Michael Reichman has a Fuji X Pro1 Review

Always so much complaining anytime a new camera comes out. All because the manufacturer didn't knock on your door and ask you what features to include. Eesh. Go get an engineering degree and have at 'em.
 
Right on, Nick.

By the way, this year's Tour of California route goes up Empire Grade, down Jamison Creek Road, through Boulder Creek, and up Bear Creek Road.

We will be expecting photographs ;-).
 
I read the Luminous Landscape review with interest. Personally, I like the relatively unconventional path that Fuji has taken over the past few years, and I'm a big fan of the Fujinon EBC lenses.

That being said, the portrait of 'the lovely Celine' looked a little ... odd? I mean, yes, the skin tones were lovely, and the level of detail was striking, and the OOF areas were really creamy.

But right away, at first glance, the major thing I noticed was how 'blown out' the highlights were. The dynamic range of the whole photo seemed quite unbalanced.

I'll have to wait to see more sample photos (from the early adopters) before I make any decisions about this camera.
 
bobby_novatron said:
That being said, the portrait of 'the lovely Celine' looked a little ... odd? I mean, yes, the skin tones were lovely, and the level of detail was striking, and the OOF areas were really creamy.

But right away, at first glance, the major thing I noticed was how 'blown out' the highlights were. The dynamic range of the whole photo seemed quite unbalanced.

I'll have to wait to see more sample photos (from the early adopters) before I make any decisions about this camera.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was pretty badly overexposed, no doubt about it. I'd guess if that was any other camera (like a 5d or d700) those highlights would be completely blown out - the fujifilm sensor and jpeg processing is pretty incredible in how they keep the highlights under control.
 
ChrisC said:
.....Discrete. Discreet. Both spellings correct, depending on use intended... Chris
Click to expand...

"Discrete" is incorrect, when you mean a camera is small, not easily noticed. The correct spelling is "discreet".

If you're going to use a posher word for "small", on a commercial site, bloody well spell it correctly! And working out what a rangefinder is would help.

I'd like to know more about the camera, but this review is just a piece of fluff.
 
I'm curious about the XP1's ability to handle M-glass, and I am hopeful since Fuji announced they will be putting out their own M-adapter. To me, this means they are conscious of the issues associated with mounting M-glass on the XP1 and will attempt to work out some of the concerns forum-frequenters are having about the ability to focus properly. With most of the other EVIL cameras (all, in fact), adapters are left to 3rd-party outfits and always seem like more of a DIY-hack than a legitimate way to use the camera.

That said, this is first and foremost an AF camera, and anything else would just be a bonus, IMO.
 
semilog said:
Right on, Nick.

By the way, this year's Tour of California route goes up Empire Grade, down Jamison Creek Road, through Boulder Creek, and up Bear Creek Road.

We will be expecting photographs ;-).
Click to expand...

The Tour is back in Bakersfield this year, but it's an individual time trial. Not quite the drama of a road race, but I'll be trying.
 
lol.... I know what to call it: a Camera! Just having people saying the word rangefinder is a positive. It means a totally dead breed of cameras is surviving via misconception! Its marketing one couldn't pay for! I say lets call it a rangefinder so my M6 holds its value after I beat it to death from using it.
 
Part 2:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/.shtml



Ultimately he doesn't seem to be able to admit that he made a serious error in his classification of the camera type.

Instead he belittles criticism as "The Guardians of the League of Rangefinder Snobbery were thus unleashed upon me, decrying my slander of the sacred term."

I guess the best defence, is a good offence.

Here's my take on it. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

"And there's the answer: the X-Pro1 is a "rangefinder style" camera. It looks, feels, sounds and shoots a lot like a rangefinder, and does so by design. Fuji very consciously designed this machine to echo the virtues of the rangefinder genre, albeit without the eponymous rangefinder. Rangefinder goodness was the design brief."

There is only one problem with that logic. Aside from compact size etc, what really is at the heart of the rangefinder approach to shooting is zone focusing and to a certain extent fast and accurate manual focusing. And by all accounts the X-1 delivers a mediocre performance in this respect. It was mainly designed to be an autofocus camera, which requires an entirely different approach to how you shoot. Shooting with an AF system is very different from how you approach taking a picture with an RF camera. In that respect the X-1 is no different than any mirrorless AF compact or an SLR with AF lenses. The is a gulf of a difference between the shooting technique used with an AF camera and something like an M9 or even a monster Speed Graphic.

So, there still are two problems with this article.

Apparently he still does not understand what sort of camera he is reviewing or simply doesn't want to admit that his initial assessment was flat out wrong.

Nor does he seem to understand the difference in shooting style between a true, manual focused rangefinder camera and one that was primarily designed to rely on autofocus. What is troubling is that this confusion still exists despite his claim of owning several RF cameras.
This may have to do with the subjects he photographs. Shooting landscapes, a still life or static people photography is very different than gun-on-the-run-scale-focused photography, like a street photographer or PJ would execute. They require entirely different shooting techniques and it is only the later that truly reveals the strengths and character of a true RF system.
 
Way to go.

Way to go.

Harry Lime said:
Part 2:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/.shtml



Ultimately he doesn't seem to be able to admit that he made a serious error in his classification of the camera type.

Instead he belittles criticism as "The Guardians of the League of Rangefinder Snobbery were thus unleashed upon me, decrying my slander of the sacred term."

I guess the best defence, is a good offence.

Here's my take on it. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

"And there's the answer: the X-Pro1 is a "rangefinder style" camera. It looks, feels, sounds and shoots a lot like a rangefinder, and does so by design. Fuji very consciously designed this machine to echo the virtues of the rangefinder genre, albeit without the eponymous rangefinder. Rangefinder goodness was the design brief."

There is only one problem with that logic. Aside from compact size etc, what really is at the heart of the rangefinder approach to shooting is zone focusing and to a certain extent fast and accurate manual focusing. And by all accounts the X-1 delivers a mediocre performance in this respect. It was mainly designed to be an autofocus camera, which requires an entirely different approach to how you shoot. Shooting with an AF system is very different from how you approach taking a picture with an RF camera. In that respect the X-1 is no different than any mirrorless AF compact or an SLR with AF lenses. The is a gulf of a difference between the shooting technique used with an AF camera and something like an M9 or even a monster Speed Graphic.

So, there still are two problems with this article.

Apparently he still does not understand what sort of camera he is reviewing or simply doesn't want to admit that his initial assessment was flat out wrong.

Nor does he seem to understand the difference in shooting style between a true, manual focused rangefinder camera and one that was primarily designed to rely on autofocus. What is troubling is that this confusion still exists despite his claim of owning several RF cameras.
This may have to do with the subjects he photographs. Shooting landscapes, a still life or static people photography is very different than gun-on-the-run-scale-focused photography, like a street photographer or PJ would execute. They require entirely different shooting techniques and it is only the later that truly reveals the strengths and character of a true RF system.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving his point.
 
Harry Lime said:
What is troubling is that this confusion still exists despite his claim of owning several RF cameras. This may have to do with the subjects he photographs. Shooting landscapes, a still life or static people photography is very different than gun-on-the-run-scale-focused photography, like a street photographer or PJ would execute. They require entirely different shooting techniques and it is only the later that truly reveals the strengths and character of a true RF system.
Click to expand...

I think you answered your own argument there. Not everybody that uses a rangefinder zone focuses. It hard to zone focus with non-wide angle lenses as well. I find it is better to use the method that works for the situation (which I'm sure you do as well)... be it manual focus, zone focus, or auto-focus since they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
 
jsrockit said:
I think you answered your own argument there. Not everybody that uses a rangefinder zone focuses. It hard to zone focus with non-wide angle lenses as well. I find it is better to use the method that works for the situation (which I'm sure you do as well)... be it manual focus, zone focus, or auto-focus since they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point.

He is writing a camera review that will be read by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of readers.

It helps if you get the facts right, especially if you are presenting yourself as an expert or authority on the given subject.

Is that any clearer?
 
Harry Lime said:
You are missing the point.

He is writing a camera review that will be read by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of readers.

It helps if you get the facts right, especially if you are presenting yourself as an expert or authority on the given subject.

Is that any clearer?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be argumentive. I'm just stating that while you (and I) think the mechnical rangefinder is what makes a rangefinder camera... just as many think it's the body style, VF, and spirit of the machine that matters more. By calling it a rangefinder he is incorrect, but it will not mislead anyone who plans to buy it because it'll be clear that it is an AF camera to most.
 
The update on the review is interesting; he's good on the frustrations of the camera, and focusing speed looks to be one of them. The Auto ISO implementation sounds completely insane and will require a firmware fix to stop it being a deal-breaker for many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top