davenfl wrote:
Just to be clear the sensor is a Fuji designed and manufactured unit, most definitely not a Sony 16MP sensor.
Dave
All that we know is that it is a new Fuji color filter on top of a conventional square grid CMOS. Seeing as how Fuji already used a Sony sensor in the X100, and this new sensor is 16mp, just like many other cameras that borrow a Sony sensor, I'd say it's pretty likely to be a Sony base sensor in the X-Pro1. Ricoh, Pentax, Nikon, etc. all use their own color filters and AA (or lack thereof) on a Sony sensor.
douglasf13 wrote:
.... Like the M9, it's nearing small DSLR size, but the size of the M9 seems more acceptable, since it has a 135 sensor. The new Fuji seems downright bulky for an aps-c mirrorless. .....
Agreed. If it had been 35mm FF fine but its too big and pricey for an APS-C mirrorless, esp with the NEX 5N and NEX 7.
Has anyone commented on the quality of the EVF, especially in terms of manual focusing. The NEX will be difficult to beat in this regard.
Jan 09, 2012 at 08:01 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
A note about size. The camera has almost exactly the same physical dimensions as a M9, but weighs noticeably less (140g). It weighs almost exactly the same weight as a Panasonic GH2, but is noticeably thinner. The NEX 7 is a smaller camera (the Fuji is slightly wider and taller (about 15%), but they have the same thickness at their thickest point, and the NEX 7 weighs 100g less). So, IMO (and I am sure others will disagree) this is still a small travel type camera. I don't think it makes sense to compare this camera to one without a viewfinder. If you don't care about a viewfinder this probably isn't the camera for you. The size and the cost of this camera are both inflated by the hybrid viewfinder and unless this feature is attractive to you, you are probably better served looking elsewhere.
Steve Spencer wrote:
...The size and the cost of this camera are both inflated by the hybrid viewfinder and unless this feature is attractive to you, you are probably better served looking elsewhere.
The problem is that I want/expect an excellent EVF in a mirrorless camera. Having the ability to accurately MF with my NEX 5N is very nice and not having as good of a MF experience in a $1700 mirrorless camera would be a deal breaker.
Jan 09, 2012 at 08:11 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I really like the lens lineup that Fuji has announced. For me the 18, 35, 60 macro (28, 50, 90 FF equivalents) are exactly what I would have wanted to start a kit. If it is true that they plan on introducing a 14mm by the end of the year that is even better as this is the next lens I would want. If the lenses are good, the viewfinder works reasonably well, and the sensor is at the level of the one in the 16 megapixel, Sony, Pentax, and Nikon, I will definitely get one as my travel camera.
douglasf13 wrote:
I'm a little surprised that some of you are able to gauge the tonality of this camera without the identical scene shot with other cameras for comparison (not to mention matters of processing.) I'm not saying the magic isn't there, but I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves, no?
I don't think so regarding color/ tonality, at least for me from what I see. There is a richness of color and subtlety of tone that immediately jumps out at me. My gut says that's a result of the lens and sensor. Opening the downloaded images up in PS, they don't look processed - pushed and pulled- at all after a quick glance at Levels/ Histogram.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't think so regarding color/ tonality, at least for me from what I see. There is a richness of color and subtlety of tone that immediately jumps out at me. My gut says that's a result of the lens and sensor. Opening the downloaded images up in PS, they don't look processed - pushed and pulled- at all after a quick glance at Levels/ Histogram.
i was thinking they had very soft lighting, but even given that the colors look very, very good.
I do tend to agree with you about the tonality...it is really rich, and the files look really clean. A real beauty and cleanliness to the detail and a richness in the color. I'm sure the sensor and such have a lot to do with this, but I can get a similar richness and color with the glamour glow filter from Nik Color Efex. I'm not saying identical, as I think that these look really clean for heavy processing, but we don't know how these were processed, and obviously excellent lighting was used for the still life shots.
Local shop. Atlantic Photo Supply in Halifax. Brian, the President, doesn't have a line on it yet, but he will have soon (probably tomorrow). I'm confident he'll get one for me, in the 'first wave'. He's a great 'finder'.
douglasf13 wrote:
All that we know is that it is a new Fuji color filter on top of a conventional square grid CMOS. Seeing as how Fuji already used a Sony sensor in the X100, and this new sensor is 16mp, just like many other cameras that borrow a Sony sensor, I'd say it's pretty likely to be a Sony base sensor in the X-Pro1. Ricoh, Pentax, Nikon, etc. all use their own color filters and AA (or lack thereof) on a Sony sensor.
I don't think we can rule out the Sony sensor but I also dont' think it matters much. The new CFA, lack of AA hardware tweaking as well as Fuji's magic color touch mean the results would be very different to anything else with regard to color, tone and so forth.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I really like the lens lineup that Fuji has announced. For me the 18, 35, 60 macro (28, 50, 90 FF equivalents) are exactly what I would have wanted to start a kit. If it is true that they plan on introducing a 14mm by the end of the year that is even better as this is the next lens I would want. If the lenses are good, the viewfinder works reasonably well, and the sensor is at the level of the one in the 16 megapixel, Sony, Pentax, and Nikon, I will definitely get one as my travel camera. ...Show more →
+1
except I would go for a CV ultrawide like the 15/4.5 instead of waiting for fuji's equivalent. I dont see the point for AF at this focal length, and I dont really need big apertures for the type of work I'd normally do with an UWA.
douglasf13 wrote:
The Fuji 35/1.4 isn't all THAT small. It is still quite a bit larger than something like the CV 35/1.4 with adapter, and even a bit longer than the ZM 35/2 with adapter, and the Fuji is quite a bit larger in diameter than both.
As big as people think the NEX lenses are, myself included, the overall depth of the NEX-7+24/1.8 isn't all that much longer than the Fuji and the 35/1.4. If Sony made one smaller, standard-ish lens, they'd be in good shape:
p.s. just to be clear, I think both in this pic are larger than I'd prefer. I'd love a NEX-7 body with either a GXR or Fuji sensor. ...Show more →
Looks small to me. It's smaller than Leica 25 f/1.4 for Panasonic and much smaller than Zeiss 24 f/1.8 for Sony. And it weighs a paltry 187g. What more would you want.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't think so regarding color/ tonality, at least for me from what I see. There is a richness of color and subtlety of tone that immediately jumps out at me. My gut says that's a result of the lens and sensor. Opening the downloaded images up in PS, they don't look processed - pushed and pulled- at all after a quick glance at Levels/ Histogram.
Lighting and the scene can make such huge differences in tonality and color that, while I agree these pics look nice, I couldn't say that another camera is incapable of equally good pics, and I generally feel that way about any new camera's sample pics.
I'd love to see theSuede weigh in this new cfa. Where you at, Joakim!?!?
Jan 09, 2012 at 08:28 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
michael49 wrote:
The problem is that I want/expect an excellent EVF in a mirrorless camera. Having the ability to accurately MF with my NEX 5N is very nice and not having as good of a MF experience in a $1700 mirrorless camera would be a deal breaker.
I like the idea of a hybrid viewfinder, but we will have to see how well it works. I think it is way to early to know how good the viewfinder is. It may be similar to the X100, but that is a one focal length camera, so it has to be different with this camera. Many people around here like using the NEX 5N and holding it at waist level. This isn't for me, however, and I don't like using the the LCD for focussing unless a camera is on a tripod. So for me if I got the NEX 5N, I would have to get the external viewfinder. All things being equal, I would prefer the viewfinder was built in. So for me at this point anyway, I would be comparing the NEX 7 with this Fuji.
douglasf13 wrote:
Lighting and the scene can make such huge differences in tonality and color that, while I agree these pics look nice, I couldn't say that another camera is incapable of equally good pics, and I generally feel that way about any new camera's sample pics.
I'd love to see theSuede weigh in this new cfa. Where you at, Joakim!?!?
Well, I know I can get similar out of my Sony A900 and the very best glass I have but not from the original NEX-5 I owned. It was more crunchy and harsh in a digital looking way. So, if these images are in fact indicative of what to expect ooc with regard to color and tonality, I say that aspect equals FF 35 DSLR.
Steve Spencer wrote:
This isn't for me, however, and I don't like using the the LCD for focussing unless a camera is on a tripod. So for me if I got the NEX 5N, I would have to get the external viewfinder. All things being equal, I would prefer the viewfinder was built in. So for me at this point anyway, I would be comparing the NEX 7 with this Fuji.
+1
And a NEX-5N with the optional EVF then gets close to the NEX-7 in pricing, which I would choose in that case. If the Fuji was $1700 with the 35 f/1.4 I'd be tempted, assuming IQ and AF are excellent. Maybe a NEX -7 and the one of the new Sigma 19/f2.8 or 30 f/2.8 DN lenses would be worth looking into. Not sure when the Sigma's ship or their price.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Looks small to me. It's smaller than Leica 25 f/1.4 for Panasonic and much smaller than Zeiss 24 f/1.8 for Sony. And it weighs a paltry 187g. What more would you want.
Well, as I mentioned, I use rangefinder lenses that are smaller, but, for example:
Either way, I'm trying to warm up to the size of the X-Pro1. I just wish, at that size (especially the body,) it had a 135 sensor. If the focusing works well for me, I can probably deal with the size, though.
Either way, I'm trying to warm up to the size of the X-Pro1. I just wish, at that size (especially the body,) it had a 135 sensor. If the focusing works well for me, I can probably deal with the size, though.
But it's not f/1.4, so it's not a fair comparison. For a normal lens design, the Fuji is incredibly small for a 35 f/1.4 for a large sensor. Look at size and weight of a FF 35 f/1.4, which has same size front element. EF 35 f/1.4 is around 600g IIRC.
