JonasY wrote:
At the risk of being mr smart guy, "great shots" are more a result of the photographer than the equipment. Hence, you have to look at the images and see if you believe the quality of the pictures in combination with the possibilities of the camera are sufficient to create what you call great photos.
That being said, kadamian's pictures (see link below) almost sold me the X100. These results SOOC are pretty amazing, not many cameras can do that. But I must also say that scrolling through the thread looking for those pics showed a lot of really good photos that shows the IQ of the camera.
In comparison with the Nex you must also consider the focal length. It's much easier to find a good normal lens, especially considering the cost, than something that matches the 23/2 lens of the X100. How many great photos taken with the Nex have you seen with a matching lens?
+1 It was some of the images in the X100 thread which convinced me that the camera/ lens in capable hands is indeed a terrific tool at that focal length - no small feat given the speed and size of the camera/ lens, particularly compared to any alternatives. I actually sold mine in anticipation of the X Pro 1 but now I already miss it and will likely end up buying another.
FlyPenFly wrote:
The X100 screen isn't great but it's good enough. However the EVF is very good.
very good compared to the new sony one? that's not what i've heard, but i've never had the chance to use the x100's.
i know a lot of people NEED one, but the optical viewfinder on this camera is a waste of space and money for me. i have no use for a viewfinder that doesn't show focus. the whole seeing outside the frame thing seems silly to me since i can't close only my left eye, i always see outside the frame with that eye.
I think this whole discussion about not seeing amazing images from a camera makes no sense. All modern cameras are capable of taking amazing pictures. If you think otherwise then you are relying way too much on the camera instead of skill and content. The differences between these cameras and lenses are typically either in terms of someone preferring a certain drawing style over others, or in some extreme cases like when you need very high resolution or very high ISO etc, or one system supporting the lenses that you need and so on. 99% of the "amazing" photographs that I have seen could have been taken with any of the cameras that are being discussed here (of course within the domain of operation - obviously a camera with a 35mm lens cannot take a great safari shot ). There are people posting great photographs using a rebel body and others posting mediocre shots using M9's.
Provides a bit more info - particularly about third party lens compatibility- but certainly far from the headline of "Detailed Fuji X-Pro 1 specs". Nothing about size, weight, raw buffer, shooting speed, AF system, etc.
Quote: "The new sensor called X-Trans is a classic 16-megapixel"
Which is what I have thought. Organic layer technology is not yet ready for commercial release, or never will be (because of cost issues).
Adapter for Leica lenses is what many here have waited for - good for them, indeed. So the specialists can speculate whether other adapters will be possible.
Other focal lenghts will include the much asked for 23mm F2 lens (probably close in design to the x100 lens - it is already designed...).
alba63 wrote:
Other focal lenghts will include the much asked for 23mm F2 lens (probably close in design to the x100 lens - it is already designed...).
Cheers
Bernie
I doubt it will be that close in design to the lens in the x100. That lens has a huge rear element that protrudes quite deeply into the body of the x100 and sits only 5.6mm from the sensor! I suspect that design probably would not work out to well when used as an interchangeable lens.
sebboh wrote:
indeed, i wonder if they'll have the foresight to put a little helicoid on it for closer focusing as well.
I doubt that. Would be the first time in recent camera releases and would make the adapter more expensive.
Hm, now, with such a prime lineup, why would anybody need a M-mount on these cameras ? You get a 28mm equiv. at f2 - the ZM 18 is f4, you get a 35/1.4 as a fast normal - it hardly gets any faster than this - maybe with the CV 35/1.2, but that is it. Ok, on the long end you have a lot to choose from 90 Cron's and Elmarits that would be longer than the 60 from Fuji, but that's it. If the Fuji lenses deliver, I really see no reason to get the M-mount ( if I would have the lenses, than it would be another story ).
slungu wrote:
Hm, now, with such a prime lineup, why would anybody need a M-mount on these cameras ? You get a 28mm equiv. at f2 - the ZM 18 is f4, you get a 35/1.4 as a fast normal - it hardly gets any faster than this - maybe with the CV 35/1.2, but that is it. Ok, on the long end you have a lot to choose from 90 Cron's and Elmarits that would be longer than the 60 from Fuji, but that's it. If the Fuji lenses deliver, I really see no reason to get the M-mount ( if I would have the lenses, than it would be another story )....Show more →
but my lenses have so much character or specific looks, sometimes i want that. also, i hate autofocus, i need my pen 42/1.2 as my 58mm equiv, and i need my various ~50mm fast lenses as portrait lenses (the 60 macro looks like a good general use portrait and everything lens, but is to long and to slow for me most of the time).
sebboh wrote:
but my lenses have so much character or specific looks, sometimes i want that. also, i hate autofocus, i need my pen 42/1.2 as my 58mm equiv, and i need my various ~50mm fast lenses as portrait lenses (the 60 macro looks like a good general use portrait and everything lens, but is to long and to slow for me most of the time).
I was mostly thinking loud here .
As I don't have that many lenses right now and was considering getting that ZM 18/4 for the wide end of my crop camera, I am not sure it is a good idea. I have missed one on ebay that went for as low as 600 EUR and am not sure if it is a good investment, i.e. when the Fuji comes out and things calm down a bit, and I decide to replace the 18/4 with a 18/2 will I be able to do that with not too much loss ? Ok, it sounds crazy anyway to spend more than a grand on a temporary thing. On the other hand I was wondering if I would not be tempted to get a Canon 70-200/4 for the very long end, for those rare occasions when I want to shoot the longer range... An now again my NEX has won some plus points.
slungu wrote:
I was mostly thinking loud here .
As I don't have that many lenses right now and was considering getting that ZM 18/4 for the wide end of my crop camera, I am not sure it is a good idea. I have missed one on ebay that went for as low as 600 EUR and am not sure if it is a good investment, i.e. when the Fuji comes out and things calm down a bit, and I decide to replace the 18/4 with a 18/2 will I be able to do that with not too much loss ? Ok, it sounds crazy anyway to spend more than a grand on a temporary thing. On the other hand I was wondering if I would not be tempted to get a Canon 70-200/4 for the very long end, for those rare occasions when I want to shoot the longer range... An now again my NEX has won some plus points....Show more →
i would think the zm 18 would hold it's value for quite some time, certainly a couple years. while i'm sure the fuji lenses will be very good, i doubt they'll have the zeiss look. i've been looking for a decent price on that lens myself lately...
Shows the leather case and flash unit. Also some dimensions are given...
Fuji XF 18mm f/2 R
8 elements, 7 groups, two aspherical elements
52 mm filter size
dimensions: 64.5 x 40.6 mm
weight: 116 g
--
Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4 R
8 elements, 6 groups, one aspherical element
52 mm filter size
dimensions: 65.0 x 54.9 mm
weight: 187 g
--
Fuji XF 60mm f/2.4 R Macro
10 elements, 8 groups, one aspherical element and one low-dispersion element
1:2 scale
39 mm filter size
dimensions: 64.1 x 70.9 мм
weight: 215 g
And XP1 vs. X100
The Fuji X-Pro 1 camera dimensions are 83 x 138 x 38 mm.
For comparison, the Fuji X100 dimensions are 75 x 126 x 54 mm.
And I like that Fuji is so open about other lenses being adapted to the mount. I think the danger of their own lenses being relegated as unneeded in this case is a bit different in that the native lenses should be the only ones that are usable via the optical aspect of the viewfinder. So you get the benefit of opening up your camera and easing the transition of M mount users and yet still maintain the relevance of your native lenses for those that want to use the full capabilities of the camera.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I doubt it will be that close in design to the lens in the x100. That lens has a huge rear element that protrudes quite deeply into the body of the x100 and sits only 5.6mm from the sensor! I suspect that design probably would not work out to well when used as an interchangeable lens.
Every time I see that lens diagram, I am always amazed at how Fujifilm pulled that off. Seriously, that is one funky lens; far away from any other lens maker. Truly unique.
). There are people posting great photographs using a rebel body and others posting mediocre shots using M9's.
.