First Impressions: Using the Fujifilm X-Pro1

Buy on GearShop$1,199.006 deals
The Fujifilm X-Pro1 combines traditional rangefinder styling and handling with a 16MP APS-C sensor that features a newly-developed color filter array.

The Fujifilm X-Pro1 is the fourth entry in the company's enthusiast-oriented X-series lineup, following the fixed focal length, APS-C format FinePix X100, the Fujifilm X10 compact and the X-S1 premium superzoom. And while it inherits more than a few features from the X100 - though it notably lacks a built-in flash - the X-Pro1 sits well atop the X-series lineup in both specifications and price. It houses a 16MP APS-C sensor with a novel Fujifilm-designed color filter array that eliminates the need for an anti-aliasing filter, thereby promising sharper images compared to a conventional 16MP camera. It also has a brand new lens mount with an initial offering of three fast prime XF lenses. It has a street price of $1,700 / £1429 for the body only.

Just one look at the retro-styling and rangefinder-inspired controls of the X-Pro1 and it's obvious that Fujifilm is positioning the camera as more than just as a high-end mirrorless competitor. As the company told us back in January at the CES show, it sees the X-Pro1 as a vastly more affordable option to the Leica M9-P. The physical similarities between the two cameras are quite striking, as you can see in the comparison below.

The design and dimensions of the X-Pro1 closely mimic those of the Leica M9-P, yet the X-Pro1 body is 150g lighter, a difference that if anything feels even more pronounced when you pick up the cameras.

For those of us who began photography when film was king, the memory of Fujifilm's own rangefinder tradition is not so long past. And its worth remembering that the classic - and rather hefty - Fuji GW690 series models were lovingly referred to by many as 'Texas Leicas' (everything is 'bigger' in Texas). Understandably then, interest in the X-Pro1 among a certain breed of enthusiasts has been quite high.

Yet even the most loyal Fujifilm fan may have found their excitement about the X-Pro1 tempered by issues surrounding previous X-series releases. The well-documented 'white orbs' issue that has plagued the X10 has proven to be resistant to firmware updates, instead requiring a factory-modified sensor (which we've yet to be able to try out). Our in-depth review of the X100 - the first X-series model - includes an entire section devoted to quirks, eccentricities and outright bugs, some of which, even after multiple firmware updates, still take some of the shine off what is in many respects an outstanding camera.

The X-Pro1 (center) is the latest, and largest addition to Fujifilm's X-series camera lineup, which also includes the FinePix X100 (left) and the X10 (right).

One of the most pressing questions then is whether the X-Pro1 will suffer a similar fate, with its strengths being undermined by significant flaws. We won't have a definitive answer on this until we complete our thorough in-depth review of the camera's operation, performance and of course, image quality. 

That said, we've had an X-Pro1 for a short while, and I've had the opportunity to use it pretty intensively, as we gear up for a full review. In this article I'm going to share my experiences based on using the camera in a variety of real-world situations in order to give you a sense of what it's like to actually use this highly anticipated camera.

Specification highlights

  • 16 MP APS-C X-Trans CMOS sensor (without low-pass filter)
  • Hybrid viewfinder with focal length-based magnification in optical mode
  • Newly designed X-mount for XF lenses
  • Three fast prime lenses: 18mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4 and 60mm macro f/2.4 (28mm, 50mm and 90mm equivalents, respectively)
  • Maximum ISO of 25,600 (JPEG-only mode)
  • 3.0 inch 1,230,000 dot RGBW rear LCD
  • Adjustable AF frame size

Click here to continue to page 2 of our article, First Impressions: Using the Fujifilm X-Pro1

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

501
I own it
213
I want it
62
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Fujifilm X-Pro1

Comments

Total comments: 228
123
Topworktop
By Topworktop (Apr 4, 2012)

I have seen amazing "Fuji X pro1" samples on Scoop.it, don't think there is anything wrong with this sensor after seeing beautiful red tulips, (pre) wedding shots, long exposure times, street photography and many other great "real life"examples...

0 upvotes
JoeDaBassPlayer
By JoeDaBassPlayer (Apr 4, 2012)

They are both mirrorless, 16MP, APS C cameras of the same size. The K 01 is optimized more for video, has more smaller lenses available and focus peaking to help MF.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 4, 2012)

K-01 is a camera that looks like it is targeted at fashion-conscious, Hello Kitty-loving young women, while the X-Pro1 looks like it's targeted at more serious photographers who like a camera that looks more like a tool, rather than something that looks so whimsical and playful (some might say "toyish")l like the K-01.

0 upvotes
goosel
By goosel (Apr 4, 2012)

Was seriously considering buying one until i saw the samples. These samples are all quit mushy, colors especially red seem wrong. Something is missing. I was expecting a lot more from the new sensor sans AA filter. :(

Perhaps the raw converter(s) still need work.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

Did you download the raws yourself and convert them?

Most, though maybe not all, of the samples posted on the samples page started out as jpegs?

If you didn't download raws and extract them, there are a few at the end of page 5 for download; you can use the trialware version of Silkypix to extract them. And then comment.

NB: It is quite possible that Silkypix will not match the performance of the future ACR.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
goosel
By goosel (Apr 4, 2012)

Yes I did.

I'm not a silkypix expert, but even with exaggerated sharpness the pics are mushy and lack micro contrast and details are smeared. The iso 200 pic of the cherry blossoms is surprisingly noisy.

all in all very disappointing.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

goosel:

Thank you, many don't bother to look at raws here.

Just got the trialware of Silkypix and some of the raws on page 5, so I'll give them a look.

Silkypix is the raw converter that comes with the Panasonic LX5 and the Samsung NX100, both of which I own, and Silkypix is awful with those raws. So that may be the problem with this Fuji.

So in short: Wait for ACR and re-extract the same shots a a couple of months.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

goosel:

Well this new Silkypix is just as bad as the old one I've used. So for serious raw work, I'll wait for ACR (no, I won't bother with DXO or Corel/Bibble either though both are good bit better than Silkypix in my experience).

It's too bad, I don't know why perfectly respectable camera makers keep going with Silkypix; it's such awful software that it must detract from sales. I get the Panasonic LX5, because the Leica version came with Adobe Lightroom, but why on earth Fuji or Samsung would make this compromise is beyond me.

1 upvote
goosel
By goosel (Apr 4, 2012)

looks like we need some patience until other raw converters are available. Will defer my opinion till then.

1 upvote
abolit
By abolit (Apr 9, 2012)

+1
definitely wrong red color rendering! I couldn't believe my eyes. I recently bought some orchids for my wife , beautiful red orchids but they turned out to be pink on XP1 image. My wife was upset so was i. The camera definitely is coming back to retailer.

0 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Apr 4, 2012)

Very nice camera by the looks of it.

Kudos to Fuji.

1 upvote
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Apr 4, 2012)

OK Fuji...

NOW you're talking!

.

2 upvotes
rondom
By rondom (Apr 4, 2012)

This is for Fuji marketing people:
By omitting 35mm from the lens line, you may think you are helping the x100 sales, but in my case you have just lost a new customer.
I am not interested in X100 nor in Xpro1 without the 35mm.

0 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Apr 4, 2012)

It's on the lens roadmap for 2013, so boo hoo.

3 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (Apr 4, 2012)

Then you're one less person that we have to wait in line for to get this camera. Fuji didn't omit a 35mm lens, just as they didn't omit any other lens possibilities including zooms. They're just simply not available yet.

2 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Apr 5, 2012)

I have a 35mm lens on it right now, and it is great!

1 upvote
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Apr 4, 2012)

By the way, had a chance to play with one on Saturday and had my X100 with me (with 1.20 update). Was trying and comparing camera in the shop with not really greatly lit areas and AF on X-Pro1 is miles better.

Also focus ring on the 35mm lens doesn't need so many turns for manual focusing like X100. Camera is surprisingly light but it's very well made and solid.

This camera wasn't developed for F1 races but for street/travel/portrait - and when it comes to these subjects AF is more than capable.

I'd suggest you to look at various user reports, there's quite a few of them.

0 upvotes
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Apr 4, 2012)

Your following words sound as those of a fan club participant, not as a formal reviewer at DPReview:

" Our first impressions are very positive though, and I hope this article will reassure and encourage anyone that has been watching the X-series and waiting for Fujifilm to 'get it right'."

Your use of the word 'hope' indicates your bias toward Fuji.

Your use of the word 'encourage' confirms the validity of my remarks posted here.

Oh well, what a shame to see DPReview take this road.

2 upvotes
voz
By voz (Apr 4, 2012)

Fan this, fan that. I think we all need to relax.

7 upvotes
John Carson
By John Carson (Apr 4, 2012)

What nonsense you speak.

People who care about photography are always hoping that every camera maker produces something brilliant. Fuji has been showing potential of late, but falling down somewhat when it comes to quality control and detailed implementation. Accordingly, lot of people have been approaching this camera with a mixture of hope and fear. Amadou is suggesting that Fuji has done a pretty good job, which is good news for every camera lover.

12 upvotes
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Apr 4, 2012)

I am not speaking 'nonsense'.

Please wake up for your own sake.

This guy is supposed to be a reviewer.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 4, 2012)

After years reading reviews, would you easily rely on those words? I think he was fair as possible, with positives and negatives. After all, this is not even their standard review.

2 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (Apr 4, 2012)

This is a "first impressions", not a formal tech review. A big difference.

Fuji has entered the market with a camera that is filling a void that's been left open since the Contax G2 and is also a camera that competes with Leica's pricey M9 at a fraction of the price. As photographers, we should all want Fuji to succeed since it simply gives us more equipment options and brings many of us closer to the ideal camera that so far has yet to exist. ...perhaps until now.

It's not about being a fan, it's about wanting Fuji to succeed since they are the only option currently on the market. If Fuji doesn't succeed were back to square one with nothing.

3 upvotes
goosel
By goosel (Apr 4, 2012)

Samples don't measure up to the words of the review.

0 upvotes
DeMaatin
By DeMaatin (Apr 4, 2012)

Hm.
The imagery ain't bad at all, but the few landscape pics didn't exactly knock my socks off thus far.
My 5D classic does a better job, with strong AA filter, and my brother's D700 exceeds as well.
The equation "APS-C + unusual color mosaic - AA filter == FF or better" doesn't work to my eyes, and I have close examined many of the full-sized samples.
Maybe it was just the photographer, or processing?
Anyway, those picture samples are leaving something to be desired, at least to me. Even my T2i did better during my last vacation!
Don't know. Is it my eyes?

3 upvotes
Barbu
By Barbu (Apr 4, 2012)

Indeed, what I see in the sample (page 5) is exactly the opposite of what the autor wrote: <<Individual blades of grass are distinguishable as opposed to being rendered simply as an undefined green mush.>>
Umm... Hello? Are we looking at different pics? It's as mushy as it can be, reminding me of older Panasonic compacts!
Of course nobody should judge until a capable raw converter is used, but the written review is just pushing and pulling qualities that simply don't exist!

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

DeMaatin:

So you downloaded the raws from DPReview and downloaded and installed the latest Silkypix to use for raw extraction I assume?

0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 4, 2012)

@Barbu,
If you've got a compact camera (of any brand) that renders grass detail at infinity anywhere near to this degree, I'll buy it from you.

4 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 4, 2012)

I think they have a point, the randomness of their CFA kinda reduces resolution if we think about it. As a whole it's equivalent to having the effect of a low pass filter only probably weaker which explains quite sharper judgement by DPR people. The only advantage is Fuji gets away with the cost of the AA filter.

0 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (Apr 4, 2012)

Really, all this banter about image quality is non-sense until we get the Adobe RAW conversion software for the Xpro1. Then we can actually make some direct comparisons and really see what is possible. Silkypix is far from the ideal and jpeg is a very poor basis to compare anything with when were talking RAW capable cameras. So far I've been pretty impressed by the image quality I've seen.

1 upvote
mjl699
By mjl699 (Apr 5, 2012)

Images from the X-Pro1 at 100% show no blur for portions of the shot that are stationary and in focus. This can be seen on the samples here. Look at the 5DIII samples at 100% and some blur CAN be seen at 100%.

0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Apr 4, 2012)

I recently bought the x100 in spite of all the 'camera forum experts' negative commentary about it's poor autofocus and all it's problems... And it was one of the best gear buying decisions I've ever made. The AF is extremely capable(even for fast moving subjects). And the firmware updates just keep improving it. Since acquiring the x100, my dslr's haven't seen the light of day & I'm in no hurry to get the xpro-1. Eventually I'll pick one up.
By all reports I've read, the xpro-1's AF is faster than the x100(and will get faster with fw updates). Of course it will be a problem for some, but doesn't make me shy away one bit.
As for manual focusing- I wouldn't bother with the Fuji fly-by-wire lenses. I'll just mount Leica, Contax, Zeiss or Pentax FA ltds((43mm & 77mm), end of story.
So for me- AF speed: not a problem. Manual focus: not a problem. Image quality, High ISO, size, build & price: definitely not a problem.
Looks: better than anything out there(except Leica).

1 upvote
JimP101
By JimP101 (Apr 4, 2012)

I think the manual focus problem is more to do with the difficulty of focussing when the lens automatically stops down to a smaller stop than you want to shoot at. Have you tried it at say f8 - almost impossible. The GH2 I have is a joy to focus manually. I'm sure they will sort this out though

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Apr 4, 2012)

The main problem with this lenses is that fuji is not FF, it's good for portait and distant shots, not for landscape. I wonder why fuji choose to make an APS-C, the camera is as bulky as the leica.

1 upvote
JimP101
By JimP101 (Apr 4, 2012)

Not sure I follow your logic here. The APS sensor has more depth of field at any given f-stop then FF, which I should have thought in general would be MORE useful for landscape and less useful for portraits.

0 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (Apr 4, 2012)

FF is more useful for landscapes because you generally have wider lenses available. Not for any other reason. As a format it doesn't make much of a difference. It's more about the selection of glass than anything else. If Fuji releases an ultra wide 10mm with minimal distortion, then the camera will be great for landscapes as well.

I certainly wish the Xpro1 was a FF camera, but I can live with APS-C.

0 upvotes
raincoat
By raincoat (Apr 4, 2012)

Do you really need that many pages for a first impressions?

3 upvotes
Dan
By Dan (Apr 4, 2012)

I appreciate this first impression that DPR posted.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Fons Rademakers
By Fons Rademakers (Apr 4, 2012)

I've the M8.2 (+summilux 35mm, elmarit 24mm, ...) and it drives me nuts. I bought it for street and travel work, but I always end up in situations where 640ISO is not enough (any ISO setting higher is absolutely unusable) and of course I'm spoiled by my Nikon D3 high ISO capabilities. Also the default color/tone is magenta-ish and not really pleasant (luckily Aperture helps a lot correcting this). Bad moire, due to no low pass filter. The batteries are archaic and last only a few hours (and during a recent shoot at -8C not more than 15m). Of course, it is beautifully built and the lenses are the best. Therefore I jumped on the X-Pro1 (hopefully finally coming this week) in desperation, innovative sensor with top high ISO capability fixing most of the M shortcomings. I also ordered the M adapter so I can use my M glass. I am sure Fuji will address most shortcomings in firmware updates (MF focus peaking, etc, etc). Wait and hope.

1 upvote
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (Apr 4, 2012)

That's pretty much the reason I've never bought an M8 or an M9 for that matter. Neither was exactly perfect, although I've almost pulled the trigger on an M9 many times. ISO 2500 just doesn't do it.

1 upvote
alenevaa
By alenevaa (Apr 4, 2012)

to Amadou Diallo.
>> The XF 35mm lens produces luscious bokeh that is almost completely
circular, as this example shot close-up at f/4 demonstrates.

You admire by luscious bokeh of XF 35mm lens.
But the example shot with a different lens. (Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 Macro)
Just check EXIF!

3 upvotes
Zamac
By Zamac (Apr 4, 2012)

Strange. I saw that also, but now the exif for the in-review image has vanished and in the full image the lens info is not being recorded meaningfully (exif 2.30 standard).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
tl2012
By tl2012 (Apr 4, 2012)

Was going to pickup this camera with the 35mm lens. It would cost me about $2300, but instead found a used Leica M8 w/Voigtlander 40mm F1.4 for $2400 altogether. Don't know how this camera handles, but it definitely has more features and maybe even better low light. Looking at some of the sample pictures from the x-pro 1 here, they don't impress me much. I know it really depends on what you're shooting, but is there any Leica M8 shooters that would prefer the x-pro 1 over the M8? Just curious?

1 upvote
samhain
By samhain (Apr 4, 2012)

"maybe better in low light"? There's no maybe about it. M8 starts to suck over iso 640. Fuji xpro-1 looks awesome up to iso 6400. Big difference between 640 & 6400.
And you can mount that Voigtlander and any other m mount to it. There's even a review out there by a Leica guy who says focussing Leica lenses is better/easier on the xpro-1 using evf than on the native M9 in low light. And that's kind of a big deal...

4 upvotes
tl2012
By tl2012 (Apr 4, 2012)

Can you give the link of the guy that reviewed the Leica lens on the X-pro 1, I wanna check him out? I am really thinking about picking up the Fuji, if not then a Nex-7. My local camera store does not have a demo one yet.

0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Apr 4, 2012)

@ tl2012 here ya go- http://www.f8photography.com.hk/blog/2012/03/hyperprime1/

0 upvotes
tl2012
By tl2012 (Apr 5, 2012)

Wow! Interesting! Thanks!

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Apr 4, 2012)

Random thought: For the same cost as a X-Pro1 and one lens you can buy a GF670.

2 upvotes
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (Apr 4, 2012)

GF in a heartbeat!

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Apr 4, 2012)

What it clearly needs, then, is a rangefinder. It could be mechanical, or some electronic gizmo, but to have these beautiful lenses that you can't easily focus manually with the OVF basically takes this system out of the game as far as I am concerned.

1 upvote
JoeDaBassPlayer
By JoeDaBassPlayer (Apr 4, 2012)

Hmmmmm. This camera reminds me of a similar quality camera that was not so favorably previewed, especially because of its size.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#258,285

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Apr 4, 2012)

Having handled both, while the X-Pro1 does feel "big" (think Lumix LC-5 big) it is far more pleasant to hold and operate than the K-01.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 4, 2012)

I don't think the viewfinderless, toy-looking K-01 has anything in common with the X-Pro1.

2 upvotes
JoeDaBassPlayer
By JoeDaBassPlayer (Apr 4, 2012)

They are both mirrorless, 16MP cameras of similar size. The K 01 is set up better for video. The Fuji is set up like an old film camera.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

T3:

Well the Pentax K-01 has a stunningly fast autofocus. Takes many lenses, including modern Zeiss manual focus ones.

No, they're not really competitors, but I think Pentax may be on to something with being able to use so many lenses. And with the Pentax I actually like having the thick body to grab. (Pentax was silly to not provide some possibility of an EVF.)

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 5, 2012)

I'd hardly say that the K-01's AF is "stunningly fast." Besides, in the near future, I think a lot of other DSLRs are going to lose the mirror as well, and the K-01 will just be a footnote in history.

Plus, there are plenty of other cameras that take "many lenses." In fact, Canon EOS bodies can actually take more lenses than the Pentax K bodies because the EOS mount has a shorter lens registration distance than the K mount (Canon EOS= 44mm, Pentax K= 45.46mm). That means more lenses from more systems can be adapted to a Canon EOS body using adapters than the Pentax K-01. So if there was any company that was "onto something with being able to use so many lenses", it was Canon when they introduced the EOS mount in 1987. I think they purposely chose a short lens registration distance (shorter than most other camera systems at that time) so their bodies could accommodate other lenses.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (Apr 4, 2012)

What I cannot understand is why Canon and Nikon don't make a range finder style camera that will take all their legacy MF lenses.

There's obviously a huge market for it, especially among photo enthusiasts who often have more than one camera.

Such a camera would not impact their DSLR sales so what are they worried about?

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Apr 4, 2012)

Canon's 'legacy MF lenses' = the FD system. And I suspect that designing a mirrorless digital camera around a lens mount that's been defunct for 25 years might not be the smartest decision...

3 upvotes
jkokich
By jkokich (Apr 4, 2012)

I am so waiting for that camera!

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 4, 2012)

There's a "huge market" for a camera that can use Canon's FD lenses?!? For a lens system that hasn't been in the market for 25 years? Who the heck is still using, or still owns, Canon FD lenses? That is definitely not a "huge market". It's a practically non-existent market. That's why Canon isn't going to make a camera for their long-dead FD lens system: hardly anyone would buy such a camera.

On top of that, what's the point of designing and marketing a camera for a lens system that you no longer support, and no longer make lenses for? It's just not enough to make money off of the camera body; you also want to make money off of lens sales, which Canon would obviously not be doing since they no longer make or sell FD lenses. The same goes for Nikon and their manual focus lenses.

Besides, I don't think many of those ancient, out-dated film lenses would hold up too well to today's high resolution sensors. Today's users expect better.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Apr 4, 2012)

Rangefinder or "rangefinder-style" (aka mirrorless)?

Because Pentax has just done the latter. Look it up.

For the former, you have to figure out how to implement the "rangefinding" business with lenses that do not report the focus distance back to the camera. (only Nikon AF-D and later do) It's doable with a PD sensor, but that brings you back to a mirror again, at which point you might as well be using a TTL finder, aka a dSLR.

0 upvotes
ssssnake
By ssssnake (Apr 4, 2012)

I am a long-time Canon user with a bunch of FD manual focus lenses. I use them (with a Novoflex adapter) on my Olympus PEN micro 4/3 cameras. They work great. The 85mm f:1.2 in particular makes a great low-light telephoto lens for a m4/3 camera. When I switched to digital, I thought about selling my FD lenses. Now, I'm glad that I didn't. m4/3 has given them a new utility.

0 upvotes
eyedo
By eyedo (Apr 4, 2012)

After owning 3 Fuji mediocre cameras I am not sure I can ever trust them again.

Most recent experience was the ORB ORB ORB Fuji X10...Previously had a Fuji X100,lousy macro,stuck shutter blades...

Fuji FZ150 or something like that a few years ago..Every single scene outside was lined in purple or green fringe!

One of my main stock photo agencies has Fuji on their Unacceptable camera list..Too bad they don't iron out their issues before they release a camera!

1 upvote
Dan
By Dan (Apr 4, 2012)

My last excellent Fuji purchase was the S602Z. Their cameras have gone downhill as far as I'm concerned. The S6000fd was an "almost great" camera, and I really like what they tried to do with the S5 Pro (I wish they hadn't stopped at the S5), but I really wish that Fuji would come out with something worthy to compete against Canon, Nikon and Sony both in DSLRs and compacts. I really, really like how Fuji does color (more so with the S2 Pro than the S5 Pro - the S5 Pro lost most of that special Fuji color touch). But I'm thinking that unless they come up with some serious advances in AF and movie mode, this won't happen any time soon. =(

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Apr 4, 2012)

It does produce pretty good photos, but way to get there will drive you nuts.. This camera buyer needs quite a bit of money and much more patience. Sure, Fuji will fix some issues eventually, but for example build quality wont be this case..

Rather buy NEX-5N, much less problems, much more camera for that price (or NEX-7 if you really need a lot of mpix).

1 upvote
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Apr 4, 2012)

re: NEX-5N - and sh!t controls and you need to buy EVF

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

hexxthalion:

And crap native lenses for the Nex series cameras.

Sorry Sonyy G lens defenders, only certain lens batches appear to be any good. (Hint Sony knows which are the good batches and supplies lenses from those batches to camera reviewers.)

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Apr 4, 2012)

Yes, you need to buy EVF, but NEX-5N + EVF will be still cheaper than X-Pro 1 and its much better EVF.

About crappy controls. Well NEX-5N is improved in this department and personaly I need it just to set shutter speed and ISO (and perhaps exposure compensation). F-stops and focusing is on the lens. :D

And crap native lens? Well, I wouldnt say Zeiss lens crap.. Point of NEX is that it can take any lens, not just native. And Sony helped that a lot in 5N.

Can you focus Leica M lens on X-Pro 1 without problems? Can you use Canon L? Nikon G? Contax G? I doubt that.

Thats why NEX is better, cause it gives you possibilities, not limitations.. (you can apply same to certain extent on Samsung NX, m4/3s and Ricoh M-mount module).

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

Mescalamba:

There is one native Zeiss for the Nex cameras. Perhaps you'd have a point if there were four or five.

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Apr 4, 2012)

Or the Samsnug nx200, with a good line of pancake and some zoom. Only missing native bright lenses. But you can buy adapter for canon/nikon and other for few bucks.

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Apr 4, 2012)

@Mescalamba

"About crappy controls. Well NEX-5N is improved in this department and personaly I need it just to set shutter speed and ISO (and perhaps exposure compensation). F-stops and focusing is on the lens. :D"

- fuji gives you direct access to all exposure controls you need - you don't have to turn camera on to see what your settings are

"Can you focus Leica M lens on X-Pro 1 without problems? Can you use Canon L? Nikon G? Contax G? I doubt that."

- yes, KIPON announced adapters for all mounts you've mentioned, Fuji will release M mount adapter. when it comes to focusing, various reports suggested it's all good but everybody would welcome 'focus peaking' - we never know, maybe Fuji will update FW to include it, but I fully agree that when it comes to Manual focus aids, Sony has an edge here

"Thats why NEX is better, cause it gives you possibilities, not limitations.."

- that's subjective - lack of direct controls is a limitation for me

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

spidermoon:

I think that F/2.0 30mm Samsung lens is bright, and at some point the F/1.4 85 will ship.

The 85mm does actually exist, though Samsung seems to be moving lens production to China.

There are also rumored photos of a Samsung NX20 which showed up about 3 weeks ago on the web.

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Apr 4, 2012)

This concept has a lot of potential. Maybe the X Pro 2 will fix the auto-focus, the manual focus, the aperture blades and some of the other quirks. .... I can't wait.

1 upvote
ahoeflak
By ahoeflak (Apr 4, 2012)

Love this camera. The sharpness, esp with 50mm equiv lens, is unsurpassed by anything else in its price range. Just hanging out for LR4 support...

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
burnymeister
By burnymeister (Apr 4, 2012)

Pretty much sums up my experience with the camera. I even managed to take it out on a glacier tour already with the 18 and 35mm lenses. See http://explor8ion.com/ski/habel.html for details.

Tomorrow is my birthday and I'm pretty sure there's a 60mm in there somewhere... :-)

0 upvotes
Poss
By Poss (Apr 3, 2012)

Played a bit with one of these last weekend at my local Henry's. After becoming accustomed lugging a fully decked D3s all day long, the little Fuji seems like it should be able to float in midair...

AF seemed quite OK and loved to have an aperture ring to fiddle with.

Nice camera, the first in years I'm really getting excited about.

3 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (Apr 3, 2012)

Image quality seems very good ... but not earth-shattering. Probably a bit overpriced given the competition out there that is less expensive and yet offers equally good imaging.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

You extracted the raws?

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Apr 3, 2012)

Superb image quality in the Fujifilm tradition but when are they going to give us a real practical CSC.

Cheers

0 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (Apr 3, 2012)

am i the only one to not like the x-pro's design, particularly the grip? it looks like a patch sewn onto the body.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 3, 2012)

Unfortunately, I think that was the point. I think it would have gone against the aesthetic retro theme to have made a contoured grip molded into the front body plate. That would have been sacrilege. I think the point was, indeed, to make it look like a flat-front rangefinder body with a grip patched onto it.

Clearly, Fuji was pretty slavish to the retro theme. After all, they did use a faux self-timer lever to switch between optical and electronic viewfinder modes! And they put the AF-assist LED light exactly where the rangefinder triangulation window would be! So they obviously would not have wanted to give the front body plate a modern-looking molded-in grip. Just be thankful that they gave the camera a grip at all.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
chopsteeks
By chopsteeks (Apr 4, 2012)

Contax might sue for copying the Contax G2 body design

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Apr 4, 2012)

If Contax wasnt dead for some time, tho there are rights to their design somewhere.. And Contax G2 actually looked (and worked) nicely. Which cant be said about X-Pro 1.

1 upvote
SnapHappy32
By SnapHappy32 (Apr 4, 2012)

Kyocera has the rights to the brand Contax.

Chops - when was the last time you saw a G2?

It looks very little like the G2. Something's defintely missing on the front, the shutter- and exp comp dial are reversed...

But the flash... Doesn't it remind you of the TLA200?

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 3, 2012)

What beautiful image quality. If only the camera were within my price range!

4 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm not impressed by the X-Pro. Yet again Fuji has demonstrated it's inability to provide cutting edge AF and saddled the camera with a number ergonomic quirks that render it a curiosity at best. Some of the points highlighted beggar belief, that Fuji could get it so wrong. They've always had the IQ, but they can't make a complete package IMO and their FW sucks. And don't get me started on Sillypix, it's plain terrible to use and it's output is mediocre for detail and colour.

Let's put this sensor in an OM-D and use the NEX-7 EVF for the best camera available.

0 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Apr 3, 2012)

You have to compare it to it's main competitor the Leica M9 - the most overrated camera (body, not lenses) in history - and in that case the Fuji kills it. And in all honest at any ISO gives the FF kings at Canon and Nikon a good toweling. Still dont like the design much though and probably agree with most of your other complaints.

Cheers

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Apr 4, 2012)

You might call it "getting it wrong", but clearly Fuji wanted to "get it" to look, feel, and handle like an old-school rangefinder camera, ergonomic quirks and all. Maybe Fuji was a bit slavish to the retro theme, but I don't think this is a camera meant for everyone. Some will love it, some will hate it. C'est la vie.

1 upvote
Dan
By Dan (Apr 4, 2012)

I don't like the "old" rangefinder look. The Leica market can't be that big. They should modernize the camera and target those interested in cameras like the Sony NEX-7 or Nikon D7000. They should be able make much more money that way.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 4, 2012)

@Dan, first of all, the "Leica market" isn't "that big" because a Leica M9 is $7000! There are no inexpensive Leica-esque options-- at least not until now with the X-Pro1.

Secondly,you're forgetting the "boutique" factor that comes with making a Leica-esque camera. It allows them to charge more for these cameras, attracts a higher end buyer, and sell each camera for a bigger profit. The profit margin on mass-market cameras like the NEX-7 and D7000 have a much lower profit margin. Secondly, by positioning their camera as a "boutique" camera is that they don't have to compete directly with an NEX-7 or D7000. So in many ways, it was a smart move for Fuji. Rather than jumping into the crowded, mass-market area of the market, they are targeting the more premium market.

1 upvote
photoshutter
By photoshutter (Apr 3, 2012)

This camera is slow in operation, has too many buttons, short battery life, off center tripod mount, impossible to change battery/card when on tripod, no real manual focus, low reliability, has "Pro" on paper, but not really.

2 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Apr 3, 2012)

After watching how slow the Fuji focus-by-wire lenses are to operate in manual focus mode, I can't see where this camera fits into a street/travel camera role. AF performance is poor for a 2012 camera. Manual focusing is poor too. Even if the MF assist can be fixed in firmware, can the turn-turn-turn slow rate of manual focus in the Fuji lenses be fixed too?

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Apr 3, 2012)

But how fast does focus really need to be for street/travel photography? I think the AF should be sufficient for that type of photography. Not fast enough for shooting fast action, but I think it should be fine for street/travel. Plus, the old stand-by for street photography is zone focusing or pre-focusing.

I don't think this camera is really meant to be a blazing fast camera. It's definitely a throw-back camera to an age of slower shooting. Take it or leave it, I guess.

2 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Apr 3, 2012)

Guys love your reviews but subject of your samples after you moved from London to Seattle....so depressing. Seattle just cannot be compared to London when it comes to picture taking. You are running of ideas there. Can't you guys ask remaining people in London to take sample photos for you. Seattle is boring.

5 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 3, 2012)

OK...but most of the street shots were taken in Washington, DC.

5 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Apr 3, 2012)

the portrait samples are excellent, high ISO performance is stunning

4 upvotes
designdef
By designdef (Apr 3, 2012)

This may be a great camera but... it is badly let down by it's 'retro-rangefinder' styling. What is it with the Japanese? Designers are being churned out of educational establishments by the million and all Fujifilm can come up with is more 'I wanna look like a Leica'. This has just go to stop, put your faith in new and talented designers, stop churning out this retro rubbish, create a product that is worthy of the technology inside! (please:)

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 3, 2012)

Well, conversely, there are a lot of "I wanna look like a melted soap bar" cameras out there. Besides, it's not as if there are tons of cameras with this "retro-rangefinder" styling. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about. It's actually rather unique in the market. Your point might have a bit more validity if every camera looked like the X-Pro1. But clearly, that is not the case.

However, it's clear that Fuji was very intent on making a retro-style camera-- maybe to a fault. Nevertheless, there's certainly room for it in the market. After all, how many other cameras are there that are like it? Not everyone can afford to spend $7000 for a Leica M9.

2 upvotes
scott_mcleod
By scott_mcleod (Apr 4, 2012)

You mean like Pentax did with the K-01? (cough-cough)

2 upvotes
fad
By fad (Apr 3, 2012)

So it's not as crazy as my Xl100, it's just that MF is lousy and AF is not for moving things.

That's all I need to know.

0 upvotes
Denton Taylor
By Denton Taylor (Apr 3, 2012)

I'd really love to buy this camera. But my budget has gone to the 5D mkiii. Maybe next year!

1 upvote
Richard Ettinger
By Richard Ettinger (Apr 3, 2012)

As an X100 owner, I am extremely disappointed in the XPRO. The auto focus issues outweigh the new sensor design.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 3, 2012)

I love the Fuji film emulation settings. Fuji vs Kodak. Wow, what a difference in companies. If Kodak weren't so inept, it could have been Kodak producing this kind of camera, with Kodak film emulation modes (Kodachrome mode, etc.).

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

Except after about 1945 Kodak never really took up making highend consumer cameras. Maybe for the military.

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Apr 3, 2012)

I've had the camera and all the lenses for 2 weeks and am enjoying it tremendously as a highly competent lightweight alternative to the D3s based kit I use for the majority of my work.

I agree with your comment about fast lens changes being a challenge - something I have pointed out on the forum here. If the hoods locked in place, they could provide useful real estate for this, but all that happens is that you end up removing the hood! The rectangular lens caps are the least effective solutions that could have been devised!

I detest the aperture blade chatter and would love to disable that. CAF is also a little unreliable so would like to see some improvement . The exposure compensation dial needs a lock - it moves when going in and out of the bag quite often, which can result in quickly grabbed shots being wrongly exposed

Other than that, IMV probably the best camera available of it's type. I do not regard the M9 as a comparable really - pointlessly expensive and not AF.

3 upvotes
louie c
By louie c (Apr 3, 2012)

I really want to love this camera, I have been so excited for Fujifilm ever since the X100. Handling the camera was great but I couldn't get over the clumsy operation and slow AF. Still waiting, wanting to get a good trial on this system before finally getting a NEX-7 and start building the compact system based on Sony instead. Big problem, people look great with "rangefinderesque" cameras because they smile at the retro look and feel...

0 upvotes
mjl699
By mjl699 (Apr 3, 2012)

I have an X-Pro1 and it is very very good. Most oustanding feature: image quality. Simply superb. I have another 16MP camera where the anti-aliasing filter is retained, and at 100% crop its very clear that the Fuji retains a lot more detail. At more sensible image sizes the Fuji's output just comes across as subtly intagibly better.

There is the odd --minor-- issue with performance. One is the buffer fills up very fast with high speed continuous shooting. You only get about two seconds worth at 6FPS. Another is that when using manual A and T with auto ISO, the camera overexposes quite a lot. Perhaps I am doing something wrong?

Like cesaregal below, I love this camera. I have waited a long time to be able to get a camera that produces results comparable or better than slide film. This is it. Good job Fujifilm.

7 upvotes
malevopfgm
By malevopfgm (Apr 3, 2012)

Wow !!!, it's just me or it outresolves the D800 detail ?, I've just compared the portrait samples from both and I can see the same detail, just check the reflection in the eyes.

7 upvotes
wadap0
By wadap0 (Apr 4, 2012)

I think it's you.

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Apr 4, 2012)

No it cant. Even tho its more 16 mpix than most other 16 mpix cameras, its still just 16 mpix. Only thing that can do this is Sigma SD1.

But only on base ISO. :D

1 upvote
Andrew Higgins
By Andrew Higgins (Apr 3, 2012)

Fuji are to be applauded for creating their range of high quality X cameras. While the Leica M9 undoubtedly has a certain cachet, and very fine lenses (at a very high price), surely it is the X-Pro 1 that really delivers, and a t a more realistic price too?
For photographers who want to work with an alternative to a dSLR, this must be The camera of the moment. And just think what the X-Pro2 might be like?!

2 upvotes
Poss
By Poss (Apr 3, 2012)

How about a FF Fuji sensor in a M (10?) series camera?

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Apr 4, 2012)

Leica likes quality sensors, Fuji struggles to create anything with quality under 10k USD.

(Im talking about "true" Fuji lens which are quality, their mainstream products arent).

1 upvote
JimGreen80000
By JimGreen80000 (Apr 5, 2012)

Are u sure?
i got a new site that have lots of photography equipment,and cheap
http://www.gladsbuy.com.
Leica and Fuji.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 3, 2012)

Thanks for the RAWs, too bad about Silkypix only, hope that changes in then next month.

0 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Apr 3, 2012)

I love this camera:
a) fast prime lenses
b) hybrid viewfinder
c) very fine general results (details, colours)
d) very fine portrait results
e) acceptable jpgs.
Good choices:
1) first prime lenses and after .. zoom lenses
2) no low-pass filter
3) sturdy and simple body.

2 upvotes
TEBnewyork
By TEBnewyork (Apr 3, 2012)

Thanks - great preview with a good information on important functionality but more importantly your perspective on how well it delivers.

Mine is in transit right now and I'm really looking forward to getting out shooting with it. I'm really happy with the type of cameras Fuji is making with the X lineup. Kudos to Fuji for thinking about the enthusiast market.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 3, 2012)

I'd love to see this CFA on something like the D800 or A900 sensor. Unfortunately, I doubt that will ever happen.

Fuji has, as they often do, made something rather interesting, but of limited use to most people. I predict it will hit shelves and then drop in price 50% within a year. That is the Fuji way with digital gear. (with these X things being the only exceptions so far)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 3, 2012)

Except that the Fuji X100 is still selling for $1200 in the USA, just like last year, so there's a hole in your theory on Fuji pricing.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 3, 2012)

...re-read the very last line of what I wrote. The X models buck the trend, but Fuji's digital cameras generally have sold for less than half of MSRP within the first year.

I seriously suspect that the sustained prices have had to do with poor supply.

I'm not knocking any of it as bad gear, just noting a very clear trend in pricing and feature choices.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 3, 2012)

micahmedia:

Okay, I see where you wrote that, but I still don't understand why you'd make claims about Fuji price decreases knowing full well that the claim would be untrue for X series cameras while at these same time commenting on an X series camera.

How about instead: X series Fujis seem to hold their retail price, unlike other Fuji digital cameras. Maybe the X series cameras will finally drop in price a bit in the next 12 months, I'll have to wait and see.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 5, 2012)

That would be an incorrect statement too. The X models haven't been available long enough or in decent supply long enough to have a clear picture. I said they're holding better than usual for now. Once supply meets demand, we'll see.

I'm sure that Fuji is capable of making some superb gear, and they have in the past. However, most people on the market for a digital camera consider Fuji a cheap also ran.

Don't get me wrong, I really like a lot of things about this Fuji. The price is not one of them, and I don't think anything I've seen yet justifies it.

Time will tell, and the proof of the pudding will be in the tasting. (my tasting, not DPR's)

0 upvotes
Bastian Junker
By Bastian Junker (Apr 3, 2012)

I can't understand why people keep saying that x100 has so many oddities. I think it's quite easy to handle, it took me about half hour to figure out how it works. Afterwards I looked through the manual and founded some great tips to make some shortcuts.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 3, 2012)

How about that autofocus?

1 upvote
eopix
By eopix (Apr 3, 2012)

Sold mine. Manual focus unusable. And the camera is s l o w.

0 upvotes
Michael Kaufman
By Michael Kaufman (Apr 3, 2012)

Agreed.The X100 is the most fun camera I have ever used. Great pictures and a great form factor. Does it have a few minor quirks? Certainly. Big deal. Every camera I have ever used does.

While I never used the MF (Because I stopped MFing about 20 years ago), the AF worked perfectly well for me.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 3, 2012)

Good to read the you're not having particular problems with the autofocus on the X100. However autofocus has not been a reliable attribute of that camera.

No sure about that 20 yeas of af only work; 20 years ago autofocus wasn't considered really reliable. Just look at Canon's recent 5D one and two for examples of weak af.

0 upvotes
Slobodan Blagojevic
By Slobodan Blagojevic (Apr 3, 2012)

Why is this thing and its lenses as big as its full-frame counterpart!?

2 upvotes
mpbrada
By mpbrada (Apr 4, 2012)

Let's see...The M9 is MF only, does not have the hybrid VF, shoots 2 fps max and costs 5 times as much ( for both the body and the lenses). I imagine Fuji could compete with Leica if they wanted to make a camera body that costs $8k, but they decided to price it within the reach of poor schmucks like me.

I do love that this camera is being compared to Leica, though. You can get the camera and all three lenses for less than the price of a single Leica lens, never mind the body, and yet people are clamoring to compare it to the M9. More power to Fuji. I'm sure there are no Leica owners quaking in their boots out there, as there is no way that this camera will be able to out Leica a Leica. It looks to be an interesting entrant into the market, though, and I, for one, am looking forward to getting mine.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 4, 2012)

Some Leica lenses cause vignetting wide-open in exchange for smaller and lighter lenses.

0 upvotes
what_i_saw
By what_i_saw (Apr 3, 2012)

Well I can't buy it. Wish it all the success. There has to be something for people who can't have a Leica. This I guess will be the closest.
Kudos to Fuji for churning up the field.
Canon and Nikon, learn something.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 3, 2012)

This Fuji well best the M9 at high ISOs, easily.

The lack of high iso performance is a big draw back with the M9.

0 upvotes
Jim King
By Jim King (Apr 3, 2012)

Is performance at high ISOs your main criterion for selecting a camera? I don't know about you, but most of my shooting is at ISOs of 1200 or less, and the M9 perform very well there, thank you. On the occasional times I need to go higher, Noiseware Pro is my friend.

Let's wait to compare shots at low ISO where most of us shoot before burying the M9...

0 upvotes
floydsummerhayes
By floydsummerhayes (Apr 3, 2012)

+1 Jim I think its time some of these people who are obsessed with silly high ISOs learn't how to use a camera.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 3, 2012)

If a camera produced acceptable results at 25,600 ISO, I'd use it. With action, if you can stop down, you can worry less about nailing focus and concentrate more on the important things like framing and exposure.

The fact that this camera doesn't offer higher than 6400 ISO in raw mode is just silly.

Just because YOU don't know how to use a feature doesn't mean it's useless. High ISOs have a place.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 3, 2012)

Jim King:

You can't shoot in low light with a M9, even with a Noctilux.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 3, 2012)

floydsummerhaye:

Get over it then; you're not actually shooting in lowlight. You may think you are, but no. Lowlight would not be someone well illuminated by a light with a very dark background, say in a nightclub. (Generally this is one of the problems with the DPReview studio setup; there are no supremely dark shadows containing objects; it's a bright scene.)

Another problem with the M9 is that the shutter is way too audible. Konica had no problem making a rangefinder with a quiet metal shutter and quiet film advance. Leica shouldn't either, now 12 years after that Konica film camera. And Leica would only need to quiet the shutter and shutter reset.

I'll defend the colour and sharpness of Leica glass against nearly all challenges, none of that means I think high ISO is not very important and not a big failure on the part of the Leica M9--S2 also.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 3, 2012)

continued:

@floydsummerhaye:

Look until about 2003 I wasn't won over by digital (though I liked being able to shoot forever and email quickly) but then Canon started to ship consumer DSLRs that could easily shoot at ISO 800, then I knew film was basically over for daily photography.

Leica didn't catch on, and still doesn't appear to remember what people used the M6 to do. That's shoot discretely in lowlight.

0 upvotes
Cheezr
By Cheezr (Apr 3, 2012)

Great preview, thanks. You really covered most of the questions I had about the camera. The sample images are excellent as well. I am amazed at the quality of the Hi ISO shots.
Those wide aperture lenses really make the photog think about depth of field in the scene. I have to admit it has been a really long time since i have had to do that!
I look forward to the full review.

CZR

1 upvote
Total comments: 228
123