Fujifilm X-Pro1 details leaked!!! [Archive] - Page 4

Leigh Youdale

01-13-2012, 21:50

Cheap D-slrs like the Canon rebels have quite fast AF, and I'll bet you they'll beat this one.

............ But you don't know that. You're just throwing out unsubstantiated assertions.

They're not $3000-$5000 cameras either. Hell, my new Canon 5D-II was only $2000 (for the body),

............ So, at $1700 for the body compared to $2000 for the Canon, do we cut any slack?

This Fuji sounds like a $600 camera,

................"sounds like"? Is that an objective statement?

sold for $1000 more because the world has an overabundance of fools

......... now there's a well researched and balanced commentary.

who screech about how they're in favor of "capitalism", yet they have zero understanding

........another really insightful analysis.

of the role of the customer in a free market (hint: it doesn't involve bending over and moaning about how good it feels). Our job is to hold businesses to account with our wallets.

........... It's not in my job description, bud.

............. "Sounds like" rhetoric from the 'Occupy Everything' stuff that's recently been in the news.

Does the new Fuji have to beat $7000 cameras? Heck no, but it damned well better beat cameras costing 1/3 what it does. Right? RIGHT?

...... wrong, WRONG! $1700/3 = $500 plus tips. Let's face it, you don't like the economy , you don't like the camera, you don't have the facts, you don't like people disagreeing with you. Time for a strong coffee, I think.

I'm not necessarily defending Fuji or the camera. In fact I'm not going to get one - because it doesn't fit my needs at present. But it's an interesting development and bears scrutiny. Just trashing it before it is actually in use without really knowing all about it is silly. It's the emotion and lack of logical thought in so many of the comments that I object to.

migtex

01-13-2012, 22:00

I got a feeling that this thread is about to get block or closed.... just a feeling...

Leigh Youdale

01-13-2012, 22:21

I got a feeling that this thread is about to get block or closed.... just a feeling...

Probably right. I'm out of here for a while.

igi

01-13-2012, 22:26

This camera IS AN AUTOFOCUS CAMERA, not a manual rangefinder. That means, and I'll say it s-l-o-w-l-y for you: we have every right to expect top quality autofocus from an AUTOFOCUS camera that costs 3 times (for the body) what Nikon or Canon charge for cameras (like the digital rebel bodies) that Fuji admits have better AF than this bauble they're pushing.

Who told you that this camera is expensive because of the autofocus?

As far as I know, it's about that hybrid viewfinder, the niche it occupies and the law of supply and demand.

noimmunity

01-13-2012, 22:57

Emotional is right.

But I think there is a real reason, related to the type of innovation Fuji has brought to the table, that calls forth this emotional energy.

Let's face it, what the Fuji X-Pro1 promises isn't, or isn't just, the objective criteria of a better final product (like MP count or high ISO noise performance), but the subjective criteria of user experience.

The issue Chris is raising has been elaborately discussed in numerous posts by many people, and eloquently argued by NickTrop. It boils down to this: the consumer DSLR offers a price/performance ratio that is really unmatched, but, and here's the kicker, at the penalty of a form factor and user experience that often leaves a heck of a lot to be desired. Note that the threads around this issue have almost always been highly emotional.

The cool thing that Fuji brings to the table is the evolution of the digital camera market to the point that user experience and form factor are being taken up a notch. Not too long ago, people were literally crying for a camera with this form factor to have interchangeable lenses, OVF with brightlines for multiple FLs, hard knobs, metal instead of plastic construction (i.e., a bunch of things that contribute to subjective user experience more than to objective final product) as well as excellent color, resolution and high ISO...(and what about DR? Fuji's earlier Pro series DSLRs always had better DR than the competition).

The weird thing, you gotta admit, however, is that something as subjective as experience also has to be given a price. Fuji isn't going to change that. That won't change, my friends, until we decide, collectively, to change the rules of the game for everyone.

PhotoMat

01-13-2012, 23:01

migtex

01-13-2012, 23:17

This is all based on supposition. There is no actual hands on experience with this camera that justifies unwarranted bashing of this product. In general, your complaints seem to be based upon your notion of being continually gouged by manufacturers. If the Fuji or any other camera is overpriced, then that will be borne out in the market by poor sales figures. If this camera fills a niche that photographers have been looking for at a price that is acceptable to those seeking this type of camera, then more power to Fuji. If your 5DII is doing the job, then great -- it's a fine camera. Nobody is forcing you to but this camera, and if the Fuji does not meet the needs for your type or style of work, then it would be a poor investment. This goes for any piece of photographic equipment -- a working photographer needs to choose the tools that enable them to produce their desired end product.

All of this angst over a camera that has just been announced is completely unwarranted. There is no perfect camera ... just as there is no perfect car, computer, etc. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth in search of the magic bullet that doesn't exist is a waste of energy and time.

Carry on.
Agree, it's like a thread about.. hmmmm ah ! Yes! What is the best photo bag?

I have a feeling (oh my, another one!!) if this Fuji X1 was the Leica X1 (lol X again.. hmmm :confused: ) the fuzzz will be different.

Now, this may close the thread in flames....

celluloidprop

01-13-2012, 23:19

Cheap D-slrs like the Canon rebels (They're the cameras I mentioned in my post you responded to) have quite fast AF, and I'll bet you they'll beat this one. They're not $3000-$5000 cameras either. Hell, my new Canon 5D-II was only $2000 (for the body), and its a fullframe body with the same sensor that the top-line Canon EOS 1DsIII has!

I played with a D5100 - it was a very interesting camera, a great APS sensor, good handling. But the viewfinder was darker and smaller than the OVF or EVF in my X100. The Rebel T3i is similar (but darker, IMO).

Now, if I want a digital camera with a viewfinder that allows me to shoot right-eyed ala a RF, I have exactly two options right now: a NEX-7 or (soon) a XPro-1.

Nor is there a small, quality equivalent of the 23/2 on my X100 or the upcoming 17/2 from the X-line in either Canon or Nikon's APS lineup. The closest is Nikon's excellent and affordable 35/1.8.
In full-frame terms, to get a great 35mm lens from either would cost ~$1500 (more for the Nikon, I think).

As far as RF goes, contrast-detection is not as fast as phase-detection across the full spectrum of uses. Maybe it someday will be, but not right now. It is, however, accurate when locked on - something that isn't necessarily true with DSLRs (or M9s, for that matter, if the RF is off). The companies have had to build in an ability for users to manually adjust their AF for front and back focus. I appreciate not having to do that with contrast-detection systems.

The XPro-1 will not equal the AF of even a basic DSLR, I think everyone will agree with that. But if it improves on the X100, even to the level of last-generation Olympus MFT bodies, I suspect it will be at least the equal of manually-focusing a RF for most users.

It irritates me to see companies bring out stuff that really isn't that great, then charging outrageous prices for the crap. As a working photographer, I can tell you that I am not a walking ATM for gear makers. Few of us are,and its getting tiresome being treated as one. Even really cheap-to-make things like sensor cleaning swabs are sold at prices that make precious metals look cheap. Enough is enough.
You know, I actually hate to come out in favor of the capitalists (card-carrying Wobblie here), but no one makes you buy any of these things.

If your work demands a full-frame DSLR, great, good for you. The 5D2 is an amazing deal right now. If I were 'working' full-time, I wouldn't mind hauling it around, either. But I'm not - so a compact system that performs well but doesn't weigh 5 pounds with a lens is what I want.

This Fuji sounds like a $600 camera, sold for $1000 more because the world has an overabundance of fools who screech about how they're in favor of "capitalism", yet they have zero understanding of the role of the customer in a free market (hint: it doesn't involve bending over and moaning about how good it feels). Our job is to hold businesses to account with our wallets.
And users will. If the XPro-1 is a bum (most likely in terms of AF), it will not sell and Fuji will lose millions. As they should, if they brought this to market without fixing the primary complaint folks had about the X100.

Does the new Fuji have to beat $7000 cameras? Heck no, but it damned well better beat cameras costing 1/3 what it does. Right? RIGHT?
'Beat' in what way? Fuji has already announced an excellent lineup of compact prime lenses for the system. Those don't exist for budget DSLRs.

gavinlg

01-13-2012, 23:21

Cheap D-slrs like the Canon rebels (They're the cameras I mentioned in my post you responded to) have quite fast AF, and I'll bet you they'll beat this one. They're not $3000-$5000 cameras either. Hell, my new Canon 5D-II was only $2000 (for the body), and its a fullframe body with the same sensor that the top-line Canon EOS 1DsIII has!

It irritates me to see companies bring out stuff that really isn't that great, then charging outrageous prices for the crap. As a working photographer, I can tell you that I am not a walking ATM for gear makers. Few of us are,and its getting tiresome being treated as one. Even really cheap-to-make things like sensor cleaning swabs are sold at prices that make precious metals look cheap. Enough is enough.

This Fuji sounds like a $600 camera, sold for $1000 more because the world has an overabundance of fools who screech about how they're in favor of "capitalism", yet they have zero understanding of the role of the customer in a free market (hint: it doesn't involve bending over and moaning about how good it feels). Our job is to hold businesses to account with our wallets.

Does the new Fuji have to beat $7000 cameras? Heck no, but it damned well better beat cameras costing 1/3 what it does. Right? RIGHT?

Okay seriously... I've repeated this a few times directly to you Chris - the AF is perfectly fine on the x100. I know that you're basing your bias upon crappy internet reviews of the x100 that say the AF is subpar - but honestly, those reviewers are just either not using it properly, or using it out of its means - like shooting sports or running people at night. I've used mine at iso 4000, 1/30th, f2 which is REALLY dark, and it still is able to focus fairly quickly with reasonable accuracy. No, it's not foolproof, but it's far better than useable - I would call the AF simply 'good' as opposed to a 1d or d3 which I would call 'brilliant' and a 5d which I would call 'great'. By comparison, I use a couple of d3100s, a couple of d90's and a d5100 at work at the moment, and we're having big focusing problems with them. a) they're inaccurate - sometimes they're very slightly back or front focussed, b) they completely mis-focus sometimes and still light up the 'af achieved' light in the VF - which really throws the photographer off. My x100 is not only quicker, but more accurate than all these lower end nikons.

I saw someone just before post that their x100 is not noticeably worse than their d300 (which AF system is similar to the d700/d3 system), and there is (for instance) a LOT of pro photographers and photojournalists using the x100 currently - Annie leibovitz is the first one to come to mind, and some even on this board.

Now, this x-pro1 looks to be quite a bit faster still than the x100 - from the video I saw with that Kayce lady, it looked quicker than my 5d (which is the same as a 5dII).

You gotta listen to people who actually use the camera! Not testers who think it has a bad AF system because it doesn't have 3d tracking or 54 AF points....

celluloidprop

01-13-2012, 23:23

The X100 is, if nothing else, faster at fine focus than I am with my M4.

Photon42

01-14-2012, 00:16

[...]

Does the new Fuji have to beat $7000 cameras? Heck no, but it damned well better beat cameras costing 1/3 what it does. Right? RIGHT?

I have no trouble at at all understanding your point, which is very valid in its own right. This type of cameras with optical, rangefinder influenced, finder is new in the digital area. I share your hunch that the new Fuji may be worse than some or most entry level DSLR regarding AF speed. Will it be still useable for a lot of photographers in not so AF speed demanding fields? I still hope so. Building products is always a trade-off, along with an estimate when a certain functionality is good enough to be released to create value.

The digital M cameras were (apart from being very expensive) certainly also not up to entry level cameras in some areas when they were released. Did they create value? Absolutely. But not for all, of course. Was the learning of the M8 used to improve the sucessor? Absolutely. Could they have done better from the beginning? Certainly in some points.

Personally I'm very content to see going camera development also in the direction of the XPro. I could never bond with a Nex 5, for example. No finder is a no-go for me.

Best
Ivo

gavinlg

01-14-2012, 00:32

I share your hunch that the new Fuji may be worse than some or most entry level DSLR regarding AF speed. Will it be still useable for a lot of photographers in not so AF speed demanding fields? I still hope so.

Considering the x100 is already as fast as entry level DSLR autofocus, and more accurate, and the x-pro is supposed to be much faster than the x100, I think it will be okay.

Paul T.

01-14-2012, 01:01

This Fuji sounds like a $600 camera, sold for $1000 more because the world has an overabundance of fools who screech about how they're in favor of "capitalism",..

Sounds like this is about you, not a camera.

bobbyrab

01-14-2012, 01:44

Chris, of all the photographers on this forum, your body of work would seem to have the least need of fast a fast focus system. Why is that particular aspect of this camera so upsetting to you?

Turtle

01-14-2012, 02:27

Sounds like this is about you, not a camera.

C'mon Chris! Lots of people have more money than me. They date hotter women, drive faster cars and 'waste' money on expensive watches with the same functionality as a $50 Seiko. One can either try to fix all of 'those people' (and the people who make their expensive watches, cars and overpriced cameras) or sort one's own head out. I know which is more effective.

Looking at this from another perspective, this camera at least shows that Fuji is coming at the market from a different angle, designing new products that give rise to more choice and potential future products. Even if it is rubbish, it is a GOOD thing for photographers, including those who don't buy one. I suspect it won't be rubbish, but not perfect either. No surprise there...

LeicaFoReVer

01-14-2012, 02:41

I have not followed rff over 6-7 months due to my move across countries but now I see nothing has changed :)) Another APS size camera is out and people are talking over it...Gimme another full frame rangefinder :), not that I can afford but to talk over it...

adamjohari

01-14-2012, 03:12

:D the drama :D

JoelW

01-14-2012, 03:14

LeicaFoReVer (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/member.php?u=25431), I think you mean nothing has changed in the way that people argue over minute details of a camera that is yet to be released.
People should wait until someone buys it to see some results, or buy one themselves.
Every new camera lately has so much hype around it, people speculating about how it's going to work and then when it doesn't operate as they imagined it would suddenly it becomes the worst camera ever.

I hear it all day, every day working in camera sales and then it's all over the forums and blogs. If you think a camera will be good then buy one and give it a shot, I don't see why people who aren't going to get one need to whinge about its specs anyway.
Comparing the AF of a camera like the X100 to the 1Ds III... Really?
Pssch.

Every camera has its quirks, you like it or you don't. This Fuji looks good, I've been very impressed by the quality of the X100. It'll be good to play with one when they start to ship but until then I'm just going to keep shooting with what I've got.

tom.w.bn

01-14-2012, 03:39

Fuji has admitted it has poor AF compared to D-SLRs. A $2000+ camera should not have inferior autofocus or anything else. Sorry.

You bought a 5DII lately? Why did you buy it? Everyone knows that it has the same AF module that my old 5D has. Compared to a Canon 1D or 7D it's noticeably slower and less reliable.

So you probably bought it because the AF of the 5D is fast enough for your needs and you don't need a camera for fast action. I'd better wait for real life performance measurements. Perhaps the AF of the Fuji is slow compared to a 1D but fast enough for most of us.

rover

01-14-2012, 04:09

You bought a 5DII lately? Why did you buy it? Everyone knows that it has the same AF module that my old 5D has. Compared to a Canon 1D or 7D it's noticeably slower and less reliable.

So you probably bought it because the AF of the 5D is fast enough for your needs and you don't need a camera for fast action. I'd better wait for real life performance measurements. Perhaps the AF of the Fuji is slow compared to a 1D but fast enough for most of us.

OK, point made, very well. Good enough is good enough depending on what you need. So, everyone calm down on Chris, and Chris, deep breath, you have made your point, expressed your opinions and speculation, and it is time to let everyone else have their opinions and speculation.

rover

01-14-2012, 04:23

Oh, I forgot to thank you for your cooperation.

rover

01-14-2012, 04:28

http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/784/ces-2012-digital-camera-makers-struggle-to-keep-pace/

Spyro

01-14-2012, 04:32

Well I think this camera is cheap LOL
In the segment mirrorless-system-with-OVF iτ's about 1/4 the price of the competition, so...

I also think of it it a good sign that most people don't consider it a professional camera, because the last thing I wanted is most people's idea of a professional camera hanging around my neck :)

dfoo

01-14-2012, 05:27

emraphoto

01-14-2012, 05:34

to this day the x100's af reputation puzzles me.

JohnL

01-14-2012, 05:37

"The viewfinder is located on the top left corner, which can make it a little awkward for left-eyed shooters like myself to handle"

Better than having it in the middle which makes it awkward whichever eye you want to use!

Paul T.

01-14-2012, 05:48

How does the AF work with the X100? Can you tell what the camera is focused on? With an SLR you can generally tell more or less due to DOF. One of the things that really irritated me with the Hexar AF is that from looking through the VF you couldn't easily tell (without looking at the distance scale).

The Hexar is a good example in a way, because it is possible to mis-focus. But then, the distance scale is in the VF, and it's easily good enough to indicate if you're focused on the wrong element - you just eventually learn to keep an eye on it. I only mis-focus when I'm out of practice.

I doubt the X100, or any other camera with contrast detect AF, will ever measure up to the Hexar. But learning to live with its quirks, especially learning what it's focused on, it's likely it's good enough.

The internet X100 AF speculation might well be over the top - but if it persuades Fuji to go one better, that can only be a good thing.

JohnL

01-14-2012, 06:00

Fuji has admitted it has poor AF compared to D-SLRs. A $2000+ camera should not have inferior autofocus or anything else. Sorry.
Damn, I guess all my M- Leica cameras are a super rip off considering that they have no AF of any kind :)
No, you are OK! All the M-Leicas are qualified to be $2000+ on both counts. They don't have inferior autofocus or anything else.:D

Focal Plane Circus

01-14-2012, 06:01

Here is more information to fuel this discussion (while it remains open) from a Spanish review of the X-Pro1 system: http://www.dslrmagazine.com/digital/camaras-de-telemetro-y-especiales/fujifilm-x-pro1-primer-analisis.html

The article's lens comparisons, in particular, should kindle more debate. There is probably even more incendiary material in the Spanish text for those who can read it. The rest of us will have to bicker over the photos and charts.

Update: Google translation of the Spanish review: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dslrmagazine.com%2Fdigital%2Fca maras-de-telemetro-y-especiales%2Ffujifilm-x-pro1-primer-analisis.html&act=url

On other topics:

Now, if I want a digital camera with a viewfinder that allows me to shoot right-eyed ala a RF, I have exactly two options right now: a NEX-7 or (soon) a XPro-1.

Correction: at least 3 option right now: (soon?) a NEX-7 or (soon) an X-Pro1 or (later) a future X-Pro [see below]

As far as RF goes, contrast-detection is not as fast as phase-detection across the full spectrum of uses. Maybe it someday will be, but not right now.

Near the end of this interview, Kayce Baker says that a future X-Pro camera will definitely have phase-detection: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/01/12/imaging-resource-interview-kayce-baker-fujifilm

We will now return you to our regular flame-thrower thread.

Mcary

01-14-2012, 06:07

When shooting with the X100 I use a single user selected and illuminated focus point just like I did when shoot with the 5D. Personally I can't see any difference in accuracy or speed even when shooting wide open at F-2. Also just like with the 5D sometimes I need to move the focus point around a bit in order to find an area with enough contrast to get a lock.
So if the X-1Pro has even a slight upgrade in AF speed and accuracy it'll be an improvement to what I'm use too.

digitalintrigue

01-14-2012, 06:14

I going to wait until actual user reports start to come in before getting too excited about potential AF problems.

Why waste a golden opportunity! :)

noimmunity

01-14-2012, 06:35

Here is more information to fuel this discussion (while it remains open) from a Spanish review of the X-Pro1 system: http://www.dslrmagazine.com/digital/camaras-de-telemetro-y-especiales/fujifilm-x-pro1-primer-analisis.html

The article's lens comparisons, in particular, should kindle more debate. There is probably even more incendiary material in the Spanish text for those who can read it. The rest of us will have to bicker over the photos and charts.

The chart that maps resolution and S/N ratio against the Canon 5D and the Nikon D700 purports to show that the Fuji easily outdoes both in terms of resolution, and only loses to the D700 for S/N starting at ISO1600 (while it remains ahead of the 5D).

If true, that would be very impressive. Finally, we have some concrete indication of what Fuji's claim that their new X-Tran Sensor is better than previous full frame can mean.

Then there are the MTFs, which also appear to favor the Fuji lenses against Canikon counterparts...

The review does notice, as we all have, that Fuji has positively encouraged apples to oranges comparisons...

The review also mentions that manual focus should be improved over the X100. Cool.

Thanks for the link...

willie_901

01-14-2012, 19:36

The aperiodic photosite array in the X-Pro 1 is not random, nor are the photosites randomized. I'm not even sure the pattern is actually aperiodic, but my math skills are too pathetic to comment further about that.

Here's Fuji's graphic of the array design.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/features/

Here's an interesting analysis of the array.

http://kevinpurcell.posterous.com/fujifilm-x-trans-color-filter-array-layout-ha

Focal Plane Circus

01-14-2012, 20:43

The aperiodic photosite array in the X-Pro 1 is not random, nor are the photosites randomized.

Here's an interesting analysis of the array.

http://kevinpurcell.posterous.com/fujifilm-x-trans-color-filter-array-layout-ha

Interesting indeed. I had noticed the repeating 9x9 pixel blocks and that the 3x3 blocks within every 9x9 block are identical, except that every other block is turned 90 degrees, giving the whole sensor a checkerboard pattern. The rest of the analysis is news to me.

I can now see an implication of the 2x2 RGGB blocks that "can sample color info with about half the resolution of the array" (another checkerboard): the X-Pro1's sensor is potentially an EFR sensor.

The author of the analysis is also pretty interesting. His Twitter page tells more about him:

https://twitter.com/#!/kevinpurcell

Thanks for the links! :)

Doug

01-15-2012, 09:35

"Random" is not the right word to describe the regular repeating arrangement in this sensor, but I can see where one would struggle for a better word to distinguish it. Maybe "diversity", as each row and column contains all three colors, unlike the Bayer array. I also don't see how the XP1 sensor would have been inspired by film grain; perhaps that thought arose from the misuse of "random". Certainly an interesting development, and interesting to see how the results may show improvement.

ferider

01-15-2012, 10:10

If anybody cares, for correct terminology:

Nothing is random in computer science, except noise.

When "random-ness" of random number generators is characterized, the generator's periodicity is used. The longer, the more "random". Every random number generator is periodical.

The new Fuji sensor has a longer periodicity (is more "random") than the Bayer array. The arrangement of pixels has higher "entropy".

Roland.

rxmd

01-15-2012, 21:14

If anybody cares, for correct terminology:

Nothing is random in computer science, except noise.

When "random-ness" of random number generators is characterized, the generator's periodicity is used. The longer, the more "random". Every random number generator is periodical.

I guess that's true for computational random number generation, but if you really need aperiodical random numbers you can always get them from some stochastic physical process (such as from noise in electronic components or from radioactive decay).

Not that this has much to do with camera sensors, anyway :)

willie_901

01-15-2012, 21:48

Even noise has structure. There is white noise, red noise, etc. Modeling noise is important when you have data with pathetic signal-to-noise ratios. Radio astronomers are very interested in modeling noise.

It is difficult to find physical phenomenon that is truely random. Radioactive decay may be one example.

On the other hand there are a lot a ways to generate/observe pseudo-random noise and with few exceptions the results are sufficiently random.

This stuff is related to digital photography because the photon counts are effected by errors (noise) from numerous sources.

astrosecret

01-15-2012, 22:17

Film grain is random... i noticed that the fuji algorithm wasn't random as well. Honestly they're excellent at marketing (which is all the 'random film grain-like sensor' is) but seem to rush things into production. I hope the x pro 1 is different. Though the x100 has its place in my heart, Fuji is all show. The sensor itself, which is wonderful, is by sony. and the physical design of the camera is all fuji, that is to say they are responsible for difficult AF, poor menu layout, poor battery performance, poor manual focus, sluggish startup/read/write speeds, poor OVF/AF coupling, etc. But the size/sensor keep it up there as one of my favorite cameras despite the poor mechanics.

ferider

01-16-2012, 03:47

Not that this has much to do with camera sensors, anyway :)

Just trying to answer Doug's search for a word (he used "diversity"). The pixel placement in the X-Pro1 sensor has higher entropy when compared to a Bayer sensor.

cmedin

01-16-2012, 04:23

Just trying to answer Doug's search for a word (he used "diversity"). The pixel placement in the X-Pro1 sensor has higher entropy when compared to a Bayer sensor.

Glad to see sensor design follows the second law of thermodynamics.

rxmd

01-16-2012, 04:27

Glad to see sensor design follows the second law of thermodynamics.

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

ferider

01-16-2012, 04:33

Yes we do. :)

Anyway, its a well defined term in information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28information_theory%29). As are dynamic range and SNR, BTW. Were both entropy and dynamic range are measured in bits.

As a side note, there are many more parallels between thermodynamics and information theory. For example, if a manufacturer wants to convince you that a camera with, say, 8bits output (as in a JPEG file) has a dynamic range of, say, 12 bits, he is selling you a "perpetuum mobile". Any camera comes to mind ? :)

Of course, if you prefer Fuji's marketing speak of "more random", carry on :)

Black

01-16-2012, 07:59

I'm really tempted by the XP1 and everything I've read about it seems very encouraging, but there is already, one small niggle...

With Fuji lauding this as an option for Pro's, do you think it would have been too much to ask to make it environmentally sealed? And the lenses, of course?

I mean, they might very well be, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere, so I'm guessing not.

That would be the clincher for me, I think. Its quite miserable, weather wise, in the north of England for much of the year and I want to photograph in the rain and snow and hail with impunity, not have to hide my camera under my jacket, as I have to with my M8.2.

Fez Parker

01-16-2012, 10:49

jsrockit

01-16-2012, 10:58

anselwannab

01-16-2012, 13:27

Wouldn't just saying a larger and smaller repeating pattern be enough to describe the Bayer and Fuju sensor patterns.

f6andBthere

01-16-2012, 13:59

there has been lots of discussion about 'fuji x pro 1' sensor and it looking more grain (film) like.'

well I have been using full frame sensors like this for YEARS, hp5,delta 100, tmax ..............

Fez.
www.fezparkerphotography.com (http://www.fezparkerphotography.com)

In every thread dedicated to digital you get these posts where some die hard takes a minute out of their busy day to remind us all that they use and still like film ... and either points out that it is actually 'full frame' or has 'real grain!' :rolleyes:

Well ... I'm off to the Maserati Forum to tell them about my new tractor! :D

rbelyell

01-16-2012, 14:06

Nikon Bob

01-16-2012, 14:49

In every thread dedicated to digital you get these posts where some die hard takes a minute out of their busy day to remind us all that they use and still like film ... and either points out that it is actually 'full frame' or has 'real grain!' :rolleyes:

Well ... I'm off to the Maserati Forum to tell them about my new tractor! :D

Didn't know Maserati made tractors!

Bob

digitalintrigue

01-16-2012, 15:09

I don't know about Maserati, but there is a Porsche tractor. ;)

http://creeper.naurunappula.com/org/c8/e5/c8e5a52579ca7752/0/327515.jpg

clicker

01-16-2012, 16:09

I am wondering if the X PRo will have a sensor clean function like the Nikon
DSLR have ?

jsrockit

01-16-2012, 16:13

I am wondering if the X PRo will have a sensor clean function like the Nikon
DSLR have ?

Has some sort of sensor cleaning aid... not sure if its like Nikons.

DtheG

01-16-2012, 17:06

Didn't know Maserati made tractors!

Lamborghini do!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/djc_ucl/390764628/

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/156/390764628_3825809fde.jpg

Focal Plane Circus

01-16-2012, 18:59

Rule 822: No person shall post any John Deere, New Holland, Case-Farmall, Massey-Ferguson or Fordson images other than those taken with a Fujifilm X-Pro1. :bang:

Focal Plane Circus

01-17-2012, 05:24

http://www.imaging-resource.com/press-releases/2012/01/16/fujifilm-x-pro1-digital-camera-wins-four-awards-at-ces-2012 :angel:

Mcary

01-17-2012, 05:32

there has been lots of discussion about 'fuji x pro 1' sensor and it looking more grain (film) like.'

well I have been using full frame sensors like this for YEARS, hp5,delta 100, tmax ..............

Fez.
www.fezparkerphotography.com (http://www.fezparkerphotography.com)

Since the X-Pro-1 was designed from the start as an APS-C sensor camera rather then just sticking an APS-C sensor in a 35mm legacy body its every bit as much a full frame sensor camera as any 36x24mm camera. Just like 645, 6x6, 6x7. 4x5, 8x10, cameras are all full framed despite not being 35mm.
Hopefully the stupid term full frame will one day vanish and we'll return to just saying one format is smaller or larger then another.

rover

01-17-2012, 05:35

Rule 822: No person shall post any John Deere, New Holland, Case-Farmall, Massey-Ferguson or Fordson images other than those taken with a Fujifilm X-Pro1. :bang:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4031/4572262132_70f4ca1183_z.jpg

jsrockit

01-17-2012, 06:09

So, are these fancy tractors status symbols?

Focal Plane Circus

01-17-2012, 06:30

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4031/4572262132_70f4ca1183_z.jpg

:eek: I fling mon grail in ze general direction of zis status symbol.

dct

01-17-2012, 06:42

froyd

01-17-2012, 06:54

Sorry if I missed this, but what about the Fuji X lenses' lack of DOF and distance scale info? Is that data displayed in the viewfinder? That information is very important to the way I photograph. Obviously the work around would be using legacy lenses, but we don't yet know how well manual focus is implemented.

Sparrow

01-17-2012, 07:07

I'm not sure about all these tractors ... anybody got any slurry-store photos?

Ezzie

01-17-2012, 07:23

So, are these fancy tractors status symbols?
Got that one right: http://www.moodsofnorway.com/

Mcary

01-17-2012, 07:31

I can't agree totally. As long as you use only native lenses for the mentioned bodies it is exactly as you tell. But you know, here in this forum :D , I suppose more than 50 % of the potential X-Pro1 buyers intend sticking the "well known legacy 35mm format lenses" on this body. Me too.
I think having this premise makes the discussion about cropped (~24mm) or full frame (~35mm) sensor suddenly meaningful. Just to make clear this very important difference.

The way I see it lens, yes even a legacy lens, are still the same focal length whither their used with/on a 24mm, 35mm, 120, ext format camera/sensor. What changes is the FOV and how DOF is effected.
So when you put say a 35mm format 50mm Legacy lens on a camera with an APS-C sensor, despite what some people seem to think/believe it doesn't make it a 75mm or 80mm lens, what it does is change the FOV.
50mm
APS-C short telephoto-Portrait lens
35mm Normal lens
6x6 Wide Angle
4x5 Extreme Wide Angle

JoeV

01-17-2012, 07:43

Since the X-Pro-1 was designed from the start as an APS-C sensor camera rather then just sticking an APS-C sensor in a 35mm legacy body its every bit as much a full frame sensor camera as any 36x24mm camera. Just like 645, 6x6, 6x7. 4x5, 8x10, cameras are all full framed despite not being 35mm.
Hopefully the stupid term full frame will one day vanish and we'll return to just saying one format is smaller or larger then another.

Use of the term "full frame" might appear stupid to you, but the convention of referring to 135-format lens focal lengths as a way of implying specific angles of view seems a bit more convenient than, say, referring to a 28mm lens as possessing a "57.3 degree horizontal angle of view". It might be more precise (referring to lens angles of view directly) but in most photographers' experience they reach into their bag for a 28mm lens, not a 57.3 degree horizontal angle of view lens. Hence the need, when mentioning focal lengths as an indirect reference to angle of view, to specify format size. Specifying lens focal length without reference to the sensor format size tells nothing about the system angle of view.

A 90mm lens on m-4/3'rds produces entirely different imagery than a 90mm lens on 4x5, for instance. And since the 135-format was so popular for so many decades, it has become a convenient, de facto standard of comparison.

Do you have any problem with the term "135-format", instead of "full-frame"? Or does your objection have more to do with old codgers lurking on photo forums who've been shooting way too long to care?

-Joe

P.S.: The numbers I quoted for the horizontal angle of view of a 28mm lens were merely for purposes of illustration, and were pulled "out of my back pocket," so to speak. Sticklers for accuracy can look up the figures in an optics textbook.

Edit: To add one more snarky comment.

jsrockit

01-17-2012, 08:12

Sorry if I missed this, but what about the Fuji X lenses' lack of DOF and distance scale info? Is that data displayed in the viewfinder? That information is very important to the way I photograph. .

Yes, it's in the VF. I guess scales on focus by wire lenses don't make sense?

Mcary

01-17-2012, 08:14

Do you have any problem with the term "135-format", instead of "full-frame"?

-Joe

Nope since that's what I've always look at it as "135-Format" or 35mm format.

BTW just posting an opinion/point of view, just like everyone else. People are free to agree disagree no big deal either way :)

rxmd

01-17-2012, 09:07

I guess scales on focus by wire lenses don't make sense?

Not much of a problem as long as the scale separate from the focusing ring.
For example, I have here a couple of Canon lenses in EF mount that all have distance scales, but on all except one they're behind a little window.

gramorris

01-17-2012, 09:17

rxmd

01-17-2012, 09:17

Do you have any problem with the term "135-format", instead of "full-frame"?

Well if we want to get all pedantic about avoiding "full frame", then I guess "135 format" isn't really a good replacement either. After all it refers to a film format, not an image format, and there are cameras that record all sorts of weird image formats on 135 format film (half-frames, Robots, panoramics, you name it). If you do insist on a better term, then assuming that "135 format" means 24x36 mm is really no better than assuming that "full frame" menas 24x36 mm.

I find the discussion really pointless. Full frame is a pretty established term by now. Everybody knows what is meant by it. So discussing whether it's 100% semantically accurate doesn't really lead anywhere. Except maybe for those who think that technically correct is the best form of correct.

rxmd

01-17-2012, 09:21

Does anyone with experience of the Fuji hybrid viewfinder know if there's any technical reasons why they couldn't implement focus peaking as an OVF overlay? That would seem to be the best possible implementation of manual focussing on the X-PRO1.

Well, the EVF shows the field of view from the lens, while the OVF shows the field of view from the viewfinder. Together with parallax, that means that on an interchangeable lens camera you get tricky issues with scaling and placing the EVF image depending on the actual focal length and focusing distance.

gramorris

01-17-2012, 09:32

Well, the EVF shows the field of view from the lens, while the OVF shows the field of view from the viewfinder. Together with parallax, that means that on an interchangeable lens camera you get tricky issues with scaling and placing the EVF image depending on the actual focal length and focusing distance.

I suspected parallax would be the big issue, not having held a Fuji I don't know what that looks like on their viewfinder.

rxmd

01-17-2012, 09:38

I suspected parallax would be the big issue, not having held a Fuji I don't know what that looks like on their viewfinder.

The big issue isn't parallax, it's that the angle of view of the EVF changes with the focal length of whatever lens you use, while the OVF only has two zoom levels.

celluloidprop

01-17-2012, 09:52

"Full-frame" is fine when you're talking about lens focal length equivalents - it gets kind of tiresome when it's used pejoratively against m43 or APS cameras, as if 24x36 is a holy grail.

(especially since my holy grail is 6x6 - I seem to see in square and darkroom printing was a whole lot more fun with medium-format than 35mm)

rbelyell

01-17-2012, 10:01

The way I see it lens, yes even a legacy lens, are still the same focal length whither their used with/on a 24mm, 35mm, 120, ext format camera/sensor. What changes is the FOV and how DOF is effected.
So when you put say a 35mm format 50mm Legacy lens on a camera with an APS-C sensor, despite what some people seem to think/believe it doesn't make it a 75mm or 80mm lens, what it does is change the FOV.
50mm
APS-C short telephoto-Portrait lens
35mm Normal lens
6x6 Wide Angle
4x5 Extreme Wide Angle

i'm sorry that just doesnt make any sense at all. in the real world it is a distinction without a difference, and is utterly meaningless. when i spend $500 to get a 24mm lens i'm doing so to get that particular angle of view. i dont want a 35mm lens or a 35mm angle of view, since theyre both essentially the same thing. FF means i will get what i wanted; crop factor means i won't, its that simple.

celluloidprop

01-17-2012, 10:09

Huh? You're spending $500 to get that angle of view on a specific format. It's only a 'distinction without difference' if you never shoot anything but 35mm (film or digital equivalent) and have no desire to do so.

With my Bronica SQ-A, I'd need a 50mm (or 40mm - somewhere in there) to get the equivalent of a 24mm on 35mm film. With a Sony NEX, I'd need a 16mm lens. I don't think any of those numbers are needlessly complicated or opaque.

dazedgonebye

01-17-2012, 10:21

The price of apples and oranges...
(Canon prices per B&H)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7154/6715847959_67ae5ddec9_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevemphoto/6715847959/)
price (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevemphoto/6715847959/) by SteveMPhoto (http://www.flickr.com/people/stevemphoto/), on Flickr

Pete B

01-17-2012, 10:33

Is this a thread about how rubbish the X-Pro 1 is? When is it released? :rolleyes:
Pete

jsrockit

01-17-2012, 10:49

Paul T.

01-17-2012, 11:00

The big issue isn't parallax, it's that the angle of view of the EVF changes with the focal length of whatever lens you use, while the OVF only has two zoom levels.

Parallax would indeed be the big issue for a focus peaking overlay, as proposed; the view between the sensor, and the VF window, will never completely coincide. The angle of view would also make it trickier, but while you could reduce or increase the overlaid EVF image in size, via software, you couldn't line it up accurately.

Hence focus peaking will only be possible with the EVF.

It seems that legacy lens owners should feel grateful, merely that an adapter is available. Focusing the thing is perhaps a luxury! I doi hope Fuji take notice and add focus peaking, to at least expand the options.

dazedgonebye

01-17-2012, 11:07

What is the point of this?

I should think that was obvious, but....

I'm considering the X-Pro1. Love the form factor. Looks like just what I've been wanting.
When I make a buying decision, I tend to compare alternatives on a price/performance basis. Fuji is claiming image quality on par with full frame DSLRs, I'm assuming that is so.
So, image quality being equal, price being equal, I have to decide if the form factor "advantages" of the Fuji are more compelling than the proven performance of the 5DMkII...not to mention the list of available lenses.

totifoto

01-17-2012, 11:15

Here is a hands on review......

http://photorumors.com/2012/01/16/detailed-fuji-x-pro-1-camera-hands-on-report/#more-18392

He says:" Fuji did not make any improvements to the manual focus in the X-Pro 1 - there is still not focus confirmation or "focus peaking" (like in the Sony NEX or Ricoh GXR systems), which could be problematic if you are planning on using the camera with Leica M-mount lenses."

He is only testing the camera at the Fuji booth at the CES, maybe this will be fixed in the final version.

palec

01-17-2012, 11:27

He is only testing the camera at the Fuji booth at the CES, maybe this will be fixed in the final version.

In recent Economist article about decline of Kodak, there is a hint about Fuji's high-tech strategy: make it, launch it, fix it. Somehow I doubt the manual focus will be ready for the launch time.

jsrockit

01-17-2012, 11:28

Good, now can you guys looking for a Leica M solution go to the Sony NEX or Ricoh GXR thread instead and stop bitching here? ;)

dct

01-17-2012, 11:34

@jsrockit: I don't think so. The M group looks also at this new body as a potential digital back for M lenses. Not only... And that's why I suggest that reasonable discussion about legacy lens support should take place also here, discussing exactly the specialities of the X-Pro1, beeing the only possible M mount body with a hybrid viewfinder...

Mcary

01-17-2012, 11:36

What is the point of this?

Good question.
Can only speak for myself but the reason I'm interested in the X-1Pro series is I'm looking for a compact/lightweight interchangeable lens camera/system that I can afford. So since I don't consider the Canon system listed as either lightweight or compact the fact that it costs a little less then the X-1Pro system doesn't really mean anything to me.

palec

01-17-2012, 11:45

I'm not looking for M solution, I would just like to use those nice Fujinon lenses (especially 18/2) comfortably in manual focus mode. And first reports from CES show that there is no improvement over X100 incredible long focus throw.

gavinlg

01-17-2012, 13:10

gramorris

01-17-2012, 15:02

It's an AF camera. There is nothing you can do about it. If you want a camera to use as a manual focus camera, buy a DSLR or a rangefinder, or a film SLR. You're spoiled for choice. Chances are with the dslr you'll end up using AF anyway - because it's better in 95% of situations.

Have you just announced to the world that fuji's x-pro1 m adapter has some AF magic in there?

As it is I'm interested in a high iso capable camera which can accept m lenses and focus them reasonably effectively, and I see no harm in discussing rather than dismissing the possibilities of this fuji, especially when fuji haven't announced any of the mf features of this camera.

I'll add that I already own the m lenses, I'm not particularly interested in buying another set of system lenses.

f6andBthere

01-17-2012, 15:07

gramorris

01-17-2012, 15:25

I do have a gut feeling that if the MF function of this camera was noticably better than the X100 they'd be letting us know by now. The X Pro would have been in the pipeline for some time and I don't see any reason why it would be markedly different. That's not to say it wont be a great autofocus tool.

You're probably right but I do struggle a bit with the logic behind developing an in-house m adapter if the core functionality i.e. focussing it, is going to be inferior to competing mirrorless products. If using m lenses are important you'd pick the best mirrorless product and if you bought the fuji for it's system I can't understand why you'd jump to m lenses. On the flip side maybe they just reckon leicaphilies will pick it on looks alone :confused:

Focal Plane Circus

01-17-2012, 15:33

maybe they just reckon leicaphilies will pick it on looks alone :confused:
Is it possible Leicaphiles would pick it because they own bags of M lenses? Anyway, the X-Pro1 has big buttons, so they could probably use it with their white cotton gloves on. :rolleyes:

Joe AC

01-17-2012, 15:46

I for one am confused. As stated earlier, I don't see the logic in developing an in house M adapter and then making it a painful to use. I am in the market for a new digital and would love to be able to use the legacy lenses that I already own. As far as I can see it, its a toss up between the XP1, the NEX 7, or a second hand M8. It may be wishful thinking but I'm really hoping that Fuji comes through on this and has a plan for the MF. That's not to say that the Fuji lenses won't be great nor am I saying that I won't buy any. But my main concern is to use the lenses that I already own.

Thanks
Joe

astrosecret

01-17-2012, 16:16

1700$ interchangeable body... 2200$ kit... no useable manual focus. is this real life?

tbarker13

01-17-2012, 17:14

1700$ interchangeable body... 2200$ kit... no useable manual focus. is this real life?

Why wouldn't it be? A Leica M9 will set you back about $7,000,with no useable autofocus.;)
I don't imagine the M-mount crowd is the primary focus here. If it were, they would have developed an M-Mount camera. The ability to use m lenses (for better or worse) is just a bit of a bonus.

digitalintrigue

01-17-2012, 17:24

dougi

01-17-2012, 17:50

They've stated the M adapter will be available in April. That means they have 3 months to write focus peaking firmware. :)

Every mirrorless has a focus assist magnification, including the x100. So I'm sure that the X-Pro1 will have *at least* this. For fully 3 years since the first mirrorless camera (Panasonic G1) until the 2nd generation NEX (and then the Ricoh) offered peaking, this is the way it was done. And the 1st gen NEX now have peaking with a firmware update.

Perhaps the M mount adapter could include some sort of optical or mechanical sensor to detect when you change focus and then automically get the camera to switch to EVF/focus assist or peaking, then back to OVF. Just an idea, may not be practical though.

willie_901

01-17-2012, 17:59

It is useful to operate the AF manually. That is, with my X100 I focus and recompose as I did with my ZI-M rangefinder body. I also focus this way (manual focus via single point AF) with my D700 bodies and AF lenses

Initially I do not expect the X-Pro 1 to have efficient pure manual focusing with the Fujinon lenses except for using the EVF to make fine adjustments to close by static subjects.

Whether or not Fuji has an efficient focus function for the M lenses remains to be seen. It possible there will be a focus confirmation light that tells you when the AF focus region is in focus as you turn the M lens focus collar. Maybe there will be a major firmware update released with the M adapter.

I suspect those who want/need to use their M lenses as if they had a mechanical rangefinder in their hands should forget about the X-Pro 1.

Focal Plane Circus

01-17-2012, 18:57

Perhaps the M mount adapter could include some sort of optical or mechanical sensor to detect when you change focus and then automically get the camera to switch to EVF/focus assist or peaking, then back to OVF. Just an idea, may not be practical though.
Fuji says it will be a "smart" adapter, whatever that means. :confused:

digitalintrigue

01-17-2012, 19:00

Guess: it will detect which frameline to show. :)

bwcolor

01-17-2012, 19:14

There is a downside to manual focus with rangefinder legacy lenses. For critical focus, you must focus wide open and then stop down. This is true of magnification and focus peaking.

Intelligent can simply mean a change in the menu structure to make it easy to choose a lens type, framing and even distortion compensation. Of course, it could be made to read the newer Leica lens coding. There isn't much else that a camera can do when using an 'M' lens.

Adanac

01-17-2012, 19:39

Every mirrorless has a focus assist magnification, including the x100. So I'm sure that the X-Pro1 will have *at least* this.

The X100s magnification for manual focus tweaking was barely usable in my experience - and then only ideal conditions. It would appear that the EVF hasn't received any updates in the XPro 1; if that is the case, achieving focus will continue to be hampered by the camera.

Like the X100, this camera appears to be designed for AF use, period, and given the experience I had with my X100 I'm concerned that any focus assists implemented will be hampered by the EVF.

NazgulKing

01-17-2012, 20:01

rxmd

01-17-2012, 20:24

Won't work too well if there is focus shift.

I think with this mention of "focus shift" we finally have all the Internet photography bogeyman memes assembled in this thread. Bingo!

Now all that is left is to wait for the camera to actually appear, and then we can all start talking about it in a less speculative and more informed fashion.

celluloidprop

01-17-2012, 21:06

back alley

01-17-2012, 21:15

what i like best about this new camera is...that it will eventually show up, in town, at my local camera shop and then i can see it for myself...in person, in my hands...i will get to handle it and see it do what it does...and i wont have to plunk down any money up front to do that!!

i can't say the same for my rd1s or my cv/rollei lenses...

hxpham

01-17-2012, 21:36

Why wouldn't it be? A Leica M9 will set you back about $7,000,with no useable autofocus.;)
I don't imagine the M-mount crowd is the primary focus here. If it were, they would have developed an M-Mount camera. The ability to use m lenses (for better or worse) is just a bit of a bonus.
It looks like the Fuji has no useable autofocus either :p

Spyro

01-17-2012, 21:45

I'm guessing the M adapter needs to be developed in-house to add a mechanism for parallax correction.
Remember in the xpro1 the parallax correction of the framelines is electronic not mechanical. The camera is missing the thingo that rangefinders have on the top of the mount to push the framelines as the lens focuses. I'm guessing this adapter won't be cheap either.

http://content.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/12169/fuji_xpro1_upload.jpg

Adanac

01-17-2012, 21:55

I can't see spending a lot on an adapter that deals only with parallax correction for frame lines but doesn't actually assist with focus. Users will have to flip back and forth between EVF and OVF. Workable for some, but hardly smooth.

silverbullet

01-17-2012, 21:59

As with other adaptable cameras the Fuji should be used with the EVF and manual lenses. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible to manage precise focus.
So it would be interesting at what moment Fuji releases the information about focus help (peaking, enlarging areas etc.) and of course the adapter as well.
Due to patent rights it's not allowed to offer an adapter with Fuji mount on one side.......

Adanac

01-17-2012, 22:15

So much empty supposition - "they don't appear to have improved the AF/MF/EVF/etc.."

Several previews have said the AF is improved. Some say the manual focus is better. The various forum statements that it's a Sony sensor appear unfounded (aside from shared pixel counts). The EVF is still 1.44mn dots, but so is everyone's but Sony. Doesn't mean they didn't improve it in other ways.

I had a conversation with a X100 user who demo'd the XPro 1 recently one afternoon. His feeling is that the throw and feel of the manual focus lenses is very similar to what the current firmware delivers on the X100 - i.e., very long throw, not particularly practical. AF did not seem markedly better and reminded him a lot of the X100.

Neither observation is necessarily a problem for some users - clearly many photographers get on well with the X100, so those folks ought to get on well with the XPro 1.

As for the EVF, this user's experience suggests it does appear to be the same unit with the same lag issues.

Some of the user-driven first look reports do echo these observations, which I'm a bit surprised to discover. I'd have thought Fuji would in trying to knock one out of the park address some of the core complaints that a great many X100 owners have had. It doesn't seem so, but it is early days so I'm just making note of these reports and will wait and see what shipping models in the hands of reviewers have to say.

The X100 and I got along fine, but not great. Maybe my expectations were too high for it, but if that is so with the XPro 1 I'd expect even more and it looks like for a number of usability and handling factors this new camera likely won't meet my expectations.

jsrockit

01-18-2012, 04:10

And that's why I suggest that reasonable discussion about legacy lens support should take place also here, discussing exactly the specialities of the X-Pro1, beeing the only possible M mount body with a hybrid viewfinder...

Yeah, I see that...and now the thread is overrun by M mount nonsense and complaining. It sucks for those of us who look at this camera as something to use with its native lenses.

Paul T.

01-18-2012, 04:26

Yeah, I see that..It sucks for those of us who look at this camera as something to use with its native lenses.

This is the rangefinder forum. So it's people's prerogative to talk about M lenses, especially when Fuji are touting an imminent adapter!

jsrockit

01-18-2012, 04:38

This is the rangefinder forum. So it's people's prerogative to talk about M lenses, especially when Fuji are touting an imminent adapter!

Paul, I understand that, but every thread about both the X100 and X-Pro1 gets overrun by M lens addicts. A seperate thread might be the best way to go IMO. That said, f-it. Do what you guys want, it's not my forum. :o

Mcary

01-18-2012, 04:56

Yeah, I see that...and now the thread is overrun by M mount nonsense and complaining. It sucks for those of us who look at this camera as something to use with its native lenses.

Some people just can't seem to grasps the simple fact that this camera was designed to be used with its native lenses and any use of M mount or other mount legacy lens, via an adapter will require some compromises. Don't like the idea of making compromises well then buy a digital camera that's designed to be used with the lens you own. If I recall correctly believe its called the M9 :)

Paul T.

01-18-2012, 05:03

Paul, I understand that, but every thread about both the X100 and X-Pro1 gets overrun by M lens addicts. A seperate thread might be the best way to go IMO. That said, f-it. Do what you guys want,

With respect, isn't that a question of opinion? I am a fan of Fuji's approach; yes, M lens users will indeed have to accept some compromises. But why, exactly, should some of the camera's potential buyers have to be exiled to another thread, when Fuji themselves are using the prospect of legacy lens use as part of their marketing?

RFF is free to use. It doesn't cost us anything. The "M lens fans" are not harming you.

Differing opinions shouldn't shake our world, they should broaden it.

jsrockit

01-18-2012, 05:26

bwcolor

01-18-2012, 05:41

ferider

01-18-2012, 05:50

Paul, my issue isn't with discussion of the m adapter, it is with the complaining about what the Fuji isn't. It gets tiring hearing about how every camera doesn't have this and doesn't have that. We have a lot of great options these days and people should maybe concentrate on what these cameras offer instead.

Plus, I conceded that it was my opinion, so carry on... IMO = in my opinion.

What bugs me more is complaining based on assumptions without info.

Fact is that we have no idea what the M adapter will look like. All we know is that it will be a little more than 1cm thick. That's a lot of room, enough for an RF coupler, or even an AF focusing helix.

Roland.

Paul T.

01-18-2012, 05:52

How would the camera know what distance to use for the parallax correction?

There is the theoretical possibility that the RF cam can feed that info to the relevant sensor. But I would contend it will remain theoretical.

As we've seen, Fuji shout about their USPs; imagining extra ones (RF-style focusing, peaking, improved MF throw, legacy lens optimisation) only invites disappointment!

What bugs me is more complaining based on assumptions without info.
Agreed. although with the X100, the complaints that fantasies weren't being delivered soon turned in to the usual internet complaints about focusing. Often from people who haven't tried the camera. Then there were those complaints about... oh yes, the fixed lens!

MaxElmar

01-18-2012, 05:59

The FujiX/LeicaM adapter could have a mechanical sensor that reads the position of the lens and relays it to the camera via the electronic coupling. Not very likely, but it could work that way. The focus distance could be recorded in the exif and displayed in the finder.

(Leica should do that with the M - if they don't do it already!)

Myself - I shall be very happy to give the X a try with the native lenses. Fuji does make excellent lenses. And the AF, well, we shall see. I don't expect it to be as fast as the best DSLRs but if they give me an effective manual option - that would be fine for the kind of shooting I would do with that camera.

digitalintrigue

01-18-2012, 06:07

Due to patent rights it's not allowed to offer an adapter with Fuji mount on one side.......

I was going to answer this with just a '?' but I needed 10 characters.

digitalintrigue

01-18-2012, 06:11

This is all so predictable. A few years ago, people here would be salivating over a camera with the specs of the X-Pro1. There are probably a few threads here from years ago, outlining some of these desired features that were considered fantasies at the time...

And now that it's been announced, there is a concerted effort here to complain about every imagined fault.

Sigh.

Paul T.

01-18-2012, 06:15

And now that it's been announced, there is a concerted effort here to complain about every imagined fault.

Sigh.

And now there's a full page of people complaining about the complaining! :)

digitalintrigue

01-18-2012, 06:18

Maybe this will bring a bit of perspective: the RD-1 body when announced was $2999 retail. And since then the dollar has tanked...

digitalintrigue

01-18-2012, 06:20

And now there's a full page of people complaining about the complaining! :)

_ Indeed! _

Joe AC

01-18-2012, 07:19

I'm so confused...

Paul T.

01-18-2012, 07:24

Maybe this will bring a bit of perspective: the RD-1 body when announced was $2999 retail. And since then the dollar has tanked...

Very true.

The XPro would have to be very slow focus indeed, for it not to be better value for money than a $1400, used R-D1. And I like the R-D1 very much.

One of Fuji's management stated they had sold twice as many X100s as they hoped. That's quite a big deal considering how often RFFers and other people who like a more manual, compact, high quality camera are often thought to be so niche as to be thought insignificant.

digitalintrigue

01-18-2012, 07:27

If the rumored prices are accurate, $2999 is a two lens X-Pro1 kit.

dazedgonebye

01-18-2012, 07:31

Very true.

The XPro would have to be very slow focus indeed, for it not to be better value for money than a $1400, used R-D1. And I like the R-D1 very much.

One of Fuji's management stated they had sold twice as many X100s as they hoped. That's quite a big deal considering how often RFFers and other people who like a more manual, compact, high quality camera are often thought to be so niche as to be thought insignificant.

We need a motto.

"RF'rs. Not so insignificant after all!"
"Who you callin' Niche?"
"We are the 7.25%!"

bwcolor

01-18-2012, 07:46

There is the theoretical possibility that the RF cam can feed that info to the relevant sensor. But I would contend it will remain theoretical.

As we've seen, Fuji shout about their USPs; imagining extra ones (RF-style focusing, peaking, improved MF throw, legacy lens optimisation) only invites disappointment!

Agreed. although with the X100, the complaints that fantasies weren't being delivered soon turned in to the usual internet complaints about focusing. Often from people who haven't tried the camera. Then there were those complaints about... oh yes, the fixed lens!

Yes, as both of you have suggested, it is theoretically possible, but it is so much easier to just use the EVF. I would rather have the high tech put into a better EVF than some complicated scheme to allow OVF parallax correction. It is also possible for the adapter to use an external method of determining distance to a central subject. Again, a lot of work for a non-problem...EVF.

Turtle

01-18-2012, 08:45

I do an awful lot of my shooting using hyperfocal focusing on manual lenses. An X-pro body would allow the manual feel of quality manual M lenses on a body with high performance sensor. I am wondering how much amazing AF matters to me. It does matter, of course, but not as much as it would on an SLR type camera. The only issue would be whether to use the manufacturer's lenses or just Leica/Zeiss glass, which I already own.

Even with so-so AF, this camera has the potential to provide a great solution for street and certain documentary work for $1100 and when they bring in upgraded AF, the first body becomes the back up and the new body more of a comprehensive solution. Based on comparable costs, after two bodies there would still be nearly $5K left as compared to buying a Leica M9. This is going to be interesting, but I have no doubt that regardless of how this first model performs, the market is about to change dramatically. Future upgraded models will only improve AF and upgrade sensors.

If they bring out a model designed for manual lenses specifically, happy days. I could even live with the crop issue if the saving over a M9 is big enough, but for me, $3-4K for a used M8/8.2 was never an option. This camera is half that for a new one. Its a game changer alright.

rdeleskie

01-18-2012, 08:54

If they bring out a model designed for manual lenses specifically, happy days. I could even live with the crop issue if the saving over a M9 is big enough, but for me, $3-4K for a used M8/8.2 was never an option. This camera is half that for a new one. Its a game changer alright.

In all fairness, a used M8 is around $2k, which puts it closer to the price of the Fuji, and without some of the potential compromises with regards to M mount lenses. The M8 has it's own set of compromises of course. Each individual will have to decide what's best for them.

emraphoto

01-18-2012, 08:54

It looks like the Fuji has no useable autofocus either :p

again, could someone explain the no autofocus bit. i have used an x100 from
kosovo to nigeria and haven't had any problems with the af. is there another x100 model i am unaware of?

Focal Plane Circus

01-18-2012, 09:10

again, could someone explain the no autofocus bit. i have used an x100 from
kosovo to nigeria and haven't had any problems with the af. is there another x100 model i am unaware of?
Yes. It's the model that trolls complain about who don't own one, haven't ever seen one, and wouldn't know what to do with if it bit them. :D

f16sunshine

01-18-2012, 09:37

again, could someone explain the no autofocus bit. i have used an x100 from
kosovo to nigeria and haven't had any problems with the af. is there another x100 model i am unaware of?

John

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. The x100 is a joke.
With the x100 Fuji made a $1200 Paperweight that is not even heavy enough to hold down paper.
The xpro1 is Fuji's attempt to remedy the earlier complaints of the x100 and make a tax of another $500 in the process.
The new camera is heavier and will be able to hold down at least a letter size piece of paper in gusty conditions or, legal size in a mild breeze. ;)

jamesbf

01-18-2012, 09:47

@f16sunshine Ha! Come on though - They x100 isn't all that bad.

emraphoto

01-18-2012, 11:46

John

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. The x100 is a joke.
With the x100 Fuji made a $1200 Paperweight that is not even heavy enough to hold down paper.
The xpro1 is Fuji's attempt to remedy the earlier complaints of the x100 and make a tax of another $500 in the process.
The new camera is heavier and will be able to hold down at least a letter size piece of paper in gusty conditions or, legal size in a mild breeze. ;)

i have been accused of not knowing what i am talking about many times before so i suppose i could be guilty again:)

f16sunshine

01-18-2012, 12:11

It's OK, I stubbornly keep using an x100 to make photographs also.
Even though, apparently there is no way to actually focus it.
Guess neither of us knows what they are talking about.

jsrockit

01-18-2012, 12:40

Ah, the internet... where myths become fact. :)

ferider

01-18-2012, 12:55

emraphoto

01-18-2012, 12:57

It's OK, I stubbornly keep using an x100 to make photographs also.
Even though, apparently there is no way to actually focus it.
Guess neither of us knows what they are talking about.

i am sad to hear that as i am entering my piece in NPAC's (Canada's version of NPPA) picture of the year competition. some of it was shot on one of those non-focusing x100s.

well, i suppose we are back to the drawing board Andy.

gavinlg

01-18-2012, 13:02

again, could someone explain the no autofocus bit. i have used an x100 from
kosovo to nigeria and haven't had any problems with the af. is there another x100 model i am unaware of?

I love it how us actual users who continue to pop up in threads like these stating the AF works well and is not bad or faulty are just ignored as people just continue on with the whole 'crummy AF' thing...

celluloidprop

01-18-2012, 13:27

My X100 works great. Unfortunately, I still suck.

I don't think my X100 could keep up with my parents' one-year old corgi running around... but then again, I didn't have much luck with my D700 either. If only they'd gotten a bigger dog...

Adanac

01-18-2012, 13:46

The XPro would have to be very slow focus indeed, for it not to be better value for money than a $1400, used R-D1. And I like the R-D1 very much.

The two are completely different cameras. The Fuji is an autofocus first and foremost camera.

The RD-1 is a host for rangefinder lenses.

The Fuji won't help you focus your manual focus lenses when using the optical finder.

The RD-1 will.

Might as well compare a NEX to a RD-1, although that's not fair as it does have two focus aides.

Turtle

01-18-2012, 13:47

You are absolutely right. I used the pricing from about a year or two ago when I was seriously considering the DRF route. I would guess a good clean M8.2 would be in the region of $3K, so over double the X-pro1 body only price.

The only advantage I can see of the M8/8.2 is that it allows manual focus in its traditional form. In every other regard it would appear to be an awfully long way behind and without warranty etc. I raise this not to bash the M8 - the camera is still as strong an image making tool as before - but to illustrate that even with its flaws the X-Pro1 is still a game changer... and the next incarnation - the X-Pro 2 perhaps - would appear likely to bring phase AF. This means that a person can put in half the cost of even a M8 (never mind 8.2) and enjoy a full warranty while experimenting with the DRF experience for the first time AND buy the next model for the same money or less than the used Leica.... and all under warranty. Its just a perspective.

As for the X100 AF, it works OK for me, even under poor light. Not stellar, but often good enough. The MF is poor, but you can shoot hyperfocally just as you would with anything else. At F8, everything is nice and sharp when focused at 3.5m or so. For street work, an 18mm (27 equiv) on the X-Pro focused at 3m would appear to be a great solution for 28mm lovers. This would be a 'hyperfocal dream' and the AF is there is you find you need it....

... and another thought: because the ISO is so dramatically better than the M8 (or M9 for that matter), it means that you can still shoot using hyperfocal focus in the evening and night time at middling apertures to get DOF. You will not be forced to shoot everything at F1.4 and try frantically to gain focus on that moving person...

In all fairness, a used M8 is around $2k, which puts it closer to the price of the Fuji, and without some of the potential compromises with regards to M mount lenses. The M8 has it's own set of compromises of course. Each individual will have to decide what's best for them.

Vobluda

01-18-2012, 13:52

I tested the AF of two different X100 (latest fw) against the GF1+20mm f1,7 (1,5 y. older camera then X00, first fw) and GF1 AF was a bit faster.
Yes, I have had X100 two times within 5 months as the first one was early one. I experienced power supply failure with the first one, it was completely replaced under the warranty. I sold the first one and couple months later when I had opportunity to get another one for great price I give it a once more try. I thought that maybe there was something wrong with the first one, but no, AF was again slower than GF1.
And no, I dont buy those stories that you have to know hot focus with X100. Camera costs 1000 EUR. For the money it should just focus when you press the shutter button. That is how it is written in the manual.
Too expensive for landscape camera or for arranged pictures of the people (statistics of the content of the photos at "pictures taken with X100" here at rff would be very interesting..).

again, could someone explain the no autofocus bit. i have used an x100 from
kosovo to nigeria and haven't had any problems with the af. is there another x100 model i am unaware of?

Focal Plane Circus

01-18-2012, 14:36

The two are completely different cameras. The Fuji is an autofocus first and foremost camera.

The RD-1 is a host for rangefinder lenses.

The Fuji won't help you focus your manual focus lenses when using the optical finder.

The RD-1 will.

Might as well compare a NEX to a RD-1, although that's not fair as it does have two focus aides.

Buy Canadian: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Excellent-Epson-R-D1s-Leica-M-mount-Digital-Camera-/110795077009?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item19cbe6b591#ht_7058wt_1370 ;)

Odmit

01-18-2012, 14:42

http://vladdodan.ro/blog/fuji-x-pro-1-hands-on-preview/

a few more pictures to fuel this thread

Spyro

01-18-2012, 15:08

The Fuji X series are cheap cameras. In the mirrorless with-OVF segment they are a about 1/4 the price of the competition.

Dont want OVF? These cameras are irrelevant to you, dont bother.

Too expensive for landscape camera or for arranged pictures of the people (statistics of the content of the photos at "pictures taken with X100" here at rff would be very interesting..).

If you have moving subjects just zone focus and leave it there, its a 24mm lens with tons of dof. It is also a camera with good high iso, so crank it up a bit so you can stop down and gain even more dof.

If you are an AF bokeh-junkie, again this camera is irrelevant to you. Better solutions elsewhere.

Turtle

01-18-2012, 16:19

Exactly. It gets tiring when people keep telling you that your appreciation for a camera is misguided because it does not meet their requirements!

The Fuji X series are cheap cameras. In the mirrorless with-OVF segment they are a about 1/4 the price of the competition.

Dont want OVF? These cameras are irrelevant to you, dont bother.

If you have moving subjects just zone focus and leave it there, its a 24mm lens with tons of dof. It is also a camera with good high iso, so crank it up a bit so you can stop down and gain even more dof.

If you are an AF bokeh-junkie, again this camera is irrelevant to you. Better solutions elsewhere.

emraphoto

01-18-2012, 16:52

I tested the AF of two different X100 (latest fw) against the GF1+20mm f1,7 (1,5 y. older camera then X00, first fw) and GF1 AF was a bit faster.
Yes, I have had X100 two times within 5 months as the first one was early one. I experienced power supply failure with the first one, it was completely replaced under the warranty. I sold the first one and couple months later when I had opportunity to get another one for great price I give it a once more try. I thought that maybe there was something wrong with the first one, but no, AF was again slower than GF1.
And no, I dont buy those stories that you have to know hot focus with X100. Camera costs 1000 EUR. For the money it should just focus when you press the shutter button. That is how it is written in the manual.
Too expensive for landscape camera or for arranged pictures of the people (statistics of the content of the photos at "pictures taken with X100" here at rff would be very interesting..).

well, first let me assure you i don't shoot much in the way of landscapes nor do i arrange folks much.

i am not here to convince you if the camera is for you or not. frankly i don't much care. what does confuse me is how i, and MANY working photographers can produce exactly what we need, when we need it with such a dysfunctional camera?

there is disconnect that i plum don't understand.

emraphoto

01-18-2012, 16:53

The Fuji X series are cheap cameras. In the mirrorless with-OVF segment they are a about 1/4 the price of the competition.

Dont want OVF? These cameras are irrelevant to you, dont bother.

If you have moving subjects just zone focus and leave it there, its a 24mm lens with tons of dof. It is also a camera with good high iso, so crank it up a bit so you can stop down and gain even more dof.

If you are an AF bokeh-junkie, again this camera is irrelevant to you. Better solutions elsewhere.

thank you for explaining what i missed.

f16sunshine

01-18-2012, 16:59

Exactly. It gets tiring when people keep telling you that your appreciation for a camera is misguided because it does not meet their requirements!

+1
It's like telling a model she should become taller or shorter.
Some things are what they are. If a person can find peace with the x100, it's an effin rockstar of a camera.
The af system was admittedly a short learning curve to get to know. That's history now and it works like a gem.
Love it or leave it but if you leave it... leave it be!

Adanac

01-18-2012, 18:07

Exactly. It gets tiring when people keep telling you that your appreciation for a camera is misguided because it does not meet their requirements!

We can turn that around of course.

It gets tiring when people keep telling you that your opinion of a camera you owned and used extensively somehow doesn't matter because it happens to meet *their* needs.

There are plenty of things wrong with the X100 that may not matter at all to some photographers and the same is true of most every camera ever made. The XPro 1 being the latest incarnation of the X line, it is only natural that there is interest in learning if Fujifilm has advanced the line meaningfully and it is no surprise that both the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of the XPro 1's ancestors are being discussed.

willie_901

01-18-2012, 18:43

i am sad to hear that as i am entering my piece in NPAC's (Canada's version of NPPA) picture of the year competition. some of it was shot on one of those non-focusing x100s.

well, i suppose we are back to the drawing board Andy.

I have no idea what Andy is talking about.

I had three pieces accepted at a regional juried art show in early January (there were 142 photos submitted in total and 74 accepted by the juror). One of mine won an honorable mention. All three are from my X100. All three were focused by operating the AF manually. I pressed the AF button to lock focus and then pressed the shutter. The photo that won the ribbon was focused using the OVF.

My Flickr stream now starts with a large number of shots taken in low light at a horse racing track. These were focused the same way with the aperture typically set at 2.8 .

Obviously the X100 AF works. I use different methods for different situations. Action photography is not practical because of the AF speed and lens' relatively wide angle of view.

The X100 is an AF camera. The AF system will lock focus quickly if there is a reasonable amount of contrast available. If there isn't, one can focus and recompose if the contrast. The small focus box in EVF mode insures the focus lock is where you want it.

My LUMIX G1 focused a bit better than the X100. My D200s, 300 and 700s all focused quicker. But even these bodies required practice and different methods depeending on the situation.

f16sunshine

01-18-2012, 19:04

I have no idea what Andy is talking about.

I had three pieces accepted at a regional juried art show in early January (there were 142 photos submitted in total and 74 accepted by the juror). One of mine won an honorable mention. All three are from my X100. All three were focused by operating the AF manually. I pressed the AF button to lock focus and then pressed the shutter. The photo that won the ribbon was focused using the OVF.

My Flickr stream now starts with a large number of shots taken in low light at a horse racing track. These were focused the same way with the aperture typically set at 2.8 .

Obviously the X100 AF works. I use different methods for different situations. Action photography is not practical because of the AF speed and lens' relatively wide angle of view.

The X100 is an AF camera. The AF system will lock focus quickly if there is a reasonable amount of contrast available. If there isn't, one can focus and recompose if the contrast. The small focus box in EVF mode insures the focus lock is where you want it.

My LUMIX G1 focused a bit better than the X100. My D200s, 300 and 700s all focused quicker. But even these bodies required practice and different methods depeending on the situation.

Wait, You know I was joking from the start right?
I love the X100 and use one in MF with the AFL/AEL button on the back.
The Xpro1/60mm lens combo will pair up with my X100 once I'm able to buy the former.
If this is the future of Fuji APS AF Mirrorless.. I'm absolutely stoked with it.

dct

01-18-2012, 21:34

This discussion remembers me of many threads around the "unreliable" focussing of Hexar AF (fixed lens) or Contax G (IC lens), both very special AF cameras. Very different AF technology for Fuji's X series, but still the same complaints vs how great it works. Maybe we should accept that dedicated AF cameras will find their masters as well as their haters. We are all very different people.
Maybe we should turn back to the X-Pro1 related discussion, leaving the darkest recesses of generic AF/MF discussions...

rxmd

01-18-2012, 21:59

This discussion remembers me of many threads around the "unreliable" focussing of Hexar AF (fixed lens) or Contax G (IC lens), both very special AF cameras. Very different AF technology for Fuji's X series, but still the same complaints vs how great it works. Maybe we should accept that dedicated AF cameras will find their masters as well as their haters.

Just like rangefinders, in fact - you'll find enough people, though probably not on RFF, who'll find coincident image focusing rather unintuitive and unreliable.

Paul T.

01-19-2012, 00:56

The two are completely different cameras. The Fuji is an autofocus first and foremost camera.

The RD-1 is a host for rangefinder lenses.

T

thanks for the information!

IN the spirit of good, honest debate that this thread has generated, I shall remind you this comment was specifically about price. Some people are complaining the Fuji is expensive; in the context of the R-D1's new and s/h price, it's not at all. We are, despite the limitations of any one camera, as RF users in a much better position than we were a couple of years ago.

Now, any news for me about The Pope's religion?

gavinlg

01-19-2012, 01:04

thanks for the information!

IN the spirit of good, honest debate that this thread has generated, I shall remind you this comment was specifically about price. Some people are complaining the Fuji is expensive; in the context of the R-D1's new and s/h price, it's not at all. We are, despite the limitations of any one camera, as RF users in a much better position than we were a couple of years ago.

Now, any news for me about The Pope's religion?

Yes, and people were comparing it to the 5d mkII - which isn't really a valid comparison seeing as the 5dmkII has been out for a number of years and the price has dropped significantly since then. It was around 3200 for the body when new I think, and the x-pro1 is much newer and has much more technology in it - new sensor array with no AA filter, hybrid optical viewfinder with 2 magnifications, aps-c sensor that performs on the same level as the larger 5dII sensor etc etc.

Leigh Youdale

01-19-2012, 01:22

Now, any news for me about The Pope's religion?

Last time I asked, he replied that it was something personal.

Ronald_H

01-19-2012, 01:34

Just like rangefinders, in fact - you'll find enough people, though probably not on RFF, who'll find coincident image focusing rather unintuitive and unreliable.

Well, I am one of those people. I much prefer SLR focusing. I use rangefinders mainly because there is no mirror slap and because they are smaller and lighter.

Paul T.

01-19-2012, 01:44

This discussion remembers me of many threads around the "unreliable" focussing of Hexar AF (fixed lens) or Contax G (IC lens), both very special AF cameras. Very different AF technology for Fuji's X series...

THere is an important point buried within all of this. The consensus is the focusing on the X100 is a little slower than that of the GF1.

I use both the GF1 and the Hexar. The Hexar is better and more reliable by an order of magnitude; it's not only quicker, it hardly ever fails to lock. If I try and photograph a stem of frost-covered cow parsley against a background of snow, it's literally impossible using AF on the Panasonic. So why, in a world of constant improvement, do we have to accept markedly poorer performance?

For that reason, I think it's actually reasonable to pressurise Fuji for the best AF possible. That is not, however, the same as claiming that such drawbacks make the camera an exploitative capitalist tool of the the foolish, materialistic masses.

dct

01-19-2012, 02:54

.../...
I use both the GF1 and the Hexar. The Hexar is better and more reliable by an order of magnitude; it's not only quicker, it hardly ever fails to lock. If I try and photograph a stem of frost-covered cow parsley against a background of snow, it's literally impossible using AF. So why, in a world of constant improvement, do we have to accept markedly poorer performance?

For that reason, I think it's actually reasonable to pressurise Fuji for the best AF possible..../...

I don't have either of those digicams and that's why I didn't discuss this topic at all. But your statements leaves me technically really confused. How can it be that well known modern camera models have a definite inferior AF system to decades older model? That's what I read out of your statements (and others who learned to master the Contax G/Hexar AF focussing system).
Is this all only a misunderstandig? Or do we really see a remarkable technical backstepping rather than evolution? Regarding also this discussed model here: the X-Pro1

kanzlr

01-19-2012, 03:22

Paul T.

01-19-2012, 03:49

In terms of speed, sensor based contrast detect AF is indeed a back step.Camera manufacturers use it, because they do not need additional hardware, just the sensor read out and some software...

Yup.

Apparently, the test cameras still only had prototype software - the Fujiguys mention on youtube that their example took 30 seconds to focus. But they reckon that with the final firmware it will focus "a lot faster" than the X100.

(as mentioned in the comments, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk8A3Bc8R4g&feature=related )

What's the consensus on how much quicker the X10 is than the X100? It might be better to consider that as a baseline, considering it's a more recent model.

jsrockit

01-19-2012, 03:58

So why, in a world of constant improvement, do we have to accept markedly poorer performance?

Honestly, you don't have to accept it... just don't buy these cameras and keep using your Konica. The fact is we are in the infancy of these types of cameras. They will get better over time.

Paul T.

01-19-2012, 04:16

Because the world is leaving the Hexar behind. (Insert the usual digital v film 50 page thread here).

Don't forget the Hexar has its own compromises - 1/250 highest shutter speed for one. So you'll be using f/8 or so in daylight. You could zone-focus the Fuji in the same circumstances.

jsrockit

01-19-2012, 04:29

dfoo

01-19-2012, 06:16

That and all the little irritating buttons.

Adanac

01-19-2012, 08:25

IN the spirit of good, honest debate that this thread has generated, I shall remind you this comment was specifically about price. Some people are complaining the Fuji is expensive; in the context of the R-D1's new and s/h price, it's not at all.

I wasn't being condescending in my answer; I was pointing out - without using or harming once a single apple or orange - that the two cameras are quite different so value comparisons based on price are less meaningful.

The RD-1 or M8/M9 are not useful comparisons to a camera designed around auto-focus and if it weren't for the faux rangefinder look and the presence of an optical viewfinder in the hybrid finder, no one here would compare them. As you can't use the faux rangefinder look or OVF to focus RF glass, it makes no sense to draw that comparison. The XPro 1 is as close to the rangefinder experience as a Sony NEX is. Ok, ok, it is *marginally* closer.

No doubt we can find legions of M8/M9/RD-1 and even Ricoh GXR M Mount users who would be quick to argue that the XPro 1 isn't really an analog to the aforementioned cameras. We've certainly seen those arguments come up in relation to the X100 in the past.

I say this as a former owner of the X100 who is well aware of what that camera is and isn't; it is an autofocus camera, designed to be used as such. The XPro 1 as it stands is the same - very much principally an autofocus camera, although granted the lines are blurred simply because of the short back focal length and potential for adapting MF glass.

That blurring noted, the XPro 1 is not a range finder focused camera so why compare them to rangefinder camera prices, given the focus mechanism is a fundamental attribute of a camera and one which attracts, or repels, camera buyers?

The closest analog would be other mirrorless compacts with short back focal lengths allowing the use of adapted lenses including M lenses so in that light the XPro 1 more logically can be compared to various NEXen or other adaptable APS-C or greater autofocus camera.

It get's tricky there - I wouldn't even compare the XPro 1 to the Ricoh GXR M Mount as the latter is designed only for manual focus, but I suppose as the GXR can optionally be equipped with AF camera modules and the M Mount module, it should be considered in the value mix too.

We are, despite the limitations of any one camera, as RF users in a much better position than we were a couple of years ago.

Agreed; we have more cameras on which to mount our RF lenses and some of these cameras even do a really good job with them and I expect performance will only get better. Given the trend towards short back focal length cameras thanks to dumping the mirror, chances are we'll have even greater selection going forward. M or adapted LTM lenses to me seem like the best cross-platform bet for lens investment at this point, provided one likes or prefers manual focus of course.

Back to the XPro 1, hopefully Fujifilm will add more than simple image magnification as a focus aide by the time they come out with their own M mount adapter. A good edge detection algorithm and display feature I've found makes all the difference in achieving focus - with a good implementation you can actually have accurate *and* fast instead of one or the other.

Paul T.

01-19-2012, 08:35

Many of your points are reasonable and thoughful and I enjoyed reading them.

It is undeniably the case, however, that the cost of developing the X100/Xpro-1 must have been higher than that o the R-D1; there was far more tooling and design work required, than a camera which was based on an existing chassis.

Of course, having production in two centres probably pushed up the price of the Epson, and items like sensors are probably cheaper to buy now, but the fact remains that in comparison with a camera, held in great esteem by many rff members including me, the XPro1 is not a capitalist conspiracy - but is rather good value.

tbarker13

01-19-2012, 08:37

That blurring noted, the XPro 1 is not a range finder focused camera so why compare them to rangefinder camera prices, given the focus mechanism is a fundamental attribute of a camera and one which attracts, or repels, camera buyers?

Because many of us (I'd actually argue it's most of us) don't care how the camera achieves its focus. It's about form factor.
I like using a small camera with interchangeable lenses and a regular viewfinder. I don't want something big. And I will not use a camera that requires me to look at an LCD display to frame.
And of course aesthetics play a role in our decisions.

So for me, at least, the Xpro-1 fits very nicely in a category that includes the RD-1, M8, M9 and whatever comes after.

Tim Gray

01-19-2012, 08:50

Because many of us (I'd actually argue it's most of us) don't care how the camera achieves its focus. It's about form factor.
I like using a small camera with interchangeable lenses and a regular viewfinder. I don't want something big. And I will not use a camera that requires me to look at an LCD display to frame.

Word. Frankly, while I like Leica lenses, I'm kind of eager to get into a system where I can actually afford to try out lenses and/or buy them.

Turtle

01-19-2012, 09:42

Agreed.

Being able to set hyperfocal focus is another important atribute for me and the X100 allows this by seeing where manual focus is set inside the viewfinder. I find this far preferable to the compressed focus scales on SLR AF lenses and being stuck with a huge beast.

With my RF usage, I have realised it falls into two categories:

Hyperfocal/zone focusing when I dont have time and cannot rely upon ANY AF to hit the right spot, so I use DOF to make it certain.
I have time to focus properly and this is not anywhere near as quick on a RF as my X100.
The result is that by thinking about what I actually do, I think I will be able to make the X-Pro work very well for me. The form factor and portability are vastly more important than how focus is set, as long as the latter is achievable. I also find that when set up as minimally as possible, the X100 finder is very clear in OVF mode. I love this for everything but close up work.

I think the sales will do the talking, for better or for worse as per the X100. Some continue to cry that all X100 buyers were gullible suckers who went for retro cool style over substance, but this is untrue. I know that emraphoto would not bother with a tool that lacks utility any more than I would. I realise that it might not suit everyone, but I suspect it will end up suiting an awful lot of pragmatic photographers.

Because many of us (I'd actually argue it's most of us) don't care how the camera achieves its focus. It's about form factor.
I like using a small camera with interchangeable lenses and a regular viewfinder. I don't want something big. And I will not use a camera that requires me to look at an LCD display to frame....

So for me, at least, the Xpro-1 fits very nicely in a category that includes the RD-1, M8, M9 and whatever comes after.

dougi

01-19-2012, 13:08

Word. Frankly, while I like Leica lenses, I'm kind of eager to get into a system where I can actually afford to try out lenses and/or buy them.

I agree. I have only 1 Leica lens (35mm Summicron ASPH), which I could onyl afford because it was bundled cheap with a Bessa R2 in a distributor changover. I did have a Hexar RF system, and I see this camera as an AF based successor.

I too think the form factor and OVF compostion is more important than rangefinder focussing.

Adanac

01-20-2012, 20:11

Because many of us (I'd actually argue it's most of us) don't care how the camera achieves its focus.

Sure. Probably it is more accurate to say that most of us care that the camera achieves focus well, whether we use auto or manual focus lenses.

Why some of us use manual focus rangefinder lenses over auto focus lenses is a different discussion. ;-)

It's about form factor. I like using a small camera with interchangeable lenses and a regular viewfinder. I don't want something big. And I will not use a camera that requires me to look at an LCD display to frame. And of course aesthetics play a role in our decisions.

Definitely agree about form factor; that is one of the reasons I'm continuing to buy rangefinder glass. The combination of compact mirrorless body, really capable sensors, and great RF glass makes for a very potent, small, system... as a package these are very hard not to like.

Incidentally six months ago I could have written your second to last statement word for word and probably did. I thought with this size and type of digital camera that I could never be happy without a built in viewfinder and for that reason the X100's hybrid finder drew me off the sidelines like a moth to a flame.

Three compacts later, what I've found is even more important to me now is that the camera have decent focus aides for manual focus glass and for non RF cameras that means an EVF. Whether the finder is built in or not is also much less important to me now than before - I've done a 180 on that topic and if there was choice maybe I'd go for the built-in finder and still have a free hot shoe for off camera flash, or maybe I'd go for an optional finder that also happens to tilt - this can be very handy. Every time I tilt my EVF I remind myself to remember this when I'm next updating a body, lest I forget how useful tilt can be.

Frontman

01-22-2012, 04:47

I saw one today at the Fuji museum in Roppongi. Very sweet, with the 35/1.4 lens...

Focal Plane Circus

01-22-2012, 08:49

I saw one today at the Fuji museum in Roppongi. Very sweet, with the 35/1.4 lens...
Were you able to take any photos with the X-Pro1 you saw at Fujifilm Square? Also, was the focus ring on that lens different (better) from the one on the X100?

Spyro

01-23-2012, 01:57

That blurring noted, the XPro 1 is not a range finder focused camera so why compare them to rangefinder camera prices, given the focus mechanism is a fundamental attribute of a camera and one which attracts, or repels, camera buyers?

I think I can explain this. Because of the 11 things that people like about rangefinders, it ticks off 10:

a. you have a big, bright, parallax corrected optical VF;
b. you can see outside the frame;
c. there is no mirrorbox or pentaprism and the resulting awkward triangular shape and size;
d. you have small non retrofocus lenses that sit close to the sensor;
e. there is no squeezing your nose against your LCD to look through a centrally located viewfinder or EVF;
f. there is no mirror slap, the cameras range from quiet to silent;
g. there is uninterrupted view of the subject, no mirror black out or laggy motion blurred EVFs (unless you want it);
h. it takes M lenses;
i. You have mostly dials instead of buttons; and
j. you can customize with soft releases and half cases :D

I think part of the reason that RF focusing was always so important is that, by design, it used to make those things possible.

rxmd

01-23-2012, 02:08

e. there is no squeezing your nose against your LCD to look through a centrally located viewfinder or EVF;

I'm a left-eyed shooter, like about 50% of the population (or marginally less due to conditioning). Consequently with the placement of the viewfinder on rangefinders and cameras such as this, I actually get more squeezing of the nose.

In that respect I prefer an SLR. For me the design of the X-Pro 1 is actually worse; that's probably the price to pay for the camera to look Leica-like and retro. The best would be a camera with a viewfinder on the far right, but the center would have been a nice compromise (also: less parallax!)

Now I'll get nose prints on the screen of my Fuji because Oskar Barnack was right-eyed. The power of tradition!

Spyro

01-23-2012, 02:21

LOL I know...
most things that are considered good about RFs are a matter of perception anyway. Like this "shoot with both eyes open" thingo, which, anyway you look at it, is a sure recipe for a headache.

But anyway, we're counting similarities here. Xpro1 V RF.

jsrockit

01-23-2012, 04:11

most things that are considered good about RFs are a matter of perception anyway.

That can be said about anything that is subjective...

dct

01-23-2012, 05:54

I think I can explain this. Because of the 11 things that people like about rangefinders, it ticks off 10...

...

I think part of the reason that RF focusing was always so important is that, by design, it used to make those things possible.

Spyro, you nailed it. Thank you for emphasizing these facts.

DamenS

01-23-2012, 06:04

Yeah, that always made me not want to bother with the Hexar AF. Very cool camera, but when it came out I couldn't get over the 1/250th thing. Let's hope the X1Pro is faster than the X100...but if it isn't, I'll still happily use it.

LOL - me too ... till I tried it (I was going off spec sheets beforehand and discounted it "out of hand" based on the silly 1/250 maximum shutter and no speed shown in viewfinder). I'm not saying they're not annoying or that they're not a limitation (they certainly are), but once I tried the Hexar AF, I realised I was prepared to work within those limitations (you may not be - I think it's one of those things you never really know till you live with it for a while - and it's perfectly reasonable to say "not for me"). I DO use a Red Filter for the 2 stop reduction, you'd need an expensive ND filter for colour film. Why are such things so great in one way, so limited in others - Is God an RPG player with limited points to distribute amongst attributes ? Flippant, but it seems to be the way the world works !! Which means the Fuji will have a great sensor and continue the tradition of crappy AF ... sorry ... ;)

Spyro

01-23-2012, 13:26

That can be said about anything that is subjective...

thats right.
and since perceptions drive the market, that makes them as important as realities.

Focal Plane Circus

01-26-2012, 04:03

Today's The Verge report on the release: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/26/2735897/fujifilm-x-pro1-available-japan-february-18

Fuji Japan press release, also today: http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/corporate/news/articleffnr_0606.html

Griffin

01-26-2012, 04:06

Really now, this camera is not "retro" looking by any means. People have just forgotten what a camera is supposed to look like.

jsrockit

01-26-2012, 04:32

Really now, this camera is not "retro" looking by any means. People have just forgotten what a camera is supposed to look like.

Exactly!!!

That press release has some interesting info...

No kit
Higher prices
free pen... :eek:

Focal Plane Circus

01-26-2012, 09:35

Really now, this camera is not "retro" looking by any means. People have just forgotten what a camera is supposed to look like.
You mean our cameras aren't supposed to look like half-melted black-on-black lumps of plastic? :eek:

Focal Plane Circus

01-26-2012, 12:16

Fuji has released the pdf X-Pro1 Owner's Manuals

Camera: http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/manuals/pdf/index/x/xpro1_manual_01.pdf

Lenses: http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/manuals/pdf/index/x/lens_fx18_fx35_fx60_manual_01.pdf

We'll have a few things to discuss when we've read them. :D

jsrockit

01-26-2012, 12:23

Ut oh, let the bitching commence...

j.scooter

01-26-2012, 12:28

Ut oh, let the bitching commence...
You mean it hasn't started yet???

Ut oh is right:D:D:D

dct

01-26-2012, 22:03

My expectations to a modern compact AF camera are all met, but the time lapse mode. I didn't find it in the instruction manual. Beeing a software function, I hope they will add it in a next update.
Regarding legacy lenses, page 70 (focal lenght settings and shoot without lens) might address lenses other than Fuji's own XF mount... The Manual Focus Mode (on page 45) might be one of the approaches to focus MF lenses, but I'm still not sure about the detailed implications.

hxpham

01-26-2012, 22:18

I hope it can autofocus.

mfunnell

01-26-2012, 22:29

I must admit to having been away and out of it as far as discussion of the X-Pro1 is concerned. I haven't taken the time to wade through all 39 (39!) pages of discussion here, but I have looked at the preview at dpReview and formed an initial impression.

Firstly, and pace the little bit of discussion I have read in this thread, the concept of the X-Pro1 seems more like a digital incarnation of the Contax G line (though where's the focus button for my thumb and the active infrared?) than it is like the Hexar AF. That's not a bad thing: I have a G2 and the Hexar AF and like them both in their own way, for different things, and also appreciate their pluses and minuses (for my use).

I also thought that this is a great development and that this kind of camera has been a long time coming and I wish it every success. I was even mentally budgeting for this as something "I just gotta have". And then I thought: why am I buying into a whole new camera system? Just on cost alone, would it be cheaper for me to buy a Leica M9 (gulp) than to buy an X-Pro1, lenses, flash etc. given my already substantial acquisitions for M and LTM gear? And would I actually prefer the M9?

Examining the detritus at the bottom of my bank account and quite likely (un)employment situation as my current contract winds to a close, I think such fantasy budgets might be exactly that...

...Mike

Focal Plane Circus

01-27-2012, 05:23

willie_901

01-27-2012, 05:30

It seems the only reason to buy into a whole new system (given the information in your post) has to do with the practicality of using film for the next 2 - 5 years.

The XPro1 will take M lenses using an adapter sometime in 2012. No one really knows how well the sensor will respond to M optics or how practical focusing M lenses will be with the XPro1.

If the four lenses (35, 18, 60 and future 14 mm) lenses cost about $700 each and the body costs $2000, this is still much less than a new M9 but could be close in price to a used body.

My guess is the XPro1 (which I have pre-ordered with the 35/1.4 lens) will be a viable body when used with Fujinon XF lenses. I doubt that M lens owners will find the XPro1 to be useful with M lenses. The X series appears to be a pure AF platform where manual focus is only useful in limited circumstances such as macro or other tripod work where very fine focus adjustments using the LCD screen are useful.

Fuji could surprise me and release firmware in conjunction with the M adapter that invokes focus peaking or some other efficient method for focusing with analog lenses. I'd like that sort of surprise.

noimmunity

01-27-2012, 09:38

It seems the only reason to buy into a whole new system (given the information in your post) has to do with the practicality of using film for the next 2 - 5 years.

Yes, exactly.

That, and the exorbitant cost of buying into the current or future generation digital M system.

chris00nj

01-27-2012, 13:07

And then I thought: why am I buying into a whole new camera system? Just on cost alone, would it be cheaper for me to buy a Leica M9 (gulp) than to buy an X-Pro1, lenses, flash etc. given my already substantial acquisitions for M and LTM gear? And would I actually prefer the M9?

...Mike

I was having a similar mental debate between going M9 or X-Pro 1 as well.

I think the two downsides of M9 are that peformance at ISO 1600 starts to look noisy, unlike examples of the X-Pro 1. Also, having $6,500+ (used body + lens) around your neck at any one time may risk of damage or theft more of a worry.

Focal Plane Circus

01-27-2012, 13:13

New Fuji Guys comments on X-Pro1 manual focus:

"MF speed is improved over x100 with #FUJIFILM X-Pro1. Seems more accurate to me when fine tuning focus."
"You will be able to use MF during video with #FUJIFILM X-Pro1. CAF also available too"

- both posted yesterday on the Fuji Guys Twitter page.
Here is an interesting dpreview post about how Fuji's manual focus ring works:

The resolution of the X100 MF ring is not a problem. It generates one pulse every 3 degrees (120 pulses in one full revolution). Theoretically only one half turn of the MF ring is required to bring the focus from infinity to about 1.8m (try this by slowly turning the ring). This should be good enough.
The problem is in the way X100 processes the MF input. When the ring is turned fast, most of the pulses from the ring are missed by the processor. In fact it is worse: the faster you turn the ring, the more pulses are missed and the more turning is required to cover a particular focus range. An impatient photographer will find himself spinning the ring forever.
Another observation: in low light the manual focusing is worse than in good light. This confirms the theory that the processor is busy metering or whatever and can not detect all the pulses resulting from the MF ring rotation.
More and more the mechanical tactile user control systems are being replaced by electronic ones. If the implementation is good, everybody wins (increased reliability, lower cost, increased flexibility). However, the implementation can be less than optimal:
User input (pulses or key presses) can be delayed. This leads to a sluggish behavior similar to a mechanical system with excessive slack and play
Much worse is if the user inputs are ignored. A single missed input will shatter the magic. It no longer feels like a mechanical system. It becomes a poorly implemented fake. Fuji has managed to achieve precisely this.
It pains me to say this because in most other aspects the camera is very good if not perfect. Hopefully X1pro has a better MF implementation.

shadowfox

01-27-2012, 13:26

You mean it hasn't started yet???

Ut oh is right:D:D:D

Is it any wonder that the threads of discussions *after* the camera is released is far more boring than this :)

Anticipation is a potent drug.

DtheG

01-27-2012, 18:34

Here is an interesting dpreview post about how Fuji's manual focus ring works:

The resolution of the X100 MF ring is not a problem. It generates one pulse every 3 degrees (120 pulses in one full revolution). Theoretically only one half turn of the MF ring is required to bring the focus from infinity to about 1.8m (try this by slowly turning the ring). This should be good enough.
The problem is in the way X100 processes the MF input. When the ring is turned fast, most of the pulses from the ring are missed by the processor. In fact it is worse: the faster you turn the ring, the more pulses are missed and the more turning is required to cover a particular focus range. An impatient photographer will find himself spinning the ring forever.
Another observation: in low light the manual focusing is worse than in good light. This confirms the theory that the processor is busy metering or whatever and can not detect all the pulses resulting from the MF ring rotation.

I agree with the description but not the explanation. The X100 focus ring uses an optical system to generate the pulses. In low light it would seem that not enough pulses are generated to signal a movement of the focus ring. Sadly I doubt a change in firmware would be sufficient to make a big difference to the X100. I await reviews of the new X-Pro1 with interest, if the new lenses incorporate some design changes to the focus mechanism then the new model may resolve my one disappointment with the X100. But so far I have not seen any official publicity material that even mentions manual focus.

Turtle

01-27-2012, 21:39

The manual is very X100. it does seem we are looking at the X100 big brother, which is good and bad. Overall, its a pumped up X100 with interchangeable lenses i.e. everything we were led to believe before the orgy of anticipation got underway and some were appalled it did not focus as fast as a SLR.

Will be easy to X100 users to operate.

Focal Plane Circus

01-29-2012, 06:58

The Fuji Guys posted a private playlist of 24 videos on YouTube four days ago on Jan 25th. They're intended for Fuji dealers and employees, and they include some general videos and more short ones that cover specific features of the camera. One general introduction video warns viewers not to reveal any details until after the Jan. 9th CES introduction, so it was made before that date but only posted recently. Can't tell how old the others are.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3191D7A5ADF102B7

n.b. YouTube private videos don't appear in the sidebar list and searches don't find them. You have to have the link to them to see them.

;)

noimmunity

01-29-2012, 07:16

Thanks.

Just too bad there is nothing in there about focus, hahaha!

I personally found the short about the lenses to be quite interesting.

tom.w.bn

01-29-2012, 07:45

Thanks.

Just too bad there is nothing in there about focus, hahaha!

I personally found the short about the lenses to be quite interesting.

It's an AF camera. Nothing to talk about unless it's an extremely fast AF suitable for all sports situations.

f6andBthere

01-29-2012, 13:26

It's significant that the Fuji guys spend a lot of time telling us what we will like about this camera and little time addressing issues that have come up for criticism ... ie, pedantic manual focus action!

I can't see any reason why the camera will be any different to the X100 in this regard ... the AF will be fine but manual focusing will be tedious, especially if you're used to manually focusing a rangefinder.

noimmunity

01-30-2012, 02:16

It's an AF camera. Nothing to talk about unless it's an extremely fast AF suitable for all sports situations.

Whether it's AF or MF, the camera has to focus somehow. That we want to know more is to be expected.

Holding an AF system up to MF standards, however, is pointless, as I and others have said long ago and many times throughout this thread. Welcome to the conversation.

tom.w.bn

01-30-2012, 03:32

Whether it's AF or MF, the camera has to focus somehow. That we want to know more is to be expected.

Holding an AF system up to MF standards, however, is pointless, as I and others have said long ago and many times throughout this thread. Welcome to the conversation.

Your welcome is a bit late, I already posted 3 weeks ago in this thread :D

What exactly do you mean with "Holding an AF system up to MF standards..." ? Does this imply some sort of quality statement for one of the systems?

jsrockit

01-30-2012, 04:48

Any US release date yet?

j.scooter

01-30-2012, 04:51

Any US release date yet?

Or prices?

jsrockit

01-30-2012, 04:55

Wasn't it supposed to be the end of January they announced this stuff?

Focal Plane Circus

01-30-2012, 10:13

Fuji says the X-Pro1 will be released on February 18th in Japan, and at the end of February or early March in North America. Amazon Japan shows a ¥135,000 price, body only. :eek:

Fuji said at CES that the rumored price of $1700 US for the body is "about right," but photorumors thinks the body price may be lower, more like $1400-$1500? :)

http://photorumors.com/2012/01/26/fuji-x-pro1-body-listed-in-japan-for-%C2%A5135000/

noimmunity

01-30-2012, 23:27

Your welcome is a bit late, I already posted 3 weeks ago in this thread :D

What exactly do you mean with "Holding an AF system up to MF standards..." ? Does this imply some sort of quality statement for one of the systems?

I don't share your idea that focus is "nothing to talk about..." On this or any other camera, focus is important, and is, without qualification, something that needs to be talked about.

This is not the same as saying that I expect the XP1 to satisfy demands for implementation of MF and use of legacy lenses equal to the performance of optical RFs and SLRs. Yup, I agree with you completely, the X-Pro1 concept is an AF camera, and its value and performance should be judged on the implementation of this function. MF capability is supplementary.

I do not care if the irony in my initial post was lost on you and you construed it as an occasion to beat the drum against yet another tired repetition (of which there are so many already in this thread) of the demands voiced by others for MF implementation in an AF camera. In effect, you and I agree, at least on this point. I have confidence that with a little patience we will all, or at least most of us, soon be able to have a reasonable discussion about just how focus works on the XP1. (Then again, it is true that even to this day, discussions about focus on the X100 tend to get inflammatory very quickly).

gavinlg

01-31-2012, 05:45

gavinlg

01-31-2012, 05:47

+ a great video!

http://vimeo.com/35949089

chris00nj

01-31-2012, 06:24

Aussie Photographers Christian Fletcher and Michael Coyne have the x-pro1 and are posting about it, including full sized samples.

http://www.christianfletcher.com.au/2012/01/first-images-from-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/

Landscape shots are all ISO400, might want to sit down for the very last sheep shearing photo - iso6400. Looks amazing.

These are amazing. Of course, it is completely not fair that he gets to play with one and I have to wait!... probably for at least a month.

dreilly

01-31-2012, 09:06

Those photographs are very nice, which speaks to the photographer and the X-1 pro not getting in his way. I've kept what I feel is a healthy skepticism about this camera, but this hard evidence of image quality is quite intriguing.

The ISO6400 is nice, though if you pixel peep you do see the noise reduction smearing some of the detail away. Not objectionable but it's there. I usually set NR to low or off and then use LR3's chroma reduction...which leaves the luminance "grain". Not saying it's a bad 6400. I bet the RAW would yield an even cleaner file.

JuJu

01-31-2012, 09:41

Okay, prices are out on U.S. Amazon:
body: $1699
35/1.4: $599
18/2: $599
60/2.4 macro: $649

noimmunity

01-31-2012, 10:23

Aussie Photographers Christian Fletcher and Michael Coyne have the x-pro1 and are posting about it, including full sized samples.

http://www.christianfletcher.com.au/2012/01/first-images-from-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/

Landscape shots are all ISO400, might want to sit down for the very last sheep shearing photo - iso6400. Looks amazing.

Thanks. The landscape shots are lovely.

There is flare and CA in the other two at high ISOs, but I really like the way the photos look. Darn sharp, though.

dreilly

01-31-2012, 10:41

No kit prices for the body and 35?

Expensive camera, that's a fact.

intheviewfinder

01-31-2012, 10:41

Did he say there was no shutter/focus lag? That would be good news.

f6andBthere

01-31-2012, 14:07

Keep in mind that this guy is an Australian ... can you trust these people?

Their toilets flush the reverse direction and they live upside down!

filmtwit

01-31-2012, 14:23

Looks like amazon killed the pre-orders access.

dreilly

01-31-2012, 14:27

Amazon doesn't list preorders by accident, its all part of the hype machine. I bet actual price comes in a bit lower....

digitalintrigue

01-31-2012, 14:53

B&H Preorder links

body (http://bhpho.to/wFhgrj)

18mm (http://bhpho.to/yqM1rl)

35mm (http://bhpho.to/x8yUtD)

60mm (http://bhpho.to/Asa6ZG)

Focal Plane Circus

01-31-2012, 17:22

The Fuji Guys have posted the Canadian MSRPs on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/#!fujiguys

Body $1699, lenses $600, $600, $650 (CAD). Pretty much the same as the US prices with the USD and CAD so close to par.

gavinlg

01-31-2012, 17:55

No kit prices for the body and 35?

Expensive camera, that's a fact.

The pentax K5, when announced in 2010, was $1600us body only. With the terrible kit lens (18-55) it was about $1750. No one complained about price back then.

The x-pro1 has a complex optical VF not available in any other camera in existence, a special sensor array not available in any other camera on earth, 3 small AF prime lenses on launch, an overall form factor not available with any other camera out at the moment.

I can't see how you could think it's expensive personally. It's IQ is on par with the 5d and d700, which were both $3000 body only when announced, and which are still $2200-ish body only at the moment. It's cheaper, much more specialized and packs a similar IQ.

digitalintrigue

01-31-2012, 18:11

Well-stated perspective...

dreilly

01-31-2012, 18:38

No one complained about price back then.

That's not a fact. I was deciding at that time between the K-5 and the D7000, which after all share the same sensor, and I found the K-5 expensive in comparison, especially for a camera that back/front focused under different lighting temperatures (a problem it shared with the K-7). It had a lot of positive attributes (like weatherproofing, small size, stabilization) that the D7000 didn't, but the D7000 was a lot cheaper with faster, more accurate AF. Plenty of people found the K-5 expensive, and at the very least nobody was talking about it as a bargain. (The bargain actually was the Sony A580, with again the same chip).

Expensive/inexpensive I suppose is relative, but the X-1 Pro is in the second-to-top tier of new digital cameras in terms of pricing.

Plus, I'd say there have been so few image samples out from the X-1 that talking about it besting this or that camera in the IQ department is premature. The samples look nice. I had a D700 and my impression was that the ISO6400 was a bit less smeary on it, but that was some time ago. Certainly my Nex 5n puts out a comparable ISO6400 file, maybe it's a similar base sensor?

It's an intriguing camera and I like the idea of the VF...the X100 was cool to look through. I'm just not going to wet my pants about it until there's good justification for it.

chris00nj

01-31-2012, 18:51

... I'm just not going to wet my pants about it until there's good justification for it.

Oops, Too late! :p

gavinlg

01-31-2012, 19:57

I'm just not going to wet my pants about it until there's good justification for it.

The form of the camera IS the justification.

nighstar

01-31-2012, 23:42

gavinlg

01-31-2012, 23:58

i was really excited about the X-Pro 1 (as well as the OM-D), but after much consideration of what i really want out of my next digital camera i think that ultimately the X-Pro 1 would be a let down for me. what i really would like to have is a digital medium format camera, but that won't happen until pigs fly and hell freezes over! to me the next best thing would be a "full frame" DSLR, so i'm now seriously thinking that i will get a 5D Mark II/III or D700/D800. oh how happy i would be to have a digital body for my OM zuikos that won't mess with their FOV & DOF. :D

anyway, yeah. in terms of portability + function, which is what i was considering the X-Pro 1 for, the X-Pro 1 seems like it will be awesome. however, i think i'll focus on function and leave portability + function to my E-P2 for now.

always on me digicam: Ricoh GRD IV
portable digicam: Olympus E-P2
serious digicam: 5D Mark II/III or D700/D800?

and hey! a 5D Mark II only weighs about half of what my Hasselblad setup weighs, so i think i can handle it. :D maybe i'll even get a 5D Classic and use the saved $ on a nice AF prime..... *wanders off to think more*

Definitely if you prioritize format size (sensor size), the 5d is a better choice for you. It's also the reason I maintain my 5dI has better IQ than my x100.

Chriscrawfordphoto

02-01-2012, 00:07

i was really excited about the X-Pro 1 (as well as the OM-D), but after much consideration of what i really want out of my next digital camera i think that ultimately the X-Pro 1 would be a let down for me. what i really would like to have is a digital medium format camera, but that won't happen until pigs fly and hell freezes over! to me the next best thing would be a "full frame" DSLR, so i'm now seriously thinking that i will get a 5D Mark II/III or D700/D800. oh how happy i would be to have a digital body for my OM zuikos that won't mess with their FOV & DOF. :D

anyway, yeah. in terms of portability + function, which is what i was considering the X-Pro 1 for, the X-Pro 1 seems like it will be awesome. however, i think i'll focus on function and leave portability + function to my E-P2 for now.

always on me digicam: Ricoh GRD IV
portable digicam: Olympus E-P2
serious digicam: 5D Mark II/III or D700/D800?

and hey! a 5D Mark II only weighs about half of what my Hasselblad setup weighs, so i think i can handle it. :D maybe i'll even get a 5D Classic and use the saved $ on a nice AF prime..... *wanders off to think more*

I have a 5D mkII, which I have had about a month. I'm very, very impressed with it. Medium format cameras with a very fine grain film like Tmax 100 are capable of greater detail, but looking at shots with slide films (Provia 100 and E100G) in 645 format, the 5DII is fully equal in image quality. Wish it had the gorgeous color rendering of the old Kodak 14n that i used to have..no digital camera I have ever used matched it for color. The 5DII is not bad in that area though, its good.

nighstar

02-01-2012, 01:47

thanks you guys. :) i'm feeling more and more confident about my decision every day.

j j

02-01-2012, 01:50

The pentax K5, when announced in 2010, was $1600us body only. With the terrible kit lens (18-55) it was about $1750. No one complained about price back then.

DP review, Pentax K5: "Speaking of price point though, the K-5 is a very expensive camera right now, and although we consider that it is good value from a Pentax-users perspective, there is no doubt that such a high asking price (currently around $300 higher than the Nikon D7000, which has a similar sensor and boasts a significantly more versatile AF system) will put some people off. It should be noted though that the prices of the K20D and K-7 also started high but soon dropped - the K-5 will almost certainly come down in price in the coming months."

gavinlg

02-01-2012, 02:20

DP review, Pentax K5: "Speaking of price point though, the K-5 is a very expensive camera right now, and although we consider that it is good value from a Pentax-users perspective, there is no doubt that such a high asking price (currently around $300 higher than the Nikon D7000, which has a similar sensor and boasts a significantly more versatile AF system) will put some people off. It should be noted though that the prices of the K20D and K-7 also started high but soon dropped - the K-5 will almost certainly come down in price in the coming months."

Yes, you've proven your point. IMO even $1300 is expensive for a rubbish little nikon SLR compared to this fuji. Alternatively you could have a Zeiss Ikon with NO digital sensor and a very comparatively basic viewfinder for the same price?

j j

02-01-2012, 02:51

I'm not at all sure of your point.

If Nikon made rubbish little SLRs and charged $1,300 that would be expensive. The Zeiss is an expensive camera (excellent viewfinder, what's your beef there?). The Fuji is expensive. Lots of cameras are expensive.

Value is another matter. The Fuji will probably be good value, but it is expensive at current suggested prices.

gavinlg

02-01-2012, 03:18

I'm not at all sure of your point.

My point is the camera is a technically advanced, one of a kind type camera, and the first of its type. So it's not 'too expensive'. IMO.

Turtle

02-01-2012, 03:33

The camera is too expensive only if people feel it does not give them sufficient capability for the $ and so don't buy it. Its not going to appeal to some who might buy a M9 for its cachet or gem like quality, so it really will be judged on bang for buck.

Considering that it has no competition really it is hard to say, but I suspect it will be a huge success as people buy in with the knowledge that there will be subsequent generations that can make use of the same lenses. The only alternative for something with this form factor, interchangeable lenses etc is the M9 and its a very different camera with a 5x higher price.

Think what people will be able to buy into this system for in 2-3 years if they are prepared to buy a used X-Pro 1? This is not dead money to Fuji as they will sell new lenses, flash etc to these people.

jsrockit

02-01-2012, 04:06

The camera is too expensive only if people feel it does not give them sufficient capability for the $ and so don't buy it.

Agreed. Those of us who are buying this camera are doing so because of the form factor, the OVF, interchangable lenses, and the dedicated shutter speed / aperture dials. It is not too expensive if that is the type of camera you've been waiting for. However, if you are immune to ergonomics, compare the X-Pro1 to a DSLR, and can't make up your mind versus other cameras on the market... it'll seem high priced. This camera is made for those of us who don't like DSLRs. If you are into DSLRs, I can't see why you are looking at the X-Pro1. DSLRs are the king of bang for the buck.