Gah, horrendous! He actually lifts his finger off the button after pressing before the photo is taken, once there are some shots in the buffer. The first shot looks pretty instantaneous though.
RoySussex wrote:
Fifty pages on gear that almost no-one has their hands on yet. It certainly proves that retro styling's a sure-fire way to extract money from the punters in time of retro-style recession.
Roy
guilty as charged!
I will read 50 pages and start looking for my credit card as soon as I hear the word retro.
because retro = functional.
film cameras had 100 years of evolution, digital have 10.
getting there
Spyro P. wrote:
guilty as charged!
I will read 50 pages and start looking for my credit card as soon as I hear the word retro.
because retro = functional.
film cameras had 100 years of evolution, digital have 10.
getting there
I totally agree - as long as as retro doesn't mean range finder .
A dead end street if there ever was one in camera development, in my humble opinion .
Dan1 wrote:
Did you even read any part of the thread? Who cares - your idea sounded neat so it must be correct, right?
I've read pages and pages upon pages of similar stuff (some of this thread too) every time something new gets released. There's no doubt Fuji get 10/10 for understanding current market obsessions. As regards the characteristics of the lenses on offer, I'm reminded of theological discussions in the Dark Ages.
I would still contend that the retro styling of the recent Fuji cameras contributes the majority component of their commercial success.
Roy
Tomser I agreee. Ι think I said it somewhere else: of the 10 things that people say they like about rangefinders, you can have 9 of them today with this fuji x1pro:
seeing outside the frame, big bright OVF with parallax correction, no mirror black out or mirror slap, small non retrofocus lenses that sit near the sensor, no mirrorbox or pentaprism and the shape and size that come with them, ability to mount M lenses, dials and rings instead of buttons, VF in the corner not the middle.
If I can get all that plus better ISO performance than an M9, well, screw rangefinders.
RoySussex wrote:
I would still contend that the retro styling of the recent Fuji cameras contributes the majority component of their commercial success.
Roy
and you felt the need to share this with us, because...?
RoySussex wrote:
...I would still contend that the retro styling of the recent Fuji cameras contributes the majority component of their commercial success.
Based on my personal experience with the X100, I contend the high interest in the X-Pro 1 is because what we've seen so far offers a high degree of assurance that it will provide excellent performance in specialized circumstances.
RoySussex wrote:
...As regards the characteristics of the lenses on offer, I'm reminded of theological discussions in the Dark Ages.
Any clue how the evf in the pro-1 works ? Is it similar to the sony nex 7; i mean can you actually determine focus point with alternative lens or see dof clearly ?
I have a question: given the samples from some sources and official Fuji page also, did anyone notice some kind of smearing in the image character of X-Pro1? Pictures are sharp, no rant here, but they are looking kinda strange. It's just me?
I don't see smearing, but the pixel level has different characteristics than recent FF and APS-C cameras for sure. The crops from the XP1 remind me of crops from my Kodak SLR/n. Up close it looks a little like watercolour, but in print and at any kind of distance, it looks great, very sharp and saturated. I would say that these differences are in Fuji's favour.
On my Fuji X10 high ISO shots have that ugly water color pastel type smear.
I think the X Pro 1 will do much, much better in that regard. I think them files will be quite pliable and forgiving in post and print well.
I am not too sure on the Fuji colors yet. I am not too excited about the X10 results when it comes to color fidelity and color response under different light. My previous Sony A900 and the NEX5N have better color OOC and the GXR much more so. I hope the X Pro 1 will improve in that regard.
Until RAW files are available I rest my case.
Spyro P. wrote:
Tomser I agreee. Ι think I said it somewhere else: of the 10 things that people say they like about rangefinders, you can have 9 of them today with this fuji x1pro:
seeing outside the frame, big bright OVF with parallax correction, no mirror black out or mirror slap, small non retrofocus lenses that sit near the sensor, no mirrorbox or pentaprism and the shape and size that come with them, ability to mount M lenses, dials and rings instead of buttons, VF in the corner not the middle.
If I can get all that plus better ISO performance than an M9, well, screw rangefinders....Show more →
Yes, but the one (in 10) thing you're obviously not getting is true rangefinder focusing. It may not seem like a big deal, but based on my experience manually focusing adapted lenses on the 5N and GXR with EVF, rangefinder focusing is still simultaneously faster with better precision than various flavors of EVF focus assist for lenses 50mm (FF equivalent) and wider. And the XP1 doesn't even have peaking (not that peaking is perfect), so you're forced to zoom in to magnified view to confirm focus. I guess it will compensate by offering AF..
Technician wrote:
I have a question: given the samples from some sources and official Fuji page also, does anyone noticed some kind of smearing in the image character of X-Pro1? Pictures are sharp, no rant here, but they are looking kinda strange. It's just me?
I think it's because we've only seen straight from camera JPEG files so far. It's unknown what degree of internal NR is done automatically by the camera, whether it can be turned off (I guess I could read the manual for that now), or how it varies by ISO, and other settings. None of the user sneak-peeks I've read so far have commented on what the camera's NR settings were for the sample images they posted. My guess is RAW conversions with better NR control will result in somewhat sharper, more granular filmic images.
rscheffler wrote:
Yes, but the one (in 10) thing you're obviously not getting is true rangefinder focusing. It may not seem like a big deal, but based on my experience manually focusing adapted lenses on the 5N and GXR with EVF, rangefinder focusing is still simultaneously faster with better precision than various flavors of EVF focus assist for lenses 50mm (FF equivalent) and wider.
Personally I find it a pain in the butt. I suspect most people are in the RF game mainly for the lenses and the size of the system, not because of the RF focusing method which they would probably drop given a half-decent alternative. But I dont know that for a fact, we'll see how RFs go in the future as more half decent RF-like cameras become available
I looked up ebay prices for a couple of my film rangefinders on ebay and they've nearly doubled since I bought them a couple of years ago. I think so far you are right, the "real" RF crowd looks unimpressed by current RF-like offerings. Good, more buyers for my junk
RF focusing is extremely fast and easy for many subjects, but not all. It works great when there are areas of strong contrast in the area you want to focus, especially sharp edges, but it's not very easy at all when there's only smooth tonal transitions, without much structure.
