Someone needs to change the title of this thread LOL.
Someone needs to change the title of this thread LOL.
I think it's a given it will have good image quality (noise seems worse than the K-5 judging from HUGO shots but that could be pre production), but it's not bad. And again, I think that's fine. So assuming say image quality "as good as the best of elsewhere" the differentiators I think become:
- form factor (and the fact you have excellent image quality in that form factor)
- the view finder (which is unique)
- the lenses (fast and apparently 'good enough')
- probably the best JPEG engine in the market when it comes out.
PS: Be warned, AF won't be "fast" - confirmed. I still think if they have excellent manual focusing (camera lens responds fast to the fly by wire and accurately and you can focus well on view finder) then it is a non issue at the intended market, at least a big part of it.
"The camera’s one drawback, and Fuji has told us that this will be the case on the production models, is that the autofocus isn’t going to be as snappy as it is on other cameras. Fuji says thats because that’s not what this camera is about. Fine, but it’s going to annoy the hell out of you if you’re used to a good point-and-shoot camera or DSLR."
Update: uh oh "Fuji tells us it’ll cost about $US2400." Hmmm... that better be with a lens!
I may stand alone here but I do wish (in a positive sense) that the X Pro1 was the same size as the X100. Technically that may have been impossible/challenging/expensive (pick one), they managed an APS-C in the X100, why not the XPro1?
Each to their own of course on this, there is no right or wrong, many may prefer the existing size. I just think that seeing how the M9 is FF the Fuji could/should have been smaller.
I'm sure it will be fine instrument, looking at the price suggestions does make me think the X100 is a bargain and the GRX-M mount even more so.
Last edited by Tim; 11th January 2012 at 20:45.
Tim, I think the size is a combination of look-a-leica design (and if the ergonomics are proven, why not?) and the method chosen for the hybrid viewfinder. I'll reserve judgement until I get to try one in my hands (could be an expensive exercise! lol)
I think Sigma took the better route with the DP1/DP2 to be honest - I'd rather pay less for the body attached to a prime lens if it could be made overall cheaper, lighter, more compact.
Give me a couple of X100 variants with the new sensor advantage (once it is refined - still unconvinced by the impressive sample above) and 35mm / 90mm f2 lenses and I'll be happier, I think.
Though I have not looked (hard), I am unsure if the Pentax K5 can do that.
The spec's of the XPro1 tell us that AF is by contrast detection which whilst much improved over earlier P & S cameras can never be as fast or accurate as Phase detection AF systems as used in most DSLR's.
It seems that our experiences differ! Although for the type of subjects that I shoot with my X100, I have no problem with it's AF which is also contrast detection.
On another note the following roadmap for additional Fujinon lenses for the APro1 are as follows:
18-72mm f/4.0 with IS (Image stabilization).
28mm f/2.8 pancake
72-200mm f/4.0 IS
12-24mm f/4.0 IS
If this rumour is is proved then it is an interesting line up. Together with the M adaptor and doubtless further adaptors to come, this should give Sony something to think about for their NEX range! I do like the roadmap idea for future lens introductions, Oympus were always good at that when they first introduced their 4/3 cameras.
The addition of IS lenses is also interesting as is the published specs for sensor cleaning
Still no portrait lens
I can't really see how they can do it differently from the X100.
. . . . I suppose it's just a bee in my personal bonnet, but it seems to me that if you are going to have a non-slr optical viewfinder, then you need some means of REALLY showing you what you've ACTUALLY focused on (whether it's manual or AF). The X100 couldn't show you this, maybe Fuji have pulled something out of the bag here . . maybe!
Just this guy you know
90mm equiv. should be fine for portraits, that is, unless the desired effect is for the iris to be in focus and the eyelash not...
I think the Fuji, which is only a 1:2 macro, would be fine lens. If you are looking for a shallow depth of field and you don't think f/2.4 is going to give it to you on an APS sensor, then this will not work for you. But this is not a fault with Fuji, it just does not fit your style.
Where you thinking of only using this system for your wedding work?
I would suggest a focus peaking pattern projected onto the OVF with the blinder open... registration would be a challenge, but I'm sure it could be made to work.
One of those and while fuji still does pull off good dr even in no dual sensitivity sensor designs it won't outdo their own dual sr sensor in dr and it certainly
Won't outdo the k-5 sensor barring another
Major quantum leap. Judging by the noise I am
Seeing at their higher ISos I don't think they will beat the Sony sensor of the k-5 on that.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think they wil do bad but if they can't show impressive per pixel resolution then the removal of the AA filter becomes meaningless that should be their key advantage here and if it doesn't show up then you just ended up with a good quality sensor but won't stand from those doing great already.
Where fuji will beat Pentax hands down is in doing the jpegs though Pentax jpegs aren't all bad.
Here's three shots to show what I mean on k-5. They are pngs as to not compress any data. I can assure you any highlight or shadow of the first is recoverable and we have hard hitting sunlight and shadow on the same shot:
The next shot shows you just how much shadow range the k-5 has. Even with this shadow range it has decent default highlight range- remember that you do have this range available for highlights to by exposing to the right or enabling highlight priority to get more highlights. A lot of people make the mistake to think great shadow recovery is not part of total dr or can't be translated into more highlight recovery:
Raist, You are showing a picture of Fuji (mispelled FUGI) apples as an example.
I don't know. I will never know as I have zero interest in Pentax's DSLRs (or any DSLRs for that matter, I have about 4-5 sitting unused). Possibly the Ricoh A16 (Ricoh own Pentax now), if the Fuji does not pan out or if there is a Ricoh/Pentax FF mirrorless cam.
I want to see a photo of that setup.
As far as classes go this would be more of a Leica m, but "close to class" comparisons can still be done say vs nex 7. And if fuji is really aiming this at pros like weddings (and they said they are as part of their pro category) then any Dslr in its price range also can be at least partially compared.
Last edited by raist3d; 12th January 2012 at 20:21.
Interest or on Pentax dslrs- I never said what I said so you are interested in them. I was just making the point the k-5 can easily have that range. And talking in general market terms I see fuji has a good sensor with good tones and dr but then so does the k-5, which is why I say they should stand out by other aspects then. Or maye the raws will show hyper
Well of course, it must be able to focus...that's a given.
I agree, it must have an acceptable level of performance to be a 'pro' camera. However I don't think it needs to focus as fast as a phase detect sports DSLR that costs about the same money, in order to be acceptably fast.
Now, that gets interesting.
I hope it comes close to the hyped performance. I don't care if it shows any hyper details and such.
Personally I think the fuji samples look really good in color and tonal range. What I am not seeing is the lack of AA filter detail which means that the camera has to stand out on other things. Would still like to see a raw conversion.
The problem with anything with so much hype is that while attracting attention, it also warrants extra scrutiny. May be Fuji don't care as long as they can sell the 50 or 100 thousand units they can produce just to get a foothold in this very competitive market.
But, I am very tight with money and would not mind spending a few hours to investigate what all the fuss is about.
The Fuji people on video do all seem to be absolutely blown away by the new sensor quality - really, you'd think they were talking about a foveon sensor with Fuji colour
I want to see what they're seeing... maybe we'll see everything come into focus when dpreview (+ others) get production cameras.
I sort of wish they'd held off on the sample images, if there's a quantum leap about to occur.
Also at the long range of the lens I'm still at f2.8 vs f5.6 on m4/3.
So, of course the crop factor works against you on the wide side.
Nikon 1 is an interesting system. In it's current state it isn't a solo system and needs a supplement be that NEX or Fuji. For me right now my combo is with NEX.
Here's a useful collection of links.
The DR (as one amateur photographer posted) also seems impressive. I am irritated by the hype from Fuji but that will pass.
Would the shutter be quiet?, how it would handle? all such "minor" details also matter.
Much better batch of images using all three of the initial lenses on the Fujifilm--X's site http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/en/gall...ges/index.html
Also shown in your link but might be quicker to find?
This is an incredibly useful site that allows one to compare the sizes of many cameras, side by side (here, the Fuji X Pro 1 vs Leica M9):
Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo