Fuji X pro1

[marcmccalmont]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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. 

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

[eleanorbrown]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[amsp]

This looks very, very interesting. If performance and price is reasonable I'm definitely getting one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gzREBGKUFI

[marcmccalmont]

[/quote]
I guess you should contact them on patent discussions. 
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!

[eleanorbrown]

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

[EricV]

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

[deejjjaaaa]

... 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

[deejjjaaaa]

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...

[jzzmusician]

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

[Bernard ODonovan]

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

[Bernard ODonovan]

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!)...

[mediumcool]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[JohnBrew]

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.

[K.C.]

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.

[mediumcool]

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.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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...

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.