Camera Labs

Hello.

There are some high ISO images here. From Photo Rumors.

_________________
Esben - used to be a wide angle photographer but then I took a Fuji X100 in the knee
My deviantART

Hi folks,

U.S.A. suggested retail pricing is now official. From this press release:

FUJIFILM X-Pro1 (body only)...............................................$1,699.95
FUJIFILM XF 18mm (27mm equivalent) F2.0 lens.....................$599.95
FUJIFILM XF 35mm (53mm equivalent) F1.4 lens.....................$599.95
FUJIFILM XF 60mm (90mm equivalent) F2.4 lens.....................$649.95

The FUJIFILM X-Pro1 body and lenses will be available at the end of February.

No official word on UK pricing yet but I've seen one company I trust offering body only pre-orders at £1429 and another company I don't know offering body only pre-orders at £1299. The pieces of the puzzle are finally falling into place but the final and most important piece is yet to be seen: full reviews of production hardware/firmware.

Update: Some interesting comments over at the Luminous Landscape where they compare the camera to the Hasselblad X-Pan:

If you ever owned or used a Hasselblad X-Pan, then you have some idea of what to likely expect from the X-Pro1 body and lenses. In a word, or two – first rate build quality and optical excellence. Not only did Fuji help design and build the X-Pan but also the Hasselblad H series cameras and lenses.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

.
A interesting video walkthrough of the X-Pro1 is available on YouTube: Fuji X-Pro1 Hands-On Field Test with Samples.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Hi folks,

OK, take this with a pinch of salt but there's a rumored lens roadmap which includes the following:

2012:

• 14mm f2.8
• 18-72 f4 with stabilization
  
  2013:
• 28mm f2.8 pancake
• 23mm f2
• 72-200 f4 with stabilization
• 12-24 f4 with stabilization
  

Of course we already know about the 18mm (27mm equivalent) f/2.0, 35mm (53mm equivalent) f/1.4 and 60mm (90mm equivalent) f/2.4.

Fuji themselves suggested that the rumor is a "close" estimate but is subject to change. We've still to see any authoritative reviews of production cameras but that mix of primes and zooms looks sweet. The only sour note is the timing - if those lenses were all available by year end it would be a lot easier to decide whether to invest in such a system.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

.
and here's a Japanese review in Googlish with some real-life high ISO shots as well as the regular stuff. It's always difficult to tell for sure without access to RAW (or TIFF) data but the IQ looks very sweet to me at ISO 800 and below. The automatic translation struggles but it's pretty clear that the AF speed and accuracy of the X-Pro1 is being called into question.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Hi folks,

What Digital Camera have nine review sample images which can be viewed here.

Normally I wouldn't bother to share as they don't share the EXIF data but by devious means I discovered that "DSCF9104.JPG" was shot using:

Camera Model: X-Pro1
Lens: FUJIFILM
Image Date: 2012-01-02 01:01:57 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 60.0mm (35mm equivalent: 90mm)
Aperture: f/2.4
Exposure Time: 0.036 s (1/28)
ISO equiv: 3200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: program (Auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
Software: Digital Camera X-Pro1 Ver1.00

Assuming that the image was produced using default processing I think the result ain't half bad for ISO 3200.

Other images that caught my eye were "DSCF9084.JPG":

Camera Model: X-Pro1
Lens: FUJIFILM
Image Date: 2012-01-01 23:36:41 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 18.0mm (35mm equivalent: 27mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.0036 s (1/280)
ISO equiv: 800
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
Software: Digital Camera X-Pro1 Ver1.00

and "DSCF9121.JPG"

Camera Model: X-Pro1
Lens: FUJIFILM
Image Date: 2012-01-02 19:20:26 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 60.0mm (35mm equivalent: 90mm)
Aperture: f/2.4
Exposure Time: 0.0031 s (1/320)
ISO equiv: 400
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
Software: Digital Camera X-Pro1 Ver1.00

I'd have liked at least one of the shots to be a portrait but so far so good.

For a wider selection check out PhotographyBLOG!. But there's a noticeable lack of skin there too!

Finally, some words from Steve Huff:

..we have cameras like the Fuji X-Pro 1, and I have to say that the more I see of it, the more amazing it appears in regards to image quality. The lenses are sharp and the file quality appears to be equaling the M9 in many of the samples I have seen to date. The styling is like an RF, and it even has a modern-day hybrid EVF/VF and a much better LCD. The Fuji IS NOT an RF but you can surely use your Leica glass on it and take advantage of it having no AA filter. The Fuji has even better color than the M9 and at 1/4 the price of an M9, it will be serious competition to those who have not yet gone with a Leica due to cost, but wanted to.

This was part of a larger piece which you can read here about the need for Leica to recognise that things have moved on in the last few years but I think his comments about the IQ of the X-Pro1 belong in this thread.

Update: Hey, I've found some skin: The shot. No pixel peeping on this one but that's not really the point. For the full set visit the Zack Arias blog.

Update 2: But it's not all rosy. From AP:

One thing I immediately noticed is that the EVF locks up while the camera acquires focus, so if you are panning or the subject is moving there is a difference between what you see in the viewfinder and what will be photographed.

From the moment you press the shutter release – until the camera focuses – the view in the EVF remains the same, as the EVF does not refresh while focus is being found. In brighter light the focus will be quicker, but I think this could be an issue for the sort of low-light photographers who will be attracted by the wide maximum aperture lenses the system provides.

By way of example check out this video demonstration. Maybe it's just as well there's an "optical" option in the viewfinder!

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Zach Arias is blogging favorably about his X Pro1, and posting images.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

Hi folks,

There's an interesting X-Pro1 review over at techradar. It's difficult to interpret test results from an unfamiliar review site but, taken at face value, the statements that

At the lowest sensitivity value of ISO 200 the X Pro 1's raw images (after conversion to TIFF) have a better signal to noise ratio result than the Canon EOS 5D MK II, Nikon D700 and Leica M9. Despite the Canon EOS 5D MK II taking the lead at all other sensitivity values, the X Pro 1 still produces respectable results.

and

TIFF images (after conversion from raw) again show that the X Pro 1 puts in an impressive performance for dynamic range, with only the Canon EOS 5D MK II getting similar results from ISO 3200 up.

are pretty remarkable. Here are the two graphs backing up their claim:

................Raw Signal to Noise Ratio.................................................................Raw dynamic range

Personally I'm finding a lot to like about the X-Pro1 but the lack of a focus peaking display in the EVF is utterly disappointing. Fuji obviously understand that they need to let the camera work with manual focus lenses by providing a Leica M mount adaptor but then make focussing with those lenses more difficult than it should be. Sony understood this and with their example to learn from Fuji really have messed up so far as I'm concerned.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

The more I learn about the X Pro1, the more I like it. I am glad I postponed purchasing an X100! I find the X100 a bit small, making it difficult to grip securely, and I would rather have a 35mm lens with an APS-C sensor. This does not mean I will purchase an X Pro1, but it remains a contender, especially if Canon does not release a mirror-less camera that uses EF lenses.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

Hi folks,

The X-Pro1 reviews are starting to roll in:

• What Digital Camera - the review to which the sample images I linked to above belong.
• Luminous Landscape - part 1 of a rolling review.
• holy F stop - more like a "first impressions" than a full review but lots of sample images.

Yet again the IQ shines through but the camera isn't perfect. Whether such issues are deal-breakers depends on the individual, I guess.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

DigitalRev also have their review video up of the X-Pro 1 now:

DigitalRevTV's Review of the Fuji X-Pro 1

_________________
Esben - used to be a wide angle photographer but then I took a Fuji X100 in the knee
My deviantART

Gordon, when are you getting your hands on a Fuji X Pro 1 for detail testing?
DJJC

Hi folks,

Mirrorless rumors came up with a few new reviews/blogs of the X-Pro1. The ones from Derek Clark Photography and Jens Ceder Photography caught my eye but the one at f8 Photography not only has some very useful words about the efficacy of MF despite lack of focus confirmation/peaking but is the first I've seen to flag up the X-Pro1's IR sensitivity. I think we'd have heard by now if the X-Pro1 has the same issues as the Leica M8 had in that regard so maybe Fuji have the balance right? If so then will IR photographers be happy? Maybe it would also work for occasional astrophotographers who want to explore the delights of Hα imaging?

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

I'm not sure "getting the balance right" for IR cut is applicable to normal photography. The best scenario is zero IR sensitivity (or so low compared to visible light it is insignificant), and I can't think of a reason why it would be good not to aim for that. Until someone does a spectral response for the Fuji we're only guessing. Possibly they might use a more relaxed IR cut filter to increase the sensitivity in the deep red region and increase the apparent sensitivity of the sensor overall, however slightly.

Also don't forget the Fuji uses their new colour filter pattern which has even less red/blue coverage as a proportion of area than regular bayer pattern colour filter sensors. So even if you were to use it for IR, you'll be slightly disadvantaged in maximum resolution compared to an equivalent MP count and size conventional sensor.

Side note: there are astronomical filters that give a sharp visible light pass response. Why don't camera manufacturer's use them? I have to guess they're much more expensive than the standard IR cut filters used. Also the increased relative sensitivity in the red region may lead to an increased risk of channel clipping?

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Weelll, maybe more than guessing so far as that "balance right" thing is concerned simply because just about every review of the X-Pro1 I've read has raved about the IQ. Of course, now that someone has flagged up the extra IR response over and above rival cameras I'm sure there will be folk out there who'll try and show that sensitivity in its worst light.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.