Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 first impressions, including sample images

By dpreview staff on Apr 3, 2012 at 18:29 GMT

Just Posted: First impressions of the Fujifilm X-Pro1. We've been using a production standard X-Pro1 for a little while now, as we work on our review. We took this opportunity to write about our impressions of the camera, including a look at the lenses Fujifilm has developed and whether the Pro1 features the quirkiness of the elegant but initially troubled X100. What's it like to shoot with the X-Pro1 and are the images as attractive as the camera's design? Read on to find out.

There are 30 images in this review samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Fujifilm X-Pro1 Preview Samples - posted April 2nd 2012

Comments

Total comments: 211
12
jackmaster
By jackmaster (Jun 2, 2012)

I just don't understand all the fuss about the X pro 1, there are always people who will not like a (any) camera. It is not about the the camera it is about the content of the image.. I have had the X Pro 1 for a month now and I am about to sell my Canon 5d with 35 1:4 and 85 1:2 as I think this camera is so nice to use. It lets me think about the photo not the camera.
My favorite camera was my Leica MP , talk about slow focus!! But when you zone focus in manual with F:11 in the street using the 18 mm it can't be any faster than that. This is the type shooting this camera was ment for.
Will there ever be the perfect camera? I don't think so. So use what you like.

0 upvotes
MP Burke
By MP Burke (Apr 11, 2012)

The X Pro 1 seems to be the first APS-C system with a 28mm equivalent fixed focal lens, which I find praise-worthy since that has for long been a favourite focal length of mine.
However, I find it frustrating that the system is already on sale and there appears to be no thorough evaluation yet of the 18mm lens's performance. Hopefully, when reviewers have a bit more time with the lens, some suitable images will appear (i.e. taken of a subject with fine detail from corner to corner, at low ISO) which will show what the 18mm lens is capable of.
Similarly, it would be helpful to show some how the macro lens performs with macro subjects, e.g. butterflies or dragonflies.

0 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (Apr 9, 2012)

when will the studio comparison be up?

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 9, 2012)

As soon as we have Adobe Camera Raw support.

2 upvotes
rsf3127
By rsf3127 (Apr 8, 2012)

NEX7 continues to be on the top of my list.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2012)

And the native Nex lenses?

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
dtmoody
By dtmoody (Apr 10, 2012)

oh snap!

0 upvotes
Neil Palmer
By Neil Palmer (Apr 7, 2012)

As a pro wedding photographer this sounds the ideal camera for documentary work. Just worried about the slower AF particularly in low light

0 upvotes
mjl699
By mjl699 (Apr 9, 2012)

For portrait photography, even in low light, this is a great camera. I am getting very good results in restaurants, during the day, without flash, shooting ISO 800-1600 f/1.4 without flash. The focus is slower than class leading cameras, but more accurate than some too. Photos come out tack sharp.

0 upvotes
Nuno Souto
By Nuno Souto (Apr 7, 2012)

Once again, a supposedly manual-friendly camera designed by idiots who haven't got a clue how to handle manual operation. What a waste!
If only camera makers would LISTEN to customers instead of marketing surveys...
And has ANYONE checked if this thing has dioptre correction inbuilt? What, everyone has perfect eyesight?

1 upvote
milwman
By milwman (Apr 7, 2012)

No room in the finder for diopter adjustments, But who has time to take the glasses off to shoot. Rent one and find out before you buy? http://www.borrowlenses.com/AdvancedSearch.do

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Apr 7, 2012)

I think engineers at Fuji know fully well that it is practically impossible to build a camera with old school mechanical manual systems, but which would also work as automatic. Just the focus system would be too heavy for electric motors to turn. If you want a manual camera buy a Leica.

Dioptre correction lenses must be bought separately.

0 upvotes
abolit
By abolit (Apr 7, 2012)

got the camera yesterday. no diopter. I'm wearing +1.5 reading glasses and had to keep them while shooting XP1. No adjustment!
Another thing is OVF does not show the frame right. It's easy to prove when switching to EVF.
Rattling aperture sound is spooky and weird. The AF is slower than in my P&S. Jpeg's coming from the camera is terrible, the color shift is unacceptable. The dark red turns into pink...
If you get the SD card out of camera and open (try to open, LR4 wouldn't read it) and then put it back to XF1 , the camera reboots and it takes forever.
Good looking camera I should say, but too many quirks and bugs.
I don't feel like waiting for Fuji to fix them as time goes on. Need the camera now. Got XF1 packed and ready for shipping back to retailer.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
healer81
By healer81 (Apr 8, 2012)

well if its supposed to mimic a range finder the focusing wont be as good as 35mm digital and MF... that is why it is called range finder, you find the appropriate distance to focus with your feet. The camera looks interesting for me but i would not get it but its considered a bargain compared to the Leica.

0 upvotes
mjl699
By mjl699 (Apr 9, 2012)

Focus speed is not as quick as the very best contrast detect autofocus systems, but for most purposes good. And focus accuracy is very good. You get a lot of high quality photos as a result.

0 upvotes
yukonchris
By yukonchris (Apr 6, 2012)

The X-Pro 1 is very close to what I've been waiting for; a digital camera that produces clean almost analogue looking images. It dispenses with the one thing that has always bothered me about digital cameras: the anitaliasing filter. The problem for me is that it is far more expensive than I think is warranted, and by all reports the autofocus is slooowww, something one shouldn't have to contend with in a camera at this price point.

Given the way that one good idea leads to another in our technological world, I have little doubt that Fuji's big innovation in sensor design will be mirrored by similar advances from the other manufacturers in the very near future. With that in mind, "the system" one buys into once again becomes the most important issue. Which system to embrace? Given that Fuji seems unwilling to offer X-Pros at a truly attractive price point, I will likely wait again for a more competitive answer from one of the other makers.

0 upvotes
Guimasai
By Guimasai (Apr 6, 2012)

I have the X100 (updated to 1.21), and the X-Pro1. I'm a dedicated Leica M3 and M4 shooter, and have never bothered to get an M6 because my early Ms have never failed me. I have lenses that I love, have used for 25 years, and will never tire of.

The Fujis appealed to me for 2 reasons, 1 superficial and the other substantial. Superficial: yes, I like how they look, because they feel familiar to a rangefinder person. Substantial: IQ. The x100 takes great pictures, and the 1.21 update brings the AF to a level where -- for a user who doesn't need to shoot racehorses and rocketships -- I get consistent shots, as consistent as I am with my manual.

But the main reason I'm posting here is to contradict any poster who is suggesting that the AF on the XPro-1 is slower than the AF on the X100. This is nonsense. It's roughly twice as fast in normal shooting, and plenty fast for shooters who want a light rig that takes pictures an M-lover can love for $8000 less than an M9 with a 1.4.

10 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (Apr 5, 2012)

I'll try to explain this autofocus controversy -

there are two AF modes on X-Pro1: "Multi/Area" and a single focus point (with 49 selectable).

I find that "Multi" is basically junk, - it's slow and fails often, while "Single AF point" works like a charm.

Ironically it seems that Q-menu AF settings icons got mixed up, and what looks like a single point AF is actually area AF, and the icon for Area AF is actually for single point AF.

I would appreciate if other X-Pro1 owners could have a look and tell me if I'm wrong/right...

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

Thank you, I'm surprised no one who has handled this camera has made that point here in the comments. Sure reads like you know of what you write.

0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 6, 2012)

@Imagefoundry,
You're confusing a couple of things with your AF shooting modes. There are only two AF shooting modes: Multi and Area. The first option lets the camera choose a focus point on its own. The second option, 'area' is where you yourself choose among the available focus points. That is where the camera will then acquire focus. The icons for these are consistent between the main menu and the Q menu. The icons are exactly the same as those used on the X100.

0 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (Apr 6, 2012)

You are correct; and I did not elucidate my point properly.
The icons for Multi and Area are consistent for main menu and Q-menu.

I was under impression that icon looking like four square brackets facing away from the center was for Multi, and the not the other way around; I'm pretty sure that's how it was on my previous camera (Pentax). I don't have an X100 to compare to.
Anyway, sorry about the confusion.

The point I was trying to make was: the difference in AF performance between Multi and Area AF modes, on X-Pro1, is pretty dramatic in my opinion. The former is borderline unusable, while the latter is actually very fast.

I wonder if the wide range of opinions re: AF in this thread has to do with people just trying one mode and not the other and coming to wrong conclusions.

0 upvotes
Hooplapdx
By Hooplapdx (Apr 5, 2012)

I didn't see any mention of the slanted top where the controls are. It really does work in pushing your elbow in to a more stable position. It is a very clever feature.

I've only held a pre-production model (at CES) and it seemed unnecessarily large and heavy. I know it is less than an M9, but would people really take it less seriously if it was a bit more compact. For street photography, I'd prefer smaller and a bit lighter.

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Apr 5, 2012)

Making it smaller would make it less comfortable to handle. Ergonomics.

1 upvote
yukonchris
By yukonchris (Apr 6, 2012)

While some may prefer a smaller or a larger camera, size is only one variable in the search for good ergonomics. I have no doubt that a camera can be made quite small, or even quite large and still offer an exceptionally comfortable feel.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Apr 5, 2012)

Gee the images look great, very 5D2-like, but the camera sounds like a non-starter with slow AF and poorly implemented MF. For the price they should have just made it an M-mount rangefinder so you could nicely MF the damn thing. Forget the hybrid VF.

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Apr 5, 2012)

Quite underwhelmed really. How much can you get a used m9 for?

0 upvotes
Martin Gowar
By Martin Gowar (Apr 5, 2012)

UK £4000 on ebay.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 5, 2012)

And then good used Leica M lenses cost a couple of thousand dollars apiece, if you can find them. Though perhaps Camp Freddy has them already from the film days.

Next: The M9 can't really shoot at much more than ISO 800.

B+H in New York listed a not great condition M8 a few days ago for $2500.

0 upvotes
locke_fc
By locke_fc (Apr 5, 2012)

Looks nice, but overpriced to me. Lens selection sucks, specially since the 18mm is mediocre, from what I've read, and there are no zooms.

Fuji, call me back when the price drops well under $2000 and there's at least one decent option at the wide end.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 5, 2012)

Except DPReview didn't call the 18mm "mediocre"; the review called it good not outstanding. Generally about 28mm FF lenses: Wide open they lose some of their sharpness, not really news there.

Fuji has most certainly announced zooms; ironic that you asked for zooms when those are usually the most problematic optics on any camera system.

And barring disaster, I'd trust Fuji's announced timeline over that from Sony any day.

7 upvotes
locke_fc
By locke_fc (Apr 5, 2012)

"Good" is not what I've read everywhere about the 18mm. Even so, at $600 "good" isn't too impressive for a prime lens.

As for zooms, we'll just see what Fuji can come up with.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 6, 2012)

locke_fc:

I'm just going by what DPReview published, that's part of everywhere.

I think drawing conclusions without many lenses and many raw examples is a mistake. (Those premature conclusions could also be very positive).

Leica M lenses start around $2000 for the ones you'd want, so $600 for a good lens is about right--example $700 for the Japanese Zeiss 50mm manual focus, and that's not a truly extraordinary lens, still better colour than so called good Nikon lenses.

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

locke_fc:

Also Luminous Landscape called the 18mm "a very good lens, probably comparable to, or slightly better than, most lenses most people have on their cameras." So that's again good, not great, unlike the great 35mm Fuji lens--note no "mediocre".

NB: Luminous Landscape is a big part of everywhere.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
smedleypopovich
By smedleypopovich (Apr 6, 2012)

i think 600 of what ever currency for metal and fast lenses considering what nikon, canon charge for plastic primes. these lenses are utter bargains in my view

1 upvote
yukonchris
By yukonchris (Apr 7, 2012)

Good lenses, reasonably priced. The body is another matter. I think Fuji made a strategic error here. As the genesis of a new system, the X-Pro 1 is relying on hype, looks, and Press to carry the day. Its raison d'être shouldn’t be margin but market penetration. Fuji needs to leverage everything it can, including perceived value.

While much of the recipe is correct, the price is a disadvantage compared to the OM-D E-M5 and the NEX7. Potential buyers who find themselves stretched by cost will either opt for one of the others or take it in the ribs but expect performance equal to their sacrifice. Shortcomings, especially compared to the Olympus and Sony, may become contentious and result in disaffected adopters.

Premium pricing is a two edged sword. Fuji may find it cuts the wielder as keenly as the target. If this model was priced competitively, I’d buy one in a heartbeat, but as it is, I’m waiting… Hopefully, price doesn’t prove to be the Achilles heel of a promising system.

0 upvotes
locke_fc
By locke_fc (Apr 7, 2012)

Again, not every review or preview I've read considers the 18mm anything to write home about. Metal built it may be, but if the IQ is not above average (though it's early days to call it), $600 still sounds expensive to me.

Same goes for the body, as noted above by yukonchris. Fuji seem to think since they pulled it off once with the X100, it should work again. Only this is almost two years later. For a camera costing what the X-Pro 1 does, having such a flaky AF is a sin. And no rangefinder styling is going to make up for that this time round.

Still, this is a camera and system I want to like, but so far it seems Fuji have shot themselves in the foot on both price and AF, to name but two aspects.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 7, 2012)

locke_fc

No, you wrote "everywhere" which would include DPReview and Luminous Landscape; you didn't write: "I've read, somewhere, that the 18mm is mediocre."

Also you clearly haven't read the full autofocus comments in this series of comments.

Sure reads manywheres like there's much to like about these lenses and the camera. Still too bad about the Silkypix only raw extraction--happily that problem is most likely to go away in a few months.

A new Noctilux retails for more than $10,000, and that's just a manual focus 50mm lens for a 35mm camera, so whining about $600 just seems cheap to me.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 7, 2012)

yukonchris:

How many native F/2.0 lenses will work with the Sony Nex 7 and can one use shots taken at ISO 6400 with that Sony camera?

0 upvotes
locke_fc
By locke_fc (Apr 7, 2012)

HowaboutRAW:

How about you read what I actually wrote? It's the 3rd time you wrongly bring up the everywhere issue.

In my first message I wrote "...mediocre, from what I've read".

Then in my second message wrote "Good is not what I've read everywhere...". Unless my grasp of grammar has abandoned me that means "not every review site" (has found the 18mm to be good). Right?

Therefore, there is no contradiction whatsoever between what I actually wrote and the fact that SOME sites find the 18mm to be good and SOME don't.

Jeez...

And yes, I've read the comments about the AF and my take is still the same: not good enough for the price point.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
locke_fc
By locke_fc (Apr 7, 2012)

Also, I don't see where you're coming from with the $10,000 Noctilux???

Is that all the choice there is for X-Pro 1 in terms of lenses? Either outstanding for 10K or "good" (assuming it is) in the $600 price range?
I can think of at least a couple dozen outstanding (not just good) lenses for other mounts for around $600. No need to fork out ten grand

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 7, 2012)

locke_fc:

The "everywhere" in your response most certainly can mean what I'd posit: "everywhere[on the web] is reporting this to be a mediocre lens". I accept that you meant the other.

Re Leica: Well the Fuji 35mm is reported to be near Leica M quality, though obviously not as fast as the Noctilux, try buying a F/1.4 50mm Leica M lens for $1000, they sell for more like $4000. (Sorry that's the standard.)

Name an outstanding F2.0 or faster lens for an APSC or FF camera which sells for $600 or less? I can think of one very good one, but it's not up to Leica or the colour of a Japanese Zeiss lens.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yukonchris
By yukonchris (Apr 7, 2012)

HowaboutRAW:

Frankly, I don’t care about the NEX7. My comment was about the potential commercial success of the Fuji.

While there seems little doubt that the X-Pro 1 is capable of producing remarkable photographs, for most users the difference between an X-Pro 1 image and those produced by an OMD or NEX will be hardly noticeable. What other advantages does the Fuji offer? An established system? No! Advanced image stabilization? No! A weather sealed body? No! Exceptionally fast frame rate? No! Best in class X-sync? No!

Beyond its image quality potential and innovative sensor, X-Pro 1 is an APS-C camera that makes more feature-rich competitors look like bargains. Consumers may recognize this and simply wait for Olympus, Panasonic, Sony or Samsung, among others, to implement similar sensor design in their offerings. It will happen!

Fuji needs to take advantage of every possibility, including value, if they want to establish the X-Pro system. I hope this clarifies my thoughts.

0 upvotes
locke_fc
By locke_fc (Apr 7, 2012)

There are MANY outstanding primes in other mounts costing around $600, or even much less. The Nikon 35 1.8, the Nikon 85 1.8, the Pentax DA35, the DA70 (yes, these are 2.4 and 2.8, but outstanding nevertheless), several Zuiko and Canon primes, and so on. Some of these are plastic, some are metal built, others even have macro capabilities (like the DA35), but they all seem far better than the new X-Pro 18 mm lens. It remains to be seen how they compare to the X-Pro 35mm one.

So anyway, a merely "good" prime (like the 18mm) for $600 does not strike me as impressive. Of course you're free to think otherwise, but allow me to disagree!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2012)

Though I am not familiar with all of those lenses, none are likely near Leica M glass, and some Fujis are.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 8, 2012)

yukonchris:

The Sony Nex 7 is not good in lowlight.

A future Nex may improve up this problem as may, and only may, future native Nex lenses improve on the dearth of native lenses for the Nex system.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 10, 2012)

The 18mm is better than just about every equivalent lens for a CSC system. You shouldn't judge it without using it - take a look at the shot of the Triumph motorbike on my Gallery.

It's just that it isn't as good as the 35mm (which is stellar at the price). It's certainly worth its asking price.

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Apr 5, 2012)

Hi guys,
got mine today-a loaner- just posted the first set of photos, if you are interested- check them out on my blog
http://www.mikekobal.com/blog/?p=4052
you can click through to flickr and download the orig files, please don't repost the photos. Thanks!

1 upvote
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Apr 5, 2012)

Today is Wednesday, 4/4/12. Those photos look like they came from the Occupy Wall Street days. Are they X Pro 1 photos or something else?

0 upvotes
mcslsk
By mcslsk (Apr 5, 2012)

And one image shows the 4/4 cover page of the daily news.

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Apr 5, 2012)

occupy wall street moved to union square, all photos were taken yesterday afternoon, 4/4/12

4 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 5, 2012)

After looking at the sample images, I discovered two things. It works great at higher ISOs, quite impressive and the Auto ISO seems to choose higher. While that is impressive, the base ISO of 200 is not. It's pretty bad. Yet, the design decision still makes sense for street photography where higher sensitivity for low light and faster shutter speeds are necessary.

0 upvotes
Dr GP
By Dr GP (Apr 5, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 5, 2012)

Hi,

You realize your auto focus experience contrasts with what sgoldswo reports a couple of comments below?

Too bad about the manual focus.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 6, 2012)

Dr GP, I am seeing very different AF results to you. My X-Pro1 focuses quickly with both the 18 and the 35mm. Speed is about equivalent to my NEX-7, a good bit faster than my X100 (which is FW 1.20).

Agree on the MF though. I note that you can minimise the number of turns by turning the lens quickly.

0 upvotes
darellmatt
By darellmatt (Apr 5, 2012)

I have an x pro1 on order, cancelled at B and H when I realized I could get nearer the front of the line at Amazon. Anyway I view these images with interest. Honestly, I don't think the images flatter the camera. I have seen samples on other websites that were much more impressive aesthetically. I mean, if I look at these images analytically I can see the so called image quality is there. But what impresses me is when you can show me an image that makes me feel like, damn, I wish I had taken something like that. Not seeing that in this series. But lots of pretty noise free pixels...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 5, 2012)

Are you looking at the raws, and do you have raw extraction software that works with these Fuji raws, software other than Silkypix?

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 4, 2012)

An excellent camera. Very impressed thus far. The AF is fast in normal conditions, slow in low light. Like any other CDAF camera then!

I have a couple of quick examples in my gallery if people are interested. The 35mm X-Mount is a special lens (on a par with the 24mm Zeiss for NEX).

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

sgoldswo:

Nice to read that you like the autofocus. Do you know of anything other than Silkypix extracting raws from this Fuji?

How audible is the shutter, say compared the the Nex 7?

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 4, 2012)

The shutter is probably slightly quieter than the nex 7. I don't know of any RAW converters other that silkypix, but you can always take the tiffs from silkypix and import them into aperture or Lightroom for post

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Apr 4, 2012)

Would you put a link to your gallery?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 5, 2012)

sgoldswo:

Thank you for the shutter sound level guess, and for the tiff suggestion. I'd already opened the tiffs (extracted from the DPReview raws) in PhotoShop CS5, and that wasn't really a work around for the mess that Silkypix made of the extraction job.

As I posted elsewhere, this new version of Silkypix is just as terrible as I remember from use with my Panasonic LX5 and Samsung NX100 raw files.

I'm going to have to wait until Adobe Camera Raw opens these Fuji new raw files, given how much better ACR is than even this new Silkypix.

Really glad you like the camera, the Silkypix thing is a real let down to me and I imagine others.

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Apr 5, 2012)

I saw your pics - they looked good. For those that don't know, the pics are posted in the DPReview Gallery.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 6, 2012)

thejohnnerparty, apologies, yes I was referring to the X-pro1 album in my DPreview gallery. Not superb photography but gives you an idea of the capabilities of the body + 35mm (very impressive).

To HowaboutRAW, I take your point, but every new camera is like this. I had to wait from December to March to see RAW support for my NEX-7 on OSX/Aperture.

0 upvotes
agray88
By agray88 (Apr 4, 2012)

Nice IQ, to be sure. But all things considered, I'll take the Oly E-M5 and buy another prime lens with the leftover $$. I just don't get why such an expensive camera would have focus issues. I'll take the Oly and be very happy, thank you.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 5, 2012)

And the available lenses.

1 upvote
agray88
By agray88 (Apr 5, 2012)

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

0 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Apr 4, 2012)

I want to see this sensor in FF mode, housed by a D700 body, and they could call it, IDK, maybe Fuji S6 Pro !

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (Apr 6, 2012)

Of all the nikon based gear I have access to, the old s3pro is my favourite when conditions allow - enough light. Personally it seemed obvious that live view was going to make the old prism system redundant sooner or later, especially the archaic way the shooting information is shown in the viewfinder.

This camera is looking like the obvious step forward, the lenses look good and I have the option of seeing what the sensor sees - above all the image quality looks like full frame or better.

For me the actual size of the sensor is irrelevant if the image quality is premium.

0 upvotes
tom sugnet
By tom sugnet (Apr 4, 2012)

One of the best galleries here.

2 upvotes
whawha
By whawha (Apr 4, 2012)

The high ISO quality is beyond belief...
Why oh why can't they sort out a decent autofocus when they have a camera with that sort of IQ??? Mind boggling.

1 upvote
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 4, 2012)

I don't think it does have any AF issues. I own an X-pro1, X100 and a NEX-7. The X-Pro1 and NEX are on a par and faster than the X100, perhaps the X-pro1 is a smidgen quicker. All CDAF cameras struggle and hunt in low light.

What isn't so good is MF on the Fuji X-Mount lenses, but its somewhat inevitable in making the lenses so small.

1 upvote
doctorbza
By doctorbza (Apr 4, 2012)

I have and love the X100, but there's no way I'd shell out over $2k for a system with the same focusing issues. AF isn't that bad, but the focus by wire manual focus is absolutely terrible. Fuji should have sorted this out.

0 upvotes
doctorbza
By doctorbza (Apr 4, 2012)

That said, if the IQ is that much better than the X100 it could be worth the price based on that alone!

0 upvotes
seta666
By seta666 (Apr 4, 2012)

I agree with DoctorBza, I sold my X100 because manual focus is worst ever ( and AF useless in low light situations)
I do not undertand why they did not add proper MF to the X100 system

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Apr 4, 2012)

@seta666 - that's something what puzzles me too. why on earth do they do it? what's wrong with proper mechanical manual focus?

I was very surprised to learn that new lenses have it too when they introduced it but it isn't as bad as on X100 (tried only 35mm lens though in the shop last saturday and had my X100 with me)

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

If you want mechanical focus lenses, just buy and adapter and some manual focus lenses.

2 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Apr 4, 2012)

Autofocus can not be used if focus is mechanical, too much mass to move. If you want fast autofocus AND mechanical manual focus, there would have to be a decoupling system in the lens, which would make the lens much bigger (realigned focus scales, etc.).

It seems that people want things which are impossible, this focus thing is one, other one is mechanical rangefinder with lenses which have no focus signal or couplings. Or smaller bodies with bigger sensors, and smaller lenses... Ge real. And study some mechanical and optical engineering.

5 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Apr 4, 2012)

@ Petka - nobody is talking about rangefinder. what we discussed is proper manual focus ring not focus-by-wire system which doesn't have any feel to it and needs way too many turns - If they at least make this customisable I'd be fine with that.

I guess you don't own/or used X100, just try one and try to focus manually and you will understand what we mean by useless MF

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
PJInTheUSA
By PJInTheUSA (Apr 4, 2012)

@hexxthalion

Read Petka post again.

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Apr 4, 2012)

canon has this manual/af focus and the 50mm is not that big

0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Apr 4, 2012)

@Petka: all mirrorless cameras offer manual focus by wire, and none have received such poor response as Fuji.

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Apr 4, 2012)

If it doesn't AF so well in low light, you need MF.

0 upvotes
Joe11
By Joe11 (Apr 4, 2012)

Simply add same sensor type of the X-Pro1 in a little bit smaller size to the X10, increase the price of this new X10 by maybe 200-300 Euros. Then all will be happy! This is what most are dreaming about! Hopefully Fujifilm also reads this post and proceeds accordingly. Thank you very much in advance.

4 upvotes
mcslsk
By mcslsk (Apr 4, 2012)

That's what Canon has done with the G1X. The trick for Fuji will be to develop a decent zoom lens for that size of sensor in a small camera.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

mcslsk:

Um, except Fuji is unlikely to make the F/2.8 mistake that Canon made.

Anyhow Fuji has announced upcoming zoom lenses for this camera.

1 upvote
mcslsk
By mcslsk (Apr 4, 2012)

If Fuji manages to make it a 2.0 zoom at the same size, range and IQ (which I doubt) you will hear my praise.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Joe11
By Joe11 (Apr 4, 2012)

mcslsk:

I hope we won't get a G1X from Fuji !!

The new X10 I was refering to shall have the same bright lense as the X10 currently has. But with same sensor type of the X-Pro-1 and thus no AA filter is required anymore. So please add a smaller version of the X-Pro-1 sensor to the current X10 and everything will be perfect. Price can become increased by 200-300 Euros of course.

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

HowaboutRAW, I agree completely. When I first saw the G1X I was really excited and would have pulled the trigger until I saw that it was an f2.8 max. F2 is about the minimum for me although f1.4 is where I'd be happy.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

mcslsk:

No, there is no reason to adopt the extreme zoom range of the Canon, that's part of Canon's mistake, starting back with the G7.

0 upvotes
mcslsk
By mcslsk (Apr 4, 2012)

4x zoom extreme?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

mcslsk:

Canon should have aimed for 3x, say like the G2.

0 upvotes
mcslsk
By mcslsk (Apr 4, 2012)

It all comes down for me to IQ/size/price. IQ is very good, size without a good pancake zoom bigger than what I would be looking for, price way higher than any difference in IQ there may be between this and the G1X.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

"pancake zoom"? Name a good one by another manufacturer?

Fuji has announced upcoming zooms for this camera.

0 upvotes
andywhoa
By andywhoa (Apr 4, 2012)

I think mcslsk is referring to something like what the X10 has.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mcslsk
By mcslsk (Apr 4, 2012)

The zoom lens of the G1X is excellent. Let's see what Fuji will offer.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 4, 2012)

The X-Pro1 is never going to excel in the "size" and "price" department. I don't think that was ever Fuji's goal. I think Fuji is going more for IQ and retro style.

0 upvotes
mcslsk
By mcslsk (Apr 4, 2012)

It's good to go for IQ. Still wonder who the target customer group is at this price. It is not a bird (compact), it's not a plane ( fast DSLR), it is Supercamera (IQ and price).

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Apr 4, 2012)

So now the fuji is considered big? Did everyone hands just shrunk since last year?

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Apr 4, 2012)

Just had a go on one in a local shop, very nice in all respects except the autofocus is way too slow. Bit silly of Fuji not to have that rather important aspect sorted out as it renders it pointless for what I'd buy it for (weddings) so I'll stick to my SLRs, shame as it's a lovely toy with obviously good IQ.

3 upvotes
gonfig
By gonfig (Apr 4, 2012)

Don't get me wrong for what I'm about to say, but saying that the AF speed renders it pointless for weddings is in good truth a pointless comment.

If you have said it was pointless for sports and fast moving subjects, I'd probably have to agree, but unless you have a lot of runaway brides in your clients, I don't see why wouldn't this camera deliver.

If all the cameras behind it, including the first batch of digital cameras (Nikon D1X, Nikon D70, Canon 10D, Olympus E1, etc.), manual focus cameras (Leicas perhaps), and all vintage of the sort did it, I'm pretty sure this one will do.

Now, if you don't have the skills to pull it out that's another story. Don't blame it on the camera.

4 upvotes
Dan
By Dan (Apr 4, 2012)

Have you shot any weddings? Have you had to deal with the AF issues that wedding photographers have to deal with?

3 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Apr 4, 2012)

to gonfig..

nowadays, a decently fast enough AF lock is needed for those candid wedding photos.. unlike back in the manual days of shooting , it was more documenting the wedding day.. everything is mostly posed..

the style of wedding photography nowadays have changed...

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
gonfig
By gonfig (Apr 4, 2012)

Yes, I've shot a lot of weddings, and I've done it with cameras like the Olympus E1 or the first iteration of the Canon 5D. Do they have faster AF... maybe, but I doubt the difference is great. Was I ever in trouble because of it, nope.

In any case, if you are a serious wedding photog, you will never carry only one camera with you. You can use a Fuji Xpro1 perfectly for the majority of the shots, and carry a faster specked AF camera for the rest (if you're really afraid of missing the shot).

2 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Apr 4, 2012)

I'm with gonfig on this one

2 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (Apr 4, 2012)

Contraversial, but I don't think the AF is that bad at all. It's much better than the X100 and is probably on a par with or just faster than the Sony NEX cameras. It isn't great in low light but that's true of any CDAF camera.

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Apr 4, 2012)

so how about a sport wedding, you know where everybody runs around like mad

2 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Apr 5, 2012)

I don't know what sort of weddings config goes to but my experience of shooting them is that you have to be fast to capture all the little moments that make the day, cake cutting, drunk uncles dancing etc, a slow camera is no good at all as static poses are dull as ditch water. No I wouldn't buy this for sports either, its only use to me would be as a land/cityscape camera.

As for carrying two cameras, why bother? Just get the one that does the job which isn't the X-pro which is a shame because in all other respects it's lovely and if wasn't so pricey I'd have one anyway. There aren't any excuses at this price level.

0 upvotes
UPImage
By UPImage (Apr 4, 2012)

I'm looking for a high quality lightweight supplement to my D700; but I'm not quite sure why this one over the OMD-EM5 given the $$ difference, especially when you add up the glass -- only three lenses versus a much wider selection. I'll wait for both to be fully reviewed, but right now I don't see what this has over the Olympus.

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Apr 4, 2012)

Among other things, the unique viewfinder. No one, to my knowledge, has tried something like this since the Contax G at the end of the film era. Plus, the Fuji has a heads-up display that projects information over the optical view. This is really the first innovation in "viewing" in quite some time. Even what Sony is doing with SLT has predecessors.

An optical viewfinder that changes per focal length and has a virtual frame-line with some room around it for composition will appeal to many who traditionally used rangefinders and, dare I say, is an innovation that Leica might have explored in all these years since the M3 in 1954.

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

@UPImage: your dilema between X-Pro1 and OM-D is quite funny. These cameras have almost nothing in common (except of being compact system cameras). 4/3 sensor vs. APS-C (with special structure allowing comparison to full frame sensors), the character and style is totally different and the most important is the price: they play completely different leagues. (P.S. No offence, just wondering how different cameras might be competitors for you).

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 4, 2012)

Fuji is definitely not going for bang-for-your-buck with this camera. They are going for the "boutique" upper end of the consumer market. They are never going to win in the "value" category. The main way this camera will seem like a good value camera is when you compare it to a Leica M8.

1 upvote
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Apr 4, 2012)

Sometimes not all of these types of cameras need to be super small...

This is a nice ergonomic size.

.

8 upvotes
schaki
By schaki (Apr 4, 2012)

FFS stop with these stupid "first impressions" and spend that time on the real thing instead - The review! This have become quite irritating.
Edit: Initial full size sample images are always to be welcomed but no need to waste time on other things which are expected to be in the final review.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Apr 4, 2012)

More clicks = more money. Thats why.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Apr 4, 2012)

Maybe you should ask for a refund of your DPR subscription dues.

But don't "first impressions" tend to be the ones that last? All the final ratings tend to result in scores somewhere between 68 and 84, with most in the low 70s. The differences can owe to trifle variance in the sub-scores given to one factor or another, and one person's weighting scheme will differ from another's. High ISO noise levels seems to be some people's decisive factor, although night shots at 12k ISO are unusual, unless you are an owl, bat, or mushroom. What usually makes or breaks love for a camera owes to some menu quirk, battery life, or function failure you may not experience for three months or more. In that regard, a lag betwen first impressions and a full review may be a good thing. Think of all the 5-star "buyer reviews" written by people who've just opened the box.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

Cy Cheze:

Being able to shoot at ISO10000 in a night club with no stage illumination, well that's really helpful.

And yes I've done it with both a D3s and a D4.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Apr 5, 2012)

So we should give you less? OK, good to know.

0 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (Apr 5, 2012)

Hey Barney,

A boss who swallowed a management consultancy manual told me that you should strive to give your customers more than they expected for the price.

He forgot to mention that nowadays everyone wants something for nothing :)

Keep up the good work, ignore the wanna wannas.

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Apr 4, 2012)

Yes!
The 5D or D700 is unfortunately not better in landscape and otherwise not
I could already compare
Nobody really needs a full-size
But - the best camera for landscape is still the awesome K-5

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 4, 2012)

So you don't think much of the Nikon D3x for landscape work?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Ross Kennedy
By Ross Kennedy (Apr 4, 2012)

Wow, this is a tough crowd. Some people getting very worked up about a camera they have no intention of buying.

I bought the X-pro to compliment my Nikon DSLR system and I have to say I am very impressed so far. Image quality is excellent (35mm is outstanding) and the AF is perfectly usable (I have an old Nikon D70 and it seens similar to that). Shooting with only primes (instead of a superzoom) is a challenge but that's partially why I went with the Fuji. And it all comes in a tiny, light package which doesn't compromise on manual controls...ticks all the boxes for me.

9 upvotes
Dan
By Dan (Apr 4, 2012)

It would be awesome if Fuji could put this sensor in a Nikon D300-like body and keep the responsiveness comparable to the Nikon body it was based on (the S5 Pro is slower than the D200 it was based on).

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
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, one of them also here in the comments section (Seahster)

1 upvote
MarkoM
By MarkoM (Apr 4, 2012)

Why compare the X-Pro1 to Leica M9? They are completely different cameras and resemble each other only slightly cosmetically.

6 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 4, 2012)

Because they appeal to the same kind of photographer.

1 upvote
iudex
By iudex (Apr 4, 2012)

I am really impressed by the outcome. Especially at high ISO the pictures look flawless. Even ISO 12800 is perfectly usable and nice, ISO 6400 has no sign of noise, way better than my DSLR at ISO 3200 (same sensor size). I admit that much of the work was done by fast prime lenses, anyhow the camera and the sensor produce perfect pictures. I can definitely accept the first declarations about X-Pro1 competing with full frame DSLRs as regards the picture quality.

2 upvotes
seta666
By seta666 (Apr 4, 2012)

Expect iso 12800 to be iso 7000 and iso 6400 to be iso 3500; like in the X100

1 upvote
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Apr 4, 2012)

@seta666 - could you please elaborate a bit on your findings. I have X100 and not quite sure I understand what you mean by ISO values and quite frankly I'm not sure why it matters that much. Correct exposure to my eye is all I care about and if recorded and measured ISOs are different I don't really care.

Are you experiencing some problems because of this? And how did you manage to 'measure' real ISO anyway?

0 upvotes
seta666
By seta666 (Apr 4, 2012)

If you take a picture with the x100 at iso 400 (example) and then with the EOS 5D mkII same aperture and exposure time you will see the X100 shot will be underexpossed. One thing is the ISO you see in the camera and the other is the real ISO.
Real ISOs in the X100 are ISo 200 =127, iso 400=253
Iso

It matters when you compare high iso shots, because the iso 1600 on the X100 is only iso 1000, so it has 2/3 EV advantage already. Also if you buy that camera because of the low light ISO capabilities only to find out you need longer exposure times than you should

Real ISO readings are in DXOmark
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Fujifilm/FinePix-X100

0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Apr 4, 2012)

I would not pay that much attention to measured ISO and rather look at real pictures. And the pictures look astonishing, even at ISO 12800. BTW look at ISO measurements of Hasselbladt H3 DII: nominal ISO 400, real 50! http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Hasselblad/H3DII-39 And noone challenges Hasselbladt qualities just because DxOmark measurements.

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Apr 4, 2012)

@seta666 - OK, but what does it have to do with real pictures and how camera performs in real life? Also expecting to have the same settings on APS-C and FF sensor is a bit, well, you know - larger surface captures more light so exposure will be different.

"Also if you buy that camera because of the low light ISO capabilities only to find out you need longer exposure times than you should"

- nope, not at all - I evaluate scene and make appropriate exposure - whatever values I need to use - and I don't care what they are ;)

0 upvotes
seta666
By seta666 (Apr 4, 2012)

@Iudex If they publish an image as ISO 12800 and the real ISO is 6400 then you should compare it with ISO 6400 of other makers.
Hasselbladt may have hardware ISO 50 and the others may just be sofware pushed. Same way X100 only goes to ISO 1000(or iso 1600 as they say), other ISOs are software pushed.
@Hexxthalion I think the size of the sensor has nothing to do with the Exposure time, in any case X100 sensor is optimized in the corners so it should get shorter exposure times.
If the iso was as stated maybe yopu could get a picture in a low ligth enviroment lets say at 1/20, because ISo is almost have as stated you either need to shot at 1/10 or ISO 6400

Anyway, for me the worst thing about the X100 was the useless focus by wire, which this X-Pro1 shares. A proper Rangefinder camera should have proper manual focus

In my opinion this cameras have Rangefinder look (and price) and Compact camera like pèrformance (regarding manual focus and Autofocus)

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Apr 4, 2012)

A very attractive camera. Need to take a look of the real one.

1 upvote
topstuff
By topstuff (Apr 4, 2012)

Jeez, there are so many negative people out there who want to shout to the world why something is not for them. What is the physchology of this bashing and hating? Odd.

Anyway, the IQ from this camera from the blogs and user reviews I have seen on the web, does look very good. The pictures look terrific.

Slow AF? I am not that bothered. No one expects it to focus like a D3S. And the AF seems plenty good enough for travel shooting, which is what this camera is aimed at mostly I suspect.

People are spoilt. They want AF like a D3S, IQ like a D800, all in a package smaller than NEX and costing less than a Canon Rebel.

Quit whinging. It ain't gonna happen.

11 upvotes
seta666
By seta666 (Apr 4, 2012)

But when you add useless MF to the Slow AF the thing changes a lot, they try to sell it as a rangefinder but it has nothing of it.
I owned and sold the X100 for that reason
- AF very slow
- MF Slowest/worst I have ever tried
- the nominal ISO is off by almost one stop, iso 200 is like iso 120; iso 1600 is iso 1000

6 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Apr 4, 2012)

Well, in a camera pitched at this level it's not unreasonable to expect, for example, a viewfinder that can be adjusted for glasses wearers - a feature that can be found on every entry-level DSLR at a quarter of the price. Especially given the fact that the VF is one of the major selling points of the product: inexcusable. A build quality that at least feels a bit less insubstantial wouldn't hurt either.
Does this count as whinging?

2 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Apr 4, 2012)

An interesting question is its viewfinder. This is not a real rangefinder because it lacks the capability to measure distance.
I am a user of Lecia M6, l like the perfect design of the M6 rangefinder. I am also a user of Contax T2; although the viewfinder of T2 is also very good, still, it cannot be compared with M6.
I still have no chance to take a look of the real product of X-Pro1, if the quality of the viewfinder is close to the T2, I still like to buy one.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Apr 4, 2012)

"No-one expects it to focus like a D3s" - Actually I do, Nikons J1 is much quicker of the mark than the Fuji. It's annoying because it's an expensive camera and perfect for me in every way except in one of the most important and it should have been sorted out before it went on sale. I would have brought one today if it wasn't for that!

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

SeeRoy, the viewfinder does have a diopter adjusment. You just buy Consina diopter lenses for about $20 a pop and drop it in. Same system that Leica and Voigtlander use. As for a build that feels more substantial, I really appreciate a lighter camera. Heft is often associated with quality, but when that heft is hanging around your neck day in and day out, a lighter camera that is still very well built is quite welcome.

If Fuji just added a 200g lead weight to the Xpro1, people would suddenly be really impressed with it's substantial build.

So yeah, it sort of counts as whining.

0 upvotes
locke_fc
By locke_fc (Apr 5, 2012)

Wait, if you have to buy the diopter lens, then the viewfinder does NOT have one. Or am I missing something?

0 upvotes
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (Apr 4, 2012)

I can't understand the bashing on DPR these days. Fuji are one of the really inovative companies. Give them credit for producing cameras for photographers rather than soccer moms! Yes it has flaws, but so does the NEX7, m43, each DSLR.

It's not just Fuji getting a bashing - the Canon forum has been a joke of late.

All these people moaning come across as really spoilt brats. Appreciate every camera for what it does well! If you can't add some constructive critique with negative comments, don't bother!

16 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Apr 4, 2012)

No camera is perfect and a lot of these comments are too nit-picky but, come on, slow autofocus on a £1700 camera? What's the excuse? I sometimes doubt camera makers even consult photographers, most cameras days are packed with market department driven gadgets that no-one would use, but are put in just to keep up with the competition. But focusing is rather essential, the X pro 1 is no better than my Lumix compact.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 4, 2012)

The "excuse" is that it a camera designed around the rangefinder experience. A Leica is 4x the cost and doesn't even have AF at all. It is not trying to compete with those other cameras everyone wants to compare it to. If you need lighting fast AF, you want a different kind of camera. But that doesn't mean this camera doesn't excel at what it was designed for - travel, portraits and street. Same thing people would use a non-AF rangefinder for.

1 upvote
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (Apr 4, 2012)

What an overpriced hype full of bugs and slow AF! I guess people buy this camera just because of retro look. The image quality is average, compared to the best mirrorless cameras around.

7 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 4, 2012)

On the contrary, having owned an X100 and having looked at hundreds of X100 images, all you see are superb images from this camera. And based on the samples here and online, the IQ of the X-Pro1 is even better. I wish my GH2 produced images as good, but it does not.

4 upvotes
Ross Murphy
By Ross Murphy (Apr 4, 2012)

you need to do a little reading, this camera will have better image IQ than any M4/3 and probably any APS-C and be close to FF

2 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (Apr 4, 2012)

Sony NEX will do better any day than this overpriced piece of hype.
Samsung will do better too. I suppose that Pentax K-01 will be the best of the bunch.

1 upvote
Alan Wolf
By Alan Wolf (Apr 11, 2012)

If by best, you mean M9, then this is a fair statement. But if you mean Nex 7 or m43, I don’t think that you’re really looking at the images.

Overpriced is difficult to prove or argue, other than to watch what the market will be. It’s more than the current run of m43, but less than the current run of FF dslr that it’s images can be compared to.

0 upvotes
Seahster
By Seahster (Apr 4, 2012)

Hi everyone,

I've been a happy owner of the X-Pro1 for a few weeks now, and have been shooting and documenting my thoughts on this camera on http://handcarryonly.com/tagged/fuji in case anyone is interested.

I would say it is not a camera for everyone and every situation but for street and travel photography, it is where it truly excels, with the high IQ and low weight package.

Adrian

5 upvotes
Polyfem
By Polyfem (Apr 4, 2012)

Hi Adrian,

I have just seen your great photos of the market - well done!

3 upvotes
mcslsk
By mcslsk (Apr 4, 2012)

Great images, and the low light, high ISO is performance of the cam is great. I've been looking at the NEX7, the G1X and the X-pro1 and decided for the G1X because of size/IQ combination (and, I must admit, price).

2 upvotes
hc44
By hc44 (Apr 4, 2012)

Is it just me or do the pictures have an old school look about them? Maybe it's just Singapore haze.

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 4, 2012)

Very nice set of street photography images. Hmmmm ... as someone said ... they have an old school look. They are slightly brownish and have the kind of contrast you associate with film. Hmmmm ... have you done some post processing to make them thus?

1 upvote
xtralight
By xtralight (Apr 4, 2012)

Very nices pictures! Very refreshing!

1 upvote
Seahster
By Seahster (Apr 4, 2012)

Hi everyone, thanks for your kind words all around.

mcslsk: congrats on your Canon G1X, its a great camera as well, do post shots to share with everyone when you have a chance!

I started my photography back in the film days and I guess I am nostalgic about the look that film provides. The new X-trans sensor in the X-Pro1 is supposed to mimic the distribution of grain in film, one of the reasons why I like it so much, the noise, when it does appear, is pretty organic looking and inoffensive.

As for the colours, I've treated the photos in Aperture with VSCO (with my own tweaks). I don't have a formula for how I pp my pictures but go with what 'seems to fit the theme'. I guess I felt the ole skool film look went with the idea that these markets are increasingly being antiquated by modern conveniences and supermarkets. Please bookmark Handcarry Only, I will post regular updates!

0 upvotes
mcslsk
By mcslsk (Apr 4, 2012)

I have some images of mine on the Canon forum. I do like the look and feel of the images that you have taken a lot.

0 upvotes
Polyfem
By Polyfem (Apr 4, 2012)

Thanks to Amadou Diallo for a great report and many telling images. It has become quite obvious to me that this Fuji will be the first true alternative to SLRs (excluding the insanely priced Leica Ms). I have been away from serious photographing since I sold my good Canon SLR back in the late 80s, but thanks to my son's rather unexpected and recent interest in photography I have evoken from the easy-going tourist-camera sleep and now want to make serious photographing again. However, DSLRs don't attract me because of their monstrous weight & volume, and I have looked for a camera just like the X-Pro 1. Being old-school, I prefer a camera with the main parametres (aperture, shutter speed, perhaps also ISO now) adjustable by hand without thinking. I am not at all fascinated by camera technique - it's the pictures that count and the effortless way your camera helps you to get them. I think this Fuji is likely to fulfill my wishes, and I look forward to handling one.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Apr 4, 2012)

Great sentiments and have fun with your re-discovery of serious photography. RF and SLR each had its strengths and also embody one's approach to live. Poetic versus artistic. Absorbing life versus capturing it.

2 upvotes
cinemascope
By cinemascope (Apr 4, 2012)

Focus-by-wire is a big let down for me...
Why go "cheap" on this when it's supposed to be a premium product?

What are your thoughts on this, usability wise?

I think I'd much rather spend the same dough on a Ricoh A12M (which is also AA filterless) and Cosina lenses...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Conrad567
By Conrad567 (Apr 4, 2012)

I agree focus by wire is a joke. But as for me I have several Leica Lenses that I plan to use with this...so the focus by wire is almost a non issue. The question is how will focusing with an off brand lens work. Mine should be here in about 2 days...I guess I'll see.

0 upvotes
mmday
By mmday (Apr 4, 2012)

i just got it on few weeks is a very good camera ... i already compare with my Eos 5D markII on my studio and real-world testing ..the Xpro1 image quality was outstanding than the 5d II wow ... surpising me !! so many details on the photo and the the highest iso noise was so smooth .. it seems very useful on iso1600 at A3 print out. The 35mm 1.4 lens have very sharp quality when full aperture open ...!!The handling was very nice but still can't compare with Leica system ..coz u can't manual focus on OVF and AF system was dump so noises and slow on there lens ..But overall still great for me , now i can put down my heavy DSLR system on trip and daily Work !

2 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Apr 4, 2012)

If I didn't order D800E, I hod bought this. I still want one. From what I can tell from those pictures, 18mm is somewhat questionable, but 35mm and especially 60mm would be good lenses

2 upvotes
HienPham
By HienPham (Apr 4, 2012)

They look boring. I've seen better pictures from the X-Pro1 somewhere else that almost made me jump.

0 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (Apr 4, 2012)

Simply outstanding. :-)

0 upvotes
kuklukklak
By kuklukklak (Apr 4, 2012)

Great sharpness, color, noise, skin tones.

Best APSC cam out there. The only thing not great about this cam is the price.

2 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (Apr 4, 2012)

I guess if one takes the sensor size alone its expensive, though as the camera sensor and processor clearly perform like premium full frame, its a bargain.

1 upvote
drakkar
By drakkar (Apr 4, 2012)

Oustanding output render images!
Plenty of Image Quality and a lot of Best Image Quality in High ISO samples i've ever seen at this sensor size!

Thanks Fuji!

3 upvotes
Tech Talk Tony
By Tech Talk Tony (Apr 4, 2012)

great looking images but the one that looks that best to me is the black & white shot. even with this sampling, I am not moved to purchase because the cost of the camera for the output obtained can be had for much less money with some late model competitors.

2 upvotes
fastlass
By fastlass (Apr 3, 2012)

Great sample shots! Finally some images that are close to what I'd take of people and things. Definitely makes it easier to envision how the camera would perform for me.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 211
12