X-Pro 1 reviewed at DPReview

[SausalitoDog]

The focusing is SLOW, but the accuracy is fantastic.

Best used in manual focus, with "auto" AF button to approximate the focus - manual only to fine tune.

[jarski]

when discussing about reviews from DPreview and others, the "weakest link" (that's always there, no matter how good camera) turns to utter trash feature in these Internet boards. its then escalated in other threads by referring "yeah but that AF speed, that DP tested...". so occasional visitor sees choir of commentators who all seem to agree that "XPro1 has crap AF" (in this example). hard to put things into perspective these days...

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by jarski

when discussing about reviews from DPreview and others, the "weakest link" (that's always there, no matter how good camera) turns to utter trash feature in these Internet boards. its then escalated in other threads by referring "yeah but that AF speed, that DP tested...". so occasional visitor sees choir of commentators who all seem to agree that "XPro1 has crap AF" (in this example). hard to put things into perspective these days...

Exactly. It's like car reviewers when they review a car like any of the BMW sedans - they'll start off saying "this car handles beautifully - it's wonderfully sharp and is the best handling car in its class" and then in the very next paragraph they'll say something like "the ride is harsh and too firm unlike X competition which is lovely and supple." They don't acknowledge the fact that the reason why it's the best handling car in its class is BECAUSE it's more firm than the competition.

The x-pro is literally under a third of the cost of a 'pro' nikon or canon system, and has completely different design objectives - the DSLRs are made for versatility and speed, the x-pro is made for compact/lightweight/IQ balance, and a direct view (rangefinder like) experience. They don't mention in the conclusion 'pros' that it's less weight than an entry level DSLR with the IQ of a 7K pro dslr - they don't mention that all the lenses are top quality and a quarter of the weight of equivalent quality DSLR lenses - they don't mention that the optical finder is much nicer in some instances than a DSLR tunnel view VF.

Similarly, why so much mention of the 'oddities and glitches' of the x-pro1, when there is nothing of the sort in the Nikon d800 review, despite serious af problems widely documented with that camera (mis-focusses with outer AF points as per 'diglloyds' testing), lock ups, poorly calibrated screens, reports of exploding cameras etc.

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by Archlich

- No face detection AF system

I apologize for my ignorance, but do the D4 and the 1Dx have face detection?

Surprisingly, yes. So does all the other so-called Professional and Prosumer cameras.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by bugmenot

Surprisingly, yes. So does all the other so-called Professional and Prosumer cameras.

Only as far as metering and color sensors as far as I know, not face detection in terms of point and shoot appears in the VF style face detect.

[Paul T]

Similarly, why so much mention of the 'oddities and glitches' of the x-pro1, when there is nothing of the sort in the Nikon d800 review, despite serious af problems widely documented with that camera (mis-focusses with outer AF points as per 'diglloyds' testing), lock ups, poorly calibrated screens, reports of exploding cameras etc.

Very true, and he didn't mention the light leaks on the new Canon either!

but the xpro is a niche camera, looking from a mainstream perspective it's only reasonable to point out its quirks. I don't thnk fuji fans should be too defensive. I have owned a hexar af for many years now, and over those years people would often slag it off for, say, the limited higher shutter speeds. But it's now acknowledged as a classic. fuji have made their mark and I would guess have outperformed their budgets - but some criticism would be a good thing, if it means they iron out more of those quirks.

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

The x-pro is literally under a third of the cost of a 'pro' nikon or canon system, and has completely different design objectives - the DSLRs are made for versatility and speed, the x-pro is made for compact/lightweight/IQ balance, and a direct view (rangefinder like) experience. They don't mention in the conclusion 'pros' that it's less weight than an entry level DSLR with the IQ of a 7K pro dslr -

Comparing the FF models to the APS-C X-Pro is inaccurate in its own way.

The Fuji compares to a D7000. IQ is mostly sensore-derived and all models above $1,000 perform well. The X-Pro sensor is not better, frankly, than the D3200 sensor.

The Fuji weighs less, but can do less. Versatility and speed of DSLR's vs. a slightly smaller RF-like experience. Those are the trade-offs.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

The Fuji compares to a D7000. IQ is mostly sensore-derived and all models above $1,000 perform well. The X-Pro sensor is not better, frankly, than the D3200 sensor.

The Fuji weighs less, but can do less. Versatility and speed of DSLR's vs. a slightly smaller RF-like experience. Those are the trade-offs.

Sorry, but no - LINK - just select the d3200 as one of the comparison cameras, and move the dotted box around in the picture above to change what you see in the crops. You'll see the x-pro out resolves the d3200, is significantly less noisy at every ISO. And these are RAW files - the JPEGs will show an even greater difference in the x-pros favor. Dpreview themselves said it the sensor is compatible in IQ to the 5d mkIII.

[Monochrom]

Originally Posted by awbphotog

Maybe he really wants one but doesn't want to admit it. His user ID is Monochrom, after all

hahahha, maybe right but not really...in fact i love the m9 because i can set an elmar, collpase it and pocket the whole outfit...i wouldn´t go for th x-pro because the smaller sensor and the incapacity of collapsing a lens...so it´s larger in practical way...

I think the x100 and x-pro are very bold cameras in terms fuji dismisses mirrors...i firmly believe mirrors are no longer needed...they appeared to make things easier and to use zooms....but they´ve always been cumebrsome in every way...
since technology allow manufacturers to quit on mirrors the camera desing (people think) tends to be more like leicas...but i don´t think is necessarily true...i think desing tends to be more like"mirrorless", with smaller bodies also quitting huge lenses...

It´s not by chance that canon and nikon are not developing and offering mirrorless systems such as fuji, they dont want to kill their mirrors...so i´m a fan of fuji...in the short term fuji will eventually make an af system that will rival those of the high end dsrl´s and then they will take over the market...as they are doing today in a smaller way...

I´ve epxerienced many AF cameras...and none were as accurate as a MF rangefinder camera...sorry to say that..the only camera that was faster and acc was the contax t3....but again we have 2.8 and wide angle lens (more base dof)
The other very fast camera was the sony nex but only with the pancake 16mm f2.8 lens, but again large dof from the beginning...

Lighter lenses and shorter lenses mean faster and acc autofocus...
The photofactory canon 5d that i once had was a fast devil in every sense...but it wasn´t usable on the streets...it was ike carrying a ball and chain attached to my ankle...

Cheers!

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

Sorry, but no - LINK - just select the d3200 as one of the comparison cameras, and move the dotted box around in the picture above to change what you see in the crops. You'll see the x-pro out resolves the d3200, is significantly less noisy at every ISO. And these are RAW files - the JPEGs will show an even greater difference in the x-pros favor. Dpreview themselves said it the sensor is compatible in IQ to the 5d mkIII.

Bu the D7000 and Pentax K-5 smoke the X-Pro from what I am seeing at all ISO's. And the performance above the D3200 is maybe not a $,1200 difference, considering the D3200 has faster, more reliable autofocus, in a $499 camera (w/kit lens).

I'm an early Fuji convert to their SuperCCD system and subsequent tweaks, and they make very good sensors. But it is not FF and it is no better than anything Sony puts out now (the D3200 is an Aptina sensor). Fuji does great JPEG's but switch to RAW and there's no advantage. I actually think the Sony sensors are 1/2 stop better.

You're paying for a unique, smaller package and VF experience with the Fuji over a sea of sameness in DSLR's, but you get similar AP-C sensor performance and worse AF. Make your choices but the X-Pro 1 is a compromise and to get there, you pay a solid $500 premium on the body alone.

I tried the Nikon V1 beside the X-Pro about 3 evenings ago at my local shop and the V1 with its hybrid AF is much, much faster and equally as accurate. I'll wait to try Fuji again when I see them move towards that superior tech.

[Paul T.]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Comparing the FF models to the APS-C X-Pro is inaccurate in its own way.

The Fuji compares to a D7000. IQ is mostly sensore-derived and all models above $1,000 perform well. The X-Pro sensor is not better, frankly, than the D3200 sensor.

The Fuji weighs less, but can do less. Versatility and speed of DSLR's vs. a slightly smaller RF-like experience. Those are the trade-offs.

But... so what? This is just like the infinitely tedious argument from SLR fans who maintain their camera is better than an RF. They're simply not comparable. It's like saying I should own a Ford Mondeo over a mini. I'm not going to, and I never will. (Own a Mondeo, and quite possibly a digital SLR, not unless they come in at the size of my old film SLRs).

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Bu the D7000 and Pentax K-5 smoke the X-Pro from what I am seeing at all ISO's. And the performance above the D3200 is maybe not a $,1200 difference, considering the D3200 has faster, more reliable autofocus, in a $499 camera (w/kit lens).

I'm an early Fuji convert to their SuperCCD system and subsequent tweaks, and they make very good sensors. But it is not FF and it is no better than anything Sony puts out now (the D3200 is an Aptina sensor). Fuji does great JPEG's but switch to RAW and there's no advantage. I actually think the Sony sensors are 1/2 stop better.

You're paying for a unique, smaller package and VF experience with the Fuji over a sea of sameness in DSLR's, but you get similar AP-C sensor performance and worse AF. Make your choices but the X-Pro 1 is a compromise and to get there, you pay a solid $500 premium on the body alone.

I tried the Nikon V1 beside the X-Pro about 3 evenings ago at my local shop and the V1 with its hybrid AF is much, much faster and equally as accurate. I'll wait to try Fuji again when I see them move towards that superior tech.

Use that little comparison tool in the link I sent you. There's no way the k5 and d7000 are better. You can see it plainly in there. If you can't see it there must be something wrong with your eyes. Can you buy a pancake 18mm f2 for the d7000 and k5? Or a small/light 35mm f1.4? No? You can't compare the x-pro to a dslr, they're completely different concepts. The d3200 is $700 on b&h, not 500. I use d3100's at work a lot, and they're ergonomically akin to a dog turd. Once again, not nearly comparable.

The nikon v1 is even less comparable - I'm not even going to go there.

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

Use that little comparison tool in the link I sent you. There's no way the k5 and d7000 are better. You can see it plainly in there. If you can't see it there must be something wrong with your eyes. Can you buy a pancake 18mm f2 for the d7000 and k5? Or a small/light 35mm f1.4? No? You can't compare the x-pro to a dslr, they're completely different concepts. The d3200 is $700 on b&h, not 500. I use d3100's at work a lot, and they're ergonomically akin to a dog turd. Once again, not nearly comparable.

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.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by mabelsound

I don't think there is a single person on this entire messageboard who is confused about that.

People who are confused often mistakenly think that others are also confused.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Monochrom

The photofactory canon 5d that i once had was a fast devil in every sense...but it wasn´t usable on the streets...

I know some great street shooters who use 5D(I/II/II)'s working streets from the shopping districts of London to the shanties of Jakarta. More really good shooters than I know who use M9s and X-Pros combined, actually. In capable hands these are all outstanding tools capable of yielding superb results.

See my signature below.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Really?...

Many opinions here, relatively few facts. You're entitled to the opinions.

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by semilog

Many opinions here, relatively few facts. You're entitled to the opinions.

The DP Review tests are designed to be factual data points. Their motive is journalistic and edited as such.

Do you not consider the findings of their sample shots to be factual?

The Fuji sensor at pixel level smears reds into whites, and generally mixes colours.

The Sony sensor does not, and in cameras far less expensive.

The price of the camera is also objective, but the cost to each individual is relative.

Each person can therefore make a subjective decision whether or not this is an $1,800 sensor.

Then balance all the facts about VF, bulk, lenses, etc.

That's the raisond'etre of DP Review whose editorial opinion is under scrutiny here.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Each person can therefore make a subjective decision whether or not this is an $1,800 sensor.

At work, I have paid $30,000 for a sensor -- a digital camera without optics or image processing pipeline or finder or autofucus or illumination systems. Those items can easily add another $100,000.

For pictorial photography, I have never purchased a sensor -- only complete cameras with lens mounts, finders, imaging pipelines, and other integrated systems. I use them to take photographs. A 5DIII is no more a $3000 sensor than an M6 is a roll of Tri-X.

The motive is largely artistic, not technical, and I evaluate cameras as whole systems, not as collections of component parts. The question is whether they are good tools for my photography. Currently I use an M6, an X-Pro1, and a several others. They all have strengths and weaknesses.

Perhaps your avocation is different than mine.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

The Fuji sensor at pixel level smears reds into whites, and generally mixes colours.

How do you know that? Have you taken the trouble to look at the sensor-level data without an intermediary RAW developer or JPEG pipeline? If not, you have no idea whether you're looking at the characteristics of a sensor, or the characteristics of the downstream image processing pipeline (firmware + RAW development software).

The X-Pro sensor uses a new mosaic pattern, and hence the de-mosaicing algorithms for this sensor are still in development. In contrast the comparable algorithms for Beyer arrays are rather mature and settled, since the Beyer array has been around for many years now. It will be at least a couple of years before one can reasonably draw the sorts of conclusions that you seem to think you are drawing for the new array that Fuji is using.

[back alley]

seems like an endless argument...

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by semilog

How do you know that? Have you taken the trouble to look at the sensor-level data without an intermediary RAW developer or JPEG pipeline? If not, you have no idea whether you're looking at the characteristics of a sensor, or the characteristics of the downstream image processing pipeline (firmware + RAW development software).

The X-Pro sensor uses a new mosaic pattern, and hence the de-mosaicing algorithms for this sensor are still in development. In contrast the comparable algorithms for Beyer arrays are rather mature and settled, since the Beyer array has been around for many years now. It will be at least a couple of years before one can reasonably draw the sorts of conclusions that you seem to think you are drawing for the new array that Fuji is using.

I simply downloaded Fuji's RAW data which all of us work with, including DP Review (and all current owners of the camera). The JPEG's show the same lack of colour fidelity as the RAW. So at least one level of processing error has been eliminated.

"Still in development" is getting close to being an apologist. Do you have access to Fuji's binary code? If not, your argument? That the colours are smearing because an algorithm was not ready for retail? Fuji's SuperCCD's demonstrated similar effects. Yes, I am inferring it's a sensor issue, but I would think that for a flagship product Fuji would have not let orange become grey, and white pink if there was a software fix, firmware or RAW. DPR used what Fuji gave them.

It's Fuji's complete product and their hardware/software chain towards IQ can't tell red from white as posted on the biggest online review site. I simply pointed to the evidence via journalistic testing and consumer evaluation. The market can decide through analyzing the samples provided.

The discussion at point is not whether Fuji will upgrade their firmware, it's about the DPR findings. If you don't pixel-peep because you are happy with the artistry, great. But if you do, then it looks like this sensor compromises colour where others do not. My concern is how this smearing is magnified in post. It sounds like you see the smearing as well and it is not an issue for you, and you hope some future firmware will correct it. We'll see if people's trust in Fuji prevails.

I really wanted to like this camera, but I think it's got issues, particularly at the price point. AF and sensor fidelity are concerns, both of which lag far less expensive cameras. The pent-up demand for an RF-like digital should not overwhelm competent analysis with the product as it is now at the price offered (and I think DPR gave it more credit than due in part because to its novel approach; they underweighted AF and IQ issues and overweighted the niche market idiosyncrasies). If you are personally willing to overlook these flaws for other reasons, or willing for Fuji to beta test on its early adopters, then that's your market choice.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

"Still in development" is getting close to being an apologist. Do you have access to Fuji's binary code? If not, your argument? That the colours are smearing because an algorithm was not ready for retail? Fuji's SuperCCD's demonstrated similar effects. Yes, I am inferring it's a sensor issue, but I would think that for a flagship product Fuji would have not let orange become grey, and white pink if there was a software fix, firmware or RAW. DPR used what Fuji gave them.

And Fuji may not yet know how best to demosaic this pattern.

Beyer demosaicing is better now — much better — than it was five years ago, or ten. Beyer files developed with LR4 look different and considerably better than the exact same files did with LR1. And not everyone takes the same approach. RPP64 files look different yet again. We are looking at the VERY FIRST commercial product with the new Fuji array pattern, and your experience with SuperCCDs (these were Beyer CCD's, not random-array CMOS devices) is irrelevant to the present discussion, since we are dealing with both a wholly different electronic design and a different array pattern. What is relevant is that we're dealing with 1.0 versions of the demosaicing algorithms and there is clear and obvious room for improvement.

If you've been following the rapid progress with the RPP64 algorithm, this is evident. The current RPP64 algorithm for the X-Pro sensor is far from perfect but worlds better than the other engines available — particularly ACR, which for the X-pro gives genuinely poor, really disappointing results on many files, and was clearly rushed to market. And the great progress with RPP64 has happened just over the last few weeks, driven by a single small software developer.

Unless you are looking at the raw data stream at the pixel level (NOT demosaiced files) you simply cannot say much about the inherent color discrimination capabilities of the sensor, particularly at the sub-array level of resolution. When you do this you are totally dependent on the demosaicing algorithm used. As I suspect you realize.

In terms of color accuracy over larger areas of the sensor, it appears to be reasonably competent, at least with the camera's in-built JPEG engine. This suggests that the sensor's intrinsic capabilities are satisfactory (note that the tests at Imaging Resource provide a lot more quantitative detail than those at DPR).

How good? Time will tell.

[GaryLH]

Semilog

I have been using jpg from the camera, is RPP64 now better than jpgs straight from the camera?

Thanks
Gary

[semilog]

Depends on what you're looking for. I like the JPEGs from the camera for most purposes, but RPP64 provides good control and nice rendering of fine detail. It's particularly useful when exposure or WB is not bang-on or a lot of tonal adjustment is required. For these files I'm developing in RPP64 to yield a LAB .tiff and then sharpening and doing final tonal adjustment in LR4.


DSCF0257-2 by Semilog, on Flickr

[GaryLH]

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

Cheers
Gary