Not overly thrilled w/X-Pro 1 in hand...

[Keith]

Olympus OM-D / E5.... Again, i'm bewildered by the glowing reports. I actually HATED this thing. Picked it up, turned it on, and only had it in my hands for less than a minute before i wanted to move away. Ick.

That surprised me! To me the OMD is not a camera that will appeal to everyone but to be able to pick up any camera, turn it on, hold it for a minute and decide that you hate it is odd!

I feel indifference to the Xpro and didn't think much of the styling but I can see where it's appeal is and although the X100 didn't ring my bells either I can understand why it's so popular.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

I like dense and substantial camera.
That does not always mean bigger size.
Olympus Pen E-P2 is very small, but dense.
Fuji X100 when I tried it at the store, didn't feel like that at all.

I thought the e-p1 was dense and substantial feeling when I had it... until I bent the baseplate by using it (normally) on a tripod. It just feels well made, in reality it isn't necessarily well made.

My x100 in comparison I think will prove to be more durable (apart from the viewfinder being a dust vacuum.)

[Keith]

Weight in a camera creates an illusion of build quality IMO. To me the Bessas I've owned have felt cheap but in reality they are a great camera and work perfectly. Pick up an RD-1 which is basically a Bessa with a sensor and lots of electronics and the first thing you notice is the extra weight over the film cameras from Cosina and it just feels like there is more quailty there.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Keith

Weight in a camera creates an illusion of build quality IMO.

That.

The M8/9 have a bunch of brass in them. The X-pro uses magnesium, which is not an inferior material.

[Vincent.G]

Originally Posted by David_Manning

I've been really interested in the X-Pro 1, and I've been driving my wife crazy with the puppy-dog looks and leaving the computer browser open to X-Pro 1 sites. I mean, I've been laying it on pretty thick.

I was at the local camera dealer this week, and they had one in stock with a 35/1.4 attached. Naturally I had to fondle it.

Guess what? I'm NOT so in love anymore. It's bigger than I imagined (and I knew it was larger than the X100 anyway), boxier, and with the 35 mounted, not nearly as compact as I was hoping. I went home and tried out my X100, and I like it better! It's smaller, same VF, perfect focal length for me, and so I'm not so hot after the XP1 anymore. That result was utterly unexpected...I usually love buying new cameras.

I guess at the end of the day, the X100 is the perfect compact for nondescript, quiet shooting, and if I HAVE to have several focal lengths, I can default to the 5Dmk2 and primes (which is not much bigger than the X-Pro 1 with lenses and hoods attached).

Hi David

I played with my friend's XP1 and prefer the X100 too. The X100 feels more compact. The auto focus speed of XP1 seem faster to me though. I feel that if one likes the 35mm focal length only, the X100 offers better value for money IMHO.

[willie_901]

If you are happy with a fixed lens, then the X100 is the best buy. The X100 lens does flare more than the XP1 when very strong point source lights are in the scene. 16 MP means more cropping flexibility. Otherwise, the X100 is better in some ways. It has an adjustable dipopter; a bigger finder; more flexibility for EVF focus confirmation and it's easier to carry in a small bag.

There are other differences of course, but these are the most important to me.

[clicker]

I sold my x100 , and now I am the very happy owner of the XPro.
Believe it or not I found it too small for my hands, so after a few months I sold it for no other reason than it's size. All in all I find the Fuji cameras and glass to be first rate.

[Jamie Pillers]

David,
One more comment about the X-Pro1. Most all the comments here are about what I call the ergonomics of the camera. How it feels, how it looks, how it operates. But what about image quality?

Last night I downloaded my first memory card from the X-Pro1. When I saw the images come up on the screen I was taken aback! They are BEAUTIFUL! Over the years I've looked at a LOT of images on my computer screen, created with DSLRs, many film cameras, and most recently, the X100. The X-Pro1 images are different... stunning! I'm not much into the technical underpinnings of digital imagery, so I can't say for sure what is precisely different about the X-Pro1 images, but the impression is something like what happens when you see an old master's painting in real life for the first time. Something about the way the light seems real, the colors seem deeply saturated, and the overall impression of super-reality floating in a frame. Gorgeous.

[Jamie Pillers]

Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers

David,
One more comment about the X-Pro1. Most all the comments here are about what I call the ergonomics of the camera. How it feels, how it looks, how it operates. But what about image quality?

Last night I downloaded my first memory card from the X-Pro1. When I saw the images come up on the screen I was taken aback! They are BEAUTIFUL! Over the years I've looked at a LOT of images on my computer screen, created with DSLRs, many film cameras, and most recently, the X100. The X-Pro1 images are different... stunning! I'm not much into the technical underpinnings of digital imagery, so I can't say for sure what is precisely different about the X-Pro1 images, but the impression is something like what happens when you see an old master's painting in real life for the first time. Something about the way the light seems real, the colors seem deeply saturated, and the overall impression of super-reality floating in a frame. Gorgeous.

And I forgot to mention... these images are straight-out-of-the-camera jpegs!! No post-processing at all.

[mobilexile]

Originally Posted by kshapero

Really? It is that big?

In brief, no, it's not that big. That said it's larger than the X100.

I happen to love the X-Pro1. No complaints with the body or any of the three Fuji lenses, all of which I own.

[mobilexile]

Originally Posted by back alley

it's not small...it is largish but very light in the hand and i thought it felt very comfortable.

but it's a completely different animal than the x100.

I would call it small given what it packs in terms of processor and the like.

[mobilexile]

Originally Posted by dmc

Agreed, X-Pro is not for traveling light, and I think you and I travel a lot ! Lol

I travel a lot and bringing the X-Pro1 has not been an issue. That said, the X100 is the camera that's in my laptop bag 24 / 7.

[SausalitoDog]

I've tried taking the xp1 with me more on walks etc. It just doesn't work trying to fit it into a pocket - even in a fairly large jacket pocket. That said, it's so nice around your neck :-)

But if I really need compactness (pocket carries), then it's the x100 for me...and it's always in the side storage compartment of my car or under the seat ready to go.

[boomguy57]

For me, what kills the XP1 is the size of the lenses. The pancake on the X100 is great, but the 35/1.4 on the XP1 seems massive in comparison. And the 60/2.4? Forget about it. I might as well carry my D700 at that point. IMO, it's not just weight, but it's the bulk that turns me off. My M6 is probably (I haven't held the XP1) heavier than the XP1, and the body might be roughly the same size, but the lenses are far more compact-looking (again, I haven't held the XP1, so I could be wrong; I expect to be pilloried all the same).

[semilog]

Originally Posted by boomguy57

For me, what kills the XP1 is the size of the lenses.

The 35/1.4 is essentially identical in size to the Pana/Leica 25/1.4 Summilux for µ4/3. The 18 is tiny.

And with the 35 it's a lot lighter than an M6 with comparable lens (I have both). The X-Pro1 and the OM-D weigh the same with comparable lenses. However, there's no equivalent lens to the Panasonic 20/1.7 available. That lens is probably the best reason to get into the µ4/3 system, IMO.

I spent yesterday shooting the M6 and the X-Pro side by side. In operation there's really not a lot of difference between them. Over the course of a day the low weight of the X-Pro is wonderful.

[macjim]

If the M6 I'd the same size as the M9, then I'd say the X-Pro1 is a better choice as its lighter and a bit smaller too. Yes, Leica lenses are smaller than the X-Pro1's but remember, they are autofocus lenses rather than the Manual ones for the Leica, and yes, the X100's lens is smaller but again, it's a fixed lens too do it will be smaller. The X-Pro1 is a good compromise over the more compact cameras with its built in viewfinder and yes it won't fit in a pocket but there a few cameras that will give you the image quality and handling that this camera does. Oh, try putting an M6/9 in your pocket… not easy! Might I suggest that a way round the problem is to buy the case for the X-Pro1 and that would allow it to be carried over the shoulder without the need for a bag. It's a nice case too.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by boomguy57

For me, what kills the XP1 is the size of the lenses. The pancake on the X100 is great, but the 35/1.4 on the XP1 seems massive in comparison.

It is massive in comparison... but you get used to it. It's not much bigger than any other 50mm 1.4 equivilent lens out there (for APS-C or larger cameras). It does have an SLR feel to it though.

[boomguy57]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

It is massive in comparison... but you get used to it. It's not much bigger than any other 50mm 1.4 equivilent lens out there (for APS-C or larger cameras). It does have an SLR feel to it though.

The idea of carrying around my M6-sized body with my Nikon 50/1.4-sized lens on the front is not only funny, but awkward (in my head).

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by boomguy57

The idea of carrying around my M6-sized body with my Nikon 50/1.4-sized lens on the front is not only funny, but awkward (in my head).

That said, it isn't much different than a M6 with a Voigtlander 50mm 1.5 lens. I'm with you though. I can't wait for the 28mm (42mm) pancake lens from Fuji. The 18mm is small enough.

[mdwsta4]

I used the x100 since it came out last year and found it to be the perfect travel camera (small, lightweight, great image quality). As soon as the XP1 was released I picked one up and while it is larger, it is a phenomenal camera. I love the image quality that it produces and after only a few firmware upgrades, it is noticeably improved. However, recently I picked up an M9 and find it and the XP1 to be a bit redundant so I'm looking to sell the XP1. As much as I love the image quality, I can't justify having both cameras. That said, I've become spoiled by ISO performance as the XP1 is absolutely ridiculous when compared to my M, x100, or 5D2.

For those complaining about how heavy/light it is, I don't think that's a bad thing. Makes it easy to carry around all day! Coming from Canon and using a 5D2, anything that's smaller/lighter is a joy to use/carry.

If anyone's interested in my XP1, let me know.

[custom875]

I love the size and weight. Hardly ever use the Canon anymore.

[chrism_scotland]

Size wise I agree the X-Pro 1 is larger than I expected but it is very light and well balanced with the 35mm attached.

That said compared to my previous camera (Olympus EP2 with a pancake lens) the X-Pro 1 isn't as readily convenient for carrying.

My EP2 used to simply get put in my bag each day with the 17mm attached and another pancake lens in the bag taking up little space but the X-Pro 1 if I want to carry it with me (and I do because thats why I bought it!) takes up a lot more room so I can see times where I would have to leave it at home.

That said the IQ is outstanding although I do think sometimes that having £2000 worth of camera equipment tied up in a Compact System might have been better invested in a DSLR, especially as some, certainly with a prime lens attached wouldn't take up all that much more room (D7000 & 35mm)

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by chrism_scotland

That said the IQ is outstanding although I do think sometimes that having £2000 worth of camera equipment tied up in a Compact System might have been better invested in a DSLR, especially as some, certainly with a prime lens attached wouldn't take up all that much more room (D7000 & 35mm)

I always thought of the X-Pro1 as an alternative to a DSLR. If you are into DSLRs, they are always the better value... but ergonomically, a lot of us RF users (former / current) do not like DSLRs much.

[chrism_scotland]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I always thought of the X-Pro1 as an alternative to a DSLR. If you are into DSLRs, they are always the better value... but ergonomically, a lot of us RF user (former / current) do not like DSLRs much.

I can't blame you, I certainly would be wary of DSLR handling if I was used to RF cameras!!
I suspect part of my issue is the other way around is being used to large DSLR's (Sony A700, Pentax K20D) and then trying to get use to smaller bodies, I've found smaller DSLR's a struggle to be comfortable as well though as I seem to have hands too large for a lot of the grips!!!

For me I think I'm going to pass my X-Pro 1 on for now, with the 35mm its easily the best camera I've ever owned but the 18mm just hasn't done anything for me and I really need wider glass. The 14mm looks very interesting but I really need wider glass just now rather than later in the year, easily best IQ and I would certainly have another when there are more lenses but for me I think I might go back to a full DSLR again, especially as I've just enrolled on a photography degree which will need more kit (lenses) than the X-Pro can supply at present.

[brandonskinner]

Don't know about you guys, but as a street photographer the worst thing you can do is put your camera in your pocket... you will miss the shot every time.

Also, I can't believe anyone complains about the X-Pro being too heavy. Heavy vs. what, your iPhone?