Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?it's a good reason, to verify Fuji bold statements.
Who says? I shoot weddings and events for living and use often iso 6400 on a 5dll with very good results.I wonder why they compare it to a camera that isn't very useful at iso 6400,
That is probably true but not for the reasons you think.a camera that is also not very likely to loose many users to the x pro 1.
2500$ body only is cheap maybe for Swedish but not for the rest of us.The 5d mk2 is cheap,
Compared to many other dSLR cameras its not very light, not small and it does have weather and dust protection.Reasonably light, small and like the fuji lacks weather proofing.
This is even less likely.I doubt anyone will go that way. Much more likely to attract interest from 1d mk IV and D3s users I suppose
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.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
Not as crazy as it seems.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.![]()
--
I say, I wouldn't deliver iso6400 shots to paying customers.Who says? I shoot weddings and events for living and use often iso 6400 on a 5dll with very good results.I wonder why they compare it to a camera that isn't very useful at iso 6400,
I meant compared to the competition. It has been the cheapest 35mm since launch.That is probably true but not for the reasons you think.a camera that is also not very likely to loose many users to the x pro 1.
2500$ body only is cheap maybe for Swedish but not for the rest of us.The 5d mk2 is cheap,
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"Compared to many other dSLR cameras its not very light, not small and it does have weather and dust protection.Reasonably light, small and like the fuji lacks weather proofing.
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?This is even less likely.I doubt anyone will go that way. Much more likely to attract interest from 1d mk IV and D3s users I suppose
You think it will be used as a primary camera even amount working professionals?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.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
it's a good reason, to verify Fuji bold statements.
--
It's all about photography
I say, I wouldn't deliver iso6400 shots to paying customers.Who says? I shoot weddings and events for living and use often iso 6400 on a 5dll with very good results.I wonder why they compare it to a camera that isn't very useful at iso 6400,
I meant compared to the competition. It has been the cheapest 35mm since launch.That is probably true but not for the reasons you think.a camera that is also not very likely to loose many users to the x pro 1.
2500$ body only is cheap maybe for Swedish but not for the rest of us.The 5d mk2 is cheap,
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"Compared to many other dSLR cameras its not very light, not small and it does have weather and dust protection.Reasonably light, small and like the fuji lacks weather proofing.
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?This is even less likely.I doubt anyone will go that way. Much more likely to attract interest from 1d mk IV and D3s users I suppose
You think it will be used as a primary camera even amount working professionals?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.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 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'
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?it's a good reason, to verify Fuji bold statements.
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'
Well there are weaker areas of the 5d mk2, but none related to the image quality?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.
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.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.
It has nothing to do with form factor. Why should it?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?
I have not any such claimed, don't lie.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).
That's what I'm trying to do but there seem to be some trouble to understand...Hopefully you've worked through your indulgences and we can get back to discussing relevant things sincerely.
What is supposed to happen?Amen.
Directly from canon. Long story. And I wouldn't buy from japanphoto.se, most stuff is not for the Swedish market.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¤¤¤
I'm truly happy I took the time trying to help you, you seem like a nice kid...LOL
--
¤¤¤Roy¤¤¤
Canon is not a shop though. But never mind.It's the same price in all the shops i checked and we always tell the prize with tax.
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.Very few people are proffesional photographers.
--Not as crazy as it seems.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.![]()
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?
--
Anders
'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'
No it makes sense to compare them reproduced at the same size. Otherwise a comparison is pretty meaningless.Some thoughts on the comparison:
Files from 5d2 are scaled down to 16 MP. It's better to look at the full resolution files.