# Check out the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 16MP camera - it's an absolute stunner. *Want*



## editor (Jan 9, 2012)

Now *this* could be my next camera - it's got the same  hybrid viewfinder as the X100 and comes with interchangeable lenses. And it looks awesome.












http://www.wirefresh.com/fuji-x-pro...camera-early-contender-of-camera-of-the-year/

*tries not to think about the price


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2012)

Total camera porn. A beautiful-looking piece of kit, and if it lives up to the specs, probably a goer for Fuji.


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2012)

If the hybrid viewfinder delivers on its promise (i.e. an improved version of the one seen n the X100), then I may sell off my Nikon for this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2012)

editor said:


> If the hybrid viewfinder delivers on its promise (i.e. an improved version of the one seen n the X100), then I may sell off my Nikon for this.



Fuji seem to really be taking risks on high-ticket stuff over the last couple of years, what with the GF670, and then the X range of digi-compacts, and good on 'em for doing so, in my book!

Will you really sell off your DSLR, though (even if the Fuji has admittedly fantastic specs and weighs about half a tonne less)? Doesn't the "the customer expects to see you using an SLR" factor come into some of the photo-work you do?
That said, I had a mate who used to do photo-work with an Olympus Ace (remember those?  ), and just tell the customers he'd used an OM2SP.


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Will you really sell off your DSLR, though (even if the Fuji has admittedly fantastic specs and weighs about half a tonne less)? Doesn't the "the customer expects to see you using an SLR" factor come into some of the photo-work you do?
> That said, I had a mate who used to do photo-work with an Olympus Ace (remember those?  ), and just tell the customers he'd used an OM2SP.


Most of the photos I sell - including this unexpectedly high profile job - have been taken on a compact. Some of the photos I've sold have been taken on some quite shonky cameras too 

The sensor in the Fuji is the same size as in my Nikon (APS-C).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2012)

editor said:


> Most of the photos I sell - including this unexpectedly high profile job - have been taken on a compact. Some of the photos I've sold have been taken on some quite shonky cameras too
> 
> The sensor in the Fuji is the same size as in my Nikon (APS-C).



And the optics are likely to be just as good, too. Hmm, I take your point, then, and going around with the X-Pro *and* a full complement of lenses is going to leave you a lot more streamlined than toting a DSLR and glass for it.

Have you convinced Fuji to send you a review model yet?* *


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you convinced Fuji to send you a review model yet?* *


I've calculated that my chances lie between 'no chance' and 'not a fucking chance'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2012)

editor said:


> I've calculated that my chances lie between 'no chance' and 'not a fucking chance'.



Bugger.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 9, 2012)

wonder what the noise will be like on it... fuji have always had a problem with high range noise which has rendered all their machines untouchable for me even though at lower iso they are usually good images...


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2012)

The nearly-perfect-but-not-quite-there X100 appeared to have a fantastic sensor:


> I haven't used, let alone tested, every camera on the market. But I am familiar with the amazing low light capability of the Nikon D3, and I am confident that in terms of high ISO noise performance the X100 is close to it. ISOs up to 3200 is so relatively noise free that I wouldn't hesitate to use any speed, even for critical work. 3200 is very good, and even 6400 only needs a bit of clean up (especially in B&W) to be very usable...
> 
> For serious photographers who value high image quality in combination with eye-level non-reflex viewing, this is a camera to cherish. The excellent build quality also helps to justify the relatively high price of the X100. I doubt that anyone with the wherewithal to purchase this camera and the interest in what it has to offer, will ever regret its purchase.
> 
> ...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 9, 2012)

will it have the 3 layer sensor tech sigma have been working on (which is why I've always assumed they've never sorted their low light noise issues) ??

that's the next pro camera I want with that feature but my guess is it'll hit on a point a shoot first...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor

and sigmas own SD10 was balls...

the 14's out though...

http://www.sigma-sd.com/SD14/feature/index.html


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2012)

Sigma's compact cameras have been _terrible_. The DP1 was a massive disappointment.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 9, 2012)

editor said:


> Sigma's compact cameras have been _terrible_. The DP1 was a massive disappointment.


I only mention it because I'm sure fuji and sigma had some sort of sensor chip tie in earlier in their histories... (like sony and nikon)...


----------



## wayward bob (Jan 9, 2012)

sure is purdy


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2012)

Fuji says that their newly developed sensor will out-resolve the full frame 21MP Canon EOS 5D Mark II dSLR!

http://www.wirefresh.com/fujifilm-a...interchangeable-lens-camera-we-lust-heartily/


----------



## dweller (Jan 10, 2012)

I'm lusting for this. But my wallet isn't.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 10, 2012)

editor said:


> Fuji says that their newly developed sensor will out-resolve the full frame 21MP Canon EOS 5D Mark II dSLR!
> 
> http://www.wirefresh.com/fujifilm-a...interchangeable-lens-camera-we-lust-heartily/



I some how find that impossible to believe...


----------



## editor (Jan 10, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> I some how find that impossible to believe...


Me to but that's the claim they've slammed down on the table! They have developed a very interesting new sensor though...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 10, 2012)

editor said:


> Me to but that's the claim they've slammed down on the table! They have developed a very interesting new sensor though...


it's a bit of a wired claim though isn't it it's not lower noise ratio or higher speed processing or it's that it will out-resolve the 5D mark II ...

but it's not 21.5 MP as a camera so how can it's resolution be higher unless they mean in terms of DPI or some other unit which numerically it technically does beat the 5D on but in which case it's a bit like the old Adam Werrity /Liam Fox no transactional impropriety type comment... which is so oddly worded as to make you instantly think well what's that hiding then...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 14, 2012)

My guess is that they reckon having no AA filter will mean the effective resolution is higher. See this page for some comparisons of a D700 with and without its AA filter. http://diglloyd.com/blog/2010/20100121_5-MaxMaxD700HR.html

Here's an early review http://vladdodan.ro/blog/fuji-x-pro-1-hands-on-preview/ This bloke doesn't seem to be massively impressed with the performance of the Fuji lenses nor with the camera as a manual focus platform, which is interesting because I think a lot of people who can't afford a Leica M9 are excited about the idea of being able to use their old M-mount lenses on the X-Pro when the promised adaptor arrives.

ETA: This blog has kindly listed all available info about the Fuji X-Pro

http://www.mikuli.com/2012/01/everything-about-fujifilm-x-pro1.html


----------



## editor (Jan 14, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Here's an early review http://vladdodan.ro/blog/fuji-x-pro-1-hands-on-preview/ This bloke doesn't seem to be massively impressed with the performance of the Fuji lenses nor with the camera as a manual focus platform, which is interesting because I think a lot of people who can't afford a Leica M9 are excited about the idea of being able to use their old M-mount lenses on the X-Pro when the promised adaptor arrives.


He seems pretty impressed overall though:


> Overall the X-Pro 1 is a well rounded system for entry level photographers or anyone who wants the PRO package on vacation but considerably lighter and gives a run for the money to just about any mirror-less camera currently on the market.
> 
> It will sell like crazy because it can easily replace the entry level DSLRs, both usability and IQ wise.
> 
> If you liked the X100 but decided to wait until something with lenses came on the market, go ahead and pre-order this one. You won`t regret it.


There's a preview up on DPreview now too:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 14, 2012)

Looks very nice. The digital Contax G. 16.3 effective MP's and very nice lenses. Fuji seem to have listened and acted after responses to the X100.

I would buy one if...

So, I probably won't be buying one


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 3, 2012)

> Fujifilm UK meanwhile hasn't yet announced pricing, but one of the country's retailers is taking orders at £1429 for the body and £549-599 for the lenses, which gives a good idea of how much you'll need to scrape together.


 
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/02/Fujifilm_X-Pro1_price

Pfft ...


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2012)

Some sample photos have been posted here: 
http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/fujifilm_x_pro1_photos/

Check out the ISO 25,600 image - it's astonishing quality.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 7, 2012)

editor said:


> Some sample photos have been posted here:
> http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/fujifilm_x_pro1_photos/
> Check out the ISO 25,600 image - it's astonishing quality.


 
Yes, it is interesting. But it is not a scene where you would expect to chose such an ISO, there is more light than that around. And I think high ISO where there is plenty of light is not a valid test.


----------



## cybertect (Mar 21, 2012)

A net friend of mine from Finland has been blogging about his use of the X-Pro 1

http://primejunta.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2012)

It seems that there's an awful lot of both compelling pros and rather annoying cons to this camera. 



> A week with the X-Pro1 was not enough.  While it drove me mad on numerous occasions, it also thrilled me with its image quality and the possibility of a viable autofocus rangefinder-style camera. At roughly one-third of the price of an equivalent Leica system, the X-Pro1 is  amazing value, but still a significant investment.  The verdict for now: the X-Pro1 is a quirky gem
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/.shtml


----------



## editor (Apr 16, 2012)

I had a play with one of these in a camera shop over the weekend and have to say I was a bit disappointed. It's bigger than it looks and you've got a ton of lens blocking the viewfinder.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 16, 2012)

cybertect said:


> A net friend of mine from Finland has been blogging about his use of the X-Pro 1
> 
> http://primejunta.blogspot.co.uk/


 
He has a lovely turn of phrase ...


> There's a lot of anxiety about the pros and cons of the X-Pro 1 in that abode of hungry ghosts, the DPReview forums.


 source above

c.f. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hungry_ghost


----------



## starfish2000 (Apr 25, 2012)

Its basically a digital Contax G2, the fucking control layouts the same. This will be huge. I want one!


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2012)

Review's gone up on DPReview: 


> With the X-Pro1 Fujifilm has built on the platform provided by the X100, and is beginning to look like a very serious contender at the high end of the camera market. In a way the X-Pro1 has no direct competitors; its optical viewfinder and traditional stills-focused control layout sets it apart from the likes of the Sony NEX-7, and of course it's much less expensive than the camera it physically most resembles, the Leica M9-P, and operates rather differently too. This alone should ensure it a niche in the market, and we suspect many buyers will be delighted with it.
> 
> The problem that Fujifilm faces, though, is that it's still an expensive camera in the grand scheme of things, and one that the company has seen fit to label 'Pro'. This means it inevitably has to be measured up against the best of its peers in all aspects of design and operation. But while it passes with flying colours in terms of image quality, certain operational aspects are still problematic; for example, we'd argue a professional camera that costs the best part of $2000 (with lens) should really offer a manual focus system that works properly in bright light.
> 
> So when all is said and done, the X-Pro1 is a very good camera, with excellent design and image quality, let down by a few small but significant operational bugs and quirks. Because of this - and for no other reason - it just misses out on our top award.


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/


----------



## dweller (Aug 29, 2012)

News of a cheaper X-Pro 1 -ish camera without the hybrid viewfinder (just has an EVF)  has been leaked
It is called the X-E1 and it is quite a sexy one (geddit?)

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/new-fuji-x-e1-pictures/

http://photorumors.com/2012/08/27/fujifilm-x-e1-specifications/


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2012)

That does look to be quite sweet.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

Worth a thread of its own! Hang on...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

If I was going to buy a Fujifilm camera, it would be this one.

http://photorumors.com/2011/02/19/fuji-gf670w-medium-format-film-camera-to-be-released-next-month/

I actually bought an old used SLR; I want to try and move away from digital, as much as possible.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

New thread here for X-E1:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/retro-styled-fuji-x-e1-compact-system-camera-pics.298513/


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If I was going to buy a Fujifilm camera, it would be this one.
> 
> http://photorumors.com/2011/02/19/fuji-gf670w-medium-format-film-camera-to-be-released-next-month/
> 
> I actually bought an old used SLR; I want to try and move away from digital, as much as possible.


I can't afford film. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> I can't afford film. It's as simple as that.


 
That's a huge problem. Also, development options are limited these days.

There's also the technical ease of use with digital. I bought the SLR just before a  brief vacation a couple of weeks ago. I hadn't used an SLR in 25 years. I bought some rolls, and loaded one, took some photos.

When I got back and took it in for dev, it turns out that the film wasn't turning properly on the spool, and the film was blank.  Luckily I was also taking shots with the digital.

But in any event, I want to make the SLR a regular part of my repertoire. I'll just have to go back to being judicious about the exposures I make. Sort of like the difference between using a flintlock and an Uzi.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If I was going to buy a Fujifilm camera, it would be this one.
> 
> http://photorumors.com/2011/02/19/fuji-gf670w-medium-format-film-camera-to-be-released-next-month/
> 
> I actually bought an old used SLR; I want to try and move away from digital, as much as possible.


I have a Fuji GS645S MF, which shoots at 6x4.5. I would have to shoot several hundred rolls with it before the cost approached a basic DSLR, by which time the DSLR would be seriously obsolete.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I have a Fuji GS645S MF, which shoots at 6x4.5. I would have to shoot several hundred rolls with it before the cost approached a basic DSLR, by which time the DSLR would be seriously obsolete.


 
So... why did you buy it?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So... why did you buy it?


Why did I buy a film camera that takes really good, highly detailed photos for a relatively small outlay? I can't think, I must have been possessed by demons or something.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Why did I buy a film camera that takes really good, highly detailed photos for a relatively small outlay? I can't think, I must have been possessed by demons or something.


 
So a film camera can have some redeeming qualities, after all? 


I didn't understand your earlier post, btw. It seemed to be saying that you can operate a film camera more cheaply than you can a digital.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So a film camera can have some redeeming qualities, after all?
> 
> 
> I didn't understand your earlier post, btw. It seemed to be saying that you can operate a film camera more cheaply than you can a digital.


If you already own a good film camera, then I can see his point.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 31, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So a film camera can have some redeeming qualities, after all?
> 
> 
> I didn't understand your earlier post, btw. It seemed to be saying that you can operate a film camera more cheaply than you can a digital.


I have loads of film cameras and I shoot with them regularly. You can certainly buy a film camera and take pictures with it indefinitely for less than the price of a DSLR these days, because old cameras are so ridiculously cheap. It is a lot more of a pain in the arse if you need the pictures right now of course.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I have loads of film cameras and I shoot with them regularly. You can certainly buy a film camera and take pictures with it indefinitely for less than the price of a DSLR these days, because old cameras are so ridiculously cheap. It is a lot more of a pain in the arse if you need the pictures right now of course.


 
The SLR I bought is probably 30 years old. I suspect that there won't be many of today's mid priced DSLRs still in perfect working order, 30 years from now.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 31, 2012)

editor said:


> If you already own a good film camera, then I can see his point.


Good film cameras cost buttons these days. (Well, MF SLRs don't, but not many people need a Hasselblad - 35mm SLRs go for ridiculously low prices, and the Fuji I mentioned is a rangefinder.) Fifty quid will get you what was a high-end camera when it came out plus a couple of good lenses.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 31, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Good film cameras cost buttons these days. (Well, MF SLRs don't, but not many people need a Hasselblad - 35mm SLRs go for ridiculously low prices, and the Fuji I mentioned is a rangefinder.) Fifty quid will get you what was a high-end camera when it came out plus a couple of good lenses.


 I paid a hundred bucks for camera plus a good lens.


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2013)

There's a nice little lens video review here. I really like this guy's quirky approach.


----------



## George & Bill (Mar 24, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Good film cameras cost buttons these days. (Well, MF SLRs don't, but not many people need a Hasselblad - 35mm SLRs go for ridiculously low prices, and the Fuji I mentioned is a rangefinder.) Fifty quid will get you what was a high-end camera when it came out plus a couple of good lenses.



I love film, and if money was no object, I'd be forever snapping away on my OM1 and the rest of the stable that I would own under such circumstances 

But for any even moderately prolific photographer, digital will cost you less money overall. For example, shooting just one film per week at £8 a go (so, a cheap film plus a cheap dev+print, or a slightly better film plus dev only), will cost you £1664 over the next 4 years. That money would buy you a Nikon D600 with decent prime lens, that will last you about 4 years until the next model comes out, over which time you can shoot as much as you like at no marginal cost, and after which you can get at least a few hundred quid back towards your next camera - you can keep your lens as that won't have changed much.

Not saying people shouldn't buy lovely old film cameras, just they should be aware that the bargain initial price isn't the whole story...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 24, 2013)

Well, in practice I pay about £3 a roll - I buy in bulk, roll my own and develop and scan it myself. Chemicals cost very little and I need a scanner anyway. Also there are ancillary costs with digital that don't come into the figures, like sensor cleaning and repair (let alone things like spare batteries and cards). I dropped a film SLR onto flagstones at Somerset House a few months ago and bits went everywhere - new body, tenner on eBay, and I still have the old one, taped up with electrical tape, works okay apart from that I can't get at a couple of menus. Lenses are also much cheaper if you want a selection, though personally I tend to just use fast 50s most of the time and maybe a 28. And, importantly, this isn't an up front cost. If I'm skint I can avoid buying film for a bit, and I have the opportunity to hunt around for bargains. I don't have to scratch together several hundred quid up front.

But in all honesty I don't shoot film for the economy anyway. I get to try out a lot of different systems and lenses and "sensors" for not much money, but for consistent use of one combination of those over a long period it doesn't save anything at all, and getting pictures out is way more of a pain in the arse than plugging an SD card into a port and launching Aperture.

I still think that someone who wants to try a "proper camera" and learn about exposure and shot discipline and so on should consider film to do this, but after that, maybe they keep on with it, maybe they don't.


----------



## tom_craggs (Apr 2, 2013)

Loving using this so far, though so different to my (now sold) canon dslr kit. FIrst few photos on here taken with it;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomascraggs/


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

tom_craggs said:


> Loving using this so far, though so different to my (now sold) canon dslr kit. FIrst few photos on here taken with it;
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomascraggs/


Looking good!


----------



## tom_craggs (Apr 2, 2013)

Love it so far. Obviously not so much a landscape camer but as soon as you get up and close and in an around people it really comes into its own. The lenses are stunning, far, far superior to any of my canon l lenses (including the 50mm 1.2).


----------



## George & Bill (Apr 2, 2013)

What makes the lenses so much better than the Canon lenses, tom_craggs?

(not a loaded question btw, never owned a Canon...)


----------



## George & Bill (Apr 2, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, in practice I pay about £3 a roll - I buy in bulk, roll my own and develop and scan it myself. Chemicals cost very little and I need a scanner anyway. Also there are ancillary costs with digital that don't come into the figures, like sensor cleaning and repair (let alone things like spare batteries and cards). I dropped a film SLR onto flagstones at Somerset House a few months ago and bits went everywhere - new body, tenner on eBay, and I still have the old one, taped up with electrical tape, works okay apart from that I can't get at a couple of menus. Lenses are also much cheaper if you want a selection, though personally I tend to just use fast 50s most of the time and maybe a 28. And, importantly, this isn't an up front cost. If I'm skint I can avoid buying film for a bit, and I have the opportunity to hunt around for bargains. I don't have to scratch together several hundred quid up front.
> 
> But in all honesty I don't shoot film for the economy anyway. I get to try out a lot of different systems and lenses and "sensors" for not much money, but for consistent use of one combination of those over a long period it doesn't save anything at all, and getting pictures out is way more of a pain in the arse than plugging an SD card into a port and launching Aperture.
> 
> I still think that someone who wants to try a "proper camera" and learn about exposure and shot discipline and so on should consider film to do this, but after that, maybe they keep on with it, maybe they don't.


 
Yeah I guess I wasn't wanting to put anyone off shooting to film (a great way to learn the principles as you say, even if you don't stick with it), just point out that the cost comparison isn't nearly as stacked in film's favour as the initial outlay comparison (£50 for a 35mm SLR/£1000+ for something digital that really compares) might imply (and that digital works out way cheaper once you start shooting the equivalent of several rolls a week)...


----------



## tom_craggs (Apr 2, 2013)

Just so sharp SJ....particularly the 35mm 1.4 - its beautiful.


----------



## George & Bill (Apr 2, 2013)

Is it the sharpness wide open that's particularly caught your eye? Just find it hard to believe that there is room for that margin of improvement any more, tbh...

eta, not to say I can't believe they're better, just the 'far far better'  that I struggle with...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 2, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Yeah I guess I wasn't wanting to put anyone off shooting to film (a great way to learn the principles as you say, even if you don't stick with it), just point out that the cost comparison isn't nearly as stacked in film's favour as the initial outlay comparison (£50 for a 35mm SLR/£1000+ for something digital that really compares) might imply (and that digital works out way cheaper once you start shooting the equivalent of several rolls a week)...


No, definitely it isn't cheaper if you keep with it - certainly not in 35mm. Not necessarily more expensive but not cheaper either. It's just that I often hear "oh it's too expensive to try" so sometimes I feel like I need to justify it. Though really I just like shooting film and don't give a shit 

I've heard people say that large format actually ends up being the cheapest way to shoot, because good LF film cameras are not that pricey and, while LF film is pricey per sheet, you only take one or two shots when you're out. If I had the space for a darkroom I'd love to use something like the Harman Titan LF pinhole. I've seen some amazing urban shots with it.


----------

