X-Pro 1 vs Nikon D3 ?
Old 01-24-2012   #1
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 48
Posts: 4,661
X-Pro 1 vs Nikon D3 ?

Don't know if this has been posted yet - the "Leaked" thread is well into it's umpteenth page so if I didn't spot it in that thread (which I didn't) but it was posted, please, Mods, feel free to delete this post.

This is from a Romanian blog/magazine (by the looks of things) named "F64" - it looks pretty legit but don't quote me on it - it's been put through Google Translate for English folks.

If this guy has a production or even a pre-production test model then the high ISO (6400) looks pretty good compared to the Nikon D3.

There's a lot more in here but just have a read:
http://translate.google.ro/translate...fuji-x-pro1%2F

Cheers,
Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2012   #2
kzphoto
Registered User
 
kzphoto's Avatar
 
kzphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,175
Thanks! I've used the D3 in the past to shoot a wedding here and there (strictly on a rental basis) but I was impressed by the higher ISO performance. Looks like the Fuji is doing well against the D3, but to be fair the sensor is a few years old now.... 2007? 2008? That's 4 or 5 years for Nikon to step up their game. I'd love to see a side-by-side with the D4.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2012   #3
kzphoto
Registered User
 
kzphoto's Avatar
 
kzphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,175
Looking at the ISO 12,800 my jaw dropped. That's pretty amazing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2012   #4
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 459
"AF is slightly improved than on the X100" - Come on, the one on X100 needs more than "slight" improvement.

Hope they get it right in the final product.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2012   #5
f6andBthere
-
 
f6andBthere's Avatar
 
f6andBthere is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 445
It's amazing that suddenly if a camera doesn't perform at 6400 it's not really in the race. This has happened very quickly IMO and suddenly my D700's files at 6400 are really nothing to marvel at any more!

From what I can see the X-Pro at 6400 is superior to the D700 ... we always supected it was going to be good based on what the little X100 is capable of. Sensor technology has gone ahead in leaps and bounds of late!

I wonder what the boys and girls in Solms have in store for us?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2012   #6
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,421
It looks excellent. But, the D3 appears to be resolving more detail at th ehigh iso's (look at the fruit pictures on the bowl) with more apparent noise - perhaps the noise reduction algorithms are diferent and the Fuji's a bit more invasive?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2012   #7
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by f6andBthere View Post
I wonder what the boys and girls in Solms have in store for us?

Depends who they are planning on partnering with for the next sensor I suspect. CMOS architecture clearly has an advantage in low noise at high iso, so perhaps that will be the next step, but who with?

I had a conversation with the Zeiss factory and they said that one of the reasons there isn't a digital ZI is that finding the right sensor partner is very difficult - the customer requires very high quality and the sensor design (i.e. micro lenses etc) is specialist and partnering is not easy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2012   #8
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojournerphoto View Post
It looks excellent. But, the D3 appears to be resolving more detail at th ehigh iso's (look at the fruit pictures on the bowl) with more apparent noise - perhaps the noise reduction algorithms are diferent and the Fuji's a bit more invasive?
This is what I've wondered. I'd rather have noise and detail (or apparent sharpness) than noise-smearing even in RAW that loses detail. (Nikon appears to do that as well, but they lose very little detail.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2012   #9
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by celluloidprop View Post
This is what I've wondered. I'd rather have noise and detail (or apparent sharpness) than noise-smearing even in RAW that loses detail. (Nikon appears to do that as well, but they lose very little detail.)
My view as well.

The reason that Canon are kings of the astrophotography world (ignoring specialist sensors and webcams) is that they don't muck with the raw files like Nikon and others. If someone is stacking a thousand shots to manage noise, then any NR beforehand just hides the data. (an aside, but I like to hang a camera of my scope occasionally, at a much simpler level I should add)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2012   #10
DamenS
Registered User
 
DamenS is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by f6andBthere View Post
From what I can see the X-Pro at 6400 is superior to the D700 ... we always supected it was going to be good based on what the little X100 is capable of. Sensor technology has gone ahead in leaps and bounds of late!

I wonder what the boys and girls in Solms have in store for us?
A clean 800 ISO ?
__________________
Konica Hexar AF, Fuji GW690III, Crown Graphic, Nikon 35ti
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2012   #11
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,329
High ISO, the be-all-end-all of photography!

Based on the X100, the X-Pro1 will have very good resolving power without appearing muddy or smudged. I think it would be more appropriate to judge the X-Pro1 for resolving power vs. an APS-C DSLR (despite Fuji's sensor claims).
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2012   #12
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,639
I think that for the last few years the high iso capability has been just fine for most photographers. Improvements are always welcome but are they necessary in most cases. I think it is pretty good if the X-Pro 1 can come close to matching a D3 at high iso considering it is using a smaller sensor. Fuji deserves some credit for this if it turns out to be true.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2012   #13
f6andBthere
-
 
f6andBthere's Avatar
 
f6andBthere is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 445
I look at my D700's files at 6400 occasionally and wish they were better ... not often but now and then I do actually yearn for one more stop!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2012   #14
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,094
The point in comparing is that the D3 was revolutionary not so long ago.

I want a camera that will make nice images in the lighting we like for social interaction. Ultimately, I would like a camera that will take pictures anywhere the eye can see. My D300 was a significant step forward; it lets me make images I couldn't have made before (e.g. in mood lighting at a dinner table). D7000 is even better. Now this from Fuji looks like a further significant step. Yes, I think clean ISO 6400 will be "table stakes" very soon for all manufacturers introducing new camera models.

I like this progress.

I did notice the comment about turning off NR in the D3. Still, the Fuji images look great.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)
Today I'm using Nikon & Sony NEX digital, Nikon & Contax/Yashica SLRs, and Black Yashica RFs.
Where did all these cameras come from?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2012   #15
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,094
Dave, thanks for linking this interesting article.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)
Today I'm using Nikon & Sony NEX digital, Nikon & Contax/Yashica SLRs, and Black Yashica RFs.
Where did all these cameras come from?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2012   #16
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 48
Posts: 4,661
It is rather interesting isn't it? You're most welcome

The "high ISO" race (or so it seems) may be the last bastion to be conquered; that is, until another one comes along, for digital cameras. They've gone through the megapixel race already. It seems the pocketable camera race was done a long time ago and the fast fixed lens race may be complete with f2 or f1.9 being about as fast as you can get on some of the smaller "advanced" cameras. So, high ISO it is I would assume.

I would concur that I too would like nice images at ISO 6400 - I don't know if it's necessary to go any "higher" per se.

What has often frustrated me about digital capture is the "muddiness" that used to (and in some cases still does) occur at the higher ISO's AND the fact that "subtlety" is lost at those ISOs as well. What I mean by this is; the impression I have always had about high ISO capture is that digital wants to get AS MUCH INFORMATION on the sensor as possible - it's the nature of the beast - while film tends to be subtle in it's movement from light to dark. When it's dark.. its dark.. it's black or really really really really dark grey (in B&W photography). In digital capture it seems like when the light fall off occurs, it's bright and then suddenly black. I don't want to have all that information - I prefer subtlety.

I guess the best way I can describe it is using somewhat of a colloquialism: Digital capture "makes love" like someone in their early 20's while film "makes love" like someone in their 40's or 50's...

Cheers,
Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2012   #17
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsang View Post
I guess the best way I can describe it is using somewhat of a colloquialism: Digital capture "makes love" like someone in their early 20's while film "makes love" like someone in their 40's or 50's...
Wow, that can be taken in so many different ways that I don't want to begin to decipher that...
  Reply With Quote

About ISO performance and Information
Old 01-25-2012   #18
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
About ISO performance and Information

The added-value aspect of high ISO performance, or high signal-to-noise ratio cameras used to be flexibility and freedom. These factors are important for action photography and photography with at low EV values (say 4 - 6). Right now we enjoy a variety of cameras that meet the SNR needs of 99% of the photographer community.

What I didn't realize until recently is: high SNR also provides increased dynamic range. For many photographers one or more stops of dynamic range is more valuable than low-noise shadow areas at ISO 1600. Anyone who wishes their digital camera had more dynamic range is really waiting for a camera with a higher SNR which is commonly described as improved high ISO performance. You can never have too much SNR. Nothing beats data (of any kind) with a high information content.

With regard to information content. It is possible to intentionally reduce information content after the data is recorded, but you can not add information content afterwards. If discarding information (data) produces an increase in aesthetic, then digital recording and analog recording should ultimately be equivalent.

I think the loss of subtleness might have to do with the inherent errors caused by converting analog information (photon density and frequency) into digital information. This process is inherently flawed and while digitial imaging (and audio recording) is superior in many ways, it is not possible to perfectly (literally perfect) model analog phenomenon in a digital format. The errors between the digital model and the real, but unknown, values (photon densities and energies) can never be zero.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

Self-Induced Transparency Photography, FLICKR, Professional Portfolio.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2012   #19
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsang View Post
I guess the best way I can describe it is using somewhat of a colloquialism: Digital capture "makes love" like someone in their early 20's while film "makes love" like someone in their 40's or 50's...

Cheers,
Dave
film is slower, used less often and sometimes doesn't work?

but when it's good...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2012   #20
David_Manning
Registered User
 
David_Manning's Avatar
 
David_Manning is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Aledo, Texas
Age: 48
Posts: 1,417
I think people are missing the fact that this camera is a third the size and weight, and a third the price (with lenses) of a D3 for more resolution and possibly similar, if not better, low-light capability.

If you need a dSLR, then use a dSLR. The piece de resistance here is an M9-sized package.
__________________
My Tumblr site
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2012   #21
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,329
David, I agree. You cannot satisfy the RFF crowd unless you bring out an exact M9 clone for 1/3rd of the price... and then someone will still complain.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2012   #22
bigeye
Registered User
 
bigeye's Avatar
 
bigeye is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 1,134
Is the the "X100 vs. M9" thread or am I in the wrong place?

.
__________________
I bought a new camera. It's so advanced you don't even need it. - Steven Wright
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2012   #23
David_Manning
Registered User
 
David_Manning's Avatar
 
David_Manning is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Aledo, Texas
Age: 48
Posts: 1,417
I'd like to see a Godzilla vs. M9 thread. I think Godzilla would win, but I'm sure someone would say its because he's bigger and heavier
__________________
My Tumblr site
  Reply With Quote

X-pro thoughts
Old 01-27-2012   #24
Imagestreet
Registered User
 
Imagestreet's Avatar
 
Imagestreet is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 41
X-pro thoughts

I've read all the reviews and nearly pulled the trigger on a x-pro pre order last week. However can't help being bothered by the thought, that essentially you would be buying a 2k compact camera. Although the D3 sensor (or better) in a small package would be great (and I have a D3), this fly by wire focus nonsense could be miserable. Surely focussing in low light (or judging your distance manually) and setting your zone focus in advance is the modus operandi of rangefinders. For static subjects it might be ok but for street or discreet wedding/function shots of people this doesn't sound a good solution. I've heard dreadful things about the x100 auto focus, although people seem to like the hybrid viewfinder. Can any x100 owners put my mind at rest?
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1447'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2012   #25
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,615
Clearly the X100's focus is not perfect - far from it - but I take most of my street shots with any camera with the focus set to a particular focus point and stopped down to f5.6-11, depending. With the X100 you can do this just as you would a Leica M and then, if you need AF, you only need to flick the switch to put it back on.

With the APS-C sensor, DOF is tremendous, so for regular street shots where you are happy to have lots of DOF, it makes getting everything sharp easy. I tend to find that with street, things happen so quickly that no AF system would ever be able to read my mind fast enough, so I zone focus and tweak where that zone of focus falls more than I actually focus per se.

The X100 focuses just fine IMHO. Not brilliantly, but well enough, and unless the light is terrible, it focuses more quickly than I have ever been able to with the Leica.

I was getting put off the X-Pro due to the lack of amazing AF until I realised it actually does not matter much to me. Form factor and sensor and lens quality are much more important. If I get one, I will prob do a lot of shooting with the 20mm, where DOF will be in abundance.

I would think the camera would be great for wedding candids in decent light, but I personally do not find any reason not to use a SLR for this. Its not as if people are shocked to see cameras at a wedding... It probably will not be very good for pin sharp shallow DOF portraits, but this is no surprise. Thats FF + fast 85 territory.

Horses for courses. A Leica M is a niche tool. I find it interesting that few seem able to accept that the X-Pro is too. It will do different things well to a Leica M and some things worse. But its a tool and if its the right one for the job, then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagestreet View Post
.. For static subjects it might be ok but for street ... this doesn't sound a good solution. I've heard dreadful things about the x100 auto focus, although people seem to like the hybrid viewfinder. Can any x100 owners put my mind at rest?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:12.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.