Product review: Fuji X-M1

If there is one lineup of cameras that makes heads turn, it is the Fuji X series. It started with the X100, which I for long considered to be The compact camera to get for the photographers who wants a more portable alternative to SLRs. 

Then came smaller sensor & more affordable Fuji X10 and X20, followed by a new X100S , and finally an interchangeable lens version of the X100S : the X-Pro 1. The lineup seemed complete, but Fuji listens carefully to its user base, and it appeared that the later want  top of the range lenses and sensor as on the X Pro 1, but in a more portable format. They made it and it is called X-M1 .

How to review such a camera ? 

First of all, it is necessary to establish what it is for. The X-M1 is a compact body with an APS-C sensor, and pricey good quality lenses. I reckon it shall be used by two profiles of customers:

1. The pro / well equipped amateur who want a portable alternative to heavier systems (SLRs, Medium Formats) when traveling, street shooting, trekking etc. 
2. The mass market user with a significant budget (1200$ at least with accessories) who's willing to go a little bigger than a supper compact, in order to get a versatile premium product. 

In other words, the expected key strength for the X-M1 will be its usability in a spontaneous shooting context, while retaining SLR level results. It means good ergonomics, easy set up, and performant full auto / preset modes. 

I reviewed this camera during a business trip to NYC and a week end in the streets of Paris. Doing my things, and shooting as the opportunities unveil. I believe this is how this camera will be used most of the time. This time I have to be honest I wasn't that inspired...

For super premium image quality, you will still have to look at film medium format systems (cheaper than an X-M1 with a prime lens if used) or some full frame SLRs, in particular the Nikon D610 and D800, with very high level lenses.

For ultimate all purpose performance (still, action, video), you'll have to look at SLRs the likes of the D4 or D610. Those come with a very, very different price tag (x3-6). Image quality won't be that much better, but you'll be able to shoot a bird 100 meters away by night.

Long story short

• It does delivers image quality that is equivalent to a SLR, even some full frame SLR. It comes from a excellent sensor, and a range of good prime lens.
• You need from 1200$ to 1800$ to get a good system with one or two lenses. 
• The X-M1 is a much smaller X-Pro 1 without a view finder. Given that what makes a camera is the sensor and the lens, it is in terms of image quality the same machine. Key differences come from usability and we'll discuss them below.
• Its main weakness is AF speed, which won't allow you to shoot fast action. For the average user however, you won't even notice. I have caught moderately fast action with it and got a perfectly focused image. It's people proof, maybe not cat proof.

Same image quality, but smaller and cheaper? It might just be the one compact camera a highly demanding enthusiast should get in 2014. Let's figure out if that's the case.

Image quality

The two components of image quality are the sensor and the lens. This section needs no more writing than what already exists all over the web. The Fuji sensor is a APS-C size sensor, similar to non full frame SLRs. It is the second best on the market after the Nikon full frame sensor, and the system produces RAW files superior to the output of a Canon 5D. Dynamic range and noise are excellent, there is no match to this sensor in the compact world. 

On the lens side, similar story, Fuji XF lenses are excellent, the ones priced 599$ do a good job, the ones priced 899$ are as good as any premium Nikon or Zeiss. You can easily Google all of this if you're into charts and stuff like that. I'll later recommend lenses for this system once I try them all. The main issue is that they are too expensive compared to what you get with Nikon for the same price on an SLR.

ISO performance is very good, with perfectly exploitable results at ISO 3200 and above, providing that you use RAW files and good software to de-noise (Nik suite with Lightroom 5 is what I use). With more normal ISO value (200-1600), dynamic range is excellent, and light rendering overall is very, very good. See examples below.

Sharpness and all those things are lens related. Fuji lenses are great, no issue there. I used the 18mm F2.0 , it's alright but won't blow your mind.

Camera ergonomics & hardware

Fuji X cameras are well built and solid. Do I need to mention they are sexy as hell? People do stare at them, the brown leather X-M1 was quite a hit. But it being very desirable can be also a drawback... you like it or not. Regarding handling, well it can only be as good as handling a rectangular shaped small object. A big SLR with a grip will offer better handling of course, at the cost of being huge. Here the handling is average especially for large hands like mine,  and most of the grip actually comes from the lens.

Size wise, it is much smaller than an SLR system... yet it is not that small. Compared to a Canon S100 for example, it remains big. On the other hand, images are incomparable to the ones from a S100. Once lensed up, it doesn't fit in a standard pocket. I'm using it with a BlackRapid Sport Slim strap, making it really convenient for travel shooting. In the street, it remains more discret than an SLR, but where I value the size gain the most is when trekking: the D600 I own is too big for climbing and Bear Grylls like situations. The X-M1 is exactly the size of the (excellent) Olympus OM-D without the view finder.

Oh and also, the screen moves. I'd nice to shoot discretely sometimes :)

Button layout makes sense, the camera doesn't necessary require a manual if you know your way around a camera. I'd have liked the wheel that's at the back to be on the front top right corner, to be used with the right index, but I'm being picky. A second shortcut for EV compensation would have been nice, but then again, small means compromises.

Software and shooting modes

Many pros and a few cons, let's start with the pros:

• The Auto SR mode that figures out what's best according to the scene: it works brilliant. It really renders on screen just like what you see with your own eyes. Some smart programing behind that: it figures out if it's a portrait, a action shot, a landscape, and picks what's best in order to render as close to reality as possible. Ideal if you lend the camera to your partner who doesn't necessarily knows how to use it. That answers one of the question above mentioned: yes it is a brilliant full auto camera.
• Menus are well done, logically organized, and the on screen explanation prevent you from needing the manual. The shortcut button is quite convenient, it leads to a quite complete menu, with simplified browsing. It sound like duplicate at first, but in comes in very handy.

On the darker side however:

• Some features become unavailable depending on the mode you shoot in. If they are on auto, you logically loose hand on some of them. Which is normal, you are on auto. But it's hard to understand why some features become on or off depending on the shooting mode? For example, dynamic range enhancement can go be on Auto, 100%, 200% 400%. Well in some mode you get zero, one or 2 choices, and I don't quite get why.
• I found little difference between matrix and spot metering, on a back lit subject. That bothers me as exposure effects are crucial to me. Yet, I can probably blame it on the focal length, requiring me to get quite close to my subject to get proper spot metering with back light. My D600 performs much better at this, and can really give you that high key touch on aperture priority mode with spot metering. This being said, automatic metering on the camera is fantastic, but getting a back lit portrait to come out as desired is harder than on a SLR. 
• Manual focus is a bit of a joke: you need full ring spins to move the focus distance a few meters. Good luck filming on MF mode with that.

The RAW conversion software from Fuji is "meh". Don't even go there, use something else. The RAW files however are very good.

Sample shots

All are with the 18mm F2.0 , probably the poorest lens in the prime focal length lineup, it's actually a good lens, it's just the least good of all. As I said above, no inspiration at all lately so this is just for the samples.

Raw converted in lightroom, shadows lightened and +10 clarity. ISO 200

Shot as jpeg, ISO 3200 F2.

Shot as RAW, ISO 200 F8. 

Shot as RAW, ISO 400 F8, cropped left and right.

Raw converted in lightroom, shadows lightened and +10 clarity. ISO 200 and tripod

Raw converted in lightroom, shadows lightened and +10 clarity. ISO 200

Shot as JPEG, ISO 3200 F2, cropped 35% off.

Raw converted in lightroom, shadows lightened and +10 clarity. ISO 200

Raw converted in lightroom, shadows lightened and +10 clarity. ISO 200

Shot as JPEG, ISO 200 F6.4 cropped about 20%

Shot as RAW, ISO 3200, F4

Same 100% crop,  no noise removal at all.

Shot as RAW, ISO 400 F2

It appears clearly that there is not a single difference in image quality between this and any DSLR.

This one is for the pixel peepers, @5.6 and ISO 6400. Before and after light noise removal (auto in NIK Software), 100% Crop of top left image corner with the 18mm F2.0 . In other words, the worse it's ever going to get. This is of course totally irrelevant to photography, but it show how good of a sensor it is.

Raw converted in lightroom, shadows lightened and +10 clarity. ISO 200

What alternative ?

X100S : the same but cheaper and with an optical viewfinder. Why not getting that then? Because it's also bigger and comes with its built in lens (35mm equivalent) only. Look at what your need is. If you shoot only documentary style and can't deal with screen framing, you might as well get that.

Olympus OM-D : same size (a tiny bump with the electronic viewfinder), similar price, but significant differences. First of all, it's a smaller 4:3 sensor. It is very good, but a bit under the Fuji X-trans sensor performance. On the other hand, it is weather-sealed (which is awesome for trekking) and has a viewfinder. It is an electronic one (you still look at a screen) but it does add something to the shooting experience. Finally, the AF is faster, so if you know action and bad weather is part of your plans, you might want to go for this instead.

A selection of compact cameras

I often trash compact cameras on this blog, not because they are bad products, but mostly because I dislike the approach manufacturers are taking. Using vintage design to make you feel like you're the reporter from the 60ies and pricing it above 1000$, adding tons of useless features that sell well instead of focusing on the essential, and most of all launching systems that require tons of accessories since the margin on those is about twice than on camera bodies.

The fact is that in normal picture taking conditions - i.e. not at night with Syrian soldiers shooting at you and dust flying around - there are now compact cameras that will do just as good of a job as a DSLR.

Not everybody can afford a D700 or 5D, and not everybody want to go thru the hassle of buying, developing and scanning film. This is where compact cameras have a role to play, and thankfully there is a bunch of good ones. Also keep in mind that the best camera is the one in your and with a fresh roll / memory card and a full battery :)

Before we get to the cameras themselves, remember the rules. What matter in a camera is:

• The lens, less zoom + wider aperture (low F numbers) is best
• The size of the sensor, the larger the better

This being said, here are the compacts I'd pick from. Keep in mind a couple of important things: appart from the X100, all cameras mentioned here have changeable lenses. Those lenses cost a fortune. I believe they are overpriced for what they are because this is how manufacturers make most of the margin. It means that you should very much pay attention to what lens you buy in the first place.
Also if you will shoot fast moving subjects, use a lot of manual functions, you might want to look into DSLR. It is not more expensive than those cameras.

Also, I'm not doing a technical review here, they all do the same stuff. Trust me.

Panasonic Lumix GF3

My personal choice: it's significantly cheaper than the others, mostly due a small sensor, but not much smaller. You will hardly see a difference on the picture and save possibly 500$.

Sensor : 4/3
Lens to go for : 20mm f/1.7

Why getting it:

• Good choice of prime high quality & bright lenses
• Actually compact as opposed to the other ones.

Fujifilm X100

Sensor : APSC : as big as it get on a compact, same as a DX SLR such as a Canon 7D or Nikon D7000
Lens is built in camera but excellent: 35mm f2

Why getting it:

• Great lens
• Largest sensor you can find on a compact
• Built quality
• Good low light performance
• Have to say it... looks great
• No extra stuff to buy: one lens only

Sony NEX-7

Sensor : APSC (as big as it gets on compact)
Lens : plenty to chose from, go for the 24 & 50mm

Why getting it:

• Although very ugly, provides DSLR level performance, sensor is the same as on the Alpha Sony SLRs
• Huge definition (24MP)

Samsung NX200

Sensor : APSC

Lens : 30mm f2

Why getting it:

• 20MP if you need cropping a lot
• Still good ISO performance even with the large resolution

Beware of marketing !

A short post about things you should NOT look at when buying a camera, and things you should.

1/ First things you should not care about, or even avoid, weither they are features pushed by marketing or quality criteria looked at by un-savvy reviewers:

Zoom: the more it can zoom, the lesser the quality
- X7, X16, even X23 optical zoom ! That's one of the main things manufacturers and reviewer push forward. And the best lens on a compact is...the 35mm of the Fuji X100. A prime 35mm lens, that zoom nothing at all, since the only focal length you have in the same as the human eye. So why do prime lenses or lenses that zoom on a limited range outperforming large range zoom? It's mechanical and simple : on a prime lens, the elements inside the lens are not moving, perfectly aligned and optimized for this length. The moment you expand to zoom range, parts inside the lens move, and you need to make compromises so it work ok at different focal length. The larger the zoom range, the more compromises, the less optimal the quality, and in particular, sharpness.
- Because it's harder to get a good zoom, it's more expensive. If it's zooming tons and cheap, run away, it's crap.

Megapixels
- Megapixels don't determine sharpness, they are a resolution figure, a simple pixel count. The only thing they change is how big the file is, how big you can print. Now I bet less than 1% of ever printed A3 or more, in which case you are fine with 10MP. On your computer screen, 8 or 16MP won't many any difference, the 16MP will just be....slower to open. Sharpness and resolution are different: sharpness is the perceived edge between 2 different objects, that is lens related, and for optimized sharpness, read the previous paragraphe again on zoom lenses.
- The more pixel, the less light sensitive. More pixels doesn't mean the sensor gets bigger, it means there are more smaller pixels on the same sensor. As they get smaller, they have less room to catch light. Period.  That's why the 6000$ D3X is only a 12MP: it allows it to shoot wildlife in very low light.

Live view (seeing the image on the screen before you shoot) VS view finder
- All recent DSLR offer live view, so you don't need to aim with your eye against the camera. First of all it's plain stupid when it comes to framing. Second of all, auto focus in live view are much much slower!

A great example of marketing made product : HX9V by Sony: X16 zoom, 16MP, on a sensor the size of a nail.

See the results (open full files!), here zoom at only ISO 400: sharpness is awful, but mostly no depth at all, and that rubbish melting pixel feel.

2/ Things you should look for

The lens
- if you are buying a SLR, put all the money in the  lens. Period. All SLR can do pretty much the same, some are better, yes, but image quality is about the lens, and the sensor size. In line with what we said for the zoom, prefer a little zoom or prime lens, and privilege a actual camera manufacturers. No wonder why Fuji as a great lens on the X100 . They do some really premium stuff for pros. I would expect good stuff also from Pentax, Nikon, Canon...well you know.

Maximum aperture (the "F" numbers) of the lens
- You already know small zoom range or prime lenses are to be preferred. You should also look for lenses with large aperture, that is to say small "F" numbers, F2.8 and below. On zoom lenses, you can hardly reach F2.8, but try to get a lens with a fixed F number, instead of the F4.5-5.6 kind of lenses.

Sensor Size
- the equally most importing thing with the lens: one rule, the bigger the better. I would buy anything that is less than 25x17mm (Fuji X100, most SLR, some rare compacts)

Screen that moves at the back (for movies only)
- You would expect me saying it's worthless, but actually if you shoot videos it's rather essential. Imagine shooting from strange angles otherwise. No can do.

Now a Fuji X100 picture: see the depth, the blur, the sharpness, this is at ISO 400 too for comparison. Yes it cost 3 times the price, but photography is like having a passion for sports cars, it's not cheap.

Update: Fuji X100 or X10 ?

A while ago I reviewed the Fuji X100, long story short: excellent lens and sensor, but arguable ergonomics and poor AF.
Overall a very good product. Well built and clearly designed at people like me who, as much as we'd like a compact product, can't tolerate a compact image quality. If I had to buy compact, I would buy a Fujifilm X100 , it's the only one that gave me an overal image feel that compares to a SLR. It's due mostly to the DX size sensor, much much larger than other compacts. As said previously, sensor size is the variable that determines the quality level of camera.

Also, my reserves concerning ergonomics might not be valid anymore since firmware as been updated. I haven't had a chance to try that, but I've read it corrected most faulty features. Thanks Fuji.

Last time, I mentioned it'd be worth waiting for the X10 if you are looking for a premium compact, knowing that it would be:

• cheaper
• with a zoom lens (X100 is only a 35mm, but I love that)
• optimized compared to an X100
• even smaller
• still likely to be built as good and with a rather premium lens.

Now I haven't had the chance to use one yet, but the sample shots produced by Fuji and other sites allow me to confirm what was to expect. Click on photos for full size files.

@ F2.5, iso 400, where is the blur ????

Dynamic range on this is pretty good, balance between dark and bright areas is nice.
Those are X10 Sample shots, courtesy of Fuji and Lenstip.com

It is very good for a compact, but it crossed my personal line. Too far away from my image quality threshold. The small sensor doesn't allow proper depth of field play, it lacks the crisp feel on close up portraits. Noise level is not good enough to shoot past ISO 200 and print large. However, macro is very good, dynamic range is also impressive. Fuji is really nailing it when it comes to pushing those small sensors to their limits. Also the bright lens that is a reasonable zoom is a really good pick.

My final call: the X100 is at this stage the only compact that can satisfy a very demanding photographer, used to full frame and medium format. It compares at least. Still room for improvement, but it's very good. It won't however get you anything close to the results of full frame film SLR and black and white TRI-X film.

The X10 appears to be excellent for a compact, probably the best for this XMas. If you are looking for a premium compact under 600$, you found it. If you want the freedom of a DSLR when it comes to playing with optic, it might be too much of a stretch. If you can't go the extra buck, get a used Nikon D90 instead.

Overal Fuji is doing a great job with compacts. Unlike other film camera monsters like Pentax and even Nikon who are taking us for idiots a little too much lately.