Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Fuji X-Pro 1 review  (Read 5625 times)
snoleoprd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425



WWW
« on: June 21, 2012, 11:59:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Small issue with the review, the main page is titled. "Olympus X-Pro 1 Redux" :-) A typo I am sure. Nice review and matches my feelings for the camera, I really enjoy mine.

Alan


edit typo
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 03:36:23 PM by snoleoprd » Logged

Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA
BCS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2012, 02:00:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Haven't you heard that Olympus bought Fujifilm?  Cheesy Grin

As an X-Pro 1 user I would agree with MR, very fair and balanced review.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4870



« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2012, 02:56:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Ooops. My worst typo ever. Mea Culpa.

Michael
Logged
JFR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2012, 06:36:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your thoughts, Michael. Good choice keeping the redundant info out of it.

The mirrorless design is here to stay. It wouldn't surprise me if Nikon and Canon soon abandon the SLR for an evf, another big step in the move from analog to digital. With the rate the sensor design is still growing, they will soon want to stop worrying about mirror shake altogether, I think.
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2012, 09:39:42 AM »
ReplyReply

It wouldn't surprise me if Nikon and Canon soon abandon the SLR for an evf, another big step in the move from analog to digital. With the rate the sensor design is still growing, they will soon want to stop worrying about mirror shake altogether, I think.

I doubt it.

Most photographers with the money to buy high-end camera gear and lots of lenses are 50+ and set in their ways.  Just because an EVF and no mirror slap results in faster cameras, bigger VFs (on APS) and sharper images doesn't mean that traditionalists are interested in buying such gear.


Logged
Aku Ankka
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2012, 10:55:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Micheal, there is an error when it comes to the Fuji lens designs. You write:
Quote
all Fuji's own lenses are retrofocus designs
If you look at the Fuji's website, you'll find diagrams of the lenses, and it is clear that the normal of 35mm is not a retrofocus lens, but a modified double gauss. Had it been a retrofocus lens it'd been significantly larger (and at least somewhat worse performer). The 18mm on the other hand is a retrofocus design.

You also mention about Leica and Ricoh creating microlenses especially for the legacy glass - while there may be some truth in this, one should also realize that different lenses (legacy or not) have different optimal microlens setups and work with different efficiency with different (legacy or not) lenses. There is no reason to believe that Leica or Ricoh have significantly different off-axis micro lenses compared to other mirrorless cameras as all are designed to accept non-retrofocus glass (with varying degrees of success - NEX-7 is just ugly with some wides). Instead one difference between majority of rangefinder cameras and M,Xpro and Ricoh is that these three don't use anti alias filter, ie. the optical stack is thinner and this allows for better functionality of wide angle glass.

It would be interesting if you could post a sample or two on the X-Pro 1 vignetting on some wide angle M-mount glass, like Voigtländer 15/4.5 or some other challenging lens.
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2012, 11:55:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I doubt it.

Most photographers with the money to buy high-end camera gear and lots of lenses are 50+ and set in their ways.  Just because an EVF and no mirror slap results in faster cameras, bigger VFs (on APS) and sharper images doesn't mean that traditionalists are interested in buying such gear.

While there may a certain amount of truth to that (and I fall into the 50+ age group), EVFs still have a ways to go before they catch up with optical viewfinders.

I own the X-Pro 1, which I enjoy quite a bit for a multitude of reasons.  However I really dislike the EVF's slow refresh rate because it limits the camera's usefulness, especially when the promised zoom lenses make their appearances.  I do understand that other cameras in this class have better EVFs, so it can be done.

Hopefully this can be fixed in firmware rather than hardware.  In the meantime I use the optical VF for most purposes and the rear LCD when I must.

Paul
Logged

viewfinder
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2012, 04:18:15 AM »
ReplyReply

SLR's are essentially finished,.....they will always exist in a minority class like traction engines and brass bands, but their total grip is gone now for the simple reason that it's much more expensive to make a moving mirror than it is to make an EVF,.....Sony is trying but theres a lot more profit in a NEX 7 than a A77, notwithstanding the simplified mirror of the A77.    Additionally, cameras are becoming disposable and only last a couple of years before they get dumped.  This is emotionally easier for many people if it's just a small box of electronics.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2012, 09:37:27 AM »
ReplyReply

SLR's are essentially finished,.....they will always exist in a minority class like traction engines and brass bands, but their total grip is gone now for the simple reason that it's much more expensive to make a moving mirror than it is to make an EVF,.....Sony is trying but theres a lot more profit in a NEX 7 than a A77, notwithstanding the simplified mirror of the A77.    Additionally, cameras are becoming disposable and only last a couple of years before they get dumped.  This is emotionally easier for many people if it's just a small box of electronics.




What are you on? It seems dangerous.

Rob C
Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2012, 03:13:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I doubt it.
Most photographers with the money to buy high-end camera gear and lots of lenses are 50+ and set in their ways.  Just because an EVF and no mirror slap results in faster cameras, bigger VFs (on APS) and sharper images doesn't mean that traditionalists are interested in buying such gear.

I doubt that, though I don't have any proof one way or another. If you'd said, "Most casual photographers with the money to buy high end camera gear..." I would have agreed. But, as many people have pointed out, even a small new car now costs $20,000, and almost everybody has a car. In that context, $3,000 for one of the best 35mm cameras on earth (D800) doesn't seem so much, especially if it's central to the way you live your life.

SLR's are essentially finished,.....they will always exist in a minority class like traction engines and brass bands, but their total grip is gone now for the simple reason that it's much more expensive to make a moving mirror than it is to make an EVF.

I think you may ultimately be correct, but not for a couple of decades. I have three EVF cameras, and two DSLRs, and the thing is, the EVFs have to be very much faster, and very much better in terms of visual quality. They come nowhere near the quality of DSLRs. Not even close. And making them that much better will not be cheap. Although, the Fuji hybrid concept is interesting.  I once had a couple of Leicas -- an M7 and an M8 -- and now am down to an M7 and one lens, because the viewfinder's focusing mechanism is essentially no good, when compared to modern viewfinders. But I did like the fact that I could see "around" the frame, and that's why the hybrid is interesting.

I held an X100 in my hands for the first time on Wednesday, and guess what -- I didn't like it. I started my serious photographic life in the 60s with a Pentax Spotmatic, and have had F3s, F4s and F5s, and a D1x, a D2x and a D3. IMHO, every one of them was better than the previous model, and all of them were better than Leicas, in the sense of being more functional and reliably producing images that were of good technical quality. My problem with the X100 is that it took me back to the bad old days of poor ergonomics, small buttons, etc. I even didn't like the left-side viewfinder, but that may be because I'm so used to the centered viewfinders on my regular cameras (a user issue, rather than a camera issue.)
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2012, 10:30:18 PM »
ReplyReply

In Michael's review he noted the X-Pro 1's lack of image stabilization.

I don't know if this is old news but an Engadget article today mentions that the three zoom lenses to be released later this year and in 2013 will all have image stabilization.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/25/fujifilm-outlines-x-pro1-lens-roadmap/

Personally, I am looking more forward to the 23mm (35mm FF equiv) f/1.4 prime, as that was my favorite focal length in my film days.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 10:32:14 PM by Paul Sumi » Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad