New Fuji X Pro 1 Lenses

[mas55101]

From what I've been reading, the new Fuji looks to be close to what I want.  My major question though, is how well the focus by wire works. I remember totally hating the G1 rangefinders about 10 years ago.  Do DSLR's use fbw (focus by wire) or is that a different technology?

I wish the 23mm (35mm eq) were coming out in the first batch of lenses.

Thanks.
Michael

[RazorTM]

Some of Canon's lenses use focus by wire.  Examples include the 85mm f/1.2L and 85mm f/1.2L II, 50mm f/1.0L, 200mm f/1.8L and others.

The problem with the X-Pro1, in my opinion, is the viewfinder parallax without any accurate way to manually focus.  You have to either autofocus or use the autofocus points for focus confirmation.  Or, worse, switch to the electronic viewfinder.  The X-Pro1 should have been a rangefinder from the start, not just a camera in the same style.

[Dennishh]

Not good I'm afraid. http://vladdodan.ro/blog/fuji-x-pro-1-hands-on-preview/

[K1D27H]

From what I've been reading, the new Fuji looks to be close to what I want.  My major question though, is how well the focus by wire works. I remember totally hating the G1 rangefinders about 10 years ago.  Do DSLR's use fbw (focus by wire) or is that a different technology?

I wish the 23mm (35mm eq) were coming out in the first batch of lenses.

Thanks.
Michael

If the 23mm comes out in the first batch, then the usefulness of X100 would have been reduced to the leaf shutter and its size, does not sound good when there are another 10k units of black X100 coming out.

[nightfire]

Not good I'm afraid. http://vladdodan.ro/blog/fuji-x-pro-1-hands-on-preview/

Just when I was about to salivate and forget the basics, it was heartbreaking to be reminded by the practical example of the DOF difference between full-frame and this "Leica contender" again.

What good is the claim of "outresolving a 21MP full-frame sensor" (Fuji) if the soul of the image is lost?

[amsp]

Just when I was about to salivate and forget the basics, it was heartbreaking to be reminded by the practical example of the DOF difference between full-frame and this "Leica contender" again.

What good is the claim of "outresolving a 21MP full-frame sensor" (Fuji) if the soul of the image is lost?

+1 Why in the world didn't they release a real full-frame competitively priced alternative to the M9, it would have sold like hotcakes.

[uaiomex]

Because Fuji is a Leica fanboy. 
Eduardo

+1 Why in the world didn't they release a real full-frame competitively priced alternative to the M9, it would have sold like hotcakes.

[BJL]

+1 Why in the world didn't they release a real full-frame competitively priced alternative to the M9, it would have sold like hotcakes.

Probably because that super-sizing of the sensor adds a thousand dollars or more to the price (compare prices between good APS-C DSLR's and even the cheapest of the 35mm format DSLRs), which would make them very expensive and rather slow selling hot-cakes. And with this pseudo-rangefinder style less mainstream than SLRs, and so likely to sell in lower volumes than 35mm format DSLR's, the price would be even higher ... I would guess $3000 or more.

[EgillBjarki]

I for one think that this new Fuji camera is a good addition to what is out there. I think they did a very good job with the X100 and looks like they also did with X Pro 1 as well. There is always room for improvement, but I think that it is obvious that Fuji listened to the users of X100 when designing the X Pro 1 when it come to menu construction and buttons placement and functions.

It irritates me to read about all the negative stuff people are writing about both the X100 and X Pro 1. Fuji just made a really compact, very well performing and beautifully designed rangefinder camera, I seriously don't think that there is that much to cry about.

[Rob C]

+1 Why in the world didn't they release a real full-frame competitively priced alternative to the M9, it would have sold like hotcakes.

That's exactly what I have been asking, but about Nikon: they already had the expertise in rangefinder cameras of very high quality levels back in the 50s and 60s. Sheeesh, what a wasted opportunity to have go at Leica's leg!

Their skills, their FF sensors and a realistic price - wham! bam! clean-up time!

Rob C

[nightfire]

Thats exactly what I have been asking, but about Nikon: they already had the expertise in rangefinder cameras of very high quality levels back in the 50s and 60s. Sheeesh, what a wasted opportunity to have go at Leica's leg!

Sometimes I can't help but wonder how surreal all of this is. I mean, before digital... we all shot full-frame, right? I made great bokeh shots with my father's Canon A-1 and his 50/1.4 lens when I was 10! (actually, not because of my artistic genius, but because I knew nothing about aperture and therefore always left the setting at f/1.4  )

Fast-forward to 2012, and look at how we're struggling to get back the same kind of creative control, ergonomic design, and performance which was taken for granted only decades ago. We all go ooohh and aaahh at APSC cameras while forgetting that from a creative point of view, these are barely better than the 110-type film cameras of yesteryear. And we all dream of "upgrading" and scraping together our savings one day for the next big thing (be it full-frame, or even just a working, well-designed camera without bugs) - something I already walked around with when I was a child. I know, I know, the comparison is flawed, today's cameras give us HD video and what not, but still - stepping back , I can't help but wonder what else we did strictly from a user, not a technology point of view in the last 10 years, except for going full-circle... 

[Rob C]

Sometimes I can't help but wonder how surreal all of this is.

I know, the comparison is flawed, today's cameras give us HD video and what not, but still - stepping back , I can't help but wonder what else we did strictly from a user, not a technology point of view in the last 10 years, except for going full-circle... 

They told us some decades ago in the title of this song: I'm Wallking Backwards for Christmas

I never was a camera club kind of chap - joined one once in my late teens and had the very bad experience of getting framed for something I knew nothing about (no pun etc.) and I have distrusted clubs ever since. But anyway, I think the difference today is that special interest clubs and groups can attract the huge number of theoretical photographers for whom the social side of the thing is where the importance lies, not in the doing of much photography.  Where else can people chat endlessly about cameras, lenses, and now with digital, all the paraphernalia that's been spawned to make the enterprise more complex, expensive and open to cynical marketing ploys than film photography ever could be? I expect a majority of wives wouldn't see participation in said chat as part of any marriage vows, implied or explicit, so where to go other than clubs and chat rooms? And once there, the modern world supplies all the fodder they need and then some! Snow for the masses.

Rob C

[BJL]

Sometimes I can't help but wonder how surreal all of this is. ...We all go ooohh and aaahh at APSC cameras while forgetting that from a creative point of view, these are barely better than the 110-type film cameras of yesteryear.

Sometimes I can't help but wonder how surreal it is that so many photography forum posters equate "photographic creativity" so overwhelmingly with "most of the image blurred by OOF effects by using fast primes wide open". It seems to me that in the totality of great photography done with film formats 35mm and up, low f-stops like f/1.4 account for only a small fraction. And if, like me, you do not consider soft-focus posed portraits to be particularly great or creative, the fraction is even lower.

Perhaps as a child, someone should have told you "f/8 and be there" --- then something between f/4 and f/5.6 gives the same DOF with most of today's system cameras (f/3 for Nikon One), and even staying at f/8 allow far higher shutter speeds, so either way you greatly expand the variety of creative opportunities, particularly when subject motion or low light are factors.

[BernardLanguillier]

Sometimes I can't help but wonder how surreal it is that so many photography forum posters equate "photographic creativity" so overwhelmingly with "most of the image blurred by OOF effects by using fast primes wide open".

Funny, I had the exact same reaction when reading the post above. 

Now, it is probably true that, unless you are really into optimizing landscape images, the FF cameras deliver some of the widest array of options in terms of DoF control though. You can make things look reasonnably sharp at f16 (again forgetting about diffraction for a second).

If you want more DoF, smaller formats are obviously better though. The good news is that the smaller cameras we have today deliver image quality somewhere between 35mm and MF in the film days... which could be seen are expanding amazingly our creative enveloppe.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JBerardi]

Funny, I had the exact same reaction when reading the post above.  

Now, it is probably true that, unless you are really into optimizing landscape images, the FF cameras deliver some of the widest array of options in terms of DoF control though. You can make things look reasonnably sharp at f16 (again forgetting about diffraction for a second).

If you want more DoF, smaller formats are obviously better though. The good news is that the smaller cameras we have today deliver image quality somewhere between 35mm and MF in the film days... which could be seen are expanding amazingly our creative enveloppe.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sure, if you're willing to DESECRATE THE VERY SOUL OF PHOTOGRAPHY by allowing more than one millimeter of subject matter to be in focus.

[nightfire]

Now, it is probably true that, unless you are really into optimizing landscape images, the FF cameras deliver some of the widest array of options in terms of DoF control though.

That's my point - in former times, any 35mm camera would deliver that wide range of options right from the start, since 35mm was by definition full-frame.

Today, you start with an APSC (or smaller) device and hope that, one day, you can afford to own a camera with the same level of control again like you had before you went digital.

All would be fine if the X1pro were priced like a reasonable APSC camera. But for this amount of money - last time I read, Amazon pre-orders for the body only at $1699? - the 5Dmk2 looks dated, but sexy too.

[nightfire]

Sure, if you're willing to DESECRATE THE VERY SOUL OF PHOTOGRAPHY by allowing more than one millimeter of subject matter to be in focus.

Since you're obviously making fun of my use of the word "soul", let me clarify that of the two image examples I referred to, I personally prefer the one with shallow DOF and used "soul" to characterize that difference. This alone has nothing to do with "soul of photography" or whatever you're misinterpreting here.

[hsteeves]

nothing personal but pretty well everything I did creatively 20 years ago, I can duplicate or do better with my APS cameras.  What do I lose? 1 stop of depth of field wide open. But I gain that back on the backside.  That's about it. 35mm was by definition 35mm - the only time frame ever entered into it were the half frame cameras.  It was all about format and in reality it still is.  This concept of full frame and crop cameras is marketing BS.

[Rob C]

nothing personal but pretty well everything I did creatively 20 years ago, I can duplicate or do better with my APS cameras.  What do I lose? 1 stop of depth of field wide open. But I gain that back on the backside.  That's about it. 35mm was by definition 35mm - the only time frame ever entered into it were the half frame cameras.  It was all about format and in reality it still is.  This concept of full frame and crop cameras is marketing BS.

If only!

Rob C

[JBerardi]

Since you're obviously making fun of my use of the word "soul", let me clarify that of the two image examples I referred to, I personally prefer the one with shallow DOF and used "soul" to characterize that difference. This alone has nothing to do with "soul of photography" or whatever you're misinterpreting here.

Oh, ok. Let me fix your original post:

What good is the claim of "outresolving a 21MP full-frame sensor" (Fuji) if I personally don't like the look of the images from APS-C sensors?

If you don't like APS-C sensors, that's ok. But I like 'em just fine. So do plenty of other people. Certainly enough to justify Fuji making this camera.