Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on January 09, 2012, 04:22:42 pm
-
I guess some one listens!
"No Optical Low-Pass filter. Unique 6X6 colour filter array with quasi-random distribution for elimination of moire and aliasing."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=11823.0
1. I'm not familiar with the process used to manufacture sensors but I always thought a round sensor would allow me to get all the image from a round lens and I could crop any aspect ratio later when processing the RAW file?
2. Since film has a randomness to the silver halide and we are conditioned to seeing that over a lifetime, would there be an advantage to a sensor having say 3, 4 and 6 micron photocells arranged in a pseudo random patern like a latin square (sudoku)?
3. One last thought from a beginners point of view... I wish Digital SLRs had a user interface like a modern aircraft's FMS. A screen with line select keys on each side and an enter button, quick easy and intuitive.
4. One more last thought since I'm new at this, an industry standard for displaying histograms in stops (cameras and software), the audio industry always displays amplitude vs. frequency in octaves.
Marc LUL Aug 16th 2006
It is interesting to note that your eye has discrete R,G,B color receptors (cones) and a lot more B&W receptors (rods) . So, good enough for my eye, good enough for my camera. I’d like to see a R,G,B,L (luminance) sensor in a pseudo random pattern (Latin squares vs. Bayer) w/o an AA filter.
LULU Jan 27th 2008
Marc
I guess my Idea isn't so crazy?
Marc
-
I guess some one listens!
"No Optical Low-Pass filter. Unique 6X6 colour filter array with quasi-random distribution for elimination of moire and aliasing."
Marc,
I guess you should contact them on patent discussions. :D
It sounds like a very interesting camera system as well.
Some points that will have to be confimed first hand:
- Speed/Accuracy of AF,
- Support for this new sensor's approach in non Fuji raw convertors.
Other than that, it sounds like an interesting competitor to the Nex5n/Nex7.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Maybe a stupid question...but why only 16 megapixels?? Why get this camera when one can get the nex 7 with 24 megapixels and probably for a cheaper price? There will hopefully be more Zeiss lenses coming out for the nex7 in the future.....Guess I was just surprised to hear the Fuji sensor is limited in size to 16. Eleanor
-
Maybe a stupid question...but why only 16 megapixels?? Why get this camera when one can get the nex 7 with 24 megapixels and probably for a cheaper price? There will hopefully be more Zeiss lenses coming out for the nex7 in the future.....Guess I was just surprised to hear the Fuji sensor is limited in size to 16. Eleanor
Since this camera is probably targetting street shooting and PJ, 16-18 mp does sound like a good compromise between resolution and high ISO performance doesn't it?
Most reports I have read seem to say that the NEX5n is superior to the NEX7 in absolute image quality at a given print size from ISO1600 and up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This looks very, very interesting. If performance and price is reasonable I'm definitely getting one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gzREBGKUFI
-
[/quote]
I guess you should contact them on patent discussions. :D
Bernard
[/quote]
I would be happy if the industry took this idea and made it a standard, no AA filter and no Moire, everyone wins!
Marc
Now for the extra luminance photosite w/o a light robbing color filter I would be really happy!
-
OK , that would make more sense then in reference to keeping it at 16. Eleanor
Since this camera is probably targetting street shooting and PJ, 16-18 mp does sound like a good compromise between resolution and high ISO performance doesn't it?
Most reports I have read seem to say that the NEX5n is superior to the NEX7 in absolute image quality at a given print size from ISO1600 and up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Now for the extra luminance photosite w/o a light robbing color filter I would be really happy!
Kodak devised several patterns like this back in 2007. A good summary is in
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2007/6/14/kodakhighsens#press
-
... It is interesting to note that your eye has discrete R,G,B color receptors (cones) and a lot more B&W receptors (rods) . So, good enough for my eye, good enough for my camera. I’d like to see a R,G,B,L (luminance) sensor ...
LULU Jan 27th 2008
Marc
R, G, B, L - is an older idea from Kodak (2007 or earlier) : http://pluggedin.kodak.com/pluggedin/post/?id=624876
-
but why only 16 megapixels??
is it really authentic Fuji designed silicone (and somewhere else fab'd) or it is Sony 16mp chip w/ Fuji CFA...
-
Maybe a stupid question...but why only 16 megapixels?? Why get this camera when one can get the nex 7 with 24 megapixels and probably for a cheaper price? There will hopefully be more Zeiss lenses coming out for the nex7 in the future.....Guess I was just surprised to hear the Fuji sensor is limited in size to 16. Eleanor
My understanding, (and trust me, I'm not a technical person) is that by eliminating the low pass filter the 16 mp sensor performs more like a 20-22 mp sensor.
Bob
-
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/sample_images/img/index/ff_x_pro1_005.JPG
Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AUTO
Image Size 4896 x 3264
Sensitivity ISO 200
Dynamic Range 100%
Aperture f/8.0
Shutter Speed 1/6
Lens Focal Length 35.0mm
White Balance AUTO
Film simulation PROVIA
-
Here is the main sample page
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/sample_images/
Have a good feeling about this camera (and Lenses!)...
-
My understanding, (and trust me, I'm not a technical person) is that by eliminating the low pass filter the 16 mp sensor performs more like a 20-22 mp sensor.
Bob
+1
-
Here is the main sample page
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/sample_images/
Is it just me or is the first sample (landscape) plain awful? Just look at how unsharp the tree line is... :-(
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/sample_images/img/index/ff_x_pro1_002.JPG
This is shot at f10 so a lot is probably diffraction, but the moon seems sharper. At 18mm it should have been possible to get both mostly sharp at f5.6 considering the distance, and I would definitely want to focus on the trees.
This is not a comment about the camera that I am sure can do way better that this, but how on earth can you release such sample images? I happened to take a very similar scene last Saturday with a J1 casually put on top of a fence at a slight angle and managed to get a critically sharp image in less than 30 seconds...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm with Bernard on this. Is anyone checking these images before posting?
That macro shot of the flower is just awful. However, I'm hoping this camera works if for no other reason than to upstage Leica and their elitist ridiculous digital M prices.
-
It does look and sound like it should be a great camera but those sample images are questionable.
I'm with you loving a real alternative to the Leica arrogance. I used to work with a very extensive R system when it was viable and loved the image quality but once I was making money with it I got my investment out and have never looked back. The large format Fujinon glass I used along side my Rodenstock, Nikor and Schneiders was always exceptional so I know they can make a lens as well as anyone. We just need the camera and this one may be it.
-
I'm with Bernard on this. Is anyone checking these images before posting?
That macro shot of the flower is just awful. However, I'm hoping this camera works if for no other reason than to upstage Leica and their elitist riduculous digital M prices.
That photograph was shot at f1.4. Good idea? No. Bad lens/camera combo? Hard to say from that picture.
Hobby horse: park.
-
Is it just me or is the first sample (landscape) plain awful? Just look at how unsharp the tree line is... :-(
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/sample_images/img/index/ff_x_pro1_002.JPG
This is shot at f10 so a lot is probably diffraction, but the moon seems sharper. At 18mm it should have been possible to get both mostly sharp at f5.6 considering the distance, and I would definitely want to focus on the trees.
This is not a comment about the camera that I am sure can do way better that this, but how on earth can you release such sample images? I happened to take a very similar scene last Saturday with a J1 casually put on top of a fence at a slight angle and managed to get a critically sharp image in less than 30 seconds...
Cheers,
Bernard
Who knows for sure, could be the wind? I already like this camera and lenses, if only for the innovation...
-
That photograph was shot at f1.4. Good idea? No. Bad lens/camera combo? Hard to say from that picture.
Hobby horse: park.
For a shot taken at f1.4 it is actaully quite good, with good focus on the stamens.
-
Is anybody here actually using one of these?
I've seen somebody's results from the X-10 or 100, or whatever the code of the Leica look-like, but hadn't even heard of this model until now! I see reference to the Leica world of photos - is this camera in that sort of price league - can't seem to find a price listed for it?
My interest? If it's small and light and cheap enough, could be a great alternative to the cellphone, that though wildly frustrating is eventually good enough for fun - which is all the snapping I seem do these days - then perhaps it's an option. Didn't really take to the 10/100 I've seen.
Rob C
-
No AA is the differentiator for me, but the current focal lengths do not appeal. Could be a killer with a 24–70-equivalent fast zoom and something in the 12 to 14mm range.
-
Who knows for sure, could be the wind? I already like this camera and lenses, if only for the innovation...
It can be many things... but why use this as the first sample on their web page??? ???
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It can be many things... but why use this as the first sample on their web page??? ???
Cheers,
Bernard
Honestly, I see this kind of shoddy samples from most manufacturers, and they're rarely indicative of the actual quality. If I was the marketing director over at Fuji I would have given the camera to Steve McCurry and payed him to make some nice samples.
-
Honestly, I see this kind of shoddy samples from most manufacturers, and they're rarely indicative of the actual quality. If I was the marketing director over at Fuji I would have given the camera to Steve McCurry and payed him to make some nice samples.
Yeah, I agree. It seems very common for some first samples from manufacturers to tend towards lame. In addition, there can be some hyper pixel-peeping (perhaps understandable for an exciting camera/lens launch) that rushes to judgement either to bash something, or to justify their current gear. The X100 had some iffy commentary on samples in the first days. Not much whining now.
Let's give it a while.
-
Someone in Hong Kong already tested the X Pro 1. You can see high ISO shots he made from his flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26706225@N08/
-
Honestly, I see this kind of shoddy samples from most manufacturers, and they're rarely indicative of the actual quality. If I was the marketing director over at Fuji I would have given the camera to Steve McCurry and payed him to make some nice samples.
And how would that solve the problem? Any camera can make nice images in the hands of the right people--that does not reflect the quality of the machine anymore than the sample they have shown. As a customer, I don't want to have to start paying for more marketing.
-
Maybe a stupid question...but why only 16 megapixels?? Why get this camera when one can get the nex 7 with 24 megapixels and probably for a cheaper price? There will hopefully be more Zeiss lenses coming out for the nex7 in the future.....Guess I was just surprised to hear the Fuji sensor is limited in size to 16. Eleanor
In addition to the other replies, there's more to IQ than megapixels, and many of us hope that the race for more MPs for MPs sake is forsaken.
-
Does anyone know whether these new lenses have an image circle big enough for full-frame? I would love this camera concept if it went full-frame. I'd be all over it.
-
Does anyone know whether these new lenses have an image circle big enough for full-frame? I would love this camera concept if it went full-frame. I'd be all over it.
Sorry, no. The design is a very short flange distance and optics look sized for the format.
-
I'd be all over it if it had a swivel screen and a pop-up flash like the Nex 7.
Eduardo
I'd be all over it.
-
... and many of us hope that the race for more MPs for MPs sake is forsaken.
All other things being equal, you can never be too thin, too rich or have too many pixels ;)
-
All other things being equal, you can never be too thin, too rich or have too many pixels ;)
Wrong on the first count, Slobodan: I find spending a couple of hours on the swivel chair at the computer knocks the hell out of my legs and circulation, to the extent that I believe I risk death every time I work here. I have two cushions on it and they just compress and solve very little. Maybe I need a tailored ballon for sitting upon. Added weight isn't going to happen: I never was able to put it on.
;-(
Rob C
-
Isn't it a bit on the expensive side (1700$ it seems), for an APS-C camera? It looks very nice, and I used to have an old M6 with a nice 50/2, that I loved, but ultimately sold, so I'm a bit nostalgic for a camera with rangefinder looks and kind-of-rangefinder functionality. But still, a bit on the expensive side for me. Very interested in that new sensor though, looking forward to the reviews (not the rants).
-
I must agree with the comment that if the Fuji lenses are only for APSC sensor, then it really locks one in. It is only a matter of time before we see full frame mirrlorless compact cameras. Fortuanately, it looks like Fuji had the forsight to think about legacy lens use; I have older Olympus/Nikon/ Contax glass that is waiting for the NEX7 or this Fuji. I hope Michael does a direct comparison of the NEX7 with the Fuji X Pro 1 with one of his Leica lenses.....I am sure many would like to see this.
-
I must agree with the comment that if the Fuji lenses are only for APSC sensor, then it really locks one in. It is only a matter of time before we see full frame mirrlorless compact cameras. Fortuanately, it looks like Fuji had the forsight to think about legacy lens use; I have older Olympus/Nikon/ Contax glass that is waiting for the NEX7 or this Fuji. I hope Michael does a direct comparison of the NEX7 with the Fuji X Pro 1 with one of his Leica lenses.....I am sure many would like to see this.
Is your old glass for an slr? If so, how will it function of a rangefinder body? I've also got some manual Nikkors I love, but I'm sure they'd be useless on anything but another reflex.
Rob C
-
Is your old glass for an slr? If so, how will it function of a rangefinder body? I've also got some manual Nikkors I love, but I'm sure they'd be useless on anything but another reflex.
Rob C
The SLR lenses have a long registration distance to account for the mirror box. Theoretically, they could have been used on rangefinder cameras with the appropriate spacing, but there would have been no way to judge focus. In the mirrorless+EVF world, most SLR lenses will work with an appropriate adapter, including your old Nikkors. Of course, rangefinder lenses are mostly useless on DSLRs due to the short registration distance, except for the use of mirror lockup to clear the mirror box from the lens mount on the rangefinder lens.
-
As the owner of a Fuji X100, I find myself uninterested in the X pro1.
Not because of anything in the announced hardware, but because of months of frustration with Fuji's awful firmware and poorly implemented digital controls. The X100 would have been a great camera if the firmware was better conceived, and if it was possible to hit the centre button of the multi-selector without inadvertently pressing one of the side buttons. Oh - and if the various dials weren't suceptible to turning when the thing is in a pocket. Oh - and if it had an ISO dial. Although Fuji has released a couple of minor firmware revisions to the X100, it remains poorly designed and buggy.
I don't see Fuji getting those things right on the X pro1. If they don't, it will be like the X100 - a camera you can't rely on. Occasionally brilliant, and with the potential to be great, but not a camera you can trust to get the money shot. The X100 fills a niche that made it worthwhile for me, but if I want interchangeable lenses, I'll reach for a camera that I can trust.
If Fuji were to outsource their firmware development, they might have a chance of producing a great product, but I think that they are committed to their internal firmware department, and their firmware developers are firmly committed to mediocrity.
-
As the owner of a Fuji X100, I find myself uninterested in the X pro1.
Not because of anything in the announced hardware, but because of months of frustration with Fuji's awful firmware and poorly implemented digital controls. The X100 would have been a great camera if the firmware was better conceived, and if it was possible to hit the centre button of the multi-selector without inadvertently pressing one of the side buttons. Oh - and if the various dials weren't suceptible to turning when the thing is in a pocket. Oh - and if it had an ISO dial. Although Fuji has released a couple of minor firmware revisions to the X100, it remains poorly designed and buggy.
I don't see Fuji getting those things right on the X pro1. If they don't, it will be like the X100 - a camera you can't rely on. Occasionally brilliant, and with the potential to be great, but not a camera you can trust to get the money shot. The X100 fills a niche that made it worthwhile for me, but if I want interchangeable lenses, I'll reach for a camera that I can trust.
If Fuji were to outsource their firmware development, they might have a chance of producing a great product, but I think that they are committed to their internal firmware department, and their firmware developers are firmly committed to mediocrity.
I have the X100 as well and I do agree with you on many points. The camera has its weaknesses, but I have adapted fairly well, right now my only issue is the, in my opinion, unusable manual focus.
Regarding the X Pro 1, I really think this is the next logic step for Fuji and I am really happy to see that they have taken into consideration the complex menu system in and buttons on x100 when designing the X Pro 1. It shows that they listen to the users and they are serious about making a quality camera.
Right now I am planing to keep my X100, it is smaller and the lens fits my needs very well (for all around uses). But I am very curious about peoples reaction to the X Pro 1 when people get experience with it, I am very open to change my mind and upgrade.
-
The SLR lenses have a long registration distance to account for the mirror box. Theoretically, they could have been used on rangefinder cameras with the appropriate spacing, but there would have been no way to judge focus. In the mirrorless+EVF world, most SLR lenses will work with an appropriate adapter, including your old Nikkors. Of course, rangefinder lenses are mostly useless on DSLRs due to the short registration distance, except for the use of mirror lockup to clear the mirror box from the lens mount on the rangefinder lens.
Yes, I know, but using the slr lenses with the greater back-focus distance, how will they ever focus fully with a body that has a short back-focus distance? How do you bring them near enough to the film sensor?
Rob C
-
If the competition is not worried, they should.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/sample_images/img/index/ff_x_pro1_003.JPG
Eduardo
-
I downloaded those Fuji sample images and did a DRASTIC highlight/shadow adjustment for the shadows and it's quite simply amazing how noise free the shadows are on these images, even with them pumped open beyond anything I would ever do.
I'm definitely going to consider buying one of these...
*steve
-
Looks like the same awful af system an terrible laggy fly by wire focus ring, the sensor might be nice but if you can't focus it's not too much use.
-
Yes, I know, but using the slr lenses with the greater back-focus distance, how will they ever focus fully with a body that has a short back-focus distance? How do you bring them near enough to the film sensor?
Rob C
Maybe I misunderstood your question?
The Nikon has a registration distance (distance from mount to sensor) of 46.50mm. The Sony E-mount bodies have a registration distance of 18mm. If you add a spacer to go from 18mm to 46.50mm, you can mount your Nikkor lenses on the E-mount bodies and have them focus as they would normally. I'd expect the same to be true of the Fuji.
Note also that the reason you can put Nikon lenses on Canon cameras, but not the other way around, is because the Canon has a shorter registration distance.
-
Maybe I misunderstood your question?
The Nikon has a registration distance (distance from mount to sensor) of 46.50mm. The Sony E-mount bodies have a registration distance of 18mm. If you add a spacer to go from 18mm to 46.50mm, you can mount your Nikkor lenses on the E-mount bodies and have them focus as they would normally. I'd expect the same to be true of the Fuji.
Note also that the reason you can put Nikon lenses on Canon cameras, but not the other way around, is because the Canon has a shorter registration distance.
I also notice that my last sentence was misleading, even to myself! Not closer, but further away is what's required. I suppose a spacer would do it - a bit of a pointless thing in the end, because by using slr glass you lose the benefits of dedicated rf lens designs. In which case, it all becomes a sort of false economy, I suppose.
Regarding Nik to Can conversions, doesn't Can also have a wider throat than Nik? That alone would put hellish obstacles in the way of the opposite interchange!
I suppose it's a route I won't be travelling.
Rob C
-
Looks like the same awful af system an terrible laggy fly by wire focus ring, the sensor might be nice but if you can't focus it's not too much use.
Maybe, but I think I'll await some comprehensive reviews, especially user reviews. I am not convinced there is enough evidence out there for a conclusion. Even when the reviews are out, I'll try one anyway because I know my specific needs. AF measurements have never helped me much - I want to know if it will work for what and how I shoot. Fuji are openly claiming that the AF is much faster than the X100.
-
Looks like the same awful af system an terrible laggy fly by wire focus ring, the sensor might be nice but if you can't focus it's not too much use.
If that's the case, just put a leica or any other M-mount lens on it.
-
Looks like the same awful af system an terrible laggy fly by wire focus ring, the sensor might be nice but if you can't focus it's not too much use.
I suppose if you count classifying it as the same type "contrast detect" as the x100 and a few hundred other cameras out there..
As a x100 user I tend to agree the AF needs to be suitable for more types of photography than is the x100. The x100's autofocus isn't "terrible", it's outstanding for certain types of photography, okay for other types, and mehhh for others.
Perceptions are funny. I loaned my x100 to a friend who took it to China for 4-5 weeks and he constantly complained about the AF. I didn't think it was that bad, but I had just did that major firmware update before I sent it out without testing it, so I was eager to get it back to see if maybe the firmware update had some detrimental effect. Most of his images weren't OOF.. but they were soft. Once I had it back I used it for 2-3 outings and my images were sharp.. same sort of shooting, same type of subjects. There is an obvious discrepancy between our images. This guy isn't an inexperienced photographer either, but I do believe if I was standing next to him I'd be able to pick out why he was getting soft images with the same type of shots I was getting sharp images from. It's a huge guess, but I'd guess this is probably true for the 50% of users who are okay with the x100's AF and the 50% who aren't.
And obviously it's not suitable for several types of photography..
Before I had the x100 I had the NEX-5 and 10+ other PNS cameras.. and I felt there was a void. The x100 filled about 90% of that void. Everyone's void (needs) is different. The XPro1 is an exciting camera, but I no longer have that void to fill.. or as much of it. So I can afford to sit back and wait for the reviews and user reports to come in. If the XPro1 fills the void 98-100% then I'll look at the price, the functions the x100 doesn't have, and make a decision.
What I don't expect it to do, is to replace my DSLR's. I use these professionally and they need to be suitable for a wide variety of photographic needs. I don't expect the XPro1 to be that capable. I doubt any camera of this type will be that capable. This means the XPro1 fills the void for personal use. And frankly the x100 does a really good job of that.. it fills that void 90%.
Yet, I really like the XPro1 concept and I'm sure most x100 owners do as well. Fuji has to know that we'll be watching to see 'how much' better the XPro1 is than the x100. Interchangeable lenses alone won't cut it. It will need to be a complete camera with no major issues. At this price point autofocus will need to be one of the best out there on cameras of this type. Manual focus as well. Fuji knows this, and they know the XPro1 will most likely be a failure if they don't correct the issue. I would hope they're not that blind.
-
This camera will be great if they fix the three major things that bug me with the X-100
* the slow wake up from sleep. This is not excusable in this day and age, when every cheap DSLR is instant shoot ready
* if they have a more sane button selection. Not having a dedicated ISO button but this ridiculous RAW button then I am already more happy. What I can see they fixed the very bad select button and wheel configuration. One of the most frustrating things. I also hope they use the jog dial more. That one is heavy underused on the X100
* and if they have a better firmware. It is just annoying to go for all the settings you often need into sub sub menus (AF spot/multi, ND filter, etc) because you cannot have a personal menu and there is only one custom button available.
As much as I love the quality of the images from the X100, the usability is beyond bad. But let's wait until there is purchasable model and some proper reviews.
-
Ultimate hipster camera. There I said it. I have seen more Fuji X cameras draped on shoulders like fashion accessories. Not to say that it is a bad camera or incapable of taking great pictures. As a serious photography tool... not so much. It was not meant to be one. If it was there wouldn't have been a need to make it look so much like an M camera. Its main selling point is a connection to nostalgia.
I will end saying that I think mirrorless cameras will be the way to go in the future. The Fuji X pro1 is not that future.
-
uh, some Leica fanboy throws a hissy fit. I had this confrontations. I really have no idea why. I take awesome pictures with my X100 without spending 10.000$ on some camera gear.
And looking like Leica? I could also say it looks like a Bessa rangefinder, or a Zeiss one or an old Nikon or any old rangefinder. Leica has no patent on rangefinder design.
-
Looks a little like an X-Pan....hmmm, there's the "X" factor again. I'd be very happy if it /felt/ like an X-Pan.
-
...a forerunner perhaps?
Interesting thought, Keith; do you think they'll ever make something called an X-Pan?
Now, if they were to get in touch with Hasselblad, do some co-operative deal on names...who knows what might happen! Visually, could even be a sort of longish version of other rangefinder 135 film cameras. I'm sure it would find a home with landscape photographers. And with a short range of additional lenses...
The future will tell.
;-)
Rob C
-
Maybe, but I think I'll await some comprehensive reviews, especially user reviews. I am not convinced there is enough evidence out there for a conclusion. Even when the reviews are out, I'll try one anyway because I know my specific needs. AF measurements have never helped me much - I want to know if it will work for what and how I shoot. Fuji are openly claiming that the AF is much faster than the X100.
The videos by the fuji guys and one user (lots of red af fail boxes) make it look like exactly the same system, plus there is no mention of AF changes in any of the releases just a dubious comment by a marketing person. I have an X100 and it's a great camera with a terrible focusing system, the af area is so big it's often impossible to know what it's focused on. On top of all this, there is no mention or demo of focus peaking for manual focus use/use with M lenses.
This camera could have been great but will probably get all the same criticisms levelled at it that the X100 did, at least they moved auto ISO into the ISO menu though ;)
-
I have an X100 and it's a great camera with a terrible focusing system, the af area is so big it's often impossible to know what it's focused on.
You've tried reducing the size of the AF area? The x100 is the only camera I know of which offers this feature. You can see the size changing (to very small) in the EVF, but you'll need to visualize the change in the optical..
-
...a forerunner perhaps?
That's what I was wondering...obviously Fuji know how to make a 35mm camera that feels very nice. I don't know if those Fujiblads were very reliable, but they certainly felt good.
-
Ignore the bit around 4 minutes 50 seconds when he is in Macro mode...
At 4 Min 55 secs onwards he starts focus tests in normal mode...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ChjzvHPOq4
-
It seems the camera live view freezes while the camera focuses and so some of the red (assume failed to focus) boxes come up if the camera has moved while the focus was attempted. It seems getting it to focus will need a steady hand.. I have not used this type but it appeared to be what was happening then.. Hopefully in real world conditions that will not be an issues for the intended users...
-
Mini review:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clubulfoto.com%2Ffuji-x-pro-1-impresii-hands-on%2F&act=url
-
From photos of the body, it looks like the shutter release might have a socket for a cable release, but I can't tell for sure. Anybody know? I do street work with the camera hanging at chest level with cable attached. I was considering the Leica for this reason, but i'm happy to spend less if I can get that capability.
Merrill
-
They also know how to make medium format SLR and range finder cameras and medium and large format lenses.
... And skin-care cosmetics!
Wait a sec! Now that's (i.e., all of the abave) perhaps the reason they survived the demise of film, and Kodak didn't?
-
From photos of the body, it looks like the shutter release might have a socket for a cable release, but I can't tell for sure. Anybody know? I do street work with the camera hanging at chest level with cable attached. I was considering the Leica for this reason, but i'm happy to spend less if I can get that capability.
Merrill
Hi - yes, it can use a cable, same as the X100.
-
You've tried reducing the size of the AF area? The x100 is the only camera I know of which offers this feature. You can see the size changing (to very small) in the EVF, but you'll need to visualize the change in the optical..
Yes, the focus area on it's smallest size in EVF would be tolerable but it seems to have no effect on the OVF size and for some reason known only to fuji, AFS is smaller than manual. This means I have to use a (not great) EVF if I want critical focus which, given the fanfare about the OVF, isn't really how I want or expected to use the camera.
-
Yes, the focus area on it's smallest size in EVF would be tolerable but it seems to have no effect on the OVF size and for some reason known only to fuji, AFS is smaller than manual. This means I have to use a (not great) EVF if I want critical focus which, given the fanfare about the OVF, isn't really how I want or expected to use the camera.
The smallest size in EVF is a great deal smaller than any of my DSLR's so I consider it a nice option to have.
I might be imaging this.. but I think when you adjust the size of the EVF AF points it also changes the 'effective' size in the OVF as well, but not the displayed size. The EVF has the capability of changing the displayed AF point size while the OVF doesn't. So I center the OVF AF point and it seems to me it limits the size to what you see in the EVF.
Anyone know about this for sure?
-
Some images from a guy who managed to get hold of A X1 Pro.
http://brandonremler.blogspot.com/2012/02/fujifilm-x-pro1-first-day-stroll.html
-
Some images from a guy who managed to get hold of A X1 Pro.
http://brandonremler.blogspot.com/2012/02/fujifilm-x-pro1-first-day-stroll.html
Well, those photos looked pretty horrible, but there's no point in judging small compressed jpegs on a wewbsite. Until we have RAW files from the actual production camera and supported by ACR or other major converters these things are pointless.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TOk_0kITBg&feature=player_embedded
This guy was happy with the AF.
-
For whatever they are worth this website (Russian) has the raw files. Now got to wait for ACR or LR to become capable of processing them.
http://prophotos.ru/reviews/14697-fujifilm-x-pro1-obzor-kamery
-
Or don't. Silkypix and RAWTherapee are already able to decode them.
-
RT is able to decode but none of it's demosaicing algorithms is able to process files correctly and you will see funny pattern in 1:1 magnification.
-
I hope the sensor technology will be different from that of the X10... because this doesn't sound very good...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3340468423/fujifilm-x10-orbs-investigated-does-the-firmware-fix-work
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I hope the sensor technology will be different from that of the X10... because this doesn't sound very good...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3340468423/fujifilm-x10-orbs-investigated-does-the-firmware-fix-work
Looks like Fuji is indeed set to out-do Leica, even when it comes to epic technical failures at launch.
-
I hope the sensor technology will be different from that of the X10... because this doesn't sound very good...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3340468423/fujifilm-x10-orbs-investigated-does-the-firmware-fix-work
The technology is different, but both are experiments with CMOS (new to Fujifilm, after it efforts with SuperCDD) and with non-standard CFA's, requiring new demosaicing algorithms for one thing. The X10 also has a diagonal arrangement of the photosites, whereas the X1 has a standard square grid layout, so the X1 might well avoid some of the X10's problems.
For now, Fujifilm has my gratitude for its ongoing wilingness to experiment with sensor technologies, but as with the Panasonic collapsing 14-42x lens, I am going to wait and see if they can sort out the bugs, which might mean waiting for the next hardware updates.
P. S. considering Fujifim's experiments, and the sensor and focusing and VF design innitiatives seen in recent years from Sony, Nikon, Panasonic and Olympus, it seems that Canon has become the most conservative, incremental refiner of its technologies. That could be a safe position for a market leader (see what works and use your great resources to copy quickly), or a dangerous miss (c. f. RIM and its Blackberry phones.)
-
For now, Fujifilm has my gratitude for its ongoing wilingness to experiment with sensor technologies, but as with the Panasonic collapsing 14-42x lens, I am going to wait and see if they can sort out the bugs, which might mean waiting for the next hardware updates.
I am in a similar position.
As an engineer, I have a lot of respect for their endeavors.
As a photographer I'll wait until they come up with something that works. The looks of the camera are nice but such issues are simply a no go, it feels like going back to the Kodak 14n days... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I played aroud for a short while and was not that impressed. First the camera is trying hard to be like a Leica - which is not necessary, really. To mimicking Leica, the camera is oversized for what it can be, I think it would be a better camera if it is smaller, but bigger than X-100. The technology will allow the X Pro-1 be smaller, but I think Fuji follow something wrong. HIstorically Leica M arrived at the size through slow development, there are pre M3 Leica that are smaller, and M3 and the following models arrived at a size due to many factors, many were mechnical factors, so Leica was all along trying to be simple, efficient, and elegant, and then they became Leica.
What Fuji did was Leica the Konica, they try to be Leica, rather than staying simple, elegant and efficient (in use). I think Japanese maker needs to be something of their own DNA.
Image quality? Really I am not that concern, not because I don't care the quality but I think into 2012 all the cameras of this level will perform rather well, I am more interested at NEX7 or a bigger camera like D800 or coming 5DX or even bigger pro models because I am already accustomed to them and have range of lenses available.
Final note, I think the exterior of Pro-1 was rather emptied not that I don't like simple but Fuji seemed to have hard time getting all the function onto the camera in a more balanced way, the camera looks missing something. The viewfinder is a mess to me, I am rather confused on how it work and how to indeed focused, may be it is just me, but this is considered the 3rd model from Fuji on this X series, it is not a great camera to use for me.
Pingang
-
I am a X100 owner, and I took a quick look at the X-Pro 1.
Personally I like it, it feels really well in your hand, the buttons are better than X100, there is finally a quick menu, no more stupid RAW button and the AF selector is way better than the toggle switch.
My only horrible downer was the worse viewfinder, honestly, darker and smaller, compared to the X100.
The massive wow moment came with almost instant on, or rather instant on, I didn't feel any lag. That is on from off. I wasn't able to try on from sleep, but if on from power off is so fast, on from sleep will be as fast.
And to anyone: Stop comparing ANY camera that only looks like a rangefinder to a Leica. Nobody takes your precious Leicas away, nobody.
http://clemens-and.nihongonauts.com/post/18377857955/a-second-with-the-x-pro-1
-
EVF or optical?
In general, the EVF is probably the same, but I never use it, the OVF just looks smaller and darker. And I have no idea why.
-
I have had this for a week now, and like it. At the moment the lenses are 18 and 35mm, 60mm macro coming.
- Takes some practice to focus with the optical viewfinder: missed focus spots until you learn to "lead" depending on the approximated focus distance.
- Not a sports camera, it has different aesthetic from a (D)SLR. Artsy feel. Has given me some enthusiasm back after 34 years as a working pro.
- SHARP and no moire. I have made two quick comparisons against 5DII with 35 mm on X-Pro1 and 50mm f:1.4 and 50mm macro on Canon: 1) resolution is equal even if the other is APS-C at 16 MPix and the other is FF 21 Mpix. I tested only 200 ISO, but Canon is noisier. 2) 35mm f:1.4 Fujinon is amazingly and perfectly sharp even at f:1.4 and no color fringing. I had to check the EXIF to see which shot was f:1.4 and which f:8. Canon 50 mm 1.4 was just awful full open, total s***, compared.
I never had a "real" Leica, only (Minolta) CL, Contax G1 & G2 and various Bessas. Now I have no Leica envy anymore.
-
I'm really tempted but a couple of things are putting me off...
1. Reports of the image freezing as focus is acquired, that's something my Panasonic MFT doesn't do. I'll be using the EVF mostly I'd have thought.
2. Lens chatter.
I really want this camera to get an almost universal clean bill of health as the chances of my trying before buying are pretty remote. There's one local camera shop and I doubt they'll have stock anytime in the short to medium term.
I've bought my last three cameras based on internet reviews and online feedback from users but at the moment although people are saying nice things about the image quality I'm not confident to take the plunge on £2k+ of kit.