comparison of x-pro 1 with canon 5d mark II high iso

[Powerdoc]

it's a good reason, to verify Fuji bold statements.
--
It's all about photography

 

[echelon2004]

it's a good reason, to verify Fuji bold statements.

So you think that people will see that it compares well to the weakest point of the 6 million year old cheapest 35mm sensor camera that has ever been produced and decide to buy the Fuji?

Or that they will compare to the very fast and very competent, as small, as light, as well built half the price beginners camera from Nikon?

I'm not debating this recent comparison, I doubt that Fuji knows what they are doing. Again

I might still get one though, but I already know it's not going to be a very sound idea =)
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[Asylum Photo]

This place is ridiculous. You guys are seriously complaining that the X-Pro1 is compared to a specific full frame sensor? Think about that for a second. The X-Pro1 is an APS-C sensor with greater pixel density and is holding it's own against an arguably decent full frame sensor. Is it the BEST full frame sensor? Of course not, but it's still relevant. It's a good benchmark.

I don't think anyone is going to be cross shopping a FF DSLR and the X-Pro1, so calm down people.
--
http://asylum-photo.com

 

[Moti]

I wonder why they compare it to a camera that isn't very useful at iso 6400,

Who says? I shoot weddings and events for living and use often iso 6400 on a 5dll with very good results.

a camera that is also not very likely to loose many users to the x pro 1.

That is probably true but not for the reasons you think.

The 5d mk2 is cheap,

2500$ body only is cheap maybe for Swedish but not for the rest of us.

Reasonably light, small and like the fuji lacks weather proofing.

Compared to many other dSLR cameras its not very light, not small and it does have weather and dust protection.

I doubt anyone will go that way. Much more likely to attract interest from 1d mk IV and D3s users I suppose

This is even less likely.

so that would be a better comparison as it is good to know exactly how much performance one will sacrifice to get the good looks and nice feel

I dont see many serious photographers that will sacrifice performance to get the good looks and nice feel. A camera is a tool to take photos. Good look and nice feel doesn't contribute anything to this job.

Moti
--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

 

[echelon2004]

This place is ridiculous. You guys are seriously complaining that the X-Pro1 is compared to a specific full frame sensor? Think about that for a second. The X-Pro1 is an APS-C sensor with greater pixel density and is holding it's own against an arguably decent full frame sensor. Is it the BEST full frame sensor? Of course not, but it's still relevant. It's a good benchmark.

I don't think anyone is going to be cross shopping a FF DSLR and the X-Pro1, so calm down people.

Not as crazy as it seems.

If we doubt Fujis ability to market the camera, we must also doubt their ability to sell the system, and if they can't sell the system it's not a good thing to place money in

Anyway, the samples shown this far isn't really showing that it is competing very well in any aspect other than looks and controls. Samples this far are quite soft, lenses seem a bit iffy, noise reduction is very heavy.

It might still be excellent, but they need to pick up the game soon, especially with the two recent half disasters.

Do you think Fujifilm will be m,akin cameras and lenses on at least this level in three years? Are you going to bet 4k on it?

--
http://asylum-photo.com

--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[echelon2004]

I wonder why they compare it to a camera that isn't very useful at iso 6400,

Who says? I shoot weddings and events for living and use often iso 6400 on a 5dll with very good results.

I say, I wouldn't deliver iso6400 shots to paying customers.

a camera that is also not very likely to loose many users to the x pro 1.

That is probably true but not for the reasons you think.

The 5d mk2 is cheap,

2500$ body only is cheap maybe for Swedish but not for the rest of us.

I meant compared to the competition. It has been the cheapest 35mm since launch.

Reasonably light, small and like the fuji lacks weather proofing.

Compared to many other dSLR cameras its not very light, not small and it does have weather and dust protection.

I was wrong about the weather protection, I thought it was as bad as the original 5D, sorry about that. It's still light and small though compared to "pro cameras"

I doubt anyone will go that way. Much more likely to attract interest from 1d mk IV and D3s users I suppose

This is even less likely.

Why? Who else will care enough about image quality and still be completely relaxed about the fuji somewhat iffy quality control and auto focus than someone who have a great option?

so that would be a better comparison as it is good to know exactly how much performance one will sacrifice to get the good looks and nice feel

I dont see many serious photographers that will sacrifice performance to get the good looks and nice feel. A camera is a tool to take photos. Good look and nice feel doesn't contribute anything to this job.

You think it will be used as a primary camera even amount working professionals?

I think it will be a leisurely used camera for things like personal travels and such. I couldn't use one professionally here for sure, there's at least two weeks to closest service, no loaners, no support at events etc etc.

And what if it rains?

--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[JSTB]

Absolutely no problem putting $3300 on it. I also have $3000 down on a new D800. I regularly spend over $1k on lenses for my D700. If you can't afford it to bad for you. No problem for me. It's not cheap oh well. The price is right there for everyone to see.

 

[LaFonte]

Lot of people are very familiar with 5dmk2. It is very good they compare xpro1 to that -lot of people can relate to this as opposite to less popular FF.

The xpro1 seriously bites on the 5dmk2 image "standard", it is really very close to this.
Fuji wasn't kidding. And it likely focuses faster too.

it's a good reason, to verify Fuji bold statements.
--
It's all about photography

 

[LaFonte]

Stop this, "I said , you said" contest. It is not a policy that people must get the newest camera, it is a choice. For some the xpro would be fantastic, for others it would be "meh".

It is definitelly one of the few most exciting cameras this year so far and also one of the first ones to ship. It is not perfect, nor for everybody but you can say exactly the same about all the others that are coming this year.

I think the samples are pretty exciting - it shows that the tech behind the sensor is good. What people will do with this is another story.

I wonder why they compare it to a camera that isn't very useful at iso 6400,

Who says? I shoot weddings and events for living and use often iso 6400 on a 5dll with very good results.

I say, I wouldn't deliver iso6400 shots to paying customers.

a camera that is also not very likely to loose many users to the x pro 1.

That is probably true but not for the reasons you think.

The 5d mk2 is cheap,

2500$ body only is cheap maybe for Swedish but not for the rest of us.

I meant compared to the competition. It has been the cheapest 35mm since launch.

Reasonably light, small and like the fuji lacks weather proofing.

Compared to many other dSLR cameras its not very light, not small and it does have weather and dust protection.

I was wrong about the weather protection, I thought it was as bad as the original 5D, sorry about that. It's still light and small though compared to "pro cameras"

I doubt anyone will go that way. Much more likely to attract interest from 1d mk IV and D3s users I suppose

This is even less likely.

Why? Who else will care enough about image quality and still be completely relaxed about the fuji somewhat iffy quality control and auto focus than someone who have a great option?

so that would be a better comparison as it is good to know exactly how much performance one will sacrifice to get the good looks and nice feel

I dont see many serious photographers that will sacrifice performance to get the good looks and nice feel. A camera is a tool to take photos. Good look and nice feel doesn't contribute anything to this job.

You think it will be used as a primary camera even amount working professionals?

I think it will be a leisurely used camera for things like personal travels and such. I couldn't use one professionally here for sure, there's at least two weeks to closest service, no loaners, no support at events etc etc.

And what if it rains?

--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[RealXenuis]

The MK II's weakest point is low light quality? Uhh. Ok. Er, no. Cheapest? No. Very old? In context, no. And will they buy the Fuji as opposed to an MKII? No, probably not.

D7K beginners camera? Yeah, no. And have you tried good wide glass on the D7K? It's QUITE heavy and bulky (though I LOVEd it). No, again.

These are very confusing assertions, right?

They're comparing XP1 low light/ISO image quality to two other cameras who are known to be good in low light (not necessarily the best, certainly not bad). What do the low light shot comparisons have to do with form factor?

These are perfectly logical, reasonable, and helpful comparisons, in the context of Fuji's assertions. They didn't say it would beat all FF cameras, did they? Maybe I missed that part (that exists no where but in your implication).

Hopefully you've worked through your indulgences and we can get back to discussing relevant things sincerely. Amen.

it's a good reason, to verify Fuji bold statements.

So you think that people will see that it compares well to the weakest point of the 6 million year old cheapest 35mm sensor camera that has ever been produced and decide to buy the Fuji?

Or that they will compare to the very fast and very competent, as small, as light, as well built half the price beginners camera from Nikon?

I'm not debating this recent comparison, I doubt that Fuji knows what they are doing. Again

I might still get one though, but I already know it's not going to be a very sound idea =)
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[Dailypix]

Just looking at the base of the statue I was impressed with the lack of digital "noise" compared to the 5D II.

I did my own comparison between the X 100 and my 2 year old 5D II with good glass. I thought that the Fuji rendered more accurate colours and had the edge on sharpness, especially when the images were blown up 100%.

In dim light it seemed to me that the X 100 had better dynamic range as well. I could make out dark objects within a dark background on the Fuji files but they were lost on the Canon files.

I have no reason to believe that the X pro 1 will be worse. I for one am looking forward to getting the camera in my hands.

 

[echelon2004]

The MK II's weakest point is low light quality? Uhh. Ok. Er, no. Cheapest? No. Very old? In context, no. And will they buy the Fuji as opposed to an MKII? No, probably not.

Well there are weaker areas of the 5d mk2, but none related to the image quality?

And I really think it is the cheapest ff ever, do you know of something cheaper? I can get it for about 1500 here, maybe some Sony is available for less? Never bothered to keep track of those, non existing service here.

D7K beginners camera? Yeah, no. And have you tried good wide glass on the D7K? It's QUITE heavy and bulky (though I LOVEd it). No, again.

Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent camera. But in nikons line up it really isn't a pro camera. don't think I've ever put good wide angle glass on one, wouldn't make much sense to me, but I know how heavy those lenses are. Fuji currently have no real good wide angle lens, they only have a rather average 18mm lens btw.

These are very confusing assertions, right?

They're comparing XP1 low light/ISO image quality to two other cameras who are known to be good in low light (not necessarily the best, certainly not bad). What do the low light shot comparisons have to do with form factor?

It has nothing to do with form factor. Why should it?

They compare it to the two most obvious competitors, which is marketing madness. I have never claimed that the x pro 1 isn't good. I just don't understand why fuji have decided to go head to head with the two tuffet competitors they can find...

These are perfectly logical, reasonable, and helpful comparisons, in the context of Fuji's assertions. They didn't say it would beat all FF cameras, did they? Maybe I missed that part (that exists no where but in your implication).

I have not any such claimed, don't lie.

Hopefully you've worked through your indulgences and we can get back to discussing relevant things sincerely.

That's what I'm trying to do but there seem to be some trouble to understand...

Amen.

What is supposed to happen?

No matter, I don't think you guys will understand this

Now go back to mass...
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[Roy Hoynes]

echelon2004

"And I really think it is the cheapest ff ever, do you know of something cheaper? I can get it for about 1500 here, maybe some Sony is available for less? Never bothered to keep track of those, non existing service here."

You must tell me where in sweden you can get it for 1500$ Japanphoto.se one of the big internet shop have it for 2780,52$ that is a bit more.

--
¤¤¤Roy¤¤¤

 

[echelon2004]

echelon2004

"And I really think it is the cheapest ff ever, do you know of something cheaper? I can get it for about 1500 here, maybe some Sony is available for less? Never bothered to keep track of those, non existing service here."

You must tell me where in sweden you can get it for 1500$ Japanphoto.se one of the big internet shop have it for 2780,52$ that is a bit more.

Directly from canon. Long story. And I wouldn't buy from japanphoto.se, most stuff is not for the Swedish market.

But I see it is possible to get a Nikon d700 for less than the price of a 5d mkII now so i was really wrong about the canon being the cheapest That's not really relevant though, fuji only claimed that the xp1 resolution will challenge the res of a 5d2. And have same or less noise that the best 16mp aps-c sensors. Which it probably will.

Best retail I can find is about 2100 if I count 1usd=7sek. If you're not a professional I suppose you'll need to pay sales tax on that as well. But that is of course not part of the price of the camera.

--
¤¤¤Roy¤¤¤

--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[Roy Hoynes]

LOL
--
¤¤¤Roy¤¤¤

 

[echelon2004]

LOL
--
¤¤¤Roy¤¤¤

I'm truly happy I took the time trying to help you, you seem like a nice kid...

Norrmän, suck...
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[Roy Hoynes]

It's the same price in all the shops i checked and we always tell the prize with tax.

Very few people are proffesional photographers. And you are not a nice guy only for having a line under your name saying so.
--
¤¤¤Roy¤¤¤

 

[echelon2004]

It's the same price in all the shops i checked and we always tell the prize with tax.

Canon is not a shop though. But never mind.

Corporates don't pay vat, or rather, as a pro you get it refunded. All websites I use are set to display prices without tax, I'm sure you can do the same even in Norway?

Very few people are proffesional photographers.

Quite a few are actually, a bit too many for my liking. And the target audience for xpro1 are professionals, so I assume even in here there are some.

And you are not a nice guy only for having a line under your name saying so.

I don't have such a line. The line only reminds about the importance.

But the warning about japanphoto.se I really meant, much of the stuff is supposed to go to Hungary and such places. Definitely make sure warranty is good, especially if you're not nps, cps member. And with fuji I don't even know if such a professional service with worldwide warranty exists?

I did buy a d3s there not too long ago, but locally in their shop in Gothenburg. Not online.

This is getting silly now, I suppose it wasn't ok to question fujis marketing decisions
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[Asylum Photo]

We're clearly looking at different things then.

I've seen images that are tack sharp, have great DR and are solid at high ISOs.

I've already bet $2500 on it, and I suspect I'll be betting another $1300 in the near future. I've enjoyed the X100, I've been very impressed by it's image quality and everything I've seen so far shows that trend will continue with the X-Pro1.

I have a feeling you are looking for the worst possible examples from early pre-production models to form your opinions. Which, you're more than welcome to do. And I'm fully within my rights to think the over abundance of negative commentary based on not much to be "crazy".

To each their own, I suppose.

This place is ridiculous. You guys are seriously complaining that the X-Pro1 is compared to a specific full frame sensor? Think about that for a second. The X-Pro1 is an APS-C sensor with greater pixel density and is holding it's own against an arguably decent full frame sensor. Is it the BEST full frame sensor? Of course not, but it's still relevant. It's a good benchmark.

I don't think anyone is going to be cross shopping a FF DSLR and the X-Pro1, so calm down people.

Not as crazy as it seems.

If we doubt Fujis ability to market the camera, we must also doubt their ability to sell the system, and if they can't sell the system it's not a good thing to place money in

Anyway, the samples shown this far isn't really showing that it is competing very well in any aspect other than looks and controls. Samples this far are quite soft, lenses seem a bit iffy, noise reduction is very heavy.

It might still be excellent, but they need to pick up the game soon, especially with the two recent half disasters.

Do you think Fujifilm will be m,akin cameras and lenses on at least this level in three years? Are you going to bet 4k on it?

--
http://asylum-photo.com

--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

--
http://asylum-photo.com

 

[John Motts]

Some thoughts on the comparison:

Files from 5d2 are scaled down to 16 MP. It's better to look at the full resolution files.

No it makes sense to compare them reproduced at the same size. Otherwise a comparison is pretty meaningless.