vovkinson wrote:
Fujifilm X pro looks like a solid camera. Flimsy Nex5 is a disposable toy. It will fall apart in one or two years. Not worth investment no matter how good / bad it performs with Zeiss/ Leica lenses. Waste of money.
That was also my impression of the X100 from the early photos... and contrary to my impression when I actually had one in hand. I can't speak of X100 reliability because I never owned one, but there have been enough discussions here about reliability issues to leave a nagging doubt in my mind about the XP1. That said, some early hands-on reviews have somewhat eased those doubts. From the few weeks I used a 5N on loan, I thought the overall build was quite solid.
Tariq: could be. Can't wait for the first CV15 on XP1 review... It will be interesting to see how much the adapter allows lenses to focus beyond infinity, and how well the EVF performs.
X100 reliability/ quality control is not so great - certainly more problematic than say the Sony NEX-5. There is the known issue of the sticking aperture blades, which affecting my x100 as well as many others, many of whom are big Fuji x100 proponents/ fans. That's not the only issue that has been reported though. There have also been issues with the EVF/ OVF shutter for the finder and other quality control problems as well. All that said, the camera imo produces stunning image quality and I very much liked it.
I do agree with Douglas though that there is definitely a much greater chance of a problem arising with the X-Pro 1 given it's mechanical complexity versus the Sony NEX. I also owned the Sony NEX-5 and I found it's build quality perfectly fine. It certainly did not feel overly cheap to me. Given my experience, I do expect the NEX with it's lack of moving, complex parts to be a more dependable/ reliable camera over the long term but, in the end, what matters are the images one creates with either camera. Really, given the cost of an NEX-5 body, even if it did only last two years, that's what? A cost of about $20/ month to use it? Pretty damn cheap for a photographic tool, particularly form an historical perspective where film would have cost many times that per month to use! Even though I may pick up the X-Pro 1, the X100 track record combined with the somewhat high price of the X-Pro 1 body does give me pause. If my $1700 X-Pro 1 develops an issue after the one year warranty, it certainly would represent a much higher usage cost than say the Sony NEX-5!
My main gripe with the NEX5n was the on/off switch which feels like it might snap off or cease to function at any time. Other than that I think it will hold up quite well.
I sincerely hope the X Pro 1 will not be riddled with quirks and suffer from build quality and software issues.
Well, soon all speculation will end and be replaced by user reports. Usually the first reports are very rosy and biased so I am hoping someone from the forum can put one under the loupe.
kosmoskatten wrote:
Well, soon all speculation will end and be replaced by user reports. Usually the first reports are very rosy and biased so I am hoping someone from the forum can put one under the loupe.
vovkinson wrote:
Fujifilm X pro looks like a solid camera. Flimsy Nex5 is a disposable toy. It will fall apart in one or two years. Not worth investment no matter how good / bad it performs with Zeiss/ Leica lenses. Waste of money.
what investment? you can get 4 NEXs for the price of a fuji, which i'm sure will last longer than one fuji. also i read one tester claiming he thought the NEX-7 felt more solid than the fuji, not that that actually means anything with regard to parts failures.
This statement reminds me some movie episode where one guy comes to the liquor store and asks the sales guy if they had a good quality expensive champagne. The salesman scratched his head for a second and said "no , we don't have a good quality champagne, but you can have 10 bottles of bad ones for the same money ..."
you can get 4 NEXs for the price of a fuji
I don't care much about Fuji X pro either but it looks more solid to me
vovkinson wrote:
This statement reminds me some movie episode where one guy comes to the liquor store and asks the sales guy if they had a good quality expensive champagne. The salesman scratched his head for a second and said "no , we don't have a good quality champagne, but you can have 10 bottles of bad ones for the same money ..."
you can get 4 NEXs for the price of a fuji
I don't care much about Fuji X pro either but it looks more solid to me
yes, but the NEX-5N matches any aps-c camera currently made for image quality rather than being a bad camera. hopefully the fuji will be better both iq wise and ergonomically, seems reasonable to hope for, but i doubt the differences will be that big and there's some areas of ergonomics at least where the NEX will be better.
vovkinson wrote:
This statement reminds me some movie episode where one guy comes to the liquor store and asks the sales guy if they had a good quality expensive champagne. The salesman scratched his head for a second and said "no , we don't have a good quality champagne, but you can have 10 bottles of bad ones for the same money ..."
you can get 4 NEXs for the price of a fuji
I don't care much about Fuji X pro either but it looks more solid to me
This may blow your mind, but, from the looks of it, I'd probably rather have one Nex-5N + EVF or one Nex-7 rather than one X-Pro1.
You can get two NEX-5ns and EVFs, to put the cameras on somewhat more equal footing.
I'm leaning XP-1, but even the E-M5 is more interesting to me than the NEX series. It's all about the glass - with MFT or Fuji, there are good and fast wide/normal/tele options available.
miloz wrote:
You can get two NEX-5ns and EVFs, to put the cameras on somewhat more equal footing.
I'm leaning XP-1, but even the E-M5 is more interesting to me than the NEX series. It's all about the glass - with MFT or Fuji, there are good and fast wide/normal/tele options available.
yeah, if you want autofocus lenses the NEX system is still sadly lacking. both µ4/3 and even the just released fuji system are much better in that regard. neither of them have any lenses that make me want to buy a camera just to use them though (the 18/2 could be, but from the samples it doesn't look like it), so i'm sticking to manual focus on the NEX.
There certainly are some sweet looking m43 native lenses around - Olympus 12/2, Panasonic pancakes such as the 14 2.5 and so on - but the sensors still need to catch up, which I'm sure they will. Sony NEX has the sensor, lacks the native lenses but is a much better alt lens platform due to the 1.5 vs. 2.0 crop factor and superior sensors. Fuji is the wild card, as is Samsung possibly. There are some really amazing m43 deals going on at the moment which are almost impossible to resist if your looking for a versatile family, travel, video setup, particularly the Pan. GH2 deals.
I cancelled my XPro1 preorder. The bokeh on the Fuji 35mm looks nervous to me. The lack of too many features I care about -- focus peaking, inbody IS, tilting LCD, touch screen, diopter correction -- started to weigh on my thinking.
Plus when I watched the video of using the XPro1, it seemed awfully fiddly -- OK i've changed from this manual lens to that manual lens. Now let me dial in the focal length so the electronic bright lines will match the lens. OK, now do I want to set the OVF to standard or tele magnification with this lever over here? OK, now for this picture do I want to use the OVF or the EVF given my distance from the subject and the paralax .... blah blah blah. By the time I change lenses and take a picture the Xpro2 will have come out.
And when I look at my NEX 5N images or the OM-D samples that are coming out, I have to ask -- how much will the amazing sensor in the NEX or Oly hold me back, compared to the potentially better sensor in the Xpro1? And the answer is not at all.
I still think those who want to scratch that Fuji itch are better off with the X100 with its unique features for a digital camera in its class - totally silent operation, super flash synch speeds, built in ND filter, etc.
TBH for most people I see ordering this camera, I have no idea why they're doing it
RF users are ordering it, but already they sort of half hate it because it doesnt have a rangefinder...
The mirrorless crowd who are itching to "upgrade" are ordering it, but they dont really know why. This OVF thing baffles them, they're used to working without one, and already they sort of half hate the camera because it doesnt have focus peaking.
Tired DSLR users with sore backs are ordering it, but already they sort of half hate it because AF is sloooooowwww compared to their Nikon GTiBiTurboDigital, plus they'd have to wait a year for zoom lenses.
Plus when I watched the video of using the XPro1, it seemed awfully fiddly -- OK i've changed from this manual lens to that manual lens. Now let me dial in the focal length so the electronic bright lines will match the lens. OK, now do I want to set the OVF to standard or tele magnification with this lever over here? OK, now for this picture do I want to use the OVF or the EVF given my distance from the subject and the paralax .... blah blah blah. By the time I change lenses and take a picture the Xpro2 will have come out....Show more →
The ability to do any of that with legacy lenses is basically a freebie on Fuji's part - I don't know how they could make it any simpler (aside from saying 'use the EVF') as there's no way to automatically transmit focal length from a mechanical RF lens to the body.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
There certainly are some sweet looking m43 native lenses around - Olympus 12/2, Panasonic pancakes such as the 14 2.5 and so on - but the sensors still need to catch up, which I'm sure they will.
Check out the E-M5 shots that are in the wild with the 12/2 and 45/1.8. (Too bad no tester can use the Panaleica 25mm with the E-M5 - I imagine that would not please Olympus.)
In blind tests, particularly at web sizes, I seriously don't think many people could pick out any of the NEX-5N/XP-1/E-M5 sensors as being head-and-shoulders better than the others. Olympus appears to have a made a real leap in noise/DR with the new sensor.
miloz wrote:
Check out the E-M5 shots that are in the wild with the 12/2 and 45/1.8. (Too bad no tester can use the Panaleica 25mm with the E-M5 - I imagine that would not please Olympus.)
In blind tests, particularly at web sizes, I seriously don't think many people could pick out any of the NEX-5N/XP-1/E-M5 sensors as being head-and-shoulders better than the others. Olympus appears to have a made a real leap in noise/DR with the new sensor.
Any landscape images as base ISO? I have narrowed down my next kit to either XP1 or EM5. The one that can churn out great images (12 stops of DYR) at base ISO on a tripod and take nice portraits and candids of my kids will win.
From the looks of the sample images I've seen either camera will due for ISO 1600 and 3200 in a pinch. I've mentioned this before but I'm tired of the high-ISO wars.
I'm probably most nervous about the 18mm Fujinon. Lack of a wide angle is a non-starter. I'm guessing I end up with u4/3 and hope the sensor catches up. At some point the improvement at base ISO will more or less stop while the high-ISO development and increased pixel count continue.
I haven't seen any, but I'm more concerned about 1600+ so I don't really look for them.
I'd keep an eye on Robin Wong's blog - http://robinwong.blogspot.com/ - as he's one of the people who's started testing it with the good primes rather than the new kit zoom.
If I were a landscape shooter, I probably wouldn't rely on the Fuji 18/2 (caveat: from what I've seen so far, production examples might be stellar) - it looks fine for street/documentary/etc. work, but I'd want a landscape lens to be better in the corners and have more of a biting sharpness to it, I think. The 14mm down the road might be better, but it's a year away.
I'm now not considering neither x pro nor the nex (I'm fine with my M9) but if I had to I would definitely give fuji x pro a shot. Sorry about bad words about Sony Nex, but I just hate the look of those lenses, those are so bulky and ugly.
miloz wrote:
Check out the E-M5 shots that are in the wild with the 12/2 and 45/1.8. (Too bad no tester can use the Panaleica 25mm with the E-M5 - I imagine that would not please Olympus.)
In blind tests, particularly at web sizes, I seriously don't think many people could pick out any of the NEX-5N/XP-1/E-M5 sensors as being head-and-shoulders better than the others. Olympus appears to have a made a real leap in noise/DR with the new sensor.
I have keenly been keeping up with the E-M5 image quality and it certainly is a step forward for Olympus and possibly m43. It still does not match APS though imo. Where it is lacking is in smooth gradient transitions. These have a harshness to them that gives their smaller format origin size away (noticeable in the darker to mid tone transitions of skin tones for instance).. The best APS images are noticeably better in this regard to my eyes and, of course, FF is no contest. For most folks not so critical though, this might not matter.
This sort of goes to the heart of the Fuji/ NEX/ m43 compromises. What most of us want is to have our cake and eat it too. We want something small and unobtrusive yet with the image quality, performance and handling of the larger, heavier gear. Most of us are trying to 'get the balance right'. How much AF speed or native lens capability are we willing to sacrifice? At what point of image quality compromise is one willing to accept? How small is too small where handling is impacted negatively? The answers to these and more are likely different for each of us. This is what the Fuji X-Pro1 is attempting to do as well but how well will it actually achieve this? Image quality may end up being on par with circa 2007/8 FF cameras but at what cost? It comes down to the same dilemma as the others ultimately. I think we are still at the point in time (camera technology wise) where one camera is not going to be that silver bullet/ perfect hybrid that can do it all.
vovkinson wrote:
I'm now not considering neither x pro nor the nex (I'm fine with my M9) but if I had to I would definitely give fuji x pro a shot. Sorry about bad words about Sony Nex, but I just hate the look of those lenses, those are so bulky and ugly.
i'm certainly not offended, i think all three of those cameras (all NEX, fuji x1, m9) are eyesores. the ep-5 is not attractive either but certainly better looking than those. the look of the NEX lenses doesn't bother me until you attach them to the camera, but i don't have any interest in them either despite shooting with the NEX for nearly 2 years.
the look of the NEX lenses doesn't bother me until you attach them to the camera, but i don't have any interest in them either despite shooting with the NEX for nearly 2 years.