John Motts
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,857
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,604
It's perfectly sensible to compare it to the 5Dmk2 because it's a well known and well established benchmark.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
comparison of x-pro 1 with canon 5d mark II high iso
- Thread starter compositor20
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos 5d mark ii
Roy Hoynes
Well-known member
Tax no tax The Canon 5D Mark 2 still cost 300$ more then the X-Pro 1 in sweden.
The 1D mk IV cost 6300$ so there is a very big difference in price to the X-pro 1 that cost 2500$.
Japanphoto is very serious in Norway they have shops in all the big cities and I have never had any problems with them.
¤¤¤Roy¤¤¤
The 1D mk IV cost 6300$ so there is a very big difference in price to the X-pro 1 that cost 2500$.
Japanphoto is very serious in Norway they have shops in all the big cities and I have never had any problems with them.
¤¤¤Roy¤¤¤
echelon2004
Veteran Member
For us, yes. For fuji, not so much so. But I seem to be alone in thinking fuji is making life too difficult for themselves
--
Anders
'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'
echelon2004
Veteran Member
Yes? Have I said that the xpro1 is more expensive?
Exactly. So that's what fuji should make claims about.
Ah ok, here they are by far the least reputable stores. ( I shopped there because the shop was located so i could get the cam only ten minutes from where I was shooting)
I'll get to try the xp1 in about a week, it will be interesting to see how well it does. I really really want it to be as good as the x100, but with more lens options.
--
Anders
'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'
RealXenuis
Senior Member
Low light is not a "weakest point" of the MKII. I just don't think you're going to convince anyone of that. It was great when it came out, and it's still good today.
Others have handled the "cheapest" comment. I feel satisfied and will leave it as is, without mentioning the Sony's you've just mentioned yourself.
Saying it's not a pro camera is entirely diff than saying it's an entry level camera, wouldn't you agree?And it's really pretty competent. It's the backup of many pros (according to these forums).
The point about putting wide glass on it is that it's not light at all. Once you actually stick on a zoom or something bright, it gets heavy very fast.
But again, this is form factor, not a comparison of low light cameras. Which is what the thread is about. Which is why your comments about Fuji's choice of comparison cameras are confused, and which is why your mentioning of why those two other camera body's features (an not low light/noise/high iso) is irrelevant here. No one was talking about bodies till you were talking about bodies, including Fuji.
I don't mean to sound confrontational, but these are the words you're writing. I don't know what else we're supposed to do with them. Perhaps wait to post anything until you've gotten it all figured out, as opposed to generalizing loose concepts then refining until in the end you've contradicted yourself and been wrong about several things? Again, don't mean to be rude, but these forums are already a big mess with all the insincere xp1 negativity and false claims.
But I admit, I know nothing.
Others have handled the "cheapest" comment. I feel satisfied and will leave it as is, without mentioning the Sony's you've just mentioned yourself.
Saying it's not a pro camera is entirely diff than saying it's an entry level camera, wouldn't you agree?And it's really pretty competent. It's the backup of many pros (according to these forums).
The point about putting wide glass on it is that it's not light at all. Once you actually stick on a zoom or something bright, it gets heavy very fast.
But again, this is form factor, not a comparison of low light cameras. Which is what the thread is about. Which is why your comments about Fuji's choice of comparison cameras are confused, and which is why your mentioning of why those two other camera body's features (an not low light/noise/high iso) is irrelevant here. No one was talking about bodies till you were talking about bodies, including Fuji.
I don't mean to sound confrontational, but these are the words you're writing. I don't know what else we're supposed to do with them. Perhaps wait to post anything until you've gotten it all figured out, as opposed to generalizing loose concepts then refining until in the end you've contradicted yourself and been wrong about several things? Again, don't mean to be rude, but these forums are already a big mess with all the insincere xp1 negativity and false claims.
But I admit, I know nothing.
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.
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.
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...
I have not any such claimed, don't lie.
That's what I'm trying to do but there seem to be some trouble to understand...
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'
echelon2004
Veteran Member
Well, I have admitted I was wrong about the canon being the cheapest ff camera. I still think it is pretty poor with regard to low light performance among other things. Resolution is excellent though and that is the aspect fuji says the xp1 will compete well.
Now, the d7k. How much more beginner camera can you find in the Nikon line up? Yes, there are cheaper cameras. There are smaller cameras. But is there a single camera that offers more features and controls without adding wastly more complex autofocus etc?
That is without doubt the camera I would recommend to a beginner looking for a Nikon dslr.
None of this is relevant though. I questioned fujis sanity when they pitted the camera against two of the most popular cameras ever. From a marketing point of view that is the equivalence of suicide and none of your pointless ramble have even tried to answer that.
Why focus the comparison on a ff camera that will be replaced in a couple of weeks and why compare against a extremely competent camera costing much less while still being much smaller and lighter than a ( ready?) "pro" camera?
I could've sworn it would be pitted against the m9 and the oly om-d. Why isnt it? Why did they chose to set themselves up to comparisions against two very good well known cameras when they are not likely to steal any customers from people interested in those two cameras, when they instead couldve focused the marketing where they are more likely to sell? Now, that is my question. Do you think you have the answer or will you once again totally ignore what it actually says and instead go on what you think it says?
--
Anders
'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'
samhain
Senior Member
Actually, I think you ARE alone on this. The 5dmk2 is used by more 'professional' photogs than any other FF dslr on the market so it makes perfect sense to compare it to a well known camera like the 5d2. If you doubt it, ask your connection at CanonFor us, yes. For fuji, not so much so. But I seem to be alone in thinking fuji is making life too difficult for themselves
They also do a comparison to a medium format camera as well, but it's probably an older, sub par MF cam & not up to your professional standards either.
Seriously dude, the xpro-1 takes great photos, end of story. It's not the camera for you, so don't buy it and stop putting it down. Nobody cares about your opinion on what fuji is doing wrong and nobody cares about your negative opinions on a camera that you've never used.
You think it's not up to professional use? Ok, Wait till it hits the global market and lands in the hands of people who know what to do with it. People said the same thing about the x100, then all of a sudden it appears around the neck of Annie Lebovitz and...
echelon2004
Veteran Member
Ok, I'll try a last time. Let's say that the canon really s good. Excellent even. How does it make sense for fuji to compare against it. I know why it is good for us. Why is it good for them?Actually, I think you ARE alone on this. The 5dmk2 is used by more 'professional' photogs than any other FF dslr on the market so it makes perfect sense to compare it to a well known camera like the 5d2. If you doubt it, ask your connection at CanonFor us, yes. For fuji, not so much so. But I seem to be alone in thinking fuji is making life too difficult for themselves
It makes more sense.
I don't put the camera down. I wonder what fuji are doing...
The x100 is an excellent camera. The xpro1 should be excellent. Almost all images shown up until this evening have been horribly poorly executed. The noise comparison in this thread is poorly executed. The camera is good. Ok? The 18mm lens seems to be a bit below average, the other two are fine.
If fuji as a company s strong enough to provide professional service, than it should be up for professional use. If they fail to deliver on that it doesn't matter one bit how good cameras they make.
And you are a little bit wrong about no one caring, maybe no one in here cares though. I don't know who you are so that doesn't bother me much, I had a question and some people with no answer felt compelled to type anyway. It's normal although regrettable these days.
--
Anders
'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'
Jan from UK
Well-known member
~ Oh dear .. I'm sure this is a hoax comparison. The 5D Mk2 high ISO at 6,400 is very very much worse than an image I took in a very dark castle ages ago, at 6,400 ISO. I'd love a Fuji X-Pro but its body is now more expensive than a 5D Mk2. I'm retired now so the little Fuji is way out of my range for a small carry around camera. Please check out my 6,400 ISO image..
--
Jan F
--
Jan F
John Motts
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,857
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,604
Actually it's quite a bit cheaper than the 5D mk2
Moti
Veteran Member
That is because you don't really know what you are talking about.
Actually, you were wrong about almost any aspect concerning the 5dll.
This is exactly the point "you thought" you don't really know the camera enough to comment the way you did. Sorry, not very serious.
Moti
--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)
echelon2004
Veteran Member
No, it is because my customers wouldn't accept that quality.
Known fact, nothing subjective. They are simply not of enough quality to be used for my line of work.
Not really, I didn't check current prices nor did I notice they had added a bit of weather proofing.
I'm not the one with the smudged iso6400 images...
--
Anders
'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'
Moti
Veteran Member
Cyclopedia Brown
Leading Member
I saw some debate & discussion stating that the 5D2 and XPro1 are actually not PRO level cameras. My question is, SAYS WHO!?
In the field of journalism these days a lot of PRO photographers are not only just shooting images with iPhones but actually publishing the iPhone images to newspapers, magazines, and to the web. I don't think anyone would argue that these photographers are not PROs.
The camera or tools a photographer uses mean very little when it comes time to get a job done. You just get it done with what is available and what makes the most sense.
The 5D2 is now being used by The white house staff photographers and has been for a few years now. Is Pete Souza not a PRO?
If a PRO photographer decides to use a $100 Point & Shoot then that camera has just become a PRO camera, in my estimation. The labels we put on tools don't much matter, because at the end of the day if it works and does the job in any pro line of work then it is functional to professionals.
If A couple of Canon G12s can be used to shoot the cover of Maxim magazine, then I see no reason why an X-Pro1 cannot be used to do something similar.
Applying the term PRO to any camera is really silly because it is professionals who make the decisions on what works for them in professional situations. The camera cant make those decisions. Period...
--
Cyclopedia Creative Media
"Ideas that speak volumes"
Chi "Cyclopedia" Brown
In the field of journalism these days a lot of PRO photographers are not only just shooting images with iPhones but actually publishing the iPhone images to newspapers, magazines, and to the web. I don't think anyone would argue that these photographers are not PROs.
The camera or tools a photographer uses mean very little when it comes time to get a job done. You just get it done with what is available and what makes the most sense.
The 5D2 is now being used by The white house staff photographers and has been for a few years now. Is Pete Souza not a PRO?
If a PRO photographer decides to use a $100 Point & Shoot then that camera has just become a PRO camera, in my estimation. The labels we put on tools don't much matter, because at the end of the day if it works and does the job in any pro line of work then it is functional to professionals.
If A couple of Canon G12s can be used to shoot the cover of Maxim magazine, then I see no reason why an X-Pro1 cannot be used to do something similar.
Applying the term PRO to any camera is really silly because it is professionals who make the decisions on what works for them in professional situations. The camera cant make those decisions. Period...
--
Cyclopedia Creative Media
"Ideas that speak volumes"
Chi "Cyclopedia" Brown
RealXenuis
Senior Member
This was my point.
The feature and controls are explicitly for more advanced users, not beginners. Most of the differentiating features aim to give vastly more manual user control than an entry level camera, who offers things like "night shot" on the top dial and not buried in the menu. You're confusing features with more control over the camera (AND it's features). You'd be making a hard sell using that logic as the basis for a beginner (i.e. entry level) camera.
How much more of a beginner camera..? Ok.
D3000; D3100; D5000; D5100. I could mention the D90 but that is not a beginner camera either.
While a beginner would be getting a fantastic and wholly useable camera, it's a pretty dense learning curve to use it to it's fullest. Nothing wrong with being overly equipped and maturing with the tool, but there are at least 5 other options that would, very obviously (to everyone here), be more suitable and less of an investment for a beginner, which can still produce fantastic results.
Just because you keep repeating your nonsensical argument that Fuji would be better served not comparing their camera to the very cameras (and companies) it's competing against doesn't make it any more valid or lucid. There is no logical leap that one would have to take to digest the comparisons Fuji makes or the cameras they make them against. No one here can apologize for your looseness with facts and strange incoherencies but you, and you can't really fault them for that, right?
I've done nothing but address your argument about their marketing. If you don't understand how, that's not my fault. Neither I nor anyone here have been particularly obtuse or complex in addressing it: You say the D7000 is one of the most popular entry level cameras ever and should not be compared to the XP1 because it's made by a competitor and is "marketing..suicide". I would have to disagree, with a smirk.
Because the FF cameras is highly regarded, has not been replaced, and is still very relevant for the purposes of their comparison (resolution). These are simple concepts anyone can understand.
Now you're getting into form factor again, which you'd stated previously that you never mentioned. Le sigh. I can't help but think at this point you've just confused yourself.
The m9 is a niche market camera. It's non-AF. It uses a wholly different sensor tech, and are part of a system with arguably the best lenses in the world. It also costs $7,000 for the body alone, and many of the lenses cost almost as much, if not more. It also attains one of the highest overall IQ's ever. And this is what Fuji should compare the XP1 to?
The OM-D was just recently released. I have no idea why you even mention this camera. Having said that, I do think there would be crossover, certainly. You are confusing Fuji's intent with the ISO comparisons. No one can help you with that if you don't want to.
Moti
Veteran Member
Usually people who have no idea what are the tools that pro photographers need to accomplish a job. The common mistake that people are doing here is to generalize about the definition of a professional job.
Absolutely, but we talk about gear not the photographers. Can you imagine a serious photo journalist going to cover a revolution in Africa for example, equipped only with a mobile phone for his photography? So I guess that a "pro" tool should provide more than just nice and sharp photos.
It all depends on the job. While there are are photography jobs that can be done with "what is available" others might need more dedicated and specific tools A journalist can easily get a job done with a mobile phone as you have said, an architecture photographer will probably need expensive TS lenses. A sport and wildlife journalist can't get away with a 100$ p&s camera and you can't just use what is available if you are a serious wedding and events shooter and so on. It is always the right tool for the right job anyway you look at it.
The 5Dll is considered as a pro camera and is one of the most popular tools in the wedding photography world industry.
If this was the case, then every pro photographer would have happily use a 100$ camera for any job. After all why spend thousands of $ on a tool if you can have a job done with much less?
In Italy there is a saying - you don't need strong teeth to eat pasta. While a couple of Canon G12s can perfectly shoot the cover of Maxim magazine, they might be completely useless for other jobs. Same goes for the X-Pro1 or almost any other camera.
True, at the end of the day it is the photographer who makes the decision of which tools he would consider professional enough for the job and a serious pro must pay attention to few basic factors that point out the difference between what most of us would call PRO or not.
1. Being suitable for the job
2. Required image quality.
3. Professional level reliability
4. Professional services and repair.
I believe that every pro photographer should pay attention to these if he is serious about the job and his customers because this what makes the difference between tools. I also know that some photogs would dare to shoot a wedding with cheap gear and I can tell you honestly, that I would kick out any pro who would come to shoot my daughters wedding with a 100$ camera even if his name is Henri Cartier-Bresson.
Cheers
Moti
--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)
Jan from UK
Well-known member
~ Please check out these UK website links.. No contest for best the best price body only ..
http://hdewcameras.rtrk.co.uk/?scid=22824&kw=6152236&pub_cr_id=11124403521
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/84042/show.html?tduid=776d11b09f4df99a475ba26b7c3c96a0&url=http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/84042/show.html
These were the prices at 00.09 hours on 26/02/2012
--
Jan F
http://hdewcameras.rtrk.co.uk/?scid=22824&kw=6152236&pub_cr_id=11124403521
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/84042/show.html?tduid=776d11b09f4df99a475ba26b7c3c96a0&url=http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/84042/show.html
These were the prices at 00.09 hours on 26/02/2012
--
Jan F
John Motts
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,857
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,604
Jan, the 5d is more expensive at Jessops than the x-pro1
Googling the other company, they are grey imports.
Googling the other company, they are grey imports.
compositor20
Senior Member
New comparison with 18mm Fuji f2 which is quite sharp (although not in the corners) and the 35mm f1.4 which is outstanding even at f1.4!!! The canon is full of spherical aberrations (that haze wide open).
http://dslr-check.at.webry.info/
http://dslr-check.at.webry.info/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum