X-Pro, your thoughts...

[david.elliott]

For this forum, I'm sure my usage of the x-pro 1 is out of the ordinary. I love it for macro work. Jpegs look quite good, but I am really eager for adobe raw support.

The evf works quite well for macro work. The camera as a whole does, really. A tilting screen would be nice, but whatever - I've never had a camera with one.

I treat it as primarily a great camera for macro work with secondary loveliness as a backup leica.

[digitalintrigue]

Originally Posted by Frontman

As I often shoot medium format and 4x5, I could argue that 35mm and full-frame digital cameras are "crop factor" cameras. When used with it's native lenses, the X-Pro is not a really a crop camera.

Indeed. It could be argued even 4x5 is ultimately cropped. But I don't find 4x5 images to be cartoons compared to 8x10.

[PhotoMat]

Yes, it is not a Leica, but it has the features that attracted me to a digital M -- simple, manual controls. After years of using a DSLR in my daily work, I have yearned for a digital platform that would emulate the features of my favorite film cameras -- the Mamiya 7 and the Leica M6TTL. I am really enjoying having an actual shutter speed dial and aperture ring as opposed to spinning a thumbwheel/command dial while looking at an LCD or viewfinder readout. The simplicity is refreshing. I didn't buy the X-P1 because I thought it would be a cheaper version of the M9. I bought it because it could do the same tasks as the M9, with the added benefit of some automation if desired. I see the ability to use M lenses as a bonus. While the jury is still out regarding this ability, (pending more experimentation in a more controlled methodology), I am initially pleased with some shots that I snapped this evening using my Summicron 50 on the Fuji, via a Kipon adapter:

[GaryLH]

+1

PhotoMat, I cannot agree more with what you have said here. I bought the x100 and xp1 for exactly the same reason. Using legacy lenses is a plus but at the end of the day I wanted to get back to some basics:
- aperture ring
- shutter speed dial
- exposure compensation dial
- ovf or evf no LCD

I don't take pictures that require fast af. The af on the Fuji cameras is good enough. If none of my legacy lens ever works on the xp1, I am ok with that. The Fuji lenses are more than good enough. In fact I consider the 35f1.4 the equal of my summicrom asph.

Gary

[Nelson Tan]

PhotoMat, that is an impressive display of the camera's capabilities! Thanks for sharing.

How would you describe the process of manual focusing a Leica M lens using the Kipon adaptor? Is it snappy and easy to focus via the EVF?

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Bill Pierce

I personally have no experience with my Leica or Leicaflex lenses on the X-Pro. (Still waiting for the adapters. Kind of excited about a camera that can do bright line viewing for my "normal" lenses and TTL viewing with long ones.) Hope other folks can provide that info. In the meantime, I will see if I can get some opinions.

Here are some Leica asph. lenses on the XP1 as well as some Zeiss and V/C:

http://picabroad.com/2012/03/24/fuji...-mount-lenses/

(Remarkable that even the top Leica asphericals could not perform as good as the native Fuji lenses on this sensor..)

[rbelyell]

omg bill, those results are horrid! like much of llfe, utility in photography is subjective. i understand and certainly respect those who view the xp1 as a 'system' camera in which they want to invest. as a lover of legacy and manual focus lenses, as an owner of some expensive (for me) pieces of such glass, i dont. for me, there were two coequally imporlamt revoultionary benefits of mirrorless cameras: the potential for dslr image quality in an extremely compact form factor and the ability to mount (and by implication, shoot to their maximum ability) pretty much any lens ever made. to me that meant i could now enjoy the benefits of digital with lenses i loved on film.

certainly, being an x100 owner and lover, i have no doubt as to the incredible IQ that can be obtained by the xp1 'system'. but at least for me, ive invested my emotions, time and money in a lens system, and any new camera i consider must be able to properly utilize 'my' system.
tony

[jsrockit]

Sure am glad I didn't buy an adapter for M lenses. I'd rather use M lenses on a camera made for M lenses. The Fuji X lenses are very nice.

[Dante_Stella]

Not that remarkable when you consider that the Fuji is designed for lenses that direct light in perpendicular to the imager and all of the other lenses were designed for film. Leicas have offset microlenses for a reason.

If you hooked up lenses longer than 50mm, I think you would see something totally different.

We also don't know if the Fuji is correcting edge aberrations automatically with its own lenses. Leicas, for example, correct vignetting and color shifts before th RAW file is written.

That said, as a system, the X-Pro1 and its 35 seem to be very comparable to an M8 with the 35/1.4 ASPH. I think you would really want native wides for this camera.

Dante

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Here are some Leica asph. lenses on the XP1 as well as some Zeiss and V/C:

http://picabroad.com/2012/03/24/fuji...-mount-lenses/

(Remarkable that even the top Leica asphericals could not perform as good as the native Fuji lenses on this sensor..)

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Dante_Stella

Not that remarkable when you consider that the Fuji is designed for lenses that direct light in perpendicular to the imager and all of the other lenses were designed for film. Leicas have offset microlenses for a reason.

If you hooked up lenses longer than 50mm, I think you would see something totally different.

We also don't know if the Fuji is correcting edge aberrations automatically with its own lenses. Leicas, for example, correct vignetting and color shifts before th RAW file is written.

That said, as a system, the X-Pro1 and its 35 seem to be very comparable to an M8 with the 35/1.4 ASPH. I think you would really want native wides for this camera.

Dante

The problems are this side of the 50mm FL; Fuji 35, 23 and 18mm lenses employ rather unconventional designs (as if reverse-retrofocal) with huge rear element diameters to cover the illumination circle rather “directly”; probably to eliminate the need of offset microlenses in addition to the OLPF already measuring 2.5mm thickness (too thick!). These hint that only their native lenses could perform on this sensor optimally and the retrofocals. A deliberate decision IMHO, to be able to sell their own lenses at the first rate to amortize their investment before the introduction of consequtive models (and they are smart enough to know that we would not be pleased to use large retrofocus wide-angles on this body )

As for the native correction programs, these can “correct” distortion, vignetting, even color shift toward corners however against corner smearing –i.e. loss of resolution data- I think only offset microlenses could be a solution or unconventional designs as on the Fujifilm lenses. This is also where the Nex-7 fails..

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

The problems are this side of the 50mm FL; Fuji 35, 23 and 18mm lenses employ rather unconventional designs (as if reverse-retrofocal) with huge rear element diameters to cover the illumination circle rather “directly”; probably to eliminate the need of offset microlenses in addition to the OLPF already measuring 2.5mm thickness (too thick!). These hint that only their native lenses could perform on this sensor optimally and the retrofocals. A deliberate decision IMHO, to be able to sell their own lenses at the first rate to amortize their investment before the introduction of consequtive models (and they are smart enough to know that we would not be pleased to use large retrofocus wide-angles on this body )

As for the native correction programs, these can “correct” distortion, vignetting, even color shift toward corners however against corner smearing –i.e. loss of resolution data- I think only offset microlenses could be a solution or unconventional designs as on the Fujifilm lenses. This is also where the Nex-7 fails..

yup, ive read this elsewhere. no such problem on m4/3 or gxr or nex 5n. unfortunately for fuji fans who want to shoot legacy glass, we need to be looking there and not at the xp1.
tony

[photografity]

Yesterday, I went in a local shop that had a X-Pro1.
I bought my Kipon adapter to try on the 50 summicron & the 28mm MS triplet, the files were awesome !!

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fizzlesticks

I think digital cameras are getting there, but the X-Pro 1 isn't there yet, at least for what I want a camera for. Some of the technology in it is pretty impressive and makes you wonder why no one has done it before, i.e. the sensor array.

Are you saying this with regard to the X-Pro1 with M lenses or in general?

If the latter, how is it not there yet?

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by photografity

Yesterday, I went in a local shop that had a X-Pro1.
I bought my Kipon adapter to try on the 28mm MS triplet, the files were awesome !!

Care to share any examples... I would love to see this lens on the camera.

[Dante_Stella]

As to preliminary notes, here you are. Please report any typos to the office.

Dante

[Spyro]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Care to share any examples... I would love to see this lens on the camera.

+1, very eagerly. I tried my CV28/3.5 and the corners are smeared to death. I'm still in search of a pancake 28 for this camera. The triplet as well as the CV would be a perfect lens for it, it makes the camera (jacket) pocketable, it gives the "perfect" fov of 40mm, it has a mechanical ring, focus distance markings and a tab and therefore can be focused by feel, with the magnifier on you can use the whole VF and the coverage looks about right.

Another little tidbit, I remember reading an article (can't remember where) which said that this camera will never be any good with any non-retrofocus wide not built for it, mainly because it has a very thick layer of glass on the sensor for some reason. Didnt pay much attention at the time but I had to clear a smudge on my sensor recently, and I thought the swipe stopped way far from where I could see the sensor was. Dont know, maybe I'm just imagining it. Anyone else noticed it?

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by Spyro

+1, very eagerly. I tried my CV28/3.5 and the corners are smeared to death. I'm still in search of a pancake 28 for this camera. The triplet as well as the CV would be a perfect lens for it, it makes the camera (jacket) pocketable, it gives the "perfect" fov of 40mm, it has a mechanical ring, focus distance markings and a tab and therefore can be focused by feel, with the magnifier on you can use the whole VF and the coverage looks about right.

I'd bet an OM zuiko 28mm f3.5 would be sharp to the corners. They're brilliant optically - mine was quite a bit sharper than any of my canon wide angle zooms, plus they're super cheap and almost pancake-ish.

[Spyro]

yeah I have one of those babies, and also a zuiko 24/2.8 which is even better and also tiny, and I'm sure both would work very well. This is not my problem though, I wanted a lens that would make the camera small enough to not require a bag, unfortunately these are SLR lenses and just the adapter would make the camera as deep as an SLR. Also I wanted to focus this blindly, and I prefer a tab for that.

Fuji has promised a pancake 28/2.8, but the roadmap says next year (and unlikely to have mechanical focusing).

There's also the contax G 28/2.8 which is small-ish and can be adapted, but the rear element at infinity goes way too deep for comfort. And I'd have to file down some fins.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Dante_Stella

As to preliminary notes, here you are. Please report any typos to the office.

Dante

Did you sell yours yet?

[Spyro]

Ι always enjoyed DAST's blog, and I always had unknown words LOL
what is closed loop AF? Found an article at dpreview, clear as mud.

[Dante_Stella]

Thanks... I will add this definition tonight:

Closed-loop focusing means that the camera is looking at the actual focused image to adjust focus. Any passive contrast-detect AF works this way.

Open-loop is everything else - where focus is determined by a measuring method and the lens goes to that point with no post-focusing correction. So Leica-style rangefinders, active IR, and phase-detect autofocus in S mode all fit this category. It is particularly vulnerable to shifts in the focus point that occur when the iris is closed down.

Best,
Dante

Originally Posted by Spyro

Ι always enjoyed DAST's blog, and I always had unknown words LOL
what is closed loop AF? Found an article at dpreview, clear as mud.

[Spyro]

from the definition it sounds as being more accurate/not as fast as open-loop...?

[kshapero]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

OT, but I love Erwitt. A quote from his Austin lecture a couple of years ago:

"Sometimes you get a good picture, but most of the time you don't. If you get one out of a thousand, you're lucky."

Kinda puts in perspective that the gear doesn't really matter...

also that I am not as bad a photographer a I thought. Cheers!

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Speedfreak

I am not going to buy a crop factor digital camera. If you are used to using fast lenses on film cameras, digital crop looks like a cartoon version of traditional photography.

Yes, its sharp and clean up to ISO-you-name-it, awesome. I still fail to see what is so great about the Xpro vs any other crop digital camera. Wheres the point? If you care about pictures buy a low end Nikon with a 35/1.8 DX and start shooting. The pictures will be the same.

Disclaimer: I mainly shoot black and white film on an M. But I look at, and edit, a lot of pictures shot on digital sensors of various formats, and that comment does not add to the discussion. Surely you can do better.

[willie_901]

Dante,

You are indeed a brave man. Telling the truth can make life more complicated.

I though both your articles are fair and accurate.