Thanks for the link. It seems the Romanians got the first real look at the camera. The multi-ISO crops comparison is interesting. And I still don't like the 18mm... but generally like his results with the 35mm. The photo of the three cameras on the table also makes the XP1 look rather portly. But I guess it's M9 size... maybe it's the boxy look that makes it seem slightly thicker than it should be...
His opinion on AF with the OVF:
"Auto-focus speed was decent. Not Nikon V1 fast but not too slow either. My biggest problem with the AF isn`t the speed though. It`s the fact that it hunts, and misses quite allot, if you`re looking through the viewfinder. If you`re using the back LCD it gets considerably better. (Still hunts but at least you can see if you have your subject in focus or not)"
and
"Combined with the filter-less new sensor in the camera these lenses should have a spectacular sharpness. I said SHOULD because I wasn`t blown away. Not by a long shot. They are good, for 600$ lenses but there`s room for improvement.
The overall feeling of the lenses was 50/50. I loved the weight to volume ratio, but disliked the plastic feel. The focus ring is made of hard plastic and I would have loved rubber rings, or at least a tab for focusing."
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for the link. It seems the Romanians got the first real look at the camera. The multi-ISO crops comparison is interesting. And I still don't like the 18mm... but generally like his results with the 35mm. The photo of the three cameras on the table also makes the XP1 look rather portly. But I guess it's M9 size... maybe it's the boxy look that makes it seem slightly thicker than it should be...
His opinion on AF with the OVF:
"Auto-focus speed was decent. Not Nikon V1 fast but not too slow either. My biggest problem with the AF isn`t the speed though. It`s the fact that it hunts, and misses quite allot, if you`re looking through the viewfinder. If you`re using the back LCD it gets considerably better. (Still hunts but at least you can see if you have your subject in focus or not)"
and
"Combined with the filter-less new sensor in the camera these lenses should have a spectacular sharpness. I said SHOULD because I wasn`t blown away. Not by a long shot. They are good, for 600$ lenses but there`s room for improvement.
The overall feeling of the lenses was 50/50. I loved the weight to volume ratio, but disliked the plastic feel. The focus ring is made of hard plastic and I would have loved rubber rings, or at least a tab for focusing." ...Show more →
Yes, the 35 1.4 looks like a pretty good lens optically. I also agree about the size. It looks too big to me, particularly next to the NEX 5. Two other points from that review which caught my attention - negatively - are:
"I loved the weight to volume ratio, but disliked the plastic feel. The focus ring is made of hard plastic..."
and
" Did not like the EVF at all. And I hate all of them equally (be it Sony, Olympus, Panasonic etc) Give it enough light and the image on the EVF will keep up with your movements. Turn off the light and prepare for lag!"
The 35mm lens seems excellent by what I've seen so far. As for the 18/2 it is like Sony's 16/2.8 all over again, but maybe the 18/2 is somewhat better in terms of corner sharpness.
As I am primarily interested in short focal lengths the 18/2 is a disappointment. If they can't get the wide angles straight I don't care how good the other lenses are.
I am more and more looking forward to the GXR.2 instead. Still happy with the GXR.
On the GXR the A12/28(18.3mm f2.5) shares the same weak spot in the line up. Still, the A12/28 is a pretty decent lens, just not stellar.
Photorumors has a hands on that shows AF on the CES floor, and it's pretty bad. Misses a LOT, on relatively contrasty subjects too.
So, buy it for the sensor, but not for performance. I think all the other mirrorless cameras far outpace this one in autofocus. (New m4/3 are blazing fast and accurate, NEX isn't quite as fast, but I haven't heard any complaints on accuracy, Nikon 1 is blazing fast and accurate (and can track motion well)...don't know about Samsung).
After spending three weeks with the X100, I can confidently say that unless Fuji dramatically improves their focusing system, I'll pass on the XP1. I love the images I get when it locks on, but it's so nfrequent....I'd absolutely embrace it if they get it fixed, but after reading the posts here, it sounds like the lenses are all going to be electronically focused with no mechanical coupling. Focusing manually by wire is a joke, at least it is on the X100....
Jman13 wrote:
So, buy it for the sensor, but not for performance.
That is what people said about the DP2. I owned one (before it broke after a year, thanks again Sigma) and while the sensor was nice I hardly ever used the camera since it was awful to work with. I certainly hope the XP1 is not in this league.
pingflood: I handled the DP1 and DP2 in a pro shop and I was really shocked at how crude they were in use. Sigma will never be for me.
Judging by the X10 (that I have) and the X100 (which I've tried, many have them over here) I am quite sure of what to expect from the X Pro 1 when it comes to handling. It will be a (apparently) great little sensor with a few great lenses and so far all is well.
It will be fast shot to shot and have a decent buffer I think. But, it will be let down by poor handling, sluggish and uncertain AF performance, very awkward MF and user interface. It will be a semi-failure with legacy M glass.
Also, there is no guarantee the sensor will handle RF wide glass right out to the edges, the Fuji lenses (wides especially) are optimized for catering to the sensor and not the other way around. After reading the Fujifilm web site on how they designed the lenses I started thinking they have not done anything special on the sensor to accommodate wide legacy glass. Just because it lacks AA-filter it does not mean it will do the RF wides justice. I am just voicing my concern here, it could be "perfect".
All in all I am intrigued and attracted by the X Pro1 but I know it is not the camera for me, I sure wish it was though. Poorest battery life in class, larger foot print than needs to be, for a APS-C sensor to boot, complex OVF that still does not provide accurate framing nor decent magnification for longer glass, no (zip) MF lens focus aid, uncertain sensor performance on legacy glass. Not a super high res EVF, apparently with the usual lag.
Price tag on the high side for body alone. No package deals as of yet with lenses. The 18mm lens apparently on the weak side.
What's left to like but the other two lenses and retro styling?
I wonder if Fuji realize what a tough crowd we are to please. But then again, I am not sure they were ever out to please us in particular. If I had been on the design team there would have been fist fights in the R&D room. And I am not known for throwing a punch.
Owning a X100 and a EP3, I certainly agree the Olympus is much quicker to AF, but I just don't really get all the bellyaching about the X100 AF, or understand how its costing people so many shots
Its certainly not a match for my D3s and when I'm covering sporting events etc I use the DSLR of course, but in the time I've owned the X100 I can't really think of any shots I've missed due to the AF system being too slow.
I have missed focus before, but every camera I've owned can sometimes grab the wrong part of the frame time to time.
Maybe I just use mine in a different way than all of you who are complaining ?
I got it as my snapshot type travel camera and I take pictures of places, people and things with it, just as I used to shoot with my M8.2 and M9, which is what I think the camera was designed for, its not a sports camera after all
I just don't get the complaints because if people can manage to shoot MANUAL FOCUS cameras like the M series, or all the people here who use the NEX5 and 5n here with manual glass somehow aren't missing shots, and I think that the AF system proves faster than all but a handful can focus a rangefinder, wheres the problem ??
Are the people who have issue with the AF system all used to DSLR's I can only guess ?
Is anyone who came from a RF background, or basically any MF only type of system such as a NEX with legacy glass having similar complaints ??
Again, X100 is no speed demon, agree fully, BUT.... Trying to focus my NEX5 manually (either with or without peaking) always took me longer than the X100's AF, and I can't say I ever missed shots with the NEX, but I guess I never tried to use it to shoot a basketball game or something.
I like to compose a shot, think about the exposure, and then take the image. Guess with that mindset of working no AF system is an issue. Heck, I've got a 4x5 field camera as well, so for me anything seems fast lol
kosmoskatten wrote:
All in all I am intrigued and attracted by the X Pro1 but I know it is not the camera for me, I sure wish it was though. Poorest battery life in class, larger foot print than needs to be, for a APS-C sensor to boot, complex OVF that still does not provide accurate framing nor decent magnification for longer glass, no (zip) MF lens focus aid, uncertain sensor performance on legacy glass. Not a super high res EVF, apparently with the usual lag.
Price tag on the high side for body alone. No package deals as of yet with lenses. The 18mm lens apparently on the weak side.
D...Show more →
Can we complain about uncertain legacy performance though ?? If its been tested and bad, then yes, we can say its an issue, but do we know its bad ? Is there not an chance it could work very well with many legacy lenses ??
Most of those complaints could be made about a M9 though as well
Poor battery life (thought better than my M8.2 which sucked down batteries)
Underspec'd LCD
Lack of accurate framing or support for longer glass
No live view
No EVF
Very high price tag for body alone
No package deals with lenses (save for Titanium etc)
I looked through an X100 in a shop and all I can say is thank god the M9 doesn't have an EVF if that is the trade off.
The M9 is a completely different ball-game to the XPro1 and the X100 though, and at low iso the latter two simply don't come close, especially if you factor in lenses.
thrice wrote:
I looked through an X100 in a shop and all I can say is thank god the M9 doesn't have an EVF if that is the trade off.
The M9 is a completely different ball-game to the XPro1 and the X100 though, and at low iso the latter two simply don't come close, especially if you factor in lenses.
For an AF body I think I'll stick to my 5N.
I think the main trade off is several thousand dollars I think many of us are hoping for a Leica alternative that records high quality images without the Leica price. Dreamers....
I dont see the big drama with the x100's AF to be honest, since the two firmware updates I thought it improved heaps, not in speed but in accuracy and reliability. On the weekend I took it to a rather dark aquarium and the AF just kept catching again and again, at something like ISO3200 f2 1/125. I'm a happy camper, now I want more lenses to play with.
thrice wrote:
I looked through an X100 in a shop and all I can say is thank god the M9 doesn't have an EVF if that is the trade off.
The EVF is for momentarily checking your framing when you suspect your parallax correction has buggered up your corners or that there might be a tree growing out of your better half's head and you cant see it because you're not seeing through the lens. Dunno might be my shooting style coz I'm anal with composition but I've grown to hate RFs because of that, they've cost me photos.
millsart wrote:
Owning a X100 and a EP3, I certainly agree the Olympus is much quicker to AF, but I just don't really get all the bellyaching about the X100 AF, or understand how its costing people so many shots
Its certainly not a match for my D3s and when I'm covering sporting events etc I use the DSLR of course, but in the time I've owned the X100 I can't really think of any shots I've missed due to the AF system being too slow.
I have missed focus before, but every camera I've owned can sometimes grab the wrong part of the frame time to time.
Maybe I just use mine in a different way than all of you who are complaining ?
I got it as my snapshot type travel camera and I take pictures of places, people and things with it, just as I used to shoot with my M8.2 and M9, which is what I think the camera was designed for, its not a sports camera after all
I just don't get the complaints because if people can manage to shoot MANUAL FOCUS cameras like the M series, or all the people here who use the NEX5 and 5n here with manual glass somehow aren't missing shots, and I think that the AF system proves faster than all but a handful can focus a rangefinder, wheres the problem ??
Are the people who have issue with the AF system all used to DSLR's I can only guess ?
Is anyone who came from a RF background, or basically any MF only type of system such as a NEX with legacy glass having similar complaints ??
Again, X100 is no speed demon, agree fully, BUT.... Trying to focus my NEX5 manually (either with or without peaking) always took me longer than the X100's AF, and I can't say I ever missed shots with the NEX, but I guess I never tried to use it to shoot a basketball game or something.
I like to compose a shot, think about the exposure, and then take the image. Guess with that mindset of working no AF system is an issue. Heck, I've got a 4x5 field camera as well, so for me anything seems fast lol...Show more →
re x100 AF Ι also have to add that when I have moving subjects (street, kids) I just stop down and set the lens to 2 or 3 meters and let it cover everything with dof. Thats the same thing I'd do with a 1D3 or whatever sports camera, I never trust AF for serious things
But raising the proverbial eyebrow when finding out some aspects that are possibly detrimental to one of the "key values" for the legacy users is perfectly appropriate. Hence my questioning the sensor layout as perhaps not being the right ticket for MF legacy wide angle glass.
These are the questions that_ I _want to know before placing an order on any camera, any brand in today's mirrorless market. Since these questions were not even raised before people were finding out the hard way on the NEX3 and NEX5 I think it is vital to address them now.
As for slow, inaccurate AF. C'mon, I got by just fine with the crude Contax G with all lenses and a high success rate - on film. But, for a modern digital camera to hunt indoors and not being able to lock AF? That's bad. It's not that AF is slow, it is that it doesn't lock.
I am used to no AF so to me even slow AF works. I totally agree with you there. I did try some of the first AF cameras on the market, like Nikon F501, which I actually owned... ...so I know slooooow AF.
I have the Fuji X10 and it has pretty bad AF too, so I know what to expect. And it is not worth the $1700 ticket for the body alone. I am honestly thinking $900 for the body is something like the maximum I would be willing to pay for that kind of camera. And I usually buy things new, except for lenses, and I am no stranger to paying a premium if there is a premium to be paid for. I just don't see it in the case of the X Pro 1.
Also, remember I am a fan of Fuji in general and my starting to bash the camera slightly prior to launch is just me venting my frustration that they don't seem to get it right.
The worst thing I'll say about X100 AF is that the focus points aren't exactly honest. One example - trying to lock onto a window mullion (the pieces of wood that divide a window) horizontally and vertically), focus point at its smallest, the nexus of vertical and horizontal filling the focus point - the X100 locks on the ground beyond the window.
That tells me that even when you've set the AF point to its smallest, that's not an accurate representation of the size of the focus point. I can't think of another reason.
miloz wrote:
I've rarely run into the X100 AF not locking.
The worst thing I'll say about X100 AF is that the focus points aren't exactly honest. One example - trying to lock onto a window mullion (the pieces of wood that divide a window) horizontally and vertically), focus point at its smallest, the nexus of vertical and horizontal filling the focus point - the X100 locks on the ground beyond the window.
That tells me that even when you've set the AF point to its smallest, that's not an accurate representation of the size of the focus point. I can't think of another reason....Show more →
The problem likely has to do with the brightness/ contrast difference with outside the window vs inside where your trying to focus. I think that's mostly a failure of contrast AF systems in general.
