Fujifilm X-T1 Mirrorless Camera Review: Fast Shooter

Not open for further replies.


Jul 25, 2013
Although a little late, a good review.

I've had my X-T1 since March, and while I do enjoy it, selecting AF points is a chore, especially vs. touchscreens. I don't the same issues with the rear directional buttons or dial that others have lamented, and I haven't shot any video yet, but I do find adjusting the controls to be a bit fiddly on the fly.

That said, with the recently released XL hand grip and eyecup, handling is much improved. Moreover, I absolutely love the aperture ring, as well as the overall build quality. I also enjoy the huge EVF, but I've read that lowlight reveals it's weaknesses.

Regarding the chromatic aberration, there is an in-camera lens correction option that removes CA, and perhaps barrel distortion, from images shot with Fuji lenses. It's apparently quite competent, but I've not used it, as the 18-55mm f2.8-4 has produced excellent RAW captures as is.

Finally, however, for those uninterested in the retro aesthetic, Olympus' OMD-EM1 (the X-T1's main competitor IMV) is perhaps a better choice; its in-body 5-axis image stabilization is apparently the best available, its touchscreen and customization features are very useful, and its EVF is also quite large. Moreover, its build quality is supposedly a tad better, and its AF is excellent. Micro 4/3 lenses offer greater selection at often lower prices, although some may balk at the smaller sensor.

Personally, as much as I do enjoy my X-T1, I'd love to try out the EM1 for a weekend.



Jun 16, 2007
Good review, but sample images need to be full resolution.

The stupidest thing is disabling raw at high ISO, that is the time when it is needed the most. In camera noise reduction is never as good as the noise reduction you can do in post. A camera does not have a modern core i5 or i7 CPU, and they cannot spend multiple seconds processing the noise reduction (which a PC with a good CPU would spend doing noise reduction).

While not the best example, here are 2 images taken with a low end point and shoot (powershot SX 230HS) the CHDK firmware mod was used to enable camera raw, and the raw file was opened with photoshop and the I used the neat image plugin for noise reduction. (CHDK saves raw + jpeg, but the raw image has a slightly wider view because the camera does not apply as good of an in camera lens correction, as a proper lens profile can in photoshop.

jpeg from the camera: dl.dropbox.com/s/u7m32rwxcp5ipwc/IMG_0004.JPG

Raw image with noise reduction applied in post (neat image): dl.dropbox.com/s/pm3m6xibuwy155j/iso1600neatimage.jpg

And finally, here is the raw file that CHDK generated: https://www.dropbox.com/s/iyyzu78deuneypa/CRW_0004.DNG

While higher end cameras will certainty have better in camera noise reduction, even on top of the line ones such as the Nikon D4s, the noise reduction done in camera is nowhere close to what can be done in a program such as photoshop, and thus when using very high ISO, the camera should be default enable camera raw regardless of if the user has it set to save jpeg only.
It is not a matter of the in camera noise reduction being heavily flawed or made improperly, it is due to camera makers wanting a camera to do multiple FPS and have jpeg processing as well as noise reduction happen. It can clearly be done, but do not expect the same noise reduction quality as a program which will even max out a modern CPU for a few seconds on a single image.
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Y Digital Cameras 10
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
O Digital Cameras 1
G Digital Cameras 0
B Digital Cameras 5
B Digital Cameras 1
L Digital Cameras 1
P Digital Cameras 2
T Digital Cameras 6
P Digital Cameras 3
nandu varun Digital Cameras 1
A Digital Cameras 4
G Digital Cameras 0
P Digital Cameras 1
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 2
G Digital Cameras 0
M Digital Cameras 3
L Digital Cameras 1