How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

Started Apr 26, 2012 | Discussions
achanth Regular Member • Posts: 139
How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

I am toying of purchasing this camera, among a number of shortlists...which includes Oly OMD em-5 and canon G1x> Please advise. Thanks.

Fujifilm X-Pro1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Ugog New Member • Posts: 9
Re: How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

it really isnt that slow - what it lacks in speed is more than made up by the IQ, the amazing jpegs and and great ISO performance.

Im a nikon user (d700) with fast prime and zoom glass. The d700 has not come out at all since i got the x-pro 1 (only for a couple of sport shoots)

I am so impressed I'm considering selling all my nikon prime G lenses and just keeping the 24-70 an 70-200 for the few occasions each month I may need them.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,348
Re: How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

It's not slow at all in reasonable light.

Once the light gets low, my D3s owns the Fuji but of course cost far more and weighs far more etc so is not a real comparison.

To be honest the XP1 is the only non DSLR camera made in the last 5 years I have even considered buying other than the Leica M9.

If they put PDAF, 3D tracking and low light AF like the D3s in it, I would probably almost never use the D3s again!

Petteri Sulonen Forum Pro • Posts: 24,585
If you want to shoot football, pogo dancing, or birds in flight...

...you're better off with some other camera. For everything else, it gets the job done just fine, once you learn to use it properly.

That's a bit of an "if," though. It's probably different from what you're used to, and if you're not willing to figure it out and learn to use it properly, you'll hate it. That, in fact, applies to the entire camera, although the AF is a convenient peg to hang that frustration on.

Petteri
--
http://primejunta.blogspot.com/
http://www.prime-junta.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/

 Petteri Sulonen's gear list:Petteri Sulonen's gear list
Fujifilm X100S
Blue Swan Media
Blue Swan Media Regular Member • Posts: 225
Re: If you want to shoot football, pogo dancing, or birds in flight...

I haven't used the OM-D yet but have one on order. On paper it seems to be a better fit for just about everyone, myself included, but my XP1 has so far managed to stay un-returned despite several blown shots of fast moving kids.

Thing is, the XP1 is so damn sexy and challenging. . .it's like dating a really moody, high maintenance girl who's the hottest thing you've ever laid eyes on. Feeling like you've fought the camera and won every time you get a great shot - like you've passed some sort of challenge - is part of the fun. The OM-D seems so boringly perfect - who wants that LOL?

-- hide signature --

Nikon Stuff: D700 w/grip D7000 w/grip (x2)
24 1.4G 85 1.4G 60 2.8 Micro
35 1.8 70-200 2.8 VRII A bunch of stupid flashes
Other stuff:
Tokina 11-16 2.8 (Nikon) Sigma 50 1.4 (Nikon)
Fuji X-Pro 1 w/35mm 1.4

 Blue Swan Media's gear list:Blue Swan Media's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D750 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED +15 more
CriticalI Senior Member • Posts: 1,777
Make up your own mind

Why should I tell you what to spend your money on?

achanth wrote:

I am toying of purchasing this camera, among a number of shortlists...which includes Oly OMD em-5 and canon G1x> Please advise. Thanks.

JJZmaj Forum Member • Posts: 99
Re: If you want to shoot football, pogo dancing, or birds in flight...

You may want to check this out:
X-Pro 1 focus tip for moving objects :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&thread=41284507

dzeanah Regular Member • Posts: 340
Re: How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

It's hyped on DPR because it's not the fastest focuser out there. Focus is fine, though you need to learn how to use it -- if you pick it up and go without reading the manual you're going to wonder why it won't focus where you want.

If it makes you feel better, I doubt low-light focusing ability is worse than the 5D. That was the go-to low-light wedding camera for years. The fact that you can get an OM-D or a D700 that focuses faster doesn't mean the other cameras simply stop working.

achanth wrote:

I am toying of purchasing this camera, among a number of shortlists...which includes Oly OMD em-5 and canon G1x> Please advise. Thanks.

 dzeanah's gear list:dzeanah's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited +3 more
RealXenuis Senior Member • Posts: 1,153
Re: If you want to shoot football, pogo dancing, or birds in flight...

Maybe more boring than perfect? While I can understand the form appeal to some, it doesn't seem to stand out in any particular way, does it? What about it made you choose it over, say, any of the Pens or an NEX, if not for the way it looks? Just curious b/c I don't get the appeal and would like to hear other perspectives

Blue Swan Media wrote:

I haven't used the OM-D yet but have one on order. On paper it seems to be a better fit for just about everyone, myself included, but my XP1 has so far managed to stay un-returned despite several blown shots of fast moving kids.

Thing is, the XP1 is so damn sexy and challenging. . .it's like dating a really moody, high maintenance girl who's the hottest thing you've ever laid eyes on. Feeling like you've fought the camera and won every time you get a great shot - like you've passed some sort of challenge - is part of the fun. The OM-D seems so boringly perfect - who wants that LOL?

RealXenuis Senior Member • Posts: 1,153
Re: How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

I own all 3 lenses and have used the camera for a while now in various settings and with the kipon adapter + Voigt 15mm II.

The AF, after the recent update, is perfectly fast using the 18mm. It wasn't "slow" before with that lens, but it's now quite fast and accurate.

AF is faster now with the 35 than before, but not as fast as say a 50 on a Nikon DSLR. However, it is more accurate than my 35 on the D7000 was. The XF 35 is not slow, but it's not as fast as prob most any DSLR + 35 or 50 in the last few yrs. However, I don't think it would hinder you greatly from shooting sports. I think ppl get caught up in here taking the very fastest performance and working backward to rate everything else, w/o regards to keeper ratio, etc. I've used the 35 in a moving car shooting moving subjects and they all came out in focus. Just set the shutter speed accordingly, like any other camera.

The 60 is slow. I've noticed no AF speed improvement with it. If you approach it as anything other than for it's intended use - portraiture and macro - then you'll be very disappointed in AF speed. But why would you, ya know? Having said that, it's got extremely good IQ (like the 35, and more so than the 18). I personally don't find it a very useful length though. It's much too short and slow to be a good action lens or to get good shots of anything far, and it's just not that much longer than the 35 for practical use. You could easily get away with just the 18 and/or 35.

The lens roadmap includes a couple of zooms with IS and at f/4, which with this sensor, should be plenty fast for action. I also expect that AF speed will improve at least slightly for the 18 and 35 with incremental updates. If you need blazing speed right this second, then you would perhaps not want this camera/lens combo at this time. But the 18 really is pretty fast right now, as is. Hope that helps

achanth wrote:

I am toying of purchasing this camera, among a number of shortlists...which includes Oly OMD em-5 and canon G1x> Please advise. Thanks.

brudy Senior Member • Posts: 1,510
Re: If you want to shoot football, pogo dancing, or birds in flight...

Different aesthetics. The NEX is very hi-tech, almost futuristic. The PEN's are cool, but seem to be trying too hard on the design front. The OMD looks nice, but something about the shape of the VF hump throws it off. I wish it were more square, less witch hat. The Xpro is understated and has more of a classic look, with very little extra thrown in. Same with the x100 I think. Luckily there's something for everyone out there.

RealXenuis wrote:

Maybe more boring than perfect? While I can understand the form appeal to some, it doesn't seem to stand out in any particular way, does it? What about it made you choose it over, say, any of the Pens or an NEX, if not for the way it looks? Just curious b/c I don't get the appeal and would like to hear other perspectives

 brudy's gear list:brudy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony Alpha a7R Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-T10
brudy Senior Member • Posts: 1,510
Re: How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

One thing that bugs me about the lens road map is no long fast primes. The 60mm is it. We need something like an 85/1.8. That suits the camera a lot more than a 70-200/f4 or even the 18-72. I'd love to know if people who have already bought the Xpro are interested in these zooms.

RealXenuis wrote:

The lens roadmap includes a couple of zooms with IS and at f/4, which with this sensor, should be plenty fast for action. I also expect that AF speed will improve at least slightly for the 18 and 35 with incremental updates. If you need blazing speed right this second, then you would perhaps not want this camera/lens combo at this time. But the 18 really is pretty fast right now, as is. Hope that helps

achanth wrote:

I am toying of purchasing this camera, among a number of shortlists...which includes Oly OMD em-5 and canon G1x> Please advise. Thanks.

 brudy's gear list:brudy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony Alpha a7R Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-T10
RealXenuis Senior Member • Posts: 1,153
Re: If you want to shoot football, pogo dancing, or birds in flight...

I agree with the form differentiators, but I'm more curious about those who have performance and IQ considerations. I've never held or tried it, but on paper it doesn't seem really very different (or "better") than its peers. Not that buying based on form isn't good enough - certainly I have and will do that.

I read "witch hat" and lost it a little. Also, completely agree - I think it's a fabulous looking camera except for that pointy hump. Seems like they maybe tried to do too much with it and it came out pointy. Totally distracts from the rest of the aesthetic for me personally.

I also just see it as a tinier DSLR form. Which could be fine. But just...kind of the same as most everything out there? I don't know, I'd prob play around with it and love it.

brudy wrote:

Different aesthetics. The NEX is very hi-tech, almost futuristic. The PEN's are cool, but seem to be trying too hard on the design front. The OMD looks nice, but something about the shape of the VF hump throws it off. I wish it were more square, less witch hat. The Xpro is understated and has more of a classic look, with very little extra thrown in. Same with the x100 I think. Luckily there's something for everyone out there.

RealXenuis wrote:

Maybe more boring than perfect? While I can understand the form appeal to some, it doesn't seem to stand out in any particular way, does it? What about it made you choose it over, say, any of the Pens or an NEX, if not for the way it looks? Just curious b/c I don't get the appeal and would like to hear other perspectives

langmi Regular Member • Posts: 285
Re: How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

@ Brudy.........no interest in zoom whatsoever. Want fast, small, light primes, that is what I bought it for.

@ Op ...... curious, have you posted similar questions about the respective camera's in the Canon and the Oly threads? Every camera has a short-coming, but all too often as many have mentioned over and over again on these Forum's......what are you shooting and what are your expectations? Do your own Pro/Con list and prioritize. It may come easy it may not, but the shutter stops with you (I made that up). For me it was a very personal set of Pro's that many if not most may not relate to. The analog controls are VERY positive for me; the Q list is VERY positive for me. The great IQ in such a small and compact form is VERY positive for me. The rest just details.

harold1968
harold1968 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,687
It's not slow and it's 100% accurate

Does that answer your question ?

No, it's not as fast as the 5D mark iii

It's also lens dependent. Like canon and Nikon

18mm is fast
60mm is not so fast.

Like canon 50mm f1.8, for example

achanth wrote:

I am toying of purchasing this camera, among a number of shortlists...which includes Oly OMD em-5 and canon G1x> Please advise. Thanks.

 harold1968's gear list:harold1968's gear list
Sony RX1R Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS30 Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha a7 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +1 more
RealXenuis Senior Member • Posts: 1,153
Re: How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

You may be right. Personally, I wouldn't use a slightly longer/faster prime. I would still likely just use it for portrait/macro work. I haven't found that FL particularly useful for anything but. I'd be more interesting in a 200+ prime with reasonable speed. I have NO problem with the 2.4 on the 60, nor it's IQ. It's at least fantastic if not better (I also think this of the 35). I'm also one of those who has no issue with a good zoom. Think Nikkor (and really, Tokina and Tamron FOR Nikon). I, personally, don't see a lot of quality diff btwn the Tokina 12-24 i used w/my D7000 and the 18 on the Fuji, other than (of course, most importantly) character. Color mostly. The 12 was sharp at 12 and beyond. It suffered about the same (maybe slightly more?) with CA in high contrast. I felt the 12-24 was extremely useful and a great lens, but it suffered in that system b/c the D7000 wasn't as good at high ISO, where the Fuji should shine. Same with the long tele-zooms. I'd find a 70-300 IS at a reasonable f-stop MUCH more useful than a middling-length 85, even at f/1.whatever. I could make up a lot of the diff w/the 35, even with cropping, but I could never make up for subjects at + - 300 (450 FF) with say, an 85 and cropping. The 70-200 Fuji has planned should be quite useful (if done well like with nikon), even if a bit shorter than i'd prefer.

brudy wrote:

One thing that bugs me about the lens road map is no long fast primes. The 60mm is it. We need something like an 85/1.8. That suits the camera a lot more than a 70-200/f4 or even the 18-72. I'd love to know if people who have already bought the Xpro are interested in these zooms.

RealXenuis wrote:

The lens roadmap includes a couple of zooms with IS and at f/4, which with this sensor, should be plenty fast for action. I also expect that AF speed will improve at least slightly for the 18 and 35 with incremental updates. If you need blazing speed right this second, then you would perhaps not want this camera/lens combo at this time. But the 18 really is pretty fast right now, as is. Hope that helps

achanth wrote:

I am toying of purchasing this camera, among a number of shortlists...which includes Oly OMD em-5 and canon G1x> Please advise. Thanks.

brudy Senior Member • Posts: 1,510
Re: How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

It's funny - I have the 10-22 for my 7D and love it (as well as the 70-200f4). I'm not anti-zoom at all. But I'm pro smaller size and larger aperture. It seems like a longer/faster prime is a glaring hole in the road map. It will be interesting to see how big the Fuji 70-200 turns out to be. If it's as big as the Canon, I wouldn't get it (and it's not even that big compared to Canon's other zooms). I'll be getting the fuji mostly for travel and walk around, so I want the kit to be smaller. FWIW, I'm strongly considering getting rid of most of my Canon stuff except my birding lenses, which the fuji will never be able to do adequately.

In terms of usage, personally I usually shoot on the wide end (except for birds), but it'd be nice to have a longer option than 60mm. To me that seems like an odd focal length. On my 7D I use the 85 for portraits, but that space between 85 and say 50-55, I don't seem to ever want it. I also use rangefinders (epson r-d1 and others) so I'm used to primes.

RealXenuis wrote:

You may be right. Personally, I wouldn't use a slightly longer/faster prime. I would still likely just use it for portrait/macro work. I haven't found that FL particularly useful for anything but. I'd be more interesting in a 200+ prime with reasonable speed. I have NO problem with the 2.4 on the 60, nor it's IQ. It's at least fantastic if not better (I also think this of the 35). I'm also one of those who has no issue with a good zoom. Think Nikkor (and really, Tokina and Tamron FOR Nikon). I, personally, don't see a lot of quality diff btwn the Tokina 12-24 i used w/my D7000 and the 18 on the Fuji, other than (of course, most importantly) character. Color mostly. The 12 was sharp at 12 and beyond. It suffered about the same (maybe slightly more?) with CA in high contrast. I felt the 12-24 was extremely useful and a great lens, but it suffered in that system b/c the D7000 wasn't as good at high ISO, where the Fuji should shine. Same with the long tele-zooms. I'd find a 70-300 IS at a reasonable f-stop MUCH more useful than a middling-length 85, even at f/1.whatever. I could make up a lot of the diff w/the 35, even with cropping, but I could never make up for subjects at + - 300 (450 FF) with say, an 85 and cropping. The 70-200 Fuji has planned should be quite useful (if done well like with nikon), even if a bit shorter than i'd prefer.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brudy

 brudy's gear list:brudy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sony Alpha a7R Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-T10
mr moonlight Senior Member • Posts: 1,789
Re: If you want to shoot football, pogo dancing, or birds in flight...

Blue Swan Media wrote:

I haven't used the OM-D yet but have one on order. On paper it seems to be a better fit for just about everyone, myself included, but my XP1 has so far managed to stay un-returned despite several blown shots of fast moving kids.

Thing is, the XP1 is so damn sexy and challenging. . .it's like dating a really moody, high maintenance girl who's the hottest thing you've ever laid eyes on. Feeling like you've fought the camera and won every time you get a great shot - like you've passed some sort of challenge - is part of the fun. The OM-D seems so boringly perfect - who wants that LOL?

That's really it in a lot of ways. Especially when you first start using it. Sometimes just doesn't want to budge and can be a real PIA. Once you get used to how it works it's a totally different story. It's not perfect, and there will always be some frustration at times, but overall and for many of us, it gives back a lot more than most other cameras. There's not many cameras that inspire an emotional response, but this one does.

The usual pro DSLR is like a modern day BMW. Very refined, extremely responsive and operates exactly as you want it to every time. It's perfect.

The Xpro1 is more like a classic sports car. It's not even close to refined, doesn't hold a candle to your average modern day sedan in terms of responsiveness and sometimes it just doesn't want to operate at all. Yet when everything is in sync and your driving down that curvy open road, it's more than perfect.

There's a reason people like shooting with Rangefinder cameras and it's not because they're the fastest things on the market.

RealXenuis Senior Member • Posts: 1,153
Re: If you want to shoot football, pogo dancing, or birds in flight...

I'm confused when I see a response like this. Not that it hasn't been this for you personally, but I don't find the XP1 even before the update to be difficult to use nor particularly quirky. The AF on two of the lenses are less than what those who use DSLR's are used to. That's really it. Is the OVF/EVF/LCD difficult to use or understand? Are the mechanics of AF hard to understand? I just have no idea why this has become a meme of sorts. The XP1, out of the box, was as difficult to use as any P&S. Not as responsive as most DSLR's. For me. I'd love to hear in what way it was quirky or hard to use for those who found it so. I'm not the brightest lamp on the street, and I managed to figure it out in less time than I did my D7000 which has a multitude of user and menu options. And neither of them were quirky or particularly non-intuitive.

mr moonlight wrote:

Blue Swan Media wrote:

I haven't used the OM-D yet but have one on order. On paper it seems to be a better fit for just about everyone, myself included, but my XP1 has so far managed to stay un-returned despite several blown shots of fast moving kids.

Thing is, the XP1 is so damn sexy and challenging. . .it's like dating a really moody, high maintenance girl who's the hottest thing you've ever laid eyes on. Feeling like you've fought the camera and won every time you get a great shot - like you've passed some sort of challenge - is part of the fun. The OM-D seems so boringly perfect - who wants that LOL?

That's really it in a lot of ways. Especially when you first start using it. Sometimes just doesn't want to budge and can be a real PIA. Once you get used to how it works it's a totally different story. It's not perfect, and there will always be some frustration at times, but overall and for many of us, it gives back a lot more than most other cameras. There's not many cameras that inspire an emotional response, but this one does.

The usual pro DSLR is like a modern day BMW. Very refined, extremely responsive and operates exactly as you want it to every time. It's perfect.

The Xpro1 is more like a classic sports car. It's not even close to refined, doesn't hold a candle to your average modern day sedan in terms of responsiveness and sometimes it just doesn't want to operate at all. Yet when everything is in sync and your driving down that curvy open road, it's more than perfect.

There's a reason people like shooting with Rangefinder cameras and it's not because they're the fastest things on the market.

RealXenuis Senior Member • Posts: 1,153
Re: How serious is the slow focus of X-Pro1 affecting purchase decision?

I think we're not far off from each other. I much prefer wide, and use the 18 at the expense of the 35 IQ, and this is still not wide enough for me (coming from the 12, the 18 feels limiting, as funny as that sounds). If they'd gotten the 18 as right as they did the 35, I would get rid of that one. But design of UWA's is much more constrained than say a 35 or 50, much more to take into account and to "get right", so I understand.

I am, too, pro smaller size/big aperture. But I find the 60, as is, pushing it as far as being able to claim "compact" size with a straight face. And 85 - with f/1.8 say - is going to be bigger. A zoom, at f/4, might be bigger than say an 85, but maybe not. The mounts are diff, etc. My point being, anything longer than the 60 will likely be as big or bigger than the 60. So if your move is toward smallness, desiring an 85 at and even bigger aperture will prob not get you there. The tradeoff is going to be size for FL, no matter how you look at it. Still, that 85 or that 70-200 will very likely be MUCH smaller than these zooms we've been mentioning. That 12-24 was relatively enormous and was "only" f/4. The Tamron 70-300 (about the same size as the 70-200 i believe) was again even more enormous. If they keep the size to even twice as long as the 60, I'd be satisfied they did what they could.

I look at it as squeezing the most versatility out of the system as a whole. When I want just compactness, the 18 does perfectly well. I rather like it, a lot. The 35 is not far off. Not quite as pocketable but for pure IQ, man, can't beat it. Still very portable. When I absolutely must have reach - say on vacay, sports etc - then I'll have the option of the (likely larger) UWA + Tele-Zoom. It's good to have options!

brudy wrote:

It's funny - I have the 10-22 for my 7D and love it (as well as the 70-200f4). I'm not anti-zoom at all. But I'm pro smaller size and larger aperture. It seems like a longer/faster prime is a glaring hole in the road map. It will be interesting to see how big the Fuji 70-200 turns out to be. If it's as big as the Canon, I wouldn't get it (and it's not even that big compared to Canon's other zooms). I'll be getting the fuji mostly for travel and walk around, so I want the kit to be smaller. FWIW, I'm strongly considering getting rid of most of my Canon stuff except my birding lenses, which the fuji will never be able to do adequately.

In terms of usage, personally I usually shoot on the wide end (except for birds), but it'd be nice to have a longer option than 60mm. To me that seems like an odd focal length. On my 7D I use the 85 for portraits, but that space between 85 and say 50-55, I don't seem to ever want it. I also use rangefinders (epson r-d1 and others) so I'm used to primes.

RealXenuis wrote:

You may be right. Personally, I wouldn't use a slightly longer/faster prime. I would still likely just use it for portrait/macro work. I haven't found that FL particularly useful for anything but. I'd be more interesting in a 200+ prime with reasonable speed. I have NO problem with the 2.4 on the 60, nor it's IQ. It's at least fantastic if not better (I also think this of the 35). I'm also one of those who has no issue with a good zoom. Think Nikkor (and really, Tokina and Tamron FOR Nikon). I, personally, don't see a lot of quality diff btwn the Tokina 12-24 i used w/my D7000 and the 18 on the Fuji, other than (of course, most importantly) character. Color mostly. The 12 was sharp at 12 and beyond. It suffered about the same (maybe slightly more?) with CA in high contrast. I felt the 12-24 was extremely useful and a great lens, but it suffered in that system b/c the D7000 wasn't as good at high ISO, where the Fuji should shine. Same with the long tele-zooms. I'd find a 70-300 IS at a reasonable f-stop MUCH more useful than a middling-length 85, even at f/1.whatever. I could make up a lot of the diff w/the 35, even with cropping, but I could never make up for subjects at + - 300 (450 FF) with say, an 85 and cropping. The 70-200 Fuji has planned should be quite useful (if done well like with nikon), even if a bit shorter than i'd prefer.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brudy

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads