Wow, sorry for the major detour. Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that Smith & Wessons are better than Glocks or that any camera made today is better than an X-Pro 1.
I was pretty surprised at how much lighter the X-Pro 1 and 35/1.4 is compared to my Nex 7 and CV 35/1.2 and my personal preference is for the heavier combo which I think is easier to hand hold at slower shutter speeds.
Wm. Manther wrote:
I find it hard to understand why weight is equated with quality.
In a general sense probably because over the last 4-5+ decades, consumer goods have transitioned from durable construction at the cost of being fairly heavy, to hyper mass produced, frequently from plastic and frequently with baseline 'good enough' quality rather than more than good enough for longterm durability. Also, gold is heavy.
When it comes to camera equipment, weight savings is great. Obviously this is a subjective matter, and while I like to keep gear weight low, I appreciate equipment with some mass/density to it, in part for the reason Jeff mentioned. But it also just plain feels good. This doesn't mean it has to be heavy. For example the Voigtlander 35/40mm f/1.4 lenses are roughly 30mm x 55m diameter and 175-200g. About the same weight as the Fuji 35 f/1.4, but half the length and around 10mm smaller in diameter. They're not heavy lenses, but they feel robust in the hand due to the all-metal construction and the density it implies.
Little off topic, but I personally like to split the difference with the S&W M&P series of auto pistols. Full length metal slide with a polymer handle. Perfect blend of old and new tech, which is really much akin to the XPro, IMHO.
Nothing wrong with heavy carved solid brass hunks for camera bodies, and the weight can feel reassuring, however, those designs largely came about because modern materials didn't exist. Now days its possible to use aluminum and magnesium, along with some engineered plastics to create products that while lighter, are still every bit as rugged.
I personally feel the XPro is very solid, and very much also appreciate its use of aluminum to give me a lighter package to wear around my neck all day. It makes a big difference over some heavier camera's, much like a light service revolved makes a big difference when it comes to daily carry.
There are times when a heavier camera can be more stable, just as I'd rather shoot at 50 yards with a 8" barrel .357 S@w rather than a 4" polymer service pistol, HOWEVER, it comes down to overall use.
Would you want to carry a heavy camera around on holiday and how much to you shoot at really slow speeds, likewise, would want to holster a very large handgun for your service piece, or is it merely a range gun you transport in a case
My instinctual feeling is that the X-Pro1 is not quite as durable as the X100 with regard to materials used. The X-Pro1 uses a light aluminum which would likely dent very easily whereas the X100 at least uses a magnesium alloy for most of it's body. One really has to wonder why the X-Pro1 is not using magnesium alloy instead of aluminum. I also have a hard time believing either would be as durable as the full metal jacket - full magnesium alloy body with brass top and bottom - used on the Leica M9.
I guess bigger question is would most people really treat a XPro, or basically any other camera in such a manner where durability is really an issue ?
Sure on one hand a Leica is well made, no arguement there, but, at the same time, look at how most people totally baby them. Putting all these protective cases on them etc, few if any want to get as much as a scratch on their camera.
Who can blame them though, because you get a little scratch or ding and suddenly your M9 lost $1000 of resale value. Ouch! One could try to argue that surely most camera buyers wouldn't care about something like a little ding but let's get real. Most of us save every box and piece of packing material. Like we really would happy spend $5500 on a used M9 if it was scratched.
My work cameras of course take some abuse. I was just shooting the Rock on the Range concert tonight, with literally 100+ photographers elbow to elbow in the photo pit and tons of people coming over the barricades. Everyone's second bodies were getting knocked together, bumped when big security guys came dragging unruly fans through etc.
Pro work and can a toll on a camera and I'm darn glad my Nikon's are built to take it. However again, if I wasn't there on assignment, would I really take my XPro ? No, I wouldn't take anything other than my cellphone honestly.
So all and all, this talk about build quality seems a bit silly and academic. I think 99% of people with a Leica, or a NEX, or a X series camera are treating them well and using them in conditions where they camera's will hold up perfectly fine.
millsart wrote:
I guess bigger question is would most people really treat a XPro, or basically any other camera in such a manner where durability is really an issue ?
Sure on one hand a Leica is well made, no arguement there, but, at the same time, look at how most people totally baby them. Putting all these protective cases on them etc, few if any want to get as much as a scratch on their camera.
Who can blame them though, because you get a little scratch or ding and suddenly your M9 lost $1000 of resale value. Ouch! One could try to argue that surely most camera buyers wouldn't care about something like a little ding but let's get real. Most of us save every box and piece of packing material. Like we really would happy spend $5500 on a used M9 if it was scratched.
My work cameras of course take some abuse. I was just shooting the Rock on the Range concert tonight, with literally 100+ photographers elbow to elbow in the photo pit and tons of people coming over the barricades. Everyone's second bodies were getting knocked together, bumped when big security guys came dragging unruly fans through etc.
Pro work and can a toll on a camera and I'm darn glad my Nikon's are built to take it. However again, if I wasn't there on assignment, would I really take my XPro ? No, I wouldn't take anything other than my cellphone honestly.
So all and all, this talk about build quality seems a bit silly and academic. I think 99% of people with a Leica, or a NEX, or a X series camera are treating them well and using them in conditions where they camera's will hold up perfectly fine.
Both the local M9 shooters I know personally regularly take their M's into rough circumstances. One's a serious music shooter, who regularly shoots concerts in dive bars and such, the other one's a serious street shooter on the side and uses his M9 for regular assignment work as well, he took his M8 into the G20 riots in Toronto and does similar with his M9. Neither uses a case for their M9's.
As to the NEX, the majority of NEX shooters are consumers who aren't exactly going to baby them. My 7 goes everywhere with me and aside from rain I'd be very unlikely to worry about it.
mawz wrote:
Both the local M9 shooters I know personally regularly take their M's into rough circumstances. One's a serious music shooter, who regularly shoots concerts in dive bars and such, the other one's a serious street shooter on the side and uses his M9 for regular assignment work as well, he took his M8 into the G20 riots in Toronto and does similar with his M9. Neither uses a case for their M9's.
As to the NEX, the majority of NEX shooters are consumers who aren't exactly going to baby them. My 7 goes everywhere with me and aside from rain I'd be very unlikely to worry about it....Show more →
I don't man..... I was shooting Rock on the Range this weekend and there was probably 150 photographers there and I didn't see a single M. I used to work for Kerrang! in the UK and have shot a few hundred concerts in my career and can't recall ever seeing anyone with a M9 in the pits.
I know that somewhere out there, yes, there is someone who does it, but, its simply not a camera thats really going to be used in that context. Mainly because the high ISO is awful and I'm usually working at ISO 6400+ for a lot of shows.
As for the NEX, the very fact that its a consumer camera really means its going to get babied.
How many consumer's do you see walking around with beat to heck battle scarred camera ?
I was just shooting the local fire dept's new recruit graduation the other day. Every family member there all had their compacts and DSLR's and they all looked pretty mint to me. Certainly better shape than my gear.
Look at the B&S forum here, nearly all the gear you see is mint, even the "pro" grade bodies.
Everyone sells gear that is "like new in box". That is the norm, and we also then demand images taken showing every possible little spec in detail to make sure its still acceptable.
Most photographers are anal to a fault about protecting their gear. Look at the big UV filter vs Hood debates
Besides, if your a concert photographer who's using a $7000 camera to shoot dive bars (your surely not making a living with your camera because the concert/music industry is AWFUL these days) and you happen to have an XPro, you could always replace it a few times over if need be, on the event that doesn't hold up.
millsart wrote:
I don't man..... I was shooting Rock on the Range this weekend and there was probably 150 photographers there and I didn't see a single M. I used to work for Kerrang! in the UK and have shot a few hundred concerts in my career and can't recall ever seeing anyone with a M9 in the pits.
I know that somewhere out there, yes, there is someone who does it, but, its simply not a camera thats really going to be used in that context. Mainly because the high ISO is awful and I'm usually working at ISO 6400+ for a lot of shows.
As for the NEX, the very fact that its a consumer camera really means its going to get babied.
How many consumer's do you see walking around with beat to heck battle scarred camera ?
I was just shooting the local fire dept's new recruit graduation the other day. Every family member there all had their compacts and DSLR's and they all looked pretty mint to me. Certainly better shape than my gear.
Look at the B&S forum here, nearly all the gear you see is mint, even the "pro" grade bodies.
Everyone sells gear that is "like new in box". That is the norm, and we also then demand images taken showing every possible little spec in detail to make sure its still acceptable.
Most photographers are anal to a fault about protecting their gear. Look at the big UV filter vs Hood debates
Besides, if your a concert photographer who's using a $7000 camera to shoot dive bars (your surely not making a living with your camera because the concert/music industry is AWFUL these days) and you happen to have an XPro, you could always replace it a few times over if need be, on the event that doesn't hold up. ...Show more →
I think you are probably right about the majority of users babying their gear (though the inside of a woman's purse - at least my wife's- can leave some nasty battle scars on a compact camera!). The REAL point is that it really does not matter if the camera is ever subjected/ tested for robustness by the consumer (actually, if it's tested and fails, it can seriously hurt the brand I guess) . I can guarantee you that pretty much everyone that pays thousands of dollars for any of these camera's is buying into the image/ idea that their camera would be able to withstand the worst case shooting scenario, whether they subject the camera to it or not. The consumer will put themselves into that narrative and many camera marketers know this. That's part of what sells the cheaper, consumer Nikon's for instance - the brand image of robustness/ photographers tool.
I agree with Tariq. One thing you never hear complained about the M9 is the impression of poor build quality. Yes, high ISO leaves something to be desired, as does the buffer, LCD, wake from sleep time, etc... For the price point, if it didn't feel solid and robust, people would be complaining about this as they do about its other perceived weaknesses.
The XP-1 will likely prove to be a fairly durable/reliable camera, yet here we are discussing its build quality. For some, a $1700 camera should feel more robust. Obviously Fuji has a different philosophy about this than Leica.
I handled an X-Pro 1 (with a battery finally) in my local shop today. And, well, I've seen the AF performance in video, but, at least using the 35/1.4...it was abysmal. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the E-M5 and Panasonic Micro 4/3 bodies, but the AF was incredibly slow, missed focus on relatively contrasty things from time to time....just felt horribly unresponsive.
The second part about the AF, which I hadn't seen anyone mention (but I haven't read this whole thread either), is that when using live view (and I presume the EVF by extension), when autofocus is active, the live view stops updating! So, you half press, then the live view freezes for nearly a second, then the view updates with the 'locked' image. This makes it essentially impossible to maintain framing during focusing, and is supremely annoying as well. Obviously, it's not an issue when using the OVF, but I can't believe that behavior. It's one of those things that had I bought it sight unseen, I'd be tempted to box it up and send it back without even recording an image.
Please, someone tell me that's some strange option that's been enabled rather than simply the way the camera operates...
Jman13 wrote:
I handled an X-Pro 1 (with a battery finally) in my local shop today. And, well, I've seen the AF performance in video, but, at least using the 35/1.4...it was abysmal. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the E-M5 and Panasonic Micro 4/3 bodies, but the AF was incredibly slow, missed focus on relatively contrasty things from time to time....just felt horribly unresponsive.
The second part about the AF, which I hadn't seen anyone mention (but I haven't read this whole thread either), is that when using live view (and I presume the EVF by extension), when autofocus is active, the live view stops updating! So, you half press, then the live view freezes for nearly a second, then the view updates with the 'locked' image. This makes it essentially impossible to maintain framing during focusing, and is supremely annoying as well. Obviously, it's not an issue when using the OVF, but I can't believe that behavior. It's one of those things that had I bought it sight unseen, I'd be tempted to box it up and send it back without even recording an image.
Please, someone tell me that's some strange option that's been enabled rather than simply the way the camera operates......Show more →
No, that's the behavior I noticed as well.
When the X-Pro1 comes out of beta, it will likely be a very nice camera. The X100 started out with all sorts of issues and Fuji was able to refine it, including it's AF speed, pretty darn good. In fact, I'm pretty sure the X100 has faster/ better AF than the X-Pro1 at this point.
That's part of what sells the cheaper, consumer Nikon's for instance - the brand image of robustness/ photographers tool.
And it is just the image - my friends Nikon D5000 dropped of the table (maybe 70cm) on the carpeted floor and died. The image isn't everything The internals are very fragile. So now he have a very nice robust, heavy body with no scratch on it for paper-weight!
The main complaint I see in all reviews about XPRO1 built quality is "somewhat it feels light. Lighter than M9 and even lighter than the X100. Doesn't feel substantial/robust in my hand". So basically weight? But I don't understand how light weight can be a minus? Do you complain that carbon fiber Gitzo tripod weights twice less than aluminum? For me is a plus - on a long hikes or on a long day on the streets. There is no data on how robust and how well XPRO takes the abuse, so is just talk based on the feel/weight. The modern light weight plastics and other materials can be very very good. If you smack Leica M, Xpro1 or whatever else at the wall they all will die or be seriously damaged. Think of cars for example - the lighter the better, the special compound aluminum, carbon fibers, light weight plastics for top notch sports cars - are you complaining you get too less weight for $? And if you need more weight to feel you bought enough for your $ add some tin to XPRO1.
vovkinson wrote:
Take a closer look at the red Volkswagen and how XP1 renders the red.
Crop 100% <snip>
This may be a valid point, but the two shots were not taken from the exact same position. This may be the reason for the greatly increased contrast (maybe reflections) in the Honda tail-lights, and could also influence the VW rendering.
Diploneis wrote:
The main complaint I see in all reviews about XPRO1 built quality is "somewhat it feels light. Lighter than M9 and even lighter than the X100. Doesn't feel substantial/robust in my hand". So basically weight? But I don't understand how light weight can be a minus?
When I had the X-Pro1, I was at first shocked by the light weight but quickly got used to it. Sometimes though, light weight in a camera can in fact have negative effects on image quality since a very light camera can be difficult to hold steady compared to a heavier camera. It really comes down to the individual user. I can also see though how it would create doubt about the cameras robustness, particularly given the chintzy build quality of things like the X-Pro1 lenshoods. They literally feel like tin cans and I'm sure they would bend if you looked at them wrong. The hood on the 35 1.4 I had was also not of a quality that one would expect as part of a fairly expensive system. Nor was the accessory grip (which lacks a spring loaded key on the bottom, making it's necessary constant removal an exercise in frustration).
I'm just about to sell off my Canon-equipment* and buy the X-Pro 1. I pay my bills as a freelance journalist where I usually don't have a photographer with me, and do photography assignments now and then. Most of the time I'm a one man show though.
I've been searching the web for photojournalist impressions of the camera system, but haven't really found much. So I'm wondering if anyone here do editorial work with the X-Pro 1? If so, what are your thoughts?
This is my portfolio, and is pretty much the kind of work I do. Will the X-Pro 1 be sufficient for that kind of work? Disregard the sports picture, as I can borrow equipment for the times I need to dabble with sports.
*)5D II, 35L, 135L, Samyang 14mm, Speedlite 430 EX II
Ole, I don't own and haven't tried the X-Pro 1, so ignore my opinion, but I see a high proportion of images on your site which require good focusing in difficult and dark situations, and I am under the impression that this is a specific weakness of the Fuji...
The internals are very fragile. So now he have a very nice robust, heavy body with no scratch on it for paper-weight!