 |
chooflaki
Joined on
Jun 22, 2011
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Gasman66: I owned an X-100 for just over a year before I sold it. Build quality is excellent. Lens quality is too - as long as your subject is more than a metre away, and you don't want to focus quickly. Ergonomics were so-so, and software was just plain awful - and remained so after several software upgrades.
Because of this, I quickly found myself not using the camera, and it effectively became jewellery. That side of me misses it. My photographic productivity - doesn't.
I don't see enough new in the X-100s to dramatically change any of this. It's an improvement, but only an incremental one.
I still think my X100 ought two years ago is a great camera. This update looks awesome.
These Merrill cameras are made for photography in its purest form. If this isn't your game, there are hundreds of other choices.
Reading posts on this topic confirms that the averaged out IQ of posters comes to about 2 megapixels.
Anyone who is unimpressed that a camera of the capabilities of the d800 is not on Curiosity should be patient. It may happen in 2022. Problem is, by then we will have the D2001 camera credit card phone and the same criticisms will apply. Planetary probes are incredibly complex to design and build and may take over a decade to develop. NASA cannot afford to change the specs every year to accommodate the latest greatest gear.
Zvonimir Tosic: Many users don't complain about good parts of the XPro1. What is bugging this product is a bunch of obvious design flaws.
Awful manual focus, which is further complicated with lenses that have no depth of field scale, same as X100. So in manual mode camera is very much useless, because one must constantly peek through the viewfinder and rotate the ring like a madman.
Only way to overcome such a blatant design flaw is to rely on AF all the time, and that's where X-Pro1 doesn't shine. Fuji will try to improve AF, yes, but this will still be flawed design of the whole package.
And which is a pity, because good manual focus and cleverly designed lenses would have solved LOTS of problems and improve the overall experience. The package would be a bit more expensive, I presume, and there we realise at what a terrible expense Fuji tried to cut the cost.
A very poor decision, which is a shame. And that decision did come from management, not from engineers, that's so obvious.
Pressing AE-L/AF/L button plus command button for zoom will then only require very minimal turning of focus ring if any to achieve desired focus. Very easy to use. Something people who don't own this camera can't understand.
Neimo: FUJI, here is how to make the manual focus dial enjoyable for this camera, the X10, and probably the other X cameras:
How fast or slow the dial is spun should determine if the focus distance moves a large amount, or just a bit. A fast spin of the dial should move the focus from 2cm to 2m. Another fast spin takes it to infinity. A medium spin should move the focus from 2cm to 50cm. A slow spin makes sure the focus covers every discrete distance position.
In practice, there should not just be fast, medium, and slow speeds. Whatever the speed of the spin is should determine how much more or much less quickly the focus moves.
No need to turn the focus ring forever. Press AE-L//AF-L button when using manual focus, zoom in with command dial press and fine tune only.
Very easy.
GeorgeD200: What I really want to know (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) is how well this camera works with Leica legacy glass. I don't have $8,000 to spend, so forget the M9. I also don't have the money for current Leica lenses. What I do have is a half-dozen Leica lenses from the 50s and 60s. I'd spring for one of these if I thought it would do a good job with them, but I can't seem to find anyone that has tried it. Does anyone have any links or resources for me?
I'm also pretty lukewarm on the M8 or Epson RD-1. I don't care for Sony -- let's leave it at that, and m4/3 is out. Is this camera the ticket, or should I wait for the full-frame, interchangable lens, sub $2000 camera that Leica is never going to make?
There may be some useful info on this site.
http://www.scoop.it/t/fuji-x-pro1
Does anyone know what was the best tripod winner was so that we can match it to this camera?
I have always liked Leicas and appreciate the quality and crafsmanship that has gone into making them and the fine optics. But whats irks me is the arrogant notion propagated by Leica and many Leica users that their cameras are somehow on another level of superior IQ far above the better offerings by Japanese makers. Which is total nonsence and insulting to anyone who can appreciate good pghotography.
I await the day when Leica goes further back into time and make an orthochromatic B&W digital camera. Then we can get pin sharp photos without the need to focus and everyone will look like they have a permanent suntan unless they apply blue makeup.
To me this is just another variation of their novelty cameras like their Titanium, Gold, lizard skin etc, limited editions. This one just a little different so not to be too repetitious.
I have a Canon MP990 which I think is the predecessor of the MG8150. Terrific printer, reliable and makes fantastic photos. I have no problem with the price of Canon papers which are of excellent quality but the ink cartridges are small and very expensive.
More of a case of use it quick or lose it quicker. If you use your printer on a regular basis then I can get a decent amount of prints, but f I don't use it for a month or so the ink just seems to vaporise or gets wasted at the next start up in cleaning cycles. I am jut wondering if I could get the same quality prints with compatible non genuine cartridges so I don't have to worry so much about losing expensive ink because I'm not printing a large batch of photos with new cartridges every time.
For me a photo is not a photo until it is printed and becomes a tangible physical object. Otherwise it is just date stored on a computer.
Everyone can wow at what modern printers can deliver but at what cost? Since consumable costs such as ink cartridges can be crippling in making home photo printing a viable option I'd like to see an article comparing the use of genuine expensive OEM and vastly cheaper compatible cartridges. The cost differential is huge. Is there any value in using non genuine cartridges for quality photo printing at home or will it remain in the realm of those who can afford it?