Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I got home from Peru with visions of X-Pro dancing in my head... and what a hangover when I opened the box. I ended up canceling the backordered 60mm and am seriously contemplating sending back the camera and 35mm.
1. One of the things that did not occur to me - but by now must be clear to anyone who owns an X100 and an X-Pro - is that when you turn on the "corrected" focusing square, even with the 35mm lens, it is very far from the nominal (infinity) one. On the X100, they overlap a little. I can't even imagine what this was like with the 60mm; can't be fun. This is an inherent issue with the change in focal length that is exacerbated by the way the boxes are presented.
2. The field size jumps precipitously with distance in a way that it does not with the 23mm lens of the X100 (and indeed, does not with a Leica M because it has no such correction). That field size jump tends to make the relative position of the focusing square move a lot too - which it does not on a Leica because the square and the framelines move together (and because you can align the RF in any part of the square arbitrarily). Again, an inherent limitation based on focal length, but one that is exacerbated by the hybrid viewfinder setup.
3. Hybrid VF focusing works a lot less predictably with the 35mm lens than it does on the X100. You often seem to get a green light only to find that it is because some tiny part of the focusing square subtended an item that the camera could focus on - whereas the majority (what you thought you were covering) was inside minimum focusing distance. This is the one thing that tends to spook me (the parallax items above, with enough practice, would eventually go away like they do on the X100). Or I drew a bad example of the camera; can't tell.
4. Is it just me, or are the grid lines thicker and more obtrusive than on the X100?
And I did note a couple of things about the design that won't improve with firmware:
1. The 35mm lens is not internal focus, something that would have massively increased AF performance. Why the whole front cell (or probably all of the optical cell) is moving when you focus is beyond me. That's a lot of weight to be pushing.
2. Further, if you're going to move that much of the lens, why not do a Nikon-style slip clutch for manual focusing? I could see laying off that on the X100 due to size, but this lens is at least as big as the 50/1.4D I use on my D700. In fact, by volume, it's almost double the size of a 35mm Summilux ASPH.
3. Not having a variable-diopter eyepiece on this was a mistake. On the X100, the fact that you have a detailed, dot-matrix in-your-face information display was aided by your ability to correct the viewfinder correction by very tiny increments (simple LEDs outside the frame - a la the GA645* - are outside the viewing field and don't compete for your eyesight as much). The screw-in diopters that fit this camera (Nikon F2 size) only come in whole-diopter increments, which is always going to overshoot what you really need. And given the substantial thickness of the body, it should have been possible (maybe it was sacrificed for the neato dual-mag feature)?
The X-Pro, I have been thinking today, would be a better camera if it simply came back with phase-detect AF (or even active/passive AF) and lenses that tried to move less glass.
This is the first time I have ever even thought about sending something back, but I now have the distinct feeling that the people who have been reviewing this camera have been cutting Fuji a lot of slack in describing the inherent difficulties in focusing it - if not the other limitations. I don't know what Sean Reid said about it (getting a subscription to his site and return postage are the same cost - so why not try the camera?), but it is now not surprising to me that the high-res test shots are largely static subjects and that this camera was seeded to a lot of people who would be happy to get something on loan for free.
I will contemplate this more, but, wow.
Dante
1. One of the things that did not occur to me - but by now must be clear to anyone who owns an X100 and an X-Pro - is that when you turn on the "corrected" focusing square, even with the 35mm lens, it is very far from the nominal (infinity) one. On the X100, they overlap a little. I can't even imagine what this was like with the 60mm; can't be fun. This is an inherent issue with the change in focal length that is exacerbated by the way the boxes are presented.
2. The field size jumps precipitously with distance in a way that it does not with the 23mm lens of the X100 (and indeed, does not with a Leica M because it has no such correction). That field size jump tends to make the relative position of the focusing square move a lot too - which it does not on a Leica because the square and the framelines move together (and because you can align the RF in any part of the square arbitrarily). Again, an inherent limitation based on focal length, but one that is exacerbated by the hybrid viewfinder setup.
3. Hybrid VF focusing works a lot less predictably with the 35mm lens than it does on the X100. You often seem to get a green light only to find that it is because some tiny part of the focusing square subtended an item that the camera could focus on - whereas the majority (what you thought you were covering) was inside minimum focusing distance. This is the one thing that tends to spook me (the parallax items above, with enough practice, would eventually go away like they do on the X100). Or I drew a bad example of the camera; can't tell.
4. Is it just me, or are the grid lines thicker and more obtrusive than on the X100?
And I did note a couple of things about the design that won't improve with firmware:
1. The 35mm lens is not internal focus, something that would have massively increased AF performance. Why the whole front cell (or probably all of the optical cell) is moving when you focus is beyond me. That's a lot of weight to be pushing.
2. Further, if you're going to move that much of the lens, why not do a Nikon-style slip clutch for manual focusing? I could see laying off that on the X100 due to size, but this lens is at least as big as the 50/1.4D I use on my D700. In fact, by volume, it's almost double the size of a 35mm Summilux ASPH.
3. Not having a variable-diopter eyepiece on this was a mistake. On the X100, the fact that you have a detailed, dot-matrix in-your-face information display was aided by your ability to correct the viewfinder correction by very tiny increments (simple LEDs outside the frame - a la the GA645* - are outside the viewing field and don't compete for your eyesight as much). The screw-in diopters that fit this camera (Nikon F2 size) only come in whole-diopter increments, which is always going to overshoot what you really need. And given the substantial thickness of the body, it should have been possible (maybe it was sacrificed for the neato dual-mag feature)?
*N.B. The GA645zi (the final model of GA645) not only had a zoom finder; it also had LED frameline superimposition and variable diopter eyepiece built into a thickness comparable to the X-Pro.
Although I want to be positive about this camera (particularly the grip-ability, better locks on controls and more rational menus - to say nothing of the insanely cool sensor), I'm starting to realize the inevitability of simply keeping my X100 and buying an M9. The X100 - at least with its current firmware - is very well executed and takes killer pictures. When you take out the leaf shutter (and high-speed synch), make the camera bigger, make it slower, and make focusing more difficult, it could have a sensor delivered on Mount Sinai and still not deliver pictures.The X-Pro, I have been thinking today, would be a better camera if it simply came back with phase-detect AF (or even active/passive AF) and lenses that tried to move less glass.
This is the first time I have ever even thought about sending something back, but I now have the distinct feeling that the people who have been reviewing this camera have been cutting Fuji a lot of slack in describing the inherent difficulties in focusing it - if not the other limitations. I don't know what Sean Reid said about it (getting a subscription to his site and return postage are the same cost - so why not try the camera?), but it is now not surprising to me that the high-res test shots are largely static subjects and that this camera was seeded to a lot of people who would be happy to get something on loan for free.
I will contemplate this more, but, wow.
Dante
Last edited:
