X-Pro 1 reviewed at DPReview

[gdi]

Going back to basics or a particular form factor, now those are reasons no one can argue with - personal choice!

[CK Dexter Haven]

I don't want to argue the point, but how is an XPro1 or X100 "back to basics?" Don't these cameras offer the same features as a D800 or 5DMkIII? But, more, since they have hybrid viewfinders?

I get that they look like 50 year old rangefinders in some sense, but isn't that just costuming? They're every bit as full-featured and complex as the top-spec dSLRs. Is it merely that they have aperture rings around the lenses, and shutter dials on the top deck? Is it really that simple?

[SausalitoDog]

CK -

You are more or less right. But the "costuming" is a large factor in the use. Size, shape, feel... All contribute to how one is used. These cameras won't replace DSLRs for many things (sports, wildlife, any fast moving subjects etc) but they are fantastic "walkaround" cameras for street photos and yet they still have some ability beyond the odd grab-shot.

Maybe the "back to basics" has more to do with HOW people are using them than what they are capable of.

Tom

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by CK Dexter Haven

I don't want to argue the point, but how is an XPro1 or X100 "back to basics?" Don't these cameras offer the same features as a D800 or 5DMkIII? But, more, since they have hybrid viewfinders?

I get that they look like 50 year old rangefinders in some sense, but isn't that just costuming? They're every bit as full-featured and complex as the top-spec dSLRs. Is it merely that they have aperture rings around the lenses, and shutter dials on the top deck? Is it really that simple?

We each have our own ideas of what basic is all about. I take pictures with folders as old as the 1930's as well.. And u can't get anymore basic then that

But when it comes to digital cameras, at the end of the day, I don't want to remember which button is for what or which menu to use to get to your basic functions like shutter speed or aperture.

Weight, ovf, and form factor make up the other reasons.

The rd1 is as close the back to basics as u can get. But my eyesight is not as good as it used to be..

Today's dslr's are every bit as good as the Fuji cameras at a price points that are less.. Canon and Nikon have the advantage In terms of economy of scale that Fuji does not. Over time for reason most likely associated w/ cost and reliability the controls such as aperture and shutter speed have disappeared.

If u feel it is costuming, I think u maybe missing the point. Gone are the days of glancing down to double check shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation before bringing the camera up to take the picture. And yes u can tip the camera over to check the lcd info in a lot of cameras. Even the digital ps originally had a ovf of some sort such as Canon G series.

My favorite 35mm film camera was really the Contax g2 not the Leica M and not the Nikon SLR, the xp1 so far comes the closest to the Contax of any digital camera....

Gary

PS. I forgot to mention that for me part of back to basics is making these controls that I use all the time available right at my finger tip. So yes as sausalito dog said it is really more about the way I use it and my expected handling characteristics...

[Audii-Dudii]

Originally Posted by CK Dexter Haven

Is it merely that they have aperture rings around the lenses, and shutter dials on the top deck? Is it really that simple?

Yeah, believe it or not, but it's really that simple.

For me, the aperture and focus rings on the lens and the shutter-speed and exposure compensation dials on the top plate account for perhaps 90% of the rationale why I bought mine. (Mind you, this is because the high IQ was a given; if the sensor and processing pipeline were a complete turd, though, then I probably would have passed.)

I don't deny this is a completely irrational desire on my part, but the bottom line is that I want a camera that I can operate entirely by feel alone. I want a camera that instantly communicates to me how it's setup without my having to actually look at it. And I want to be able to adjust the aperture or shutter speed without ever looking at the camera, either. (I would also like to be able to focus it without ever looking at the LCD or through the viewfinder, but I guess that will have to wait for another day...)

I want it to be light enough so that I can carry it in my hand all day (I prefer wrist straps to neck straps) and small enough so that I can easily travel with it. I also don't need (and would prefer not to pay for) multiple focus points, fancy metering schemes, or the ability to capture video.

Lastly, because I'm a wide-angle kinda guy, I want a camera that offers (or will offer in short order) a selection of several prime lenses that are shorter than normal for the format.

So why didn't I buy an M9, you ask? Easy ... because I don't like the 3:2 format, I like to compose and focus using the LCD, and because I already have too much money invested in my Contax 645/P30+ outfit. For the money I saved buying an X-Pro1 instead of an M9, I'll live with the 3:2 format and the features I don't need (so long as they remain invisible to me). And if I ever drop it and break it or have it stolen from me while I'm photographing in a seedy part of town ... well, it will hurt a little bit, to be sure, but not enough to make me cry.

For all of the above reasons and more, this is why I bought my X-Pro1 and not a D800 or 5DIII. (And if you're curious to see what I've been doing with it, check out the last month or two worth of posts at my photoblog: http://audiidudii.aminus3.com/)

[raid]

How would you compare this camera with a Leica M8?

[Audii-Dudii]

Originally Posted by raid

How would you compare this camera with a Leica M8?

I don't know which "you" you're referring to, but for me, the M8's sensor simply didn't have enough IQ (or pixels) to make prints of the size I like for the type of photo I would capture with it (i.e., 9x12) with the level of quality that I insist upon. It was also missing LiveView and required the use of an external finder for many of the lenses I would use with it, which I find to be problematic.

But that's just me and my quality standard threshold. I know there are many, many people who will claim that an M8 will print just fine at that size (or larger!) and for them, they're no doubt correct.

But IMO, even my P30+ with its 31MP files will only rarely capture files that I am willing to print larger than 15x20, so I'm an equal-opportunity nit-picker.

(Oh and did I mention that prior to switching to digital capture, I was shooting color transparencies with an 8x10 view camera? Perhaps this explains my abnormally high quality standard relative to most photographers?)

[GaryLH]

I assumed Raid was asking u as well
Gary

[raid]

I was more referring to the title of this thread.

Fuji X Pro 1. Is it that much better than the M8?

[raid]

Originally Posted by Moriturii

The sensor in the Fuji X Pro 1 is superior to any sensor Leica has ever shown, and it is generally speaking one of the top sensors out there today. So this comment is absolutely crazy.

The sensor in the X PRO 1 is VERY very good.

So you would say that because the sensor is better that the camera is better overall or are there other factors to consider here?

Is the Fuji X Pro 1 overall a better digital camera than the M8? This is what I want to know from people who have used both cameras.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by raid

So you would say that because the sensor is better that the camera is better overall or are there other factors to consider here?

Is the Fuji X Pro 1 overall a better digital camera than the M8? This is what I want to know from people who have used both cameras.

Why don't you go to the DPReview site and do an image comparison between the M9 and the Fuji (I don't think you can directly compare with an M8)? You may want to compare the M9 raw with the Fuji jpg, since the raw Fuji is not that great. That may tell you a lot about the confidence people have in the Fuji vs its actual performance ( excluding new software developments).

As for which camera best? Come on...

[mabelsound]

Originally Posted by raid

I was more referring to the title of this thread.

Fuji X Pro 1. Is it that much better than the M8?

Certainly not for M lenses, but taken on its own terms, and using its native lenses, I would say, for me, yes.

[semilog]

It's also important to think of "image quality" in more than one dimension. There's DR, color fidelity, high ISO noise (chroma, luminance, random, pattern), resolution, performance with wide lenses...

Saying one camera is better than another in general -- rather than under a specific set of conditions -- is usually a useless thing to do, and muddies rather than clarifies the discussion. For example, with the X-Pro1 I find myself shooting at ISO 3200 a lot of the time. That is not a comparison that would be favorable to the M9. On the other hand, I mount both native and ZM lenses on the camera, and it's a certainty that (except in the center of the field) the M9 would provide higher resolution with the non-native lenses, at least at moderate ISO settings.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by semilog

It's also important to think of "image quality" in more than one dimension. There's DR, color fidelity, high ISO noise (chroma, luminance, random, pattern), resolution, performance with wide lenses...

Saying one camera is better than another in general -- rather than under a specific set of conditions -- is usually a useless thing to do, and muddies rather than clarifies the discussion. For example, with the X-Pro1 I find myself shooting at ISO 3200 a lot of the time. That is not a comparison that would be favorable to the M9. On the other hand, I mount both native and ZM lenses on the camera, and it's a certainty that (except in the center of the field) the M9 would provide higher resolution with the non-native lenses, at least at moderate ISO settings.

Well, all this discussion (and "hypification" ) has gotten to me, in spite of my good intentions.

I am finalizing a trade for an Xpro and 18 and 60, so I can see for myself. I looked at some of the results over at GetDPI and they really look good and one guy is doing some nice Astro work and another doing some IR - I hadn't considered those possibilities with the XPRO's style of filtering.

Then I can try beta Raw processors to my heart's content. If all the speculation pans out, I guess I can sell my Leica digital and have some cash to boot!

[semilog]

RPP64 version 4.6.0 is released, no longer beta.

I still see some edge artifacts but they've been largely removed and overall this is the best RAW converter I've used for X-P1 files. I am optimistic that RAW conversion for this camera will continue to improve.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by semilog

RPP64 version 4.6.0 is released, no longer beta.

I still see some edge artifacts but they've been largely removed and overall this is the best RAW converter I've used for X-P1 files. I am optimistic that RAW conversion for this camera will continue to improve.

Thanks for the update
Gary

[gdi]

Originally Posted by semilog

RPP64 version 4.6.0 is released, no longer beta.

I still see some edge artifacts but they've been largely removed and overall this is the best RAW converter I've used for X-P1 files. I am optimistic that RAW conversion for this camera will continue to improve.

That's good to know - it does put a cramp in my personal workflow, though. I use a PC for photo and video processing and now I'll have to use our Mac just for Fuji files. Hopefully that is a temporary situation.

[GaryLH]

Sounds like u picked up the Fuji. Will be interesting to hear your thoughts about it after checking it out....

Cheers
Gary

[aeturnum]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

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.

Though this is a little old, and people have talked generally about the demosaicing algorithm, here's a blog post that goes into detail about the X-PRO's sensor and the challenges it offers.

If you go back to the studio scene and switch from RAW to JPEG, the color smearing vanishes. To me, that says the Adobe RAW converter is at fault (rather than the underlying sensor). That being said, "the camera will be better in the future," is a very lame argument. The X-PRO currently has problems with color smearing, but that will probably not always be the case.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by GaryLH

Sounds like u picked up the Fuji. Will be interesting to hear your thoughts about it after checking it out....

Cheers
Gary

My fuji set should be here Thursday. I'll report back.

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by aeturnum

Though this is a little old, and people have talked generally about the demosaicing algorithm, here's a blog post that goes into detail about the X-PRO's sensor and the challenges it offers.

If you go back to the studio scene and switch from RAW to JPEG, the color smearing vanishes. To me, that says the Adobe RAW converter is at fault (rather than the underlying sensor). That being said, "the camera will be better in the future," is a very lame argument. The X-PRO currently has problems with color smearing, but that will probably not always be the case.

My samples posted were from the JPEGs.

Why RAW conversions has turned into a hobby effort is odd if Fuji is trying to sell a relatively expensive camera system. Whether the mosaic structure of the Fuji sensor is to blame or the software, it's just visible confusion in an art form that likes its colours to be what nature intended. If you love the form factor and can overlook these sensor issues, perhaps waiting for a software patch to plug the holes, then all the power to you.

[gdi]

I just want to follow up on my earlier comments and skepticism regarding the X-Pro 1. (Note that I posted this as a separate post last week, but the thread was instantly crapped, so I took it down).

I have had an X-Pro kit for over a week and I have to say I really like it. I think it handles very well, and if you are careful you can focus it accurately most of the time with the OVF. If the situation is iffy (like focusing on a small object with a fairly detailed background), it so easy to switch to the EVF and get much more accurate focus with a small focusing box. The 35mm is really great, and the 18 is pretty good too, though I keep the 35 on most of the time. I have the grip and that really helps the handling as well, IMO.

Of course, I was skeptical that it could live up to the hype, and so far it hasn't quite managed to in the image quality department. The quality is really good, but not fully up to matching FF, with the convertors I have been able to use (RPP, LR, SilkyPix, and Helicon Filter/DCRAW) M9 shots have noticeably more detail and better color (of course this can be adjusted), but the X-Pro1 is a little better than the OM-D. (Comparing the FX 35mm, 50 Elmar-M, 25 PanLeica 1.4) Could this change if better convertors are developed? Sure, but it is good enough for me now as is; in fact I am just bought a 60mm Friday, so I'm as committed as I can be.

But the biggest problem the camera has to me is the out of focus OVF/EVF - it looks like mounting the proper diopter to adjust the EVF, would throw off the OVF, right? The OVF is in fine focus, but the EVF needs about +1.25 for me (tested with reading glasses.) It looks like this is just a "live with it " type of thing. I welcome any suggestions on solving this with diopters, or anything else.
Anyway, overall I feel this is a great camera for me; quirks don't bother me that much. It won't replace my M9, but if I had an M8 it sure could. Next I may try to get the M Adapter.

[willie_901]

Thanks for the thoughtful and comprehensive update. I think your comments are accurate and balanced.

The camera has certain advantages and disadvantages like every other camera that's been introduced recently. For me the advantages are much greater that the disadvantages, so I'm a happy owner too. I'm looking forward to the 56/1.4. I may get the new 23 mm lens next year too.

I use mono-vision contact lenses (left for reading, right for distance). So I use one eye for the EVF and one for the OVF. I realize this solution is rather limited, but it works for me.

[SausalitoDog]

Originally Posted by gdi

. I have the grip and that really helps the handling as well, IMO.


I welcome any suggestions on solving this with diopters, or anything else.


Next I may try to get the M Adapter.

- I have the ThumbsUp instead of the grip - you might want to try one of them - they have now made one specifically for the xp1 and it just slides into the hot shoe and fits very nicely but can be removed easily to insert a flash (no tools needed as with prior version)

- I bought a diopter before I knew anything about them - I'm not even sure what strength it was but think it may be a 2+ so I just use the VF without my glasses (which means the screens are tough to read without glasses but I'm learning to adjust without moving eye from VF).

- My next step (if there is a next one; I like the 35mm so much that everything else isn't really getting used) might be an M adapter and buying a low priced 28mm Leica lens to try manual focusing with that. My one challenge still is to come up with a decent manual focus workflow.

Cheers,

Tom

[doncraig]

Sausalitodog, you might find my post interesting regarding "automated manual focus.".

Also, my M-mount adapter tests with a 50mm Summilux, 28mm Ultron and 90mm CV has proven to me how great the Fujinon lenses are. So, I have a pristine 28mm f1.9 Ultron for sale, if you're interested. ;-)