Paul T.
Mentor
thanks for the information!
IN the spirit of good, honest debate that this thread has generated, I shall remind you this comment was specifically about price. Some people are complaining the Fuji is expensive; in the context of the R-D1's new and s/h price, it's not at all. We are, despite the limitations of any one camera, as RF users in a much better position than we were a couple of years ago.
Now, any news for me about The Pope's religion?
gavinlg
Mentor
Yes, and people were comparing it to the 5d mkII - which isn't really a valid comparison seeing as the 5dmkII has been out for a number of years and the price has dropped significantly since then. It was around 3200 for the body when new I think, and the x-pro1 is much newer and has much more technology in it - new sensor array with no AA filter, hybrid optical viewfinder with 2 magnifications, aps-c sensor that performs on the same level as the larger 5dII sensor etc etc.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Last time I asked, he replied that it was something personal.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Well, I am one of those people. I much prefer SLR focusing. I use rangefinders mainly because there is no mirror slap and because they are smaller and lighter.
Paul T.
Mentor
THere is an important point buried within all of this. The consensus is the focusing on the X100 is a little slower than that of the GF1.
I use both the GF1 and the Hexar. The Hexar is better and more reliable by an order of magnitude; it's not only quicker, it hardly ever fails to lock. If I try and photograph a stem of frost-covered cow parsley against a background of snow, it's literally impossible using AF on the Panasonic. So why, in a world of constant improvement, do we have to accept markedly poorer performance?
For that reason, I think it's actually reasonable to pressurise Fuji for the best AF possible. That is not, however, the same as claiming that such drawbacks make the camera an exploitative capitalist tool of the the foolish, materialistic masses.
dct
perpetual amateur
confused
confused
I don't have either of those digicams and that's why I didn't discuss this topic at all. But your statements leaves me technically really confused. How can it be that well known modern camera models have a definite inferior AF system to decades older model? That's what I read out of your statements (and others who learned to master the Contax G/Hexar AF focussing system).
Is this all only a misunderstandig? Or do we really see a remarkable technical backstepping rather than evolution? Regarding also this discussed model here: the X-Pro1
confused
I don't have either of those digicams and that's why I didn't discuss this topic at all. But your statements leaves me technically really confused. How can it be that well known modern camera models have a definite inferior AF system to decades older model? That's what I read out of your statements (and others who learned to master the Contax G/Hexar AF focussing system).
Is this all only a misunderstandig? Or do we really see a remarkable technical backstepping rather than evolution? Regarding also this discussed model here: the X-Pro1
kanzlr
Hexaneur
In terms of speed, sensor based contrast detect AF is indeed a back step.
Camera manufacturers use it, because they do not need additional hardware, just the sensor read out and some software.
and it is precise. no front/backfocus adjustment needed.
Camera manufacturers use it, because they do not need additional hardware, just the sensor read out and some software.
and it is precise. no front/backfocus adjustment needed.
Paul T.
Mentor
Yup.
Apparently, the test cameras still only had prototype software - the Fujiguys mention on youtube that their example took 30 seconds to focus. But they reckon that with the final firmware it will focus "a lot faster" than the X100.
(as mentioned in the comments, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk8A3Bc8R4g&feature=related )
What's the consensus on how much quicker the X10 is than the X100? It might be better to consider that as a baseline, considering it's a more recent model.
Honestly, you don't have to accept it... just don't buy these cameras and keep using your Konica. The fact is we are in the infancy of these types of cameras. They will get better over time.
Paul T.
Mentor
Because the world is leaving the Hexar behind. (Insert the usual digital v film 50 page thread here).
Don't forget the Hexar has its own compromises - 1/250 highest shutter speed for one. So you'll be using f/8 or so in daylight. You could zone-focus the Fuji in the same circumstances.
Don't forget the Hexar has its own compromises - 1/250 highest shutter speed for one. So you'll be using f/8 or so in daylight. You could zone-focus the Fuji in the same circumstances.
Yeah, that always made me not want to bother with the Hexar AF. Very cool camera, but when it came out I couldn't get over the 1/250th thing. Let's hope the X1Pro is faster than the X100...but if it isn't, I'll still happily use it.
dfoo
Well-known
That and all the little irritating buttons.
Adanac
Well-known
I wasn't being condescending in my answer; I was pointing out - without using or harming once a single apple or orange - that the two cameras are quite different so value comparisons based on price are less meaningful.
The RD-1 or M8/M9 are not useful comparisons to a camera designed around auto-focus and if it weren't for the faux rangefinder look and the presence of an optical viewfinder in the hybrid finder, no one here would compare them. As you can't use the faux rangefinder look or OVF to focus RF glass, it makes no sense to draw that comparison. The XPro 1 is as close to the rangefinder experience as a Sony NEX is. Ok, ok, it is *marginally* closer.
No doubt we can find legions of M8/M9/RD-1 and even Ricoh GXR M Mount users who would be quick to argue that the XPro 1 isn't really an analog to the aforementioned cameras. We've certainly seen those arguments come up in relation to the X100 in the past.
I say this as a former owner of the X100 who is well aware of what that camera is and isn't; it is an autofocus camera, designed to be used as such. The XPro 1 as it stands is the same - very much principally an autofocus camera, although granted the lines are blurred simply because of the short back focal length and potential for adapting MF glass.
That blurring noted, the XPro 1 is not a range finder focused camera so why compare them to rangefinder camera prices, given the focus mechanism is a fundamental attribute of a camera and one which attracts, or repels, camera buyers?
The closest analog would be other mirrorless compacts with short back focal lengths allowing the use of adapted lenses including M lenses so in that light the XPro 1 more logically can be compared to various NEXen or other adaptable APS-C or greater autofocus camera.
It get's tricky there - I wouldn't even compare the XPro 1 to the Ricoh GXR M Mount as the latter is designed only for manual focus, but I suppose as the GXR can optionally be equipped with AF camera modules and the M Mount module, it should be considered in the value mix too.
Agreed; we have more cameras on which to mount our RF lenses and some of these cameras even do a really good job with them and I expect performance will only get better. Given the trend towards short back focal length cameras thanks to dumping the mirror, chances are we'll have even greater selection going forward. M or adapted LTM lenses to me seem like the best cross-platform bet for lens investment at this point, provided one likes or prefers manual focus of course.
Back to the XPro 1, hopefully Fujifilm will add more than simple image magnification as a focus aide by the time they come out with their own M mount adapter. A good edge detection algorithm and display feature I've found makes all the difference in achieving focus - with a good implementation you can actually have accurate *and* fast instead of one or the other.
Paul T.
Mentor
Many of your points are reasonable and thoughful and I enjoyed reading them.
It is undeniably the case, however, that the cost of developing the X100/Xpro-1 must have been higher than that o the R-D1; there was far more tooling and design work required, than a camera which was based on an existing chassis.
Of course, having production in two centres probably pushed up the price of the Epson, and items like sensors are probably cheaper to buy now, but the fact remains that in comparison with a camera, held in great esteem by many rff members including me, the XPro1 is not a capitalist conspiracy - but is rather good value.
It is undeniably the case, however, that the cost of developing the X100/Xpro-1 must have been higher than that o the R-D1; there was far more tooling and design work required, than a camera which was based on an existing chassis.
Of course, having production in two centres probably pushed up the price of the Epson, and items like sensors are probably cheaper to buy now, but the fact remains that in comparison with a camera, held in great esteem by many rff members including me, the XPro1 is not a capitalist conspiracy - but is rather good value.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Because many of us (I'd actually argue it's most of us) don't care how the camera achieves its focus. It's about form factor.
I like using a small camera with interchangeable lenses and a regular viewfinder. I don't want something big. And I will not use a camera that requires me to look at an LCD display to frame.
And of course aesthetics play a role in our decisions.
So for me, at least, the Xpro-1 fits very nicely in a category that includes the RD-1, M8, M9 and whatever comes after.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Word. Frankly, while I like Leica lenses, I'm kind of eager to get into a system where I can actually afford to try out lenses and/or buy them.
Turtle
Mentor
Agreed.
Being able to set hyperfocal focus is another important atribute for me and the X100 allows this by seeing where manual focus is set inside the viewfinder. I find this far preferable to the compressed focus scales on SLR AF lenses and being stuck with a huge beast.
With my RF usage, I have realised it falls into two categories:
I think the sales will do the talking, for better or for worse as per the X100. Some continue to cry that all X100 buyers were gullible suckers who went for retro cool style over substance, but this is untrue. I know that emraphoto would not bother with a tool that lacks utility any more than I would. I realise that it might not suit everyone, but I suspect it will end up suiting an awful lot of pragmatic photographers.
Being able to set hyperfocal focus is another important atribute for me and the X100 allows this by seeing where manual focus is set inside the viewfinder. I find this far preferable to the compressed focus scales on SLR AF lenses and being stuck with a huge beast.
With my RF usage, I have realised it falls into two categories:
- Hyperfocal/zone focusing when I dont have time and cannot rely upon ANY AF to hit the right spot, so I use DOF to make it certain.
- I have time to focus properly and this is not anywhere near as quick on a RF as my X100.
I think the sales will do the talking, for better or for worse as per the X100. Some continue to cry that all X100 buyers were gullible suckers who went for retro cool style over substance, but this is untrue. I know that emraphoto would not bother with a tool that lacks utility any more than I would. I realise that it might not suit everyone, but I suspect it will end up suiting an awful lot of pragmatic photographers.
dougi
Established
I agree. I have only 1 Leica lens (35mm Summicron ASPH), which I could onyl afford because it was bundled cheap with a Bessa R2 in a distributor changover. I did have a Hexar RF system, and I see this camera as an AF based successor.
I too think the form factor and OVF compostion is more important than rangefinder focussing.
Adanac
Well-known
Sure. Probably it is more accurate to say that most of us care that the camera achieves focus well, whether we use auto or manual focus lenses.
Why some of us use manual focus rangefinder lenses over auto focus lenses is a different discussion. ;-)
Definitely agree about form factor; that is one of the reasons I'm continuing to buy rangefinder glass. The combination of compact mirrorless body, really capable sensors, and great RF glass makes for a very potent, small, system... as a package these are very hard not to like.
Incidentally six months ago I could have written your second to last statement word for word and probably did. I thought with this size and type of digital camera that I could never be happy without a built in viewfinder and for that reason the X100's hybrid finder drew me off the sidelines like a moth to a flame.
Three compacts later, what I've found is even more important to me now is that the camera have decent focus aides for manual focus glass and for non RF cameras that means an EVF. Whether the finder is built in or not is also much less important to me now than before - I've done a 180 on that topic and if there was choice maybe I'd go for the built-in finder and still have a free hot shoe for off camera flash, or maybe I'd go for an optional finder that also happens to tilt - this can be very handy. Every time I tilt my EVF I remind myself to remember this when I'm next updating a body, lest I forget how useful tilt can be.
Frontman
Well-known
I saw one today at the Fuji museum in Roppongi. Very sweet, with the 35/1.4 lens...