X-Pro1 in full manual with Leica glass

[willie_901]

The M lens DOF markings are for a 24x36 mm imaging surface. They are incorrect for an APS-C sensor.

The XP-1 can display a focus bar with focus distance and DOF (but the DOF is infamously conservative). This display can be seen, if desired, on the camera LCD screen so it is possible to set focus distance before the camera goes to your eye. This method is slower than turning a mechanical lens barrel though.

Zone focusing with the XP-1 is straightforward.

Additionally the AF can be used manually in manul focus mode to set a useful initisl focus distance and then reply on DOF.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by willie_901

The M lens DOF markings are for a 24x36 mm imaging surface. They are incorrect for an APS-C sensor.

Quite right, someone else on another thread for apsc amera brought this up. U need to adjust by around 1.5 stops or so.... But I tend to be conservative and use a full two stops. For example I might set the aperture on the lens for f8, but I will use the dof markings for f4 instead.

Gary

[semilog]

Originally Posted by buzzardkid

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

I use the XF 18/2 that way about 50% of the time. It's not rocket science.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

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

I came from an M6 and haven't been disappointed. It's not the same, but some aspects of the X-Pro are decidedly better!

[Lss]

Originally Posted by semilog

I came from an M6 and haven't been disappointed. It's not the same, but some aspects of the X-Pro are decidedly better!

For M lenses and M lenses only? Fair enough, but a lot of people will not agree with that.

[Jamie Pillers]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with these comments completely. I think the XPro1 works GREAT as a manual focus camera. You just have to learn how to use its features correctly. Once you learn them, focusing is fast and super accurate. (I love Ben's remark regarding focus-shift! )

And regarding the EVF (which I'm using more and more, as I get used to it): with an EVF you see a TON of information you don't get with OVFs. Like being able to see what the scene looks like when you dial in some exposure compensation. This is a GREAT feature!

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Lss

For M lenses and M lenses only? Fair enough, but a lot of people will not agree with that.

No, but in part for M lenses. And I do have at least one close friend, a dedicated Leica shooter, who's using the X-Pro with M lenses and M lenses only. He's a highly experienced photographer who's worked with many different analog and digital systems and he's absolutely in love with the thing.

As I said above, horses for courses.

[mabelsound]

Hmm. You guys are making me think I've rushed to judgement. Maybe I'll give it another try.

[mabelsound]

Originally Posted by macjim

Here's a review of an M lens on the X-Pro1 ( I had mistakenly posted this as am OM lens post earlier !)
http://findingrange.com/2012/07/02/f...pro1-in-stock/

That's not a review, it's spam.

[macjim]

Originally Posted by mabelsound

That's not a review, it's spam.

Sorry having a bad morning. Just looked at it again and your right. I'll delete it.

[macjim]

Originally Posted by macjim

Sorry having a bad morning. Just looked at it again and your right. I'll delete it.

Gone. Sorry again...

[mabelsound]

Oh, no big deal, wasn't blaming you.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by raid

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

Not sure why you quoted me on your response. I think we are agreeing.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by semilog

I came from an M6 and haven't been disappointed. It's not the same, but some aspects of the X-Pro are decidedly better!

Sure, but you are open minded. I like the X-Pro1 better than a M...I think. However, I guess what I was trying to say is if you are expecting a Leica M for $1699, you will be disappointed in the X-Pro1. If you are realistic and think of the X-Pro1 for what it is, on its own with out preconceived notions, then it can be a great camera. I love mine, but I like to be honest to M users...

[buzzardkid]

All in all I'm still interested. While the remark on the Nex-7 finder got me wandering over to Sony's shop I'm still not liking its form factor and the Fuji was a lot more native to my hand when I briefly test drove it.

Now to figure out what the new Plustek scanner will cost (that has to go first, to boost scanning resolution from my M2 and Rolleiflex shots) and then see if there's any cash left to secure an X-Pro1

[semilog]

Truth is that I know with reasonable certainty that I could use an NEX-7, an EM-5, an X-Pro, a Pentax K5, a Canon 7d... and I'd get results I like with any of 'em. The latter two won't take M lenses but they can run some very cool legacy glass of their own.

At some point one has to stop worrying too much about the minor differences between cameras, get one, learn it, and use it.

[buzzardkid]

^^true. But I'm interested in the X-Pro1 because of its size andthe option to use glass thats already in my bag anyway. Same time I don't want to miss shots because the camera as a tool slows me down. To exaggerate: a pinhole might get me good shots too but its useless for a quick grab.

I cannot understand how DOF of a lens changes when the image size surface changes. I think it's only FOV that changes and not DOF? I've never experienced this with a Horseman when switching from a 4x5 back to a 2x3 back...

[gDallasK]

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.

If you are comparing it to the M9, then how about the opportunity to capture images at ISO 640 upward that don't look as if they were taken in a multi-colour snowstorm?

[craygc]

Originally Posted by buzzardkid

I cannot understand how DOF of a lens changes when the image size surface changes.

The CoC as recorded on the sensor (film) doesn't change between formats. It has one diameter and that's it. Why DoF is described as relating to sensor size is all about achieving an apple to apples comparisons of the output.

If its considered as "to provide the same FoV", then smaller sensors have more DoF due to, for example, a 24mm lens just having more DoF than a 35mm lens at the same f-stop. However, if you are using the same lens on different sensors, the smaller sensor is considered to have less DoF as the image would need more enlargement more to match the same size print from the larger sensor. In the enlargement process, the CoC would be magnified more from the smaller sensor thus reducing the apparent in focus range.

[willie_901]

Originally Posted by gDallasK

If you are comparing it to the M9, then how about the opportunity to capture images at ISO 640 upward that don't look as if they were taken in a multi-colour snowstorm?

I understand what you are saying.

However, but that advantage only applies if you only own M/LTM lenses. Using the EVF with M lenses would frustrate me and this is my point. Maybe Fuji will change the firmware with an intermediate zoom magnification, or focus peaking. Until then I would think zone focusing with wide angle M lenses is the only way using M lenses is practical. Tripod usage would work well too.

[progie]

I,
I'm using 3.5,5,9,and 135 glass on my x pro. The pics are fantastic. Screw glass with adaptor.
New update is a must

[julianphotoart]

Thank you for having this thread. I bought this camera yesterday afternoon (with a Novoflex M adapter), immediately got frustrated, opened up RFF and this thread was right there to answer the questions that immediately frustrated me.
I still have one problem though. There are two settings to set custom focal lengths for maanual-focus lenses. When I put those settings into effect (for me, it was for 40mm and 75mm), nothing happens. In fact, there are no frame lines at all in the optical viewfinder. Are these two settings only usable with the Fuji adapter, or what am I not doing wrong?
On the other issues, I have read the other posts in this thread and I have to say that while using that weird zoom feature to manually focus takes some getting used to, it seems no slower than using a rangefinder patch to focus an M. And, once the lens is focused, I also trust that it actually is in true focus more than I do with my Leica M's where I have to rely on my middle-aged vision defects.

[doncraig]

Originally Posted by Lss

For M lenses and M lenses only? Fair enough, but a lot of people will not agree with that.

Yep, it's a matter of opinion. But for a growing number of current and former M shooters, the XP1 and X glass are a superior system. Using M glass on the XP1 is understandable, but certainly not an improvement over using Fujinon lenses with the XP1.

[doncraig]

Originally Posted by semilog

@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.

Semilog, your comments are sensible and to the point.

Couldn't agree more about the experience of using the XP1 or any camera: learn how it works and then see if it's strengths outweigh any frustrations. Certainly much better than writing "I haven't tried this, but have read..."

[buzzardkid]

Originally Posted by doncraig

Yep, it's a matter of opinion. But for a growing number of current and former M shooters, the XP1 and X glass are a superior system. Using M glass on the XP1 is understandable, but certainly not an improvement over using Fujinon lenses with the XP1.

If the Leitz lenses are on par with the Fujinons that would be fine with me. I have no need for any improvements over my Leitz glass but would like to have a digital body in the bag without the need for a second set of lenses