Very bold camera, only the price seems to be an issue for some (unless of course performance exceeds all expectations).
Will be really interesting how well it also works with M mount lenses (lack of AA and being designed for short back focus sounds encouraging).
Its a tiny bit larger than expected, but would still make for a portable system.
Interested to see how well EVF manual focusing is implemented - you could also use the OVF for scale focus work although it won't have any focus confirmation in OVF mode? More of a framing advantage (with the frame lines).
Really want to go and play with an X100 in the interim to see how the hybrid VF works and gauage the quality of the EVF - Sony has really set the standard there.
The lenses (plus near future 14mm) are really interesting - but as a poor mans Leica, would it be any better than a Ricoh 16mp m module and upgraded EVF?
Should be a nice platform to use a mix of AF and MF glass, look forward to the next few months of developments and reviews.
Watching the Fujiguys video showcasing the X-P1 and I think the menu looks pretty good. Especially the "Q" (Quick) button that takes you to commonly used settings. Also it looks like you're able to set the ceiling for Auto ISO which is pretty cool. 7 Custom Settings are in this same menu too (which you're able to get to by one button press).
Sosua wrote:
The lenses (plus near future 14mm) are really interesting - but as a poor mans Leica, would it be any better than a Ricoh 16mp m module and upgraded EVF?
That's the internal question that I'm struggling with. As a current M lens user, this is how I see things, preliminarily:
GXR: great sensor performance with M lenses (even more when the 16mp module comes,) ok add-on tilt EVF, good size
Nex-5N: good sensor performance with M lenses, fantastic add-on tilt EVF, good size
Nex-7: seemingly not so great performance with M lenses as a whole, fantastic built-in EVF, good size
X-Pro1: probably great sensor performance with M lenses, probably ok built-in EVF, a little larger
I'm currently still using the 5N, because the other cameras haven't been compelling enough to switch away from such a cheap little camera, and the Sony EVF is outstanding, but I'm kinda dying for someone to make the "just right" camera for my lenses. If I try this cool X-Pro1 out, it'll be to use the native AF lenses, I'd imagine.
p.s. of course, if I had an M9, this would all probably be a lot easier.
Spyro P. wrote:
True, and because of the crop factor you get to use ultrawide lenses for wide fov, and these have deep enough dof for pre-focused shooting
Yes. One challenge though is that the selection of ultra wides is actually fairly slim in M mount. You really only have the CV12, CV15, ZM15 (super expensive), Leica WATE (of course, also costs a fortune, though would give you a zoom), ZM18... And since Fuji is releasing an 18 right off the bat, that is two stops or more faster than most of these options, it might be difficult for the majority to justify buying the manual glass instead. It will depend on how annoying the fly-by-wire MF is on the camera. That said, of Fuji's samples so far, I feel those from the 18mm are the weakest. The trees along the horizon of the night shot just aren't sharply rendered compared to what I know the CV15 or ZM18 could offer. This might be the most compelling reason for me to stick with MF glass at the wider end. But I also already have an M9, so the appeal of the Fuji is more as a longer than normal focal length solution to facilitate more accurate wide open focusing and framing.
Sosua wrote:
The lenses (plus near future 14mm) are really interesting - but as a poor mans Leica, would it be any better than a Ricoh 16mp m module and upgraded EVF?
Exactly what I'm wondering too. Knowing that this camera was coming, I still jumped on a GXR with the current M module because I know it's the best with wide RF lenses so far, and assume the coming A16 module will be as well... Another factor that decided it for me was the number of reviews praising the GXR's interface and customizability.
It appears Fuji has designed a camera that will work well with symmetrical RF lens designs, but the bigger question in my mind is how well will the rest of the UI work with non-Fuji lenses?
I'm hoping the 14mm lens design philosophy focuses on the best attainable IQ at whatever set price point without speed and an attempt to keep it petite compromising this. The 18/2 already fills the wide, fast and small category.
rscheffler wrote:
Yes. One challenge though is that the selection of ultra wides is actually fairly slim in M mount. You really only have the CV12, CV15, ZM15 (super expensive), Leica WATE (of course, also costs a fortune, though would give you a zoom), ZM18... And since Fuji is releasing an 18 right off the bat, that is two stops or more faster than most of these options, it might be difficult for the majority to justify buying the manual glass instead. It will depend on how annoying the fly-by-wire MF is on the camera. That said, of Fuji's samples so far, I feel those from the 18mm are the weakest. The trees along the horizon of the night shot just aren't sharply rendered compared to what I know the CV15 or ZM18 could offer. This might be the most compelling reason for me to stick with MF glass at the wider end. But I also already have an M9, so the appeal of the Fuji is more as a longer than normal focal length solution to facilitate more accurate wide open focusing and framing....Show more →
It's not so much the fly by wire that is annoying, it's more the fact that (judging from the x100) the manual focus ring seems to be permanently tuned for macro. I know I can (approximately) focus an M lens by feel with a quick nudge of the focusing tab with one finger. With the x100 I have to do a full lap around the lens, while looking at the screen. And on top of that, it's laggy. A bit of an annoyance if you want to change focus quickly eg in street shooting.
Also the fuji 18 is 2 stops faster than the cv 15, but this is no guarantee that the fuji 14 will also be f2. It will probably be f2.8 or even f4 if they opt to keep size and cost down. And then it will boil down to your needs, for me an UWA is for landscape and street, both mostly stopped down.
rscheffler wrote:
That said, of Fuji's samples so far, I feel those from the 18mm are the weakest. The trees along the horizon of the night shot just aren't sharply rendered compared to what I know the CV15 or ZM18 could offer..
That shot of the trees is weak and I have seen much better even from my X100. Just looking at the exp. info might even explain part of it though. F10 at 1.9 sec. F10 is definitely not going to be the sharpest F stop due to diffraction on this smaller format. F4/5.6 should be the sharpest with F8 still decent. There also could have been wind or movement at 1.9 seconds.
Regarding wide rangefinder lenses and the XP1, it will likely be just as good as the Ricoh since it has no AA filter, and thus better then any current NEX, but it's probably not going to be perfect. The only reason I say this is that Fuji makes a point (in the XPro1 dedicated site) about designing their wide lens for the camera with a very large rear element in order to reduce the angle of incidence. Thus, I would expect ultra wides with large rear elements to do well...but how many fit into that category?
douglasf13 wrote:
That's the internal question that I'm struggling with. As a current M lens user, this is how I see things, preliminarily:
GXR: great sensor performance with M lenses (even more when the 16mp module comes,) ok add-on tilt EVF, good size
Nex-5N: good sensor performance with M lenses, fantastic add-on tilt EVF, good size
Nex-7: seemingly not so great performance with M lenses as a whole, fantastic built-in EVF, good size
X-Pro1: probably great sensor performance with M lenses, probably ok built-in EVF, a little larger
I'm currently still using the 5N, because the other cameras haven't been compelling enough to switch away from such a cheap little camera, and the Sony EVF is outstanding, but I'm kinda dying for someone to make the "just right" camera for my lenses. If I try this cool X-Pro1 out, it'll be to use the native AF lenses, I'd imagine.
p.s. of course, if I had an M9, this would all probably be a lot easier.
I agree - all these cameras seem to have pluses and minuses... Just playing with my 5N and EVF at the moment and its so nice, I hardly care for autofocus anymore.
Perhaps an A16 GXR would be 'best' when / if their EVF is upgraded, the current one just isn't a patch on the Sony option.
Will keep using the 5N with M adapters while the dust settles, but this Fuji is pretty cool indeed with a solid trio of AF lenses. And i'm interested if the rumored A16 comes to fruition.
Perhaps they will introduce peaking with the official M adapter (after they've shifted a swag of their native lenses...)
douglasf13 wrote:
That's the internal question that I'm struggling with. As a current M lens user, this is how I see things, preliminarily:
GXR: great sensor performance with M lenses (even more when the 16mp module comes,) ok add-on tilt EVF, good size
Nex-5N: good sensor performance with M lenses, fantastic add-on tilt EVF, good size
Nex-7: seemingly not so great performance with M lenses as a whole, fantastic built-in EVF, good size
X-Pro1: probably great sensor performance with M lenses, probably ok built-in EVF, a little larger
I'm currently still using the 5N, because the other cameras haven't been compelling enough to switch away from such a cheap little camera, and the Sony EVF is outstanding, but I'm kinda dying for someone to make the "just right" camera for my lenses. If I try this cool X-Pro1 out, it'll be to use the native AF lenses, I'd imagine.
p.s. of course, if I had an M9, this would all probably be a lot easier.
FlyPenFly wrote:
That seems like a strange combo of compact body/lenses + huge flash systems with external batteries to lug around sites.
I still think this is an enthusiast camera masquerading as Pro.
Hmmm, why do you struggle so much with liking/ disliking it? I agree it is 80% enthusiast, 20% pro, so what? Are you a pro that needs a new system? Enthusiasts are the cash cow, they are - worldwide - a much bigger group probably than pros in need for a new system.
Why get confused with the "pro" claim? Knowing Fujis past, it should be clear that this does not mean the same as with CaNikon, pro is mainly a marketing word nowadays, than an objective category.
So just leave it aside and wait for reviews and user experiences......
Spyro P. wrote:
basically if you dont want an OVF you dont really have a reason to consider this camera...
it's only the OVF that makes it different.
That's kind of the point. The OVF has little use for M lenses, accept maybe for zone focusing and ultra wides. So, I'd be buying this camera if I intend to use AF.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That shot of the trees is weak and I have seen much better even from my X100. Just looking at the exp. info might even explain part of it though. F10 at 1.9 sec. F10 is definitely not going to be the sharpest F stop due to diffraction on this smaller format. F4/5.6 should be the sharpest with F8 still decent. There also could have been wind or movement at 1.9 seconds.
Regarding wide rangefinder lenses and the XP1, it will likely be just as good as the Ricoh since it has no AA filter, and thus better then any current NEX, but it's probably not going to be perfect. The only reason I say this is that Fuji makes a point (in the XPro1 dedicated site) about designing their wide lens for the camera with a very large rear element in order to reduce the angle of incidence. Thus, I would expect ultra wides with large rear elements to do well...but how many fit into that category? ...Show more →
Yes, there are a number of possible variables that could degrade image quality. But to me it doesn't just look like diffraction softness. Towards the left corner the image seems a bit smeared. Fuji actually has some rudimentary MTF curves for each lens here: http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/en/about/lens/index.html though I think they've mislabeled each, as the 15 lpm is probably the one labeled 45 lpm and vice versa. They also don't indicate the f/stop. If the graphs are for a stopped down lens, then it might explain what we're seeing in the sample photo. The other 18mm image of the yellow building also loses a bit into the top corners, but this one was at f/5.6 and might be on the edge of acceptable depth of field depending on the focusing distance.
Spyro P. wrote:
It's not so much the fly by wire that is annoying, it's more the fact that (judging from the x100) the manual focus ring seems to be permanently tuned for macro. I know I can (approximately) focus an M lens by feel with a quick nudge of the focusing tab with one finger. With the x100 I have to do a full lap around the lens, while looking at the screen. And on top of that, it's laggy. A bit of an annoyance if you want to change focus quickly eg in street shooting.
Also the fuji 18 is 2 stops faster than the cv 15, but this is no guarantee that the fuji 14 will also be f2. It will probably be f2.8 or even f4 if they opt to keep size and cost down. And then it will boil down to your needs, for me an UWA is for landscape and street, both mostly stopped down. ...Show more →
I agree, that is annoying. I haven't use the X100, but have used the Sony NEX 50mm, and it seems to be exactly the same. It's the beauty of MF on rangefinder that many don't seem to know or understand. AF cameras seemed to make me more obsessed with constantly checking focus, whereas with a MF wide angle, stopped down, it just needs to be within the zone...
My guess is the 14mm will be either f/2.5 or 2.8. If it's any slower many will immediately write it off as useless, since this is a system aimed at 'serious' photographers!
douglasf13 wrote:
That's kind of the point. The OVF has little use for M lenses, accept maybe for zone focusing and ultra wides. So, I'd be buying this camera if I intend to use AF.
It's not just a question of the viewfinder design. Don't forget the sensor, which I think is just as important. No AA, seemingly very good color and tonality and native lenses appear to be heavily symmetrical with rear elements very close to the sensor... implying that most RF lenses that you (Douglas) want to use on such a camera should work better than the NEX sensors.
rscheffler wrote:
Yes, there are a number of possible variables that could degrade image quality. But to me it doesn't just look like diffraction softness. Towards the left corner the image seems a bit smeared. Fuji actually has some rudimentary MTF curves for each lens here: http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/en/about/lens/index.html though I think they've mislabeled each, as the 15 lpm is probably the one labeled 45 lpm and vice versa. They also don't indicate the f/stop. If the graphs are for a stopped down lens, then it might explain what we're seeing in the sample photo. The other 18mm image of the yellow building also loses a bit into the top corners, but this one was at f/5.6 and might be on the edge of acceptable depth of field depending on the focusing distance. ...Show more →
The second sample appears a lot better (Although I found all samples to be a tad soft).
Lotusm50 wrote:
This is an interesting graph. It seems to be quite a bold claim. Let's see if it really delivers. I wonder which full frame DSLR they were using in their comparison.
rscheffler wrote:
It's not just a question of the viewfinder design. Don't forget the sensor, which I think is just as important. No AA, seemingly very good color and tonality and native lenses appear to be heavily symmetrical with rear elements very close to the sensor... implying that most RF lenses that you (Douglas) want to use on such a camera should work better than the NEX sensors.
Sure, see my above post. It's a matter of giving up one thing for another, and the GXR is another great choice, too. I could probably eek out a little more resolution with my CV 15, ZM 35/2 and ZM 50/1.5 on the Fuji, but I'm not sure it's worth more size, cost and an inferior EVF compared to my 5N. I do think the Fuji is compelling with the native lenses, though.
