Don't know about the X-Pro1, but my nex-5N shutter is much quieter than my nex-5 shutter. The 5N's electronic first curtain is a revelation for shutter lag, camera shake and less noise, when compared to the 5.
Funnily enough, today was the first time I have ever handled an X100... the viewfinder left me SORELY disappointed. Hopefully the EVF is much better and the optical finder much bigger in the XPro-1 ... Maybe I have been spoilt by the M9 but this camera is 1/3 the price of an M9, wouldn't be a hard choice for me, I like high-iso grain.
I think this camera will be a perfect travel camera for me. Try getting a 5D, four big 1.4 lenses, big 82mm filters, shutter cabels, tripod etc into the carry-on luggage (I am a tripod & live-view man). That high-res LCD, coupled with great sensor and lenses, with the added benefit of also being able to take snap-shots during the day in a relatively non-noticeble package (compared to a 5D with a 24/1.4)... Of course I will read the reviews first, but if those lenses are as good as they look, I am definitively in!
i'll stick with my x100 for now. But I will definitely buy the X pro 1 in a year or so. I love Fuji sensors. The Xpro 1 is everything the Leica M9 is not. AF, much much better sensor, looks alike and the best part, it is affordable. Fuji we love you!!
Spyro, I'm surprised, I had my M9 with me, stark difference.
I would have thought a T-max/Tri-X (I forget which one you prefer) shooter would love a good helping of grain. The M9 gets objectionable at 2500, but below that the grain looks nice in B&W IMO. I find low-light high ISO images from cameras that produce super-low noise tend to look odd and unnatural, the colour saturation is strange and certain colours shift in a way that irks me. Give me grain and accurate/aesthetic colour over no grain and a weird mix of pastel and saturated colours.
Agreed on the X100 viewfinder size. I had hoped it would be comparable to my Bessa, but it felt more like the viewfinders on some premium point-and-shoots. I really hope the X-P1 has a larger viewfinder(although i doubt it has).
The 14mm lens is expected to be f/2.8.
The other lens due in 2012 (besides the original 3) is a 18-72/4 IS zoom.
In 2013 the roadmap is 28/2.8 pancake, 23/2, 72-200/4 IS and 12/24/4 IS.
This has been confirmed by Fuji as "close" as some details are still apparently not decided.
JohnLL wrote:
The 14mm lens is expected to be f/2.8.
The other lens due in 2012 (besides the original 3) is a 18-72/4 IS zoom.
In 2013 the roadmap is 28/2.8 pancake, 23/2, 72-200/4 IS and 12/24/4 IS.
This has been confirmed by Fuji as "close" as some details are still apparently not decided.
Watch the vimeo video linked a few pages back. The 14 is f/1.4 and the apertures of the zooms are not final
What's up with the screen locking up for a moment when the camera tries to focus
(I guess AF)? Looks like a series of jumps, kind of weird.
Is it a Fuji thing or it's simply some unfinished software?
I was at CES yesterday and had the chance to use/play with the X-Pro1. The body and lenses are very well built. The body feels like it almost the size of an M9 so you aren't getting any major size advantage here (definitely not pocketable with a lens attached).
The focus felt snappier than an X100, I asked the rep. and they said that the X-Pro1 should be faster and more accurate since it had a dedicated processor for AF. Manual focus is very very smooth and has a very long throw. The biggest downside to MF is that there is no focus peaking or any other assist other than zooming in. The electronic viewfinder is decent but not as good as the one on the NEX-7.
Overall if the intent is to adapt M lenses, I have a feeling the NEX-5N with EVF or a NEX-7 will end up being a better tool. However if one can't afford (or doesn't want to spend that kind of money) an M9 and Leica lenses and wants a nice prime kit this Fuji kit will be a very nice alternative.
9 full res samples from the Xpro 3 from each lens.
They're jpg's so it's hard to get a true feel for them, especially as they're using E6 profiles with what I assume is a compressed DR. You can't really get a feel without RAW files. My inital impression however is great colour, APC look rendition and rather more noise than I would have expected at iso 200 (flower image which incidentally ain't sharp).
thedigitalbean wrote:
I was at CES yesterday and had the chance to use/play with the X-Pro1. Manual focus is very very smooth and has a very long throw.
Does the long throw remind you of the X100, particularly before later firmware revisions? At one point you had to turn the focus by wire ring so many times it wasn't practical at all. A software revision helped a lot.
The biggest downside to MF is that there is no focus peaking or any other assist other than zooming in.
That is disappointing. It may be that MF with magnification works for some but after having experienced useful focus assist aides like peaking / edge detection I don't think I want to go without. Those missing aides make it possible to quickly manual focus without magnification when one needs to work quick.
Hopefully Fujifilm will reconsider this before launch, or add the missing focus aides some time down the road but commit to doing the work, in public, soon.
9 full res samples from the Xpro 3 from each lens.
They're jpg's so it's hard to get a true feel for them, especially as they're using E6 profiles with what I assume is a compressed DR. You can't really get a feel without RAW files. My inital impression however is great colour, APC look rendition and rather more noise than I would have expected at iso 200 (flower image which incidentally ain't sharp).
If you go back a number of pages, you will find the discussion about these images.
9 full res samples from the Xpro 3 from each lens.
They're jpg's so it's hard to get a true feel for them, especially as they're using E6 profiles with what I assume is a compressed DR. You can't really get a feel without RAW files. My inital impression however is great colour, APC look rendition and rather more noise than I would have expected at iso 200 (flower image which incidentally ain't sharp).
It really does come down to image quality. Most of us already have high-end full frame systems and I for one am looking for the ability to go on a trip or shoot around town with a piece of equipment that is smaller, lighter and has enough quality to make a really nice print from. I don't know how the Fuji will accomplish this, but from looking at the files, especially the still life files it seems like it will do an amazing job. I love the tonality and colors that this sensor produces which has been confirmed by most of your comments. I guess my biggest question is can this camera be manually focused rapidly with a high degree of accuracy? I wish Fuji would post the raw files.I have the NEX-7 and the X-Pro on order and would have a NEX-5N except for the fact that it's almost impossible to sink studio strobes with it (not that I would use that much but still need it). I still can't get past the quality and especially the feel of the still lives that they posted, that's the only reason this camera still on my list. I have requested Fuji Japan and US post the raw images. Should be interesting to see if they respond.
michaelwatkins wrote:
Does the long throw remind you of the X100, particularly before later firmware revisions? At one point you had to turn the focus by wire ring so many times it wasn't practical at all. A software revision helped a lot.
Yep, it sure does. Feels like this system wasn't really built for MF, so I would say get it if AF is a priority. If MF is a priority you probably look elsewhere, or least don't be an early adopter.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Overall if the intent is to adapt M lenses, I have a feeling the NEX-5N with EVF or a NEX-7 will end up being a better tool. However if one can't afford (or doesn't want to spend that kind of money) an M9 and Leica lenses and wants a nice prime kit this Fuji kit will be a very nice alternative.
Considering the cost of a 5N is less than the XP1's long lens, why not have both?
