Fujifilm X-Pro 1 – (Pre Production) from Michael Fletcher on Vimeo.
Brandon Remler is busy testing the new X PRO 1 and you can read his daily updates and thoughts on his website (Click here / via Fujirumors):
1) Fujifilm X-Pro1 First Day Stroll (Click here)
2) Fujifilm X-Pro1 First Night Out (Click here)
3) Full image samples (Click here)
In short he writes that “I do feel the AF speed is faster than the X100 and the file looks gorgeous. The noise levels at ISO 3200 look great to me.“. He also had the chance to make a very quick comparison with the Leica M9: “I feel the X-Pro1 is delivering a nicer color palette and I don’t want to set any precedents here – but when the tests are done I think the X-Pro1 will show a higher resolution.“
And if you want to see some image samples be sure to follow his youtube channel (Click here).
Meanwhile Fuji itself posted a set of new image samples on his dedicated X PRO 1.
Now you have plenty of images to analyze! The camera will ship in Asia first in March. Europe and USA should follow soon.
The Fuji X PRO 1 camera can be preordered:
in USA/Canada at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here), Epxansys US (Click here) and Expansys Canada (Click here).
in Europe at Jessops UK (Click here), eBay Italy (Click here) and Expansys UK (Click here).
in Asia at Amazon Japan (Click here) and eBay Japan (Click here).
The Fuji X 18mm f/2.0 can be preordered:
in USA/Canada at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
in Asia at Amazon Japan (Click here).
The Fuji X 35mm f/1.4 can be preordered:
in USA/Canada at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
in Asia at Amazon Japan (Click here).
The Fuji X 60mm f/2.4 macro can be preordered:
in USA/Canada at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Bhphoto (Click here).
65 Responses
I can imagine that the X Pro 1 is able to deliver a much better ISO performance than the M9 but a better resolution? Both have no AA-filter but the M9 has 18 MP compared to the 16 MP of the Fuji. So where should the potential for “higher resolution” come from???
Plus the X Pro1’s special CFA also leads to some loss of color resolution, so all in all, this shows how knowledgable and objective “Brandon Remler” is.
Your comparison is about quantity (sensor size, megapixels, ISO…). But there is supposedly a qualitative difference coming from the nature of the new sensor itself. If you look at the Romanian comparison between the Nikon D700 (right) and the XPro 1 (left), the quantitative factors alone fail to explain the higher resolution of the X-Pro 1 output.
http://vladdodan.ro/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DSCF3814-Edit.jpg
finally skin tones!!!!
I’m going to wait patiently for a review of X-Pro1 with M adapter and with Leica/Zeiss lenses. I can’t judge from the samples as I don’t know how Fuji’s lenses perform. 18mm one seems to be the worst from the lot. But I notice that some photos are soft, now I’m not sure if it’s photographer’s error, lens or something else, some on the other hand are sharp.
Totally agree with Brandon. This is the camera system that will change the whole world and will re-define the meaning, passionate, and romance of real photography. Its performance is unquestionably superior to every APS-C and FF DSLR in current market. I will buy it at once it’s available. (Just dislike the pre-order thing.)
“Its performance is unquestionably superior to every APS-C and FF DSLR in current market.” – how can you be so sure? maybe it will outperform the ones released 3-4 years ago, but I don’t think it will be the case when it comes to current (and recently announced/released) DSLRs.
Specification and sample images are absolutely more than enough to confirm its greatness.
I agree with that. The new Nikon D800 is vastly superior in resolution to the D700. Now with one D800 you could buy two X-Pro 1… But an A/B resolution test between the X-Pro 1 and D800 would still be interesting to see, and I’m sure the latter would do well, but the identity of the winner is pretty obvious when you look at this…
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm
Hexx-
I have a D800 on pre-order and currently use a D700. The D800 body costs $3000 (the Fuji $1700). Additionally you won’t get good results on a D800 unless you use G series lenses like my 24mm F1.4 G, 35mm F1.4 G or 85mm F1.4 G. Those three lenses cost $1900, $1600, and $1600 respectively. So to compare the two systems is pointless. The X Pro 1 + three lenses cost me $3300 on pre-order (almost as much as the D800 which I am looking forward to). To get the Nikon D800 + 3 lenses will cost $8100. Fortunately I already have the lenses. From what I’ve seen so far, the X Pro 1 is better than my D700.
Totally agree with that. The only thing missing on the X-Pro 1 is the easier D700 bokeh you get because of the larger sensor size.
How about AF-S, AF-C, and 3D Servo? Solid MF confirmation system?
Bokeh is a function of the lens, not of the sensor.
It refers to the way the lens renders out of focus highlights. It does not refer to the fact that a shallow depth of field simply renders objects outside the range of focus as, well, out of focus.
That’s all fine, I agree with that, my comment was related to exactly what I quoted in my response to Richard. Me personally I’m just waiting for field reports but I will be buying X-Pro1, but on the other hand I’m trying to keep my mind open and clear. Simply stating that X-Pro1 will be better than APS-C and FF DSLRs is YET TO BE SEEN – all samples available online are JPGs from camera (only silkypix supports RAW from X-Pro1, and I can’t imagine who would want to use it, it’s horrid).
really? not this conversation again. I’m pretty sure you knew exactly what he meant, no need to lecture.
read original comment, read my response, read his response and mine, if you still don’t understand repeat the process
Are you sure you are a nikon shooter? G lenses are not like canon’s L, sony’s G or pentax’s limited that show comparatively better performance. G=electronic for nikon. Many D and other non-G series are still alive and kicking.
And if you said you like Fuji’s $600 35mm, then you should compare it to $100-400 50mm, not those 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 that the Fuji obviously missing in their “amazing” lens lineup. Even if you try to compare the 60 and 18, Nikon always has faster, cheaper and especially better equivalent for those.
Not to mention the samples of X-pro1 simply not that sharp. Though I suppose it’s mostly because the 35mm’s problem because 60mm samples are actually better, albeit not by much.
+1 for Hexx…
I don’t even understand that you are comparing the X-pro1 with the Nikon D800 (and D800E) ??? Totally different tools and system… It depends on the way you shoot and the pictures you need or want to do.
Aps-c better than FF, this statment bother me because someone that really want a FF (for it’s rendering…) won’t buy another Aps-c even if you can shoot in the middle of the night..
Also all the comparisons are made with 3 or 4 years old FF cameras, wait for a comparison with the D800E if you absolutly want to play this game !..
I think it’s worth mentioning that Brandon Remler is a Fujifilm employee, as stated on his website.
I actually have the 24-70 and the 14-24. The only thing longer than 85mm I need is the 200mm macro so I’ve never bothered with the 70-200. You might want to read Ken Rockwells analysis of what lenses will resolve properly on the D800 with the new sensor. It’s even questionable how well the 24mm will do. As a long time Nikon shooter, I feel reasonably confident that the D series lenses will look pretty bad on the D800. Either way it’s a moot point for me since I’m getting both cameras.
I wouldn’t trust Rockwell’s analysis, just wouldn’t, don’t ask why 🙂 If you check used lenses on D800’s sample images, some shots were taken using 14-24 f/2.8 lens, actually most of the photos have been taken with 14-24/24-70/70-200 – all shots seem very sharp to me.
I prefer 85mm f/1.4 AF-D to new AF-S model, it has different rendering, soft on edges, exactly what I want from a portrait lens – but I know AF-S is better lens as it’s more versatile.
I guess it’s the same topic like Leica users have in regards to various versions of Summicron lenses (new vs old rendering)
Check the Nikon lens recommendations at thom Hogan’s site (bythom). Think it is a very good walkthrough of alternatives, both “pro” and budget.
In short the big and expensive 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 are better than all the primes…… That is what the pro people uses. One good thing if you buy a Nikon/Canon is there are lots 2nd hand lenses available.
and every single pro who shoots nikon has at least 50mm f/1.4 😉
Rockwell? – Isn’t he the fellow that says Nikon’s 18-200 zoom is great on a D7000, which has the exact same pixel density as the D800?
Now he’s saying that much shorter range pro zooms, that each cost far more – and their very expensive new primes won’t do?
I’m sure the good D-series primes will do just fine – and some of the best manual focus AIS lenses as well. The camera will require very good technique to get the best out of it though
I think it’s also worth noting he just said the colors looked better. And he also caveats by noting that he is shooting JPEG. This site completely takes his comments out of context which almost all the commentators here are doing also. You might want to read what he actually wrote instead of the poorly paraphrased above. He does not state the X Pro is a better camera than the M9 which I would hope it’s not since the M9 will set you back $6000 without a lens. That seems to be the tenor here. I will chalk that up to internet hysteria and people that will not actully be buying an X Pro, an M9 or a D800. Each camera is a tool that has attributes and disadvantages. They are not a football match. It’s up to the photographer to know how to actually use the tool to it’s full advantage.
Well said JSB, well said.
That’s why I’m interested in X-Pro1, I don’t need speedy camera, I shoot mostly landscapes/architecture and started to explore street photography after I bought X100. Everybody should know what they are trying to achieve and pick camera which suits their needs the best.
Yeah, that was my first question: “Who is Brandon Remler, how was he selected to be one of the first recipients of a Fuji X-Pro 1, and why should we care what he thinks about cameras?”
As Vincent notes, if you scroll down in his blog far enough, you eventually come to some small blue type in which he states, “I am an employee of FUJIFILM North America Corporation.”
Meanwhile, if you’re curious about what kinds of photos he shoots and how good his chops are, you might want to visit his website: http://brandonremler.com/
In the end weather your comparing a Xpro1 or a D800 or an Olympus OM-D OR a Pentax K-01…. doesn’t the end resulting image quality mean the most?
Obviously…. the ease of use and professional settings and options also play a part.
For me, I am looking for the best image quality in a particular shooting environment, thats within my current budget.
The x-Pro1 will actually be my backup system for shooting weddings, and outdoor portrait work.
I firmly believe the Xpro-1 will be more than just a “Pro-sumer” camera.
I don’t know if it is the lens or the sensor, but IQ is not even medicore. Better than M9? Mega LOL. This guy must be blind.
Well, we haven’t seen samples from M9 of the same subjects, if you read his column (blog, whatever you want to call it) he mentions that he’s met M9 shooter and captured few shots and then compared them.
X-Pro1 has definitely edge over M9 when it comes to low light photography. You simply can’t shoot above ISO 2500 on M9. I usually shoot after work (yep, I’m not immortal and have a day job) and most of my shots are ISO 1600 and above so even if I had money to buy M9 I would not, because it wouldn’t suit my needs.
“Not even mediocre”? That must get the award for overstatement of the year. Wow.
Have you opened the full res. files?
Maybe you only checked in out of focus areas?
Yeah. I downloaded the full rez files, not Remler’s but the ones Fuji put out originally, and thought they were very good. Perhaps not M9 good in all characteristics but for practical purposes very good indeed. Certainly better in noise performance than my M8 files (the last Leica I’ve bought) and from the one time I shot with an M9, in that ballpark in terms of resolution. Granted the Fuji samples were a small number of files, and not RAFs but JPGs, but I’ve been shooting (formerly professionally) and looking at reviews long enough to confidently say that if you think the XP1 files are “not even mediocre” then you have a far higher standard of acceptable IQ than I or anyone I’ve met has. Perhaps that not a bad thing, but I think for practical purposes the XP1 files will more than deliver for a large majority of people. AF speed, ergonomics and all those other things that make a person love or hate a camera are another thing. And to no doubt throw fuel on the fire, my X100 files when printed to 14×21″ (the largest I regularly print) are for all intents and purposes indestinguishable from M8 or M9 files. Not at 100% viewing, but printed and framed. I have some hanging side by side of similar scenese and I actually think the X100 ones look a bit better.
“IQ is not even medicore”
If you think these pictures are so bad I think you need medicare.
http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/en/gallery/sample-images/index.html
O/T
Any fresh rumors about NX20?
The images have potential quality-wise. I looked at the in Lightroom and did some post-processing as I normally do with my G3 images. The Fuji has more resolution. (in some cases the photographer has been shaking the camera even worse than I do too often 🙂
Still I agree with many of you that examples from both Fuji and the Oly EM5 are not good enough as examples to make a final judgement.
Luminous Landscape did comparison M9 vs NEX-7 using the same lens. The NEX had the edge in resolution. Also compared Leica Lens with the nex/zeiss lens: The leica had a slight edge but also costs 4 times more
It would be interesting with a comparison M9 vs Fuji. The M9 should have an edge at lower ISO: Larger sensor and a little more pixels.
what would make more sense would be comparison between Nex7 and X-Pro1 with the same Leica lens. Comparing Leica with Fuji isn’t very good idea since you would need to use different lenses to achieve the same angle of view and depth of field
Who???
“I am an employee of FUJIFILM North America Corporation.
The statements, comments and opinions expressed here represent my own, personal views and are not endorsed by, or affiliated in any way with, FUJIFILM North America Corporation or its affiliates.”
This is from his site.
What else he may say instead of that the Fuji is the best?
I am working on Audi. Guess what? Audi is the best!!! Would you beleave me just on my words? Or you will try?!
P.S. not very impressed with the images… But need to try it by my own.
Camera body is huge?