X-Pro1 in full manual with Leica glass

[buzzardkid]

Okay,

I'm contemplating an X-Pro1 with Leica glass, to be used in full manual or A-priority.

Anybody that can either praise or condemn this setup?

Particularly interested in ease and speed of focusing, coming from the M2.

[Koni Kowa]

I had a X-Pro 1 yesterday in my hands, from a professional photographer who came from 4 years with a M8. To him, the IQ is really good but the focus is slow and too often wrong. I tried manual focusing just to see how it looks. It looks sooooo bad. You have to select the EVF and turn and turn and turn again the focusing ring. In the EVF, it's like you have a DSLR but it's darker than any decent modern SLR screen (darker than a XD-7 for example) and the "screen" is not made for manual lenses, at all : no micro prism, no split image, etc.
Let me say the guy was very tempted by my Konica IIIA : brighter and real size VF, contrasty and very precise rangefinder patch, 24x36 sensor...

[mabelsound]

I've said this on other threads and will say it here, too--the EVF on the X-Pro 1 is one of the worst on the market, and is very disappointing to me. It is smeary, laggy, and almost useless in low light. The one on the OMD is far superior, and the Sony one just completely smokes them both. I know some people are having luck with M glass on this camera, but for me, it's all about the native lenses. And I use the EVF as infrequently as possible.

[jsrockit]

You will be disappointed coming from an M2. It is nothing like a Leica.

[Michiel Fokkema]

I've shot with loads of glass on the Fuji. Olympus 24/2.0, CV 75, Summicron 90, Canon 70-200, CV 35/1.2, Leica R 135, Tele elmar 135 and I love it.
Yesterday I shot some concerts mainly with the R135. Works fine for me. I also used the Fuji 60. Worked fine too.
The only one who can decide if it works or not is you!

[Benjamin Marks]

I don't mind the EVF as much as John, it is usable and no worse than the Olympus EVF on the EP-2 or the kludge I've worked with the NEX 5. I have used Leica glass on XP1 and like what it does. I'll try to post some examples on Sunday. This won't be helpful, but I think it really depends on whether what the EVF delivers fits into your working style. I find it easier than working with the OVF and projected framelines and have really gotten used to being able to magnify the focus point. Focus shift? Ha. I laugh at focus shift.

Ben Marks

[peter_n]

I have not tried an X-Pro 1, but I was focusing a Sony Nex7 yesterday and the peaking system was as quick as an M. The results were accurate too.

[Lss]

Originally Posted by peter_n

I was focusing a Sony Nex7 yesterday and the peaking system was as quick as an M. The results were accurate too.

The contrast peaking may be spot on or it may be badly off. It has ruined photos on my NEX-5N. Generally, I don't find it as quick as focusing an M which is more consistent.

[mabelsound]

Good peaking would partly redeem the Fuji EVF for me, and I would start using it with Leica lenses 35mm and up. I'm hoping something of the sort will be introduced via firmware.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks

I don't mind the EVF as much as John, it is usable and no worse than the Olympus EVF on the EP-2 or the kludge I've worked with the NEX 5.

If you are talking about the Olympus VF-2, then this is just incorrect information.

[buzzardkid]

A while back I had the chance to see through the EVF but the camera at the time had the 35/1.4 Fujinon attached. I was kinda hoping that the EVF lag was caused by the lens and electronics but if it lags all by itself, i will at least wait for a firmware update I guess. Although most of the time I will use hyper focusing, I do need that EVF to focus accurately and quickly when shooting portraits and lowlight situations...


Q: what is the focal length multiplication on the X-Pro1? Will my SA 21/3.4 multiply 1.5x or 1.3X?

[jsrockit]

1.5x Buzzardkid. I doubt the EVF will get better with a firmware update. I can honestly say that if you didn't like the camera with a native lens attached, it's just going to feel worse with third party lenses.

[willie_901]

For me, there is no reason to use M lenses on the XP-1. I really can't think of a single advantage. In a studio setting or with a tripod the EVF would work well though.

[raid]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

If you are talking about the Olympus VF-2, then this is just incorrect information.

The EV2 on my EP2 allows me to use a Zeiss 85m/1.4 wide open.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by willie_901

For me, there is no reason to use M lenses on the XP-1. I really can't think of a single advantage. In a studio setting or with a tripod the EVF would work well though.

I agree the Fuji native lenses are very good.. Good enough for many not to bother w/ Leica lenses.

Main reason for me to use m lenses is to fill in spots where the Fuji native is not available yet. 24 and 40 equivalents were my main ones.

Plus the other reason - I like dof info on the lens which current crop of Fuji native lenses do not have.. Shooting in situations where there is a lot of action, sometimes it is really better to zone focus, that way u eliminate the af lag.. U can do this with existing Fuji native lens but takes more time to look into the ovf just to setup the correct zone setting. Faster if u can look down on lens and change the zone before bringing it up to shoot. If u are using zone focus u can still use ovf is another plus.

The Fuji m mount adapter is really a plus since u can set up corrections for barrel, pincushion, light falloff, and color as compared to normal third party adapters on the xp1. A button on the Fuji adapter to go straight to the custom lens menu is a really nice touch.

Ymmv.

Gary

Ps. Forgot to mention the 40 pancake lens is on the roadmap for 2013, but my 24 equivelent is not on the roadmap.

[semilog]

I've got a friend who is using 24/2.8 ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH, and CV 15/4.5 on the X-Pro1. He's happy as a clam and doing terrific work on the street with that setup. I'm using the native 18 and 35 lenses; I'm also using a 21 Biogon on an adaptor.

MF works very well in both cases IF you learn how to use it properly.

With legacy glass: Push in on the thumbwheel on the back of the camera to get the magnified EVF. This works even when you are framing through the OVF. Half-press the shutter once you've focused and you're in OVF or EVF framing mode again. Lickety split.

With native glass: once in MF mode you get close by hitting AF-L, then fine-adjust using the ring on the lens. Very fast, quite intuitive. Also, it's worth noting that the focus throw on the 18/2 is much shorter than on the 35/1.4.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by GaryLH

Plus the other reason - I like dof info on the lens which current crop of Fuji native lenses do not have.

DoF info -- albeit overly conservative DoF info -- is displayed in the finder. Different than what we are used to, perhaps, but not worse.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by semilog

DoF info -- albeit overly conservative DoF info -- is displayed in the finder. Different than what we are used to, perhaps, but not worse.

Yep... I forgot to mention that in my original post. I think conservative us an understatement though The dof info in the finder of the x100 does not seem as conservative as the xp1.

I just like looking down at lens and seeing the aperture and dof info in one glance before bringing up the camera for the shot.

Anyway it's all good... The more versatility the better

Cheers
Gary

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by semilog

Also, it's worth noting that the focus throw on the 18/2 is much shorter than on the 35/1.4.

Compared to the mf implementation on the x100, the xp1 is so much better it could be better, but they listened and they did improve it. Even the 35 is better than the x100 fly by wire, the 18 is currently the best in terms of the manual focus... Not as good as the best implementation like the one on Olympus m43 lenses....

I don't think people give Fuji credit for listening and bringing stepwise improvements.

Gary

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by buzzardkid

Okay,

I'm contemplating an X-Pro1 with Leica glass, to be used in full manual or A-priority.

Anybody that can either praise or condemn this setup?

Particularly interested in ease and speed of focusing, coming from the M2.

I´d get a NEX 7 instead.

[semilog]

^--- I don't dispute that for you an NEX-7 is preferred... but if you're going to say that it might be worthwhile to explain why? For example, a lot of people are still saying that the NEX-5 is better for native glass...

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by semilog

^--- I don't dispute that for you an NEX-7 is preferred... but if you're going to say that it might be worthwhile to explain why? For example, a lot of people are still saying that the NEX-5 is better for native glass...

The 7 comes with the integrated finder. It is a very well designed tool in my opinion, also cheaper and more compact than the X-PRO.

And the market is full of adapters to use virtually any lens ever produced.

The X-Pro comes with a better set of system lenses but AF is problematic, from what I have heard. If you are going to use manual lenses anyway, I dont see a reason to use the Fuji anymore.

[f16sunshine]

Hello Johan!
Using manual lenses on the X pro is a new experience. It's not as easy to get used to as a SLR focus screen or a rangefinder. For Hyperfocal use of RF lenses it works like a dream when you consider the IQ the sensor delivers. Aperture priority has worked very well for me and I rarely switch to manual. Personally I like the form of the Xpro and, could never consider the Sony cameras currently offered as they are just to damn small and skinny to hold on to. Also Sony has Sh!t for lens offerings for the native system.

The native fuji lenses are superb and inexpensive (and check out that road map of lenses to come!). As well the af issues people have a largely overblown. The camera takes a bit of getting used to. I've had mine since the second week available now. My opinion at first was the af was middling at best. Now I understand it better and find it quite predictable and... I'm hitting far more often than when using a Rangefinder. I think most reports of poor af performance come from people in their first month of owning the camera.

OK all that said. If you strictly want a digital option for Leica M lenses. The M8/M9 or RD1 are still absolutely the very best choice IMO.

[semilog]

@ Speedfreak -- fair arguments. I used the NEX-7 and the X-Pro1 prior to purchase, and went with the X-Pro. Just didn't click with the way the NEX-7 felt in use. Horses for courses.

@f16sunshine -- I absolutely agree that the X-Pro1 has a learning curve, particularly for AF. It is a camera that has to be learned but for me its strengths outweigh its frustrations.

[buzzardkid]

Originally Posted by willie_901

For me, there is no reason to use M lenses on the XP-1. I really can't think of a single advantage. In a studio setting or with a tripod the EVF would work well though.

The Leica lenses have a focusing range, from 0.9 mtrs to infinity. The barrel is marked as such. There are aperture markings allowing a DOF estimate.

As a result, the Leica lenses can be used to zone-focus or pre-focus and predict DOF.

This is a big deal when shooting outdoors 'in the wild' for any Leica photographer.

To me it's of the biggest importance since I hate zoom lenses and autofocus. I use manual focus prime lenses on my DSLR and the Rolleiflexes are non-AF as well...