pkreyenhop
Established
I bought the X100 when it came out and was so impressed by the great sensor - unfortunately almost everything else (and especially the AF) was not so great. It looks like the X100's big brother is quite similar. Coming from the X100, my hopes for the AF were low, but it looks like Fuji made it even worse and I can't see a firmware patch shifting the glass faster.
Steveh
Well-known
I think some of the disappointment some people on here (including Dante) are feeling may be because they're still looking at the camera either as a similar substitute/alternative for an M9 or any other Leica or a more compact version of a high end DSLR they can use in ultra low light - it isn't either, really. I certainly wouldn't choose one to shoot in a dark nightclub or a gig because a modern DSLR (or even my D700 which no longer even counts as modern!) will do the job a lot better.
Dante, if you're looking to use the 60mm with the OVF I think you'll probably be as disappointed as you expect - the finder frame is pretty small and the gap between the two AF squares is noticeably larger again than it is with the 35mm (with the 18 it's smaller, obviously) which does make it pretty hard to use - but to me the beauty of the X-Pro is that you have the EVF and the screen on the back of the thing so you have other options that work very well. For macro work you need to use the EVF anyway, and for portraits it's much more natural (to me) to use the EVF and place the focus point on the eye you want to focus on, or do the same thing using the screen on the back so you're not hidden behind the camera and can make eye contact with your subject.
I find with both the X-Pro and the X100 that I probably only use the OVF about 10-20% of the time, so to me they're high quality mirrorless cams with the bonus of an OVF you can use in optimal conditions (which to me means general shooting in daylight with lenses below 35mm) and weight/size/handling that has most of the advantages of a rangefinder. I sold my M8 and M lenses for the full X-Pro-1 kit because I found the different limitations of a rangefinder too frustrating so that's a great combination for me. If you're really wedded to having an OVF then I think the flaws Dante mentioned are all real issues, and the AF is incontestably slower than most other current AF cams out there - but I still think it's more than usable, and quicker for me than focussing manually with an M Leica.
The two cameras I've used that it reminds me of most are the Contax G2 and the Fuji GA645, and I feel the same about the X-Pro as I did about them - that the image quality for general shooting more than made up for the quirks in use. And in the round I love the camera, and will certainly be hanging on to it.
Dante, if you're looking to use the 60mm with the OVF I think you'll probably be as disappointed as you expect - the finder frame is pretty small and the gap between the two AF squares is noticeably larger again than it is with the 35mm (with the 18 it's smaller, obviously) which does make it pretty hard to use - but to me the beauty of the X-Pro is that you have the EVF and the screen on the back of the thing so you have other options that work very well. For macro work you need to use the EVF anyway, and for portraits it's much more natural (to me) to use the EVF and place the focus point on the eye you want to focus on, or do the same thing using the screen on the back so you're not hidden behind the camera and can make eye contact with your subject.
I find with both the X-Pro and the X100 that I probably only use the OVF about 10-20% of the time, so to me they're high quality mirrorless cams with the bonus of an OVF you can use in optimal conditions (which to me means general shooting in daylight with lenses below 35mm) and weight/size/handling that has most of the advantages of a rangefinder. I sold my M8 and M lenses for the full X-Pro-1 kit because I found the different limitations of a rangefinder too frustrating so that's a great combination for me. If you're really wedded to having an OVF then I think the flaws Dante mentioned are all real issues, and the AF is incontestably slower than most other current AF cams out there - but I still think it's more than usable, and quicker for me than focussing manually with an M Leica.
The two cameras I've used that it reminds me of most are the Contax G2 and the Fuji GA645, and I feel the same about the X-Pro as I did about them - that the image quality for general shooting more than made up for the quirks in use. And in the round I love the camera, and will certainly be hanging on to it.
Paul T.
Mentor
I'm looking forward to updates on the XPro, and in any case I can't afford a new system in the next year but Dante's points do crystallise my growing dissatisfaction and anger with contrast detection focus.
Yes, I know it requires minimal hardware - but it's crap! I know my way around my GF1's quirks, but there are certain times - snowy scenes, items without natural contrast - where it simply doesn't work.
Compare this with the Hexar AF, a camera nearly 20 years old, and it's pathetic. I'm not sure whether the GF1 is even as good as my cheapo Olympus Mju.
At what point did camera manufacturers decide that autofocus wasn't crucial on an autofocus camera!
Yes, I know it requires minimal hardware - but it's crap! I know my way around my GF1's quirks, but there are certain times - snowy scenes, items without natural contrast - where it simply doesn't work.
Compare this with the Hexar AF, a camera nearly 20 years old, and it's pathetic. I'm not sure whether the GF1 is even as good as my cheapo Olympus Mju.
At what point did camera manufacturers decide that autofocus wasn't crucial on an autofocus camera!
david.elliott
Well-known
I just purchased a kipon m42 adapter. Looking forward to trying macro work with my smc takumars (50 and 100) once it arrives. Will be interesting to see how well adapted lenses work.
Richard G
Mentor
Great thread. Really helpful. Still like the whole XP1 concept as delivered. Still love my X100. I went with the M9, but in the end switching entirely to Fuji may still be the best solution.
Vobluda
Well-known
After being very disappointed with X100 (I give it a try for two times but 1,5 year older GF1 is just focusing faster) and reading about X-Pro1 (after X100 experience not preordering) I think that the winner will be the first mayor camera producer to release small size full frame DSLR.
rinzlerb
Established
I have a motley collection of 35mm and MF film cameras when I want the best image quality. I have an older DSLR sorely due for an upgrade. I want my new digital camera to be FAST to take great candid pictures of people.The low light performance of the XP1 is compelling, but I tried one out yesterday and it seemed too slow for what I want. The form factor and controls seemed awkward--30 minutes in a store are not a thorough test I know, but still, I can tell it would take a while to feel natural. I'm going to get a cheap DSLR for now and let this technology mature for 2-3 more years.
mdx
Member
Who is dissatisfied with the Fujifilm X-Pro1, he can send it to somebody (who wants it) as a present...
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I'm always sensitive when consumers get blamed for not groking a product and the producers don't get held to task for how they present it.
If Fuji didn't intend the X-1 Pro to be good for low-light shooting, then why the focus on fast lenses and super-high iso performance? Both those things point to a camera built for low-light shooting. The one thing missing in that case is the focus. If it isn't a DSLR alternative, nor a digital RF alternative, then what is it?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Meh.. as someone who's actually used the camera in "low light" (I am talking anything from ISO3200 on upward) then I can honestly say the AF is "fine" if you compare it to the Canon 5D. The Canon 5D missed a sh*tl*ad of photos in "low" light (couldn't use it past ISO1600 but I was shooting in dark wedding banquet halls and WITH the 580EX Flash at the time - so it HAD AF Assist lights and STILL missed fired). I miss the occasional shot but rarely. The camera CAN and DOES mis focus at times but no more than any other digital camera I've used - the D700s I own also misfire but they're better than the X-Pro1 which I feel is better than the Canon 5D.
Personally, I'm happy with its performance. Even with the manual focus m-lenses and Kipon adapter.
Those that aren't happy with it I figure should wait for the next iteration or look for another camera to suit their needs.
Cheers,
Dave
Mr_Toad
Fluffy Marsupial
May I ask a coupla questions about the manual focusing of m-lenses with an m adapter on the XP1? (I'm sure this is detailed in other threads, i guess.)
1. Is it correct that there is no visual indicator, in either of the XP1 viewfinders, to determine if a manual M-lens is in focus (e.g., patch, focus indicator)?
2. Is it correct that focusing an m-mount lens in the XP1 viewfinder will strictly be through a user's "eyeballing" the focus...or "chimping" the LCD screen?
I'm asking, since my 55 year old eyes are not so great at focusing through a viewfinder...and I have some Voigtlander lenses I use on film rangefinders.
Thank you!
Robt.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
May I ask a coupla questions about the manual focusing of m-lenses with an m adapter on the XP1? (I'm sure this is detailed in other threads, i guess.)
1. Is it correct that there is no visual indicator, in either of the XP1 viewfinders, to determine if a manual M-lens is in focus (e.g., patch, focus indicator)?
2. Is it correct that focusing an m-mount lens in the XP1 viewfinder will strictly be through a user's "eyeballing" the focus...or "chimping" the LCD screen?
I'm asking, since my 55 year old eyes are not so great at focusing through a viewfinder...and I have some Voigtlander lenses I use on film rangefinders.
Thank you!
Robt.
Hi Robert,
regarding your questions:
1) You are correct - there is no visual indicator of focus (i.e. no focus confirmation light, no patch, nada)
2) You are correct - it's strictly visual confirmation.
Now, with that said let me advise of the following:
A) using the EVF to focus (because the OVF framelines do not give a good indication of proper framing - I guess that's a "strike" against the X-Pro1 for those keeping count) you can "zoom" in to get a better visual confirmation of focus. I have done this with "longer" m lenses on the X-Pro1 - I've used my 90mm with no issues and it really takes me about the same amount of time as focusing with my M7s - think of this as having a viewfinder magnifier lens (you know those 1.25x lenses you can screw onto an M-mount viewfinder).
taken with the 90mm Summicron:
B) The EVF is surprisingly good especially in low light - I hated.. I mean viscerally hated... EVFs in the past but this one is actually usable in my opinion. Your mileage may vary on this.
My eyesight, though, *touch wood* is still 20/20 but I have about 8 years to catch up to you in that department.
Cheers,
Dave
Frontman
Well-known
I have a Hexar AF and an X-Pro, and I find that the AF does not focus any faster than the X-Pro in most shooting. The AF will focus more quickly in low light, but most of my shooting is during the day time. What's more, the X-Pro will focus through windows or ay images reflected in mirrors, while the AF won't.
The X-Pro focuses quickly enough for me, and it focuses more quickly and with greater accuracy than a manual focus M9. it is not DSLR quick, but it is also not DSLR heavy and noisy.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
It's not good to be better than the worst. The 5D is a very old camera. The X-Pro AF behavior in low light is puzzling (this morning, at around EV 6 in daylight, it was pausing for 1/4 second before doing anything... which took a good second). In the same light, my D700 locked and focused in about 1/10 of a second - with a much slower, 15-year-old, 35-105 AF-D lens.
I think the point is right that the semiotics of this camera are that it is designed to be used successfully in low-light situations (I don't count concerts, for example, in this category because the lighting contrast makes it easy for anything to focus). Why do we otherwise care about noiseless performance at 3200 ISO or an f/1.4 lens - unless this is simply pitching to people who like to take night time landscapes or daylight bokeh pr0n (both of which functions are done better by things like the D800 anyway).
The point has been made by dreilly - correctly - that you can't apologize for the way something works by elimination, "oh, it's not a Leica," "oh, it's not a DSLR," "oh, it's not this," "oh, it's not that." It's in fact patronizing to suggest that people don't "get" what a camera is designed to do. Is it my lack of experience with rangefinders that's holding me back? Lack of experience with SLRs? Lack of experience with high-end compact AF cameras? After shooting with a variety of things for 27 years, what are people like me not "getting"? A lot of us don't have a place for a utility outfielder in a camera bag. And I hope that this camera is not such a beast.
Feting the X-Pro1 based on image quality in very controlled conditions is like feting a gifted child for having a high raw IQ - in neither case do you end up with something super-successful. You end up excusing quirks that ultimately undermine the program. There is certainly no reason to hold back on holding Fuji's feet to the fire on the focusing - which of all the challenges here should be the most straightforward to fix, possibly even with firmware upgrades. You can learn to work around a lot of things, but the "brain lock" I (it) was experiencing this morning was pretty troubling.
Dante
I think the point is right that the semiotics of this camera are that it is designed to be used successfully in low-light situations (I don't count concerts, for example, in this category because the lighting contrast makes it easy for anything to focus). Why do we otherwise care about noiseless performance at 3200 ISO or an f/1.4 lens - unless this is simply pitching to people who like to take night time landscapes or daylight bokeh pr0n (both of which functions are done better by things like the D800 anyway).
The point has been made by dreilly - correctly - that you can't apologize for the way something works by elimination, "oh, it's not a Leica," "oh, it's not a DSLR," "oh, it's not this," "oh, it's not that." It's in fact patronizing to suggest that people don't "get" what a camera is designed to do. Is it my lack of experience with rangefinders that's holding me back? Lack of experience with SLRs? Lack of experience with high-end compact AF cameras? After shooting with a variety of things for 27 years, what are people like me not "getting"? A lot of us don't have a place for a utility outfielder in a camera bag. And I hope that this camera is not such a beast.
Feting the X-Pro1 based on image quality in very controlled conditions is like feting a gifted child for having a high raw IQ - in neither case do you end up with something super-successful. You end up excusing quirks that ultimately undermine the program. There is certainly no reason to hold back on holding Fuji's feet to the fire on the focusing - which of all the challenges here should be the most straightforward to fix, possibly even with firmware upgrades. You can learn to work around a lot of things, but the "brain lock" I (it) was experiencing this morning was pretty troubling.
Dante
Meh.. as someone who's actually used the camera in "low light" (I am talking anything from ISO3200 on upward) then I can honestly say the AF is "fine" if you compare it to the Canon 5D. The Canon 5D missed a sh*tl*ad of photos in "low" light (couldn't use it past ISO1600 but I was shooting in dark wedding banquet halls and WITH the 580EX Flash at the time - so it HAD AF Assist lights and STILL missed fired). I miss the occasional shot but rarely. The camera CAN and DOES mis focus at times but no more than any other digital camera I've used - the D700s I own also misfire but they're better than the X-Pro1 which I feel is better than the Canon 5D.
Personally, I'm happy with its performance. Even with the manual focus m-lenses and Kipon adapter.
Those that aren't happy with it I figure should wait for the next iteration or look for another camera to suit their needs.
Cheers,
Dave
Ronny
Well-known
I am still waiting.
Have Nikon F
Have Nikon F
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Mr_Toad
Fluffy Marsupial
Thank you, dcsang, et al,
So, the viewfinder magnification would be kinda like the loupe I use on large format camera screens.
That makes sense. Probably I should make a drive and see an XP1 in person. (If I ever get a day off.)
Thanks!
Robt.
So, the viewfinder magnification would be kinda like the loupe I use on large format camera screens.
That makes sense. Probably I should make a drive and see an XP1 in person. (If I ever get a day off.)
Thanks!
Robt.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Hi Robert,
Yep. I think that's the only way to tell if you can use the camera or not - finding one around nearby to 'try' or at least have a look at the demo in the store and try it out as much as possible. It is NOT a perfect camera - no camera is - but if you find it's good enough (or good) for you then you may be pleased with it.
Cheers,
Dave
Yes, my F100 focuses much faster than the Xpro1, too. It's 13 years old...
In the video I posted in this thread, my Gossen measured EV 6. I didn't have any problems with the speed, or the accuracy...
A question I posed earlier: what is the definition of 'low?' At some light level, every AF system will fail...unless said AF system doesn't require any light at all.
I had brain lock trying to use a 5D. It just didn't work for me. That doesn't mean it didn't work fantastically for others...if this applies to you and the X-Pro1, return it...
Paul T.
Mentor
Well, that's good news. Because even in bright light, my GF1 does not focus reliably and consistently anything like as quickly as the Hexar AF, so I guess you reckon the XPro1 is significantly faster than the GF1?
I don't think the XPro1 owners should be so defensive. Even if the focusing is below par, this is still a remarkable camera altho it sounds more like the G1 than the G2 to me. But people should be hassling Fuji, because it's simpy not good enough to say the formfactor makes up for poorer focus than an SLR, not when it's the same pricepoint, and when they are touting it as a professional camera (and yes, professional is a much abused term).
Because if Fuji could get the AF to be as good as the Hexar, this camera would be massive, and the biggest success Fuji have ever had with a camera.