It is not always easy to imagine in his head of development engineers, product managers and marketing experts of large corporations into it. Because sometimes be really good stuff "verschlimmbessert". But in the case of X30, it is something understandable: In my mind, had the predecessor of the X30, the X20, exactly three weaknesses. - Autofocus - Viewfinder - Battery And these weaknesses have also been the decision-makers at Fuji aware and have been addressed. However, I would like to get rid of any adulation and justify my vote with yet only 4 stars carefully. ----- I want to start by saying that today's cameras and somehow depending on the task are "good" all. Here, however, I do not want to leave it. Because the properties are very different. And the camera, which is a "good" for, is for another at most "satisfactory" because he has other requirements in the specification. ----- I have the X20 used as "Always with you" more than a year because my DSLR was simply too heavy with large light-strong (and quality) Standard Zoom (camera and lens more than 1.7 kg). Along with a 100 macro, a 200 Tele (F 2.8) and all other stuff dragged you look dead. And a camera that you do not have this because it is too difficult, was not helping a lot. With kids in tow it was finally too much. The X20 was small then the solution for a camera, but offers much pleasing almost nothing weighs. I have called a "Eierlegende wool milk sow" in my own Amazon review. And it has become dear to me. But then I also separated me from the X20 again - I gave it to my girlfriend and I went up about a year ago to the X-E2, which unites in my view, a lot of advantages. ----- Now I had a few hours borrowed an X30 with a friendly-minded friend and was able to go on without distractions Photo Tour. No children, no other cameras. Only the small X30. A Nachmittach may seem a bit short. The long study of the X20 and the roughly 10,000 shots with the Fuji X-E2 and the previous experience with the great Canon DSLR but I have received a quite a good comparison and was able to test and a lot of trying out reasonable bases for comparison. ----- Before working up the theme weaknesses: I I consider the improvements are not at the display to work up a weakness. I did not need the folding screen. The display in the X20 was completely ok. The extra weight and the enlargement of the housing through the really cool new display of the X30 would not have been worth it to me. But an increase is clearly before: the current proposal for small screen is really great. ----- And another issue on which I am not really sure if it's about the work-up of a weakness. I mean the picture quality. The previous picture quality I would really not be called weakness of the X20, you should have worked up with the X30. That's just what the picture quality of the X20 is too good in bright light. For this purpose the lens is doing its part, which is amazingly sharp and konstrastreich amazingly light and strong, especially over the entire zoom range. The objective has remained the same in the X30. However, the sensor is the same as in the X20 remains. And since it is confirmed that you can not outwit physics. The sensor is relatively small (Crop 4). This allows a small lens with large zoom range and comparatively very high light intensity. The picture quality is - unsurprisingly - remained the same except for nuances. Even at high magnification, the differences from the X20 are hardly noticeable. It seems to me before, as if homogeneous color surfaces in JPEG mode ("fine") slightly more natural and have more differentiation. Perhaps the software JPEG engine accesses still a bit more discreet than the X20? Maybe the noise reduction is set more cautious? In the RAW can be identified (for me as a layman without proper teaching or even engineering degree) no differences. It remains a really good image quality - with good lighting conditions. However, the image quality is weakening in low light something. From ISO 800 it shows a decline in contrast and in the details. And from ISO 1600 it roars but noticeably. The image result is a noticeable graininess. Will not such a graininess in the picture, then the result at magnifications from about 20 by 30 cm shall be reserved exclusively restricted. And I do not want to be misunderstood. The image quality is impressively well. However, there is just made by Fuji - if you're willing to lug a little more weight but again - better quality. What comforts me, however, that a LEICA in these orders of magnitude, despite the much larger (full-frame) sensors have long since given up (ISO more than 1,600). I expect a Fuji namely over from a LEICA that I look anyway overestimated was amazing, totally overpriced and technically backward. Although I see a real weakness in the image quality of X30 is not - the development of the X30 would be compared to the X20 only a quantum leap, though the sensor would have been larger and / or more efficiently by other constructive measures in low light. ----- From my perspective, the X30 has received as compensation for the lack of improvement in the (already in the X20 very ordinary) image quality a rotating ring on the lens. The manual focus is now much more obvious. Even when the manual focusing ring would miss a lot less often without such as in the X20, because through the viewfinder - something as explained below - the focussing errors will be much less, that is fun. Especially with photo series in which you want to take pictures quickly in succession, the manual focusing offers. ----- Now for the above-mentioned weaknesses of X20 and the development by the X30. - Autofocus and viewfinder have been bolstered with a single blow. By what effect whatsoever of the AF X30 is easy when focusing in AF mode more reliable. I'm guessing here a massive intervention in the firmware. Anyway, you have much less waste. This may on the one hand be that was reworked in the hardware or in the software. This may also be because the electronic viewfinder - I would like to personally place at least on a par with that of the X-E2 (!!!) and a really significant improvement in previous optical viewfinder is the X20, is really great. If you notice times that the AF has simply not set the focus to where you wanted it, you will not fire and re-focused. That does not happen often. But annoying focussing errors - as unfortunately it occurred repeatedly in the X20 - there is less. - Battery: Very nice that the runtime based on much larger batteries is much better now. Here I take the extra weight gladly accept. ----- A few observations: Really new is the subject of wireless. That makes sense if you want to get images from the camera from vacation on the Smartphone for example, to present at the table of the restaurant a first impression, or want vermailen images via email or Whatsapp. The new 360-degree panoramas: Who needs it, who gets now. I have not tried it. This also applies to the Multiple Exposure: That's what I tried once with the X-E2 and found that I do not need that. The "film emulsion" Classic Chrome has disappointed me. I had expected at the notice that would be attempted, the grand Kodakchrome to simulate 25 or 64 and that only the name "Kodak" had to be avoided for names for legal reasons. But if such a simulation was intentional, it is not managed. The slightly dull and washed out looking colors and the slight increase in contrast of "Classic Chrome" not seem to me easy. I rather have the impression that not FILM emulsion was copied, but the slightly washed out and faded-looking impression older (and yellowed) Newspapers should be imitated. As was achieved a kind retro look. Sorry, that's not my taste. Kondakchrome had vibrant colors, wonderful reds and certainly not such a bleached Touch. Or is the fact that many Kodakchrome slides "aged" and are designed to look and today nobody knows how Kodakchrome looked? Anyway: THE DA is no "Kodakchrome" emulsion. I have to I have to wait probably more ... ----- When evaluating I come to a total of 4 points. For 5 points me the picture quality is not enough, unfortunately, after all. I admit that I am in the process spoiled by the truly grandiose APS-C sensor camera the system X-en. And since you pay just over 700 euros more. Instead of 500 euros for the X30 700 Euro for the X-E2. And 500 euros for a reasonable objective. ----- Conclusion: Hopefully is there still a future stage of evolution for X40 "in" without distorting the special charm of the small compact camera. With a certain step in the sensor in the direction of higher image quality in low light conditions we would have the absolute perfect Always-In-Camera. According to the current state of technology is only going if you enlarged the sensor slightly. Perhaps towards MFT? Instead of a Crops of 4 towards a future Crops such only by 3 or even 2.5? If Fuji larger sensor, you would have again to do with physics. Then you will of course need to reshape the lens completely. So for me, I want to clarify that I would totally agree, if you had to live with the zoom range with a slight restriction. Instead of a (converted) focal length range from 28mm wide angle to 112mm telephoto (equivalent to KB) perhaps only a 3-fold zoom. My hope: Please get for the luminous intensity and excellent optical quality. ----- Buy recommendation? Yes immediately. The X30 does not go wrong. And wait for an X40 I would not. However, I'm pretty sure that the X30 will remain preserved for a long time. Because the properties are generally very good indeed. I probably would have made the transition to the X-E2 later if it had then been given the X30. But some air upwards is just left.
![Assassin's Creed 3 - Edition Bonus (100% uncut) - [PlayStation 3] (Video Game)](https://img.tgreer.com/thumb/85x85/5/39/539e1d08ec301b52.jpg)
