Fuji X pro1

[Rob C]

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

[mediumcool]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[amsp]

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.

[Pelao]

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.

[K1D27H]

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/

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[feppe]

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.

[LKaven]

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.

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[uaiomex]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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

[Rob C]

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

[ChristianRandwijk]

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).

[Mike Schultz]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[LKaven]

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. 

[JohnHeerema]

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.

[EgillBjarki]

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.

[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. 

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