-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Fujifilm x-pro 1
- Thread starter singveld
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/...i-x-pro-1-vs-olympus-om-d-vs-sony-nex-7-jpeg/
More Fun Comparisons – Fuji X-Pro 1 vs Olympus OM-D vs Sony NEX-7 – JPEG
I know you guys LOVE these crazy comparisons..and some of you get all up in a roar over them but that doesn’t mean I am not going to post more! Today I was out and about with the OM-D, X-Pro 1 and NEX-7. Now, I could not use the same lenses on all of these so I used what I had on hand.
These comparisons are not really meant to show anything but how each camera renders JPEGS as well as the differences between the sensor sizes (Micro 4/3 and APS-C). With the OM-D you get the most Depth Of Field due to the sensor size being the smallest of the three. This can be a blessing to some, and a curse to those who love the creamy dreamy look that a fast lens and big sensor gives to you. It can be a blessing because cameras with smaller sensors focus faster and seem to be more accurate with the AF as well. You also usually get sharper images as everything is in focus (well, when using wide lenses especially).
I have been shooting all of these cameras quite a bit lately trying to see which one I really truly like the best. They all have their pros and cons of course, but all are capable of producing lovely images. Olympus has their own unique color rendering as does Fuji and Sony. Which do you prefer?
The images below were all shot as JPEG..I did NOT shoot RAW because there is still no Adobe RAW support for the Fuji or Olympus, so keep in mind what you see below is JPEG output. Untouched, unedited. Just resized. Each camera was set to Aperture Priority and as always, for these fun JPEG comparisons I let the camera choose exposure. ISO was set to the base ISO on each camera. This is NOT an ISO test or a scientific test. It’s to show how each camera, with said lens, will output a JPEG. It shows DOF differences, color differences and also shows how sharp these lenses are.
I plan on doing RAW comparisons soon as well, so there will be a part 2. I will also have comparisons in my OM-D review, which will be up fairly soon I hope.
More Fun Comparisons – Fuji X-Pro 1 vs Olympus OM-D vs Sony NEX-7 – JPEG
I know you guys LOVE these crazy comparisons..and some of you get all up in a roar over them but that doesn’t mean I am not going to post more! Today I was out and about with the OM-D, X-Pro 1 and NEX-7. Now, I could not use the same lenses on all of these so I used what I had on hand.
These comparisons are not really meant to show anything but how each camera renders JPEGS as well as the differences between the sensor sizes (Micro 4/3 and APS-C). With the OM-D you get the most Depth Of Field due to the sensor size being the smallest of the three. This can be a blessing to some, and a curse to those who love the creamy dreamy look that a fast lens and big sensor gives to you. It can be a blessing because cameras with smaller sensors focus faster and seem to be more accurate with the AF as well. You also usually get sharper images as everything is in focus (well, when using wide lenses especially).
I have been shooting all of these cameras quite a bit lately trying to see which one I really truly like the best. They all have their pros and cons of course, but all are capable of producing lovely images. Olympus has their own unique color rendering as does Fuji and Sony. Which do you prefer?
The images below were all shot as JPEG..I did NOT shoot RAW because there is still no Adobe RAW support for the Fuji or Olympus, so keep in mind what you see below is JPEG output. Untouched, unedited. Just resized. Each camera was set to Aperture Priority and as always, for these fun JPEG comparisons I let the camera choose exposure. ISO was set to the base ISO on each camera. This is NOT an ISO test or a scientific test. It’s to show how each camera, with said lens, will output a JPEG. It shows DOF differences, color differences and also shows how sharp these lenses are.
I plan on doing RAW comparisons soon as well, so there will be a part 2. I will also have comparisons in my OM-D review, which will be up fairly soon I hope.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
X-Pro1: it’s retro finger-clicking good
PUBLISHED: 27 Apr 2012 00:04:13 | UPDATED: 27 Apr 2012 00:31:06
Fujifilm’s X-Pro1 combines the appeal of a retro look with the latest advances in digital technology.
When the engineers at Fujifilm talk about the design principles they brought to the FinePix X100 and, now, the X-Pro1 digital cameras, they talk about “integrity”. They complain that the advent of the digital camera robbed photography of its integrity, and that they had the restoration of integrity in mind when the two cameras were on the drawing board.
It’s tempting to dismiss the sentiment as some sort of mawkish marketing flim flam designed to capitalise on this decade’s nostalgia for the 1960s. But hold an X-Pro1 in your hands, use it for a couple of days, and you begin to see what they mean. Something was lost in the race to the megapixel, and the X-Pro1 (far more than the X100, which had foibles and flaws) goes a long way to restoring it.
And mostly that missing thing is simple, elegant sophistication. Cameras nowadays tend to be either simple to use at the expense of sophistication – digital point-and-shoot cameras can take terrible photos compared with the equivalent film cameras of yesteryear – or they have sophisticated features that are anything but easy to use. The X-Pro1 is simple and elegant to use; it has chunky dials, tactile knobs and switches and aperture rings that can take care of just about every setting without the user having to dive into on-screen menus.
That’s not to say that the X-Pro1 is the first digital camera to base itself on the film cameras of the 1950s and 1960s. Leica’s M9 and M9-P are possibly even more retro and elegant than the X-Pro1, but if those $10,000 to $20,000 cameras (once you add a few lenses) were people, they’d be Gettys, and way out of the price range of many would-be buyers.
At least the X-Pro1, which bears more than a passing resemblance to a Leica, is affordable: it’s $1800 for the body, and about $600 for each of three lenses Fujifilm has released so far. For serious amateurs, and professional photographers tired of lugging around heavy, inelegant dSLRs, $2400 to $3600 for a complete kit seems positively reasonable.
We tested the X-Pro1 mainly by using the most general purpose of those three lenses, the f1.4 35 mm, which we imagine is the lens most owners would buy first.
Fujifilm claims the novel way it has engineered the image sensor, so that it doesn’t need to blur images to prevent ugly errors that are artefacts of the digital era, means the 16 megapixel, APS-C-sized sensor in the X-Pro1 is much sharper than other 16 megapixel sensors, and sharper than bigger sensors on some professional dSLRs.
We didn’t have the precise equipment to test that claim, but the images we took with that 35 mm lens were remarkably sharp, giving us no reason to dispute Fujifilm’s claims. The colour was accurate, if a little subdued at the default setting, which is designed to produce images that look as if they were shot on Fuji Provia film.
Other emulation settings, most notably the one that looks like Velvia film, produced terrific, highly saturated images suitable for landscapes.
(If only the camera could emulate VPS, one of my favourite colour films from the old days, my nostalgia trip with the X-Pro1 would be complete. But that’s a Kodak film, understandably not part of the camera’s repertoire.)
But the X-Pro1 is as much about an authentic usage experience as it is about taking great images, and in this regard it really shines. The aperture rings on the lenses, and the shutter speed and exposure compensation dials on the top, all have a positive feel about them, leaving no doubt in your mind when you’re changing a setting. And between those rings and dials, and the excellent Q button and dial combo that gives you lightning-fast access to 14 other settings (such as choosing the ISO, the film emulation and the RAW/jpeg mode), you almost never need to go into the full-blown menu system. It’s a delightful camera to operate.
Indeed, the Q button/dial is such a rapid way to access the camera’s more advanced features, we barely even bothered with the programmable function button, which is near the shutter button and simplifies the camera’s operation. We ended up setting the function button to “depth-of-field preview”, a function you typically wouldn’t use much. That speaks volumes about the Q button: it’s a programmable function button itself, except you can reprogram on the fly, without entering the menus.
The X-Pro1 is not without its flaws, of course. Focusing can be a little slow, especially in low light and especially compared with the Sony NEX 7, an excellent camera that’s broadly in the same general category as the X-Pro1 but lacks its keen sense of nostalgia. And the X-Pro1’s electronic viewfinder (a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder) isn’t as sharp or as naturalistic as the EVF found in some cameras.
Mostly I stuck to the optical viewfinder, which isn’t completely accurate compositionally, but which is big and bright and sharp, and which has the advantage of reminding me of the optical viewfinder in one of my favourite film cameras from a lifetime ago. Which for this marvellous throwback of a camera is rather the point.
PUBLISHED: 27 Apr 2012 00:04:13 | UPDATED: 27 Apr 2012 00:31:06
Fujifilm’s X-Pro1 combines the appeal of a retro look with the latest advances in digital technology.
When the engineers at Fujifilm talk about the design principles they brought to the FinePix X100 and, now, the X-Pro1 digital cameras, they talk about “integrity”. They complain that the advent of the digital camera robbed photography of its integrity, and that they had the restoration of integrity in mind when the two cameras were on the drawing board.
It’s tempting to dismiss the sentiment as some sort of mawkish marketing flim flam designed to capitalise on this decade’s nostalgia for the 1960s. But hold an X-Pro1 in your hands, use it for a couple of days, and you begin to see what they mean. Something was lost in the race to the megapixel, and the X-Pro1 (far more than the X100, which had foibles and flaws) goes a long way to restoring it.
And mostly that missing thing is simple, elegant sophistication. Cameras nowadays tend to be either simple to use at the expense of sophistication – digital point-and-shoot cameras can take terrible photos compared with the equivalent film cameras of yesteryear – or they have sophisticated features that are anything but easy to use. The X-Pro1 is simple and elegant to use; it has chunky dials, tactile knobs and switches and aperture rings that can take care of just about every setting without the user having to dive into on-screen menus.
That’s not to say that the X-Pro1 is the first digital camera to base itself on the film cameras of the 1950s and 1960s. Leica’s M9 and M9-P are possibly even more retro and elegant than the X-Pro1, but if those $10,000 to $20,000 cameras (once you add a few lenses) were people, they’d be Gettys, and way out of the price range of many would-be buyers.
At least the X-Pro1, which bears more than a passing resemblance to a Leica, is affordable: it’s $1800 for the body, and about $600 for each of three lenses Fujifilm has released so far. For serious amateurs, and professional photographers tired of lugging around heavy, inelegant dSLRs, $2400 to $3600 for a complete kit seems positively reasonable.
We tested the X-Pro1 mainly by using the most general purpose of those three lenses, the f1.4 35 mm, which we imagine is the lens most owners would buy first.
Fujifilm claims the novel way it has engineered the image sensor, so that it doesn’t need to blur images to prevent ugly errors that are artefacts of the digital era, means the 16 megapixel, APS-C-sized sensor in the X-Pro1 is much sharper than other 16 megapixel sensors, and sharper than bigger sensors on some professional dSLRs.
We didn’t have the precise equipment to test that claim, but the images we took with that 35 mm lens were remarkably sharp, giving us no reason to dispute Fujifilm’s claims. The colour was accurate, if a little subdued at the default setting, which is designed to produce images that look as if they were shot on Fuji Provia film.
Other emulation settings, most notably the one that looks like Velvia film, produced terrific, highly saturated images suitable for landscapes.
(If only the camera could emulate VPS, one of my favourite colour films from the old days, my nostalgia trip with the X-Pro1 would be complete. But that’s a Kodak film, understandably not part of the camera’s repertoire.)
But the X-Pro1 is as much about an authentic usage experience as it is about taking great images, and in this regard it really shines. The aperture rings on the lenses, and the shutter speed and exposure compensation dials on the top, all have a positive feel about them, leaving no doubt in your mind when you’re changing a setting. And between those rings and dials, and the excellent Q button and dial combo that gives you lightning-fast access to 14 other settings (such as choosing the ISO, the film emulation and the RAW/jpeg mode), you almost never need to go into the full-blown menu system. It’s a delightful camera to operate.
Indeed, the Q button/dial is such a rapid way to access the camera’s more advanced features, we barely even bothered with the programmable function button, which is near the shutter button and simplifies the camera’s operation. We ended up setting the function button to “depth-of-field preview”, a function you typically wouldn’t use much. That speaks volumes about the Q button: it’s a programmable function button itself, except you can reprogram on the fly, without entering the menus.
The X-Pro1 is not without its flaws, of course. Focusing can be a little slow, especially in low light and especially compared with the Sony NEX 7, an excellent camera that’s broadly in the same general category as the X-Pro1 but lacks its keen sense of nostalgia. And the X-Pro1’s electronic viewfinder (a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder) isn’t as sharp or as naturalistic as the EVF found in some cameras.
Mostly I stuck to the optical viewfinder, which isn’t completely accurate compositionally, but which is big and bright and sharp, and which has the advantage of reminding me of the optical viewfinder in one of my favourite film cameras from a lifetime ago. Which for this marvellous throwback of a camera is rather the point.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
http://findingrange.com/2012/04/28/...-r-lens-review-for-the-fuji-x-pro1/#more-5203
Pro’s And Con’s of The Fujinon XF 18mm F2.0 R Lens:
Here’s a quick recap of what I think are the pro’s and con’s of this lens.
Pro’s of The XF 18mm F2.0 R Lens:
Sharp especially on center.
Colors and tones are smooth, velvety, and lively.
Contrast is excellent.
Very light, and balanced when attached to the X-Pro1.
Fast F2.0 aperture.
Lens is extremely versatile.
This lens is a great choice as a one lens system for the X-Pro1.
Well built.
A great lens for all day because of its size and lightness.
An excellent price.
Performs like a traditional 28mm lens: forces you to get right into the action, which can help you make more compelling photographs.
Most important: it’s fun to use!
Con’s of the XF 18mm F2.0 R Lens:
A little light for my taste.
Not as sharp near the edges.
Sharp but not the sharpest lens that I’ve used.
I dislike the rubber lens caps that go over the hood.
The constant lens chatter is annoying (BUT THIS ISSUE IS FIXED WITH THE NEW FIRMWARE)
Optically, the XF 35mm F1.4 R lens is a better lens.
Pro’s And Con’s of The Fujinon XF 18mm F2.0 R Lens:
Here’s a quick recap of what I think are the pro’s and con’s of this lens.
Pro’s of The XF 18mm F2.0 R Lens:
Sharp especially on center.
Colors and tones are smooth, velvety, and lively.
Contrast is excellent.
Very light, and balanced when attached to the X-Pro1.
Fast F2.0 aperture.
Lens is extremely versatile.
This lens is a great choice as a one lens system for the X-Pro1.
Well built.
A great lens for all day because of its size and lightness.
An excellent price.
Performs like a traditional 28mm lens: forces you to get right into the action, which can help you make more compelling photographs.
Most important: it’s fun to use!
Con’s of the XF 18mm F2.0 R Lens:
A little light for my taste.
Not as sharp near the edges.
Sharp but not the sharpest lens that I’ve used.
I dislike the rubber lens caps that go over the hood.
The constant lens chatter is annoying (BUT THIS ISSUE IS FIXED WITH THE NEW FIRMWARE)
Optically, the XF 35mm F1.4 R lens is a better lens.
Similar threads
