Well, I don't want to leave the impression I don't like the X-Pro1. I really like shooting with it and I absolutely love the OVF with info overlay. I think some will find the X-Pro1 perfect for their uses, learn to deal with the quirks and make great photography using it.
Tariq; ok, makes sense. (Regarding the colors from the X Pro 1).
I haven't shot much RAW much with my X10 and I have seen similar output with a bluish cast and reds that are slightly magenta, which does not do well for skin colors. As long as the RAW output from the X Pro 1 is fine it is not a problem, and even so it would be manageable.
Vovkinson; Tariq's critique is well balanced and exactly what I want to hear. It lets me know what to expect and what not to expect from the X Pro 1.
kosmoskatten wrote:
On the comment "ignoring the internet echo chamber and go out and buy and try for yourself";
exactly how is that helping people to validate the system? That is the single worst piece of advice here so far. So, you advice people to plunge head first into a brand new untried system with a minimum entry fee of $2200 for a camera and a single lens just to buy and try?
I am glad you are not my financial advisor.
Wow. I didn't say buy. I just said try. There are many ways to do that without buying. So much for trying to encourage people to think for themselves and form independent opinions. Hey, Canon is the best selling camera brand in the world, so why consider anything else?
I sure hope this is merely a miscommunication and not a willful misinterpretation of my post.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Assuming you are being serious, it's a major issue for some of the work I do involving anything larger than native size prints of certain subject matter (landscape with foliage). The effect obliterates the actual detail at the pixel level so that any interpolation up falls apart really fast. It may not effect other subject matter interpolated up - people, man made structures - I don't know yet. It's something I have not seen in other raw files from the cameras I have owned and I don't know yet how to deal with it when I need large landscape prints. When the effect is visible, it looks like a cheap digital filter was applied to certain areas of the image. I really love actually using the X-Pro1 - it is sort of infectious - so if I could solve this issue I might even decide to keep it. I'm afraid though that what I'm seeing is inherent in the raw file and is a processing "trick" Fuji is using to make files look really good at native sizes at the expense of fidelity. The best analogy I can think of is music with lots of loudness, treble and bass applied. Sounds great at normal volumes but the actual nuances are covered up and turning the volume up distorts the hell out of the sound....Show more →
I am being serious, Tariq. I would give it a serious try before dismissing it. At anything like normal sizes, it is not possible to see what is going on at 100% pixel size, and from what I have seen from the Kodak, it looks great in print. I have not tried the X-Pro 1 though, so maybe there is something different here.
carstenw wrote:
I am being serious, Tariq. I would give it a serious try before dismissing it. At anything like normal sizes, it is not possible to see what is going on at 100% pixel size, and from what I have seen from the Kodak, it looks great in print. I have not tried the X-Pro 1 though, so maybe there is something different here.
If I wasn't clear, I do agree with you. At native output size, the prints will look great. The problem shows up when you interpolate up the size as that's were things fall apart and the pixel level artifacts become apparent. Also note, my test was only with a vary specific subject - landscape foliage.
Ah, so you did try it. I missed that. I am skimming too much these days. How much did you enlarge? And did you print anything similar from a regular camera to compare?
itai195 wrote:
Wow. I didn't say buy. I just said try. There are many ways to do that without buying. So much for trying to encourage people to think for themselves and form independent opinions. Hey, Canon is the best selling camera brand in the world, so why consider anything else?
I sure hope this is merely a miscommunication and not a willful misinterpretation of my post.
Sincere apologies from my part, I obviously missed the geist of your post. Ok?
Thinking for yourself does not always help, it is very easy to overlook things with cameras like these. Some things you might discover after your return period is over. If you hear about the potential and confirmed pitfalls of a system beforehand you can make an informed decision and decide whether you want to give it a try anyway. If you don't want to read/hear about it you can't, and might end up very disappointed, simple as that.
Where the Canon remark comes into this equation I don't know.
Volume has no direct correlation to quality or innovative thinking. But, I take it you used it as an example only. Canon does not tick any of my check boxes.
I have been shooting for about a week with the X-Pro1. Quite enjoying the camera! This week I have a couple of real jobs coming up where I plan to bring the camera along (real estate and portrait sessions).
I was in Victoria, BC during the week. I blogged a bit about and have links to 50 photos if interested.
carstenw wrote:
Ah, so you did try it. I missed that. I am skimming too much these days. How much did you enlarge? And did you print anything similar from a regular camera to compare?
I enlarged an image from both the NEX-7 and the X-Pro1 to a size of 30" x 45" at 240PPI. That's the example I posted here. Alien Skin Blow UP II was used for the interpolation up. I have since been looking more at the NEX-7 file and it will take a lot more sharpening and look much better than what I showed. The X-Pro1 file does not do as well with messaging.
I have printed a lot of images from the Sony a900 I owned at that size or larger and have also printed images from my Hasselblad at 30"x30". I have a lot of printing experience as I print not only for myself but for others as well (first with an Epson 9600, now with a Canon IPF 8300).
I see. But how do you know that the problem is the X-Pro 1, and not the 16MP vs. 24MP difference? Or is the comparison on a performance per Dollar basis?
kosmoskatten wrote:
Sincere apologies from my part, I obviously missed the geist of your post. Ok?
Thinking for yourself does not always help, it is very easy to overlook things with cameras like these. Some things you might discover after your return period is over. If you hear about the potential and confirmed pitfalls of a system beforehand you can make an informed decision and decide whether you want to give it a try anyway. If you don't want to read/hear about it you can't, and might end up very disappointed, simple as that.
Where the Canon remark comes into this equation I don't know.
Volume has no direct correlation to quality or innovative thinking. But, I take it you used it as an example only. Canon does not tick any of my check boxes.
...Show more →
No hard feelings. I totally understand what you're saying here. The point I'm hoping to get across is merely that if you're interested in a camera then, by all means, gather as much information as you can. But also make sure you try it for yourself; you may be surprised. Of course, if there are objective, technical limitations that would affect your work, such as the issue Tariq is helpfully describing in this thread, then that's a different story altogether.
The Canon example was perhaps a poor attempt at hyperbole, I wasn't seriously suggesting that it's the camera for you at all
carstenw wrote:
I see. But how do you know that the problem is the X-Pro 1, and not the 16MP vs. 24MP difference? Or is the comparison on a performance per Dollar basis?
Simple. Because whatever processing is going on with the Fuji raw is resulting in a nasty and visible artifact at 100% with the subject matter I tested. Remember, it was only until I saw the image at it's native 100% that I saw the artifact in the Fuji file and it should not be there imo. With a clean file, the interpolation up to the size I tried with an AA less sensor at 16MP really should not be an issue. The artifacting - and what happens to it when it's magnified - is the main culprit. I'm sure the 24MP vs 16MP difference does not hurt at all - thats a theoretical 22.5% gain in resolution - but given the advantage of the removal of the AA filter, I expected the slight difference might be even more narrowed with the Fuji as the 24MP sensor in the A900 does have an AA filter (as well as the one in the NEX-7). The real issue - for me with this subject matter and my uses - is what happens at the 100% view at the pixel level because that plays a crucial role in a files ability to be interpolated up. I really don't know how else to explain or show it.
For those who are having problem with reds in their X-Pro1, are you shooting JPEGs with adobeRGB?
I first thought the reds were off, looking at the camera's LCD, but when importing the JPEGs, they look fine. But I have the JPEGs in sRGB (I shoot RAW as well, should I want adobe or prophotoRGB).
Edit: the LCD off the X-Pro1 is a bit off when it comes to colors!
Hmm, I think I understand. I guess I would need to try it myself, except that I am not yet done with FF DSLRs, and so the XP1 is too close in size/cost/weight, compared to smaller options like the X100 or EP3.
My adapters showed up today! Right off the bat, the shooting experience with adapted lenses is really nice. The placement of the magnifying button is perfect for quickly jumping from OVF with frame lines to the magnified view with EVF (no other camera offers this option by the way and the experience is pretty unique with an adapted lens). Really quick and the focus seems easy to achieve even without peaking thus far. The size of the body lends itself well to larger SLR adapted lenses (and I do think you would want the add on grip). One odd thing seems to be that the projected frame lines, histogram and other info in the OVF is extremely faint and hard to see when adapted lenses are mounted. I have no idea why. Anyway, I have not looked at image quality yet in detail.
Here is what the beast looks like with a Leica R Summicron 50 attached. I used the Kipon Fuji X M adapter on the body and then used a Nikon F to M adapter for the lens (the lens has a Nikon mount on it already). http://www.gibranstudio.com/xpl1.jpg
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Finally! More M lens image please
Sorry, I don't have any M/ rangefinder lenses at the moment. Only SLR lenses.
Well, the enthusiasm was a bit premature with regard to the alt lens situation. The implementation seems to be very beta. The framelines/ info overlay is practically invisible in daylight for one. Second, the OVF is useless for all but wider lenses. With that 50 mounted, the OVF frameline is a very tiny square in the center for instance. Even manually selecting that I'm shooting with a focal length of 60mm does not seem to engage the ovf magnifier for the native Fuji 60 Macro. Using an adapted 35mm lens though does give the correct frame lines (but as I said, they are almost invisible in daylight). One other point that is annoying is that even if I only take two shots, many of the controls completely freeze up until the image is written to the card (and it's slow). So, take two shots and then immediately try to magnify the central area to focus the next shot - nothing happens until the light stops blinking! Frustrating. All of this is likely a firmware or two fixes away I would guess (given that Fuji's own M adapter is not even available yet).
Tariq, if you engage the VF switch on the front of the camera for a couple of seconds, that should allow you to manually switch the magnifier. That said, the frame for the XF60 in the OVF is also quite small.
itai195 wrote:
Tariq, if you engage the VF switch on the front of the camera for a couple of seconds, that should allow you to manually switch the magnifier. That said, the frame for the XF60 in the OVF is also quite small.
Thanks. Pretty slick. While it is small, it is much, much larger than the tiny frame lines that shows up when a 50mm lens is manually chosen.
Bizarre about the framelines, nobody else has mentioned it... are they still faint if you open the aperture? maybe you have some power saving setting on?
I'm still waiting for my adapter, tracking says it left HK almost 4 weeks ago grrrr
