That nice ALL BLACK Fuji X100 is now available for preorder at Adorama (Click here). I am wondering how many will buy that camera when you know that you can get the FUji X PRO 1 body for the same price! Maybe more tempting is the classic Silver Fuji X100 which price keeps droppign week by week at Amazon (Click here). -> via NoisyC.
.
X PRO 1 news roundup (via Fujirumors).
Cameralabs (Click here) X PRO 1 preview: “The Fujifilm X-Pro1 takes mirror-less ILCs to a higher ground than any company other than Leica has done to date. It unashamedly targets enthusiasts with an innovative sensor and viewfinder packed into a retro-styled body with nostalgic analogue controls and a choice of three high quality prime lenses at launch.”
Brian Lam from TheAtlantic (Click here) CES report: “This is the only gadget at the show that melts my heart every time I think about it. I want this more than anything else I’ve seen at the show, and I think I might get one over the also amazing Sony NEX-7 Camera, which is technically astounding but has a mediocre lens selection that is not worthy of a $1300 camera.“
Detailed report at Photorumors (Click here) and hands-on pics at Alinpopescu (Click here).
The X PRO 1 already won four prices! The CNET “Best of CES 2012” Best Camera; Popular Science “CES 2012 Product of the Future”; Popular Mechanics “CES 2012 Editor’s Choice Award”; Tom’s Guide “Best of CES 2012” (Source: Imaging Resource).
24 Responses
As they compare with the Nex-7 : “They are both high-end ILCs, but represent completely different propositions for very different photographers”. Just we have to define our needs to chose the right one.
Precisely. The more and more I learn about the X-Pro 1 though, the more I want to cancel my pre-order, as it just doesn’t seem to be as flexible system as the NEX-7 (which also unfortunately is still on pre-order…)
Question of point of view… Let’s wait for the tests on production cameras, and photozone lenses tests…
Lam sums up the NEX-7 perfectly, doesn’t he? A fantastic camera with a lens selection that doesn’t do it justice.
The flexibility question is going to come down to whether or not the X-Pro 1 has a good microlens array. Almost all of the NEX lenses are unworthy of the NEX-7, so it’s much more appealing on a legacy glass level…but the lack of microlenses makes it pretty awful for anything with a non-retrofocus design. If the X-Pro 1 proves to have dealt with that issue, and perhaps adds in focus peaking at some point, it immediately becomes the best legacy lens camera on the market. One nice thing about it is that it’s just bigger enough than the NEX cameras that a small SLR lens (like the OM 24/2.8) with the protruding adapter won’t look nearly as stupid.
You’re so right!!
I only do wonder, why Fuji missed to mention all those things during their presentation of their new camera?
After all it seems that there are more questions than answers concerning the new x-pro1 🙁
Same question to Sony. In my mind it’s so obvious there is a huge market there. Sony and Fuji seem to avoid the question. Now, optically, Fuji is trying something different. Kind of symmetrical design with large rear element. They want to avoid the have too wide angle rays from the rear element of the lens to the sensor. Because of that, i fear M-Mount lenses won’t be much better on XP1 than Nex-7. I never heard anything whethert the FUJI sensor uses microlens technology. There still are so many things to discover about the XP1. Fuji knows about Sony’s problems, then may be, they deliver info little by little, and a pre-production camera which could be amazingly improved (following the comments of consummers) and really different than the production ones. What do you think about it ?
I hadn’t heard anything about the larger rear elements…an interesting idea. So their thought is then to solve the short flange distance problem in the lens rather than the sensor. I’d still think that they’ve got a microlens arra, seeing as the X100 apparently has an extensive one (albeit geared toward one specific lens), and their release of an official M adapter leads me to believe that they haven’t left legacy glass by the wayside. But you never know…if they’re relying more on their own lens design than the sensor itself, then we could indeed see the same problems as the NEX-7 (and 3 and 5). Of course, if Fuji’s lenses are excellent (the 35/1.4 definitely looks fantastic so far…not enough sampling on the others yet), it would make buying legacy glass a lot less necessary than it is for the Sony. Though that’s kind of irrelevant if you’ve already got a bunch of rangefinder lenses.
Jean-Michael – I think the microlens array has less to do with it than the NEX-7’s higher pixel density and AA filter.
Time will tell, but I *think* the X Pro will perform beautifully with RF lenses – they need to get a MF assist system in there though.
Ok, let’s see. I would be the first one to enjoy to see M-Mount lenses well working on XP1 ! The range of possible lenses will be much better. I’m especially interested by the f:4/21mm VC which is really good lens on film.
Don’t forget the new 16 MP Ricoh module, no AA filter, cheaper, and with focus peaking (even if it’s less well implemented than Sony’s).
As much as I would like to own this camera, I will not buy it (unless I win the lottery tomorrow). Just too expensive. It tug at my heart like my Contax G2 does. Kudos must be given to Fuji….last year it was the X100, this year the X PRO 1. They have instantly made and are holding a solid/enviable area of the market. Like it or hate it, Fuji is hitting it out of the park.
problem is fuji will not make a profit with it…..
Yes, if Fuji implement a nice peaking system later, this will be a killer M mount (given the sensor is designed for very short back focus and has no AA filter, I don’t doubt it will work really well).
Just wish it had a better EVF, although 1.4m dots is pretty decent.
The GXR is better than the NEX 5N though (purely in terms of tricky M lenses of course).
I wish Fuji would bring the X100 to the next level: good mechanical MF lens, practical MF focusing system with peaking or focusing balance to show where to find focus, improved Pro 1 sensor, Q button. X100 concept is close to perfect anyways; it’s small with overwhelming IQ since the whole system is optimized for the fixed lens. One fixed standard lens for 90% of all needs with superb IQ is better than a camera that compromises for useless options.
An X100 with 35mm lens would be great. I didn’t buy the X100 because of the 18mm lens which doesn’t fit my needs. Now the X-1 pro is too expensive. If there’s no 35mm lens for the X100 I won’t buy a Fujifilm camera this year.
X100 has 23mm f/2 lens which is equivalent to 35mm.
The Fuji and Sony cameras are always going to struggle with their combination of short flange distance and large sensors. Solution? Go mFT! MFT has a much more modest ratio of flange distance to sensor diagonal (do the math) whilst remaining the smallest practical option.
m43 use a tiny sensor, shockingly so, therefore a very limited tool for photographers who actually use depth of field creatively. You also get that digital ‘look’ with these small sensor cameras.
Honestly, m43 is a huge step backwards for any seasoned photographer. As tech improves and becomes cheaper you’d think these camera co’s would be aiming to get back to how 35mm film and optics performed decades earlier…
+1
The ability to have limited depth of field is very important. Not only for portraits and tele lenses, but with normal and wide angel lenses at medium distance. That “smooth out of focus” is sometimes what makes a good picture. For this you need a large sensor, and it just can not be done with a M43 or smaller.
It’s really not that shocking if you understand the design principle. The disadvantage of APS-C is in its overly wide aspect ratio of 3:2, which means it requires a large image circle (thus, large lenses) while using only a small portion of that circle. 4/3 squares the ratio by shrinking APS-C horizontally while keeping 90% of the vertical height. Vertical crop on M4/3 is 1.8x, 1.6x on Canon APS-C. So you keep 90% of the vertical dimension while significantly shrinking the image circle, and thus you can make cheap, fast, small lenses like the 20mm which is seemingly impossible on APS-C sized systems.
In other words, the 1.5x vs. 2x crop is an oversimplification. APS-C is much closer to 4/3 in depth-of-field control than it is to full frame.
very technical, but very useful. as I understood it, APS-C is much closer to FF in depth-of-field control than m4/3 is
Humm.. then what about a square sensor ? I would love it ! Even Hasselblad recently came back to a square sensor.
A great MF assistant would be a size- and zoom-customizable magnification window with 20%-100% of the EVF area, peaking and operation by a click-wheel. First click window pops up, second click window closes, dial controls size, dial+Fn control magnification. Peaking in the whole EVF, customizable between Ricoh Mode 1 and 2 in the window. And maybe focus indicator by the AF-system for a central, small AF point.
m43 are no match for FULLFRAME cameras.. and all this talk about “the future” by cheap folks will not change that.
show me professionell photographers who switched from medium format or fullframe to m43.
please show me some!!!
they will not switch because IMAGE QUALITY matters for them!!
and m43 is NO match quality wise for fullframe or medium format.
all these m43 cameras are “tourist travel cameras”. face it. admit it…
it is the truth!!
now companys who make m43 cameras should improve this… the travel factor.
make the cameras and lenses smaller.
i love the image look of my 5D MK2 and whenever i can i prefer to use the 5D over my E-PL2.
i would never spend money on lenses of a inferior system. my E-PL2 has just the kit lens.
if i could justify buying a medium format camera i would do that… but then its only ONE hobby of me.