chiohkeh wrote:
All this talk about focus is important but the high ISO capabilities of this thing have made me a believer in that aspect of the cameras capabilities.... And there is evidence to support that via Hugo Poon...
....All shot at ISO 3200 all at night all of similar locations.
Re AF and NEX5 v X100, I know at least a few here did not have experience with the latest 1.11 firmware on the X100 but another factor which can make the NEX seem faster with AF is that most who have AF experience with it around here did so with the kit zoom which, of course, if used zoomed in a bit would naturally be more accurate than at a wider setting. With both NEX and X100, CAF can easily be fooled if you are shooting anything with either low contrast or something with decent contrast which also has something bright and contrasty behind it. That's just a CAF deal. I agree fully it's a matter of getting accustomed to the capabilities of these types of CAF systems and learning how to best use them (prefocus using AFL button in MF mode on the X100 for instance while anticipating distance beforehand). I'm afraid those expecting something dramatically better with regard to AF on the XP1 will be disappointed and manual focus will require either full use of the EVF or zone focusing based on distance.
In Dan Carr's report, he still wishes the AF was faster.
"Despite the obvious improvements though it still falls way short of the AF speed and accuracy achieved by Sony in the NEX-7 and Panasonic with the GX1."
I've got a X100 and while its not fast like my Nikon's, I don't shoot it like my Nikons.
Even if the X-Pro did have blazing fast AF, what would the point be ? Going to buy a camera like that to sit on the baseline at a basketball game and do sports photography ? Probably not.....
I shoot the X100 just like I did my m9, and 9 times out of 10 the X100 is still faster than I could focus my m9.
Take a look at the Leica thread, thousands of fantastic images and all manually focused of course.
Same with the NEX thread, majority of those excellent images are with legacy glass, all of which is MF
AF is a nice luxury, no argument there, but why does it have to be so blazing fast ??
Do shots of beaches, and cityscapes and park benches and flowers etc all move suddenly ??
millsart wrote:
Honestly don't see the big deal about AF speed.
I've got a X100 and while its not fast like my Nikon's, I don't shoot it like my Nikons.
Even if the X-Pro did have blazing fast AF, what would the point be ? Going to buy a camera like that to sit on the baseline at a basketball game and do sports photography ? Probably not.....
I shoot the X100 just like I did my m9, and 9 times out of 10 the X100 is still faster than I could focus my m9.
Take a look at the Leica thread, thousands of fantastic images and all manually focused of course.
Same with the NEX thread, majority of those excellent images are with legacy glass, all of which is MF
AF is a nice luxury, no argument there, but why does it have to be so blazing fast ??
Do shots of beaches, and cityscapes and park benches and flowers etc all move suddenly ??...Show more →
+1
My experience with the X100 wasn't so much that it was slow but that it wasn't accurate enough and easily defeated. It reminded me of a four year old AF Oly DSLR in that regard, not a 2011 premium camera.
The AF on the X100 would be fast enough it if were more accurate.
The AF on the X100 wouldn't matter so much if you could effectively manually focus the lens in tricky conditions the AF can't deal with.
Unfortunately neither is the case.
Yes, I probably got more in-focus shots with the X100 than not, but when it had trouble it was frustrating. Ok, the X100 was a first go. You'd think by the third time (X100, X10, X Pro 1), with a "pro" camera, Fujifilm will get it right. Time will tell!
michaelwatkins wrote:
My experience with the X100 wasn't so much that it was slow but that it wasn't accurate enough and easily defeated. It reminded me of a four year old AF Oly DSLR in that regard, not a 2011 premium camera.
The AF on the X100 would be fast enough it if were more accurate.
The AF on the X100 wouldn't matter so much if you could effectively manually focus the lens in tricky conditions the AF can't deal with.
Unfortunately neither is the case.
Yes, I probably got more in-focus shots with the X100 than not, but when it had trouble it was frustrating. Ok, the X100 was a first go. You'd think by the third time (X100, X10, X Pro 1), with a "pro" camera, Fujifilm will get it right. Time will tell!...Show more →
Perhaps neither was the case for you. Did you still have and use your X100 with the 1.11 firmware out of curiosity? With my X100, that firmware made a huge difference overall. With tricky subject matter, I don't really know that I have missed focus while using the EVF. Why would you as you can confirm accuracy visually.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Looks good, but I can't understand a 72-200 for APS-C (is the 72 a typo from Fuji?). Why not make it a perfect 3x 45-135 f/2.8 IS which is a FF equivalent of nearly 67.5-202.5. And the shorter FL range makes an f/2.8 version more viable.
Also why they think 18mm is wide? Would have preferred 16mm on a 1.5x crop. Not that's it's a big deal.
Again I wonder what Sony thinks when it sees this great line-up and looks at the NEX-7.
The announced zooms are pretty close to 28-105 and 100-300 equivalents. With a fixed f/4 with IS, they are already in my view better options than anything available for NEX or m4/3rds. I can't see using a zoom on this camera at all myself, but the announced zooms leave room for two premium f/2.8 zooms. As I said in an early post, they could make a 16-50 and a 50-135 that would be nice 24-75 and 75-200 equivalents. Some people would definitely want these zooms
chiohkeh wrote:
Auto Focus speeds greatly improved since the X100 (Paraphrased from the attached video)
@ 4:38 She says that the auto focus is much faster than the X100!!
Interesting points:
1) The upcoming 14mm will be f/1.4 and 20mm equivalent
2) contrast AF "severely upgraded" from X100
3) M-mount adapter this year
4) f-stops not finalized on zooms
5) new battery, 300 shots per charge
1) The upcoming 14mm will be f/1.4 and 20mm equivalent
2) contrast AF "severely upgraded" from X100
3) M-mount adapter this year
4) f-stops not finalized on zooms
5) new battery, 300 shots per charge
14mm 1.4, impressive! She did seem to go on quite a bit about just how much faster the AF is compared to X100. She also confirmed a lot will happen with the raw files using the lens data for optimization.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Perhaps neither was the case for you. Did you still have and use your X100 with the 1.11 firmware out of curiosity? With my X100, that firmware made a huge difference overall. With tricky subject matter, I don't really know that I have missed focus while using the EVF. Why would you as you can confirm accuracy visually.
Yes, I still had the X100 when V1.11 came out; unlike many I did not notice marked improvement in AF performance, probably because I preferred manually activated AF mode via the AFL button more often than not. Switching to standard AF(S) allowed for a smaller AF box and if one didn't mind switching the focus mode back and forth that probably would be optimum use of the camera. Were AF faster, probably I would not have felt the need to keep knocking it out of AFS to MF mode to approximate zone focusing. If the depth of field indicator were more accurate that would have helped greatly.
I had high expectations for the X100 but found it a little clunky; the lens was good but not great. Sensor was very good, tones nice, sensitivity/noise really good. AF sub-par for a 2011 $1200 camera; Ergo issues with the dials, shape and position of the aperture ring - that one just didn't work for me at all and I'm a slave to my aperture ring (or control, as the case may be). That was a disappointment for me because I clearly remember seeing the physical ring and doing a fist pump(!) but the implementation was poor. An electronic control would have been preferable to a bad ring. What else? Lens flare, silly choice of mounting for the hood, a hood which often as not couldn't be ordered. Firmware issues would complicate use of the camera especially in changing conditions. Some firmware issues remain unresolved even though they are easy to address. Why is Auto ISO still buried? Even Fujifilm nods to this as a problem by indicating in the X Pro 1 that they've moved it to the ISO menu group. Why not fix the X100? Little handling things like this add up and make me wonder if they use photographers in the design of such systems.
Some of what I felt were issues won't be present on the X Pro 1 due to the different shutter and presumably better AF and maybe even better MF override. I'm glad they put a lock on the shutter speed / Mode dial to prevent it from being knocked out of A mode - that's a help. Hopefully the new EVF has reduced lag to a minimum. Hopefully the aperture ring is easier for hands like mine and that manual focus override of the focus by wire system -ride works well enough.
Based on how I got on with the X100 -- it wan't all horrible, my wife think's I loved it and to some extent I did but that was in comparison to carrying a DSLR around -- let's just say I'm skeptical as to whether Fujifilm will nail it with the X Pro 1. They might nail it enough to make it acceptable for me though. I'd feel more optimistic if they made more progress with the firmware but after watching one video it looks like maybe they've decided to invest resource time into new menuing options instead of core functionality.
I might be able to overlook handling of the camera if I'm mounting my own manual focus lenses since then all I'm depending on the camera is to manage exposure correctly and that is something the X100 did fine with. If that's the case the only reason for me to consider the camera is for the specifics of the sensor implementation.
dennishh, the X-Pro1 is about the same size as an M9. Hopefully Luka won't mind if I link his pic from another thread, showing his Pentax MF, 5Dii, Rebel, M9 and NEX-C3. You don't save too much in terms of width with the M9 over the 5D ii, but it is shorter and shallower with equivalent lenses.
