Sony NEX-FS700 commercial
Ken Rockwell (Click here) the most famous photography blogger posted his final X PRO 1 review: “The Fuji X-Pro1 is an amazing one-of-a-kind camera. It has image quality and lenses more like my LEICA M9 than any DSLR, and it’s smaller and lighter than any DSLR — or LEICA. The X-Pro1 does what the LEICA M9 does well, even better than the M9 does it!“
Ricoh GXR A16 24-85mm Review at Photographyblog (Click here).
Full Canon G1X review at Photographic Central (Click here).
Panasonic GF5 review at Quesabesde (Click here for the translation). Full GF5 image samples at Focus Numerique (Click here).
Olympus E-M5 testing at Soundimagesplus (Click here).
45 Responses
“Too bad its color rendition isn’t that much better than the M9, but the X-Pro1 has far more accurate focus than the M9.”
Am i missing something, isn’t the x pro 1 focus horrible?
That is where Fuji’s strategy of rushing a camera to market and fixing it later bites them in the ass. No matter how much they improve things with firmware fixes, it will always and forever be remembered for its initial faults.
The focus is slow, but not horrible. ReidReviews did a shoot, poor lighting indoors, moving objects (dance): Of about 138 exposures, less than ten were out-of-focus. This was with 18mm lens.
Well, considering the M9 does NO focusing, the Fuji would have to be better.
I was just looking at his “review” of the X10, where he rabbited on about it being a “tiny sensor” P&S. OK then, Mr Rockwell!
Still, it’s sometimes worth reading his stuff for the laughs…..
His assessment of features is often pretty good though. You just have filter out the BS.
Now i now for sure: Ken Rockwell sucks big time and i wonder if he really tested the X-pr01………..
He’s complete nuts and the pics posted in this “review” are between mediocre and bad!
Ken Rockwell took too much Xanex!
Ken says:
“The X-Pro1 is half the price of a Canon 5D Mark III or Nikon D800, so if you already have a 5D Mark II or D700, you might want to step all the way up to the X-Pro1 for half the price of the 5D Mark III or D800, each of which are mostly the same as the older models, while there is nothing like the X-Pro1”.
This is soooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny. “Step up to” ??????? The XP1 has three…count them Ken…THREE lenses? How can you compare that to a fast-focusing full-on pro camera like the 5DMarkIII. Just the Canon lens offering alone from fisheye to 800mm…..
Ken is such an idiot it is hard to fathom.
I think the Fuji has it’s place…incredible sensor…but with that slow autofocus, especially in low light..it is a shame that in 2012 Fuji could not give us better for $1700.
To compare the camera to a serious pro tool is just silly. Laughable actually.
Ken, you undermine your own credibility (?) with statements like these.
I have the XP1 and after reading that part too I just rolled my eyes in disbelief. I think I even stopped reading at that point.
What are you talking about “slow autofocus”, Bob? Kenny clearly states:
Autofocus is about twice as fast as the X100. It’s super-fast.
It’s super-fast, Bob, SUPER fast. Now get with the program and start smoking whatever Kenny’s smoking. Then pass it along cos that’s gotta be some strong stuff.
LOL! (and feed my family)
hey guys, don’t forget that Ken Rockwell is a landscape shooter!
What he says should be understood as a landscape photographer needs!
No what Ken says should be well-balanced. Period. I should not have to insert his biases into the review. He has been around too long to make those kind of statements. Just ridiculous. Steve Huff is a Leica shooter…and he REALLY wanted the Fuji to be GREAT…but he was disappointed enough in the AF to not want to own the camera…I believe he gave a well balanced, realistic review. I KNOW he anticipated greatness. I would want to own the Fuji if the AF was up to snuff…as it is I think $1700 is waaaaay too much money for a camera of that image quality (phenomenal) in 2012 that does not have really fast AF. Let’s face it…with that set up and those few lenses, the camera is just right for a street shooter..except it is too slow to focus??? I am sticking with my full-frame kit and my MFT kit with a breadth of lenses for both systems. I need versatility of lens choices. Perhaps Fuji can produce more lenses and get the important things right in the near future…I think a LOT of people want that to happen.
@ Miserere – so you said that AF has let you down but you haven’t tried it – how could it let you down then? go try one, you might be surprised – there are more and more reports from other photographers using X-Pro1 not just Huff (Steve has fallen in love with OM-D and his recent articles just show it, pointless comparisons and so on). Yes, everybody points out that AF might be slow in LOW CONTRAST AREAS IN BAD LIGHT – but a lot of cameras/lenses have problems to AF in these situations.
few links for you:
wedding, studio, street:
http://www.derekclarkphotography.com/index.php/blog/
rolling review:
http://sonyalphalab.com/product-review/fujifilm-x-pro-1-continous-hands-on-review-fujifilm-x-pro-1-vs-nex-7-and-nex-5n-image-quality-and-more/
John Smith:
http://johnsmith-johnsimages.blogspot.ca/
source for everything X-Pro1:
http://www.scoop.it/t/fuji-x-pro1?page=1
and there are more, if X100 is good for street X-Pro1 must be too – I don’t have problems with AF for street with my X100 and most of my photos are in the evening
Not sure where you’re based but if possible, try to get one and try it out and if you don’t like it return it within return period (I’m based in the UK and can have a cam for a week or two)
Bob B.: How much do you really know about this camera? All you “learned” at m43 rumors? There are tons of real (pro) photographers that report the camera a joy to use and stellar IQ.
Having said that, KenR is what I would call a “bit over the edge” in positivism. A real reviewer does more analyse including the always important critical mass -before jumping into conclusions.
No doubt CaNikon offers pro level SYSTEMS no other camera maker can match. Regarding Fuji lenses they are few, but the lens roap map tells they will bring a well thougt through lens program. No shitlenses, sorry kit lenses that some other systems excel in.
+1
I am not saying it is a bad camera. I am saying for approximately $3500 (not exact..but about), for camera and lenses it is not a camera I would buy. I need that AF speed, when I need it. I would expect a camera in that price range in 2012 to be fast.
My point is how absurd the statements in the review are. I know that camera is capable of excellent images…
I understand that it is the right camera for some photographers. Believe me…I want the camera to be GREAT…but as it is ..it has too many eccentricities for this photographer.
+1
I think there is closer to 8 lenses available from Fuji now with several more coming in the next year. How many lenses do you think is enough lenses? These Fuji lenses are superb in quality, as well. A landscape photographer has every reason to think the X-Pro1 is a great deal when he can see the picture quality is right there with some of the better and more expensive full field cameras. I do agree that this guy is real full of himself.
Excuse me, but regarding the Sony videocam, does anyone else see the extremely crappy exposure and pp? This I would think would scare people away from the camera!
I think Ken is a phenomenon created by the internet.
Ken’s opinion is as valuable as mine or yours, the only difference being he has a website and we don’t. Does he make sense sometimes, yeah, so do you and I, is he not making sense sometimes, yeah, so do you and I.
The fact that he has a website somehow gives him credibility, which is interesting in and of itself.
His reviews are his opinion, just as if I were to tell you my opinion, no more no less
too much positive words about X-Pro1. lenses better than Leica’s one? very fast AF? sounds like he was paid for this review.
I wished XPRO1 had m4/3-like AF speed and GH2-like video, then I would be willing to spend money that I don’t have for a camera that right now I don’t really need, but I would want.
Renato S: Why not a Oly EM5 or GH2? X-pro1 is not for video and the OlyPana are excellent booth video and still + cheaper.
I will probably but the X-pro-1, but that investment will not be based on the KenR review.
Ken Rockwells family is still growing so asume he will continue with his far from objective but amusing reviews.
Anyway received my X-Pro 1 today and looking forward to make the fist pictures …
Ken is often a loon, and he’s a bit over the top when it comes to this camera. However, his final conclusion isn’t far off from mine on the X-Pro 1. It really is an amazing camera for photographers (meaning, not spray and pray gear nerds).
I’ve had no issues with the AF speed, at all. So every time I read someone say it is unusable I scratch my head and wonder what it is they’re doing differently than me. Plus, after the firmware update I think it feels even faster.
If you pick the camera up in the store and test it out for 10 mins you may hate it, but if you shoot with it for a few days you’ll start to understand how it works and after that happens it becomes simply brilliant. I’ve owned NEX’s, m4/3’s, various DSLR’s, and after only 2 weeks I can easily say the XPro-1 is my favorite camera to date. I absolutely love it.
Would it better if Fuji would take AF off completely and the leica babies will stop bitching about AF speed? Steve Huff ***cough**
Last I check, there is NO focus on the M9. On the M9, the focus is only as accurate as one’s deteriorating eye sight…we all are getting older right?
Slap an adapter on the XPro 1 and use with your favorite manual lenses if you don’t like the AF feature……why the Fuji bashing?
I think his evaluation of the controls is probably good, but overall Rockewell’s item reads more like a rant against against other cameras than a review of the X-Pro 1.
One of the things I didn’t like when examining sample images from the X-Pro 1 was the colour fringing I was seeing, and yet Rockwell doesn’t think this is an issue. Also, virtually every other reviewer I’ve read has had something to say about slow focus speed and poor low light auto focus. Finally, there is the issue of the noisy aperture blades. Given the number of people who have commented on these issues elsewhere, Rockwell’s opinion here seems somewhat suspect from my point of view.
Frankly, I have no doubt that the X-Pro 1 is a darn good camera on the whole and quite possibly a game changer when it comes to interface and sensor design, but perfect it is certainly not and with that in mind, I prefer to read, what seem to me, more balanced and less emotional reviews.
There is no noisy aperture blades anymore yet like I said in one of the above posts it will live on for eternity. Many people are also use to pressing half way down to get focus conformation. On these Fuji cameras it works better if you just press the shutter in one continuous press especially in AF-C mode.
so does it mean that lock focus recompose can’t be done. I never found on my X100 AF to be a let down, I was switching from D40 so for me it isn’t a problem, AF works all the time, it’s CDAF so you need to keep that in mind, once you do everything just works and works fast
It’s such a hoot reading all of the rants about how the auto focus is so bad. keep drinking the Koolaid people who have never actually held one in their hands much less taken it out shooting!
exactly! i’m still trying to put money together but played with one already and had my X100 with me so had a chance to compare them (this was before FW 1.20 for X100) and it seemed snappier than X100. As I mentioned above slow or inaccurate AF was never problem for me on X100 – never. My only gripe is focus-by-wire which on X100 needs a lot of spins so I’ve given up on MF using MF ring on X100 – AF/AE-L button and fine tune if MF is needed.
Was checking videos on youtube about AF and mirrorless cameras with EVF.
Maybe some of you already saw this comparaison but it’s nice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU5Hsa0VWic
What a doof, why do you guys talk about him so much? You know he gets off on the extra attention. He who laughs last….. puts $ in the bank. Just ignore the doof. I haven’t read one word from that guy- ever. If you want him to go away, then don’t read his doofness.
From my past experience Ken Rockwell speaks a great deal of sense – his pdf guides to using various Nikons have been incredibly useful – I have never personally observed any duff information from him – he clearly likes to emphasise his views – pro and con various issues – but I can’t see why his views should be discredited by others because he expresses a clear opinion which is frankly much more useful than the common review style which tend to recycle the maker’s PR / Tech material. The amount of detail in his reviews also holds up very well against others so I say go-Ken-go and continue informing and entertaining us!
PS: Don’t quite get the individual above who dissed Ken and then said he had never read anything written by Ken – is this someone incapable of forming their own opinion and only capable of parroting others?
I don’t know about all his website, but I did read his review of the Leica IIIf, very close to the wonderful IIIa my father gave to me when I was 13. He posted some shots, one of a child (hair missing at top, cut off half of child in bumper car), and another of part of Nixon’s helicopter, with some unascertainable grey in the lower right.
I note that the reason people buy modern cameras with zooms is to avoid the exact sort of photograph he posted . . with a zoom, he could have kept the child’s hair in . . . Seems to me the photos in question are a pitch for digital photography not the IIIf . .
Further, here are his comments . .
“This was frame 39. Digital does’t even go to frame 39, or even the 37th frame; when you fill your card or your buffer, you’re bonked.”
Right, but even with a 2GB card, you can take 130 photographs, not just 36. Who does he think he is fooling with these comments?
“Not that these shots are any good, but I knocked them all off on one 36-exposure roll of film, just goofing around taking my kids to Legoland and running errands. God only knows what I could knock out if I took the IIIf someplace scenic.”
Indeed Ken, God only knows, because none of us have seen any great work from you. Why do you post mediocre photographs to claim the IIIF is so great? Cartier Bresson’s famous photo of the Spanish civil war soldier at the point of death from a bullet was taken with a IIIa. Couldn’t you at least aspire to get something close?
To be honest, I have not seen this review, but have read many reviews by Ken in the past. At worst he speaks a load of rubbish (but then so do a lot of people across the Internet), at best he hits some things on the nail. I currently use an EOS 5D MkII with a couple of L series lenses. I am not a pro, but I have been making images for a good few decades (click on my name above to visit my website) with film and for the past decade with digital. Prior to my step into the world of digital I used a Contax G2 for 7 years for which the XP1 has been likened to. I want the XP1! I want to sell my heavy Canon gear to buy it because I am keen to get back to the grass roots of photography and continue my real love of street photography with a footprint that doesn’t resemble an anti aircraft weapon.
My initial hopes for the XP1 were that this could be the camera I have wanted ever since my affair with the G2 ended. I hear too much about poor focusing, something the G2 excelled in. The G2 slightly overexposed at times, but focus was spot on the nail-head and I had every faith in it being so. In short, I trusted that camera to deliver. If the XP1 can deliver that kind of accuracy then I can deal with slight overexposure via compensation and using exposure lock. Speed isn’t an issue with me but accuracy is. So, my question is: how accurate is this camera in the right hands?