewfinder and other compromises to make a camera more portable/discreet/compact. Pretty much the mirror less concept. The problem is; I often find the bodies are much smaller than a DSLR. The lenses... not so much! They technically are often smaller than a DSLR but in real world situations, if they have big lenses, I find they actually take a similar amount of room in my bag as DSLR... The way round this is to stick a compact prime lens or something on them, then you get the more compact benefits. But then, with the x-a1 your back to point 2!
5) The reviews often slate the video recording performance... But I don't do video so I wouldn't care!

Your needs are probably different to mine, and at the moment I'm pretty broke...

Yes, this is take 2. I realised that the x-a1 has already been discussed here.

We have the same deal coming up where you can get that telephoto lens for free.

I have never held an a-x1 in my hand, so I cannot say anything about its ergonomics. But I have fiddled with Sony a6000 and Samsung NX30, and I found both to be very comfortable to hold. In other words, what people say about the generally bad ergonomics of mirrorless is not always true. One the other hand, I got rid of my Oly Pen because it was a nightmare to hold.

Didn't you start a thread asking about issues with the x-a1? Is this take 2?
Anyways, I haven't got an x-a1 so I'm probably just repeating what you've already read! I, like you, have been pretty impressed with the camera and so have done a lot of research on it. The camera has fantastic picture quality and the high ISO capabilities are amazing. All in a £360 camera ( I only know UK prices) they also have a deal on, in the UK, where if you buy it from an authorised dealer you can claim a free 50-230mm!

Where's the rub? Here's the negative points I found;
1) Reviewers tend to complain about the controls, particularly the dials, not being enjoyable to use - I.e. Whilst image quality may compete with DSLRs the shooting experience doesn't. You might not need the DSLR shooting experience so it might not matter.
2) The big thing for me is; the native lenses are meant to be great, but have you seen the prices? I don't think you are particularly spoilt for choice either. Sure you can probably use adapters and legacy lenses, but will you get the best out of the sensor?
3) Lack of view finder... Personal preference, I guess!
4) It kind of has the "Small body, big lens" syndrome that usually puts me off mirror less. I have no problem with reducing controls and offering no viewfinder and other compromises to make a camera more portable/discreet/compact. Pretty much the mirror less concept. The problem is; I often find the bodies are much smaller than a DSLR. The lenses... not so much! They technically are often smaller than a DSLR but in real world situations, if they have big lenses, I find they actually take a similar amount of room in my bag as DSLR... The way round this is to stick a compact prime lens or something on them, then you get the more compact benefits. But then, with the x-a1 your back to point 2!
5) The reviews often slate the video recording performance... But I don't do video so I wouldn't care!

Your needs are probably different to mine, and at the moment I'm pretty broke...

[Imageman]

For 150 years there was no such thing as a kit lens, all lenses sold with cameras were just lenses and were fabulous. I bought standard slrs and they arrived with a lens and the lens was superb, over 80 line pairs per mm was what you could expect with your canon AE1 which is phenomenal resolution.


This meant you could buy the cheapest canon or pentax or Nikon or Olympus and achieve the very best results. The reward for choosing a brand was the capability of taking wonderful pictures out of the box.


Then in the 1980s manufacturers started shipping low quality lenses with their cameras they couldn't shift any other way and called them kit lenses. This coincided with zooms being shipped with slrs. Photographers grew to expect having to spend an additional 300 or 500 dollars on their camera simply to take the decent pictures they expected when they chose the camera in the first place. That cant be right.


Im glad to see at least one manufacturer has returned to the original and right way of behaving.


If you choose a pentax or a Nikon you shouldn't be handed rubbish that you've got to upgrade before you can take decent pictures.

True, true...I wonder how many beginners have given up on their DSLRs because the kit lens's output was by matched by that of their smartphones. The Hexanon 50 1.7, which has now acquired a cult status of sorts, was once shipped with the cheapest Konicas.

For 150 years there was no such thing as a kit lens, all lenses sold with cameras were just lenses and were fabulous. I bought standard slrs and they arrived with a lens and the lens was superb, over 80 line pairs per mm was what you could expect with your canon AE1 which is phenomenal resolution.


This meant you could buy the cheapest canon or pentax or Nikon or Olympus and achieve the very best results. The reward for choosing a brand was the capability of taking wonderful pictures out of the box.


Then in the 1980s manufacturers started shipping low quality lenses with their cameras they couldn't shift any other way and called them kit lenses. This coincided with zooms being shipped with slrs. Photographers grew to expect having to spend an additional 300 or 500 dollars on their camera simply to take the decent pictures they expected when they chose the camera in the first place. That cant be right.


Im glad to see at least one manufacturer has returned to the original and right way of behaving.


If you choose a pentax or a Nikon you shouldn't be handed rubbish that you've got to upgrade before you can take decent pictures.

[jpzk]

Holy mother of of Moses, look at this:

http://www.komputerswiat.pl/media/2013/281/3144375/dscf9920.jpg

JPEG, shot with the 16-50 kit lens!

Camera: x-a1

Hi Dominic!

The so called "kit lens" is simply amazing, even on the XE-2 which I have.
I did some portraits of my daughter and our new granddaughter and the sharpness is amazing.
Every little detail shows up .... not that great for the portrayed person sometimes: pimples and those sorts of cutaneous details can be offending.

JP

Hi Dominic!

The so called "kit lens" is simply amazing, even on the XE-2 which I have.
I did some portraits of my daughter and our new granddaughter and the sharpness is amazing.
Every little detail shows up .... not that great for the portrayed person sometimes: pimples and those sorts of cutaneous details can be offending.

JP

Well, you can see traces of dandruff in that pretty lady's hair.

Anyone who says that Fuji's in-camera sharpening and noise reduction result in the loss of detail might as well eat his own words.

I'm a believer. Fuji shall be my next camera.

[tuco]

I had an XP1 with a that 18-55mm for a while. I liked that lens a lot and it was a good hiking, walking around and general purpose lens. And most of the time I had no regrets taking a shot on it instead of a prime.

[DanGleabols]

Yes, this is take 2. I realised that the x-a1 has already been discussed here.

We have the same deal coming up where you can get that telephoto lens for free.

I have never held an a-x1 in my hand, so I cannot say anything about its ergonomics. But I have fiddled with Sony a6000 and Samsung NX30, and I found both to be very comfortable to hold. In other words, what people say about the generally bad ergonomics of mirrorless is not always true. One the other hand, I got rid of my Oly Pen because it was a nightmare to hold.

Both those cameras have pretty substantial hand grips which may make a difference... but I'm just waxing lyrical as I haven't handled any of these cameras.

I think the main complaint I have seen of the x-a1, ergonomics wise, is the control dial on the back is oriented a different way to most cameras and the reviewers tend to find it awkward to change without moving the top dial. I think a lot of the reviews covering the handling of the x-m1 can be applied to the x-a1 as I think the controls and the case are the same, just a different sensor/filter.

That said, it's a hell of a camera for the bones! I just couldn't justify, in my financial situation, having both the x-a1 and k30. It would have to be one or the other and I think I'd miss more of the handling of the k30 than I'd actually gain in the improved picture quality of the x-a1. I'm also starting to experiment a lot with flashes and I can't bring myself to move to a camera with an even slower sync speed than the k30 (again this might be me being silly about things that don't matter), the sync speed is technically the same (1/180), but drops to slower values on the x-a1 in certain conditions (I forget exactly when!).

Both those cameras have pretty substantial hand grips which may make a difference... but I'm just waxing lyrical as I haven't handled any of these cameras.

I think the main complaint I have seen of the x-a1, ergonomics wise, is the control dial on the back is oriented a different way to most cameras and the reviewers tend to find it awkward to change without moving the top dial. I think a lot of the reviews covering the handling of the x-m1 can be applied to the x-a1 as I think the controls and the case are the same, just a different sensor/filter.

That said, it's a hell of a camera for the bones! I just couldn't justify, in my financial situation, having both the x-a1 and k30. It would have to be one or the other and I think I'd miss more of the handling of the k30 than I'd actually gain in the improved picture quality of the x-a1. I'm also starting to experiment a lot with flashes and I can't bring myself to move to a camera with an even slower sync speed than the k30 (again this might be me being silly about things that don't matter), the sync speed is technically the same (1/180), but drops to slower values on the x-a1 in certain conditions (I forget exactly when!).

You could buy a hand grip which is sold separately, but it costs 50 quid. Another option is this cheap thumb grip:

New Hand Grip Thumb Up Grip for Fuji Fujifilm x E1 Camera Black Professional | eBay

[Rupert]

I can't pass up an opportunity to give a Fuji boost! I only own a couple of little Fuji Toy Cameras, but have been very impressed by both of them (X10/X20).

For the OP DominicVII that is a lovely shot, and "Kit Lens" with Fuji is not the same as a kit lens with other camera makers. I've seen tons of gorgeous shots with Fuji's "kit lenses" and the reviews put them in close range of some of their best primes.

It's not only the lenses though, Fuji has the best colors and WB in most of their cameras...an area where they apparently strive to "get it right".
It's not just their high end cameras that get this benefit, even the little X10/X20 can deliver very nice results. I was at at luncheon yesterday and pulled aside a couple of the young girls to get some head shots with my X20. The lighting was poor and mixed, not good for any camera, but I knew I could count on Fuji for the WB and colors to be right.....and they were!

Fuji X20 Toy Camera

This girl had perfect skin, an unusual shade, and the X20 got it just right......skin tones with a Fuji are a delight!


A different skin tone, but still the great Fuji results....and with just a Toy Camera!


Lots of things are right with Fuji...including their wonderful lenses..even those on a Toy Camera!

Regards!

[Winder]

I can't pass up an opportunity to give a Fuji boost! I only own a couple of little Fuji Toy Cameras, but have been very impressed by both of them (X10/X20).

For the OP DominicVII that is a lovely shot, and "Kit Lens" with Fuji is not the same as a kit lens with other camera makers. I've seen tons of gorgeous shots with Fuji's "kit lenses" and the reviews put them in close range of some of their best primes.

It's not only the lenses though, Fuji has the best colors and WB in most of their cameras...an area where they apparently strive to "get it right".
It's not just their high end cameras that get this benefit, even the little X10/X20 can deliver very nice results. I was at at luncheon yesterday and pulled aside a couple of the young girls to get some head shots with my X20. The lighting was poor and mixed, not good for any camera, but I knew I could count on Fuji for the WB and colors to be right.....and they were!

Fuji X20 Toy Camera

This girl had perfect skin, an unusual shade, and the X20 got it just right......skin tones with a Fuji are a delight!


A different skin tone, but still the great Fuji results....and with just a Toy Camera!


Lots of things are right with Fuji...including their wonderful lenses..even those on a Toy Camera!

Regards!

It might be how PF displays the images, but something is making them look like NR is cranked up and the edges over sharpened. The second photo of the blonde girl really shows smearing and sharpening halos on my screen. From her chin line, to the oil painting look on her hair, to where her shoulder meets the red wall.