-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
AF on the X Pro 1
- Thread starter CM WORKS
- Start date
burnymeister
Senior Member
I am confused?
Leica m 8.2 is not ff. Leica ff doesn't go over ISo 1600 without side effects. No zooms for Leica. Leica rf means no wide angle without external and clunky viewfinders. Have you ever tried using a Leica?
Leica doesn't even have an ovf that zooms for longer focal lengths much less an evf for manual focus assist. But whatever...
--
Vern Dewit
Calgary, Alberta Canada
http://www.explor8ion.com
http://verndewit.com/
jacketpotato
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,244
- Reaction score
- 554
Would the metal body have anything to do with focus speed. Plastic is I think a lot easier to move for focus.
Also I think these being primes have something to do with focus speed.
EP1 14-42mm lens on fast EP3 body is still slow. Lens design has a lot to do with fast af.
We may see the 18-72 & 70-300 having fast focus.
Also I think these being primes have something to do with focus speed.
EP1 14-42mm lens on fast EP3 body is still slow. Lens design has a lot to do with fast af.
We may see the 18-72 & 70-300 having fast focus.
Sure, but indoors with a 35mm F/1.4, it's quite fast.
Zvonimir Tosic
Senior Member
Because you allow yourself conscious and voluptuous reward for not spotting things right on, and not accurately, by whispering silently how they were 'irrelevant' anyway.
But one vindicates own lacking by demanding from everyone, and everything, a taste of indemnification.
--
Zvonimir Tosic
But one vindicates own lacking by demanding from everyone, and everything, a taste of indemnification.
--
Zvonimir Tosic
Woodman100
Well-known member
As an X100 owner I would love Fuji to explain why the auto focussing on their cameras gets slower the more you pay?
The X100 still has focusing that is inaccurate in the near distance. The optical viewfinder indicator boxes can be wildly out and even the live view finder is not accurate at 10 ft. Yet I tried and x10 yesterday and the autofocus was much faster and all images were in focus where I intended them to be - go figure!
Given the management of expectations going on by fuji with the xpro 1what on earth is going on??
A D7000 or eos 7d are lightening fast, some of the pany G series are super quick and the Ricoh GRDIV is amazingly quick and accurate so it can be done by various methods at all sizes of camera and sensor - so come on Fuji whats the problem?
The X100 still has focusing that is inaccurate in the near distance. The optical viewfinder indicator boxes can be wildly out and even the live view finder is not accurate at 10 ft. Yet I tried and x10 yesterday and the autofocus was much faster and all images were in focus where I intended them to be - go figure!
Given the management of expectations going on by fuji with the xpro 1what on earth is going on??
A D7000 or eos 7d are lightening fast, some of the pany G series are super quick and the Ricoh GRDIV is amazingly quick and accurate so it can be done by various methods at all sizes of camera and sensor - so come on Fuji whats the problem?
spacenegroes
Well-known member
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 22
stick to whatever language you spoke as a child--english ain't workin out for you so well.
dgc4rter
Leading Member
Poor AF compared to the competition WILL be a deal breaker for many potential owners including myself. I like Fuji's overall approach to the design of their "X" range of products but they really need to address ALL of the significant weaknesses that were evident in the X100.
--
Dave Carter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davegcarter
--
Dave Carter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davegcarter
Davidgilmour
Senior Member
Surely you can trust a Fuji rep, just ask them how often they had a 'sticky blade'......
Fujironimo
Well-known member
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 5
On this link
http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x-pro1-analisis-fotos-respuestas-pma-ces-2012,1_8387
they say that the AF is improved wrt X100, but not much. On the other hand the maybe good news is that they say the MF ring is much improved.
But still the only way to check focus in MF is the magnification.
http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fuji-x-pro1-analisis-fotos-respuestas-pma-ces-2012,1_8387
they say that the AF is improved wrt X100, but not much. On the other hand the maybe good news is that they say the MF ring is much improved.
But still the only way to check focus in MF is the magnification.
Red Dawn
Forum Enthusiast
Hi
It seems the AF speed of the XPro-1 is possibly quite similar to the X100 (i.e., not fantastic), and while I understand that this is a concern, I have found that in reality, it has worked quite well for me.
I bought my X100 in early December after fighting the temptation for months (mostly due to the various reviews calling out its various perceived flaws) and found out to my pleasant surprise, that even though the various reviews are mostly accurate, I was able to adapt and overcome the various shortcomings of the camera to the extent I've relegated my D700 + 35mm lens to the dry case far too often in favor of bringing out the X100.
It's true the AF speed is slow, and it's almost hopeless tracking a moving subject, but these are not things I do with my Leica M6 in the past too. With a traditional rangefinder, I would preset the focus distance, or prefocus and wait for the decisive moment to occur, or for subjects to walk into my frame (again, a feature of the window finder you will not find in a SLR), and I was able to continue observing the subject even after the moment of exposure for more possible pictures because I experienced no viewfinder blackout with the clear window viewfinder of the M6.
I was able to inherit this very valuable shooting experience entirely to my X100. Yes, the focus is slow like molasses compared to my D700, and sometimes not accurate, but it has a wonderful distance scale in the finder, and with the X100 set to manual focus, one press of the AFL button will activate the auto focus system of the camera to my selected distance or subject, and thereafter it's a matter of releasing the shutter at the right time while observing the subject through the window viewfinder.
It is foolhardy to try to follow focus a moving subject with the Leica M rangefinder, and it's the same with trying to AF on a moving target. For me, my best pictures were never a result of me seeing a subject, and rushing the camera to my eye while auto-focusing at the same time to shoot. My best pictures come when I observe a scene, select the background, choose a focus point and let the action come to me, releasing the shutter until the definite moment.
Actually, I do the same thing above even with the fast focusing demon that is the D700....
What I love about my X100 is that it brings to my mind so vividly the experience of shooting with a film rangefinder, and it offers advantages that a SLR does not.
I regretted waiting so long to get one due to the negative press and reviews. Which is why this time I'm eager to get my hands on the XPro-1, even if the AF has not been improved. Even if the write speed is the same as the X100. (I don't shoot continuous with any rangefinder, and with single shot, this is NOT a problem with the X100).
I guess these X series cameras are not for people who buy with their heads (thinking in terms of specs and value for money) but are more for people who buy with the heart, who are after a particular shooting experience which is different. (of course I do wish these cameras will be cheaper too!!!)
--
David Teo
http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog
'Photographs that transcend but do not deny their literal situation appeal to me.' -Sam Abell
Fujironimo
Well-known member
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 5
I think that there is almost a consensus on the fact that the X100's AF is a bit slow and sometimes inaccurate, but that one can live perfectly with it, keeping in mind that the X100 comes at a rather moderate price together with a wonderful fast and compact lens.
The problem now is that what can be accepted for the X100 (which was somehow a prototype), is hard to believe for the X-Pro1 which seems to be much more expensive, and at the heart of a completely new system.
I don't think it is hard for a big company like Fuji to simply copy what other manufacters do, and I don't think either it would impact the price in a significant way.
So please Fuji provide us with a camera that comes with an AF at the level of the Sony/Oly/Pana mirrorless cameras, and with an electronic system for manual focusing like focus peaking. You would then obtain the best camera in the world.
The problem now is that what can be accepted for the X100 (which was somehow a prototype), is hard to believe for the X-Pro1 which seems to be much more expensive, and at the heart of a completely new system.
I don't think it is hard for a big company like Fuji to simply copy what other manufacters do, and I don't think either it would impact the price in a significant way.
So please Fuji provide us with a camera that comes with an AF at the level of the Sony/Oly/Pana mirrorless cameras, and with an electronic system for manual focusing like focus peaking. You would then obtain the best camera in the world.
Fabio Amodeo
Senior Member
Physical dimensions have an influence on focussing speed. Focussing a small lens with a tiny movement from near range to ∞ is faster and less energy demanding than focussing a bigger lens with ample movements. That's why x10, Ricoh and all the rest are faster than the X100.
On the other end, neither RFs nor DSLRs are the safest beasts for focussing. In RFs you can build up rangefinder misalignement with use, which compromises image quality with fast lenses used wide open. With DSLR there is a tolerance between focussing sensor and the image itself that makes enlarged live view the safest bet for precise focussing. WIth the x100 or the x-pro1 you have live view always on, if you like so. That said, I think the x-pro1, or any mirrorless in general, will never be used by wildlife or sports photographers. That's DSLR field, and it won't be touched. But there are many, many other fields of photography.
You must be really clueless in this forum not to know that the key in CDAF is not the body but the +lenses+.
Fuji probably had no time to experience with internal focussing CDAF, which BTW involves very light lenses, since the groups must be shifted back and forth.
They could have the best AF camera in the World, but they didn't master the lenses yet.
But give it two or 3 years and Fuji might come with a sensible solution... and price.
LOL
Leica my foot.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Fuji probably had no time to experience with internal focussing CDAF, which BTW involves very light lenses, since the groups must be shifted back and forth.
They could have the best AF camera in the World, but they didn't master the lenses yet.
But give it two or 3 years and Fuji might come with a sensible solution... and price.
LOL
Leica my foot.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Fujironimo
Well-known member
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 5
How good was the AF on the medium format Fuji cameras ? ...
I don't think it's a secret that Leica's strength is in their lenses, not their camera bodies, which lag the FF competition by a considerable margin. Still, there are those who enjoy the rangefinder experience, and some of them may find the X-Pro 1 to provide a reasonably close simulation of it.
Rob
Photohobbyfun
Senior Member
I thought the big deal about Leica was not only their lenses, but the experience of manually setting everything? Shutter, aperture, and focus using a rangefinder mechanism.
Then there is the fact that they use a full frame sensor, something people seem to always ask for.
The X Pro-1 provides a rangefinder like OVF, aperture ring on lens, and the camera "looks" like a rangefinder, but to me, it seems to miss the most important part, the actual rangefinder mechanism.
Would be very interesting to see what kind of reception Fujifilm would get if they actually made an X Pro-1 with a rangefinder focusing mechanism that also took their autofocusing lenses.
I think that would seriously hurt Leica.
I don't think anyone does Contrast Detect focusing well in larger cameras (APS-C and up). The Contrast Detect AF in DSLR's Live View mode is uniformally appalling.
The new Sony NEX 7 is probably the best at this size, but the dp review of it noted that it's AF fell well short of the standard set by the best micro 4/3 cameras. It did however say that it was "probably a bit better than the Fuji X100".
Early reports seem to agree that the X-Pro 1's AF is also "probably a bit better than the Fuji X100". If so, it would appear that it and the Sony NEX 7 will be joint leaders in Contrast Detect AF for cameras larger than micro 4/3s.
So we will be sticking to DSLRs (or at least cameras with Phase Detect AF, which for now means DSLRs and the Nikon Series 1 cameras) for sports and birds in flight for a while yet.
--
Apteryx
In my film days, I used a Contax G2, which was a true rangefinder with autofocus and autometering. I had no interest in all-manual shooting, and I still don't. It makes no difference to me whether a camera uses a genuine rangefinder focusing mechanism or something else, as long as it does the job quickly and accurately. However, I appreciate the fact the some photographers enjoy the manual shooting process. Good luck to them finding affordable digital rangefinder cameras that can serve that purpose.
The X-Pro 1 looks like what a digital Contax G might have been and, therefore, is of interest to me. However, I am a Pentax shooter, and the Pentax K-5/K-7 bodies and Limited lenses are not much larger than the new Fuji, which means that the IQ from the X-Pro 1 is going to have to be stupendous to get me to even considering switching. I realize that we Pentaxians are a rarity around here, but we really appreciate the fact that Pentax has placed a priority on small size and high quality. Other manufacturers are only now catching on.
Rob
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum