The German company announced not one, not two but sixteen(!) new adapters for the Fuji X system! Check out the full list of adapters at Novoflex (Click here).
And Dpreview (Click here) posted the Fuji X PRO 1 studio samples. I will let you judge if the Fuji can really beat current Full Frame cameras (a part of the super resolution Nikon D800).
P.S.: Some new X PRO 1 tests: Fuji X PRO 1 red performance comparison canon Nikon at Dpreview Forum (Click here). X-Pro1 + Voigtlander f4 25mm Color Skopar images by John Smith (Click here).
In stock status check:
Fuji X PRO 1 body is in Stock at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), BHphoto (Click here), Jessops UK (Click here) and Digitalrev (Click here).
Fuji X 18mm f/2.0 in Stock at Amazon (Click here) and Digitalrev (Click here).
Fuji X 35mm f/1.4 in Stock at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), BHphoto (Click here) and Digitalrev (Click here).
Fuji X 60mm macro f/2.0 in not Stock at Amazon (3-4weeks) but is in Stock at Digitalrev (Click here). Mike Kobal made a short NEX-7 versus Fuji X PRO 1 comparison.
25 Responses
I compared Fuji studio samples to E-M5, NEX-5N and EOS 5D MkIII. I’m surprised how soft X PRO 1 images are and how bad its jpeg engine is. By ISO 3200 Sony and Olympus are better than Fuji in jpeg.
In higher ISOs X PRO 1 comes close to EOS 5D MkIII indeed, but there is one more aspect where the Fuji comes close to FF cameras: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/images/sbsm9p.jpg .
I don’t see why would anyone by this over some of the cheaper FF cameras or E-M5.
Looks like they updated the files. I see way more color noise with the E-M5 on the RAW moving that box around (Blue watch). I’d prefer the smoother tone rendition myself.
I do not understand the X-pro1 files at DPR:
1. Why is the scale smaller than other 16mpix cameras? Should be same size at 100%
2. They seem out of focus?
Otherwise RAW is incredibly clean at every ISO compared to any camera.
On the other hand they are very soft at low ISO compared to the competition. It is strange considering all test shots and real world photos from the X-pro1 that are published. They are very sharp.
Has DPR flawed the test shots? Can it be that they use the Adobe standard presets (including sharpness) for other cameras and no presets for the Fuji?
The Fuji has a remarkably low resolution. Look at the face of Greece the stature. All other cameras show much more detail!
This is the promised better resolution than full frame 🙂
16 adapters?
Avaliability late 2016…
> And Dpreview posted the Fuji X PRO 1 studio samples.
No miracle has happened. X-Trans (3×3 pixel arrangement instead of traditional 2×2) effectively reduced the resolution and images are soft in pixel-peeping.
But since I’m not a pixel peeper, I find the detail rendering pretty good across the whole ISO range.
The only thing I can complain IQ-wise is the color reproduction. But that should be solved in release version of the ACR. I sincerely hope that it is not some new problem created by the X-Trans.
P.S. I also like the position of the Movie record button. 😉
As I suspected, DPR made a process error with the X-pro1 files. This has now been corrected and the new results are in line with the excellent photos we have seen on the internet so far. Now you can sense the fine detail that brings IQ close to that of FF. At 3200 and 6400, it takes the D800 to perform better
I bet though, give me that files and the LR beta version and I can get even more from theese files!
Buahahhaa: Myth busted, remarkably low resolution, this camera is for people who care more for how it comes packed rather than what you can do with it… (rofl) (rofl) (rofl)
For people who are still interested in not flawed comparison, here is a RPP conversion of the Fuji RAW file @ 200 ISO: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7082/7155157260_7510d54322_o.jpg
Now you can see if there are some reason to buy m43.