Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review

By dpreview staff on Jun 28, 2012 at 18:20 GMT

Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review. The X-Pro1 is Fujifilm's first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and it aims straight for the high-end camera enthusiast as the equally classically-styled X100 before it. However, far from simply being a 16MP X100 with interchangeable lenses, the X-Pro1 also features characteristically adventurous Fujifilm technology: a X-Trans CMOS sensor. This uses a non-standard color filter array which promises less susceptibility to moiré, avoiding the need for a low-pass filter - promising sharper images. Fujifilm has announced an impressive XF lens roadmap, so is it done justice by the first X-mount body?

Comments

Total comments: 271
12
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Jun 29, 2012)

Can someone tell me what I am looking at on page 21 under "Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration". The gaping bars picture. Thanks.

If SONY combines this sensor and lens lineup with the NEX series, it would be by far the best EVIL/mirrorless system available.

0 upvotes
AlbertoGarcia
By AlbertoGarcia (Jun 29, 2012)

Hello,
just like the combination of glass lenses will be more difficult to control in terms of aberration as you go far from the image center (http://albertog.over-blog.es/article-rainbow-physics-photography-and-some-phylosophy-103168806.html), you will get a similar effect when moving away from the focussing plane (forward or backwards).
Take it as a side-effect of depth-of-field...

0 upvotes
dotyman
By dotyman (Jun 29, 2012)

Only if Sony could figure out how to provide enough good lenses though.

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Jun 29, 2012)

^^ +1

I am a Sony fan but the NEX line up has more cameras bodies than lenses. I don't think the NEX is targeted towards serious photographers.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jun 29, 2012)

This is not the first time Fujifilm releases a new intriguing camera with some unique features, which still suffers from serious problems, like those mentioned in the review. It's kinda almost there, but no sigar.

1 upvote
mailman88
By mailman88 (Jun 29, 2012)

I get the same feeling with Canon. The competition says do it, but corporate Canon says...no! Lets nickle and dime our customers some more...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FTW
By FTW (Jun 29, 2012)

You got it right, the S5 pro is still today one of the most amazing work-tools you can ow. When it came on the market,t eh body sold 3500$. I bought the end of series 2 years later new for 780$, same body. I still ow it and it remains one of my preferred cameras. Fuji makes good stuff, average bodies, as we see here, and amazing fancy prices. At least, the D200 body had no problems and all was functional.

0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Jun 29, 2012)

The FX-Pro1 is a great concept but it is not quite yet a finished product. However I expect that the next camera will have improved the autofocus issues, and hopefully it will use an EVF to lower the price. If they do that then it may be a better deal than Sony NEX due to the great lenses available and coming soon.

0 upvotes
dotyman
By dotyman (Jun 29, 2012)

I would have thought, after the AF issues with the X100, that Fuji would have released the XP1 with better AF performance. I'm not holding my breath for Fuji to figure out how to design a fast AF anytime soon...

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Jul 3, 2012)

NOOOOOOOO, I use OVF most of the time

0 upvotes
Grant David Stovel
By Grant David Stovel (Jun 29, 2012)

The image quality does rival my Canon 5d II and except for the zone focusing/manual focusing issue the camera makes a great friend when I do not want to blow away the spectators on the street. It does not replace any of my cameras...but I admit I bought it thinking it should be able to be pre-set to a distance and using f11 then go through life not caring about slower focus than some other cameras. I am confident Fuji can correct this and then it would be getting higher marks. Now I do not use the camera at all and other than doing my own tests on image quality I will wait on Fuji. I do have two Contax g2 lenses and since they would be used in manual focus mode ...this issue most like ly would disappear....a great third or fourth camera and just one of the tools I use to get the job done and enjoy photography....knowing there will never be a perfect camera, a perfect camera bag or for that matter even a perfect image....but we do keep trying don't we.

1 upvote
PJInTheUSA
By PJInTheUSA (Jun 29, 2012)

Or perfect photographer for that that matter! I can't help but feel the XPRO gets a bad rap though - I think the AF issue is so terribly overblown. I own the OM-D and the XPRO1 and although the OM-D is undeniably faster, I find it makes very little practical difference to me, especially shooting in daylight. Each to there own I guess.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
John 3
By John 3 (Jun 29, 2012)

Many thought the white orb issue was overblown too. But love is blind I guess.

3 upvotes
PJInTheUSA
By PJInTheUSA (Jun 29, 2012)

Fantastic review as always. Thanks DPR. Great read. And with so many great cams being released at the moment, we really have nothing to complain about. So many great choices.

3 upvotes
rosskoss
By rosskoss (Jun 29, 2012)

I've been to the local camera store three times now and each time I've tried out the XP1, the predominant reason I didn't buy it - Autofocus.

Yes, price was a factor, slow EVF refresh rate...but all those I could deal with....the AF I found too slow. Maybe the engineers were thinking it looks like a Leica and it's even got AF....that should be good enough. Wrong, if you're going to include AF, make sure it works properly. The AF is just slow..and it doesn't just make for a deliberate shooting style...rather it makes for a frustrating one at times.

This is sad because I'm very ready to buy this camera if the AF gets updated...especially given the recent lens update.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jun 29, 2012)

"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.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
TEBnewyork
By TEBnewyork (Jun 29, 2012)

If we can get good image quality after corrections AND software based corrections allow lenses to be smaller and more compact and at less expense then I have no issue with the lenses being designed with software corrections as part of the whole package.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jun 29, 2012)

oh not this silliness again, every time this came up about an m43 lens I challenged to show a single optical only corrected lens that could beat a Panasonic digitally corrected lens in the same class (after correction to make sharpness testing fair) and no-one every found a single example.

Digital correction allows for better lens design, period. To use your car example it's like saying using computer controlled fuel injection is cheating because they can't be bothered to use a well designed carb, what a silly argument.

2 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (Jun 29, 2012)

Pretty much this. The people complaining about software corrections and extreme edge sharpness on lenses such as the ones on the XP1, fail to realize, that going without would increase the size significantly and make the system not really worth it.

Film was easier to create compact/sharp lenses for, specifically because of it's physical flexibility and ability to catch light from any direction. Even with micro lenses on modern sensors, the light still needs to come in at a fairly straight forward direction. This is why even some of the best and biggest lenses on full frame cameras still vignette.

I applaud Fuji for their sensible lens roadmap, and spectacular optical performance, thus far.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jun 29, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (Jun 29, 2012)

It is Sonys 16 Mp sensor in the X-pro1 with their own CFA

1 upvote
keepreal
By keepreal (Jun 28, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jeff Seltzer
By Jeff Seltzer (Jun 28, 2012)

What a crack-up! "Both viewfinders are somewhat substandard." Can you please tell me the "standard" when it comes to hybrid viewfinders?

7 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Jun 28, 2012)

Regarding your first comment (to which I agree), I'd add that much of the controversy regarding who this camera is for, would have been avoided if Fuji simply named it X1 (for instance). And maybe make less bold statements on the Pro issue too...?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jun 29, 2012)

@Gully Foyle

X1 would have been a great, if Leica didn't already sell a camera called the X1.

But I have no problem with the name. Certainly with IQ from an APS-C camera that rivals FF (look at the raw high ISO images in the review), the X-Pro1 moniker is totally appropriate.

1 upvote
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Jun 29, 2012)

@marike6
It's the implication that derives from the 'Pro' in the name that I think creates this controversy, regardless if this is a Pro camera or not. No pro Nikon or Canon has a 'Pro' in its name.
Xsomething anyway, you get my point.

But I bet Pros don't buy on IQ alone, do they? And then it's not like MKIII will lose sales to X-Pro1 because of its IQ...
Let's be sensible here.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jun 29, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Jun 29, 2012)

keepreal - You may be right but I wasn't the one to comment on what's standard on VFs. Probably you are talking to Jeff Seltzer. :)

--EDIT
typo

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Jun 28, 2012)

Maybe Fuji should think to sell sensors to others? Like Sony does. I'd love to see a Nikon/Fuji combo, but on a wholly Nikon camera (i.e. not like the S5).

--EDIT
Btw, nice camera, although I don't belong to its target market.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
dotyman
By dotyman (Jun 29, 2012)

I'd like to see it in an Oly E-M5.

0 upvotes
Helena777
By Helena777 (Jun 28, 2012)

I am not in the retro thing, but this cam attracts me...although I am not going to buy ever, that price is not logical!

That hybrid VF is very interesting NOW, but have its compromises and will be unisteresting and too complex in two years, when EVF will be amazing.

IMHO this is a top quality, quirk gear, that will be remembered as anecdotical, and maybe, a piece of cult. I like it but isn't for me, very quirk :D

3 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Jun 28, 2012)

A $1,700 camera (body only) that can't even handle "shooting moving subjects", among other negatives.

2 upvotes
PJInTheUSA
By PJInTheUSA (Jun 28, 2012)

Simply untrue.

2 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (Jun 28, 2012)

At the end or the review, DPR states in part "Not so good for Shooting moving subjects, video work" and "autofocus is relatively slow and manual focus doesn't work very well."

1 upvote
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Jun 29, 2012)

@justmeMN
MF cameras can't too. Also M9. What's your point?

0 upvotes
PJInTheUSA
By PJInTheUSA (Jun 29, 2012)

@justmeMN

> DPR States....

A world away from your statement

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Jun 28, 2012)

Well I hope theis pushes Canon to create a good compact system camera at a lower cost... to be announced in August??? We'll see.

1 upvote
MP Burke
By MP Burke (Jun 28, 2012)

When I examined one of these cameras I was rather shocked to find the lens whirring in and out as it focussed. It does not offer encouragement that Fujifilm will ever be able to match the AF speed of other mirrorless systems with internal focus.
If I was in the market for a mirrorless camera now, i would find the X-Pro 1 intriguing but highly frustrating. The lack of an ultra-wide lens (until some time in 2013, it seems) is the biggest problem, and the performance of the 18mm lens does not inspire confidence that the shorter focal length lenses will live up to the results of those at 35 and 60mm. Personally I like to see a lens range, not a roadmap. I would want to see that the lenses are available and tested before buying into a system.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jun 28, 2012)

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!

0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Jun 28, 2012)

Gee...a $1700 camera body that does not Auto-Focus or Manually Focus well compared to other current state-of-the-art cameras at less than 1/2 the price???? Go figure... I will not be running out to buy one, who would? There are just way too many other choices out there that offer so much more. Disappointing...I love the idea of the camera...but not its reality with all of its quirks.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jun 28, 2012)

People said the same nonsense about the X100, and with the new firmware, it rocks. If you can find another mirrorless for 1/2 the price with as good IQ, go for it. It's likely you won't find such a camera, however.

0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Jun 28, 2012)

Let's just say I really like the choices I HAVE made.

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jun 29, 2012)

Look at it this way....you could spend $8000 instead on a Leica M9....and it doesn't even have AF.

$1699 for the XPro1 is cheap given the image quality. Quit whining, if you can't afford it then don't buy it.

1 upvote
dstate1
By dstate1 (Jun 29, 2012)

"Let's just say I really like the choices I HAVE made."

Well, yeah...don't we all.

Anyway, if you don't like the concept there are lots of other choices...Keep in mind that ANY of the mirror-less cameras on the market are faster, better and cheaper than the cameras Cartier-Bresson or Capa used...somehow we all got by back than.

0 upvotes
dotyman
By dotyman (Jun 29, 2012)

Sorry, the X100 with new firmware does not "rock." It's better, yes, but you still have to work around it, much more than with the E-M5 or V1. Sure, the image quality is probably better, but a missed shot is worse than a lesser quality one.

0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Jun 29, 2012)

I CAN afford it. That is just it. The "idea" of the camera is incredible. The implementation is not. ...and the lens road map is so awkward and limiting....it is not a system that I can relate to and I have been shooting for over 40 years. I just don't get it. ....but hey ...the cool thing is...we have so many fish in the ocean right now...I guess everybody can be happy.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jun 28, 2012)

DPR aliasing explaination is incomplete/incorrect. It's true that film didn't create moire patterns due to random distribution of silver halide particles. But Fujiflm design is not random, it has a spatial pattern 6 times lower than Bayer. While Bayer sensor has aliasing above Nyquist, the Fujifilm sensor has aliasing at frequencies 6 times lower and more harmonics after that. And there is no way to suppress that with AA filter, neither the camera has one. That is a disadvantage, because lower spacial frequencies are more visible and more likely to occur. But this pattern also means the amplitude of moire is much lower, so the at the end it's not clear how much this pattern is an improvement. I think DPR or others should actually test moire patterns on different targets and compare it with Bayer.

2 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Jun 28, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jun 29, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Jun 29, 2012)

Are you sure, keepreal? I thought those who want to spend lots of money would never buy anything except the most expensive, like Leica. They won't be seen dead holding a camera costing only $1700. LOL.

I know the type you are alluding to. And they also like fancy exotic marques. I don't think a name like Fuji will appeal to them either even if the price is doubled. :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
calking
By calking (Jun 28, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (Jun 28, 2012)

Ya, but people ARE buying them because some people have extra money and care more about looking cool behind the camera. That is the market. It isn't all just about photography or IQ. People simply want the lastest or neatest toy, just because.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (Jun 29, 2012)

If Car A goes 0-60 in 5 seconds and Car B goes 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, Car A must suck and I'm selling my Car A to buy Car B. We live in a day and age where the "best" of something today WILL inevitably be trumped by something "better" tomorrow. The question most people should be asking is NOT, "when can I buy something better?" Rather, it should be "how can I get the most from the equipment I have?". Amazingly, despite the plethora of factual, scientific info that supports the premise that today's equipment is far beyond our capability, most of the comments found in forums like this are made on the premise that the equipment makes the photographer when in truth any professional photographer can get mind-blowing results from a Nikon D50 and Lightroom that would SMOKE a hobbyist with their latest-greatest gear.

It's also silly to see people basing their own buying decisions on technical reviews instead of hands-on experience. But whatever....I shouldn't read these forums.

2 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jun 29, 2012)

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!

0 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (Jun 29, 2012)

I definitely agree that it doesn't make sense to own redundant systems. The cost of flushing out a micro four thirds system is quite similar to that of an APS-C system (as long as you stick to the consumer lenses for APS-C). The difference is that with MFT you'll likely end up with a bunch of very nice primes, difficult to match in APS-C. But you'll be short on fast zooms...

0 upvotes
Les Kamens
By Les Kamens (Jun 28, 2012)

love that it has a view finder

0 upvotes
love_them_all
By love_them_all (Jun 28, 2012)

Just one statement to sum up this system: there are those who get it and there are those who don't.

Why so much hate? Just don't buy it. But if you want the colors Fuji produces, this is the camera to get. There is reason why so many still love the S5pro.

7 upvotes
dotyman
By dotyman (Jun 29, 2012)

You mean there are some that like it, and many that don't? I don't think it's hate–it's more like disappointment.

1 upvote
FTW
By FTW (Jun 29, 2012)

You can get Fuji colors with some add on software in Photoshop too. Try Alien Skin Exposure and you select all Fuji film simulations you want. But, there is one thing that only an S5 can give you and that is a correct picture with all details while you shoot full in the sunlight. No other camera can handle highlights as well as the ancient S series form Fuji, the double pixel-size system was the real deal. I wait still today for that sensor in 24 mpix FF. Even this new Fuji sensors used in the X1 can not hold the road with Fuji's super ccd system.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Jun 28, 2012)

The problem of this camera is the price.

The current price in US is too high for what it is.
I japan, X-Pro1 is sold for $1800 with 35mm, $1500 used/35mm.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jun 28, 2012)

$1699 (in Canada) for an X-Pro1 is expensive?? Not to me. 5 yr old Leica M8's are selling for $2,000. Also, the lenses for the X-Pro1 are cheap in my opinion....the XF35mm1/4R sells for $600 and it's a world-class lens.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
jimrpdx
By jimrpdx (Jun 28, 2012)

If image quality were everything, this would be a top-tier camera; even at 12800 and jpeg its test images here perform nicely. Of course, if image quality were everything the K-01 would be right behind it.. :^) so never mind.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jun 28, 2012)

The Pentax K-01, while it has excellent IQ, it doesn't have a viewfinder. The Fuji X-Pro1 has one of the nicest finders, if not the nicest on any mirrorless camera, so I'm not sure the K-01 can even be compared to it.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (Jun 28, 2012)

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/

Mansurov: http://mansurovs.com/fuji-x-pro1-review

Steve Huff: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/tag/x-pro-1/

6 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Jun 29, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Jun 28, 2012)

NEX 7 got higher score for the image quality (RAW), and lower score for the viewfinder than X Pro1.

I thought many people wish to have NEX 7's EVF on XP-1 and XP1's IQ on NEX7.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jun 28, 2012)

That's a tough one because in raw, high ISO images of the X-Pro1 are significantly cleaner than the NEX-7, better than the 5D III, at least at pixel level in the DPR Comparison applet.

The X-Pro1 clearly scored better because the Hybrid VF is much nicer to use than an all EVF finder of the NEX-7.

0 upvotes
doctorbza
By doctorbza (Jun 28, 2012)

i love - LOVE - my X100, warts and all. it's a fantastic camera with excellent image quality. but i couldn't see buying up to a system with the same fly by wire manual focus. i suspect fuji will get this sorted out, but it's kind of worrisome to see them rolling out a roadmap of lenses that appear to all have this lousy fly by wire system. (and the roadmap is awesome as far as lens selection goes.) hopefully this is something that can be improved via firmware.

3 upvotes
dotyman
By dotyman (Jun 29, 2012)

Unfortunately, Fuji does not appear to even acknowledge the shortcomings of their X-series cameras. They keep producing cameras (and lenses as you point out) with many of the same shortcomings and idiosyncrysies that have been so widely, and justifiably, critisized.

Sigh.

0 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Jun 30, 2012)

Fly by wire can work well- on the M4/3 25mm f/1.4 Panasonic, its very smooth and precise. Hopefully Fuji will work on improving this, as it can be so well-implemented you wouldn't miss direct MF; the 25mm is far nicer to focus than any other lens I own.

0 upvotes
jenbenn
By jenbenn (Jun 28, 2012)

OF course this camera will be bought by hobbyists for their holiday snapshots because of its nice old-school looks. OF course you can take nice photos with it if conditions are favourable.

But for serious photography? No, sorry! If I do street or travel reportage photos (be it in good or low light) I need a fast (one-shot) AF more than I need low noise. A misfocused image is always unusable while a noisy one is in many cases very usable. In addition, the competitors are not that much noisier, that it would actually matter much in practical use .

Since MF is also very slow, I cant see how this cam can replace my dslr. (Not even talking about the slow shot-to-shot operation and slow wake up from sleep-mode).

What else? For landscape? Yes, maybe, but you dont need high iso there and other cameras are smaller, lighter and cheaper.
Actually I love the concept and I want to replace my 5D, but I have to get my shots, that's no.1 priority (low noise and IQ is a strong second)!!

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
TEBnewyork
By TEBnewyork (Jun 28, 2012)

Interesting - I find that the AF on the Fuji is faster than manual focus on a Leica - manual focus never stopped anyone from saying the Leica's were inept for reportage.

4 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jun 28, 2012)

No real photographer who understands anything about cameras would expect X-Pro1 to replace a modern pro-DSLR. I shoot professionally with Nikon D4 and D800, but I bought X-Pro1 just for the fun and feel of it, call it nostalgia if you like. It is impossible to explain this to a person who wants it explained. It is a bonus that it takes truly high quality shots, too! (when in focus...)

4 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Jun 28, 2012)

If the AF was fixed it would be able to do a lot more jobs. My OM-D replaced a pro dSLR for everything except C-AF (of which I do little anyway). This is a nicer camera in many way, but too slow. It is not inherent in mirrorless cameras - the OM-D is very quick.

Hopefully the next Fuji will be too.

3 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Jun 28, 2012)

"X-Pro1 still feels rather 'first generation' in some respects."

I agree.

3 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jun 28, 2012)

Yeah I wonder how many people who complain about the Fuji AF have actually held one let alone own it??? I used to shoot a Leica M8, which is obviously manual focus. I got quite good at manual focus with the Leica but the Fuji AF is quicker.

If you can't afford the Fuji as a secondary camera to your DSLR, than don't buy it because you won't be happy. You need to think of the Fuji more like the M8/M9....you won't win any races but the image quality is superb.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jun 28, 2012)

@TEB

If you have a manual only focus camera, like the Leica, then you work differently. Then you pre focus and take several pictures. If you have an auto focus camera - then it focusses for every image. A pre focussed camera takes zero picoseconds to focus.

An alternative is to decouple the AF from the exposure button. Then you can AF with some other button and reuse the result for several images. Then you have a faster camera.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
dotyman
By dotyman (Jun 29, 2012)

I own both the X100 and the X-Pro1 (with all three lenses) and I'm disappointed by them both (I also own a 5D MKII and the E-M5). Not so much because they are bad cameras, but because they could, and should IMO, be better cameras than they are.

Sure a manual focus Leica might focus slower than the Fujis (I've seen a few photographers that can focus just as fast), but what about the memory write delays? How about the truly inept low-light focusing?

Sure, some don't use the camera in a way that is hindered by these issues, but what if they weren't there?

Damn near perfect camera, the XP1 would be. And Fuji would sell a lot more of them. And I would keep mine. And I would love Fuji.

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jul 5, 2012)

dotyman, what write delays are you talking about? The only time I have write delays is if I shoot RAW+JPEG. If I shoot just RAW, or just JPEG there are no delays to speak of. Are you using a fast memory card??

1 upvote
Robert Hoffman
By Robert Hoffman (Jun 28, 2012)

One trick pony

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jun 28, 2012)

It's the rider that's the problem...not the horse.

4 upvotes
abolit
By abolit (Jun 28, 2012)

nice looking camera. I wish it worked properly. the current quirks are not acceptable for 'PRO' grade camera.

3 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Jun 28, 2012)

Gotta love the tremendous image quality. Such amazing detail and lack or artifacts.

3 upvotes
ianimal
By ianimal (Jun 28, 2012)

I liked the lens roadmap.
14mm F2.8, 23mm F1.4 and 10-24mm F4 I liked alot.
Sony with E-mount/NEX should take a note of this :)

2 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Jun 28, 2012)

I'd love one until I tried one and found the focus just too slow but the rest of it would suit the way I work.

Thing is, these pics don't look all that great to me and the ones on the Fuji website aren't much cop either. Is this the emporers new sensor?

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Jun 28, 2012)

Pics look excellent indeed!

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jun 28, 2012)

Damn that's a nice looking camera.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Jun 28, 2012)

It is larger than you think, and lighter than you think, and it may give you an impression "cheap".

XP1 should have been about 90% of the current size.

1 upvote
Alan Brown
By Alan Brown (Jun 28, 2012)

I agree. I picked one up.. 'literally' in a Jessops store and was very surprised at the cheap feel.

The feed back in your hands doesnt match the price tag.. emotionally made me feel wanting. The IQ has a lot going for it.. no one seems to contradict that (whose opinion really matters that is)

If I wanted to use it as a street cam.. I'd want to prefocus the lens manually (as I used to and still do with my DSLr) and set hyperfocal distance; just press the shutter and of course it always takes the shot.. I'm not sure you can do this with 'fly by wire' might be wrong..

However it's just too expensive form me to consider, for the ROI i'd get out of it.

just my two cents

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jun 29, 2012)

The first thing you notice when you pick up an M8/M9 is the substantial heft to the body...I loved that about my M8. Admittedly the first time I picked up the XPro I was like, 'really...that's it'?? It felt sooo light.

With that said, it is well made and I'm sure many would actually like the lack of weight.

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jun 28, 2012)

Every Fuji I've used has the same quirky personality which to me takes all the fun out of shooting with them no matter how good the image quality is. The Pro1, X100, X10 I've used them all and they are totally hit and miss or love and hate cameras to me and my money cringes at the thought of being handed over for them. I always have one question that lingers:

Why does Fujifilm miss the obvious?

Carl

9 upvotes
abolit
By abolit (Jun 28, 2012)

+1

0 upvotes
PJInTheUSA
By PJInTheUSA (Jun 28, 2012)

-1

3 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (Jul 3, 2012)

could it be somewhere else? at that end which holds the camera??

0 upvotes
coroander
By coroander (Jun 28, 2012)

The sampling required to reconstruct images from the X-Pro1 sensor results in inherent noise reduction. If you download the RAW files for comparison cameras, pull them into Lightroom, apply some noise reduction, what you'll find is that you'll get less noise and better retention of detail from a wide variety of cameras than the X-Pro1. What we are seeing is simply a limitation of the current comparison process, where one camera or the raw conversion (e.g. the X-Pro1) incorporates noise reduction.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
dotyman
By dotyman (Jun 28, 2012)

I truly wish Fuji would hire an industrial designer/interface designer that understands how people use cameras. While the engineering in this camera is outstanding, the overall user experience is so incomplete that many potential buyers are simply not going to buy it. Especially at such a premium price. And it's SO CLOSE to being the perfect relatively-compact pro camera (which is why it's so disappointing).

The numerous quirks/performance failures of Fuji's X-series cameras is an indication that the company doesn't really care about putting out a fully refined product. Fuji's leadership still thinks like a manufacturer of mass-produced consumer-level products of compromise. What a let-down!

Get a CLUE Fuji!! The X100 was much less than it could have been because of its poor performance and half-a$$ed interface, and now the X-Pro1 is nearly as much of a let-down. And I really wanted to love this camera. It could have been a rock star!

1 upvote
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Jun 28, 2012)

Um, as far as I can think of, excluding odd things like Leica, nobody else does the shutter speed/A dial and Aperture/A ring, so that makes the interface the best on the market by far - shame about the quirks cutting into it, but there you go. They haven't really been allocated the resources. If this system is a big success (and it looks like it) better sorted cameras will follow.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jun 28, 2012)

The whole AF issue re: Fuji cameras has been overblown. When the X100 was released it's AF was not as fast as some of the competition, although it was similar to the Leica X1, it's primary competitor. With the latest firmware the X100 is much, much faster for AF. The same kind of AF firmware will be released for the X-Pro1.

As far as "putting out a refined camera" name one other camera with a hybrid OVF/EVF finder, full manual SS dial, EV comp dial, leaf shutter lenses, etc. Adding these kinds of photographer features is not something that a company that "doesn't care about user experience" does. The X-Pro1 is a great camera, but it's early days. All the minor issues, like with the X100, will likely be resolved.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 28, 2012)

marike6:

Um, no the focus problem with the X100 was out of focus shots.

Just look at what the New York Times reviewer posted on the Times' website for the sample pics--something like 8 of 9 out of focus, and he's not the only person with focus troubles with the X100.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jun 28, 2012)

That's called user error. Pre Firmware update the X100 in low light will sometimes struggled locking focus. But I rarely had out of focus shots.

Read about the X100 AF now:

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0013738/article/Fujifilm-X100-With-New-Firmware-A-Street-Photography-Powerhouse

1 upvote
TEBnewyork
By TEBnewyork (Jun 28, 2012)

I just completely disagree. The user interface is actually my favorite of any camera right now (except the M9). There are definitely items that can be improved like focus but that is not at all related to how I use the camera.

0 upvotes
mr moonlight
By mr moonlight (Jun 28, 2012)

A lot of people don't consider that Fuji has brought out an entirely new type of camera. It will take a couple generations to perfect it. 35mm SLR's have been around since the 50's and DSLR's were a continuation of that lineage. The X-pro1/X100 rangefinderesque style camera has only been around for just over a year. It's closest relative would be the Contax G2 but it's nowhere near a direct descendent. I agree that there are some aspects of the camera that could clearly use improvement, but so did the early DSLR's. Us photographers were the testing ground then, it's just that those days seem a bit far off now.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 28, 2012)

marike6:

You realize that link is only three weeks old and it mentions a slow auto focus that's been fixed.

Slow auto focus was NOT the problem I mentioned---that was the out of focus problem.

It's not clear if this firmware update fixed this out of focus problem.

Also this camera is now a year old, at least, and this slow focus problem is just now being addressed by Fuji?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Jun 28, 2012)

my experience was quite different though I must say, I only had the camera for a weekend. I loved the camera cosmetics and viewfinder system. lower light focus, manual and AF were a real challenge for me and I rarely got a good shot in these conditions. Again, maybe another week of working may have helped in this regard but this is the first modern camera that gave me these same difficulties. The IQ was generally speaking outstanding. Still haven' found a buyer for one of my kidneys but as soon as I do, I'd still like one of these.

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Jun 28, 2012)

The review speaks of a bad Auto ISO implementation with slow, unconfigurable shutter speeds. For custom shutter speeds in Auto ISO mode, simply set the Shutter speed from 'A' to whatever you want. The camera will now adjust ISO accordingly to try get a proper exposure, even if you also set Aperture manually as well.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Jun 28, 2012)

Actually, what you get by this method is the metered exposure. If that was always the same as the desired exposure, Fujifilm could have left the exposure compensation dial off the camera completely.

3 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Jun 28, 2012)

I wish Fuji would have taken D800's FF sensor and put it into X-Pro1's body while dropping the OVF.

I think a lot and I mean a lot of pro and semi-pro will drop $2000~$3000 for a body like that with the good lens roadmap.

1 upvote
amangupta
By amangupta (Jun 28, 2012)

I don't think that the image quality is the lacking quality of this camera.

If its not selling as well as it could, its because of its bad autofocus speed combined with bad manual focus implementation, and lack of zoom lenses and its high price. Its lack of standard zoom further aggravates the problem of price, since most users will feel restricted with a single focal length and buying more lenses increases cost further.

2 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jun 28, 2012)

Most users are happy with primes, as there are no zooms available. Those who want zooms have not bought the camera. Why would a zoom lover have bought it? I have it with all the now available lenses and I do not think it is going to be a good camera with zooms, as the EVF refresh rate too is slow. This is a niche camera for old school fixed focal length rangefinder (style) photographers, and it should not try to pretend to be anything else.

1 upvote
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (Jun 28, 2012)

"autofocus is relatively slow and manual focus doesn't work very well."

LOL!

2 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (Jun 28, 2012)

A bit like buying a Fridge that doesn't keep the beer cold

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jun 28, 2012)

Superb IQ. What's incredible is that at ISO 6400, the X-Pro1 is beating all of the other 3 cameras, including the 5D III. An amazing achievement for an APS-C sized sensor. In a way, I think it deserves Gold just beating the FFs in low-light raw performance.

It's about time we gave kudos to Fuji for innovating on the IQ front, and for making a photographers camera, with a compelling lens roadmap.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (Jun 28, 2012)

It looks like it had noise reduction applied to the RAW files

The RAW file noise of the Fuji stuck out against all other cameras you compare it except some point and shoots with RAW capability which also seem to apply noise reduction to RAW files. The noise pattern is so much softer than all other cameras. A lot like the pattern you see in cameras that apply noise reduction to RAWs.

Sorry, I'd rather believe my eyes and realistic expectations than to say the Fuji APS-C sensor beats Full Frame sensors.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
coroander
By coroander (Jun 28, 2012)

You simply need to download the raw files from the other cameras and apply noise reduction. What you'll find is that the X-Pro1 isn't beating anything at all, in fact in under performs. There's inherent noise reduction occurring in the conversion of the raw image for the X-Pro1.

2 upvotes
TEBnewyork
By TEBnewyork (Jun 28, 2012)

@corrander - I think if you read up on the RAW converter issues you will find that Fuji isn't doing noise reduction on the RAWs. There are a number of very good articles written about this with comparisons between ACR/Silkypix and others.

http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2012/06/fuji-x-pro1-lightroom-and-silkypix.html

1 upvote
coroander
By coroander (Jun 28, 2012)

@TEBnewyork. The process of demosaicing the Fuji sensor leads to inherent NR. That is NR which cannot be turned off because it's a part of the process of constructing images. Regardless of whether you believe this or not, the Fuji images do not compare favourably against the competition, once NR is added to both (to minimise noise while retaining fine detail.)

1 upvote
TEBnewyork
By TEBnewyork (Jun 28, 2012)

@corrander - Using what RAW converter? That is the whole point of the article I linked to. It appears NOT to be a noise reduction issue with LR/ACR but a demosaicing methodology problem. The article goes through this in detail with examples using the DPR studio images.

0 upvotes
coroander
By coroander (Jun 28, 2012)

@TEBnewyork: Any raw converter for the X-Pro1. There isn't a problem with demosaicing, it's just that demosaicing this sensor results in NR. In order to compare other cameras to the X-Pro1 you need to apply NR otherwise you are comparing apples with oranges. When you do, the XPro1 does not preserve as much detail, nor does it have as little noise as it's contemporaries.

1 upvote
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jun 29, 2012)

Agree with 'highwave' that without a doubt NR has been applied to RAW files to remove fine chroma noise. Other cameras do this with an option to switch it off - not sure if the Fuji provides this option.

Anyway, great camera, if a bit pricey but I see it as much better value than a Leica.

Cheers

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (Jun 28, 2012)

This time I even didn't bother reading the review, conclusion only.
Fujifilm is on the right way. But the cr@appy autofocus, and lack of proper manual focus, putts me off totally in my considerations on this camera.
Actually, I even could live with manual focus only. But take that you S.O.B. Even manual focus is unusable.
Joy of photography is the process, not the result. So, I don't care how unreal it's images are, if I can't use it without swearing.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Jun 28, 2012)

Should have read the review. MF works, just needs an extra (stupid) button push.

1 upvote
Tee1up
By Tee1up (Jun 28, 2012)

What I read was manual focus kind of works with three different approaches, each with varying levels of annoyance and disappointment.

3 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jun 29, 2012)

I've read the review used the camera, and I don't like the MF either. I agree with DS. Some photogs have less patience than others and thats just as relevant as those that do. I don't like using a camera that makes me work hard just to use it- photography is hard enough as it is.

C

1 upvote
gl2k
By gl2k (Jun 28, 2012)

Wanna real serious cam : Nikon or Canon
Wanna show off : Leica
Wanna be on budget : $299 P&S
Wanna be funny : NEX-7

But this cam ??? No idea who is the target customer ...

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jun 28, 2012)

Someone who wants superb image quality in a type of camera neither Canon or Nikon even bothers making?

15 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Jun 28, 2012)

Well, me - but not yet, they need more lenses and to fix the AF. Still, if it had been around when I was getting rid of the D3 I'd have been seriously tempted.

What on Earth is the point of the Nex? Apart from looking like someone's idea of the future twenty years ago, there are no lenses. At least Fuji have a credible roadmap.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jun 28, 2012)

The target customer is photographers wanting awesome IQ and good, fast primes.

As far as AF, people knocked the X100, but with the newest firmware the AF is significantly better. It's early days for the X-Pro1.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Jun 28, 2012)

Funny?

"I've got your serious Canon and Nikon in the palm of my hand LOL"

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jun 28, 2012)

Where's the "dislike" button?

1 upvote
FunNEX
By FunNEX (Jun 29, 2012)

NEX 7 funny? I sold a Canon 7D and got the Sony NEX 7 and it's the best camera I have used. No turning back...I'm sold on the mirrorless. You were half right gl2k the Sony NEX 7 is fun not to mention it beats the pants off the 7D video. BTW the NEX 5n is fun too.

0 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Jun 29, 2012)

Wanna show off within budget.. hahaha

0 upvotes
motobloat
By motobloat (Jun 28, 2012)

Hooray, finally. Thank you!

0 upvotes
LeitzKameraAktion
By LeitzKameraAktion (Jun 28, 2012)

Nice to see dpreview finally spelling 'colour' correctly!

2 upvotes
dotyman
By dotyman (Jun 28, 2012)

WRONG!

!; )

0 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (Jun 28, 2012)

Well done on telling people how to use MF.

I'm surprised and interested in your IQ remarks - from samples it has always seemed to me the odd sensor adds a pleasing glow but a certain softness. Apparently not then.

Interesting review of a fascinating camera. I see myself switching to version 3 for the controls. For now, I am looking forward to the 75mm for my OM-D.

By the way, with all these tight scores, isn't it time to just drop the percentage rating?

2 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Jun 28, 2012)

Yes. Percentage? Of what?!

What is 100%?

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jun 28, 2012)

The percentage rating is there to cause 600+ comment threads with thousands and thousands of page/ad hits... :)

2 upvotes
jalywol
By jalywol (Jun 28, 2012)

But Louis, without the percentage ratings, how on earth will people ever know what camera to purchase?

;)

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
andywhoa
By andywhoa (Jun 28, 2012)

I don't believe my eyes!

1 upvote
Franklin
By Franklin (Jun 28, 2012)

finally

2 upvotes
Total comments: 271
12