Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I got home from Peru with visions of X-Pro dancing in my head... and what a hangover when I opened the box. I ended up canceling the backordered 60mm and am seriously contemplating sending back the camera and 35mm.
1. One of the things that did not occur to me - but by now must be clear to anyone who owns an X100 and an X-Pro - is that when you turn on the "corrected" focusing square, even with the 35mm lens, it is very far from the nominal (infinity) one. On the X100, they overlap a little. I can't even imagine what this was like with the 60mm; can't be fun. This is an inherent issue with the change in focal length that is exacerbated by the way the boxes are presented.
2. The field size jumps precipitously with distance in a way that it does not with the 23mm lens of the X100 (and indeed, does not with a Leica M because it has no such correction). That field size jump tends to make the relative position of the focusing square move a lot too - which it does not on a Leica because the square and the framelines move together (and because you can align the RF in any part of the square arbitrarily). Again, an inherent limitation based on focal length, but one that is exacerbated by the hybrid viewfinder setup.
3. Hybrid VF focusing works a lot less predictably with the 35mm lens than it does on the X100. You often seem to get a green light only to find that it is because some tiny part of the focusing square subtended an item that the camera could focus on - whereas the majority (what you thought you were covering) was inside minimum focusing distance. This is the one thing that tends to spook me (the parallax items above, with enough practice, would eventually go away like they do on the X100). Or I drew a bad example of the camera; can't tell.
4. Is it just me, or are the grid lines thicker and more obtrusive than on the X100?
And I did note a couple of things about the design that won't improve with firmware:
1. The 35mm lens is not internal focus, something that would have massively increased AF performance. Why the whole front cell (or probably all of the optical cell) is moving when you focus is beyond me. That's a lot of weight to be pushing.
2. Further, if you're going to move that much of the lens, why not do a Nikon-style slip clutch for manual focusing? I could see laying off that on the X100 due to size, but this lens is at least as big as the 50/1.4D I use on my D700. In fact, by volume, it's almost double the size of a 35mm Summilux ASPH.
3. Not having a variable-diopter eyepiece on this was a mistake. On the X100, the fact that you have a detailed, dot-matrix in-your-face information display was aided by your ability to correct the viewfinder correction by very tiny increments (simple LEDs outside the frame - a la the GA645* - are outside the viewing field and don't compete for your eyesight as much). The screw-in diopters that fit this camera (Nikon F2 size) only come in whole-diopter increments, which is always going to overshoot what you really need. And given the substantial thickness of the body, it should have been possible (maybe it was sacrificed for the neato dual-mag feature)?
The X-Pro, I have been thinking today, would be a better camera if it simply came back with phase-detect AF (or even active/passive AF) and lenses that tried to move less glass.
This is the first time I have ever even thought about sending something back, but I now have the distinct feeling that the people who have been reviewing this camera have been cutting Fuji a lot of slack in describing the inherent difficulties in focusing it - if not the other limitations. I don't know what Sean Reid said about it (getting a subscription to his site and return postage are the same cost - so why not try the camera?), but it is now not surprising to me that the high-res test shots are largely static subjects and that this camera was seeded to a lot of people who would be happy to get something on loan for free.
I will contemplate this more, but, wow.
Dante
1. One of the things that did not occur to me - but by now must be clear to anyone who owns an X100 and an X-Pro - is that when you turn on the "corrected" focusing square, even with the 35mm lens, it is very far from the nominal (infinity) one. On the X100, they overlap a little. I can't even imagine what this was like with the 60mm; can't be fun. This is an inherent issue with the change in focal length that is exacerbated by the way the boxes are presented.
2. The field size jumps precipitously with distance in a way that it does not with the 23mm lens of the X100 (and indeed, does not with a Leica M because it has no such correction). That field size jump tends to make the relative position of the focusing square move a lot too - which it does not on a Leica because the square and the framelines move together (and because you can align the RF in any part of the square arbitrarily). Again, an inherent limitation based on focal length, but one that is exacerbated by the hybrid viewfinder setup.
3. Hybrid VF focusing works a lot less predictably with the 35mm lens than it does on the X100. You often seem to get a green light only to find that it is because some tiny part of the focusing square subtended an item that the camera could focus on - whereas the majority (what you thought you were covering) was inside minimum focusing distance. This is the one thing that tends to spook me (the parallax items above, with enough practice, would eventually go away like they do on the X100). Or I drew a bad example of the camera; can't tell.
4. Is it just me, or are the grid lines thicker and more obtrusive than on the X100?
And I did note a couple of things about the design that won't improve with firmware:
1. The 35mm lens is not internal focus, something that would have massively increased AF performance. Why the whole front cell (or probably all of the optical cell) is moving when you focus is beyond me. That's a lot of weight to be pushing.
2. Further, if you're going to move that much of the lens, why not do a Nikon-style slip clutch for manual focusing? I could see laying off that on the X100 due to size, but this lens is at least as big as the 50/1.4D I use on my D700. In fact, by volume, it's almost double the size of a 35mm Summilux ASPH.
3. Not having a variable-diopter eyepiece on this was a mistake. On the X100, the fact that you have a detailed, dot-matrix in-your-face information display was aided by your ability to correct the viewfinder correction by very tiny increments (simple LEDs outside the frame - a la the GA645* - are outside the viewing field and don't compete for your eyesight as much). The screw-in diopters that fit this camera (Nikon F2 size) only come in whole-diopter increments, which is always going to overshoot what you really need. And given the substantial thickness of the body, it should have been possible (maybe it was sacrificed for the neato dual-mag feature)?
*N.B. The GA645zi (the final model of GA645) not only had a zoom finder; it also had LED frameline superimposition and variable diopter eyepiece built into a thickness comparable to the X-Pro.
Although I want to be positive about this camera (particularly the grip-ability, better locks on controls and more rational menus - to say nothing of the insanely cool sensor), I'm starting to realize the inevitability of simply keeping my X100 and buying an M9. The X100 - at least with its current firmware - is very well executed and takes killer pictures. When you take out the leaf shutter (and high-speed synch), make the camera bigger, make it slower, and make focusing more difficult, it could have a sensor delivered on Mount Sinai and still not deliver pictures.The X-Pro, I have been thinking today, would be a better camera if it simply came back with phase-detect AF (or even active/passive AF) and lenses that tried to move less glass.
This is the first time I have ever even thought about sending something back, but I now have the distinct feeling that the people who have been reviewing this camera have been cutting Fuji a lot of slack in describing the inherent difficulties in focusing it - if not the other limitations. I don't know what Sean Reid said about it (getting a subscription to his site and return postage are the same cost - so why not try the camera?), but it is now not surprising to me that the high-res test shots are largely static subjects and that this camera was seeded to a lot of people who would be happy to get something on loan for free.
I will contemplate this more, but, wow.
Dante
Last edited:
boomguy57
Well-known
The way you describe it a) makes me happy I decided not to go with the XP1, and b) makes a convincing case for you sending it back.
I'm happy that I am not an "early adopter" type. It's almost always better to wait, read reviews, and usually to wait for the 2nd generation of a product. At the very least, to wait for later serial #s when the kinks are worked out. I'm glad I waited a while before I got my X100 too.
I'm happy that I am not an "early adopter" type. It's almost always better to wait, read reviews, and usually to wait for the 2nd generation of a product. At the very least, to wait for later serial #s when the kinks are worked out. I'm glad I waited a while before I got my X100 too.
jippiejee
Well-known
I was sincerely considering getting myself one for concerts and stuff, but seeing more and more feedback about its poor low-light AF performance (Steve Huff: I missed tons of shots in Las Vegas because of missed focus in low light) makes me wonder what great hi-iso means if your camera can't focus properly under those circumstances. I'll wait for the X-pro2.
Have you tried focusing with continuous instead of single? You get a crosshair. I found it would pretty much nail focus even in pretty low light.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4ZSdDFGdGM
What's everyone's definition of 'low light' by the way?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4ZSdDFGdGM
What's everyone's definition of 'low light' by the way?
Eric T
Well-known
So let's see - the M9 costs three times more than the XPI.
The M9 also does not have a diopter and its viewfinder is positively primitive compared to the XP1.
The 35mm Fuji lens may be larger than a 35mm Summilux but it costs TEN times less.
The XP1 is much lighter than an M9 - but still feels quite sturdy.
The XP1's AF feed is very acceptable for the vast majority of situations and is certainly better than the M9's nonexistent AF!
The M9 also does not have a diopter and its viewfinder is positively primitive compared to the XP1.
The 35mm Fuji lens may be larger than a 35mm Summilux but it costs TEN times less.
The XP1 is much lighter than an M9 - but still feels quite sturdy.
The XP1's AF feed is very acceptable for the vast majority of situations and is certainly better than the M9's nonexistent AF!
celluloidprop
Well-known
I have not quite gotten an instinctive grip on the framelines and OVF AF box - I think I will with time. They don't make as much sense as the X100's lines and AF did.
I'm willing to put in the effort with this camera, because the only alternative for me is a D700 or D800 and I don't really want to go back to a DSLR. If I were willing, I'd probably be a lot less enthused with the camera.
I'm willing to put in the effort with this camera, because the only alternative for me is a D700 or D800 and I don't really want to go back to a DSLR. If I were willing, I'd probably be a lot less enthused with the camera.
porktaco
Well-known
i was underwhelmed.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Why do people keep using this as an argument against the Fujis? It exists with ANY camera - rangefinder or not - that has a viewfinder off to the side of the image-taking lens. Heck, even TLRs have this problem. As you focus closer and closer, you are going to be less and less accurately framing and you have to compensate for it. Buying an M9 will not solve this problem. Your patch will move to the bottom right corner and your framelines will get smaller on the top-left (or actually, I would imagine they just move to the bottom right corner too?) as you focus closer. If you don't like dealing with this, then use a SLR.
I was shocked too... but I'm used to it now. These are quirky cameras, but for some reason they do it for me.
mouren
Established
I think you should return it ASAP. This camera is not for you, so why waste time, energy and money.
macjim
Well-known
I'm enjoying using mine. I can live with its foibles as all cameras have them. The Leica M9 has a small focusing window and can be difficult to focus, the nex-5n can be slow to focus too in low light and has a hand grip that leaves little space for my fingers between it and the lens barrel and the XP1 has the problems mention too. It all depends on what you want to use the camera for and whether it suits your needs. Myself, I live it!
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
photografity
Established
mouren said:
+1 Agreed.. It just boggles my mind on how some people voice negative opinion..... It's simple, you either use it & work around all the"quirks" or return it.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
hausen
Well-known
I was underwhelmed when I had a ply with it for an hour or so. Was thinking of down grading from M9 to XP1. All that hour did was enhance my love for my M9 and threads like this make me happier as well. I had no issue with the image quality of XP1 just felt like a poor substitute when I held it. I think my X100 has a nicer feel than the XP1.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Why didn't you read what I wrote? There is no argument against parallax error (or even how Fuji dealt with it on the X100, which I have used since it was out). My point is that when you increase the focal length, it exacerbates a problem that exists on the X100 but is not that big a deal with a short lens.
There is a huge difference with an M camera, and as much as I think they're dated, you can apprehend exactly what the RF is focused on because the focusing spot is fairly big. And you can continuously reframe as you focus. By the way, Leica framelines do not shrink - they have a fixed size that understates the frame size (and generally assumes 2m).
The Fuji has both the framelines and the AF area jump into position simultaneously - not a big problem with a 23mm lens. In fact, of the 1,008 X100 pictures I shot hiking in the past week (excluding a couple hundred that were deleted for extra bracketing), only four were out of focus (and all of them were pictures my wife took in which I was off center and she did not lock focus).
I'm also familiar with every type of viewfinder (and combined viewfinder/rangefinder), and it's actually pretty uncommon to have a high-end camera where the framelines move but the range-finding target does not. The Contax G/G2, Fuji GA series, and Hexar AF are the only ones I can think of. The Hexar used only active AF that focused on the closest object it could see; the Fuji GA used active/passive hybrid AF; and the G/G2 used external passive AF (and had their own focusing challenges).
And I don't recall where this was ever attempted (by any maker) with an f/1.4 lens - where you have other issues to deal with anyway.
Dante
Mr_Toad
Fluffy Marsupial
Since I'm considering purchasing an XP1, I'm happy to read the negative reviews....so I'll know what I'm getting in to.
Who knows...maybe I'll even avoid a $1700 GAS Attack.
Robt.
Who knows...maybe I'll even avoid a $1700 GAS Attack.
Robt.
kzphoto
Well-known
I like the form factor and the potential of the new fuji sensor, but for the life of me I cannot understand why camera makers opt for contrast detect AF. The hybrid thing Nikom does on the V1/J1 is blazing fast. Phase AF is really quick... Is it much cheaper to implement?
intheviewfinder
Street
I have but a two letter answer - No
The Nikon sensor is teeny tiny. Everything is already in focus. 
And the lenses are not that fast....less mass to move.
And the lenses are not that fast....less mass to move.mouren
Established
I don't actually quite know how phase AF works, but I was thinking maybe because m-mount lenses can't do phase focus confirmation?
I have a Nikon 50mm f1.2 that I use on my 5D. The adapter I got has a chip on it that will give me focus confirmation. I don't see such thing on all my other adapters to EOS.
MAYBE, pure speculation here, we will get contrast focus confirmation with Fuji's m-mount adapter and software upgrade.
One can always dream