Untitled by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

snowboarder wrote:
Can you guys please share how the manual focussing is done with manual lenses?
The IQ seems to be great and as I don't care about AF, I might give it a shot.
Leica seems to be dropping the ball with the "big May 10th announcement".
Can you describe how you use the fancy VF? I assume you can only use the EVF
for MF if you want to use magnification, right?
Is it true that you have to "program" you manual lens and there is only one slot?
Why do you need to do it? To align the OVF lines?
Sorry, but I'm confused a bit here...

No problem. There are 6 slots for MF lenses to select from with 4 being pre-determined. They are 21,24,28 and 35. The last two slots can be customized to whatever you want. I use the EVF for focus with all my lenses including the AF Fuji ones. When using the pre determined slots you can bring up the correct frame lines using the OVF where as they stop after 35mm. Regardless of what FL you use, no frame lines are brought up in the EVF. I have 20/10 vision so using the EVF even at wide open I can pretty much get spot on focus. After using the Nex 7 which I still have, if they were to incorporate focus peaking it would help tremendously. They do have a focus magnification feature where you press the thumb wheel to activate it but it's something crazy like 20x or something so it's a complete pita to use as its all shaky and all over the place. If they were to let you choose from different magnifications like Sony, it would be better but focus peaking is still much better for most IMO. Also, those pictures are all jpegs with slight tweaks added in color efex pro 4. After having the X100 and shooting it mostly in jpeg but moving to raw once it was available, I was able to get much better files with lots leeway in processing. Once we get good support for the Xpro1, I think the IQ will likely be even better. If you do get any of the lenses, the 35 and 60 are the ones to get. I have all 3 but those two have the most "pop out at you" of them all. Lots of peopl seem to be complaining about their AF abilities but it's not an issue for me. The face painted child was running around and stopped for a brief second in front of me when I snapped the picture. Of course not DSLR or M4/3 fast, but fast enough for most.

Man, Fuji's colors are always awesome. It's too bad it feels like you have to always pay a little too much for them.

snowboarder wrote:
Can you guys please share how the manual focussing is done with manual lenses?
The IQ seems to be great and as I don't care about AF, I might give it a shot.
Leica seems to be dropping the ball with the "big May 10th announcement".
Can you describe how you use the fancy VF? I assume you can only use the EVF
for MF if you want to use magnification, right?
Is it true that you have to "program" you manual lens and there is only one slot?
Why do you need to do it? To align the OVF lines?
Sorry, but I'm confused a bit here...

Andrew......Jason explained it well. The "slots" are for changing the frame lines, but I find them so faint that I just use the EVF. The other value of the six slots are for the focal length information be recorded in EXIF. (I always forget, so the two shots posted below all say 50mm ) The magnification ratio at 20X is slightly silly, but it works.

Here are two from today.....the first is with the Leica 24/3.8 Elmar........the second is with the Contax 100-300 at 300mm (handheld). Because of no RAW support, they are pretty much SOOC.

bigkidneys wrote:
They do have a focus magnification feature where you press the thumb wheel to activate it but it's something crazy like 20x ..


Thanks man! So it seems they could easily improve the experience
by fixing the magnification level and adding focus peaking.
How is the EVF comparing to NEX-7?
How do you feel comparing files from both?
I understand it would be easier if you could have RAW Fuji files...
If I get it, I'd probably get the 35 f1.4 lens, looks very nice.
But I'm not sure how much I can gain comparing to the NEX IQ.
Sucks it's still the same crop, can someone wake up and bring us a FF camera?

I personally think the EVF on the 7 is much better but I hate the cup. The rounded cup on the Xpro1 seems better to me. There is some lag with the EVF on the fuji occasionally but as I mentioned, have always been able to to hit focus with no problem. Although I like what I get from the 7 files (not an expert or pro), I have to do less with the Fuji files compared to the 7. Of course this is most likely due to the fact I shoot jpg with the fuji and raw with the 7. Comparing jpg to jpg, the Fuji is hands down much better IMO. Yeah, the 35 is the real deal! Although slower, the 60 is very nice too. I have an older EBC Fuji 50/1.4 M42 lens I plan on shooting all week to see what I get. Having shot it occasionally over the past 2 weeks I really like it but I still prefer AF if I can get it. Never an issue with AF in EVF mode but using the OVF, focus is spotty AFA focusing on the wrong thing. With the EVF, you can reduce the AF box size much smaller than the OVF which I think may have a small part in it.

All with the 18mm.

olelovold wrote:


All with the 18mm.

This is a great example of what the 18 does really well.

deadwolfbones wrote:
olelovold wrote:

All with the 18mm.

This is a great example of what the 18 does really well.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I feel like Fuji really had an understanding of who was going to be buying this camera and what sort of conditions the camera would be shot in. The 18mm does a great job of capturing enviromental portraits.

bigkidneys wrote:
I personally think the EVF on the 7 is much better but I hate the cup. The rounded cup on the Xpro1 seem better to me. There is some lag with the EVF on the fuji occasionally but as I mentioned, have always been able to to hit focus with no problem. Although I like what I get from the 7 files (not an expert or pro), I have to do less with the Fuji files compared to the 7. Of course this is most likely the fact I shoot jpg with the fuji and raw with the 7. Comparing jpg to jpg, the Fuji is hands down much better IMO. Yeah, the 35 is the real deal! Although slower, the 60 is very nice too. I have an older EBC Fuji 50/1.4 M42 lens I plan on shooting all week to see what I get. Having shot it occasionally over the past 2 weeks I really like it but I still prefer AF if I can get it. Never an issue with AF in EVF mode but using the OVF, focus is spotty in focusing on the wrong thing. With the EVF, you can reduce the AF box size much smaller than the OVF which I think may have one small part in it.

You might try removing the cup. Once I did that, the NEX-7 EVF worked SO much better for me.

Brody LeBlanc wrote:
deadwolfbones wrote:
olelovold wrote:

All with the 18mm.

This is a great example of what the 18 does really well.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I feel like Fuji really had an understanding of who was going to be buying this camera and what sort of conditions the camera would be shot in. The 18mm does a great job of capturing enviromental portraits.

The same could be said about the Sony 16 for NEX, which is routinely panned, but I found it to be useable in some situations.

douglasf13 wrote:
Brody LeBlanc wrote:
deadwolfbones wrote:
olelovold wrote:

All with the 18mm.

This is a great example of what the 18 does really well.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I feel like Fuji really had an understanding of who was going to be buying this camera and what sort of conditions the camera would be shot in. The 18mm does a great job of capturing enviromental portraits.

The same could be said about the Sony 16 for NEX, which is routinely panned, but I found it to be useable in some situations.

Except the Sony is both wider and has a narrower aperture, both features that make it less suited for such environmental portraits, IMO.

Steve Spencer wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
Brody LeBlanc wrote:
deadwolfbones wrote:
olelovold wrote:

All with the 18mm.

This is a great example of what the 18 does really well.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I feel like Fuji really had an understanding of who was going to be buying this camera and what sort of conditions the camera would be shot in. The 18mm does a great job of capturing enviromental portraits.

The same could be said about the Sony 16 for NEX, which is routinely panned, but I found it to be useable in some situations.

Except the Sony is both wider and has a narrower aperture, both features that make it less suited for such environmental portraits, IMO.

I'm just saying it's probably a stretch to say Fuji planned on this being primarily an environmental portrait lens, especially judging by their sample images for the lens on their website.

I think the 18 was made for enviromental portraits too. It's not optimized for great corner sharpness, it's got f/2 aperture, it's small and inconspicuous.

I don't know that it's that specialized, but Fuji definitely seems to have optimized the camera and lenses for reportage/documentary/street/etc., they must have assumed people photography would be a prime use of the 18mm.

miloz wrote:
I don't know that it's that specialized, but Fuji definitely seems to have optimized the camera and lenses for reportage/documentary/street/etc., they must have assumed people photography would be a prime use of the 18mm.

It will be for me.

Today I fired up a Tamron SP 300mm f/5.6 on my X-Pro 1. Here's a few images to compare IQ of the OOC jpegs with the RAW (RAF) files, developed in SiklyPix and then Auto-Contrasted and 100% cropped in PS CS5. I gotta say that the IQ difference between OOC jpeg and developed RAW files is greater for the X-Pro 1 than for any other camera I've owned. Of course, this is for a lens that the camera doesn't recognize. The images were taken out my back window using the EVF and 10x mag to get focus. The camera was handheld, while leaning the lens against the side of the window frame. ISO 800, f/5.6, t = 1/350s (flower), 1/1000s (flag), and 1/1800s (cars & sign).

Anyway, here's four sets of three images. In each case, the first image is a 100% crop of the RAW (RAF) file, the second image is the same 100% crop from the OOC jpeg, and the third image is the PS CS5 Navigator window, with a red rectangle to show the location of the 100% crops. Note that both the RAW (RAF) and OOC jpeg files are at the same 4896 x 3264 resolution.

FWIW, DPR updated their studio test photo with RAW conversions from a beta version of Adobe Camera Raw that supports the XP1

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/6

In some parts of the scene the Fuji looks very smooth, but in other areas the NEX-7 shows more/better detail. Some of it might also be depth of field dependent.

I also added the 5N to the mix, along with the M9 for kicks. If you put the crop over the dime with the white text on red background, you'll notice the Fuji renders the text somewhat differently, and the detail in the etched face just to the left is different than the other cameras too...

Might be due to the beta RAW converter?

Hmm, perhaps, because if you flip back to the JPEG file, the Fuji looks a bit better with detail.

The lack of detail in RAW compared with NEX7 is unsettling, hopefully it's because it is just the beta.

to me it just looks like it could use some sharpening