Judging by the number of comments already this is going to be a popular little camera. From an engineering POV its quite an achievement, especially the lens, and is perfect as a pocket cam for the well heeled...
Imaging resource has noted a few issues with the colour performance but they don't seem to show up much in the posted samples on here.
Nice one Sony. First Sony camera for a while I may actually spring for.
Imagefoundry: getting some really nasty color tearing with ACR 7.1 and Fuji X-Pro1. In some cases (not too often, thankfully) it makes images borderline unusable - example crop below: http://db.tt/k0qScmMa
Funny how people blame Fuji when Adobe cannot even match OOC JPEGs. At least two RAW converters work fine, including Silkypix once you set a colour preference. The fact that Adobe cannot is Adobe's fault, though I agree it's a long way off being adequate.
Deleted pending purge: At last! After Olympus Stylus series, one Minolta and several other properly built but rare outdoors cameras, this digital SLR finally seems to open what should have been a normal trend ages ago. There are really no reasons why all cameras should not be environmentally sealed and not just created for "home & office use".After all, such devices are meant to live under the open skies as much as their users. Bravo, Pentax! Let's just hope that other manufacturers see the light too.(By the way, the same should happen to all mobile phones, GPS receivers, tablets, etc.)
Pentax has made sealed cameras since the K10, long before anyone else in the APSC world.
dmstraton: You can say what you want, but from personal experience and from developing RAW even in the crappy converter supplied, the camera is capable of absolutely crazy pixel-level resolution and the noise suppression combined with the detail retained is amazing...it's ACR Beta and it's a new type of array...the RAWs here aren't reflective in anyway of what I have seen - and that's reflected in the fact that the JPEGs here outshine the RAWs by a large margin...you can't talk about mushy RAWs and click to a JPEG which is clean, sharp with good contrast and wonder how it happened...
Frankly don't care if anyone believes it, but have the courtesy to actually shoot a camera before you rag on it...and yes, I have shot and owned/own a 20D, 40D, 7D, 5D MkII, NEX 5N, Panasonic GH2 and Olympus, and about 5 Nikon digitals that I can't remember right now...so I don't have a reason to be biased.
This camera puts out a great image...period. I am sure the final review will reflect this.
Unlike you I don't tend to slam other cameras I have never tried to justify my own decisions, but since when did the Xpro1 have sticky aperture blades and white orbs? Moreover, I have owned every brand and they all have issues, including serious IQ issues, but few are as willing as Fuji to address them.
Shoot what you like, no-one cares what you think, especially since you have no direct experience and are just trotting out what you hear third hand. It does not make you qualified to judge anything.
CriticalI: These samples are not a judgement of the camera but of Adobe. Here are two samples converted from the supplied Silkypix converter with a minimal USM applied.(Original conversion courtesy of Warfie 35).
Enough detail for you? These are less detailed than the RPP conversions but still a lot better than the Adobe ones.
Unfair advantage? Is this a game of football or life and death? Why are you trying so hard to be negative? Noone is bad mouthing your camera so get a life.
At these F numbers all lenses should be sharp enough so that sensor resolution is dominant, and most 50mm primes are as good as they get stopped down.
Also longer lenses have less DOF which is an issue. Moreover the scaling does the Fuji no favours - the OMD pix are scaled to match the vertical size of the APS sensors, so the objects are quite a bit larger and appear more detailed, but even the D7000 images are around 5% bigger possibly because of the focal length or perhaps the framing is different.
At the end of the day, with no moire filter, you have to do it in the RAW converter by adding a bit of smoothing, but ACR went too far and probably need to back off a bit. It explains the good high ISO performance though. No need for cooked RAW, its all a matter of control in the converter. A slider would be lovely.
No you don't. You can sharpen the ACR ones as much as you like - there is none of the vertical striated detail at all and much more colour bleed. Try a new monitor.
Sharpening won't reveal new detail.
This merely demonstrates the detail is there in Silkypix and not in ACR, that's all. Silkypix has many sharpening levels including none as do all RAW converters.
We are comparing RAW converters more than the camera here.
These samples are not a judgement of the camera but of Adobe. Here are two samples converted from the supplied Silkypix converter with a minimal USM applied.(Original conversion courtesy of Warfie 35).
Definitely room for improvement... here's Warfie 35's self-profiled conversion from RPP - the colour is a bit off, but the detail and lack of colour bleed is a major improvement. Come on Adobe, you can do it...
Emacs23: Looks like we have a new sort of fanboyism. It's partially like leica one: fuji rocks, fuji the best, etc. But unlike leica these beliefs aren't confirmed with anything: neither their optics is the best (just good and boring as hell, definitely inferior compared to leicas), nor their cameras are the best :)))
And that is different from any other form of fanboyism how? What a pointless post. I may as well say we have a new sort of trollism, but I guess that's exactly the same sort too.
DarkShift: High ISO samples still looks quite strange to me with smeared details. Was there some sort of NR applied?
It's also possible that it's a by-product of the demosaicing algorithm which explains some of the other interesting issues. However I don't see "smeared details" in high ISO shots that are not also present in low ISO shots, and largely absent in the JPEGs, which makes me think Adobe are still in the tuning process.
CriticalI: Interesting that foreground objects (eg batteries) are a lot sharper than background ones. Seems like missed focus.
Some issues with colour bleed etc in RAW. Obviously ACR not there yet.
The JPEGS are considerably better than RAW which implies without any imagination that the ACR Beta is not optimised at the moment.
The lack of noise may relate directly to the algorithm Adobe are applying to demosaic the picture which coincidentally happens to remove some fine detail as well. The significant colour bleed (red into white areas) implies that there is some way to go yet.
As usual the forum numpties are jumping to conclusions and as usual it's pointless until we see a final version. This is not a standard Bayer pattern and I suspect RAW conversion is nothing like as simple.
HiRez: Compared to the Fuji X-100, the XPro1 is less noisy but considerably softer, which is quite odd. I assume that;s the lens not being up to par?
RAW is also softer than the JPEGs too.
Interesting that foreground objects (eg batteries) are a lot sharper than background ones. Seems like missed focus.
It is rather pointless to criticise a camera maker for selling a product that enough people clearly want and making a nice premium into the bargain.
Having said that, at low ISO most CCDs do produce shots that have a more distinctive tonal quality than CMOS sensors. As a good light camera and coupled with Leica lenses, it can produce some amazing shots.
But whereas Leica's cost is largely a product of build quality, the idea of a "camera for life" seems a bit moot when lumbered with technology with a rapid sell-by date. An M3 is as useful as it was the day it was made, but the M9 is already out of date. The sensor is limited and the LCD even moreso.
If one were to be logical about things (and Leica's really don't appeal to logic) one would buy the Leica glass and the Fuji Xpro1 with the new Leica adapter. That way, trading the body in every few years would keep one abreast of the latest sensor tech.
Elinas: Cool... so the day that they will decide to make Camera raw available for the Fuji X-Pro1, this means I will need to buy CS6...
Because C1 takes even longer to support new cameras...?
nawknai: That's the worst "con" list I've ever seen on DPReview.
Just say the camera is incredible and leave it at that.
@Barney: Exactly. Anyone thinking of buying this instead of a DSLR of similar price should be aware that AF-C on these cameras (all mirrorless except the N1) is only really there for show. Still a good camera, but it's definitely a con on a >$1k camera.
Oly did a great job with this, it is a really viable alternative to an SLR (though you can get a D7000 for less so you really have to WANT a small camera).
Not for me though, sadly. Despite the very appealing feature set and one or two rather cute lenses, the camera controls are just too crowded for someone like me (slightly above average male hand size). It's partly a result of the amount of real estate required for the flip out screen I guess.
To be honest, if a camera is not pocketable (and it surely is not) then size matters a lot less than weight. I wonder if the urge to make everything smaller is a bit self-defeating in a way. They should worry about making them lighter.
Aaron MC: I hope that Fuji keeps these updates coming. The ONLY thing keeping me from buying an X Pro 1 are the focus issues.
I have - but it was entirely my fault (RTFM!!!)
Now, hardly ever.
Alberto 1290: •Even if the chattering was annoying, the worst problem is the EVF IMAGE FREEZING DURING FOCUS ACQUISITION that make the X-Pro1 a pain to use for " little action photography".
Do you own it? The AF is pretty reliable - at least as good as any SLR I've owned and better than some.