Lax Jought
Well-known
That's awesome, wish I could see things through your eyes where digi cameras from the past few years all look the same to you, and any of them would do fine for your photographic needs, professional or otherwise.
Lax Jought
Well-known
One can dream I guess. There are a couple of wedding photogs who go into a wedding armed with only a Leica or two, and only two or three primes, and they do produce some really amazing work.
I understand the utility of having a good zoom so I'm not attemping to argue the point.
Incidentally I read somewhere that Fujifilm is intending to produce a zoom lens for the X-Pro1 .....
Lax Jought
Well-known
I should add that I would totally go into a wedding armed with a two Leica M9s, one with a 50mm lens attached, and the other with a 90mm.
I should also add that I am not a professional (nor amateur wedding photographer) in any way, shape, or form. I do have a Leica M8.2 and I know my way around what it can and cannot do, I think I could do it.
I should also add that I am not a professional (nor amateur wedding photographer) in any way, shape, or form. I do have a Leica M8.2 and I know my way around what it can and cannot do, I think I could do it.
hollandphotos
Member
Not replace, but definitely supplement to a large degree.
hollandphotos
Member
The difference is there. No way could I have shot 1600 or 3200 in a d70.
Well, even if the quality was the same (which it is not), don't you think they are different ergonomically? DSLRs aren't an option for many of us.
hollandphotos
Member
paulfish4570
Veteran
i think it worked very well for you.
the colors are fuji-lovely.
the colors are fuji-lovely.
hollandphotos
Member
Lax Jought
Well-known
That says a lot for a non-DSLR mirrorless, APS-C camera.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Maybe because the point of the review is how the camera handles?
celluloidprop
Well-known
There's some truth to the XP1 not being different from other digital cameras from the last few years - if you're just looking at web images.
I see a lot of posts trumpeting the 5D3/D800/XP1 performance that use 800-1000-pixel wide images as evidence. Well, duh, it looks good at that size. There aren't many cameras on the market today that can't handle that size even up to 3200 or 6400, and very few lenses that aren't going to look great. Contact prints from 4x5 look amazing too!
But I say with some degree of comfort that the 16-megapixel XP1 (or insert contemporary camera here) will make a better-looking 10x15-inch print than that old 6-megapixel D70.
I see a lot of posts trumpeting the 5D3/D800/XP1 performance that use 800-1000-pixel wide images as evidence. Well, duh, it looks good at that size. There aren't many cameras on the market today that can't handle that size even up to 3200 or 6400, and very few lenses that aren't going to look great. Contact prints from 4x5 look amazing too!
But I say with some degree of comfort that the 16-megapixel XP1 (or insert contemporary camera here) will make a better-looking 10x15-inch print than that old 6-megapixel D70.
hollandphotos
Member
That's correct. I'm going to post some full size images and crops here soon for comparison. The detail is excellent.
rjbuzzclick
Well-known
LOL it does sound a bit like a bug...
A cockroach on high heels running on bathroom tiles
As a professional sound designer, I applaud your description!
David_Manning
Well-known
A true wedding fantasy...she married Mr. Hung
Good pictures. I'm still trying to figure out how the OVF works with different focal lengths mounted.
Good pictures. I'm still trying to figure out how the OVF works with different focal lengths mounted.
Turtle
Veteran
I am glad you said it David, I was thinking the same thing!
Lax, the issue for me would be focus. The camera has great high ISO performance, but arguably not the AF system to take advantage of it where you need to shoot at wider apertures and focus on specific subjects. That's weddings all over, in my experience, unless you want to use flash a lot. Focusing under such conditions would arguably be easier with a Leica, but there you lack the high ISO performance for the shot! The only cameras that combine both strengths are DSLRs.
Yes, there are some weddings being shot very nicely on non-DSLRs, but IMHO the very best - the ones that make me go 'wow, those are stunning albums' - all seem to be shot on DSLRs and I think there is a reason for that.
I've shot with both and whilst I deteste DSLRs for much of my work, for a wedding I would have the same feeling about my Leicas now that I am familiar with what I can do with my DSLRs. Walk out of the wedding and down a street and the DSLR becomes the awkward beast and all I want is the Leica M (or X100)! But hey, you might find it works perfectly for you!
Lax, the issue for me would be focus. The camera has great high ISO performance, but arguably not the AF system to take advantage of it where you need to shoot at wider apertures and focus on specific subjects. That's weddings all over, in my experience, unless you want to use flash a lot. Focusing under such conditions would arguably be easier with a Leica, but there you lack the high ISO performance for the shot! The only cameras that combine both strengths are DSLRs.
Yes, there are some weddings being shot very nicely on non-DSLRs, but IMHO the very best - the ones that make me go 'wow, those are stunning albums' - all seem to be shot on DSLRs and I think there is a reason for that.
I've shot with both and whilst I deteste DSLRs for much of my work, for a wedding I would have the same feeling about my Leicas now that I am familiar with what I can do with my DSLRs. Walk out of the wedding and down a street and the DSLR becomes the awkward beast and all I want is the Leica M (or X100)! But hey, you might find it works perfectly for you!
craygc
Well-known
My first observation of those shots are that the blues seem over saturated and the skin tones look strange - don't know its its processing or out of the camera!
Lax Jought
Well-known
This is the part where my inexperience kicks in. I've been photographing this past year almost exclusively with my Leica and the single prime lens attached to it. I've had my Canon 7D for about a year longer than that but I very much prefer manual focus now, especially when trying to photograph moving objects in low light. The DSLR never caught on with me as much as the Leica/rangefinder has.
So this is why I think the AF speed (or lack of it) of the X-Pro1 wouldn't matter so much for me because I'd probably be going manual with it too. But again it could be my inexperience talking here.
But other than that, yeah I can totally understand where you're coming from with what you're saying there. The DSLR is the tool of choice for all(?) of the top wedding photogrphers and I can understand why.
willie_901
Veteran
If the XP-1 focuses as well as the X100, I would not hesitate shooting per-ceremony or reception/party activities using the EVF, AFS, a small focus region and focus recompose via the shutter button.
I would practice first of course in some public situation but I would do this with any new camera.
I can focus the X100 with the same sucess I enjoyed with my Zeiss Ikon M. The advantage of the X series is you can increase the shutter speed and DOF because ISO 1600 can be printed for color and ISO 3200 for B&W. If you don't need the high ISO the AF is that much better because there is more light which usually means more contrast.
Switching to the OVF once focus is set is quick so you get the advantage of seeing out of the frame if you want it. The reason I would start with the EVF is the small focus box decreases the possibility the focus will lock on an union tended nearby target with very high contrast.
The key is anticipation which many rangefiner photographers seem to develop naturally. After all as quick as focusing with an analog RF is, it's slower than my D700 (and people expect large noisy DSLRs at weddings).
I would practice first of course in some public situation but I would do this with any new camera.
I can focus the X100 with the same sucess I enjoyed with my Zeiss Ikon M. The advantage of the X series is you can increase the shutter speed and DOF because ISO 1600 can be printed for color and ISO 3200 for B&W. If you don't need the high ISO the AF is that much better because there is more light which usually means more contrast.
Switching to the OVF once focus is set is quick so you get the advantage of seeing out of the frame if you want it. The reason I would start with the EVF is the small focus box decreases the possibility the focus will lock on an union tended nearby target with very high contrast.
The key is anticipation which many rangefiner photographers seem to develop naturally. After all as quick as focusing with an analog RF is, it's slower than my D700 (and people expect large noisy DSLRs at weddings).
gavinlg
Veteran
Yeah I was going to say, with the latest firmware, my x100 is a weapon in the dark. I can get down to iso 6400, f2, 1/8th of a second and still get reliable AF lock with the x100.
If the x-pro is as good as the x100, it won't be a problem at all. And apparently fujifilm is working hard on upgrading AF in the next firmware update.