X-Pro 1's Achilles' Heel

[Eric T]

My X-Pro1 arrived yesterday. I find the AF to be fine - even in low light.
The images are as advertised - amazing. But even more remarkable is the dynamic range. I pushed it to the highest setting (400) and took photos of our black dog. None of my other cameras (film or digital) do that dog justice. But the Fuji - incredible. By far the most realistic photos I have ever made of this dog.
Also, this camera has the most accurate auto white balance of any I have used. And, of course, virtually no voice at high ISO.
Just waiting now for the other x-lenses due later this year and next.

[MikeL]

Originally Posted by dcsang

The more I see folks post about what they DON'T like or what they believe the bad things are about this camera, the more I keep thinking "Is this the Fuji thread or the Leica digital M thread?"

Dave, maybe threads like this should go into a newly created forum topic. Rangefinderforum Achilles' Heels

[digitalintrigue]

I don't own an X-Pro1 (yet) but I used one extensively over a month ago.

If I owned one, I'd be out shooting with it...the lenses and the sensor are fabulous. It's a tool (like any other) that will work better if the user knows how to use it properly, and this takes experience.

Right now I'm learning a bit about Photoshop curves. It's really too bad Adobe didn't write Photoshop so it worked right out of the box...instead, I'm having to train myself on how to use this damn software. It's really a pain in the ass now that I think of it. It should automatically make all the adjustments and create a pleasing image. I think I'm going to return it...

[celluloidprop]

I took my XP1 along to my grandfather's 88th birthday dinner earlier this evening. Decent light - dark restaurant, but 6pm window light from outside - and the AF was neither extremely fast nor accurate. Any decent DSLR could have done better.

But I got some good shots, and what I gave up in AF speed I got back in not hauling out a big honking DSLR and zoom that draws attention and makes noise. I wouldn't feel comfortable taking the XP1 as a primary if I were getting paid and needed critical focus and speed. But since I'm not, I'm finding the quirks and slow AF matter less than the handling and great-looking images - and that's without LR4 support yet.

I've used some M43 and NEX cameras - I'm sure they would have been a bit faster, but I don't think it would have been a mind-boggling difference. And I know that the only native lens that might equal the Fuji 35/1.4 is the Panaleica 25.

[gavinlg]

FYI the 5d mkIII seems to have some sort of problem where light is leaking through the top of the LCD screen and affecting the metering in some samples (a korean forum was the source of finding that), and the d800 have a LCD screen consistency problem (green tint on some units), and some of the AF points in some units are not accurate or consistent.

Also, this d800 exploded: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=41145852

So really, I think the x-pro1 is doing pretty well for the first in the line of a totally new kind of digital camera.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by dreilly

Jsrockit,

The debacle is the long list of bugs that DPREVIEW published in their review of the X100. How common is that? I've never seen such a long list of bugs in any review of any camera I've ever considered buying. Actually I rarely see mention of any bug at all. I call that a debacle, and that review kept me away until the camera got sorted out. And I'm certainly not the only one. And I think that the camera should have had a bit more beta testing before release. Is anyone really arguing that it shouldn't have?

You've had a great experience right out of the box with the X100. I might have as well had I bought one. But we can't all buy a camera to have the authority to know which camera we should be buy. Good on anyone who can. So we listen to people who can speak from authority. I read reviews, like DPreview, compare them, read forums, all with the grains of salt each source requires. I make a decision based on that. Anyone who read the reports from the first release of the X100 would be perfectly justified in pausing.

So here are again with a new camera, and once again I don't have money to buy the camera so I can strut all my first hand experience. So I await reviews, read the forums. And when I read that people are finding the AF sluggish in lower light, then I know it's not the camera for me. I've never said it was a bad camera, but I have said that I think that Fuji should still have kept it in the stable until it was ready for the public...that they are talking about firmware fixes so soon is hard for me to swallow with a sticker price of over $2000.

You can say there was no debacle with the X100. You can say the AF is fine. Fuji's firmware updates say that even they don't agree with you.

I wonder if dpreview will make coverage of the above problems I listed with the d800 and 5d mkIII? A camera exploding is a little more of a debacle than a camera with a few menu glitches if you ask me....

[Spyro]

or sensors cracking LOL

Anyway lets just say AF is not the cameras strongest point, you dont buy it for that. Re release no I wouldnt want fuji to wait until it's all 100% sorted. Cameras in that category come on in a decade (if that), last one I can think of is the Contax G, so no I'd rather have the camera now and not wait anymore. And if they can improve something later, good. If not, good
This baby and I are friends already

[olelovold]

True dat. Fuji seems to fix minor problems on the go via firmware, and I don't mind that. The camera still takes excellent pictures for those of us who are more concerned about photographing.

Fuji's done great IMO. Like Gavin says, look at the problems 5DIII and D800 have! And those are cameras Canon and Nikon have had ages to design and perfect. All things considered, this being the very first camera of a whole new system, it's pretty damn good.

[digitalintrigue]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

FYI the 5d mkIII seems to have some sort of problem where light is leaking through the top of the LCD screen and affecting the metering in some samples (a korean forum was the source of finding that), and the d800 have a LCD screen consistency problem (green tint on some units), and some of the AF points in some units are not accurate or consistent.

Also, this d800 exploded: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=41145852

So really, I think the x-pro1 is doing pretty well for the first in the line of a totally new kind of digital camera.

If true, those are manufacturing/quality control issues, not really performance related. Don't forget the x10 and x100 both had defects (orbs and SAB) so Fuji isn't immune any more than Canikon.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

If true, those are manufacturing/quality control issues, not really performance related. Don't forget the x10 and x100 both had defects (orbs and SAB) so Fuji isn't immune any more than Canikon.

Nobody is saying they're immune, we're saying all new cameras have problems or quirks.

[digitalintrigue]

Not trying to be argumentative here, but I was really trying to differentiate between 'problems' (which would include things like explosions and SAB), and 'quirks' which really are more related to user interface anomalies, for example. I don't include the AF performance in either of these...in my use the AF was quite accurate even in low light and I found it plenty fast for me, and what I shoot. Of course, it could always be faster. I'd like my car to have 100 more horsepower, too...if only that could be done with a firmware update!

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

I'd like my car to have 100 more horsepower, too...if only that could be done with a firmware update!

Hey now you're talkin!

[Eric T]

At long last, the Leica rangefinder has a clear competitor - the Fuji X-Pro1. True, the Fuji is not a rangefinder. But is has a terrific hybrid viewfinder that is much more usable than the 1950s Leica rangefinder. Some see the Fuji's light weight to be a disadvantage (read Steve Huff on this) but I see it as a great advantage. The X-Pro1 provides great image quality at less than a fourth of the price of an M9. And the lens price differential is MUCH greater. The X-Pro1 proves that you don't need a full frame sensor for great IQ, excellent DOF, and low light sensitivity.
Leica better announce something amazing on May 10th. I have been a huge Leica fan for a long time but the X-Pro1 is a game changer.

[dcsang]

Originally Posted by MikeL

Dave, maybe threads like this should go into a newly created forum topic. Rangefinderforum Achilles' Heels

heh..... ya know.. that type of forum topic would contain EVERY SINGLE RF CAMERA EVER - because no one camera is PERFECT to EVERYONE

(hey, I recognize that and deal with it accordingly - it reminds me of the days when PC's were first becoming more household friendly and they seemed to be having new innovations, speeds, etc. on a monthly basis and people would complain "Should I buy XX now or should I wait for XX+1 to come out???" they would vacillate until XX+2 came out and then would start the cycle all over again "Should I buy XX+2 or wait for XX+3???" )

Cheers,
Dave

[dcsang]

Originally Posted by Eric T

At long last, the Leica rangefinder has a clear competitor - the Fuji X-Pro1. True, the Fuji is not a rangefinder. But is has a terrific hybrid viewfinder that is much more usable than the 1950s Leica rangefinder. Some see the Fuji's light weight to be a disadvantage (read Steve Huff on this) but I see it as a great advantage. The X-Pro1 provides great image quality at less than a fourth of the price of an M9. And the lens price differential is MUCH greater. The X-Pro1 proves that you don't need a full frame sensor for great IQ, excellent DOF, and low light sensitivity.
Leica better announce something amazing on May 10th. I have been a huge Leica fan for a long time but the X-Pro1 is a game changer.

Eric,

That's how I kind of see this as well - I look at this camera as being "rangefinder like" and I (and the camera itself) have no problems using my Leica lens line up on it - so, to me, this is what I was hoping for, and it's probably more than I expected to be honest.

Cheers,
Dave

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by dreilly

Jsrockit,

The debacle is the long list of bugs that DPREVIEW published in their review of the X100. How common is that? I've never seen such a long list of bugs in any review of any camera I've ever considered buying. Actually I rarely see mention of any bug at all. I call that a debacle, and that review kept me away until the camera got sorted out. And I'm certainly not the only one. And I think that the camera should have had a bit more beta testing before release. Is anyone really arguing that it shouldn't have?

You've had a great experience right out of the box with the X100. I might have as well had I bought one. But we can't all buy a camera to have the authority to know which camera we should be buy. Good on anyone who can. So we listen to people who can speak from authority. I read reviews, like DPreview, compare them, read forums, all with the grains of salt each source requires. I make a decision based on that. Anyone who read the reports from the first release of the X100 would be perfectly justified in pausing.

So here are again with a new camera, and once again I don't have money to buy the camera so I can strut all my first hand experience. So I await reviews, read the forums. And when I read that people are finding the AF sluggish in lower light, then I know it's not the camera for me. I've never said it was a bad camera, but I have said that I think that Fuji should still have kept it in the stable until it was ready for the public...that they are talking about firmware fixes so soon is hard for me to swallow with a sticker price of over $2000.

You can say there was no debacle with the X100. You can say the AF is fine. Fuji's firmware updates say that even they don't agree with you.

A list of bugs doesn't equal a debacle IMO. I've now used both the X100 and X-Pro1... The AF can be slow. However, if you know how to use it properly, the AF is accurate. If you expect perfection from a digital camera, you'll never buy a camera.

[willie_901]

Originally Posted by Eric T

....

The X-Pro1 proves that you don't need a full frame sensor for great IQ, excellent DOF, and low light sensitivity.

....

I think Eric has touched on a significant change. The X100, X1, Nexes and Ricoh offerings were the first wave. The XP1 seems to establish Eric's point.

The results from the current generation of APS-C sensors do indicate larger sensors are no longer required to obtain excellent results in diverse lighting situations. I will refrain from comparing the XP1 to the D700 until ACR supports the raf files. A larger sensor area will alway outperform an identical sensor with less area. But right now the differential is less important than it was a few years ago.

The XF 35/1.4 is a fine lens and is cost effective. I just ordered the 18/2. This len 's reception is mixed. The choice to go for speed rather than frame edge performance with a slower lens is interesting. Because I have other options for landscape work (and I'm not a hiker!) I like having an angle of view and DOF similar to a classic 28/2.8 lens.

Perhaps the challenge now is to design high performance wide angle lenses for APS-C mirror less systems. How much would you pay for stellar f 2, non-DSLR primes with 12, 14, or 16 mm focal lengths?

[robert blu]

Originally Posted by Eric T

At long last, the Leica rangefinder has a clear competitor - the Fuji X-Pro1. True, the Fuji is not a rangefinder. But is has a terrific hybrid viewfinder that is much more usable than the 1950s Leica rangefinder. Some see the Fuji's light weight to be a disadvantage (read Steve Huff on this) but I see it as a great advantage. The X-Pro1 provides great image quality at less than a fourth of the price of an M9. And the lens price differential is MUCH greater. The X-Pro1 proves that you don't need a full frame sensor for great IQ, excellent DOF, and low light sensitivity.
Leica better announce something amazing on May 10th. I have been a huge Leica fan for a long time but the X-Pro1 is a game changer.

I have not (yet?) the Fuji X-Pro1 in which I'm very interested. Anyway I full agree with your post. Thanks.
robert

[danielschwartzkopf]

Originally Posted by JHutchins

Sorry, you also have to have power save turned on (default is off). It definitely goes away. My lens is quite noisy.

I just need to point out that when you have power save mode on it makes AF focusing in AF-Single painfully slow (the lens needs to stop down to taking aperature, focus, then open back up before lock is confirmed). With power save off, yes you get the clicky blades, but its a trade off that I am personally willing to live with.

Just pointing this out in case anyone gets their camera, flips on power save based on all of the comments around the net (like it did) and then wonders why the AF speed makes them die a little inside.

[RealXenuis]

Originally Posted by willie_901

I think Eric has touched on a significant change. The X100, X1, Nexes and Ricoh offerings were the first wave. The XP1 seems to establish Eric's point.

The results from the current generation of APS-C sensors do indicate larger sensors are no longer required to obtain excellent results in diverse lighting situations. I will refrain from comparing the XP1 to the D700 until ACR supports the raf files. A larger sensor area will alway outperform an identical sensor with less area. But right now the differential is less important than it was a few years ago.

The XF 35/1.4 is a fine lens and is cost effective. I just ordered the 18/2. This len 's reception is mixed. The choice to go for speed rather than frame edge performance with a slower lens is interesting. Because I have other options for landscape work (and I'm not a hiker!) I like having an angle of view and DOF similar to a classic 28/2.8 lens.

Perhaps the challenge now is to design high performance wide angle lenses for APS-C mirror less systems. How much would you pay for stellar f 2, non-DSLR primes with 12, 14, or 16 mm focal lengths?

I own the 18. It's perfectly sharp at the edges. I think a lot of the commentary about mushy, unsharp edges is based on early examples. Possibly bad samples as well. I'm seeing sharp, well balanced images from posters, and I've had the same experience. I could complain about the edge distortion or the CA/fringing, but I get this with every UWA I've owned and tried, so I won't, and I assume there will be a profile to address this when the XP1 is added in Lightroom/Aperture. I'm sure you'll love it

[willie_901]

Originally Posted by RealXenuis

I own the 18. It's perfectly sharp at the edges. I think a lot of the commentary about mushy, unsharp edges is based on early examples. Possibly bad samples as well. I'm seeing sharp, well balanced images from posters, and I've had the same experience. I could complain about the edge distortion or the CA/fringing, but I get this with every UWA I've owned and tried, so I won't, and I assume there will be a profile to address this when the XP1 is added in Lightroom/Aperture. I'm sure you'll love it

That's good to hear. Thanks for sharing your experience.

From the photos I've seen on line the fringing is most visible in high contrast situations. Have you seen any dependence on exposure? If the sky is dark blue instead of white is there a difference?

[RealXenuis]

Originally Posted by willie_901

That's good to hear. Thanks for sharing your experience.

From the photos I've seen on line the fringing is most visible in high contrast situations. Have you seen any dependence on exposure? If the sky is dark blue instead of white is there a difference?

I see it most in high contrast, yes. It's not always there, but almost always if the light source is direct and/or bright enough. The typical sky vs thin edges/contrast are very often there. Mostly magenta/purple, and also not specific to corners. I had similar results with my nikon and tokina lenses in similar situations. Oh, and some pentax lenses. It's def there. The camera doesn't remove it and since there are no profiles yet I'd have to remove it manually, which I'm too lazy to do.

I'm not sure i've noticed a difference with whiter or bluer skies. I can keep that in mind and let you know if i see it.

[GaryLH]

I have had my x100 pretty close to when they released it in the us... Fuji is great about fixing their problems and listening to their customers. I am sure that the x pro 1 will get the shame level of excellent support from Fuji.

I have only had my xp1 for two days now... All the tricks I learned from using the x100 and the contax g2 mostly apply with this camera. I am in the camp that this really feels like a digital contax g2. Even the initial lens line up seems to be match up pretty close.

I cannot remember any recent camera release that did not have any problems from any manufacture.

The images from this camera with the 35 f1.4 is really great.

Now the gas attack. Which other lenses to get for it?

Gary

[RealXenuis]

Took the XP1 + 18,35,60 with me on a week long trip. Even with the CA issues and edge distortion, used the 18 MUCH more than the other two. Have no complaints whatsoever. Actually, one complaint: no LR4/Aperture support yet. I'd really like these lenses to be profiled. Yeeesh.

[Arjay]

Not wanting to write about a camera I don't own, I'm chiming in a bit late - but now I can verify what I am writing. And it's nice to see that the X-Pro1 is continuing the X100's concept with more flexibility and computing power.

The X-Pro1's AF system has been improved over the X100: It's faster and works more consistently - but you still have to understand the way this system works to get the most out of it.

Originally Posted by dct

Fuji should write an article explaining all the details like this user article helping the AF frustrated Contax G users...
http://www.botzilla.com/blog/archives/000378.html

Of course, who reads carefully through all these X-Pro1 thread will find similar good information.

Well, Fuji hasn't, but I have written a number of articles about the X100's CDAF system which also apply to the X-Pro1. This should help anyone who wants to use his X-Pro1 under difficult lighting situations.

My take on this camera after three days of use is - the camera's AF system will work down to the same light levels as any phase-detect system, just that it cannot predict and factor in object motion as well as PDAF cameras can. But that's nothing new: Sports are and will remain to be the domain of DSLRs.

But for everything else, this camera offers great IQ, compact build and low weight - which makes it fun to use.