X-Pro1 in full manual with Leica glass

[semilog]

Truth is that I know with reasonable certainty that I could use an NEX-7, an EM-5, an X-Pro, a Pentax K5, a Canon 7d... and I'd get results I like with any of 'em. The latter two won't take M lenses but they can run some very cool legacy glass of their own.

At some point one has to stop worrying too much about the minor differences between cameras, get one, learn it, and use it.

 

[johannielscom]

^^true. But I'm interested in the X-Pro1 because of its size andthe option to use glass thats already in my bag anyway. Same time I don't want to miss shots because the camera as a tool slows me down. To exaggerate: a pinhole might get me good shots too but its useless for a quick grab.

I cannot understand how DOF of a lens changes when the image size surface changes. I think it's only FOV that changes and not DOF? I've never experienced this with a Horseman when switching from a 4x5 back to a 2x3 back...

 

[gDallasK]

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.

If you are comparing it to the M9, then how about the opportunity to capture images at ISO 640 upward that don't look as if they were taken in a multi-colour snowstorm?

 

[craygc]

I cannot understand how DOF of a lens changes when the image size surface changes.

The CoC as recorded on the sensor (film) doesn't change between formats. It has one diameter and that's it. Why DoF is described as relating to sensor size is all about achieving an apple to apples comparisons of the output.

If its considered as "to provide the same FoV", then smaller sensors have more DoF due to, for example, a 24mm lens just having more DoF than a 35mm lens at the same f-stop. However, if you are using the same lens on different sensors, the smaller sensor is considered to have less DoF as the image would need more enlargement more to match the same size print from the larger sensor. In the enlargement process, the CoC would be magnified more from the smaller sensor thus reducing the apparent in focus range.

 

[willie_901]

If you are comparing it to the M9, then how about the opportunity to capture images at ISO 640 upward that don't look as if they were taken in a multi-colour snowstorm?

I understand what you are saying.

However, but that advantage only applies if you only own M/LTM lenses. Using the EVF with M lenses would frustrate me and this is my point. Maybe Fuji will change the firmware with an intermediate zoom magnification, or focus peaking. Until then I would think zone focusing with wide angle M lenses is the only way using M lenses is practical. Tripod usage would work well too.

 

[progie]

I,
I'm using 3.5,5,9,and 135 glass on my x pro. The pics are fantastic. Screw glass with adaptor.
New update is a must

 

[julianphotoart]

Thank you for having this thread. I bought this camera yesterday afternoon (with a Novoflex M adapter), immediately got frustrated, opened up RFF and this thread was right there to answer the questions that immediately frustrated me.
I still have one problem though. There are two settings to set custom focal lengths for maanual-focus lenses. When I put those settings into effect (for me, it was for 40mm and 75mm), nothing happens. In fact, there are no frame lines at all in the optical viewfinder. Are these two settings only usable with the Fuji adapter, or what am I not doing wrong?
On the other issues, I have read the other posts in this thread and I have to say that while using that weird zoom feature to manually focus takes some getting used to, it seems no slower than using a rangefinder patch to focus an M. And, once the lens is focused, I also trust that it actually is in true focus more than I do with my Leica M's where I have to rely on my middle-aged vision defects.

 

[doncraig]

For M lenses and M lenses only? Fair enough, but a lot of people will not agree with that.

Yep, it's a matter of opinion. But for a growing number of current and former M shooters, the XP1 and X glass are a superior system. Using M glass on the XP1 is understandable, but certainly not an improvement over using Fujinon lenses with the XP1.

 

[doncraig]

@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.

Semilog, your comments are sensible and to the point.

Couldn't agree more about the experience of using the XP1 or any camera: learn how it works and then see if it's strengths outweigh any frustrations. Certainly much better than writing "I haven't tried this, but have read..."

 

[johannielscom]

Yep, it's a matter of opinion. But for a growing number of current and former M shooters, the XP1 and X glass are a superior system. Using M glass on the XP1 is understandable, but certainly not an improvement over using Fujinon lenses with the XP1.

If the Leitz lenses are on par with the Fujinons that would be fine with me. I have no need for any improvements over my Leitz glass but would like to have a digital body in the bag without the need for a second set of lenses

 

[johannielscom]

Still considering this... and ditching 135 film altogether. But not 120!

 

[sector99]

Here's the direct MTF comparison between the 35mm FUJIFILM f/1.4 for the Xpro1 and the Summilux 35 f/1.4 ASPH.

Note that the top lines for FUJIFILM are at 15 lines per mm and the SECOND to the top for Summilux are at 10 lines/mm.

For chart purists, the FUJIFILM lens is comparable and a bit better at the higher 45 Lines/mm measurement.

What MTF measurements don't reveal is LOW CONTRAST FIDELITY. The current MTF charts are in black against white.

The same chart in a light gray 17% (1:6) contrast ratio tells a much different story––but no one can see those from either manufacturer.

FUJIFILM 35 f/1.4

<http://interventional.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/fuji35-f1-4mtf.png>

Summilux 35 f/1.4ASPH

<http://interventional.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/summilux35-f1-4mtf.png>

 

[jsrockit]

All I know is that the 35mm Fuji is my favorite lens in a long time (including many m lenses). I've never owned the summilux though.

 

[Godfrey]

Okay,

I'm contemplating an X-Pro1 with Leica glass, to be used in full manual or A-priority.

Anybody that can either praise or condemn this setup?

Particularly interested in ease and speed of focusing, coming from the M2.

The Xpro1 sensor is not well-optimized for short focal length RF lenses, nor are the EVF and focusing aids really up to the task. Same goes for the Micro-FourThirds bodies and the NEX 7 sensor (it does have focus peaking aids). The NEX 5n performs better than the NEX 7 with short focal lengths.

The best non-Leica body for M-Mount RF lenses in current production is the Ricoh GXR fitted with the A12 Camera Mount camera unit. This has a dedicated Leica M-Bayonet lens mount, no adapter required, and the sensor has been optimized for RF lenses. It has two modes of focus peaking, three levels of focusing magnification, an optional EVF that works very well, and has broad customization features to allow you to get the most out of RF lenses. The 12 Mpixel sensor, with no AA filter, rivals or bests the Sony and Fuji cameras for acutance and has excellent dynamic range as well.

Sorry to sound like an advertisement. The GXR is a sleeper, the best non-Leica digital camera I've found to date for using Leica RF lenses. It can be used with such extreme lens designs as the CV Heliar 12 and 15 with fewer issues than even the M8 or M9. It's a solid, meaty, compact camera with all the Right Stuff to keep an RF lens owner happy.

 

[porktaco]

i think about the GXR a lot. i wish they'd have an integrated VF with a smooth line so it could go in and out of a bag without catching stuff. and so that it looks nice.

hoping for photokina upgrade to it.

 

[rbelyell]

the articulating evf is a real plus for street shooting/candids porktaco.
tony

 

[Godfrey]

The tilting EVF is also very handy when using the GXR as a copy camera.

AND, since I often use the GXR with certain lenses*on the A12 Camera Mount and the A12 50/28 camera units with an optical viewfinder, having the EVF removable is not a bother at all.

(Ricoh's design of the EVF does leave a little to be desire with respect to snagging on the way in and out of bags. The Leica X2/Olympus Pen accessory EVF does better in that regard.)

 

[GaryLH]

The Xpro1 sensor is not well-optimized for short focal length RF lenses, nor are the EVF and focusing aids really up to the task. Same goes for the Micro-FourThirds bodies and the NEX 7 sensor (it does have focus peaking aids). The NEX 5n performs better than the NEX 7 with short focal lengths.

The best non-Leica body for M-Mount RF lenses in current production is the Ricoh GXR fitted with the A12 Camera Mount..

I would tend to agree about the gxr w/ m mount having used legacy lenses on gxr, Nex and Fuji xp1 cameras. The gxr is the best user experience.
1- multi magnification capability
2- two types of focus peaking
3- works well with even very wide rf lenses
4- supports custom lens settings including distortion adjustments

On the gxr if I have mag assist active, a half press takes me out of it for full frame recomposure of the shot and focus peaking lets me get a good idea of what going on with other area of the frame. After I take the shot, it automatically goes back to mag assist mode unless I keep it half pressed. It took me a while to get used to it, but once u do, it s a great process.

The only down side is per shot write speed s a bit slower....

Where as Fuji until this latest 2.0 fw update only had 10x mag assistance but now also has 3x which will help with lenses from 50 on up... Still no mention of focus peaking. With the Fuji m Adapter supports custom lens setting.

On the Fuji, lenses from 40 on up, no one complains about any issues. From 35 on down, it is a different story. Some lenses are fine others are not. Most complaints are related to corner smearing since most other issues seem to be correctable with SW. This is really a cases of YMMV depending on lens and how picky u are.

As i said in an earlier post, I mainly use legacy lenses right now to fill in for missing lenses in the lineup... By end of next year, that will all be eliminated. The Fuji lenses are really very good.

Gary

Ps- I wish Ricoh would release a a16 m module.

 

[willie_901]

As a happy X-Pro 1 user, I would not recommend using it with M lenses. The existing XF lenses are very good to excellent... and more are on the way. Fuji knows how to design optics.

Based on using manual focus with the XF lenses, the new 3X magnification option should improve the utility of mechanical lens. But I am satisfied focusing the XF lenses by operating the AF manually.

 

[doncraig]

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.

Semilog: This should be posted everywhere there is a discussion of focusing an XP1. It works and works well with native or adapted lenses.