Anyone else sending an X-Pro1 back?

[Dante_Stella]

I got home from Peru with visions of X-Pro dancing in my head... and what a hangover when I opened the box. I ended up canceling the backordered 60mm and am seriously contemplating sending back the camera and 35mm.

1. One of the things that did not occur to me - but by now must be clear to anyone who owns an X100 and an X-Pro - is that when you turn on the "corrected" focusing square, even with the 35mm lens, it is very far from the nominal (infinity) one. On the X100, they overlap a little. I can't even imagine what this was like with the 60mm; can't be fun. This is an inherent issue with the change in focal length that is exacerbated by the way the boxes are presented.

2. The field size jumps precipitously with distance in a way that it does not with the 23mm lens of the X100 (and indeed, does not with a Leica M because it has no such correction). That field size jump tends to make the relative position of the focusing square move a lot too - which it does not on a Leica because the square and the framelines move together (and because you can align the RF in any part of the square arbitrarily). Again, an inherent limitation based on focal length, but one that is exacerbated by the hybrid viewfinder setup.

3. Hybrid VF focusing works a lot less predictably with the 35mm lens than it does on the X100. You often seem to get a green light only to find that it is because some tiny part of the focusing square subtended an item that the camera could focus on - whereas the majority (what you thought you were covering) was inside minimum focusing distance. This is the one thing that tends to spook me (the parallax items above, with enough practice, would eventually go away like they do on the X100). Or I drew a bad example of the camera; can't tell.

4. Is it just me, or are the grid lines thicker and more obtrusive than on the X100?

And I did note a couple of things about the design that won't improve with firmware:

1. The 35mm lens is not internal focus, something that would have massively increased AF performance. Why the whole front cell (or probably all of the optical cell) is moving when you focus is beyond me. That's a lot of weight to be pushing.


2. Further, if you're going to move that much of the lens, why not do a Nikon-style slip clutch for manual focusing? I could see laying off that on the X100 due to size, but this lens is at least as big as the 50/1.4D I use on my D700. In fact, by volume, it's almost double the size of a 35mm Summilux ASPH.


3. Not having a variable-diopter eyepiece on this was a mistake. On the X100, the fact that you have a detailed, dot-matrix in-your-face information display was aided by your ability to correct the viewfinder correction by very tiny increments (simple LEDs outside the frame - a la the GA645* - are outside the viewing field and don't compete for your eyesight as much). The screw-in diopters that fit this camera (Nikon F2 size) only come in whole-diopter increments, which is always going to overshoot what you really need. And given the substantial thickness of the body, it should have been possible (maybe it was sacrificed for the neato dual-mag feature)?*N.B. The GA645zi (the final model of GA645) not only had a zoom finder; it also had LED frameline superimposition and variable diopter eyepiece built into a thickness comparable to the X-Pro.Although I want to be positive about this camera (particularly the grip-ability, better locks on controls and more rational menus - to say nothing of the insanely cool sensor), I'm starting to realize the inevitability of simply keeping my X100 and buying an M9. The X100 - at least with its current firmware - is very well executed and takes killer pictures. When you take out the leaf shutter (and high-speed synch), make the camera bigger, make it slower, and make focusing more difficult, it could have a sensor delivered on Mount Sinai and still not deliver pictures.

The X-Pro, I have been thinking today, would be a better camera if it simply came back with phase-detect AF (or even active/passive AF) and lenses that tried to move less glass.

This is the first time I have ever even thought about sending something back, but I now have the distinct feeling that the people who have been reviewing this camera have been cutting Fuji a lot of slack in describing the inherent difficulties in focusing it - if not the other limitations. I don't know what Sean Reid said about it (getting a subscription to his site and return postage are the same cost - so why not try the camera?), but it is now not surprising to me that the high-res test shots are largely static subjects and that this camera was seeded to a lot of people who would be happy to get something on loan for free.

I will contemplate this more, but, wow.

Dante

[boomguy57]

The way you describe it a) makes me happy I decided not to go with the XP1, and b) makes a convincing case for you sending it back.

I'm happy that I am not an "early adopter" type. It's almost always better to wait, read reviews, and usually to wait for the 2nd generation of a product. At the very least, to wait for later serial #s when the kinks are worked out. I'm glad I waited a while before I got my X100 too.

[jippiejee]

I was sincerely considering getting myself one for concerts and stuff, but seeing more and more feedback about its poor low-light AF performance (Steve Huff: I missed tons of shots in Las Vegas because of missed focus in low light) makes me wonder what great hi-iso means if your camera can't focus properly under those circumstances. I'll wait for the X-pro2.

[digitalintrigue]

Have you tried focusing with continuous instead of single? You get a crosshair. I found it would pretty much nail focus even in pretty low light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4ZSdDFGdGM

What's everyone's definition of 'low light' by the way?

[Eric T]

So let's see - the M9 costs three times more than the XPI.
The M9 also does not have a diopter and its viewfinder is positively primitive compared to the XP1.
The 35mm Fuji lens may be larger than a 35mm Summilux but it costs TEN times less.
The XP1 is much lighter than an M9 - but still feels quite sturdy.
The XP1's AF feed is very acceptable for the vast majority of situations and is certainly better than the M9's nonexistent AF!

[celluloidprop]

I have not quite gotten an instinctive grip on the framelines and OVF AF box - I think I will with time. They don't make as much sense as the X100's lines and AF did.

I'm willing to put in the effort with this camera, because the only alternative for me is a D700 or D800 and I don't really want to go back to a DSLR. If I were willing, I'd probably be a lot less enthused with the camera.

[porktaco]

i was underwhelmed.

[keytarjunkie]

1. One of the things that did not occur to me - but by now must be clear to anyone who owns an X100 and an X-Pro - is that when you turn on the "corrected" focusing square, even with the 35mm lens, it is very far from the nominal (infinity) one. On the X100, they overlap a little. I can't even imagine what this was like with the 60mm; can't be fun. This is an inherent issue with the change in focal length that is exacerbated by the way the boxes are presented.

Why do people keep using this as an argument against the Fujis? It exists with ANY camera - rangefinder or not - that has a viewfinder off to the side of the image-taking lens. Heck, even TLRs have this problem. As you focus closer and closer, you are going to be less and less accurately framing and you have to compensate for it. Buying an M9 will not solve this problem. Your patch will move to the bottom right corner and your framelines will get smaller on the top-left (or actually, I would imagine they just move to the bottom right corner too?) as you focus closer. If you don't like dealing with this, then use a SLR.

[jsrockit]

1. One of the things that did not occur to me - but by now must be clear to anyone who owns an X100 and an X-Pro - is that when you turn on the "corrected" focusing square, even with the 35mm lens, it is very far from the nominal (infinity) one. On the X100, they overlap a little. I can't even imagine what this was like with the 60mm; can't be fun. This is an inherent issue with the change in focal length that is exacerbated by the way the boxes are presented.

I was shocked too... but I'm used to it now. These are quirky cameras, but for some reason they do it for me.

[mouren]

I think you should return it ASAP. This camera is not for you, so why waste time, energy and money.

[macjim]

I'm enjoying using mine. I can live with its foibles as all cameras have them. The Leica M9 has a small focusing window and can be difficult to focus, the nex-5n can be slow to focus too in low light and has a hand grip that leaves little space for my fingers between it and the lens barrel and the XP1 has the problems mention too. It all depends on what you want to use the camera for and whether it suits your needs. Myself, I live it!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[photografity]

I think you should return it ASAP. This camera is not for you, so why waste time, energy and money.

+1 Agreed.. It just boggles my mind on how some people voice negative opinion..... It's simple, you either use it & work around all the"quirks" or return it.

[dcsang]

Have you tried focusing with continuous instead of single? You get a crosshair. I found it would pretty much nail focus even in pretty low light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4ZSdDFGdGM

What's everyone's definition of 'low light' by the way?

^^^^^^^^^^^^

This :)

Cheers,
Dave

[hausen]

I was underwhelmed when I had a ply with it for an hour or so. Was thinking of down grading from M9 to XP1. All that hour did was enhance my love for my M9 and threads like this make me happier as well. I had no issue with the image quality of XP1 just felt like a poor substitute when I held it. I think my X100 has a nicer feel than the XP1.

[Dante_Stella]

Why do people keep using this as an argument against the Fujis? It exists with ANY camera - rangefinder or not - that has a viewfinder off to the side of the image-taking lens. Heck, even TLRs have this problem. As you focus closer and closer, you are going to be less and less accurately framing and you have to compensate for it. Buying an M9 will not solve this problem. Your patch will move to the bottom right corner and your framelines will get smaller on the top-left (or actually, I would imagine they just move to the bottom right corner too?) as you focus closer. If you don't like dealing with this, then use a SLR.

Why didn't you read what I wrote? There is no argument against parallax error (or even how Fuji dealt with it on the X100, which I have used since it was out). My point is that when you increase the focal length, it exacerbates a problem that exists on the X100 but is not that big a deal with a short lens.

There is a huge difference with an M camera, and as much as I think they're dated, you can apprehend exactly what the RF is focused on because the focusing spot is fairly big. And you can continuously reframe as you focus. By the way, Leica framelines do not shrink - they have a fixed size that understates the frame size (and generally assumes 2m).

The Fuji has both the framelines and the AF area jump into position simultaneously - not a big problem with a 23mm lens. In fact, of the 1,008 X100 pictures I shot hiking in the past week (excluding a couple hundred that were deleted for extra bracketing), only four were out of focus (and all of them were pictures my wife took in which I was off center and she did not lock focus).

I'm also familiar with every type of viewfinder (and combined viewfinder/rangefinder), and it's actually pretty uncommon to have a high-end camera where the framelines move but the range-finding target does not. The Contax G/G2, Fuji GA series, and Hexar AF are the only ones I can think of. The Hexar used only active AF that focused on the closest object it could see; the Fuji GA used active/passive hybrid AF; and the G/G2 used external passive AF (and had their own focusing challenges).

And I don't recall where this was ever attempted (by any maker) with an f/1.4 lens - where you have other issues to deal with anyway.

Dante

[Mr_Toad]

Since I'm considering purchasing an XP1, I'm happy to read the negative reviews....so I'll know what I'm getting in to.

Who knows...maybe I'll even avoid a $1700 GAS Attack.

Robt.

[kzphoto]

I like the form factor and the potential of the new fuji sensor, but for the life of me I cannot understand why camera makers opt for contrast detect AF. The hybrid thing Nikom does on the V1/J1 is blazing fast. Phase AF is really quick... Is it much cheaper to implement?

[intheviewfinder]

I have but a two letter answer - No

[digitalintrigue]

The Nikon sensor is teeny tiny. Everything is already in focus. :) And the lenses are not that fast....less mass to move.

[mouren]

I like the form factor and the potential of the new fuji sensor, but for the life of me I cannot understand why camera makers opt for contrast detect AF. The hybrid thing Nikom does on the V1/J1 is blazing fast. Phase AF is really quick... Is it much cheaper to implement?

I don't actually quite know how phase AF works, but I was thinking maybe because m-mount lenses can't do phase focus confirmation?

I have a Nikon 50mm f1.2 that I use on my 5D. The adapter I got has a chip on it that will give me focus confirmation. I don't see such thing on all my other adapters to EOS.

MAYBE, pure speculation here, we will get contrast focus confirmation with Fuji's m-mount adapter and software upgrade.
One can always dream :)

[digitalintrigue]

It is easier/cheaper to implement CDAF as it can be done in software, and of course can be tweaked/improved with units in the field. I agree with Dante, a separate electronic RF would have been cool, but would have raised the cost...not sure exactly how much tho.

Looking forward to picking one of these up in a few months when the 18-72/4 is out...

[gdi]

Since I'm considering purchasing an XP1, I'm happy to read the negative reviews....so I'll know what I'm getting in to.

Who knows...maybe I'll even avoid a $1700 GAS Attack.

Robt.

I know what you mean. I was thinking about trying one too, but being a little hype-wary worked in my favor. I think a lot of people will try these for a while and then sell them, creating some relative bargains. I think we'll have to wait a few months though...

[Frontman]

I have not thought for a moment of sending mine back. The viewfinder takes some getting used to, but at least you can accurately tell what the images will look like. The resolution is good enough that you can manually focus lenses with some accuracy without an RF patch, and being able to adjust magnification helps. I also like the close focus capabilities, on my M cameras I have to shoot a clumsy (though excellent) DR Summicron, and even then, I can't get a very close shot.

As for the size of the 35mm lens, it is bigger than a 35mm Summilux, but the design of the camera and lenses were made large enough to have sensibly sized controls and buttons. I find the small Summilux difficult to use when wearing gloves, and those with big fingers find small dials and controls irritating.

My only gripe is the slow AF system, but in reality, it is not slow. And when the camera gets itself focused, it is precisely so. Few shooters with an M camera could focus more quickly with the same level of accuracy. In daylight, it is easy enough for me to set the camera in manual mode, set the aperture, and zone focus, just as I often do with a film rangefinder camera.

I love the ISO range on this camera. I have always shot 400 speed film in all situations, and though I never thought this limited me in any way, now I can see that it has. I can get clean images from the X-Pro in more situations than I can from the other cameras which I have been using.

Lastly, I simply love the quality of the images, and in the end, this is all that matters.

[mouren]

Lastly, I simply love the quality of the images, and in the end, this is all that matters.

I completely agree.

[david.elliott]

I'm keeping mine for sure.

The only other camera on which I've used autofocus is my old d70 and that was several years back. I have the x-pro 1 set up in for m mode with power save on (to get rid of the chattering) and the AF still is plenty fast for me. I don't really do any photography that requires superfast autofocus though. :)

Image quality is wonderful with the jpegs, but I'm really looking forward to raw support by adobe.

Have you tried adjusting the size of the focusing square? You can use the wheel on the back to do that. Might be worth a try. Can't do it in m mode if I recall correctly though.

I have found that I use the EVF quite a lot. At least as much as the OVF. Seems to work well for me.

But, when all is said and done, if you and the camera dont get along then there really isnt much point in keeping it.

[Dante_Stella]

And I'm not out to be overly critical, and I generally like Fuji's products, but -

1. We live in a world where manufacturers pump out half-done cameras (like my X100...) and then expect us all to help debug them and have faith that things will work out. They ultimately did, but it was somewhat rough riding for the first couple of months (not in the least because my camera had a defective lens unit that wouldn't stop down). Reviewers tend to make excuses and hold back things. People who own cameras tend to defend them.

2. Fuji's bizarre holding back of its SDK from Adobe tends to make it harder to be overwhelmed by the image quality - or even to test it given the tool that would ultimately be used. How long is this going to go on? Silkypix is popular in Japan, but Hasselhoff is popular in Germany.

3. Some of us have already had the Sony experience of buying a system taking it on faith that promised lenses would actually come out. My major interest in the X-Pro was primarily driven by the 14mm lens that is supposed to come out next year, as well as the 60mm. If you can see issues coming with a 35mm lens, it is worrisome to imagine them with a 60mm.

4. If you have M lenses already, a three-lens system involving native X-Pro lenses is just as expensive as upgrading from the M8 to the M9. Then again, the M9 could be pretty cheap by the end of the year.

5. The X100 actually sets a pretty high bar.

6. We all want something closer to a one-camera world, not one where we have six different digital cameras that serve six ultra-specialized different purposes. Do we need another charger, another lithium-ion battery shape/size, another half-case? Six might be an overstatement, but you get the point.

To its credit, the X-Pro's alleged problems with fluttering aperture blades and "loud" shutter are overblown. And the 35mm lens has good control of field curvature, produces a little deeper DOF than a 50/1.4 on an FX camera (which means more pleasing pics that still have good background separation), and generally behaves unless it is dark or you're within 1.5m. Hunting, when it happens, seems to happen randomly. Having a multishot buffer is nice, too.

I may ultimately slug it out until Lightroom catches up - the worst that would happen, I imagine, is effectively paying a couple hundred in "rent." It's not pocket change, but I like the light weight and not carrying a gold brick with me. I also already have the "big" TTL flash for this camera...

Dante

[Spyro]

Man I have a big list of my own of things that might put people off this camera, to the point of not recommending it to anyone unless they give me a signed declaration that they have owned (and loved) a Contax G :D

I seem to get along fine with mine, but Dante's points are valid. However, I think we still have a lot to see from the system. For example the pancake lens might be faster to focus as it will be smaller and lighter. The 14, the 23 and the wide zoom, maybe they will be internal focusing? We still dont know what the M adapter be, it could be anything from "stupid" flange to a smart adapter with a focusing cam for parallax correction and a chip for storing lens info. And, judging from the x100, maybe fuji is getting ready to bombard us with firmware updates.

So send it back if you're not comfortable, but if you're sort of on the fence consider the possibility that you might want to buy it back later when things start to get ironed out.

[GaryLH]

Spyro, I still own and love my g2... I agree Dante has some valid points here. I look at the images this camera produces, so far I have not seen an issue that bothers me enough to send it back. I have had the camera since Friday and taken about 300 pictures with it. I only have the 35f1.4 right now.

Gary

[jsrockit]

It's funny how people see things so differently. This appears to be an even more polarizing camera than the X100.

[clicker]

no camera has it all, this one comes closer than most for the money. It's a keeper at least for the next few years.

[jskjsk]

I admit, I still can't get m lens to work properly and yes I feel like I am using a preproduction camera but I still love the camera.

Just like x100, image quality can't be beat. I liked my gxr with my m but having the option for auto focus on pretty great lens is unbeatable.

The difficulty lies with different mode of using a camera. I felt like this when I was first introduced to m. Got used it and I will with this also.

[jskjsk]

I am just happy that I am completely out from dslr.

[huntjump]

no camera has it all, this one comes closer than most for the money. It's a keeper at least for the next few years.

This is true...but some cameras upon release have way less controversy or dispute among its customers (ie: D700 upon release had very little polarization from what i remember..)

I'm sure fuji will release a firmware update to address the AF, among other gripes. Why they don't do that prerelease is odd indeed. Giving these cameras out to testers, who as Dante said, will mostly praise the item with little criticism (likely due to the perverse incentive to continue to receive free products to test) is not helpful to anyone really, except the manufacture to some extent as they build excitement. However, good products will spread like wildfire. I think it would be much smarter to have addressed the AF first and then let the product speak for itself

But again, based on Fuji's record they will address these concerns. Maybe Fuji figured out a unique business model: customers as bug testers

[BTMarcais]

I think the remarks about the Contax G2 are spot on. I had, loved, and got along very well with my G2 before getting bitten by the leica bug, and it is the AF camera I am most familiar with by far.
I do NOT own an X-Pro 1, but I do sell them (along w/ M9's, olympus m43, nikon 1, etc,), and have actually been more impressed than I expected with the camera. But I'm not expecting the AF setup to work any different than my G2 did. I look at it as a digital G2 with a bigger nicer finder, and with the af corrected framelines on I don't have any issues with missed focus close up. I guess I'm just used to compensating for the difference?
I do get where it could be frustrating for someone not used to this though, and pretty much for the same reason theres a million threads out there for focus issues on the old contax G2 (especially with the 90).
I think it's mostly just the nature of this type of viewfinder/af setup, and CAN be learned, but might take a bit of skullwork.
I do wish that it had a nikon-like clutch for the focus, and that it was NOT focus by wire, but i figure it's an autofocus camera, and any manual focus options are more a workaround than anything else. I do like having the DOF scale visible in the VF though, it makes scale focusing very usuable.

I've never used a perfect camera, and this is no exception. I think it's virtues outweigh it's faults, at least through the time I've spent playing with it, but it's definitely not the best camera for everyone.

-Brian

[Spyro]

I'm sure fuji will release a firmware update to address the AF, among other gripes. Why they don't do that prerelease is odd indeed.

You'd have to imagine yourself product managing this camera to answer this. Think about it, you have a camera that has zero preexisting components, it shares exactly nothing with any other camera (as opposed to pretty much all DSLRs, which are basically copying eachother). So you have to reinvent the wheel in all main areas of work: VF, sensor, a range of new lenses for an ultra-fussy platform, software, body. Can you imagine that cost? You've already spent 3 years of R&D on it, you can probably spend another 3 and never get it 100% right. You know that your target group is tiny, essentially a small niche within a small niche (RF types who are not too religious about the focusing method) so you can never expect big bucks. And they are fussy b*******s too. And so far you have earned exactly zero dollars.

Too much pressure. What do you do?
Get-this-sucker-out-there.

But I'm not expecting the AF setup to work any different than my G2 did.

You might find the G2 ws a bit better in low light, it had a hybrid system which included active infrared. Otherwise yeah very similar.

[dougi]

How slow is the autofocus?

A cheaper, similar sort of system (Pentax -k-01 KA mount mirrorless) seems to have been tested at around 0.6-0.8 seconds with small lenses. Of course, no focussing paralax problems with that one as it doesn't have a viewfinder other than the rear LCD.

[chris00nj]

I love my X Pro 1. i'm starting to roll my eyes at all the naysayers. They're taking little issues and making it out to be the worst thing ever.


Oh no infinite framelines are different than closer focusing.
AF is slow in low light? Most light meter didnt even read below EV 2. I've handheld shots at -3 EV and got useable results.
The low light capabilties rocks the socks off the Leica M9 at 4x the cost.
The 35/1.4 is an amazing lens at $600.
Out of camera jpegs are fantastic
It has goodvideo
Its OVF has a magnifier which makes framing the 18 and the 35 efficient
It is not huge and heavy like DSLRs


The camera is not perfect, but even what perfect is would vary to many photogs. If you put all the variables together: image quality, lens quality, ease of use, price, weight, etc, I would put the X Pro 1 up against any camera.

It won't be the cheapest, smallest or fastest AF, but no camera will win in every category. If you want lightning fast AF or no parralax lug around a D4 . However, I'm confident interested rangefinder users will be very happy with this camera.

[digitalintrigue]

Glass is superb. The sensor kills. IQ beats the pants off any full frame sensor except the very latest ones just released...primarily because of no AA filter with a different pixel array. For that, I can wait for ACR support. I waited longer for ACR in the past for other digitals...and I can wait for a millisecond for it to focus. :) Oh, I'm waiting for a few months anyway. In the meantime I have the GA645zi.

[celluloidprop]

I'm not going to be offended or disagree with critics (aside from some who are absurd). It's quirky. There's no RAW support yet. AF lags behind its competition. It's 'spensive.

I can totally understand someone not getting along with it, especially if they can afford Nikon's best or a M9.

But the images are outstanding and it handles remarkably well for me. So the XP1, we cool.

[willie_901]

I understand what Dante is saying about the 60 mm lens and the 0VF finder. I think this is a valid concern. At the same time this is a macro lens. This means the EVF is should be used most of the time as the OVF is a poor choice for macro work. I was is disappointed when I saw the 60 mm lens was going to be a macro lens. A photo editor told me macro lenses were not the best choice for non-macro work. They claimed to be able to tell when a macro lens was used or non-macro photos. This could be wrong. At any rate I don't have a problem using the EVF for non-macro shots.

The parallax OVF framing for the 35/1.4 does not bother me at all. I have not had any issues focusing with the OVF in EV 5 light. Focusing at lower EVs works better with he EVF. Of ourse as the aperture becomes wider and light levels decrease, focusing is more difficult. I find focusing using the lens barrel is a viable option with the XP1 for some situations. The X100 with firmware 1.21 is much less useful, but it is not useless like it was with older firmware versions. I honestly believe focusing is not an issue. It is true different focusing strategies are required for optimum success in different situations. It is true that a heavy, loud and less stealthy contemporary DSLR will focus quicker than the XP1. The speed difference compared to my D700 with a G lens is about a factor of 4-5 in EV 5 - 7 indoor light. This means the XP1 will focus in about 0.3 to 0.5 seconds depending upon the target contrast, how much the focus has to change and the light level. It is true learning how to get the most performance out of the XP1 will take an investment in time.

The performance of the 35/1.4 is wonderful. This lens could be one of the best buys out there for price:performance.

I enjoy using the XP1. The ergonomics work for me. It just feels right. I am reminded of the ZI-M body. I don't find the noise of operation to be unusual or unacceptable. Autofocus is noisy with any camera.

The overall sensor performance is outstanding. Adobe announced they will support the XP1. I can be patient if they use the time to get the most out of th XP1's sensor. North American users hardly had any wait for X100 support because the tsunami tragedy delayed delivery. This time we will be different.

So it never occurred to me to return th XP1. I will buy the 18/2 lens in a few months. I think I will pay attention to adapted-lens results with 50 to 60 mm lenses that won't destroy the camera's handling. Next year I will buy the 23 mm lens and I may get the 14 mm lens too if it performs at least as well as the 18.

[pkreyenhop]

I bought the X100 when it came out and was so impressed by the great sensor - unfortunately almost everything else (and especially the AF) was not so great. It looks like the X100's big brother is quite similar. Coming from the X100, my hopes for the AF were low, but it looks like Fuji made it even worse and I can't see a firmware patch shifting the glass faster.

[Steveh]

I think some of the disappointment some people on here (including Dante) are feeling may be because they're still looking at the camera either as a similar substitute/alternative for an M9 or any other Leica or a more compact version of a high end DSLR they can use in ultra low light - it isn't either, really. I certainly wouldn't choose one to shoot in a dark nightclub or a gig because a modern DSLR (or even my D700 which no longer even counts as modern!) will do the job a lot better.

Dante, if you're looking to use the 60mm with the OVF I think you'll probably be as disappointed as you expect - the finder frame is pretty small and the gap between the two AF squares is noticeably larger again than it is with the 35mm (with the 18 it's smaller, obviously) which does make it pretty hard to use - but to me the beauty of the X-Pro is that you have the EVF and the screen on the back of the thing so you have other options that work very well. For macro work you need to use the EVF anyway, and for portraits it's much more natural (to me) to use the EVF and place the focus point on the eye you want to focus on, or do the same thing using the screen on the back so you're not hidden behind the camera and can make eye contact with your subject.

I find with both the X-Pro and the X100 that I probably only use the OVF about 10-20% of the time, so to me they're high quality mirrorless cams with the bonus of an OVF you can use in optimal conditions (which to me means general shooting in daylight with lenses below 35mm) and weight/size/handling that has most of the advantages of a rangefinder. I sold my M8 and M lenses for the full X-Pro-1 kit because I found the different limitations of a rangefinder too frustrating so that's a great combination for me. If you're really wedded to having an OVF then I think the flaws Dante mentioned are all real issues, and the AF is incontestably slower than most other current AF cams out there - but I still think it's more than usable, and quicker for me than focussing manually with an M Leica.

The two cameras I've used that it reminds me of most are the Contax G2 and the Fuji GA645, and I feel the same about the X-Pro as I did about them - that the image quality for general shooting more than made up for the quirks in use. And in the round I love the camera, and will certainly be hanging on to it.

[Paul T.]

I'm looking forward to updates on the XPro, and in any case I can't afford a new system in the next year but Dante's points do crystallise my growing dissatisfaction and anger with contrast detection focus.

Yes, I know it requires minimal hardware - but it's crap! I know my way around my GF1's quirks, but there are certain times - snowy scenes, items without natural contrast - where it simply doesn't work.

Compare this with the Hexar AF, a camera nearly 20 years old, and it's pathetic. I'm not sure whether the GF1 is even as good as my cheapo Olympus Mju.

At what point did camera manufacturers decide that autofocus wasn't crucial on an autofocus camera!

[david.elliott]

I just purchased a kipon m42 adapter. Looking forward to trying macro work with my smc takumars (50 and 100) once it arrives. Will be interesting to see how well adapted lenses work.

[Richard G]

Great thread. Really helpful. Still like the whole XP1 concept as delivered. Still love my X100. I went with the M9, but in the end switching entirely to Fuji may still be the best solution.

[Vobluda]

After being very disappointed with X100 (I give it a try for two times but 1,5 year older GF1 is just focusing faster) and reading about X-Pro1 (after X100 experience not preordering) I think that the winner will be the first mayor camera producer to release small size full frame DSLR.

[rinzlerb]

I have a motley collection of 35mm and MF film cameras when I want the best image quality. I have an older DSLR sorely due for an upgrade. I want my new digital camera to be FAST to take great candid pictures of people.The low light performance of the XP1 is compelling, but I tried one out yesterday and it seemed too slow for what I want. The form factor and controls seemed awkward--30 minutes in a store are not a thorough test I know, but still, I can tell it would take a while to feel natural. I'm going to get a cheap DSLR for now and let this technology mature for 2-3 more years.

[mdx]

Who is dissatisfied with the Fujifilm X-Pro1, he can send it to somebody (who wants it) as a present...:)

[dreilly]

I think some of the disappointment some people on here (including Dante) are feeling may be because they're still looking at the camera either as a similar substitute/alternative for an M9 or any other Leica or a more compact version of a high end DSLR they can use in ultra low light - it isn't either, really. I certainly wouldn't choose one to shoot in a dark nightclub or a gig because a modern DSLR (or even my D700 which no longer even counts as modern!) will do the job a lot better.

I'm always sensitive when consumers get blamed for not groking a product and the producers don't get held to task for how they present it.

If Fuji didn't intend the X-1 Pro to be good for low-light shooting, then why the focus on fast lenses and super-high iso performance? Both those things point to a camera built for low-light shooting. The one thing missing in that case is the focus. If it isn't a DSLR alternative, nor a digital RF alternative, then what is it?

[dcsang]

I'm always sensitive when consumers get blamed for not groking a product and the producers don't get held to task for how they present it.

If Fuji didn't intend the X-1 Pro to be good for low-light shooting, then why the focus on fast lenses and super-high iso performance? Both those things point to a camera built for low-light shooting. The one thing missing in that case is the focus. If it isn't a DSLR alternative, nor a digital RF alternative, then what is it?

Meh.. as someone who's actually used the camera in "low light" (I am talking anything from ISO3200 on upward) then I can honestly say the AF is "fine" if you compare it to the Canon 5D. The Canon 5D missed a sh*tl*ad of photos in "low" light (couldn't use it past ISO1600 but I was shooting in dark wedding banquet halls and WITH the 580EX Flash at the time - so it HAD AF Assist lights and STILL missed fired). I miss the occasional shot but rarely. The camera CAN and DOES mis focus at times but no more than any other digital camera I've used - the D700s I own also misfire but they're better than the X-Pro1 which I feel is better than the Canon 5D.

Personally, I'm happy with its performance. Even with the manual focus m-lenses and Kipon adapter.

Those that aren't happy with it I figure should wait for the next iteration or look for another camera to suit their needs. :)

Cheers,
Dave

[Mr_Toad]

Personally, I'm happy with its performance. Even with the manual focus m-lenses and Kipon adapter.

Cheers,
Dave

May I ask a coupla questions about the manual focusing of m-lenses with an m adapter on the XP1? (I'm sure this is detailed in other threads, i guess.) :o

1. Is it correct that there is no visual indicator, in either of the XP1 viewfinders, to determine if a manual M-lens is in focus (e.g., patch, focus indicator)?

2. Is it correct that focusing an m-mount lens in the XP1 viewfinder will strictly be through a user's "eyeballing" the focus...or "chimping" the LCD screen?

I'm asking, since my 55 year old eyes are not so great at focusing through a viewfinder...and I have some Voigtlander lenses I use on film rangefinders.

Thank you!

Robt.

[dcsang]

May I ask a coupla questions about the manual focusing of m-lenses with an m adapter on the XP1? (I'm sure this is detailed in other threads, i guess.) :o

1. Is it correct that there is no visual indicator, in either of the XP1 viewfinders, to determine if a manual M-lens is in focus (e.g., patch, focus indicator)?

2. Is it correct that focusing an m-mount lens in the XP1 viewfinder will strictly be through a user's "eyeballing" the focus...or "chimping" the LCD screen?

I'm asking, since my 55 year old eyes are not so great at focusing through a viewfinder...and I have some Voigtlander lenses I use on film rangefinders.

Thank you!

Robt.

Hi Robert,

regarding your questions:
1) You are correct - there is no visual indicator of focus (i.e. no focus confirmation light, no patch, nada)

2) You are correct - it's strictly visual confirmation.


Now, with that said let me advise of the following:
A) using the EVF to focus (because the OVF framelines do not give a good indication of proper framing - I guess that's a "strike" against the X-Pro1 for those keeping count) you can "zoom" in to get a better visual confirmation of focus. I have done this with "longer" m lenses on the X-Pro1 - I've used my 90mm with no issues and it really takes me about the same amount of time as focusing with my M7s - think of this as having a viewfinder magnifier lens (you know those 1.25x lenses you can screw onto an M-mount viewfinder).

taken with the 90mm Summicron:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7067/7045714209_a6f0aac107_c.jpg

B) The EVF is surprisingly good especially in low light - I hated.. I mean viscerally hated... EVFs in the past but this one is actually usable in my opinion. Your mileage may vary on this.

My eyesight, though, *touch wood* is still 20/20 but I have about 8 years to catch up to you in that department. :)

Cheers,
Dave

[Frontman]

I'm looking forward to updates on the XPro, and in any case I can't afford a new system in the next year but Dante's points do crystallise my growing dissatisfaction and anger with contrast detection focus.

Yes, I know it requires minimal hardware - but it's crap! I know my way around my GF1's quirks, but there are certain times - snowy scenes, items without natural contrast - where it simply doesn't work.

Compare this with the Hexar AF, a camera nearly 20 years old, and it's pathetic. I'm not sure whether the GF1 is even as good as my cheapo Olympus Mju.

At what point did camera manufacturers decide that autofocus wasn't crucial on an autofocus camera!


I have a Hexar AF and an X-Pro, and I find that the AF does not focus any faster than the X-Pro in most shooting. The AF will focus more quickly in low light, but most of my shooting is during the day time. What's more, the X-Pro will focus through windows or ay images reflected in mirrors, while the AF won't.

The X-Pro focuses quickly enough for me, and it focuses more quickly and with greater accuracy than a manual focus M9. it is not DSLR quick, but it is also not DSLR heavy and noisy.

[Dante_Stella]

It's not good to be better than the worst. The 5D is a very old camera. The X-Pro AF behavior in low light is puzzling (this morning, at around EV 6 in daylight, it was pausing for 1/4 second before doing anything... which took a good second). In the same light, my D700 locked and focused in about 1/10 of a second - with a much slower, 15-year-old, 35-105 AF-D lens.

I think the point is right that the semiotics of this camera are that it is designed to be used successfully in low-light situations (I don't count concerts, for example, in this category because the lighting contrast makes it easy for anything to focus). Why do we otherwise care about noiseless performance at 3200 ISO or an f/1.4 lens - unless this is simply pitching to people who like to take night time landscapes or daylight bokeh pr0n (both of which functions are done better by things like the D800 anyway).

The point has been made by dreilly - correctly - that you can't apologize for the way something works by elimination, "oh, it's not a Leica," "oh, it's not a DSLR," "oh, it's not this," "oh, it's not that." It's in fact patronizing to suggest that people don't "get" what a camera is designed to do. Is it my lack of experience with rangefinders that's holding me back? Lack of experience with SLRs? Lack of experience with high-end compact AF cameras? After shooting with a variety of things for 27 years, what are people like me not "getting"? A lot of us don't have a place for a utility outfielder in a camera bag. And I hope that this camera is not such a beast.

Feting the X-Pro1 based on image quality in very controlled conditions is like feting a gifted child for having a high raw IQ - in neither case do you end up with something super-successful. You end up excusing quirks that ultimately undermine the program. There is certainly no reason to hold back on holding Fuji's feet to the fire on the focusing - which of all the challenges here should be the most straightforward to fix, possibly even with firmware upgrades. You can learn to work around a lot of things, but the "brain lock" I (it) was experiencing this morning was pretty troubling.

Dante





Meh.. as someone who's actually used the camera in "low light" (I am talking anything from ISO3200 on upward) then I can honestly say the AF is "fine" if you compare it to the Canon 5D. The Canon 5D missed a sh*tl*ad of photos in "low" light (couldn't use it past ISO1600 but I was shooting in dark wedding banquet halls and WITH the 580EX Flash at the time - so it HAD AF Assist lights and STILL missed fired). I miss the occasional shot but rarely. The camera CAN and DOES mis focus at times but no more than any other digital camera I've used - the D700s I own also misfire but they're better than the X-Pro1 which I feel is better than the Canon 5D.

Personally, I'm happy with its performance. Even with the manual focus m-lenses and Kipon adapter.

Those that aren't happy with it I figure should wait for the next iteration or look for another camera to suit their needs. :)

Cheers,
Dave

[Ronny]

I am still waiting.
Have Nikon F :-)

[dcsang]

It's not good to be better than the worst. The 5D is a very old camera. The AF challenges in low light are puzzling (this morning, at around EV 6 in daylight, it was pausing for 1/4 second before doing anything... which took a good second). In the same light, my D700 locked and focused in about 1/10 of a second - with a much slower, 15-year-old, 35-105 AF-D lens.

I think the point is right that the semiotics of this camera are that it is designed to be used successfully in low-light situations (I don't count concerts, for example, in this category because the lighting contrast makes it easy for anything to focus). Why do we otherwise care about noiseless performance at 3200 ISO or an f/1.4 lens - unless this is simply pitching to people who like to take night time landscapes or daylight bokeh pr0n (both of which functions are done better by things like the D800 anyway).

The point has been made by dreilly - correctly - that you can't apologize for the way something works by elimination, "oh, it's not a Leica," "oh, it's not a DSLR," "oh, it's not this," "oh, it's not that." It's in fact patronizing to suggest that people don't "get" what a camera is designed to do. Is it my lack of experience with rangefinders that's holding me back? Lack of experience with SLRs? Lack of experience with high-end compact AF cameras? After shooting with a variety of things for 27 years, what are people like me not "getting"? A lot of us don't have a place for a utility outfielder in a camera bag.

Feting the X-Pro1 based on image quality in very controlled conditions is like feting a gifted child for having a high raw IQ - in neither case do you end up with something super-successful. You end up excusing quirks that ultimately undermine the program. There is certainly no reason to hold back on holding Fuji's feet to the fire on the focusing - which of all the challenges here should be the most straightforward to fix, possibly even with firmware upgrades.

Dante

Send it back already Dante - it's not for you :)

Cheers,
Dave

[Mr_Toad]

Thank you, dcsang, et al,

So, the viewfinder magnification would be kinda like the loupe I use on large format camera screens.

That makes sense. Probably I should make a drive and see an XP1 in person. (If I ever get a day off.)

Thanks!

Robt.

[dcsang]

Thank you, dcsang, et al,

So, the viewfinder magnification would be kinda like the loupe I use on large format camera screens.

That makes sense. Probably I should make a drive and see an XP1 in person. (If I ever get a day off.)

Thanks!

Robt.

Hi Robert,

Yep. I think that's the only way to tell if you can use the camera or not - finding one around nearby to 'try' or at least have a look at the demo in the store and try it out as much as possible. It is NOT a perfect camera - no camera is - but if you find it's good enough (or good) for you then you may be pleased with it.

Cheers,
Dave

[digitalintrigue]

It's not good to be better than the worst. The 5D is a very old camera. The X-Pro AF behavior in low light is puzzling (this morning, at around EV 6 in daylight, it was pausing for 1/4 second before doing anything... which took a good second). In the same light, my D700 locked and focused in about 1/10 of a second - with a much slower, 15-year-old, 35-105 AF-D lens.

Yes, my F100 focuses much faster than the Xpro1, too. It's 13 years old...

In the video I posted in this thread, my Gossen measured EV 6. I didn't have any problems with the speed, or the accuracy...

I think the point is right that the semiotics of this camera are that it is designed to be used successfully in low-light situations

A question I posed earlier: what is the definition of 'low?' At some light level, every AF system will fail...unless said AF system doesn't require any light at all.

You can learn to work around a lot of things, but the "brain lock" I (it) was experiencing this morning was pretty troubling.

I had brain lock trying to use a 5D. It just didn't work for me. That doesn't mean it didn't work fantastically for others...if this applies to you and the X-Pro1, return it...

[Paul T.]

I have a Hexar AF and an X-Pro, and I find that the AF does not focus any faster than the X-Pro in most shooting.

Well, that's good news. Because even in bright light, my GF1 does not focus reliably and consistently anything like as quickly as the Hexar AF, so I guess you reckon the XPro1 is significantly faster than the GF1?

I don't think the XPro1 owners should be so defensive. Even if the focusing is below par, this is still a remarkable camera altho it sounds more like the G1 than the G2 to me. But people should be hassling Fuji, because it's simpy not good enough to say the formfactor makes up for poorer focus than an SLR, not when it's the same pricepoint, and when they are touting it as a professional camera (and yes, professional is a much abused term).

Because if Fuji could get the AF to be as good as the Hexar, this camera would be massive, and the biggest success Fuji have ever had with a camera.

[digitalintrigue]

I'm quite sure Fuji is already working on updates. They have proven with the x100 that development does not stop when the product ships.

[jsrockit]

Well, that's good news. Because even in bright light, my GF1 does not focus reliably and consistently anything like as quickly as the Hexar AF, so I guess you reckon the XPro1 is significantly faster than the GF1?

Not in my experience.

[furcafe]

If my X-Pro1 was having difficulties in focusing @ daylight EV 6, I would have already returned mine. When mine has had AF problems, it's been more like EV 4 (@ ISO 3200), so my experience so far is that it's just slower than my D700, not less accurate. I'll quibble w/your opinion that concerts don't count as low-light environments because I've shot quite a few shows in clubs where the lighting was so bad that the D700 had problems locking AF & its lame VF made it difficult to focus manually. Thus far, in similar lighting, the X-Pro1 has been slower, but just as accurate. That said, I only have the 18/2.

I'm not sure I entirely agree w/your take on the "semiotics" of the X-Pro1 as being a camera designed to be used in low light. Sure, there are plenty of people, including myself, who think of traditional RFs (particularly Leica Ms, not so much for Nikon RFs & Contax, etc.) as ideal for shooting in low light, but I don't think that's universal. Just like there were, & are, many Leicaphiles who mostly shoot in good light, but like having a small, compact camera w/great optics, there are certainly folks buying the X-Pro1 mainly because it's not a big, fat SLR & has a nice OVF. Based on Fuji's current web page (http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/en/), that seems to be their target market. I haven't seen any statistical breakdown on Leica owners, for example, but it would partly account for Leica's placing such a low priority on high ISO performance in the M8 & M9. In other words, I think we low-light RF shooters are probably a niche (though a vociferous bunch) within a niche market, not the majority.

You are absolutely correct that anyone who's interested in daylight boke pr0n or night landscapes would probably be better off, at least economically, w/a standard dSLR or another mirrorless system, but then that person wouldn't get the Fuji's combo of small package w/OVF & retro good looks. And I'm guessing small package + retro looks + good daylight AF can be modestly successful, though perhaps the experience of the Contax G1 & G2 doesn't bode well.

So I don't think that you're failing "to get" anything about the X-Pro1, you just have different expectations. My expectations were for a digital G2, & those have been mostly met.

It's not good to be better than the worst. The 5D is a very old camera. The X-Pro AF behavior in low light is puzzling (this morning, at around EV 6 in daylight, it was pausing for 1/4 second before doing anything... which took a good second). In the same light, my D700 locked and focused in about 1/10 of a second - with a much slower, 15-year-old, 35-105 AF-D lens.

I think the point is right that the semiotics of this camera are that it is designed to be used successfully in low-light situations (I don't count concerts, for example, in this category because the lighting contrast makes it easy for anything to focus). Why do we otherwise care about noiseless performance at 3200 ISO or an f/1.4 lens - unless this is simply pitching to people who like to take night time landscapes or daylight bokeh pr0n (both of which functions are done better by things like the D800 anyway).

The point has been made by dreilly - correctly - that you can't apologize for the way something works by elimination, "oh, it's not a Leica," "oh, it's not a DSLR," "oh, it's not this," "oh, it's not that." It's in fact patronizing to suggest that people don't "get" what a camera is designed to do. Is it my lack of experience with rangefinders that's holding me back? Lack of experience with SLRs? Lack of experience with high-end compact AF cameras? After shooting with a variety of things for 27 years, what are people like me not "getting"? A lot of us don't have a place for a utility outfielder in a camera bag. And I hope that this camera is not such a beast.

Feting the X-Pro1 based on image quality in very controlled conditions is like feting a gifted child for having a high raw IQ - in neither case do you end up with something super-successful. You end up excusing quirks that ultimately undermine the program. There is certainly no reason to hold back on holding Fuji's feet to the fire on the focusing - which of all the challenges here should be the most straightforward to fix, possibly even with firmware upgrades. You can learn to work around a lot of things, but the "brain lock" I (it) was experiencing this morning was pretty troubling.

Dante

[mouren]

Send it back already Dante - it's not for you :)

Cheers,
Dave

My thoughts and feelings exactly :)

[dmc]

Based on the comparisons being made between the X-pro 1 and DSLR's, I have to wonder what these people thought they were buying. It is not a DSLR. If you want a DSLR, return the X-Pro and get a DSLR.

[Gary Sandhu]

It would probably have been satisfactory if you hadn't known better. :-)
Or, to put it another way, your other camera experiences have spoiled you for the x pro 1.
Is there anything you can't do with your other cameras that you needed the fuji for? Video? Or just consumerism?
The last photo purchase I made was for a fuji 3d camera on clearance for $200. For fun. I've already handled it before and thought it sucked as a point and shoot but none of my other cameras can display 3D on the back LCD.
The last problem driven purchase I made was for a 85mm/1.4 Nikon for my D700 to take a specific photograph.
So was there a problem that the Fuji was meant to solve? Or was it just to review? Just something to Think of.

[JHutchins]

My answer to this question is hemmed in by a bunch of constraints -- I'm not going to buy a bunch of new lenses (I don't even want to buy a bunch of new lenses -- I like mine), I do really want to shoot in dark environments. I have used this camera in places where I've been forced to ISO 6400, f1.4 & 1/5th of a second and pulled out a respectable percentage of acceptable shots. I've not owned another camera I can do that with -- I'm not sure there are other cameras I can do that with -- SLRs are much more quarrelsome at that kind of shutterspeed, M9 files just don't look that great at ISO 6400. Maybe the Sony Nex but that'd be trading one set of frustrations for an entirely new set of frustrations I think...

So what would I send it back for?

[dreilly]

If there can be a lot of threads gushing over the X-1 pro, good, I enjoy reading them, and seeing the images of what that very fine sensor can do. If there are threads where the X-1 isn't working for people, those are fine too. That's what makes this a useful site--a variety of opinions. Dante could just as easily tag every X-1 pro "pro" thread with..."it's a great camera for you, so stop writing about it and get out and shoot." But he won't do that I hope and neither would I. If somebody is finding photographic zen with the X-1, that's really awesome. If someone else is disappointed and wants to send it back, then I would also like to know why. This probably saved me from an expensive investment in a system that would frustrate the (admittedly narrow) kind of thing that I get paid to shoot.

In other words, it's all good, folks, it's a discussion thread. Defensiveness on either side has no place. The X-1 Pro is really not black--or white...more of a gray tone I think, like just about everything else.

[furcafe]

They may not be high end, but the RF patches on the R-D1 & the CV Bessas (& the current Zeiss Ikons) don't move, either. I believe the same goes for the Nikon SP, which certainly was high end for its era, & a few other RFs that I can't remember &/or check right now.


I'm also familiar with every type of viewfinder (and combined viewfinder/rangefinder), and it's actually pretty uncommon to have a high-end camera where the framelines move but the range-finding target does not. The Contax G/G2, Fuji GA series, and Hexar AF are the only ones I can think of. The Hexar used only active AF that focused on the closest object it could see; the Fuji GA used active/passive hybrid AF; and the G/G2 used external passive AF (and had their own focusing challenges).

And I don't recall where this was ever attempted (by any maker) with an f/1.4 lens - where you have other issues to deal with anyway.

[Basset]

+1 Agreed.. It just boggles my mind on how some people voice negative opinion..... It's simple, you either use it & work around all the"quirks" or return it.

Well, it is a camera forum, so critical views about a relatively new model that has gotten a lot of praise seems like fair play.

[Dante_Stella]

That's surprising to hear re the CV but even more so re the Zeiss cameras. Pretty much everything else in the last 10-15 years has had moving spots. I didn't realize my Hexar RF had one until I looked at it last night (it's been a while...)

Dante

They may not be high end, but the RF patches on the R-D1 & the CV Bessas (& the current Zeiss Ikons) don't move, either. I believe the same goes for the Nikon SP, which certainly was high end for its era, & a few other RFs that I can't remember &/or check right now.

[furcafe]

Well, I know that CV does make the Zeiss Ikons for Carl Zeiss, so not a total surprise to me. The ZI does have the wider RF base, bigger VF, & other upgrades over the Bessas that may justify the Zeiss name & higher price tag.

Edit: Appears that I was partially wrong. Checked my Bessa R2C & the RF patch is parallax-corrected on that model. Maybe just some Bessa models?

On the historical side, now that I'm home & can check, the Nikon SP's RF patch is indeed stationary (same goes for the Yashica YF from the same era & which appears to have an identical RF design). The Plaubel Makina 67/670's of the '80s also have the fixed patch.

BTW, I agree that it doesn't seem be a difficult challenge for Fuji to just have the focus area in Single AF simply move around to adjust for parallax. As digitalintrigue points out, the cross hairs for Continuous AF already move around.

That's surprising to hear re the CV but even more so re the Zeiss cameras. Pretty much everything else in the last 10-15 years has had moving spots. I didn't realize my Hexar RF had one until I looked at it last night (it's been a while...)

Dante

[Spyro]

I think the point is right that the semiotics of this camera are that it is designed to be used successfully in low-light situations (I don't count concerts, for example, in this category because the lighting contrast makes it easy for anything to focus).

This is correct, but surely you knew low light AF would not be the fastest on this camera. I mean it's CDAF isnt it? I know that other CDAF cameras like m4:3 etc have faster AF, but are they really faster in low light? What these cameras really need for low light is active IR either exclusively or as a secondary system. But nobody is going to do it because it means single point AF.

[Speedfreak]

This is the first time I have ever even thought about sending something back

Wow, great customer you are. :D

Back to topic: The two main flaws of the X-Pro are price / performance (its a run-of-the-mill APS-camera after all) and the implentation of manual focus "by wire".

If you dont like it, why bother with it? Fuji missed a great opportunity to be the first to market a mirrorless full frame camera to mount virtually every lens on the planet. Instead, what they came up with is one overpriced NEX with a questionable "hybrid" viewfinder thing.

I know I dont want one.

[jsrockit]

Wow, great customer you are. :D

Back to topic: The two main flaws of the X-Pro are price / performance (its a run-of-the-mill APS-camera after all) and the implentation of manual focus "by wire".

If you dont like it, why bother with it? Fuji missed a great opportunity to be the first to market a mirrorless full frame camera to mount virtually every lens on the planet. Instead, what they came up with is one overpriced NEX with a questionable "hybrid" viewfinder thing.

I know I dont want one.

Have you used it?

[Dante_Stella]

Ok... here is the dirt from my discussion with one of the techs at Fuji.

1. If you have a problem you can't resolve, take the battery out of the camera for 4-6 hours. They said this is likely to do some kind of deep reset. I actually did this by accident the other night and wondered why all the things I set did not "take."

2. They said that turning off the LCD tends to reduce the power consumption, which allows the lens to focus faster(!) I tried this, and it apparently worked (or I imagined that it did). I guess the lesson here is that overall power consumption affects the speed of about everything on this camera.

3. The power consumption suggestion led me to check the power save mode and quick start modes. Turning both off removed the "hesitation" thing when focusing. Apparently power-save causes the focusing system to go into sleep mode. Sheesh. Maybe useful if you are pounding through the desert. The question in my mind is how the power save mode got switched on, unless it came that way by default. I did notice some aperture sound I hadn't heard before (which meant it must have shipped "on").

4. Something is delaying delivery of the 60mm lenses, and they are not yet even in NJ. This came up because the tech asked me if I had tried "both" lenses.

5. They don't have an X-Pro1 in the service department yet, so any advice they give you is based on recollection of camera tryouts from a session yesterday.

6. They do know about the chattering aperture blade problem (in fact, the only thing they've heard about problems).

7. They expect some kind of firmware update relatively soon. Tech speculated that it was related to #6.

8. They also asserted that the X-Pro1 does not have "focus by wire" like the X100. This is obviously not true, so take everything else with a grain of salt. Might be related to #5.

This whole battery of readjustments seems to have gotten things back to where I thought they were performing before. There are some specific things they could implement to help the camera avoid hunting (such as a soft focus limiter). That's not to say that this is quick or fun in AF, but at least it is fast enough to be functional.

I also get the feeling that I was talking to someone who used to work for Konica USA in the Hexar RF days.

Dante

[Dante_Stella]

CDAF is not necessarily a problem with the right lens structure and processor. If you have a NEX-5, you'd probably assume that CDAF is fine (as I did). On the NEX, it is very, very fast and very definitive - even with the slow kit zoom in poor light. The GR Digital II was generally ok and also definitive. My wife's Sony Cybershot flat camera was pretty fast too - but it did not move a lot of glass. I think "hunting" behavior is something that happens when software is not set up to just call it a "fail" when the camera can't find focus.

Phase detect computes a focus point and goes to it. It's not great for lenses that have focus shift as they stop down (but that can be fixed in software). Fuji has implemented this on at least one point-and-shoot; it's weird that it hasn't made it into a more serious camera. It might require more programming, but conceptually, a phase detect focus sensor (a strip or cross of CCDs) isn't really that different from the imager in a digital camera.

Active AF has some limitations, like parallax. It also may not be accurate enough for a lens as fast as f/1.4. It generally resolves to some number of steps (up to 900, I believe) between minimum focus and infinity.

Dante

This is correct, but surely you knew low light AF would not be the fastest on this camera. I mean it's CDAF isnt it? I know that other CDAF cameras like m4:3 etc have faster AF, but are they really faster in low light? What these cameras really need for low light is active IR either exclusively or as a secondary system. But nobody is going to do it because it means single point AF.

[gavinlg]

3. The power consumption suggestion led me to check the power save mode and quick start modes. Turning both off removed the "hesitation" thing when focusing. Apparently power-save causes the focusing system to go into sleep mode. Sheesh. Maybe useful if you are pounding through the desert. The question in my mind is how the power save mode got switched on, unless it came that way by default. I did notice some aperture sound I hadn't heard before (which meant it must have shipped "on").

This is like rule no.1 of the fuji X ownership club - turn quick start ON and turn power save OFF. If anyone is using their x100 or x-pro with power save on, you're losing at life. AF is much quicker with it disabled. It says this in the manual too.

[Dante_Stella]

Nice of them to ship the camera that way (probably to bolster claims about battery life).

I just got back from a week in Peru with my X100, and with that mode off, particularly if it's warm out, you'd be very suprised at how fast even an OEM battery will lose it - something like 1.5 cards @2Gb (so like 135 exposures). Usually, I am near reliable electricity - on that trip, it was pretty much a nail-biting 3-battery rotation due to the power consumption.

If you've just finished hiking to the top of Huayna Picchu, there are no re-does!

Dante

This is like rule no.1 of the fuji X ownership club - turn quick start ON and turn power save OFF. If anyone is using their x100 or x-pro with power save on, you're losing at life. AF is much quicker with it disabled. It says this in the manual too.

[gavinlg]

Nice of them to ship the camera that way (probably to bolster claims about battery life).

I just got back from a week in Peru with my X100, and with that mode off, particularly if it's warm out, you'd be very suprised at how fast even an OEM battery will lose it - something like 1.5 cards @2Gb (so like 135 exposures). Usually, I am near reliable electricity - on that trip, it was pretty much a nail-biting 3-battery rotation due to the power consumption.

If you've just finished hiking to the top of Huayna Picchu, there are no re-does!

Dante

That's interesting - I seem to be able to get well over 300 exposures out of my x100... probably over 500 if I pushed it. In fact I've never had the battery run out. But I use OVF all the time, no LCD, and don't chimp very much at all. What are you doing that's using so much battery?

[david.elliott]

Ok... here is the dirt from my discussion with one of the techs at Fuji.

1. If you have a problem you can't resolve, take the battery out of the camera for 4-6 hours. They said this is likely to do some kind of deep reset. I actually did this by accident the other night and wondered why all the things I set did not "take."

....

Dante

Thanks for the info. I'm not too keen on item number one in the list. I always remove the batteries from my cameras if I'm not going to use them over a weekend or a few days. Guess I need to break that habit unless I want everything reset. Good to know at any rate. :)

[pkreyenhop]

Depends a lot on the temperature: I took the X100 on top of an extinct vulcano where it was quite frosty. I got 20 shots in a row and then one shot per 5 minutes of the battery warmed up in my pockets.

That's interesting - I seem to be able to get well over 300 exposures out of my x100... probably over 500 if I pushed it. In fact I've never had the battery run out. But I use OVF all the time, no LCD, and don't chimp very much at all. What are you doing that's using so much battery?

[Dante_Stella]

Not sure. OVF, auto-review for 1.5 sec, occasional exposure bracketing and motion panoramas (the bracketing goes into that total). Even counting the typical number of shots in a pano, it's still well under 200. The bracketing and panos shouldn't work any disproportionate load on Li-Ion batteries - but I got the same thing with the Fuji battery, a Targus, and a Delkin. Could also be that this camera is in some undocumented "high-power" mode where all current feeds the AF system to make focusing amazingly fast.

If you really want to see 90 shots per card, stick an Eye-Fi X2 card in there and transmit into your phone in direct mode. Ouch!

Dante



That's interesting - I seem to be able to get well over 300 exposures out of my x100... probably over 500 if I pushed it. In fact I've never had the battery run out. But I use OVF all the time, no LCD, and don't chimp very much at all. What are you doing that's using so much battery?

[gavinlg]

Not sure. OVF, auto-review for 1.5 sec, occasional exposure bracketing and motion panoramas (the bracketing goes into that total). Even counting the typical number of shots in a pano, it's still well under 200. The bracketing and panos shouldn't work any disproportionate load on Li-Ion batteries - but I got the same thing with the Fuji battery, a Targus, and a Delkin. Could also be that this camera is in some undocumented "high-power" mode where all current feeds the AF system to make focusing amazingly fast.

If you really want to see 90 shots per card, stick an Eye-Fi X2 card in there and transmit into your phone in direct mode. Ouch!

Dante

I imagine that the auto review in the OVF would be the culprit. I bet it takes a bit of power to slide the shutter across the eyepiece and get the evf running, slide the shutter back, and re-start the frame line overlays for each shot. Another interesting thing to note about the auto-review (if you didn't already know this) is that leaving it on will cause banding in high iso pictures - above iso1600. It's fairly slight, but it is there. When you turn it off, the banding is reduced a fair bit. It's speculated that the auto review causes some sort of radio interference with the sensor/processing and thus the banding.

[Spyro]

Ok... here is the dirt from my discussion with one of the techs at Fuji....

thx for that

[digitalintrigue]

its a run-of-the-mill APS-camera after all

And the M9 is a run o' the mill full frame DRF. :)

[Shade]

It has its drawbacks, and while I agree to some, if not all, your statements, I intend to keep the camera as my second body, as I think it's nice to have a great quality output camera that autofocuses when you need one.

[furcafe]

We may be losing @ life, but @ least, for now, we don't have to listen to the stupid aperture chatter.

This is like rule no.1 of the fuji X ownership club - turn quick start ON and turn power save OFF. If anyone is using their x100 or x-pro with power save on, you're losing at life. AF is much quicker with it disabled. It says this in the manual too.

[kievman]

I gave up on this camera when I heard that it's viewfinder was considerably different than the X100 and it did not have a rangefinder like the X100 I bought a Refurbished Nikon D5000 body for a lot less money instead. The Nikon has much better AF all around and especially in low light the body on the D5000 is very small and compact and very unobtrusive unlike the bigger Nikon D700 D300 and D800, And best of all- the D5000 is very quiet with the shutter release set in quiet mode. As far as blowing money on digital cameras go it was the best 369.95 I have spent so far on digital (crap) cameras - Kievman

[Lss]

Now, with that said let me advise of the following:
A) using the EVF to focus (because the OVF framelines do not give a good indication of proper framing - I guess that's a "strike" against the X-Pro1 for those keeping count) you can "zoom" in to get a better visual confirmation of focus. I have done this with "longer" m lenses on the X-Pro1 - I've used my 90mm with no issues and it really takes me about the same amount of time as focusing with my M7s - think of this as having a viewfinder magnifier lens (you know those 1.25x lenses you can screw onto an M-mount viewfinder).
Is the magnified part overlayed on non-magnified view that gives the framing or is it full frame only? Cameras like Sony NEX do the latter, which makes magnified mode useful mostly for static subjects. Which in turn makes (in particular longer) manual focus lenses useful mostly for static subjects.

What could actually be useful is an overlayed EVF patch with magnification in the OVF mode. It is easy enough to learn to use the framelines properly.

B) The EVF is surprisingly good especially in low light - I hated.. I mean viscerally hated... EVFs in the past but this one is actually usable in my opinion.
Compared to something modern like NEX-7, or something good from a few years back like Panasonic G1?

[dcsang]

Is the magnified part overlayed on non-magnified view that gives the framing or is it full frame only? Cameras like Sony NEX do the latter, which makes magnified mode useful mostly for static subjects. Which in turn makes (in particular longer) manual focus lenses useful mostly for static subjects.

What could actually be useful is an overlayed EVF patch with magnification in the OVF mode. It is easy enough to learn to use the framelines properly.


Compared to something modern like NEX-7, or something good from a few years back like Panasonic G1?


The magnification is "full frame only" as you state. I would concur that longer lenses (I use a 90mm as my long lens) are not the easiest to focus on a moving object - I would not be using the camera to try and capture a speedy little toddler with that 90mm at f2 :D - I cannot speak to the 60mm Fuji (which would act as a 90mm on the camera) and if the AF would be "good enough" in that situation either since I don't own the 60mm.

I have, in my mind, the last EVF type camera I used - the Olympus EP-2 - which also had an EVF and was also full framed when zoomed to focus manual focus lenses. This camera is at least as good as that but is also far better imho - because I don't need to have a "bulky" external finder that needs to be added to the camera - it already exists in the Fuji finder - the EVF, to me mind you, is actually better than the Oly EP-2 that I used to own.

Cheers,
Dave

[Dante_Stella]

I don't think it's the slider; cameras with far larger numbers of moving parts shoot more exposures on a lower-capacity CR123As (like the Contax AX, GA645), etc. The finder display is an LED, so it shouldn't take much power.

It may require a tremendous amount of power to stitch panoramas.

By the way, it looks like the the X100 motion panorama thing sometimes doesn't work where there is a lot of natural polarization in the sky - such as high in the Andes (the symptom is where the sky already looks darker in real life). You get false signals that the camera is off the pano axis and then weird stitching errors.

Dante

I imagine that the auto review in the OVF would be the culprit. I bet it takes a bit of power to slide the shutter across the eyepiece and get the evf running, slide the shutter back, and re-start the frame line overlays for each shot. Another interesting thing to note about the auto-review (if you didn't already know this) is that leaving it on will cause banding in high iso pictures - above iso1600. It's fairly slight, but it is there. When you turn it off, the banding is reduced a fair bit. It's speculated that the auto review causes some sort of radio interference with the sensor/processing and thus the banding.

[gavinlg]

By the way, it looks like the the X100 motion panorama thing sometimes doesn't work where there is a lot of natural polarization in the sky - such as high in the Andes (the symptom is where the sky already looks darker in real life). You get false signals that the camera is off the pano axis and then weird stitching errors.

Dante

Yeah I found the same actually. Trip to the victorian high country got me a lot of inconsistent panos. Something I considered as well was that maybe the leaf shutter isn't super consistent with shutter speeds when fired in quick succession?

[Audii-Dudii]

I gave up on this camera when I heard that it's viewfinder was considerably different than the X100 and it did not have a rangefinder like the X100

I'm new here and don't wish to offend anyone, but at the risk of feeding a troll, I'll note that your wording here suggests that you have not actually used an X Pro 1 yet...

I bought a Refurbished Nikon D5000 body for a lot less money instead. The Nikon has much better AF all around and especially in low light

And if you haven't used an X Pro 1 yet, then this statement of yours is certainly suspect, as you have no firsthand basis for making such a comparison.

All of which, of course, makes me wonder what your point in posting any of this was... <shrugs>

[irq506]

Dante, that wouldn't be enough of a reason for me to return it only after having it 5 minutes.

i b*tched about it before I had it and then I bought it on the premis that if I dont like it I can shift it on, and in the three or four days that Ive had it, its certainly quirky and and the controls are goofy, and Fujis insistence on making us re-learn cameras in their language is a little bothersome but thats fine.
Im sick at the moment and so have been only in the house playing with it and reading the manual- yes new camera new conventions that have to be learned means I have to actually 'read' the manual!

So what the gist is -for me- that its a really well endowed machine with a very healthy set of options which are very much designed to give you the user a good connection between film and its translation into digital from Fujis perspective. Until now all Ive had is an Xpan and an M6 and a GF1 for 'sketching' with, and until now, the making of images has been settled in what film I choose to use, how I develop it, and how I prepare it after the scan. This camera seems to offer me much of that choice, but in its own language and yet has the option to name it after its film which is a terribly nice feature despite me being a mostly Kodak user for E6 and C41 and then Neopan for BW.
The BW out of this camera as well as with the other Fujis is wildly hot stuff.. It really says to me that Fuji mapped the heck out of their negative densities and tone maps and wrote some astoundingly flexible algorithms for their digital cameras. Im impressed. I eat film for breakfast, and Im impressed to the point that I may actually take this camera seriously for serious image making in the future.

In terms of comparisons to the other X series cameras, I dont know I wasn't interested in the X100 or 10 they are cameras that have fixed lenses, so I never used them, I like rangefinders because I can actually see though them and focus through them better then I can with any other cameras. I also have a billion dollars invested in a trickle of Leica lenses so Im waiting for an affordable M something to come out for normal human beings with normal incomes.

I borrowed a NEX7 two weeks ago to try out and its the alternative for me if this doesn't work, the VF on it is actually very surprising in that its actually easier to focus through then Id expected and it really doesn't need the peaking that Id borrowed it for initially. Now, taking it that I got this XPro1 because it was a pretend RF body and had an OVF and the sensor was pretty hot stuff, the OVF is actually completely worthless if you are not using the fuji lenses, because theres no focus confirmation of any kind with it, which is a big let-down one which I contemplated just walking out of the shop and not getting it, but Im an optimist and I had two other reasons to try it, the sensor and the fact that it was the right shape in my hand and thats part of what gives me confidence in the field when working professionally with cameras.
The sensor is completely insane, never have I been able to get the kinds of shots I have been able to get on this camera in just a few days of playing with it. Ive shot lots and played with it and all im going to say is that its the best thing Ive ever seen outside of my friends Leica S2. ..and maybe what Rollei Digibase 200 CR with its extended latitudes for E6..
Handling, well I have to wear specs, id prefer contacts by my eyes are on strike right now and contacts are out of the question, its a pain to wear them and use cameras even this one, its better then a Leica but not as good as a Hexar or Ikon. The button placements are ok, the ones where your thumb are are too far over for my hand to hold the camera securely and have access to them. Ill be getting that grip or an alternative one asap. I love how on both the NEX7 and on this you can completely disable the LCD on the back which is usually the first thing I do on these digital cameras, Ill be putting a piece of gaffers tape over it soon. No screens for me thank you very much.
I wonder if there will be a thumbs up for this at some stage.

[Dante_Stella]

Irq506, I am coming from a solid X100 background, so there really should not be any surprises in its bigger brother. Some things we're just stuck with due to focal length increases; other things need to be fixed.

The focusing thing needs the most help; if you focus and refocus at the same object several times (such as shooting a person's face in S mode), you often randomly get hunt sequences. The X100 gets there more definitively and is quicker to declare a focusing fail. One thing that would be a great benefit is a focus range limiter. You could do it like setting the aperture range on the old Nikon F meters: focus near, focus far, done. These lenses have distance encoders, so the camera could keep them limited to, say, 1m to 3m if you wanted to shoot mostly people pictures.

These should also be shipped in their highest-performance modes out of the box, so that people don't get a bad first impression. I'm sure that my camera was set to minimize the chattering (who cares....). but it was not a feel-good moment (hour/day/couple of days) to see this functioning in power-save mode.

Pictures look really good so far; a 35/1.4 has more DOF than a 50/1.4 - so for the equivalent field of view, more things are in focus. Looking at the noise reduction, which shows some signs of aggression at 1,600. It would be nice to be able to use Lightroom. Currently, Lightroom 3 won't import anything - neither the JPGs nor RAWS, meaning that it takes some sorting every time you dump a card. This is a problem with Lightroom; it should be importing any image file, whether it currently recognizes it or not.

Exposure looks more accurate off the line than the X100; the hybrid viewfinder also seems to show the exposure more accurately than the X100's does.

D

[j.scooter]

Currently, Lightroom 3 won't import anything - neither the JPGs nor RAWS, meaning that it takes some sorting every time you dump a card. This is a problem with Lightroom; it should be importing any image file, whether it currently recognizes it or not.

I am using LR3 and import with no issues. I connect the camera via usb to the computer and the import dialog pops up and shows XPRO1 connected.

[jsrockit]

I gave up on this camera when I heard that it's viewfinder was considerably different than the X100 and it did not have a rangefinder like the X100 I bought a Refurbished Nikon D5000 body for a lot less money instead. The Nikon has much better AF all around and especially in low light the body on the D5000 is very small and compact and very unobtrusive unlike the bigger Nikon D700 D300 and D800, And best of all- the D5000 is very quiet with the shutter release set in quiet mode. As far as blowing money on digital cameras go it was the best 369.95 I have spent so far on digital (crap) cameras - Kievman

Spoken like a true rangefinder / mirrorless enthusiast. :D

[Dante_Stella]

Bizarre... on my system, it shows a bunch of un-previewable RAW files as icons, no JPGs, acts like it's importing stuff for a minute or two but then nothing. If it works via USB (wow... it's been about 8 years since I've actually used that to import...), then there must be some file system issue that my Mac or the Sandisk card reader is is choking on. Thanks for the tip.

Dante

I am using LR3 and import with no issues. I connect the camera via usb to the computer and the import dialog pops up and shows XPRO1 connected.

[jsrockit]

The only thing that truly bothers me on the camera is that the 35mm lens is very noisy...especially up close. Like it hasn't been lubed right or something.

[j.scooter]

Bizarre... on my system, it shows a bunch of un-previewable RAW files as icons, no JPGs, acts like it's importing stuff for a minute or two but then nothing. If it works via USB (wow... it's been about 8 years since I've actually used that to import...), then there must be some file system issue that my Mac or the Sandisk card reader is is choking on. Thanks for the tip.

Dante


Sorry I forgot to mention that I am shooting Jpeg only.

[PhotoMat]

I am using LR3 and import with no issues. I connect the camera via usb to the computer and the import dialog pops up and shows XPRO1 connected.

Same thing here, except I pop the card into a USB card reader. No problems with JPEGs in LR3.