Fujifilm X-Pro1 Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review

Body Elements

	As with the X100, the X-Pro1 has an eye sensor by the viewfinder, allowing automatic switchover from the rear LCD when you bring the camera to your eye.
	The lever that switches between optical and electronic viewfinder modes is placed for operation by your right middle finger. It points downwards, as opposed to up on the X100.
	The X1-Pro has a single, clickable rear dial, replacing both the X100's jog lever and dial around the 4-way controller. In conjunction with the new 'Q' button, it can be used to change a wide range of settings via an on-screen control panel (that's displayed both on the rear screen and in the viewfinder).
	The 4-way controller is much improved, with separated directional keys and a larger, more positive 'OK' button. The buttons have mainly been stripped of their control functions, with the sole exception of the 'up' key. The 'Macro' label (slightly obtusely) indicates that it's used to enable close-distance focusing with the 60mm F2.4 lens, switching over to the EVF in the process.
	The camera's secondary controls - drive mode, metering pattern, and AF area selection - are consolidated onto a column of buttons down the left side of the LCD.
	In line with the camera's extensive provision of external controls, there's a dedicated switch for changing focus mode on the camera's front. It's of the rotary type (replacing the X100's fiddly linear switch), with the two most-used modes (single AF and Manual) at the extremes of its travel where they're easiest to hit quickly.
	The front plate plays host to an autofocus-assist LED, squeezed between two tiny holes for the stereo microphone that's used during video recording.
	The X-Pro1 has no built-in flash, but there's a hotshoe on the top plate that has contacts for use with Fujifilm's dedicated external units. The company has co-announced a small flash unit, the EP-X20, specifically to complement the X-Pro1 (see below).
	For studio flash work, there's also a PC socket tucked out of the way on the left side of the camera, below the camera's built-in speaker.
	The usual HDMI and USB connectors are behind a hinged plastic door on the handgrip. Note there's no microphone input for movie recording (this is primarily a stills camera, remember).
	Like with the X100, the X-Pro1's tripod mount is placed right beside the battery/SD card door, meaning you won't be able to replace either with the camera on a tripod.
	The X-Pro1 uses a new, blocky battery pack. In utterly conventional fashion it lives behind a base-plate door, which also provides access to the memory card slot.

Optional accessories

	This is the new EP-X20 flash unit, designed specifically to complement the X-Pro1. It's a small, fixed-head unit that has the distinction of incorporating a manual power output dial on top.
	This is the X-Pro1's optional handgrip, that simply screws onto the base of the camera.

New Quick Menu

Pressing the Q button on the back of the X-Pro1 brings up this Quick Menu, where you can change a wide range of options such as ISO, DR, Film Simulation and so on. You simply move around the panel using the 4-way controller and spin the rear dial to change the selected option. It has to be said that this promises to make using the X-Pro1 a much less painful experience compared to changing these parameters on the X100.

First impressions and summary

The X-Pro1 is certainly a very interesting addition to the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera marketplace. It's a bold move by Fujifilm, being aimed at the highly demanding professional market, and it certainly ticks many of the right boxes in terms of control layout, initial lens choice and of course its hybrid viewfinder. The many tweaks and updates over the X100, including the revised button layout, new 'Q' control panel, and tabbed menus show that Fujifilm has been prepared to listen and respond to criticism - always a positive sign.

Of course the X-Pro1 will ultimately stand or fall on its image quality and operability, and at the moment it's too early to tell much about these. On the former, portents are certainly good: the X100's image quality is outstanding. However we suspect the X-Pro1 will also need to offer substantially improved operational speed (particularly in terms of focus speed, and file writing and buffering) to truly win over its target market. If it succeeds, Fujifilm may well find it has a modern classic on its hands. We're certainly very much looking forward to testing it and finding out.

Hands-on Preview video

Comments

Total comments: 751

As wonderful as this camera is, I would love to see Fuji come out with a simplified (less expensive?) M-mount manual only version with a small central zone of edge shimmering and/or magnification (the amount to be determined by the user) to aid manual focussing, as did Ricoh with its GXR body and A12 M- module. The remainder of this X Pro 1 camera is a jewel with features that Leica never will be able or desire to emulate when its M10 body eventually comes out at 5 or 6 times the Fuji's price.

In fact, if Fuji now would just provide firmware changes to provide these proper manual focussing capabilities , I'd gladly abandon my virtually new Ricoh GXR system, knowing that no other manufacturer out there will improve upon this new home for Leica and Zeiss manual lenses, not to mention vintage Canon FD and Nikon lenses with suitable adapters. Unless Fuji then decided to offer in-body image stabilization and a full frame sensor of 30 megapixels!!! One can never know for sure!

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

When I upgrade, it will prob be to the FUJI!

0 upvotes

I can not download the 6400iso raw file. The link seems broken.
Does anyone know how to notify that to dpreview staff?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I am very intrested in this camera, is Fuji good at up dates. I can not understand why the RAW ISO starts at 200. At least 100 or maybe 50. Can anyone tell me if they are good at up dates, to firmware, correct?. Also can a firmware up date change this.
If you know any or all of this please reply.
Thank You

0 upvotes

Check out the link on my site to experienced wedding photographer Ryan Brenizer, and his use of this camera in a couple of his shoots:

http://imagesbyeduardo.com/main/equipment/fuji-xpro1-wedding-photography/

0 upvotes

move the cursor to different points and you get different results depending on camera. For example the XP1 looks better than all of them when the cursor is placed on the paper clips. It comes down to different areas being focussed on different cameras.

1 upvote

I use the camera raw v7.1 rc1 from Adobe labs but X-Pro1 raw images cannot be opened with it.
Which converter was used for the studio shot. Camera raw 7.1beta? Where do I get this version?

1 upvote

That's because the RAWs are wrong. You can't have JPEGs that look that much better in the other sample page and then complain that the RAWS are crap. It's BETA, people. It's a new array. You can't have RAWS with worse detail etc than JPEGs - the in-camera JPEGS are incredible. You can't start with mush and poor color and get to incredible...Adobe just has some work to do.

I have used the SilkyPix RAW, reduced all NR and sharpening to 0, exported to TIFF and into Lightroom and - wow! magic! presto! - the images are a ton better than these here.

Adobe will come through, it's in their best interest. I like what I am seeing from my Fuji, versus my other cameras from all the other big brands that start with C, N, and S.

2 upvotes

Thats my experience too!

0 upvotes

Me too. I am astounded with the jpegs done with the black and white applications. See for yourself... http://johnsmith-johnsimages.blogspot.ca/ . All I want is faster AF and less post shot lag. Otherwise, it's like my film camera whose name starts with L.

0 upvotes

I've downloaded the raw files and silkypix, and I don't see this improvement you are talking about. The color balance is better, but there is no more detail in the image than what I see above. There is visible blurring of texture detail that I should never see in a raw image. If anything silkypix is worse in some ways because it has some nasty color banding on the tighter patterns (moire effect).

I've yet to see anyone post any full size samples, JPEG or RAW, of the X Pro that come even close to the detail this sensor is supposed to have considering the lack of an AA filter, much less even comparable to any other similarly sized sensors. Every example of how wonderful it's supposed to be I've seen from people are scaled web gallery images or massively and visibly over-sharpened. And trust me, I wish I was proved wrong here. The color/noise rendition of the X-Pro is awesome, but the detail seems poor, particularly at low iso speeds.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

So sad to see all these "stupid" comments from people who even not have had their hands on X-Pro1. These raw files looks completly wrong.
I am so happy for the output I get from my X-Pro1 and its so much better than what I see here. I own Nikon D700 also (And love it), but my Fuji X-Pro1 is doing a better job when I compare image quality.

0 upvotes

Much better from the Fuji after the RAW update. I assumed something had to have been wrong with that initial RAW processing. It was the worst I've ever seen. Looked nothing like what I'm getting out of my own X-Pro1.

This is more like it. Virtually no noise at ISO1600 and plenty of sharpness. Really impressive sensor. That is much more what I was expecting. My jaw dropped the first time I processed my own pics from the Fuji. I couldn't believe how sharp they were.

0 upvotes

Each of these camera-lens combos appears to be critically focussed at different planes of this studio scene, and I wonder if that isn't the reason for the apparent differences in image quality. I replaced the Nikon D7000 with the Ricoh GXR with 50mm macro lens and found that it especially and the Fuji to a lesser extent were sharper on near objects than the NEX7, but just the opposite was true on more distant objects, such as the Queen of Hearts. The Canon D5 MkIII is beautifully sharpest at mid depth, e.g. the Bailey's label and fabric but blurry on the distant card. One wouldn't expect this to happen with the lenses set to f8 (except for the Canon 85mm at f11), but I can't see any other reason for this observation. Also, why is the image of the NEX7 with a 50mm lens as large as the Canon's 85 mm lens?

1 upvote

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45203414@N06/7138561157/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Where Is the "True"?

0 upvotes

I think this can't be the Fuji output. Something must be wrong with the uploaded images. The sensor is 16MP, like the Olympus OMD and the Sony NEx5N and Nikon D7000. However you look at whats viewable in the image area, and it is representative of a 12MP sensor similar to the Olympus E5.

DPReview are you sure these are the Fuji images and not some other camera, as the in frame view does not make any sense.

0 upvotes

Nikon D800 is clearly better !

1 upvote

Even at ISO 200, there is a lot of detail lost to ...? I don't know, is it the lens, or ACR?

0 upvotes

Compare the Queen's(?) face on the bank note and the text next to it at ISO3200 in RAW to the Sony NEX 7/5n and the Olympus OM-D.

The fine detail and the pattern of the paper is basically completely gone on the Fuji, while still clearly visible on the other three cameras.

Then compare to the X100, even the X100 has visibly better detail there despite the lower MP.

Fuji is obviously applying noise reduction on X-Pro1 raws. So much for the "magic sensor"

1 upvote

I didn't do your comparison, but I did look at the Nikon 800, the Nex 7 and the OMD. Must say that I am very impressed with the Olympus OMD and not at all impressed with the Fuji. It looked the worst to me. And even at high ISO. Either something is wrong with these Fuji up load or Olympus OMD really is the best "Small" camera to be succeeded by the Nikon D800.

0 upvotes

The Fuji raws are cooked so we can stop the magic sensor voodoo at higher iso. Its a regular sensor no better than a run of the mill Sony or Olympus one. Its probably got a slight edge at lower iso because of the absence of an AA filter but thats pretty much it.

0 upvotes

What a difference a color space makes. I'm greatly reassurred about ACR.

(Images have been replaced with better processed versions)

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Blank for me too in Firefox, IE8 and Chrome.

0 upvotes

Firefox 12.0 doesn't work. Internet Explorer 9 works though.

0 upvotes

nope perfectly clear here!!

0 upvotes

Blank for me too :(

0 upvotes

Whats going on here? I see absolutely nothing! The screens blank! Are other people experiencing similar problems or is it just me? I hope DP haven't put restrictions on viewing because of the country I live in.

0 upvotes

It does seem like there is some kind of processing going on or flaws in RAW de-mosaicing. The Fuji looks soft but seems to blow all the others away in high ISO...almost as if it uses noise reduction. It is significantly better than the D4 and 5DIII which is hard to believe. (put in 6400 RAW and then put cursor on gray card) Try moving cursor around different parts of the image. The NEX seems noisy even at 200, almost unusable which obviously isn't the case. It seems different areas of the picture favour different cameras at different ISO settings!

1 upvote

I'm not a fan but the RAW mode really sucks and invalidates this test.
Anyways, I tried JPEG and the detail it puts out is just average but the jpeg ISO performance is unbelievable, as good as the full frames or even better.
How is that possible?

0 upvotes

OMD just caters for those who like over-sharpened 'cartoon' like images. Fine - if that's what you like. Any number of Fuji user examples on sites all over the 'net proving it is the most 'film-like' camera out there when used correctly .... i.e. in real life situations.

The Olympus mushes fine detail out, in favour of over-sharpened results, which (superficially) look quite impressive. Unless you have a similar copy of Adobe RAW then YOU don't know what the Fuji is really capable of anyway. This is an announcement, not a comparative, viewable test of RAW output ....

Pros aren't buying the XPro or X100 for fun - or because it's AF doesn't work, or it's flimsy, or any of the stupid reasons Oly fans seem to need in order to justify their own camera purchase. Buying it for results.

Fuji and Nex buyers seem quite happy with their respective buys ... always seems to be an OMD fan-boy trying to spoil the fun!

If you don't like the Fuji (or Nex, or Canon) - don't buy it. Simple as ....

1 upvote

Seems to me that you're the one that feels the need to defend the X-Pro1. The Fujifilm forums on this site are the WORST.

People there are so hyper sensitive and insecure that anytime a legitimate issue with the camera is brought up the Fujifilm fanboys bring out their torches and pitch forks to burn the "witches" at the stake.

2 upvotes

Errr - not the only one, read the thread. Not defending it at all - just pointing out there is enough REAL evidence out there - demonstrating what it can do. Nor am I bothered about the Oly or the Nex or Canon or anything else.

WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID - is the Fuji is better than portrayed here, the OMD is worse .... (i.e. B****hit alert). To be accurate, why do YOU need to criticise it - and the Fuji forums - at all? I repeat, if people don't like it don't buy it.

You aren't Huff in disguise are you? There's another guy who can't leave well alone, despite evidence to the contrary ....

1 upvote

Oly E-M5...blows away the competition!
Just compare and see....SHOCKING but true.

2 upvotes

At low ISOs, Nex-7 is the clear winner.
At ISO 1600 and above, OM-D and 5D Mk III have an edge.

This Fuji X-Pro is no good.

0 upvotes

What a post!

What are you talking here? JPG or RAW images?

At least at ISO6400 (RAW) OM-D has no edge:

http://i.imgur.com/hLxc2.png

1 upvote

@rsf3127... wow reading comments here in general is like being part of some MMORPG "Camera wars" game... and you are one of many trolls... how can you say that OM-D have edge over fuji at high ISO? looks at jpg ISO 12800 (focus on right of blue robot, end inspect feathers... look at details produced by both cameras) and don't dumb comments section down by own prejudice.

0 upvotes

This forum is really funny. Who shoots jpegs at ISO12800. Not me.
Give me Raw and fast sharp AF lenses, that focus quickly. So I guess when you are shooting your jpegs at ISO 12800 in low light that your Fuji is hunting for focus, no? I will take the OM or the 5DMark II or III any day of the week with some fast sharp glass (perhaps a fisheye lens, etc.) at low to mid ISO. The Fuji is way too quirky & limited for this photographer for a camera that is that expensive. Truly.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

People, the XPro1 is not soft. Download a trial version of Silkypix Developer Studio Pro 5 and download DPR's raw file and you'll see the missing detail. Adobe ACR is softening the images, and dulling the colors too, as far as I can see.

However, I can notice some artifacts that look like aliasing on the line-drawn faces. Unless there actually are yellow stripes on them...

It would be interesting to provide a comparison of the two raw development softwares. That also belongs to digital photgraphy, no?

1 upvote

I swear the x-pro is the only camera that could have caused so many internet warriors to say so many nice things about Silkypix.

3 upvotes

Ha - well, at least they didn't call it FastPix...

0 upvotes

lol no doubt :D

0 upvotes

Victor Kapas:

But I tried some of those XPro1 raws DPReview put up a couple of weeks ago, and they didn't look real good when extracted with Silkypix, though maybe not exactly soft.

0 upvotes

My biggest problem with Silkypix right now is the reds (muted, inaccurate hue). On the other hand, when processing skin tones with other cameras, my biggest problem is the reds (too prominent, always needing adjustment).

0 upvotes

New conversions have been uploaded and they look much better.

0 upvotes

<snip>, this was in reference to the current version, sorry.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Way too much noise reduction in the RAW files. At first I though wow almost no noise. Then I realized almost no detail even at ISO 200.

This is just Fuji trickery. This is not good. The Olympus E-M5 looks alot better to me at all ISO values for RAW files when you factor in detail.

The jpgs look ok. They still do not have much noise. However, they appear to have some sharpening applied. The RAW files still do not look good though. For a camera this expensive that is just terrible.

Hopefully Fuji enables you to turn noise reduction on and off. There are sometimes that I want to control noise and there are other times that I really want detail.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

Please note that you're commenting on RAW performance of a camera processed in *BETA* version of ACR. Download SilkyPix and import X-Pro1 RAW file and you'll see completely different picture ;)

Please always read article before claiming that something is bad, you can't really conclude RAW performance of a camera based on BETA RAW converter.

I think we should all thank DPREVIEW for sharing this with us but we must remember it's still BETA.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Then Dpreview shouldn't have posted the samples at all. If these don't represent what we will actually get then they serve no purpose.

1 upvote

@mpgxsvcd - I'm just glad that they published this, there's actually hope when it comes to ACR support of X-Pro1 :)

0 upvotes

Something seems strange with the RAW files...looks like they are being processed in-camera. Colors are very muted.

0 upvotes

Interesting that foreground objects (eg batteries) are a lot sharper than background ones. Seems like missed focus.

Some issues with colour bleed etc in RAW. Obviously ACR not there yet.

2 upvotes

If I look at the paperclips on the green thing, the X-Pro 1 is sharper than the Nex-7 & EM-5. But then focus on a background object like the playing card, and it's reversed.

Also, if I look at the thread spindles, its like the X-Pro 1 RAW has had the shadows pulled compared to the others.

0 upvotes

... if I open the files in Silkypix, I have to almost max the contrast to get something that resembles the other RAW files (comparing the spindles). It also helps the colours somewhat.

1 upvote

The JPEGS are considerably better than RAW which implies without any imagination that the ACR Beta is not optimised at the moment.

The lack of noise may relate directly to the algorithm Adobe are applying to demosaic the picture which coincidentally happens to remove some fine detail as well. The significant colour bleed (red into white areas) implies that there is some way to go yet.

As usual the forum numpties are jumping to conclusions and as usual it's pointless until we see a final version. This is not a standard Bayer pattern and I suspect RAW conversion is nothing like as simple.

0 upvotes

No need to buy full frame or leading edge APS-C equipment unless you regularly produce prints 120 cm wide or your money is burning a hole in your pocket.

I downloaded JPEGs for the X-Pro1, Nikon D300S and D800 and enlarged on screen to 142cm wide for the whole image. The differences between all three was negligible and I am sure the same is true with RAW. I accept that the X-Pro1 may be able to compete with a full frame camera but so can an APS-C camera for most people in most circumstances.

I regularly make A2 prints (60cms wide) from my Nikon D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens. I may be lucky because if the lens quality of this optic does vary, as has been suggested, I have one of the good ones! The results with this lens may not be the sharpest around but I have excellent images from it, many very sharp at A2 from edge to edge at that size, that is for pictures as opposed to lens tests. I also have a D5000 which to all practical intents and purposes gives indistinguishable results.

1 upvote

I said from DAY ONE....I have never seen a totally sharp photo from the Fuji. Is there some kind of error here? So the Fuji REALLY is THAT soft. WOW!?!?!?!

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

You need to use some sharpening on virtually all digital images as far as I can judge. DP Review avoid more than very limited use of it here (if any) as that would mask any differences between one camera and another.

I do not think that there is anything soft about the Fuji images here if you apply a sensible amount of sharpening and add a little contrast to these rather flat test images to bring them up to normal.

Some people do go for exaggerated sharpness and, in the process destroy subtle tones and smooth gradation. You always have to strike a balance whether using a modest camera, Leica, Hasselblad or even a Fuji.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

You have to be kidding...even my cat's whiskers are microscope sharp.

0 upvotes

Just what I thought ....the camera is GREAT for cat photos. Jpegs at ISO 12800 I hope!!!!!

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Maybe is just me but even RAW images seem to have some Noise reduction on them. We have to wait for DXOmark to see if those ISO valuers are real. Iso 1600 on the Fuji X100 is iso 1000. It is off by over 2/3 of a stop

1 upvote

Very nice! As Fuji says the X Pro1 is over the 5DII iabout ISO ( but the 5DIII is slightly over the Fuji and the fact imaybe s very meaningful about the APS future...).

I would like a XPro1 with a much faster AF, but the IQ looks awesome !

0 upvotes

Compared to the Fuji X-100, the XPro1 is less noisy but considerably softer, which is quite odd. I assume that;s the lens not being up to par?

0 upvotes

Seems more like the XPro1 is doing a lot of NR in even the RAW files. Compared to the EM5 it has less noise but far less detail (the feathers for example at 6400)

3 upvotes

It seems soft even at base ISO, so I'd think that's not because of noise reduction. Instead it could be attributed to either optics or RAW conversion.

As mentioned by others, the colors look muted compared to other cameras, especially the reds seem to lean towards brown. This may suggest RAW conversion issues.

That said, the detail seems to be there, which hopefully means in should respond well to sharpening in PP. I assume a dedicated color profile might help as well.

The high ISO performance is stunning, though.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

1 upvote

RAW is also softer than the JPEGs too.

1 upvote

DERP! Adobe: releases 7.1 candidate. Forgets X-Pro1 support, even though it's obviously available now.

0 upvotes

Conversion from ACR seems to render reds as brownish or burgundy. Mauve dots on feathers are no where near the same colour as other three cameras produce. Whole scene seems to have slight cast over it. Has Adobe got conversion right yet?

At higher ISO (e.g. 3200) detail and noise from Fuji seems to be much better than NEX7, about same as, if not beter than D7000. Only 5D Mk3 seems to be better.

1 upvote

How about including RAWs from the Sigma SD1? It would seem a fair comparison... it has a unique sensor too.

1 upvote

Is this a beta of ACR 7? Or ACR 6.7?

Now that some beta ACR opens raws from the XPr1, could DPReview post a four or five realworld raws for download?

I'm seeing what others are commenting on but would really like to see more examples from outdoors and at night.

0 upvotes

At all ISOs it looks surprisingly soft and a little like an image showing the effects of noise reduction. Given that I was expecting very good raw performance, my guess is that Adobe isn't doing a very good job of the new demosaic required by the non-standard color filter array pattern used in this sensor.

2 upvotes

There's one glaring difference between the X-Pro1 and all other cameras I have selected for comparison: place the frame on the bottom left of the playing card with the white cross on the black background covering approximately half of the area. If you then set the Fuji (as well as the 3 other cameras) to raw output and select a high ISO 1600/3200/6400 you will see that a) unlike the other cameras the X-Pro1 hardly produces any color grain and b) the upside-down face on the playing card looks much smoother than on any of the other cameras, including the D800. To me this particular section of the test image looks a lot more attractive on the Fuji. Is it the sensor?

0 upvotes

Interesting comparison. The Fuji raw 6400 on the black (next to the white cross) does not look like random noise ( like the Canon 5D3 or Nikon 800). This seems to imply some type of noise suppression in silicon or software.

0 upvotes

Interesting enough, at low ISO, the detail captured by EM5 & NEx 5n ( both raw & JPEG) is distinguishably better than Fuji. All three camares have similiar pixel counts. Is this caused by Fuji's larger sampling area of the 6*6 array?

1 upvote

I haven't been loyal to any brand since I sold my film Leicas and Rolleis. The image is everything, and like music, what you like is subject to personal preference. All four comparison images are awesome, but I am most amazed at the NEX7, which in some cases seems to outperform the full-frame flagship Nikon and Canon. Between the NEX7, and the fact they are making the sensor for the 800, upstart Sony is on a roll. Saving up my pennies for a NEX7.

2 upvotes

At ISO 3200, from raw, the Sony Nex 7 is joke compared to the Nikon D4 and also the Canon 5D III.

2 upvotes

The $1200 camera isn't as good as the $3500 camera or the $6000 camera? Do you have any perspective at all?

2 upvotes

ISO 3200 is not everything. Nex-7 images are amazingly good (even better than D4 and 5D III) at lower ISOs

2 upvotes

NorthwestF:

Going by this DPReview setup shot, at ISO200 (raw) the D3s and the 5D III beat the Nex 7, no great surprise. What is a surprise is a claim to the contrary.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Output seems ok but nothing mind blowing. But we are all waiting dpr to cut to the final review (what's holding up?). For me the deciding factor is how fast this camera handles AF in various situations and it better match OM-D's AF or I'm not touching it. Lose a couple of street shots and you'll know what I mean. Those moments are gone.

From what I have read so far they missed so many attributes (lighting fast AF, weather sealing, and for this price - full frame). Also, I'd like to see a well articulated lens roadmap.

Personally, the fact that it looks so much like a Leica is not helping either, reminding me that I couldn't afford the real thing. Now I wanna know what Leica is dishing out this May 10.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

For the price? I would expect a FF to be out of the question. The camera is only $1700 in line with the upper end of APS-C cameras. You'd have to add close to an extra grand to be in FF territory.

0 upvotes

Not true given D700 and 5DM2 prices.

0 upvotes

Looks similar to the D700.

0 upvotes

Appears to compare with the D7000, but not with 5D mIII.

2 upvotes

Does this camera support sequences of exposures (for example for time lapses) either through a software mode or some extra accessory?

0 upvotes

This looks like a solid and well made M9 alternative that I would love to have in my hands and try out with my assortment of Leica M lenses. I'm concerned, as are apparently others, about critical focussing without the excellent Leica split viewfinder or electronic focussing aids.
Other Fuji models and the Sony NEX 7 have been mentioned frequently as alternatives for use with manual lenses, but not yet the Ricoh GXR with the A12- M mount module, specifically designed for Leica and with adapters other manual lenses. It is ruggedly built of magnesium with a rubber coating that enhances grip without bulk; it is smaller than the NEX 7. There is no anti-aliasing filter, it offers accurate edge enhancement focussing modes and customizable, readily accessible shutter speed, exposure compensation, ISO and other controls. However, its APS-C sensor is "only" 12 MP (tho sharp) and the viewfinder is external electronic only, which may be turn offs for some. Just an alternative thought.

0 upvotes

I waited for the release of the x100, checked out the reviews and decided against it. I waited for the release of the x10, same result. I waited for the xpro-1 anticipating it would finally be the digital version of my beloved Contax G2. I am tired of waiting, and just about give up on Fuji. Think I will wait for the reviews of the Olympus OMD 5 digital. In the meantime I will lug around my Nikon D700, although heavy it produces great photos and is full frame. Maybe someday, someone will come out with a proven rangefinder type digital. I did look into the Leica M9 but it is just a little too expensive for the camera and associated lens, not to mention a lack of auto-focus..........

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Hi Ray, I have a similar dilemma: I want to find a mirrorless camera to replace my Nikon D700. Fuji x100 sounds as the best option at the moment (x10 looks way worse and as for X-pro1.. I didn't like the feel of it in my hands). I am now considering Canon G1 X as an option, yet still not too sure which one to buy, there seems to be no clear winner for me among all these camera manufacturers. My heart says get x100, my brain tells me to wait. My back says it hurts from D700 with a 24-70mm already and my wallet says I will never be able to afford the Leica M9... Ah, what to do!!

0 upvotes

I figured if I keep waiting someone will come out with something that at least just operates like my Contax G2. I still use the G2, have the film processed onto a digital format and then play around with it in phtotshop. Would much rather stop spending money on the film.
Take heart, something will come along, hopefully soon?

0 upvotes

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. At least, Fuji is trying to advance the state of the viewfinder. No one has since Contax and the G1/G2.

0 upvotes

Total comments: 751