It is easier/cheaper to implement CDAF as it can be done in software, and of course can be tweaked/improved with units in the field. I agree with Dante, a separate electronic RF would have been cool, but would have raised the cost...not sure exactly how much tho.
Looking forward to picking one of these up in a few months when the 18-72/4 is out...
Looking forward to picking one of these up in a few months when the 18-72/4 is out...
gdi
Mentor
I know what you mean. I was thinking about trying one too, but being a little hype-wary worked in my favor. I think a lot of people will try these for a while and then sell them, creating some relative bargains. I think we'll have to wait a few months though...
Frontman
Well-known
I have not thought for a moment of sending mine back. The viewfinder takes some getting used to, but at least you can accurately tell what the images will look like. The resolution is good enough that you can manually focus lenses with some accuracy without an RF patch, and being able to adjust magnification helps. I also like the close focus capabilities, on my M cameras I have to shoot a clumsy (though excellent) DR Summicron, and even then, I can't get a very close shot.
As for the size of the 35mm lens, it is bigger than a 35mm Summilux, but the design of the camera and lenses were made large enough to have sensibly sized controls and buttons. I find the small Summilux difficult to use when wearing gloves, and those with big fingers find small dials and controls irritating.
My only gripe is the slow AF system, but in reality, it is not slow. And when the camera gets itself focused, it is precisely so. Few shooters with an M camera could focus more quickly with the same level of accuracy. In daylight, it is easy enough for me to set the camera in manual mode, set the aperture, and zone focus, just as I often do with a film rangefinder camera.
I love the ISO range on this camera. I have always shot 400 speed film in all situations, and though I never thought this limited me in any way, now I can see that it has. I can get clean images from the X-Pro in more situations than I can from the other cameras which I have been using.
Lastly, I simply love the quality of the images, and in the end, this is all that matters.
As for the size of the 35mm lens, it is bigger than a 35mm Summilux, but the design of the camera and lenses were made large enough to have sensibly sized controls and buttons. I find the small Summilux difficult to use when wearing gloves, and those with big fingers find small dials and controls irritating.
My only gripe is the slow AF system, but in reality, it is not slow. And when the camera gets itself focused, it is precisely so. Few shooters with an M camera could focus more quickly with the same level of accuracy. In daylight, it is easy enough for me to set the camera in manual mode, set the aperture, and zone focus, just as I often do with a film rangefinder camera.
I love the ISO range on this camera. I have always shot 400 speed film in all situations, and though I never thought this limited me in any way, now I can see that it has. I can get clean images from the X-Pro in more situations than I can from the other cameras which I have been using.
Lastly, I simply love the quality of the images, and in the end, this is all that matters.
mouren
Established
I completely agree.
david.elliott
Well-known
I'm keeping mine for sure.
The only other camera on which I've used autofocus is my old d70 and that was several years back. I have the x-pro 1 set up in for m mode with power save on (to get rid of the chattering) and the AF still is plenty fast for me. I don't really do any photography that requires superfast autofocus though.
Image quality is wonderful with the jpegs, but I'm really looking forward to raw support by adobe.
Have you tried adjusting the size of the focusing square? You can use the wheel on the back to do that. Might be worth a try. Can't do it in m mode if I recall correctly though.
I have found that I use the EVF quite a lot. At least as much as the OVF. Seems to work well for me.
But, when all is said and done, if you and the camera dont get along then there really isnt much point in keeping it.
The only other camera on which I've used autofocus is my old d70 and that was several years back. I have the x-pro 1 set up in for m mode with power save on (to get rid of the chattering) and the AF still is plenty fast for me. I don't really do any photography that requires superfast autofocus though.
Image quality is wonderful with the jpegs, but I'm really looking forward to raw support by adobe.
Have you tried adjusting the size of the focusing square? You can use the wheel on the back to do that. Might be worth a try. Can't do it in m mode if I recall correctly though.
I have found that I use the EVF quite a lot. At least as much as the OVF. Seems to work well for me.
But, when all is said and done, if you and the camera dont get along then there really isnt much point in keeping it.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
And I'm not out to be overly critical, and I generally like Fuji's products, but -
1. We live in a world where manufacturers pump out half-done cameras (like my X100...) and then expect us all to help debug them and have faith that things will work out. They ultimately did, but it was somewhat rough riding for the first couple of months (not in the least because my camera had a defective lens unit that wouldn't stop down). Reviewers tend to make excuses and hold back things. People who own cameras tend to defend them.
2. Fuji's bizarre holding back of its SDK from Adobe tends to make it harder to be overwhelmed by the image quality - or even to test it given the tool that would ultimately be used. How long is this going to go on? Silkypix is popular in Japan, but Hasselhoff is popular in Germany.
3. Some of us have already had the Sony experience of buying a system taking it on faith that promised lenses would actually come out. My major interest in the X-Pro was primarily driven by the 14mm lens that is supposed to come out next year, as well as the 60mm. If you can see issues coming with a 35mm lens, it is worrisome to imagine them with a 60mm.
4. If you have M lenses already, a three-lens system involving native X-Pro lenses is just as expensive as upgrading from the M8 to the M9. Then again, the M9 could be pretty cheap by the end of the year.
5. The X100 actually sets a pretty high bar.
6. We all want something closer to a one-camera world, not one where we have six different digital cameras that serve six ultra-specialized different purposes. Do we need another charger, another lithium-ion battery shape/size, another half-case? Six might be an overstatement, but you get the point.
To its credit, the X-Pro's alleged problems with fluttering aperture blades and "loud" shutter are overblown. And the 35mm lens has good control of field curvature, produces a little deeper DOF than a 50/1.4 on an FX camera (which means more pleasing pics that still have good background separation), and generally behaves unless it is dark or you're within 1.5m. Hunting, when it happens, seems to happen randomly. Having a multishot buffer is nice, too.
I may ultimately slug it out until Lightroom catches up - the worst that would happen, I imagine, is effectively paying a couple hundred in "rent." It's not pocket change, but I like the light weight and not carrying a gold brick with me. I also already have the "big" TTL flash for this camera...
Dante
1. We live in a world where manufacturers pump out half-done cameras (like my X100...) and then expect us all to help debug them and have faith that things will work out. They ultimately did, but it was somewhat rough riding for the first couple of months (not in the least because my camera had a defective lens unit that wouldn't stop down). Reviewers tend to make excuses and hold back things. People who own cameras tend to defend them.
2. Fuji's bizarre holding back of its SDK from Adobe tends to make it harder to be overwhelmed by the image quality - or even to test it given the tool that would ultimately be used. How long is this going to go on? Silkypix is popular in Japan, but Hasselhoff is popular in Germany.
3. Some of us have already had the Sony experience of buying a system taking it on faith that promised lenses would actually come out. My major interest in the X-Pro was primarily driven by the 14mm lens that is supposed to come out next year, as well as the 60mm. If you can see issues coming with a 35mm lens, it is worrisome to imagine them with a 60mm.
4. If you have M lenses already, a three-lens system involving native X-Pro lenses is just as expensive as upgrading from the M8 to the M9. Then again, the M9 could be pretty cheap by the end of the year.
5. The X100 actually sets a pretty high bar.
6. We all want something closer to a one-camera world, not one where we have six different digital cameras that serve six ultra-specialized different purposes. Do we need another charger, another lithium-ion battery shape/size, another half-case? Six might be an overstatement, but you get the point.
To its credit, the X-Pro's alleged problems with fluttering aperture blades and "loud" shutter are overblown. And the 35mm lens has good control of field curvature, produces a little deeper DOF than a 50/1.4 on an FX camera (which means more pleasing pics that still have good background separation), and generally behaves unless it is dark or you're within 1.5m. Hunting, when it happens, seems to happen randomly. Having a multishot buffer is nice, too.
I may ultimately slug it out until Lightroom catches up - the worst that would happen, I imagine, is effectively paying a couple hundred in "rent." It's not pocket change, but I like the light weight and not carrying a gold brick with me. I also already have the "big" TTL flash for this camera...
Dante
Spyro
Well-known
Man I have a big list of my own of things that might put people off this camera, to the point of not recommending it to anyone unless they give me a signed declaration that they have owned (and loved) a Contax G
I seem to get along fine with mine, but Dante's points are valid. However, I think we still have a lot to see from the system. For example the pancake lens might be faster to focus as it will be smaller and lighter. The 14, the 23 and the wide zoom, maybe they will be internal focusing? We still dont know what the M adapter be, it could be anything from "stupid" flange to a smart adapter with a focusing cam for parallax correction and a chip for storing lens info. And, judging from the x100, maybe fuji is getting ready to bombard us with firmware updates.
So send it back if you're not comfortable, but if you're sort of on the fence consider the possibility that you might want to buy it back later when things start to get ironed out.
I seem to get along fine with mine, but Dante's points are valid. However, I think we still have a lot to see from the system. For example the pancake lens might be faster to focus as it will be smaller and lighter. The 14, the 23 and the wide zoom, maybe they will be internal focusing? We still dont know what the M adapter be, it could be anything from "stupid" flange to a smart adapter with a focusing cam for parallax correction and a chip for storing lens info. And, judging from the x100, maybe fuji is getting ready to bombard us with firmware updates.
So send it back if you're not comfortable, but if you're sort of on the fence consider the possibility that you might want to buy it back later when things start to get ironed out.
GaryLH
Mentor
Spyro, I still own and love my g2... I agree Dante has some valid points here. I look at the images this camera produces, so far I have not seen an issue that bothers me enough to send it back. I have had the camera since Friday and taken about 300 pictures with it. I only have the 35f1.4 right now.
Gary
Gary
It's funny how people see things so differently. This appears to be an even more polarizing camera than the X100.
clicker
Well-known
no camera has it all, this one comes closer than most for the money. It's a keeper at least for the next few years.
jskjsk
Established
I admit, I still can't get m lens to work properly and yes I feel like I am using a preproduction camera but I still love the camera.
Just like x100, image quality can't be beat. I liked my gxr with my m but having the option for auto focus on pretty great lens is unbeatable.
The difficulty lies with different mode of using a camera. I felt like this when I was first introduced to m. Got used it and I will with this also.
Just like x100, image quality can't be beat. I liked my gxr with my m but having the option for auto focus on pretty great lens is unbeatable.
The difficulty lies with different mode of using a camera. I felt like this when I was first introduced to m. Got used it and I will with this also.
jskjsk
Established
I am just happy that I am completely out from dslr.
huntjump
Well-known
This is true...but some cameras upon release have way less controversy or dispute among its customers (ie: D700 upon release had very little polarization from what i remember..)
I'm sure fuji will release a firmware update to address the AF, among other gripes. Why they don't do that prerelease is odd indeed. Giving these cameras out to testers, who as Dante said, will mostly praise the item with little criticism (likely due to the perverse incentive to continue to receive free products to test) is not helpful to anyone really, except the manufacture to some extent as they build excitement. However, good products will spread like wildfire. I think it would be much smarter to have addressed the AF first and then let the product speak for itself
But again, based on Fuji's record they will address these concerns. Maybe Fuji figured out a unique business model: customers as bug testers
BTMarcais
Well-known
I think the remarks about the Contax G2 are spot on. I had, loved, and got along very well with my G2 before getting bitten by the leica bug, and it is the AF camera I am most familiar with by far.
I do NOT own an X-Pro 1, but I do sell them (along w/ M9's, olympus m43, nikon 1, etc,), and have actually been more impressed than I expected with the camera. But I'm not expecting the AF setup to work any different than my G2 did. I look at it as a digital G2 with a bigger nicer finder, and with the af corrected framelines on I don't have any issues with missed focus close up. I guess I'm just used to compensating for the difference?
I do get where it could be frustrating for someone not used to this though, and pretty much for the same reason theres a million threads out there for focus issues on the old contax G2 (especially with the 90).
I think it's mostly just the nature of this type of viewfinder/af setup, and CAN be learned, but might take a bit of skullwork.
I do wish that it had a nikon-like clutch for the focus, and that it was NOT focus by wire, but i figure it's an autofocus camera, and any manual focus options are more a workaround than anything else. I do like having the DOF scale visible in the VF though, it makes scale focusing very usuable.
I've never used a perfect camera, and this is no exception. I think it's virtues outweigh it's faults, at least through the time I've spent playing with it, but it's definitely not the best camera for everyone.
-Brian
I do NOT own an X-Pro 1, but I do sell them (along w/ M9's, olympus m43, nikon 1, etc,), and have actually been more impressed than I expected with the camera. But I'm not expecting the AF setup to work any different than my G2 did. I look at it as a digital G2 with a bigger nicer finder, and with the af corrected framelines on I don't have any issues with missed focus close up. I guess I'm just used to compensating for the difference?
I do get where it could be frustrating for someone not used to this though, and pretty much for the same reason theres a million threads out there for focus issues on the old contax G2 (especially with the 90).
I think it's mostly just the nature of this type of viewfinder/af setup, and CAN be learned, but might take a bit of skullwork.
I do wish that it had a nikon-like clutch for the focus, and that it was NOT focus by wire, but i figure it's an autofocus camera, and any manual focus options are more a workaround than anything else. I do like having the DOF scale visible in the VF though, it makes scale focusing very usuable.
I've never used a perfect camera, and this is no exception. I think it's virtues outweigh it's faults, at least through the time I've spent playing with it, but it's definitely not the best camera for everyone.
-Brian
Spyro
Well-known
You'd have to imagine yourself product managing this camera to answer this. Think about it, you have a camera that has zero preexisting components, it shares exactly nothing with any other camera (as opposed to pretty much all DSLRs, which are basically copying eachother). So you have to reinvent the wheel in all main areas of work: VF, sensor, a range of new lenses for an ultra-fussy platform, software, body. Can you imagine that cost? You've already spent 3 years of R&D on it, you can probably spend another 3 and never get it 100% right. You know that your target group is tiny, essentially a small niche within a small niche (RF types who are not too religious about the focusing method) so you can never expect big bucks. And they are fussy b*******s too. And so far you have earned exactly zero dollars.
Too much pressure. What do you do?
Get-this-sucker-out-there.
You might find the G2 ws a bit better in low light, it had a hybrid system which included active infrared. Otherwise yeah very similar.
dougi
Established
How slow is the autofocus?
A cheaper, similar sort of system (Pentax -k-01 KA mount mirrorless) seems to have been tested at around 0.6-0.8 seconds with small lenses. Of course, no focussing paralax problems with that one as it doesn't have a viewfinder other than the rear LCD.
A cheaper, similar sort of system (Pentax -k-01 KA mount mirrorless) seems to have been tested at around 0.6-0.8 seconds with small lenses. Of course, no focussing paralax problems with that one as it doesn't have a viewfinder other than the rear LCD.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I love my X Pro 1. i'm starting to roll my eyes at all the naysayers. They're taking little issues and making it out to be the worst thing ever.
The camera is not perfect, but even what perfect is would vary to many photogs. If you put all the variables together: image quality, lens quality, ease of use, price, weight, etc, I would put the X Pro 1 up against any camera.
It won't be the cheapest, smallest or fastest AF, but no camera will win in every category. If you want lightning fast AF or no parralax lug around a D4 . However, I'm confident interested rangefinder users will be very happy with this camera.
- Oh no infinite framelines are different than closer focusing.
- AF is slow in low light? Most light meter didnt even read below EV 2. I've handheld shots at -3 EV and got useable results.
- The low light capabilties rocks the socks off the Leica M9 at 4x the cost.
- The 35/1.4 is an amazing lens at $600.
- Out of camera jpegs are fantastic
- It has goodvideo
- Its OVF has a magnifier which makes framing the 18 and the 35 efficient
- It is not huge and heavy like DSLRs
The camera is not perfect, but even what perfect is would vary to many photogs. If you put all the variables together: image quality, lens quality, ease of use, price, weight, etc, I would put the X Pro 1 up against any camera.
It won't be the cheapest, smallest or fastest AF, but no camera will win in every category. If you want lightning fast AF or no parralax lug around a D4 . However, I'm confident interested rangefinder users will be very happy with this camera.
Glass is superb. The sensor kills. IQ beats the pants off any full frame sensor except the very latest ones just released...primarily because of no AA filter with a different pixel array. For that, I can wait for ACR support. I waited longer for ACR in the past for other digitals...and I can wait for a millisecond for it to focus. Oh, I'm waiting for a few months anyway. In the meantime I have the GA645zi.
Oh, I'm waiting for a few months anyway. In the meantime I have the GA645zi.celluloidprop
Well-known
I'm not going to be offended or disagree with critics (aside from some who are absurd). It's quirky. There's no RAW support yet. AF lags behind its competition. It's 'spensive.
I can totally understand someone not getting along with it, especially if they can afford Nikon's best or a M9.
But the images are outstanding and it handles remarkably well for me. So the XP1, we cool.
I can totally understand someone not getting along with it, especially if they can afford Nikon's best or a M9.
But the images are outstanding and it handles remarkably well for me. So the XP1, we cool.
willie_901
Mentor
It's a keeper for me.
It's a keeper for me.
I understand what Dante is saying about the 60 mm lens and the 0VF finder. I think this is a valid concern. At the same time this is a macro lens. This means the EVF is should be used most of the time as the OVF is a poor choice for macro work. I was is disappointed when I saw the 60 mm lens was going to be a macro lens. A photo editor told me macro lenses were not the best choice for non-macro work. They claimed to be able to tell when a macro lens was used or non-macro photos. This could be wrong. At any rate I don't have a problem using the EVF for non-macro shots.
The parallax OVF framing for the 35/1.4 does not bother me at all. I have not had any issues focusing with the OVF in EV 5 light. Focusing at lower EVs works better with he EVF. Of ourse as the aperture becomes wider and light levels decrease, focusing is more difficult. I find focusing using the lens barrel is a viable option with the XP1 for some situations. The X100 with firmware 1.21 is much less useful, but it is not useless like it was with older firmware versions. I honestly believe focusing is not an issue. It is true different focusing strategies are required for optimum success in different situations. It is true that a heavy, loud and less stealthy contemporary DSLR will focus quicker than the XP1. The speed difference compared to my D700 with a G lens is about a factor of 4-5 in EV 5 - 7 indoor light. This means the XP1 will focus in about 0.3 to 0.5 seconds depending upon the target contrast, how much the focus has to change and the light level. It is true learning how to get the most performance out of the XP1 will take an investment in time.
The performance of the 35/1.4 is wonderful. This lens could be one of the best buys out there for priceerformance.
I enjoy using the XP1. The ergonomics work for me. It just feels right. I am reminded of the ZI-M body. I don't find the noise of operation to be unusual or unacceptable. Autofocus is noisy with any camera.
The overall sensor performance is outstanding. Adobe announced they will support the XP1. I can be patient if they use the time to get the most out of th XP1's sensor. North American users hardly had any wait for X100 support because the tsunami tragedy delayed delivery. This time we will be different.
So it never occurred to me to return th XP1. I will buy the 18/2 lens in a few months. I think I will pay attention to adapted-lens results with 50 to 60 mm lenses that won't destroy the camera's handling. Next year I will buy the 23 mm lens and I may get the 14 mm lens too if it performs at least as well as the 18.
It's a keeper for me.
I understand what Dante is saying about the 60 mm lens and the 0VF finder. I think this is a valid concern. At the same time this is a macro lens. This means the EVF is should be used most of the time as the OVF is a poor choice for macro work. I was is disappointed when I saw the 60 mm lens was going to be a macro lens. A photo editor told me macro lenses were not the best choice for non-macro work. They claimed to be able to tell when a macro lens was used or non-macro photos. This could be wrong. At any rate I don't have a problem using the EVF for non-macro shots.
The parallax OVF framing for the 35/1.4 does not bother me at all. I have not had any issues focusing with the OVF in EV 5 light. Focusing at lower EVs works better with he EVF. Of ourse as the aperture becomes wider and light levels decrease, focusing is more difficult. I find focusing using the lens barrel is a viable option with the XP1 for some situations. The X100 with firmware 1.21 is much less useful, but it is not useless like it was with older firmware versions. I honestly believe focusing is not an issue. It is true different focusing strategies are required for optimum success in different situations. It is true that a heavy, loud and less stealthy contemporary DSLR will focus quicker than the XP1. The speed difference compared to my D700 with a G lens is about a factor of 4-5 in EV 5 - 7 indoor light. This means the XP1 will focus in about 0.3 to 0.5 seconds depending upon the target contrast, how much the focus has to change and the light level. It is true learning how to get the most performance out of the XP1 will take an investment in time.
The performance of the 35/1.4 is wonderful. This lens could be one of the best buys out there for price
erformance. I enjoy using the XP1. The ergonomics work for me. It just feels right. I am reminded of the ZI-M body. I don't find the noise of operation to be unusual or unacceptable. Autofocus is noisy with any camera.
The overall sensor performance is outstanding. Adobe announced they will support the XP1. I can be patient if they use the time to get the most out of th XP1's sensor. North American users hardly had any wait for X100 support because the tsunami tragedy delayed delivery. This time we will be different.
So it never occurred to me to return th XP1. I will buy the 18/2 lens in a few months. I think I will pay attention to adapted-lens results with 50 to 60 mm lenses that won't destroy the camera's handling. Next year I will buy the 23 mm lens and I may get the 14 mm lens too if it performs at least as well as the 18.