9
Sep 2012
Ken Rockwell loves the X-E1 and says you don’t need the X PRO 1 anymore.
It’s not a secret that Ken Rockwell (Click here) likes Fuji cameras. He writes about the X-E1: “I see no more reason for the old Fuji X-Pro1, unless you’re really addicted to the optical finder. Everything else about the X-E1 appears to be superior, with a built-in flash and less size and weight, for less money. I returned my X-Pro1 because its finder had a defective design that rendered it out-of-focus unless you bought an external diopter for it. I’m hoping this is fixed in the X-E1. ”
The question now is, if the X-E1 is better than the X-Pro1 than are we going to see a new X PRo 2 anytime soon?
—
The Black X-E1 with 18-55mm kit lens still on top of the Amazon rankings!
yjPN!g~~60_35.JPG)
Nq
10 months ago |And no more reasons for an X-100 as well….
Jim
10 months ago |x100 is smaller and cheaper.
x100 is $1200
x-e1 = $1400 for bulky zoom lens
or $1000 + $600 =$1600 for prime lens.
ken sucks
10 months ago |who cares about ken rockwell. biggest n00b of all the internets.
smarties
10 months ago |First, of all the x100 isn’t really smaller; it’s 3mm shorter in lenght but 15mm larger in thickness. Second, 200 bucks more for a better sensor and the ability to change lens; I’d say that’s cheaper.
RR
10 months ago |Why oh why do people keep generating income for this guy by posting links to his site?
The guy has no more information about the X-E1 than any of the rest of us have read on the web and he openly admits that at times he writes bull s*#t purely to create controversy and generate traffic flow for his site.
This guy has no credibility and should just be ignored.
nik
10 months ago |he’s a genius
Jim
10 months ago |It doesn’t sound like Ken actually used the X-E1, he is just speculating based on the datasheet…
Fred
10 months ago |1. Ken Rockwell goes on and on about how photographers take pictures, not the camera; and then he rants about how micro 4/3 system is a “junk format” because of its small sensor. My opinion is, he writes so much junk without thinking that he forgets what he said from time to time.
2. This is very subjective, but I don’t think Ken Rockwell’s pictures are anything special. Both Ming Thein and Mansurov can take far better pictures using a “junk format.” In fact, Ming not only takes better pictures, but writes better as well.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/08/31/watch-photography-with-the-olympus-om-d-and-thoughts-on-its-use-as-a-backup-system/
3. This goes for other bloggers and review sites as well, but you should specify that you’re working with a pre-production model, or if you’re just writing based on specs. He doesn’t.
The only thing worse than Rockwell’s camera reviews is his headphone reviews.
I have so much more to say but I’ll stop here. I see no point wasting my energy.
RR
10 months ago |He does not have to specify about pre production models because he never has them. Most of his posts are written after reading information on the web when he has never actually touched that product just like the post that is the subject of this thread.
His sole aim is to generate traffic and income that is why he writes rubbish so that people talk about it and that is why I never use his name in posts so that Google cannot help him in that respect.
Gav
10 months ago |Fred whilst I agree with everything you say, you really shouldn’t slag off other peoples photos.
Writing and reviewing really have little to do with photographic talent.
Carl
10 months ago |I can’t believe Ken Rockwell is even mentioned as a reviewer after all these years of nonsense.
gene lowinger
10 months ago |Who?
John Smith
10 months ago |True, Fred. One can learn from Ming Thien.
That cannot be said about Ken Rockwell. Has he actually touched the X-E1? Five’ll get you ten he hasn’t. I read the spew on his blog about the X-E1 and he sounds like he must have used it or he is handing us a line. As RR mentions, Rockwell’s info and specs are off from other places, Fujirumors included. The testing is not his.
The article is just a dimensional comparison between the X-Pro1 and the X-E1, not much else. It is hastily written in the style of a grade 8 book report. While I am delighted that there is another positive article about a Fujifilm X-camera, I can’t stomach that it is done slagging other cameras like the Sony NEX-7 (plasticky), Canon and Nikon (O brave new world, that has no D-SLRs in’t), Leica (a great or horrid camera, depending on which way the wind blows) and the X-Pro1 (yeah, in the wake of its upcoming firmware upgrade). And finished with a pan-handling conclusion.
If I am going to follow a loud mouthed schnook, I’ll take Kai Wong over Rockwell any day. Kai does his schnook spiel for laughs and comes away with good points. His love/hate relationship with the X-Pro1 mirrors mine to a T. Rockwell, on the other hand, panders. But to whom, who knows?
okinawa
10 months ago |In this ocasion, he is probably right…
Marc
10 months ago |KR is probably right. The X Pro 1 has been trumped.
People need to be looking out for the X Pro 2 which may contain features to beome a more pro camera but which at the very least will contain a faster processor, faster AF, higher res, maybe 2 CD cards etc – who knows.
I must say that I do wonder if there is room for the X100/X200 in their range as well.
The X100 may just turn out to have been a brilliant experiment to put a toe in the water.
Stas
10 months ago |Maximum shutter speed 1/8,000 X-Pro1 ???
Yogi
10 months ago |As an early adopter for the XP1 I must agree that KR is probably right on this. I’m not too happy with my friends at Fuji for introducing such a better EVF, electronic shutter release etc etc a mere 6 months after releasing the XP1.
hexx
10 months ago |because Ken, as always, has the camera now
— rolleyes —
John
10 months ago |What is the obsession people have with smaller, lighter cameras? Is the XP1 not small enough?
Anyways KR is being a bit dramatic. This is the same guy that said the XP1 was better then the M9 and Fuj lenses were just as good as Leica glass, 6 months later he’s calling it “the old X Pro1″. I didn’t know pop up flashes and electric viewfinders were so important.
Marc
10 months ago |I see that Sony are announcing a full frame compact. Beautiful lens – but fixed lens.
Maybe an X Pro 2 would move to full frame. That would be really something.
It obviously can be done
hexx
10 months ago |not sure if Fuji lenses are FF. What Sony should come up with instead of compact is FF NEX – they have best platform for it thanks to focus peaking. All they need to do is release FF NEX with shutter dial and exposure compensation dial. There are plenty of adapters for NEX.
John
10 months ago |Fuji X lenses are created for the APS format . A full frame fuji will cost 3000 just like all the others so if they do full frame it will be a new system or a camera like the RX1. It won’t be the x200 either because of how well it sells at the 1k price point. We are probably 2 years away from FF being priced for the regular consumer market.
hexx
10 months ago |Let’s see what Nikon and Canon comes up with, there are rumours of very cheap DSLR FF bodies from both. If they can make it below $2000, I’m sure mirrorless solutions should be cheaper (no pentaprism, less housing and so on)
smarties
10 months ago |simple, nobody wants to log around a beast like the D700 if they have a choice.
john
10 months ago |I agree mid level DSLRs will have FF soon but there is a lot more engineering needed in producing small body FF cameras. People wonder why this new Sony is fixed lens, it’s because it has to be in order for this setup to work. The short distance between the back of the lens and sensor on these cameras makes putting in a FF almost impossible. Thats why the M8-M9 are so fat compared to film M’s because they need that extra room to make it an interchangeable FF (1.3 for M8). I suspect this new Sony relies heavily on having it’s lens attached as it is part of the overall design structure. Were it to be interchangeable they would have to come out with a whole new line of lenses and the body would undoubtably be thicker then it is.
Tom
10 months ago |Marc, the short answer is a resounding no. From all the information that I have read (and I don’t know jack about tech), the entire range of XF lenses are specifically built for the asp-c format.
If Fujifilm introduces a FF mirrorless, it will have to make a new mount. At this point, it seems highly unlikely.
WT21
10 months ago |Fuji loves the XE1 and says you don’t need Ken Rockwell anymore.
MJr
10 months ago |“The question now is …”
No.. NO! There is nothing to conclude, no decisions to be made from this.
SD
10 months ago |Ken likes everything so he can make more coin on his website. If anyone wants more realistic and honest reviews, go to http://www.stevehuffphoto.com.
WT21
10 months ago |Stuff Huff loves everything far more than Ken, IMO. Though Steve is more honest and less sensationalistic, but I still find all his reviews are “I love this camera”
RR
10 months ago |His website was full of “Buy it here” (so I get paid on click thoughs) links within hours of the announcement. He is exactly the same as the other bloke except his style of writing is somewhat less controversial.
CKDexterHaven
10 months ago |Certainly, Steve can be “enthusiastic.”
My criteria, though, for deciding whether some so-called, self-proclaimed internet ‘authority’ has a voice worthy of listening to (reading):
1. Is he a photographer who has produced enviable images?
2. Has he demonstrated knowledge or insight beyond any norms?
With Rockwell, 1: No.; 2: No.
And, beyond that, his own site disclaimer warns that he frequently just makes stuff up. And people REFER to this guy?
hexx
10 months ago |Steve has lost the plot several times. Don’t like his ‘click here’ stuff everywhere and there have been few ‘link-bite’ articles like his ‘crazy comparisons’ where he was comparing apples to oranges just to get angry comments and replies to them which leads to more clicks. Don’t like Mr Huff as I did before. For me these days the best source of articles is via scoop.it – at least you can find more blogs, more photographers keen to share their knowledge/experience.
John Smith
10 months ago |Scoop.it is a great one-stop-shopping site. Reputable too. I discovered it by accident. One of my blog entries was on it!
CKDexterHaven
10 months ago |Sites and people who cite Ken Rockwell demonstrate a lack of taste, comprehension, and their own relevance.
This site just lost any semblance of validity.
Kevin
10 months ago |haha. as usual, ken praises all the new toys
Dee
10 months ago |“* Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography
* Ken Rockwell’s camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
* Ken Rockwell doesn’t color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
* Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.
* Ken Rockwell doesn’t adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
* Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
* Ken Rockwell doesn’t wait for the light when he shoots a landscape – the light waits for him.
* Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
* Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.
* Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.
* When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories
* Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
* Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born
* Rockwellian policy isn’t doublethink – Ken doesn’t even need to think once
* Ken Rockwell doesn’t use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
* Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
* Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
* Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
* Ken Rockwell’s nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
* Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
* When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
* Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
* On Ken Rockwell’s desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine
* Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot “h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d”
* When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos
* For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.
* Ken Rockwell’s digital files consist of 0′s, 1′s AND 2′s.
* Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
* Ken Rockwell’s shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
* The term tripod was coined after his silhouette
* Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
* A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot “like a” rockwell
* Ken Rockwell isn’t the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
* Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues ”
For a technically superior , and unbiased review, go to http://www.sansmirror.com by Thom Hogan
Jean-Michel FITAMANT
10 months ago |Haha ! Very funny and very true about Ken.
sacklzement
10 months ago |To me it seems like he looked at the Amazon top-camera list and quickly put something together, very poorly I might say, in order to skim some bucks off the monies that are headed Fuji’s way now. He is quite savvy in marketing his schtick, and consequently doesn’t give a hoot what everybody says, as long as he can keep skimming. However, this most recent diatribe sounds totally desperate, almost comical, in a very sad way.
He’s a guy who doesn’t produce anything worthwhile but excels in grabbing a crumb from the cakes that other people have painstakingly put together.
Brandyn Fidel
10 months ago |If you paid close attention, Ken Rockwell pretty much took his Xpro1 review and replaced the words Xpro1 with XE-1, added the spec sheets and called it a day…some review.
hexx
10 months ago |This is a must see, it’s in Thai but it doesn’t matter as it’s a video. It’s a comparison between FW 1.1 and FW 2.0 on X-Pro1. It compares AF and also MF – big improvements in both:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PF4OMNQkmA
admin
10 months ago |Thanks! Will post this soon
hexx
10 months ago |you’re welcome – would be nice if there’s a Thai speaker who could shed more light to what’s discussed in the video. But video itself is quite self explanatory
John Smith
10 months ago |Fantastic clip. I understood everything in lieu of the fact that the narrative is in Thai. You are right, Hexx. BIG improvements in both focus categories. Thank you!
hexx
10 months ago |I just hope that they will release these improvements for X100 too (at least MF, please, pretty please)