Fuji X-Pro 1 image

Ok, I'll give it a rest! Just tell yourself there's nothing the X-Pro 1 can do that you can't do with an M9.

Lee

LOL! Please don't ...

Don't stop! :)

In all honesty, and this is without 1st hand experience, it appears that the only two things that the XP1 doesn't have over a M9 is: (1) full frame sensor; and (2) a red dot. Without the full frame, I can't get the same DOF at equivalent focal lengths. And the red dot ... I can live without it. My take on the purported AF woes that I read about the XP1 is that I can still focus faster with a X100's AF than manually on the M9. Of course there are times when the X100 refuses to lock focus, and the M9 then wins on those situations. I'm sure there are some people who can manually focus a rangefinder super fast. I'm just not one of them.
 
There is an aesthetic to the Fuji. Personally I think sharpness is overrated (and the Fuji is plenty sharp) and rendering is underrated. I rarely touch my X100 files, from what I've seen of the JPEG's on the X Pro, I would be happy just shooting JPEG's on it.

Agreed. Rendering, yes, colours, yes - both bold and subtle ... one shot at f/4. JPEG, Provia

6886252508_90e31346f3_b.jpg


Lee
 
Please don't ...

Don't ...

Don't stop!

From looking the other people's photos alone (none of which has been a pixel peeping level), the only two things missing from the XP1 is a full frame sensor and a red dot. So the DOF on equivalent focal lengths is not the same. But as for the red dot, I can live without it.

Which lens or lenses did you get for your XP1?

Armanius

I only have the 35mm so far. From just one week of use, I think it is the best lens since my previous 'best', the Pentax 43mm ltd (well, apart from the X100 23mm!), which I didn't use as much as I should and will probably now sell. I have no doubt that the 18mm will probably be next. I think they are very sensibly priced, if not a relative bargain. The body seemed overpriced to me but it does feel much more solid than the X100. It is bigger than the X100 but nowhere near as big as you'd think from the promotional shots. I was worried that the shutter would be too noisy after using the X100 but it is delicious ... probably the best sounding focal plane shutter I have had, possibly better than the one in a Contax I once owned ...

My biggest 'issue' so far is getting used to the 35/52mm (in old money) focal length again after using the X100 for so long - I can't seem to 'get enough in'! but that's just a short-term adjustment ... no doubt I would also initially think the 18mm would be too wide!

After using the X100, the X-Pro 1 just seems so natural and comfortable and everything just seems a notch better ... Enough now?

Lee
 
I think Fuji is releasing a 35mm EFL lens next year. Or maybe by the end of this year. 35mm is my favorite focal length. I like it much better than a 27mm EFL lens. It'll be nice if the 35mm EFL lens is something like a 23/1.4, instead of f2.
 
Thanks Lee. I'm more impressed by the colours from your UK pictures than the ones taken abroad as I have something to judge them by. Anything photographed overseas looks very exotic and can blind one to the more normal usage of a camera, if you know what I mean!

Thanks - I know exactly what you mean. Sample pictures mean the most to me when they are closest to my kind of photography. Something you can relate to.

And for those still not convinced and want to preserve their bank balance do NOT read this (Armanius must not look) :)

Soundimageplus: Beauty and the Beast - A very personal assessment of the Fuji X-Pro 1

Lee
 
And for those still not convinced and want to preserve their bank balance do NOT read this (Armanius must not look) :)

Soundimageplus: Beauty and the Beast - A very personal assessment of the Fuji X-Pro 1

I find it amazing that everybody in the world seems to have a Leica M9, because every reviewer on the planet makes that comparison. So I guess Leicas are the most sold cameras, their market share must be incredible. Where can I buy Leica stock?

That said, let's have a look at his samples. Most of them are overexposed. Well not really overexposed, but the highlights are blown more often than not. How come? He's just another one in a long line of reviewers who don't understand Fuji's DR mode, yet he's still using JPEGs straight out of the camera. What a shame!

This won't work, of course, as you can't have it both ways. What you can do is this: You can decide to shoot JPEGs (or at least to also use the camera's JPEGs), because you like how Fuji is rendering the color, etc. Great! However, if that's what you want to do, put the camera in DR-Auto mode, esepcially when shooting such strong contrasts! This is the only way you'll get that "special" Fuji JPEG gradation and color rendering AND no blown highlights in OOC JPEGs.

However, if you really want to babble in your blog about how "beautiful the camera renders color at ISO 200", don't shoot (or at least show) OOC JPEGs in scenes with very high contrast. Just shoot RAW and use a strict ETTR approach (learn to read and use the histogram), then develop the files with Silkypix (or LR, once support becomes available). You'll be fine, and once you have learned to master the histogram, the results will be more precise than trusting the camera's rather coarse Auto DR feature.
 
Flysurfer, I thought that David (Soundimageplus) really liked the output of the XP1. Or at least that was my read after a quick skim.

I read somewhere else about the rattle-snaking aperture blade clicking that the 35/1.4 makes. Lee or Fly, can y'all confirm? Thanks.
 
Flysurfer, I thought that David (Soundimageplus) really liked the output of the XP1. Or at least that was my read after a quick skim.

Yep, he really liked his faulty output. Not the camera's fault, mind you.

Here's a OOC Velvia sample I shot last Monday:

7027565299_898c89092f_c.jpg


It's ISO 800, hence DR 400, so the JPEG features full dynamic range. No blown highlights, nice structure in the shadows.

I can still develop the RAW file in Silkypix, though. Yes, it will be 2 stops underexposed (that's the deal with DR 400), but Silkypix will take care of this automatically and display a rather flat and unattractive file at default values:

7027563587_43115e240f_c.jpg


So what I did is changing the development parameters in Silkypix more to my liking for this pic:

7027563901_76c60681f5_c.jpg


Then, I exported a 16 Bit TIFF to Aperture, did some selective NR and RAW pre-sharpening with NIK and finally applied my own film gradation (in this case more like Kodak film, oh the blasphemy!) to get a nice and decent RAW workflow result. It's not rocket science, but it takes a few minutes and it helps if you know what you are doing.

6881466074_3101c83239_c.jpg


Not too shabby, either.

So don't be afraid of DR400/DR200 and ISO800/400. In any case, the camera will still amplify at ISO200, but the RAW will be underexposed (to save the highlights) and needs some recalibration in the shadows and midtones, which most modern RAW converters can handle.

It doesn't matter if you manually underexpose a shot to save the highlights or the camera underexposes it automatically in DR mode. The resulting RAW will be quite the same, the difference may lie in the precision. With experience, you can work more precisely (underexposing to the point, aka ETTR) than the camera with its coarse -1 EV / -2 EV approach. Plus, if you do it manually with DR set to 100, your underexposed JPEGs may be difficult to post process. That's because JPEGs include only 8 bits per color channel, with limited information in the shadows. JPEGs are more or less end products when it comes to gradation, that's why Fuji and most other camera makers offer DR tools to expand the dynamic range for JPEG output. Basically, the camera is doing the grading for you in its internal RAW converter. But you can still do it manually in RAW, as I did with the butterfly.
 
Flysurfer, I thought that David (Soundimageplus) really liked the output of the XP1. Or at least that was my read after a quick skim.

I read somewhere else about the rattle-snaking aperture blade clicking that the 35/1.4 makes. Lee or Fly, can y'all confirm? Thanks.

In spite of whether David's pictures are the best the camera can deliver, I referenced his blog because he is amazed by the image quality. I wa surprised he had bought one because he had previously been somewhat 'unmoved' by the camera.

The 'rattlesnake'. Well, yes there is a noise as the aperture blades adjust to the light - just like on the X100 but a little noisier with the 35mm lens. Apparently the 18 and 60 mm are quieter.

My view on this is that, in and ideal world, I would rather it wasn't there but it is a minor niggle when you realise how wonderful the images are.

Lee
 
Regarding the RAW versus JPEG, whether to use DR or not, I am currently shooting RAW+F with auto-ISO (3200) and auto DR. I am only really shooting the RAWs because I want to see how they will look when supported by LR and also, to try out some of the film simulations after shooting. Most of the time I take the JPEGs because they are so good, especially as Fly says with auto DR.

My biggest issue to date has been trying to get used to the frame lines for the 35mm lens. The camera actually gathers what seems to be more of the scene to the left, right and bottom of the frame lines, not so much more above the top. This has caught me out a bit, especially when shooting landscapes in portrait orientation, where I end up with the shot apparently off-centre with more appearing on the right than I expected.

Of course I could switch to the EVF but that OVF is glorious ...

I think part of my issue may also be the lens hood - it's a good hood but has no 'vents' like the hood for the X100 so you get more blocked. I may try without it for a while.

Lee
 
In spite of whether David's pictures are the best the camera can deliver, I referenced his blog because he is amazed by the image quality. I wa surprised he had bought one because he had previously been somewhat 'unmoved' by the camera.

The 'rattlesnake'. Well, yes there is a noise as the aperture blades adjust to the light - just like on the X100 but a little noisier with the 35mm lens. Apparently the 18 and 60 mm are quieter.

My view on this is that, in and ideal world, I would rather it wasn't there but it is a minor niggle when you realise how wonderful the images are.

Lee

I've already teased David about getting the XP1! Hehe. :)

As for the rattlesnake, I just saw a video on it:

Fujifilm X-Pro1 Aperture Action: too noisy? You make the call... - YouTube

It's the same thing with the use of the Panasonic-Leica 25mm/1.4 on the Olympus Pen m4/3 cameras.
 
I've already teased David about getting the XP1! Hehe. :)

As for the rattlesnake, I just saw a video on it:

Fujifilm X-Pro1 Aperture Action: too noisy? You make the call... - YouTube

It's the same thing with the use of the Panasonic-Leica 25mm/1.4 on the Olympus Pen m4/3 cameras.

I wish I knew how to 'tease' him, or at least get toask him questions/post comments on his blog. If you have another look at his postings today he seems to have found a way to silence the snake!

It really isn't so bad ... I think the X100 was *soooo* quiet ...

Lee
 
Finally got my hands on the X-Pro 1 it's just like an X10 on steroids!
It felt just right and my dealer had the three lenses for sale but I couldn't be tempted at least until that new sensor has been well tested
I'm still looking for an X-Pro 1 type with a short tele lens much like my new G1X (of which I'm slowly growing to like more as I see what it produces ) but those Fuji colours are not the same as Canon colours.

Keep posting the images they look great.
 
Back
Top