pixel_peeper: There's no bite to any of the pictures I have seen from the XPro-1, with the same random-array sensor as the X-E1s. They all look as if they've been shot at f22. I put it down to the sensor, which appears to give significantly inferior resolution to equivalent Bayer-array cameras.
I have x1 pro. FOr many pics, what you say is true. But when focus is tack sharp, something amazing happens. So the issue I think is the autofocus. The sensor is capable for solid performance. The focus system is not.
Seems to me this is a more functional version of the X1Pro? Smaller, faster focus? (OVF is useless in anycase because it seems to amplify focus issues).
Any benefit of X1 Pro over XE1?
I congratulate product development folks at Nikon .However, management and manufacturing chieftains should see their bonuses reduced: the products are essentially unavailable, except for a few famous photogs who are a subset of nps. The result lost sales, and lost opportunity of new lense sales.
Nikon why can't you introduce a new product and actually make it available? This notion of unprecedented demand is ridiculous. I don't even know anybody , anybody, who got a d800 or a d4. Buuuhya.
Aleo Veuliah: A cheap version of the Leica M, but with a very good sensor
This is not a camera for everyone, like the Leicas M
Well done Fuji
I dont have an M9 but have x100 and D3S. Tend to agree with Cgarrard - the Firmware 1.21 largely fixed the AF issues I had with the x100. The X1Pro not only focuses more slowly (so you can't use it for anything moving) but more importantly there are a lot of focus errors even though the camera indicates "it locked on".Its such a pity because the concept and otherwise the camera is quite lovely.P.S. I have been shooting it 3 weeks.
I have been shooting the x1pro for 3 weeks now.
The camera is a joy to use in principle - i like the way its handling.
There are a few quirks which severely limit its usefulness -- to the point where I would not recommend buying it (I am using the 35mm lense)
1. The Autofocus is really horrible. two issues:a. Its slow. Slower than x100 w latest firmware. UNUSABLE for anything even slowly moving (eg Kids)b. Worst - a LOT of AF errors even when camera locked on. Problem worst when OVF is used and aperture is set to anything other than "A". God knows why.
b) makes it a hit and miss game. Interestingly overall picture sharpness for pictures where the camera said "I am in focus" varies substantially, suggesting random back/front focus issues.
2. You cant really use raw files well. Most people will have a workflow like in lightroom or Adobe PShop. Silkypix requires relearning and to me at least it seems like a clumsy software.
DP REVIEW should look at these issues in full review.
I received my X1 Pro from Adorama 2 days ago. Have been comparing it against the X100. The key findings
1) Pic quality under good light conditions is surprisingly similar. center performance is essentially the same but the new 50mm equiv lens is sharper in corners -> sensor isnt sharper, but lense is.
2) high ISO X1Pro is better
3) Autofocus. Autofocus! With firmware 1.21 on x100, the x10o focuses MUCH faster than the x1 Pro. The 50mm lens is suppost the fastest of the three when it comes to AF performance. If you shoot landscape, you will be fine. If you shoot steet, you will have misses and need to make use of prefocusing techniques etc. If you shoot your family, tell your little kids to smile and not to move....
4) With the exception of 3) a real joy to use.
5) Manual focus: Let me compare it to my zeiss w nikon mount. these lenses i can focus quickly and exactly. The focus by wire in fuji by contrast, well it kind a works but trust me you will rarely use it in the field.
Apewithacamera: My humble prediction 1D X vs D4/D3s
When the light get really low Nikoners will pack up their gear and head home. Once home they will find a comfy corner, curl up into a little ball so to cry themselves to sleep. Night night sleep tight. :P
These Canon/Nikon comparisons are quite interesting, but I find generally of limited practical applicability. Most of us have made a system choice long ago and are now vested in lenses. Few if any would give up that gear, switch bodies, and buy set of new lenses...
seems to me its a constant tug of war between the two manufacturers, each one being on top for some time.
The Imaging Resource has a more comprehensive set of D4 sample pics out there.Worth comparing. (and they use more consistent lense/F data than was the case in the DPR sample)
After you look at it you find the same we saw here, but in a wider variety of sample shots
1. No difference in IQ AT all2. The picture quality when you zoom in and make objects the same size on a canvas of equal size is IDENTICAL - i.e. there is no higher resolution/quality from a crop with the 16mp sensor. (disappointment!)
So, whatever the benefits are, they appear to be limited to much better video and a bunch of refinements like back lit buttons, slightly improved ergonomics and so on.
Josh152: Wow reading these comments it makes me think many were expecting miracles. Lets face it, the D3s is hard act to beat when it comes to noise preformance. The thing is Noise preformance isn't the only thing to consider when choosing a body. So what if the D3s and the D4 have similar or the same IQ? The D3s had class leading image quality and if the D4 is the same but with more megapixels what is there to be disappointed about? It's not like everyone has been thinking "gee I wish the D3s had better noise preformance."
The D4 has many other improvements over the D3s to make it a worthwhile successor even if the image quality is only slightly better or the same. You have to look at the whole camera not just one aspect that really didn't need improving anyway.
I would have expected- marginally more high ISO and DR - kind of as clean at 6400 as D3S at 3200- higher (not the same) IQ and detail at low iso
why?recent years have been full of innovation. look at the mirrorless. the Fujix100 shoots awesome pics, and now the samples of the X1Pro look like what aD3S might look like on an APS C sensor.
anyway... yes, expectations were too high. lets see what 800s look like!
One more addition to my prior analysis.
if you play with the raw files in NX, an play with noise reduction and saturation and and part. sharpness, it seems to me you can "get a bit more out of the D4" raw file. But again, the differences are REALLY small.
hyperthreading: I have a question.
Why were the tests made with the Nikon 85 f/1.8? They should be made with the Nikon 85 f/1.4.
If you are testing a Nikon high-end camera that costs $6000, should you not be testing it with the best Nikon lens which costs $2200? Why was it tested with a midrange lens which costs $500?
Cameras should be tested with the best lenses.
@ Bookie -- I think they tested this with the new lense that came out about 1-2 weeks ago, not the old 1.8. So the new one is not yet "known for its sharpness" although its hard to see why the new one would be worse than the old one...
BTW I have that new lense, and tested it against the 70-200mm F2.8 at 85mm. I did not find any discernible differences in IQ so far (obviously 1.8 gives a bit different possibilities, but you can get even better bookeeh at 2.8 if you zoom to 200mm i.m. humble opinion). The main benefit vs. the 70-200 is weight/size
Dr GP: I spend 1 hour "pixel peeping"
My net conclusion: I am disappointed. The core IQ has essentially NOT improved over D3S
1. Comparison of raw file at ISO 100Across the frame, the IQ is virtually the same. Some truly marginal differences, though:- D4 has a tiny bit higher resolution, but it seems to depend on color of object whether this is visible. The reds seem cripser- However, D3S seems to have slightly more saturated colors.- D4 resolves text marginally higher, but you really have to look closely at a 300% magnification to say "I think there is a small difference"
2. At ISO 6400 -- which is the upper limit I am shooting atIn the center of the image, there are NO, absolutely no differences.At the margin, towards edges , D4 resolves letters a bit clearer Likely, that this is not a sensor issue but a result of shooting D4 at F11 and D3S at F8.
The Plus of D4 : A bunch of new features & video -- some of which will only be useful for a small subset of pros.
@ Josh -- I guess my point was I almost dont see any evidence of more resolution. Its almost invisible, and visible only at like 300% in certain color channels.So yes, D4 is a great camera -- just not a step up from D3S in terms of IQ.
lensberg: The Nikon D4 is essentially an overhyped camera... but i suppose that was to be expected considering the fact that it was propped up prematurely to assume the high ISO crown from the D3S.
Considering the fact that there is a 2½ year time span between the D3S & D4 ... Nikon seem to have made virtually no advances regarding ISO performance...
Just look at that furry patch that resembles tiger skin at ISO 6400 on the D4 and you'll notice severe ammounts of noise reduction at work... blurring out the fine textures & fibres completely... by contrast the D3 & Canon 1D Mark IV manage to preserve the textures whilst delivering a natural looking image...
The intricate pattern on the green & purple fabric is totally smeared out by the D4 though funnily the white cross fibres remain intact ... Now compare it to the D3s sample which is excellent... even the 1D IV manages to retain more detail...
awesome yes if you never had a d3s. If you do, you feel limited progress has been made (outside the video). All around D4 is a much better tool than D3S, but clearly we all had hoped to not just get D3S + Video and a few more ergonomic buttons after 2.5 years.
HowaboutRAW: Interesting point about the trialware version of Nikon's Capture NX 2--yes fully updated:
The trialware version of Capture NX 2 does NOT open D4 raw files. Don't think that I want to pay Nikon for a capacity my copy of Photoshop CS5 will have in a few weeks, I hope.
Also makes me wonder about those claiming to have looked at these raw files with Capture NX2.
Hope someone from Nikon USA is reading this string of comments.
i have full version and updated to latest Codecs. that did the trick. Oddly, my prior version which was also 2.3 did not open D4 Raw files but after update it does.
agree re "test with best lenses"
On the 1.4 vs 1.8 -- not clear yet it makes a differences (look at early testers eg kenrockwell) -- difference may be bookeh wide open, but at f7 ...may not be very different.
Just did the same for 102400 ISO. SAME result - No difference. Except, D3S picture had some yellow dots in some areas.I also downsampled the D4 to same size as D3S. Whatever differences there are, they are soooo minor that I have to say "Nikon after 2.5 more years, REALLY?"Again, some features have definitely improved and they will make for a more pleasant pic taking. I have D4 and D800E on order, and will leave them open for now awaiting more tests, but for now I am a bit sad !!
I spend 1 hour "pixel peeping"