Amateur with a passion for pictorial photography of more than fifty years.
Jogger: Should have asked him about the Nikon 1 system and what he thinks of the RX100.
Are you joking or is it only Nikon with the 1 system who are? They should stick to serious cameras or just point and shoot. The 1 is a zero as far as I am concerned.
Quite interesting. Without a doubt, if I did not already have my D300 I would be very interested in the D600 especially as all I have are three FX lenses (12-300mm is quite enough) from when I used to use film, even though nearly £2000 is a lot of money. Now "entry" level DSLRs go for £700+. How absurd. They are not entry level at all. That's just marketing.
I cannot agree with Dirk Jasper on one thing. 12mm on DX is quite wide enough for landscape photographs in which I specialise. Before, when I used my Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG at its widest with my F80 and film, I had to be careful not get my feet or own shadow in the frame. If you are interested in freakery going that wide on DX may be useful but the landscapes I like to take are real and believable.
(BTW the Mk I version of that Sigma 12-24 is brilliant, at least mine is. Some say they vary. I now use it 95% of the time as the results in landscape shots with very near objects in them brings the perspective to life .)
My comment pertains to NEX and the best of other mirrorless compacts using APS-C or similar. I write here because this is a recent thread.
I can get weary lugging around my Nikon D300 plus three heavy zoom lenses where a good mirrorless with 2 or 3 lenses would be far more compact and only weigh about 40%. But I do like an accurate viewfinder I can see through in all light and being able to steady the camera against my body.
So finally I had a look at the NEX-7 as I am sure that if lenses wereavailable for it equal to those I already have, the results would be as good. However, one serious concern is excessive barrel distortion which from RAW would not be corrected in SONY lenses when I use my chosen RAW developer which I insist upon because of the quality of its tone-mapping.
However, as I expected, the EVF on the NEX is quite dreadful compared to a DSLR and no viewfinder on other models just is not on. Finally, any interest I had in mirrorless or Four-Thirds is dead and buried.
I would gladly replace my Nikon D300 and three zoom lenses for a M9-P with the 21mm, 35mm and a 90mm if I could afford it but I cannot.
Nevertheless I had a look at an M series Leica sometime in the 1960s. Even the first time I tried it, to focus just one turn of the focusing ring was sufficient to get the rangefinder images to coincide with no doubts about hitting the right spot, such is the precision. And here, of course, I am only talking of the viewfinder! What an absolute joy to use.
Nonetheless, I do find amusing the suggestion that a Leica makes you think about each shot carefully. For there is nothing to stop you doing that with any camera. I came home from a three week trip to the South Western USA with only about 100 shots plus extras for exposure bracketing on my D300. Most were a success and many were a great success.
Even if like me, you cannot afford a Leica, there is nothing to stop you shooting with the kind of care as if you did have one. I always have done.
calking: what *many* of you ding dong, pixel-peeping nerds need to do is check out what a REAL pro photographer can do with this camera that you can't, because you're too busy looking for something that doesn't exist on any level (aka the "perfect camera for every occasion at a price you love that's so small you can carry it in your pocket").
To: Digital Suicide -- if the "joy of photography is in the process and not the result", I'd say you're more of a gearhead than a photographer. Try selling that notion to someone like Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell, or any professional photographer for that matter. If you actually focused on results, people might be impressed with your photos instead of your gear.
Ryan Brenizer: http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/2012/04/provisional-review-fuji-x-pro-1/
Steve Huff: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/tag/x-pro-1/
It is very reassuring to see comments like yours. I do get tired of having to write them all myself.
I dare say if he were alive today, Ansel Adams would still be using a large format camera like a Linhof with a super lens like a Schneider Kreuznauch Symmar in it, one shot for every 100 most people take today, probably far, far less. He in landscape photography, Yousuf Karsh for portraits - noboby can touch them.
I have a few pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6791366809/in/set-72157627418118502. I am only interested in equipment as a means to an end. You and me that is.
calking: All of these awesome "smaller" APS-C and 4/3 camera systems are VERY expensive for those already vested in DX or FX full-sized systems. Cost increases even more when adding options like hand grips, flash units, niche lenses, etc. They're only compact when shooting small primes vs zooms. There's little justification in buying redundant systems just to save what amounts to mere ounces in weight and only slightly less bulk when the cost is this substantial (other than gear lust).
A nikon D3200 is only fractionally larger than these cameras, has a 24mp sensor, high-ISO, fast AF, video, EVF/LV, etc and yet costs only $700 WITH an 18-55 VR lens new. Samsung NX20 with 18-55 is $995, Oly EM-5 is $1100 body-only, and Fuji X-pro1 is $1699 body only.
I say a good P/S like the Fuji X10 or similar model is a "compact". Otherwise, shooting standard DX with a prime lens for most non-pro photography is so much easier and cost-effective for the vast majority of normal people.
Not only most of the comments but much of the contents of "serious" reviews too.
Nor should I be reading them but I do because I am no Luddite and occasionally there is real progress hidden among all this chaff. Not this time though!
Sergey Borachev: Fuji obviously rushed this, could not wait to show off its great sensor even though the AF and manual focusing designs were still half baked. This is cutting edge, i.e. way too rough and too niche.
However, you can see a X-Pro2 coming with the focusing problems solved, some new zooms and more primes, and yes some of them will have lens IS. The moaning and blasting will then stop, except from those still making expensive APS-C DSLRs.
Fuji needs to learn to do better than continually releasing cameras with significant problems in spite of their nice sensor features, e.g stuck shutters in X100, orbs in X10, and in X-S1, and this pro X-Pro1 camera with such poor focusing.
Brilliance in design and in the parts, but not really well put together as a whole product that we have come to expect from the "Made in Japan" label displayed in these cameras.
N.B. Price is not the real issue here, since there is a market for those who want higher quality and pay higher. Poor performance is.
I have raised a few comments of my own, taking a rather sarcastic tone because I am exasperated that the king again has appeared in his new clothes - for those who do not know the story, completely naked.
But for a neutral, balanced and appropriate summary of this beast, you could not have put it better.
Only thing missing is that there also is a market for those who want to spend lots of money, for whom quality is not the issue, nor price and probably most of them will never take a decent picture, just like to spend. The XPro-1 is just made for them.
"There is a school of thought that using software corrections counts as 'bad' design, and that all lenses should be fully optically-corrected for distortion in the traditional fashion. We simply don't agree. This approach was essential when shooting film simply because there was no other option; there's no sensible way of correcting distortion on slide film or when printing a negative. Likewise, SLRs ideally need fully-corrected lenses so that the viewfinder image allows accurate composition (distortion correction inevitably discards parts of the recorded image)."
"Because of this, it makes perfect sense for lens designers to leave a little distortion behind..." I think he meant excessive distortion, not a little.
I imagine the author of this review would be happy with a Ferrari even if he has to put Fuller's Earth in the gearbox.
On second thoughts, maybe he'd insist on it.
keepreal: X-Prosumer1 at best, Fuji must be kidding
Just a little below I said that the X-Pro1 is full of idiosyncrasies and flaws, both viewfinders are somewhat substandard. What a travesty for such a princely sum.
Furthermore, I want lenses that do not distort so that I can develop RAW images in any software I choose. Currently I use Oloneo PhotoEngine whose tone mapping is superb even for single frames and Photomatix Pro which can merge handheld bracketed shots into a single image without ghosting. When I need to employ the latter, I output the merged but otherwise unprocessed result as a radiance .hdr file and input that to PhotoEngine for tonemapping. I insist on being able to do that sort of thing with any camera, any lens but I cannot.
To allow distortion and rely upon software correction is appalling, especially in so-called Pro equipment. Thank goodness I still have my three full frame Nikon lenses from my film days with the D300 and can avoid all the modern rubbish glass.
Gully Foyle - just look in a Leica M viewfinder. Clear and to the point for taking pictures. No superfluous information that distracts from that objective.
The standard is set by what's good for taking pictures, not by how it it designed and delivered, so the standard when it comes to hybrid viewfinders is the same as for any camera of any type and of any era. Good versus bad.
I'll calm down after this and my two other recent comments, but I was expecting the lenses for the X-Pro1 to be the cats whiskers like the lenses I understand they make for Hasselblad. But how wrong I was.
Just see the incredibly bad chromatic aberration of the 18mm lens. I have the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG which is far from perfect but the definition edge to edge is usually pretty good for prints up to 24" long, it draws as near makes no difference without any visible distortion, has negligible vignetting on DX at least and only occasional slight chromatic aberration near the extreme corners, but generally sufficiently minor not even to need correction because when you can see it, that is only on extremely close scrutiny.
The basic, key design ideas of the X-Pro1 are brilliant but the execution undermines it completely, so much so I'd be suspicious of any "serious" Fuji camera after this and steer a wide berth. This camera's appeal is only for those with more money than sense.
X-Prosumer1 at best, Fuji must be kidding
I am loathe to fork out a considerable sum when already I have done so once to buy a Nikon D300 and three expensive lenses even though I do not like the considerable weight of my Nikon outfit. That can be physically tiring out on foot for any length of time.
So, is the X-Pro1 able to equal or exceed the D300 in the quality of the output for a relatively lightweight outfit? That was the question I thought I should not ignore.
Well I need not have worried. Having only read the review here to page 16 so far and not even got to most important details of the resolution, dynamic range and alternative DR modes, any interest I had in the X-Pro1 is utterly dead.
I prefer a camera which is logical and intuitive. So I'll stick to the D300 and put up with the weight. The X-Pro1’s software is full of idiosyncrasies and flaws, both viewfinders are somewhat substandard. What a travesty for such a princely sum. I would not want one even at half the price!
keepreal: The new 24-85 offers yet another lens in this range. This is strange as if Nikon have a problem coming up with an alternative to the relatively old f/2.8-4 as none of the newer ones has been around for nearly as long. Not only is the older lens superior optically, it has relatively little distortion.
I rely upon photozone.de for detailed lens reviews as I think it offers the best and most useful analysis and almost every Nikon DX lens reviewed there shows unacceptable distortion when using RAW. Mind you, when in the pursuit of lower weight I use the 18-55 VR, I find no problem in that regard except at near distances.
I am amazed not at the huge range of the new 18-300 which technically is interesting but at the stupidity of anyone who would want to buy this heavyweight and fork out a considerable amount of dosh to get it. Unless, of course, this is one draws with so little distortion it is a masterpiece. But I very much doubt it. I presume it comes with a caddy at no extra cost?
Yes Hynee, I am aware you can correct distortion in RAW and I do that in Photoshop manually when the need arises. However, I expect you mean automatically but to allow that limits you to which RAW developer you use.
I rely upon Oloneo PhotoEngine for tonemapping single frames and bracketed shots as it is fast, very easy to use and gives superb results. Occasionally I have to use Photomatix first but just to merge bracketed frames into an .hdr file because PhotoEngine is not too good at merging frames from handheld shots. The .hdr files can still be input to PhotoEngine for tonermapping. Nothing in the foreseeable future is going to have me change that.
That leaves my comment on the distortion in most DX lenses when using RAW as I originally put it. Totally unacceptable as far as I am concerned.
The new 24-85 offers yet another lens in this range. This is strange as if Nikon have a problem coming up with an alternative to the relatively old f/2.8-4 as none of the newer ones has been around for nearly as long. Not only is the older lens superior optically, it has relatively little distortion.
For a monochrome afficianado with deep pockets this camera must be the holy grail.
With black and white you need to have a very different eye and know how to use tones to convey mood. But it can be very powerful and is a completely different technique from colour.
IMO Karsh portraits are an order of magnitude better than any other portrait photographer but can you imagine them in colour? Likewise Ansel Adams landscapes and Eugene Smith's best shots at Minamata? In colour, each would lose something.
Back to these Leica samples, the detail from corner to corner looks extremely good in L1000492-DNG. However it is a pity that DP Review churns out samples haphazardly from one camera to another with nothing in common that allows you to compare the results from each. Also, if there were shots with genuine high dynamic range here, we might be able to come to some valid first conclusions about this aspect of the camera. The bigger DP Review gets, the lower their standards. A great pity.
Infared: I said from DAY ONE....I have never seen a totally sharp photo from the Fuji. Is there some kind of error here? So the Fuji REALLY is THAT soft. WOW!?!?!?!
You need to use some sharpening on virtually all digital images as far as I can judge. DP Review avoid more than very limited use of it here (if any) as that would mask any differences between one camera and another.
I do not think that there is anything soft about the Fuji images here if you apply a sensible amount of sharpening and add a little contrast to these rather flat test images to bring them up to normal.
Some people do go for exaggerated sharpness and, in the process destroy subtle tones and smooth gradation. You always have to strike a balance whether using a modest camera, Leica, Hasselblad or even a Fuji.
No need to buy full frame or leading edge APS-C equipment unless you regularly produce prints 120 cm wide or your money is burning a hole in your pocket.
I downloaded JPEGs for the X-Pro1, Nikon D300S and D800 and enlarged on screen to 142cm wide for the whole image. The differences between all three was negligible and I am sure the same is true with RAW. I accept that the X-Pro1 may be able to compete with a full frame camera but so can an APS-C camera for most people in most circumstances.
I regularly make A2 prints (60cms wide) from my Nikon D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens. I may be lucky because if the lens quality of this optic does vary, as has been suggested, I have one of the good ones! The results with this lens may not be the sharpest around but I have excellent images from it, many very sharp at A2 from edge to edge at that size, that is for pictures as opposed to lens tests. I also have a D5000 which to all practical intents and purposes gives indistinguishable results.
dala: How much smaller and cheaper would a DX version be?
Yes, me too. Having migrated for Nikon SLRs to DSLR I was pleased that with my three FX lenses I would not suffer fall off, significant edge fuzziness or noticeable distortion which nearly all DX lenses for digital cameras routinely produce. The latter is less of a problems if you shoot JPEG but can undermine some of the benefits of RAW.
panteraaa: won't u need a high quality glass for that 24MP??? how good will that kit lens be in this camera?
Yes, I also have this lens on my D5000 and it is first class. I had the misfortune to have it fall out of a bag onto concrete bouncing on the front lens cap and scratching both that and the rear cap with a second bounce but not the lens itself. Moreover, it still works perfectly and the images it produces at wide apertures show uniformity in the slight expected fall-off to the edges indicating it is not out of alignment. Quite remarkable for its price.
SIMPLY STUNNING: THE NEW NIKON D3200
No, what is stunning is what camera manufacturers now expect people to spend, probably quite rightly, to enter their profit merry go round. Why would I want 24.2 mp to eat up space on my memory cards when with my D300 12.3 mp is perfectly good enough to produce quality prints up to A2?
Consumerism is out of control and nobody needs this ludicrous pixel count for routine photos or to spend anything like this kind of money for the privilege.