Indeed, that is linked a couple of posts above. I'm still not sure, can't really see anything in terms of this "amazing" resolution, although it does seem tidy to the edges and corners. That sample has the light from behind the camera, I'd really like to see something backlit or in more demanding situations to see what the DR is like.
Jan 10, 2012 at 07:01 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Lenses coming in 2012:
-14mm f/2.8
- 18-72mm f/4.0 with IS (Image stabilization).
Lenses coming in 2013
- 28mm f/2.8 pancake
- 23mm f/2.0
- 72-200mm f/4.0 IS
- 12-24mm f/4.0 IS
Again I really like the projected lens line up. Already a pretty complete system by the end of 2013. If I had to quibble I think the 28mm pancake should be f/2 not f/2.8 but others might like the smaller size the f/2.8 will allow. Also if they rounded out these offerings with a 16 f/2, a 55mm f/1.4, 16-50 f/2.8 IS, and 50-135 f/2.8 IS lenses it would be a very complete system.
Spyro P. wrote:
I just survived that fujiguys preview video
it says the OVF has infinite framelines and variable magnifications
there's like a diopter that slides (internally) in front of the VF, thus changing magnification.
so within the wide magnification for example, you can dial in the menus any focal length that corresponds to the lens you're mounting, and the OVF will adjust framelines accordingly.
or, if it's a Fuji lens, the camera will do it automatically for you
So, the way I envisage it, you mount the zoom lens, the OVF selects a suitable magnification and then you watch the framelines increase/decrease in size as you zoom out and in.
The only thing I see in the sample pictures is a lot of chroma NR, no "resolution advantage" whatsoever. Which would be exactly what I would expect from seeing the Bayer filter layout.
But for now we can assume that there's a lot more to be had from the camera/sensor/lenses when a better raw-conversion engine is used, with some competent photographers behind the camera ("sample" shots are always kind of murky, why do the manufacturers never learn?). The jpg engine in camera doesn't seem to impressive.
AhamB wrote:
I already got the impression that you were getting your hopes up a bit too much, Edward.
I think it would be great if Fuji would come back with any interchangeable lens camera with a EXR sensor of at least APS-C size. I've thought about getting an S5 or S3 pro in the past, but didn't find it so attractive with the low pixel count, no live view, not FF. Maybe they'll come with something more interesting now.
The one thing that will keep me from buying this camera (the IQ is probably good enough for anything) is the combo of AF and optical viewfinder. I found it completely useless on the X100, because you have no idea of where focus ends up, except for close to what you're aiming at. And if the EVF isn't much better than the one in the X100... Well. FAIL.
theSuede wrote:
The only thing I see in the sample pictures is a lot of chroma NR, no "resolution advantage" whatsoever. Which would be exactly what I would expect from seeing the Bayer filter layout.
The sensor is already dirty, as well. Spots all over the sky. I guess it's no better than anything else in that regard. Drat! I was hoping that the sensor would have active dust repelling properties.
;-)
Lotusm50 wrote:
The sensor is already dirty, as well. Spots all over the sky. I guess it's no better than anything else in that regard. Drat! I was hoping that the sensor would have active dust repelling properties.
;-)
Who knows how many non photogs/ executives have but their dirty mitts on that camera.
This is such a sweet looking camera, I can't wait to try one out
The shots from the Fujinon XF60mmF2.4 R Macro, especially of the tree bark, seems soft to me. I assume such a macro lens should out-resolved a 16mp sensor easily. I am certain that this camera and lens combo will be very good, once they have optimised the RAW to JPG image convolution algorithm. I would like to see some TIF or PNG files be released soon, as there won't be a RAW converter out for a few months, and JPG doesn't give a real indication as to the systems true capabilities.
This very well may be the camera for me. I was all for buying a NEX-7, but the performance of WA rangefinder glass is terrible on the 7. The 5N is a better camera for this type of lens, but I already have a 5, and its too small of a change for an upgrade. As Fuji is releasing their own M adapter, its almost certain then have spent some time optimising the system for this type of wide angle lens.
As far as focusing issues go, would it be possible to overlay peaking data onto the OVF image?
I spoke to WEX briefly and they expect to have a pre-order price in the next couple of days or so...
Browsing on the WEX (warehouseexpress) website, I see the X100 now at £780. I then did the NEX7 + 24/1.8 Zeiss search - seems I'd forgotten just how expensive this combo was! Yikes! So I guess the X-P1 + 35/1.4 would be priced well, if true. But still, if they want me to part with my cash at that price, it does need to have nippy AF.
One thing I'm still unsure of. With the OVF can you actually use AF? Like do you have any idea of the focus points or anything like that? I'd always assumed not, but wanted to ask, as the EVF doesn't sound like it's improved at all and few really "liked" it as far as I'm aware
Side note: Can we officially start calling it the Fuji X-P1 now? Sounds a little less embarassing or something...Show more →
That makes the $1700 body price here seem a bit odd when you look at relative prices for other models. 1000#s (keyboard challenged) for the body and 500#s for the lenses, but here $1700 for the body and $600 for the lenses. Something isn't adding up.
How "bad" is the X100 focus truly, though? I know one guy who has one and uses it exclusively for all his shooting, and asked him about it the other day. Said he had no issues with it whatsoever.
pingflood wrote:
How "bad" is the X100 focus truly, though? I know one guy who has one and uses it exclusively for all his shooting, and asked him about it the other day. Said he had no issues with it whatsoever.
I think this can overstated and exaggerated. It's really a matter of understanding what your camera is doing and how it works. It might take a little testing to be sure you know precisely how it works. Someone alluded to the claimed focusing issues with the Contax G2. This too was overblown, and was due primarily to the users not fully understanding what their camera was doing.
dnhkng wrote:
As far as focusing issues go, would it be possible to overlay peaking data onto the OVF image?
I doubt it. The OVF is an approximation of what you get, not what-you-see-is-what-you-get. It wouldn't be accurate enough in many situations.
As the EVF is supposed to be better, hopefully it'll be better enough that manual focus lens users will enjoy using it and really, aside from a rangefinder compact, there isn't much choice but to use an EVF with some sort of focus assist.
Will the X Pro 1's focus assists be good enough? There's plenty of room for innovation there. For example Ricoh has focus peaking a la NEX but did something different with their "Mode 2", fondly known as Predator Mode, which while isn't to everyone's taste is very effective.
The complaint I hear about the focus is that it hunts in low light. Now the XP1 is supposed to be aimed at wedding photographers and journalists, who will both almost certainly run into several low light situations.
