X-Pro1 in full manual with Leica glass

^--- I don't dispute that for you an NEX-7 is preferred... but if you're going to say that it might be worthwhile to explain why? For example, a lot of people are still saying that the NEX-5 is better for native glass...
 
semilog said:
^--- I don't dispute that for you an NEX-7 is preferred... but if you're going to say that it might be worthwhile to explain why? For example, a lot of people are still saying that the NEX-5 is better for native glass...
Click to expand...

The 7 comes with the integrated finder. It is a very well designed tool in my opinion, also cheaper and more compact than the X-PRO.

And the market is full of adapters to use virtually any lens ever produced.

The X-Pro comes with a better set of system lenses but AF is problematic, from what I have heard. If you are going to use manual lenses anyway, I dont see a reason to use the Fuji anymore.
 
Hello Johan!
Using manual lenses on the X pro is a new experience. It's not as easy to get used to as a SLR focus screen or a rangefinder. For Hyperfocal use of RF lenses it works like a dream when you consider the IQ the sensor delivers. Aperture priority has worked very well for me and I rarely switch to manual. Personally I like the form of the Xpro and, could never consider the Sony cameras currently offered as they are just to damn small and skinny to hold on to. Also Sony has Sh!t for lens offerings for the native system.

The native fuji lenses are superb and inexpensive (and check out that road map of lenses to come!). As well the af issues people have a largely overblown. The camera takes a bit of getting used to. I've had mine since the second week available now. My opinion at first was the af was middling at best. Now I understand it better and find it quite predictable and... I'm hitting far more often than when using a Rangefinder. I think most reports of poor af performance come from people in their first month of owning the camera.

OK all that said. If you strictly want a digital option for Leica M lenses. The M8/M9 or RD1 are still absolutely the very best choice IMO.
 
@ Speedfreak -- fair arguments. I used the NEX-7 and the X-Pro1 prior to purchase, and went with the X-Pro. Just didn't click with the way the NEX-7 felt in use. Horses for courses.

@f16sunshine -- I absolutely agree that the X-Pro1 has a learning curve, particularly for AF. It is a camera that has to be learned but for me its strengths outweigh its frustrations.
 
willie_901 said:
For me, there is no reason to use M lenses on the XP-1. I really can't think of a single advantage. In a studio setting or with a tripod the EVF would work well though.
Click to expand...

The Leica lenses have a focusing range, from 0.9 mtrs to infinity. The barrel is marked as such. There are aperture markings allowing a DOF estimate.

As a result, the Leica lenses can be used to zone-focus or pre-focus and predict DOF.

This is a big deal when shooting outdoors 'in the wild' for any Leica photographer.

To me it's of the biggest importance since I hate zoom lenses and autofocus. I use manual focus prime lenses on my DSLR and the Rolleiflexes are non-AF as well... ;)
 
The M lens DOF markings are for a 24x36 mm imaging surface. They are incorrect for an APS-C sensor.

The XP-1 can display a focus bar with focus distance and DOF (but the DOF is infamously conservative). This display can be seen, if desired, on the camera LCD screen so it is possible to set focus distance before the camera goes to your eye. This method is slower than turning a mechanical lens barrel though.

Zone focusing with the XP-1 is straightforward.

Additionally the AF can be used manually in manul focus mode to set a useful initisl focus distance and then reply on DOF.
 
willie_901 said:
The M lens DOF markings are for a 24x36 mm imaging surface. They are incorrect for an APS-C sensor.
Click to expand...

Quite right, someone else on another thread for apsc amera brought this up. U need to adjust by around 1.5 stops or so.... But I tend to be conservative and use a full two stops. For example I might set the aperture on the lens for f8, but I will use the dof markings for f4 instead.

Gary
 
semilog said:
I've got a friend who is using 24/2.8 ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH, and CV 15/4.5 on the X-Pro1. He's happy as a clam and doing terrific work on the street with that setup. I'm using the native 18 and 35 lenses; I'm also using a 21 Biogon on an adaptor.

MF works very well in both cases IF you learn how to use it properly.

With legacy glass: Push in on the thumbwheel on the back of the camera to get the magnified EVF. This works even when you are framing through the OVF. Half-press the shutter once you've focused and you're in OVF or EVF framing mode again. Lickety split.

With native glass: once in MF mode you get close by hitting AF-L, then fine-adjust using the ring on the lens. Very fast, quite intuitive. Also, it's worth noting that the focus throw on the 18/2 is much shorter than on the 35/1.4.
Click to expand...

I agree with these comments completely. I think the XPro1 works GREAT as a manual focus camera. You just have to learn how to use its features correctly. Once you learn them, focusing is fast and super accurate. (I love Ben's remark regarding focus-shift! :))

And regarding the EVF (which I'm using more and more, as I get used to it): with an EVF you see a TON of information you don't get with OVFs. Like being able to see what the scene looks like when you dial in some exposure compensation. This is a GREAT feature!
 
Lss said:
For M lenses and M lenses only? Fair enough, but a lot of people will not agree with that.
Click to expand...

No, but in part for M lenses. And I do have at least one close friend, a dedicated Leica shooter, who's using the X-Pro with M lenses and M lenses only. He's a highly experienced photographer who's worked with many different analog and digital systems and he's absolutely in love with the thing.

As I said above, horses for courses.
 
semilog said:
I came from an M6 and haven't been disappointed. It's not the same, but some aspects of the X-Pro are decidedly better!
Click to expand...

Sure, but you are open minded. I like the X-Pro1 better than a M...I think. However, I guess what I was trying to say is if you are expecting a Leica M for $1699, you will be disappointed in the X-Pro1. If you are realistic and think of the X-Pro1 for what it is, on its own with out preconceived notions, then it can be a great camera. I love mine, but I like to be honest to M users... :)
 
All in all I'm still interested. While the remark on the Nex-7 finder got me wandering over to Sony's shop ;) I'm still not liking its form factor and the Fuji was a lot more native to my hand when I briefly test drove it.

Now to figure out what the new Plustek scanner will cost (that has to go first, to boost scanning resolution from my M2 and Rolleiflex shots) and then see if there's any cash left to secure an X-Pro1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom