The super serious an sever German reviewers form the DigitalKamera team (Click here to read the not so good google tranlsation) tested the X PRO 1 camera along all his three lenses. On their website you have to pay a couple of Euros to download the full test but I will give you a short translation fo their results:
1) The X PRO 1 camera delivers superb dynamic range and resolution up to ISO 1600. There is almost no lost of quality on that level! From 3.200 ISO the image quality decreases gradually (very harmonic). This is definitely one of the best cameras ever tested by the German team (they say it so!).
2) The best lens to us eon the X PRO 1 is the….drumming….60mm macro lens! Definitely a lens with NO flaws!!!
3) The 35mm f/1.4 is a very good lens that has one single flaw only. At full f/1.4 aperture the borders are not really sharp. But I don’t know if that can be considered as a limit. It will give you a mroe creamy look and may this what you like when you shoot wide open!
4) The 18mm f/2.0 lens is definitely the “less good” lens from the three. It is not as sharp as the 35mm f/1.4 lens. Anyway, still a good lens!
At least according to Amazon US lens rankings (Click here) the 35mm lens is the most sold. On second place you find the 18mm lens. Maybe after reading this test more people will buy the 60mm macro lens 🙂
P:S.: The X PRO 1 is still on the top positions of the Amazon US sales ranking (Click here). And now it is for sale at Amazon UK too (Click here). Let’s see how well it will do there.
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).
42 Responses
>>The best lens to us eon the X PRO 1 is the….drumming….60mm macro lens! Definitely a lens with NO flaws!!!<<
Optically yes… but the test says autofocus is slow and nearly unusable with low-contrast objects (it can’t focus on eyes or hair!) and also manual focus is too slow for moving objects.
+1.
I have 60mm and feel disappointed with the focusing performance of 60mm.
Don’t get me wrong. Optically this is a great lens. However the problem is that it’s not only slow but sometimes miss the target too. Seriously I hope Fuji will resolve this problem one way or another.
The AF with 60mm is better than Oly 4/3 macro on m4/3 I would say. On the whole the critics against X-pro1 AF is exaggerated. It is worse than the LATE m43 cameras and lenses – but they are very fast. Nikon 1 again is faster than m43….
The site sonyalphalab says AF on X-pro1 has fast AF….
Rference points for me are Pana G3, Pana GF1,Oly EP-1 and many lenses. I have tested X-pro1 in rather dark conditions – on average a lot like EP-1 with 17/2.8 and before the firmware update that improved AF a bit.
X-pro1 is not for sports photo and sometimes need search for contrasty to focus on. I tested the D800 in the same conditions – better than X-pro1.
Most ambitios photographers use AF like this:
1. Single point AF
2. Focus where you want your focus to be
3. Fine-tune image composition
4. Make the exposure
(= not use the default (un-intelligent) “expose on closest” AF)
There will be a firmware update including AF for X-pro1 that will improve performance.
Is it just me, or Fuji gave low-iso performance for high-iso performance? Low-ISO dynamic range seems to be on par with m43, not even near the old sony sensor! The only difference is, the sensor has superb dynamic range at high iso settings.
I saw another test, also measured, comparing X-pro1, D700, 5DMkII and M9: At ISO200 the XPRo1 DR was two steps better than any of the FF competitors.
I am not sure if the figures from DigitalKamera can be compared with figures from other testers.
For instance DR buy DXO and DR estimated by veiwing real life photos can be very different.
I take this as indications only not the truth. The other day another German site measured DR to be average only.
I try to look for both good and bad reviews and balance the total.
When sites like DPR publish their test, with well known ways to test and compare, that will be heavy.
X-pro1 has stellar IQ, best among APS-C and rivaling FF
Usability during photographing and its ergonomy is excellent.
Lenses are great and the lens roadmap is very well thought through
Menues using the Q-button are OK to work with
A couple of quirks to live with
OVF great for those who understand why
AF not on the same level as rest of camera.
Camera housing expensive, but lenses resonable
Camera + 3 lenses costs 550 Euro more in Sweden compared to Germany.
If I don’t buy the X-pro1, I buy the D800 and accept the weight an bulk. Both these cameras are great and real, innovative steps forward in camera technology! Are they really expensive?
+1
“Are they really expensive?”
Yes. You said so as well (X-Pro-1 that is).
It has to drop a few hundred odd Euros to be in contention for me.
Unfortunately their tests are in-camera JPG-tests which don’t really tell much about the image quality, but processing. What is expected is performance similar to NEX-5N with better sharpness with more artifacts. With higher ISOs it may be slightly better than NEX-5N due to no need for capture sharpening.
And your expectations are based on……?
It using the same Sony sensor…
According to Fuji literature, they “designed” that X-Trans CMOS sensor it uses. Who actually builds it I don’t know. But even if Sony did I would not say it’s the same sensor used in the NEX-5N. I mean it has a totally different color filter array; hence the long damn wait for RAW editor support.
Definately a re-designed sensor + no AA-filter. The later is very signinficant in terms of mor detail that are crisper. The look is more natural and less digital.
The 5N sensor is great and if it is the basis for the Fuji-sensor, Fuji has improved it even more.
Effect of removing AA filter are well known. They are opposite to what AnuN says.
Of course effects of removing AA-filter are well known, as are the effects of incorporating it. However you do not know the effects, Kylberg: I said that without an AA-filter there will be aliasing – you said that the opposite is true. AA-filter stands for ANTI-alias filter. If the truth is the opposite of what I said, then the ANTI-alias filter creates aliasing 🙂
Maybe you should think a bit before the fanboy inside you starts writing something awfully funny.
OK – I give an example: Leica M9 does not use AA filter and its images are regarded as very natural and less digital. And that by a high number of people with great knowledge.
AnuN: What is you knowledge coming from?
Me fanboy? Well my favorite camera brands are: Nikon, Contax and Leica. I have owned severalö of those as well as other brands. The Contax G1 is the camera I have enjoyed most so far. Diffifult for me to be a Fuji X-pro1 fanboy yet as i have to yet owned one.
The technology in this camera is very interesting as its usability is. If it weighs up its downsides I do not yet know.
Kylberg,
You have to think for yourself instead of pulling out anecdotal observations from so-called “knowledgable” photographers. AA-less would indeed produce more jagginess. However, whether it’s “natural” or “digital” is entirely subjective and would depend on the photographer. At such a dense resolution, one have to examine the file at high mag. and compare it to film to see. Sometimes you’re blinded by your fanboyism to really see the fact, especially when you use other “knowledgeable” photographers to hide behind.
Simply put (not too technical), the AA filter will prevent finer-than-the-sensor-can-record structure from being registered by blurring the details out. Any finer detail than what the sensor can record would create aliasing artifact, aka moire. This would also help to reduce any jaggy edge in the picture. You can take a look at AA filter usage in the video game industry to see this.
Again, the point is about more “digital” or more “natural” look without AA. I don’t argue against the merit of having AA to eliminate moire in conventional Bayer sensor or how Fuji got away with that by randomizing.
@ SonyFanBoi – I was being sarcastic 😉 I know very well why there’s a need for an AA or low pass filter if you like on digital camera sensors
http://www.43rumors.com/e-m5-raw-has-better-signal-to-noise-ration-than-the-x-pro-1/
How about the test by techradar? It seems confusing.
It is confusing if you take it seriously. It is BS.
What is “BS”? Bug of Systems ?
I prefer qualitative evaluations by good photographers! – Based on rea world photos.
In the end only I know what is the best for my photography. – And the same goes for anyone.
Comments in bloggs like this? You learn that some has something worth listening to – others don’t
Preferring someone elses subjective opinion on subjective processing etc. is not how I would approach comparison and analysing of systems – everyone has an opinion, so cherrypicking the one that goes well with ones own personal bias does not make sense if one is actually interested in objectivity. Instead I prefer to know the MEASURED FACTS as they tell much more objectively what the products are capable of.
Those who measure are not objective – the methodolgy can be wrong. I believe people I trust to produce an intelligent and balanced analyse.
Just by saying that, you are already labeled yourself as a fanboy. Reviewers are just humans, and they can’t produce “intelligent and balanced” analyses all the time. To pick and choose whichever one to trust is your own preference. But to proclaim one is more valid than others is just plain wrong. Measurebators have their own merit is that they can rank equipments in a more scientific and objective way (given the methodology is right). However, handling and feeling is also important and would not be taken into account in these tests. However, to go solely with how one “feels” is not very objective. You need to read, try to make sense of the result on your own and decide whether to trust the review. Kylberg, if everything here you say is only your “entitled” opinion, I understand. But try not to make it out as it is the way “knowledgeable” photographers should do. You seem like an intelligent man (not the typical troll with non-sense argument), but I think you let your objectivity slide most of the time.
Hexx, I was talking about Kylberg with his obvious bias toward certain type of test. It was not meant toward you.
It is not confusing. Based on their lab test, E-M5 is better. Simple as that.
Just saying 18mm f/2.0 is “less good” is meaningless. How does it compare to other lenses of similar equivalent focal lengths? (e.g., Olympus 12mm f/2.0, Panasonic 14mm f/2.5)
A real photographer won’t pick the 35mm or 60mm over the 18mm _only_ because of better resolution. Rather he would choose the best equiv focal length that suits the subject, the environment, and his own style.