Previous news story    Next news story

First full-res Fujifilm X-Pro1 images appear on the web

By dpreview staff on Feb 1, 2012 at 00:34 GMT

Four full-size images from the Fujifilm X-Pro1 have been released by the two photographers commissioned to shoot with the camera (apparently using a pre-production unit). Australian photojournalist Michael Coyne and landscape photographer Christian Fletcher are shooting with the camera and have published four images taken with the 18mm lens, alongside a video explaining their first impressions. All the images, shot at a range of ISO settings, have been passed through Photoshop, according to the EXIF, but are said to be unprocessed. (via PetaPixel)

(Ignore all the talk of 'raw' images - they appear to mean not post-processed)

Following a request from Christian Fletcher, we've removed links to the images to prevent his server being overloaded.

© Christian FletcherISO 4001/200th, F5.6 © Christian FletcherISO 400 1/300th, F8
© Michael CoyneISO 10001/200th, F3.6 © Michael CoyneISO 64001/250th, F3.2

First Impressions video

Comments

Total comments: 216
123
arv-in
By arv-in (Feb 1, 2012)

why they look this soft? is it the lens or?

0 upvotes
smallcams
By smallcams (Feb 1, 2012)

This camera is too big and IQ doesn't look any better than (Edit: upon closer review does not look as good as) the new CX sensor.

Hurry up Nikon and give me a fast prime for my V1.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
smallcams
By smallcams (Feb 1, 2012)

My goodness, those images are smeary and soft. What on earth compelled those guys to post those images. Must be a mistake.

0 upvotes
Ibida Bab
By Ibida Bab (Feb 1, 2012)

Was the video done on the Fuji?

0 upvotes
Mattoid
By Mattoid (Feb 1, 2012)

Unlikely. Although he hasn't confirmed what it was shot with yet, the other videos on the vimeo account are done with the 5dmk2.

0 upvotes
jto555
By jto555 (Feb 1, 2012)

I think the Sony NEX 5 is safe!

I really want to buy a Leica M9 but I cannot afford it. So I was looking at this Fuji and I have to say after seeing these photographs I think I might give it a miss.

Dull, soft and flat photographs plus a crazy price tag, it looks like Fuji are trying to kill off the hype surrounding the camera.

I would buy this camera if the picture taking qualities were up to the standard of the Leica M8 ($2000). However, looking at the released photographs so far it, it is not even close.

0 upvotes
arndsan
By arndsan (Feb 1, 2012)

yes - right , that's not the wow-factor I was hoping for.
but I know some people can't manage to make a good photo with the m9 as well.
might be a interesting option when the price is down a bit.

1 upvote
Nikonworks
By Nikonworks (Feb 1, 2012)

For years my test of resolution and noise reduction is threads in clothing.

The shearer's leg pant at 6400 is almost identical to Sony noise reduction, but worse. There are no threads to be seen on the seam up the pant leg.

The image of the guy with the beer also has a great deal of noise reduction with clothing threads not dicsernable. ISO 800.

If these four images are all they can release, it does not look promising.

0 upvotes
Hen3ry
By Hen3ry (Feb 1, 2012)

Looking good, I reckon, particularly the reportage shots by Coyne. I'd like to see more as the days go by, though.

0 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (Feb 1, 2012)

The FujiFilm global website has lots more images. Look in Digital Cameras, X-Pro 1.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Feb 1, 2012)

Amusingly, TOP posted a link to this "field test" yesterday. The piece has since disappeared. Second thoughts or a response to responses?

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Feb 1, 2012)

I'll wait for images that show us how this camera copes with specular highlights thanks. As it has the same sensor as the X10, that's the make or break issue for me. But these photos carefully avoid it.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 1, 2012)

WRONG! This has a different CFA pattern than the X10.

Compare: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmx10/page3.asp

...to: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/page3.asp

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Feb 1, 2012)

Hi. Thanks for the info, and that may be good news.

Still like to check its specular highlights though.

As they say: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ..."

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Feb 1, 2012)

It has a totally unrelated sensor. It's over 6 times bigger, based on a totally different sensor design and a totally different colour filter array, other than the shape of the body it fits in, there's essentially no connection.

2 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Feb 1, 2012)

All the same. Other people can beta test it. Once bitten, twice shy. Even Fujifilm's own images on their global web pages are not giving us examples of certain scenarios.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Faintandfuzzy
By Faintandfuzzy (Feb 1, 2012)

Really, before you post, have a clue what you're talking about. These aren't the same sensors at all. Any other pearls of wisdom you wish to share?

0 upvotes
G10Rebel
By G10Rebel (Feb 1, 2012)

Nice images.

1 upvote
intruder61
By intruder61 (Feb 1, 2012)

Just another camera.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 1, 2012)

...looking at the images, the vertical pixel dimension spec matches the Sony 16mp sensor. I suspect this is based on that same sensor, with a different CFA slapped on. That said, the stills look promising.

However, the video looks a bit more jello-ey than the D7000 and Nex5n roll I'm familiar with. This will probably not compete on the video front. Still, with the fast primes it has a shot at competing in low light for stills. Maybe.

The proof of the pudding will be in the tasting.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
aliquis
By aliquis (Feb 1, 2012)

It's not supposed to compete on the video front. I wish it was though. Stupid not to.

But I know there's plenty of haters for no obvious reason among the "well I'm a photographer!"-crowd.

1 upvote
chiumeister
By chiumeister (Feb 1, 2012)

any of the hairs get onto the sensors?

1 upvote
starwolfy
By starwolfy (Feb 1, 2012)

Where is the FF IQ?
In fact when Fuji stated their camera was much better than FF sensor, they forgot to mention that in fact they meant HIGH ISOS are cleaner than current FF...but High Isos only.
This camera seems fine but it is far to be the revolution they tried to make us believe it would be.

0 upvotes
commiebiker
By commiebiker (Feb 1, 2012)

I like the idea of this camera more than the actual photos..so far....

0 upvotes
DecisiveMoment
By DecisiveMoment (Feb 1, 2012)

I have found to really analyze and judge sample images from DPReview I download the RAW file when available or the JPEG. I then open them in Photoshop. To make a judgement based on the website image does not do it justice and is not accurate. I use two monitors in my post processing and the newer monitor renders images sharper. I wish that the manufacturers would have RAW files on their website. The manual is available now on the Fujifilm website in PDF format so you can get a better feel for the X-Pro1 camera.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 1, 2012)

...unfortunately, ACR and other third party software don't appear to support it yet.

That said, I agree. I won't touch a new cam until it is supported and I can use a raw workflow for post. You never know if there will be any surprises until you get the raw files in front of you.

Especially since it looks like there's a bit too much color noise reduction going on here.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
zcus
By zcus (Feb 1, 2012)

Clean ISO but terribly boring shots and not impressed with the 18mm. Why would Fuji commission people to take shots with the weakest lens of the line up and post dull lifeless photos???

2 upvotes
Sosua
By Sosua (Feb 1, 2012)

Good points - this is effectively a real world advertorial and if I were Fuji, I would only be showing off the best output, rather than this output which isn't impressive, although decent in the context of the conditions and jpeg.

0 upvotes
morepix
By morepix (Feb 1, 2012)

Geez! Even a catchlight in the eye of that poor sheep!

That's all very well, but don't forget, it's made by Fujifilm, the renowned maker of quirky cameras with no QC.

1 upvote
spidercrown
By spidercrown (Feb 1, 2012)

image looks good. but purple fringing problem is still hunting them. they got to find a way to solve this problem.

0 upvotes
Aaron MC
By Aaron MC (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm impressed. The ISO 6400 is very good, and the ISO 1000 indicates a good balance of noise reduction and detail maintenance. Obviously, it's the RAW files that really matter, but for JPEG shooters, the camera seems good.

The lens is good, but it's showing a fair amount of softening by the edges at f/5.6 and even f/8. Noise levels appear similar to the NEX 5n, which is great.

The lens performance seems worth its price, but the camera... I'm not so sure.

2 upvotes
Jared Huntr
By Jared Huntr (Feb 1, 2012)

Electronically created watercolours

3 upvotes
smallcams
By smallcams (Feb 1, 2012)

Sad, but true.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 1, 2012)

Jared: well said.

This is disgustingly bad.

0 upvotes
TwoMetreBill
By TwoMetreBill (Feb 1, 2012)

Anybody who thinks this c**p came from a Fuji is smoking something they aren't sharing. Please pass the pipe.

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Feb 1, 2012)

Maybe my monitor but they seem a bit soft.........

Unsharpened RAW?

0 upvotes
Total comments: 216
123