X-Pro 1 reviewed at DPReview

[semilog]

Originally Posted by GaryLH

Thanks for the update Semilog. Looks like I need to give RPP64 a try.

Note that I've been using beta versions. Links for download are in this thread.

[icaro2007]

The most recent beta version is available here
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/R...4_1576Beta.zip

[GaryLH]

Thanks for the links.

Gary

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Really?

Sensor: ISO 800, for middle of the spectrum on the referenced DP Review samples:

Fuji X-Pro 1


Nikon D7000


Pentax K-5 (for good measure)


The Fuji sensor has great resolution and low overall chroma, lower than the other 2 models by a hair, but that proprietary mosaic demonstrates issues with colour fidelity, especially along narrow boundaries. Look at the word "Fujitsu". The Fuji sensor clearly bleeds into whites whereas the Sony sensor does not; those lines are discrete as they should be. Where the text should be bright white, it is pink on the Fuji samples.

There are other places on the DP Review shots where the Fuji sensor similarly bleeds, such as where it says "Tin Light" and "Mr. Robot" on the little Robot. The reds are muddy with blues on the Fuji, not at all on the Sony sensor.

In fact, the Fuji bleeds everywhere. Look at the transition along the perpendicular axis of the battery. On the Fuji the orange line distinctly changes from orange to grey. Not on the Sony sensor. The Fuji sensor has proximity issues.

But that's the way it has always been with Fuji sensors. The S5 was designed to smooth skin tones, and for all the low-light performance of the SuperCD series, they achieved that with some smearing effects, just as seen here.

The colour fidelity of the Sony sensor looks to be better at retaining the DR. Go up ISO and the difference increases in favour of the Sony chip. Look anywhere there is text or fine lines and the Fuji bleeds. I'd say that's a function of the sensor design itself.

Overall I'd also say the Sony sensor in either Pentax or Nikon is a modest 1/4 stop better in the shadows. But that's where the inferior chroma arises. Every sensor has its compromises.

Both are excellent sensors, but I value having whites white, not pink, because overall chroma can be handled beer in PP, but one a white has gone pink at the pixel level, I'm not getting it back unless I edit each pixel I also don't like line edge colour shifts. No amount of PP is getting those back.

I'm a big time Fuji fanboy currently sporting 3 models of their product line, but I'm not looking at a sensor with the X-Pro 1 that outpaces the competition, certainly not at $1,800. I'll leave the FF or 1" sensor comparisons out of this. It's not a class-leading sensor, but one that keeps pace with other APS-C cameras if you can deal with non-correctable colour bleeds and shifts.

So, no, nothing wrong with my eyes.

The major knock against the Fuji is poor AF for an AF-biased $1,800 camera (its MF is worse than some entry-level DSLR's). AF-biased cameras at less than 1/3 the price focus much faster be it DSLR or the V1. The sensor doesn't make up the difference with the compromises noted above, and pretty much every manufacturer puts out super-sharp primes. So the Fuji X-Pro 1 premium appears primarily to be for a unique VF experience, lots of old school control, and a modestly smaller kit.

Just an honest criticism using the same DP Review material and on track with the OP.

I can barely even see those 'color bleeds' in the crops you posted at 100% view, let alone in a web print or an actual print where you will never ever see them - I guarantee that much. The RRP raw processor has no color bleeding which shows that it's just the algorithm, not the sensor. It's basically a non-issue anyway unless you print little squares of 100% crops and look at them with a magnifying glass. The k-5 and d7000 are definitely noisier at every iso in both luminance and chroma.

[jsrockit]

As a X-Pro1 user (and X-1000 user), the AF is not fast with the 35mm 1.4 lens. If I try to use AF on the streets with moving people, it IS too slow at times. Additionally, I have had times where the AF has missed even with the corrected frame. The AF in both cams is easily tricked by reflections (in windows for example)...more so than any other camera I have or have used. I'm just being honest. I still love both cameras though...overall my best cameras.

[gdi]

I am glad the OP posted this. I haven't visited DPReview in a while; I have spent time checking it out over the last couple of days. I had been considering getting either an XPRo-1 or OM-D, so it was interesting to do the side by side compare of image quality.

I am very impressed with the Fuji at at the really high ISOs; it looks like by about ISO 1600 the chroma noise of the Oly is reaching a point where the Fuji looks better, even with less detail. After 1600 the Fuji shots are clearly usable and the Oly is probably too noisy. But it seems the Fuji may have gone a little heavy handed with the NR for low ISOs; maybe there is a better raw converter out there?

So, I decided to get the OM-D and ordered one yesterday. The image quality looks to be so close that the deciding factors were my existing m4/3s lenses (and the growing options to choose from), the AF speed, and the significant price difference. Now I'll see how impressed I am when the Oly arrives...

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by gdi

I am very impressed with the Fuji at at the really high ISOs; it looks like by about ISO 1600 the chroma noise of the Oly is reaching a point where the Fuji looks better, even with less detail. After 1600 the Fuji shots are clearly usable and the Oly is probably too noisy. But it seems the Fuji may have gone a little heavy handed with the NR for low ISOs; maybe there is a better raw converter out there?

It's not noise reduction that makes them look so smooth - it's a characteristic of the x-trans sensor with its random color array. Despite the low noise characteristic, it resolves the same detail as a 25ish MP full frame camera, so it's not 'smoothening' as it were.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

It's not noise reduction that makes them look so smooth - it's a characteristic of the x-trans sensor with its random color array. Despite the low noise characteristic, it resolves the same detail as a 25ish MP full frame camera, so it's not 'smoothening' as it were.

Humm... where do you see that it matches the detail of a 25MP FF camera? Is there a good comparison review out there? (There may be, I don't spend a huge amount of time looking at reviews and probably wouldn't know about it.)

I do see that it doesn't have as much detail as a lot of other cameras in the DPReview shots, and they do indicate that "the X-Trans CMOS sensor includes a degree of chroma NR".

Thanks

[retow]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

It's not noise reduction that makes them look so smooth - it's a characteristic of the x-trans sensor with its random color array. Despite the low noise characteristic, it resolves the same detail as a 25ish MP full frame camera, so it's not 'smoothening' as it were.

My screen an eyes tell me that it resolves less details than a crop sensor 24MP NEX 7.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by retow

My screen an eyes tell me that it resolves less details than a crop sensor 24MP NEX 7.

In theory the difference should be ~22% in linear resolution — a rather minor difference. However, the folks at DP review say that in practice, they're about the same. The images I've seen corroborate that. Bottom line is that they're both superior APS-C sensors, albeit with slightly different strengths and weaknesses. I'd have no problem with an X-Pro1 body incorporating the NEX-7, or vice versa.

The differences in imaging performance are much smaller than operational differences between these cameras that actually make a difference for practical photography. One might say the same of the comparison between the NEX-7 and the Olympus EM-5, or for that matter between any of these cameras and a D700.

[Keith]

One of the things that really disappointed me about the Xpro, and it's a very shallow attitude on my part, is it's looks!

The X100 is a very special looking little camera that a lot of people commented on when I had it ... the Xpro is a black lump!

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by gdi

Humm... where do you see that it matches the detail of a 25MP FF camera? Is there a good comparison review out there? (There may be, I don't spend a huge amount of time looking at reviews and probably wouldn't know about it.)

I do see that it doesn't have as much detail as a lot of other cameras in the DPReview shots, and they do indicate that "the X-Trans CMOS sensor includes a degree of chroma NR".

Thanks

Originally Posted by retow

My screen an eyes tell me that it resolves less details than a crop sensor 24MP NEX 7.

From the DPreview resolution testing:

"There are several points to be made here. Firstly, the X-Pro1 shows visibly higher resolution in this chart test than a conventional 16MP Bayer-type camera such as the Nikon D7000, or even the Sony NEX-5N (which has a particularly weak AA filter). In fact, in terms of resolution it's very close indeed to the 24MP Sony NEX-7 or the Sigma SD1, which uses a 15MP Foveon X3 sensor to record full colour information at every pixel, and therefore (like the X-Pro1) uses no AA filter."

[gdi]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

From the DPreview resolution testing:

"There are several points to be made here. Firstly, the X-Pro1 shows visibly higher resolution in this chart test than a conventional 16MP Bayer-type camera such as the Nikon D7000, or even the Sony NEX-5N (which has a particularly weak AA filter). In fact, in terms of resolution it's very close indeed to the 24MP Sony NEX-7 or the Sigma SD1, which uses a 15MP Foveon X3 sensor to record full colour information at every pixel, and therefore (like the X-Pro1) uses no AA filter."

Thanks I didn't see that, I was looking at the actual test images, where that doesn't seem to hold, from a practical perspective. But, I don't think those comparison cameras are full frame are they?

I did look around some to see if I could find actual tests showing the fuji out-performing a new FF camera. I wasn't able to find such a test, but I did see an interesting article (most here are probably familiar with it) by the guy at ChromaSoft who wrote corner fix and PhotoRaw. He seems very knowledgeable ( not surprising) and has concluded that the camera really doesn't live up to the marketing...

"So my conclusion is, sorry to say, that the Fuji X-Pro1 X-Trans sensor doesn't deliver the Fuji promise of outperforming similarly sized sensors. In fact, it underperforms similar DX sensored cameras - with the official SILKPIX raw developer, the underperformance is too slight to be noticeable under normal circumstances, but is still there if you look closely."

Like I said, I am sure most people interested in the camera is aware of the article. The focus of the article is the difficulty of converting the X-trans files, and he seems to imply that when it is finally done properly the quality and resolution should improve. Of course the article is over a month old, so the situation may have changed and there is actually a good converter out there now. But, it does look like he is right that the results don't yet live up to promises.

I would still like to see a direct comparison with the competition when a top quality conversion is available; it could be interesting. In the meantime, I'll try out the OM-D for a while and see if the Fuji situation changes; it may be one of the situations where it pays to wait for the next generation.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Keith

The X100 is a very special looking little camera that a lot of people commented on when I had it ... the Xpro is a black lump!

And you think the D700 is a looker?

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by gdi

Thanks I didn't see that, I was looking at the actual test images, where that doesn't seem to hold, from a practical perspective. But, I don't think those comparison cameras are full frame are they?

I did look around some to see if I could find actual tests showing the fuji out-performing a new FF camera. I wasn't able to find such a test, but I did see an interesting article (most here are probably familiar with it) by the guy at ChromaSoft who wrote corner fix and PhotoRaw. He seems very knowledgeable ( not surprising) and has concluded that the camera really doesn't live up to the marketing...

"So my conclusion is, sorry to say, that the Fuji X-Pro1 X-Trans sensor doesn't deliver the Fuji promise of outperforming similarly sized sensors. In fact, it underperforms similar DX sensored cameras - with the official SILKPIX raw developer, the underperformance is too slight to be noticeable under normal circumstances, but is still there if you look closely."

Like I said, I am sure most people interested in the camera is aware of the article. The focus of the article is the difficulty of converting the X-trans files, and he seems to imply that when it is finally done properly the quality and resolution should improve. Of course the article is over a month old, so the situation may have changed and there is actually a good converter out there now. But, it does look like he is right that the results don't yet live up to promises.

I would still like to see a direct comparison with the competition when a top quality conversion is available; it could be interesting. In the meantime, I'll try out the OM-D for a while and see if the Fuji situation changes; it may be one of the situations where it pays to wait for the next generation.

Yeah it's the same with any kind of sensor - the algorithms get better over time. For instance my 5ds files are significantly better than they were 3-4 years ago because adobe has significantly improved their algorithms. When you consider the JPEGS are currently slightly better than/similar to the raw files converted by adobe raw in outright detail, you realize theres definitely a lot of room for improvement, as the camera is just converting the raw data itself - in camera.

Anyway, I don't find any of the review sites samples to be that great - maybe check out some of the out of cam JPEGS from the fujifilm website? (links to some below)

sample 1

sample 2

To me, there is nothing left wanting in the amount of detail in these files. It's completely natural, there's no m4/3s style halo sharpening (that I'm really sensitive to - other people don't seem to see it), and it's smooth and subtle. I would place it similar to a 5d2 - which is similar to the 5d3. That's just me personally.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

Yeah it's the same with any kind of sensor - the algorithms get better over time. For instance my 5ds files are significantly better than they were 3-4 years ago because adobe has significantly improved their algorithms. When you consider the JPEGS are currently slightly better than/similar to the raw files converted by adobe raw in outright detail, you realize theres definitely a lot of room for improvement, as the camera is just converting the raw data itself - in camera.

I agree, that old files can be improved with improved software. In fact my GH2 shots' noise can be much better with LR 4 than before. I think my problem is that I continue to fall for the marketing and internet hype when an innovative camera comes out; I remember being excited to get a 1Ds (first version!) because it was better than 6x7. I should have learned by now, that improvements have proven to be evolutionary, not revolutionary! I agree that the XPro produces good files, but I can't help but think that all the buzz about it beating new FF cameras is over the top - at least until there are good comparisons to view, or I just buy one and see for myself (not beyond the realm of possibility).

To me, there is nothing left wanting in the amount of detail in these files. It's completely natural, there's no m4/3s style halo sharpening (that I'm really sensitive to - other people don't seem to see it), and it's smooth and subtle. I would place it similar to a 5d2 - which is similar to the 5d3. That's just me personally.

I know what you mean everyone, including me, has to decide for themselves and rationalize their decisions. The thing that I am most sensitive to about certain cameras, like the fuji, is when noise is reduced and takes detail along with it. I guess being a long time film shooter (and an M9 owner), I would rather have a little noise and more detail, than noiseless, too smooth images. But I can see how others would place a very high value on low noise, High ISO images. Those samples do look good.

Regarding the halos, I never shoot jpgs, so I control sharpening on my M4/3s camera, so if there are halos, it's my fault.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by gdi

I...think that all the buzz about it beating new FF cameras is over the top - at least until there are good comparisons to view, or I just buy one and see for myself (not beyond the realm of possibility).

Of course that's over the top, and I wouldn't take anyone seriously who's making such a claim. What the X-Pro1 does do is more or less equal the FF cameras (D700, 5DI/II/III) in resolution, DR, and in low light performance, and it beats all but a few of the current APS-C sensors (the one in the NEX-7 being the obvious standard of comparison).

It does all this while costing a bit more than half of what a 5DIII does, in a smaller and lighter body with an outstanding and genuinely innovative viewfinder. That's pretty cool, I think. Bottom line is that for practical photography the 5D's, the NEX-7, the D7000, the X-Pro are all on par and have different strengths and weaknesses in operational terms, different quirks, take different lenses, etc.

Now, all that said, if you're interested in this stuff, Falk Lumo's latest white paper on what FF really means provides a great deal of food for thought. Lumo is a physicist who was first to report (correctly) that the Pentax K-x -- the first camera to use the EXMOR sensor later used in the D7000 -- had essentially equalled the D700 for image quality. He thinks that with the Nikon D600 we're about to see a major re-shuffling of the DSLR market. I bet he's right.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by gdi

I agree, that old files can be improved with improved software. In fact my GH2 shots' noise can be much better with LR 4 than before.

Right, and consider that the GH2 uses a Beyer array -- at this point a highly mature technology -- while the X-Pro1 is using a brand new array. It's going to take time to really optimize the de-mosaicing.

A real concern that I have with the Fuji tech is that since everyone else uses Beyer, the software R&D effort is focused there. The Fuji array is a niche market for software developers and simply won't get as much attention. My hope is that development of good de-mosaicing software will be done as a consequence of it simply being an interesting technical problem, and thus a market-independent nerd-attractor. To some extent that seems to be happening.

Fuji could really speed this process if they would just release an SDK. That they have not indicates that they are in at least one crucial respect really missing the boat.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by semilog

Of course that's over the top, and I wouldn't take anyone seriously who's making such a claim.

Well, at the time it was a very well respected, and of course hated, internet blogger, guru, expert. And then there was the claim that the M8 could produce large prints (20 X something) that matched 4x5. (I knew better in this one since I had both systems).

What the X-Pro1 does do is more or less equal the FF cameras (D700, 5DI/II/III) in resolution, DR, and in low light performance, and it beats all but a few of the current APS-C sensors (the one in the NEX-7 being the obvious standard of comparison).

That us just what I am looking for evidence of, rather than just the claims! If that is true then it should be easy to show a clear comparison. I may have missed it, but the ones I see indicate that is not the case. And at least one very reliable source claims that the opposite is true in practical terms. I am very open to seeing and acknowledging the real world advantages of the camera.

[semilog]

Put it this way. The X-Pro1 and NEX-7 sensors appear to have rather well-matched performance overall -- I think it safe to say that these are the current top-of-the heap in APS-C. And the quantitative tests indicate that the NEX-7 sensor is on par with (say) the D700 for DR, sensitivity, and resolution.

As Falk Lumo points out, now we have to deal with the implementation: the lenses used, the focus accuracy, etc. In other words, we have to deal with the throughput of the whole imaging chain and not just the sensor. At that level, smaller sensors thend to be harder to implement. For example, the position and alignment of sensor vs. lens is more critical.

In addition, really objective testing is, as Ctein has pointed out, really, really hard to do well. Even with a standard scene as DPR uses, it's very very very hard to equalize FOV, keep the lighting constant, deal with the varying curvature of field of the different lenses that must be used for different cameras (i.e., where do you put the focus point), etc.

What the results from several places -- DPR, Imaging Resource, etc. -- say is that in practical terms the best APS-C cameras (including but not limited to the X-Pro), when fitted with good lenses, can equal the current generation of FF cameras in most respects. And it is therefore foolish to choose among all of these cameras based (solely) on the sensor. Other factors are going to be more definitive.

The D800 may (for resolution) be half a generation ahead of the rest, just as the OM-D EM5 appears to be half a generation ahead of the other µ4/3 cameras at present.

My rule of thumb is that the sensor area and/or number of pixels has to change by a factor of two for there to be an interesting/useful difference in image quality (square root of 2 = 1.4x difference in linear print size; 1.2x differences in linear print size are too minor for me to care about).

Thus the difference between APS-C and m4/3, or the difference between APS-C and FF, is not interesting. But the difference between FF and µ4/3 (2x) may be apparent and useful, assuming rough parity in sensor technology.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by semilog

Right, and consider that the GH2 uses a Beyer array -- at this point a highly mature technology -- while the X-Pro1 is using a brand new array. It's going to take time to really optimize the de-mosaicing.

A real concern that I have with the Fuji tech is that since everyone else uses Beyer, the software R&D effort is focused there. The Fuji array is a niche market for software developers and simply won't get as much attention. My hope is that development of good de-mosaicing software will be done as a consequence of it simply being an interesting technical problem, and thus a market-independent nerd-attractor. To some extent that seems to be happening.

Fuji could really speed this process if they would just release an SDK. That they have not indicates that they are in at least one crucial respect really missing the boat.

You make a good point about the maturity of mainstream sensors ( I think they are Bayer sensors, FWIW) and the focus of developers. It is something to consider. I am just surprised that Fuji hadn't figured it out prior to releasing the system. The work done by Sandy McGuffog was along the lines you anticipate - trying to rise to challenge. Maybe Fuji will prove more supportive as you say, an SDK with the right (efficient and accurate) methods could be released and we would see a lot of competion to get out products.

Put it this way. The X-Pro1 and NEX-7 sensors appear to have rather well-matched performance overall -- I think it safe to say that these are the current top-of-the heap in APS-C. And the quantitative tests indicate that the NEX-7 sensor is on par with (say) the D700 for DR, sensitivity, and resolution.

As Falk Lumo points out, now we have to deal with the implementation: the lenses used, the focus accuracy, etc. In other words, we have to deal with the throughput of the whole imaging chain and not just the sensor. At that level, smaller sensors thend to be harder to implement. For example, the position and alignment of sensor vs. lens is more critical.

In addition, really objective testing is, as Ctein has pointed out, really, really hard to do well. Even with a standard scene as DPR uses, it's very very very hard to equalize FOV, keep the lighting constant, deal with the varying curvature of field of the different lenses that must be used for different cameras (i.e., where do you put the focus point), etc.

What the results from several places -- DPR, Imaging Resource, etc. -- say is that in practical terms the best APS-C cameras (including but not limited to the X-Pro), when fitted with good lenses, can equal the current generation of FF cameras in most respects. And it is therefore foolish to choose among all of these cameras based (solely) on the sensor. Other factors are going to be more definitive.

The D800 may (for resolution) be half a generation ahead of the rest, just as the OM-D EM5 appears to be half a generation ahead of the other µ4/3 cameras at present.

My rule of thumb is that the sensor area and/or number of pixels has to change by a factor of two for there to be an interesting/useful difference in image quality (square root of 2 = 1.4x difference in linear print size; 1.2x differences in linear print size are too minor for me to care about).

Thus the difference between APS-C and m4/3, or the difference between APS-C and FF, is not interesting. But the difference between FF and µ4/3 (2x) may be apparent and useful, assuming rough parity in sensor technology.

I understand the claims involve the theoretical potential of the camera, and the transitive logic of comparison with similar cameras with proper converters. I don't discount that logic, but for taking photos today, it might prove frustrating.

The OM-D may be half a generation ahead of the leaders in M4/3s, but the more I compare, the less real advantages I see in IQ. I mentioned that I ordered one and it is on its way; I am now second guessing whether it is worthwhile as an upgrade to my GH2. And comparing the 2 to the Nex or Fuji, I see little advantage - so I agree that selecting the next size sensor is probably not worth the trouble and expense.

It will be interesting to check in in 6 months to see what the situation is with Fuji....

[semilog]

Originally Posted by gdi

The OM-D may be half a generation ahead of the leaders in M4/3s, but the more I compare, the less real advantages I see in IQ.

If as reported it's a Sony sensor the differences will be most evident in terms of DR and especially DR at high ISO. At native ISO the 8 megapixel Kodak CCD in my old Oly E-500 still looks shockingly, gobsmackingly good for 4-generation-old tech... but push past ISO 400 and it just completely falls apart. It's at the edges of the performance envelope that the newer sensors really strut their stuff.

I like the X-Pro sensor, but I will admit that I am a Sony sensor partisan. This is based on over a decade of extremely positive experiences with Sony interline CCDs in scientific applications. CCDs that Sony started shipping over 12 years ago have only in the last year been eclipsed for price-performance by the very newest CMOS devices.

[Audii-Dudii]

Originally Posted by gdi

The OM-D may be half a generation ahead of the leaders in M4/3s, but the more I compare, the less real advantages I see in IQ. I mentioned that I ordered one and it is on its way; I am now second guessing whether it is worthwhile as an upgrade to my GH2. And comparing the 2 to the Nex or Fuji, I see little advantage - so I agree that selecting the next size sensor is probably not worth the trouble and expense.

I can't speak to the GH2's IQ, but I have a GX1, and based upon the handful of side-by-side comparisons I've made between it and the X-Pro1, there does appear to be a slight, but distinct and noticeable, difference in IQ between them, with the advantage to Fuji (IMO, anyway.)

That said, my interest in the X100 and X-Pro1 has more to do with their traditonial-style form-factors than it does their IQ. For the same reason I made my initial foray into digital capture via the Panasonic DMC-LC1, Leica Digilux 2, and Panasonic DMC-L1, and more recently, chose to build my medium-format digital outfit around the Contax 645 body instead of any of the more modern, still in production alternatives, I find a significant degree of satisfaction in working with cameras that rely upon traditional external controls (shutter speed dial on the top plate, aperture ring on the lens, etc.) and to an extent, their IQ is slightly less important to me.

I like to think I'm not a complete Luddite, as I find that autofocus (implemented well, both in procedure and practice) has its place, and I actually prefer to focus and compose with an LCD versus a viewfinder (optical and electronic), but for the same reason I pointed out above, I skipped several generations of 35mm SLRs from the mid-'80s on because I simply didn't like how they felt in my hands or the non-intuitive (for me!) process of working with them.

Which brings me to my point: The slight IQ improvement that I see when comparing the files from my X-Pro1 to my GX1 is merely a lagniappe, as the reason I made the switch from one to the other is due, first and formost, to the X-Pro1's form-factor, not its performance. And in that respect, it hasn't disappointed me in the slightest!

[semilog]

^---- Lucid and sensible. Right on.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by Audii-Dudii

I can't speak to the GH2's IQ, but I have a GX1, and based upon the handful of side-by-side comparisons I've made between it and the X-Pro1, there does appear to be a slight, but distinct and noticeable, difference in IQ between them, with the advantage to Fuji (IMO, anyway.)

That said, my interest in the X100 and X-Pro1 has more to do with their traditonial-style form-factors than it does their IQ. For the same reason I made my initial foray into digital capture via the Panasonic DMC-LC1, Leica Digilux 2, and Panasonic DMC-L1, and more recently, chose to build my medium-format digital outfit around the Contax 645 body instead of any of the more modern, still in production alternatives, I find a significant degree of satisfaction in working with cameras that rely upon traditional external controls (shutter speed dial on the top plate, aperture ring on the lens, etc.) and to an extent, their IQ is slightly less important to me.

I like to think I'm not a complete Luddite, as I find that autofocus (implemented well, both in procedure and practice) has its place, and I actually prefer to focus and compose with an LCD versus a viewfinder (optical and electronic), but for the same reason I pointed out above, I skipped several generations of 35mm SLRs from the mid-'80s on because I simply didn't like how they felt in my hands or the non-intuitive (for me!) process of working with them.

Which brings me to my point: The slight IQ improvement that I see when comparing the files from my X-Pro1 to my GX1 is merely a lagniappe, as the reason I made the switch from one to the other is due, first and formost, to the X-Pro1's form-factor, not its performance. And in that respect, it hasn't disappointed me in the slightest!

I am basically in the same camp. Which sensor is better does not matter to me, I wanted a camera that was back to basics. The Fuji x 100 and xp1 cameras provided it.. On the plus side was the high iso performance.

I use the Ricoh gxr w/ m module for the same reason, back to basics. I still use it for all legacy lenses... I have an m adapter for the Fuji xp1 but overall the gxr still handles better. If Fuji brings in some variation of focus peaking, then my answer may change.

Gary