SimonPJ
Well-known
Given that there's a great deal on the X-Pro1 plus 18/2 and another free lens at the moment, I'm very interested to hear whether the focusing (AF and MF) of the X-Pro1 has been improved as much as the X100 by the latest firmware.
Thanks,
Simon
Thanks,
Simon
It has improved, but it is still not fast enough for many people. It's better to go try before you buy. I love it, but I loved it the day it came out too.
GaryLH
Veteran
The x100 is a hair faster w/ latest update.. X100s or xe2 should be faster.
Xp1/xe1 af speed is dependent on two factors
- af motor vs lens focusing unit mass
- the focusing mech (specifically the macro of the 60).
The 60 is the slowest, the 18-55 and 18f2 maybe the fastest... Nikon One and Olympus omd are the fastest csc cameras out there still.
I would also suggest trying it before u buy.
Gary
Xp1/xe1 af speed is dependent on two factors
- af motor vs lens focusing unit mass
- the focusing mech (specifically the macro of the 60).
The 60 is the slowest, the 18-55 and 18f2 maybe the fastest... Nikon One and Olympus omd are the fastest csc cameras out there still.
I would also suggest trying it before u buy.
Gary
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
May I add to the question whether it's as fast or faster than the AF in the Fuji X20? I find it fairly fast.
I remember when I tested the X100 a few years ago, and I was very turned off by its very subpar AF. As I may be interested in getting a second-hand X100, I also wonder if a firmware update renders it as good as the X20 in this respect.
I second the observation on the OMD: when I tried it with my 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic lens (and it can be sluggish on the GF1), I was satisfied.
I remember when I tested the X100 a few years ago, and I was very turned off by its very subpar AF. As I may be interested in getting a second-hand X100, I also wonder if a firmware update renders it as good as the X20 in this respect.
I second the observation on the OMD: when I tried it with my 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic lens (and it can be sluggish on the GF1), I was satisfied.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I have the x20 and x100 (since the beginning).
The x20 has a faster AF in my experience than the original x100.
I use the x100 in Manual focus mode with the afl button as a method to "snap" to focus and then leave it there. I then frame with the Optical viewfinder.
Used in this way the x100 is as fast and responsive as any Camera I have tried.
By Comparison the Xpro1 used with the method above is quite fast but still seems to hesitate when you press the shutter.
I'm assuming this is for a few reasons one of which the first shutter is always open with the xpro1.
It must close before taking an exposure. It's a very small hesitation but indeed detectable.
All the x-series cameras focus and respond quickly enough for user satisfaction.
It's hard to complain anymore about any of them.
That said, the improvements to the x100 are night and day from the originally released camera.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Thank you, Andy. That helps. So, the "improvements" are via the latest firmware?
2WK
Rangefinder User
Yea, Id say it's "ok". It is decent for most uses, but it does hunt a lot in very low light. I have shot events and party's with it and I usually end up with a ton more misses than a dslr.
I tried a friends 5D mk3 the other day in very low light (I used to have a mk2) and it was amazing! I kind of had a moment of regret selling the canon gear, and the 5D & 50 1.4 wasn't soo much "dreadfully" mosre cumbersome than an xpro 35 1.4.
But, again the xpro is awesome (for me) in most conditions. The recent firmware is nice. (although I still want minimum shutterspeed!!) Even though I am still not 100% sold on the files with Lightroom 5.2. I have actually been using the ooc jpegs most of the time. Which I find unusual. I am now especially fond of the colors I get with the Astia simulation. So usually, I shoot raw+jpeg and only rarely when the lighting condition is extreme do I mess with the .raf file. Usually I can adjust the Jpeg slightly to get the result I want. I can get the raw files to look similar, but sometimes the color is drastically different and I prefer the fuji jpeg over adobes reckoning.
I tried a friends 5D mk3 the other day in very low light (I used to have a mk2) and it was amazing! I kind of had a moment of regret selling the canon gear, and the 5D & 50 1.4 wasn't soo much "dreadfully" mosre cumbersome than an xpro 35 1.4.
But, again the xpro is awesome (for me) in most conditions. The recent firmware is nice. (although I still want minimum shutterspeed!!) Even though I am still not 100% sold on the files with Lightroom 5.2. I have actually been using the ooc jpegs most of the time. Which I find unusual. I am now especially fond of the colors I get with the Astia simulation. So usually, I shoot raw+jpeg and only rarely when the lighting condition is extreme do I mess with the .raf file. Usually I can adjust the Jpeg slightly to get the result I want. I can get the raw files to look similar, but sometimes the color is drastically different and I prefer the fuji jpeg over adobes reckoning.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Yes, The firmware improvements are indeed major improvements.
Not just little tweeks or adjusments. I supect some overhaul of AF algarithyms were implimented.
The original x100 now performs at an 8 on a 1-10 scale In my experience with FW v2.0.
The 2 Missing points are mostly in very low light.
With Manual focus now working very nicely and focus peaking indicating focus point, any stumbles in low light af performance can be made by the user in manual focus mode.
willie_901
Veteran
The X-Pro 1 AF is improved with the newest firmware. However the improvement in the X100 was much more dramatic. I think the speed comparison depends on the lens. The 18/2 was always a little bit quicker until the 14/2.8, and more recently the 23/1.4 lenses. I received my 23/1.4 this week and it's fast.
The main limitations are focus regions with a low contrast and subjects in motion.
The new focus peaking function is quite useful for checking focus in critical situations. It is also useful for focusing using the lens collar. The 14 and 23 mm lenses work really well this way. The other lenses' focus collars are less pleasing as they are focus-by-wire lenses. Still this function has also been improved with recent firmware revisions.
The main limitations are focus regions with a low contrast and subjects in motion.
The new focus peaking function is quite useful for checking focus in critical situations. It is also useful for focusing using the lens collar. The 14 and 23 mm lenses work really well this way. The other lenses' focus collars are less pleasing as they are focus-by-wire lenses. Still this function has also been improved with recent firmware revisions.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I'm assuming that the latest firmware you're discussing with regard to AF speed is v.3? I see there is a version 3.1 update available but am I right in thinking this just fixes the video issue? Or does it give a little extra boost to AF too?
fireblade
Vincenzo.
why the fascination with "fast" AF, or are we all sheep?
the fuji X systems are not DSLR's and not made to function as one, nor are M43rd systems....the quicker we understand this, truly, the more we will enjoy photography as an art.
the fuji X systems are not DSLR's and not made to function as one, nor are M43rd systems....the quicker we understand this, truly, the more we will enjoy photography as an art.
Jdi
Established
AF is not top of class. Never was and it never bothered me. Has it improved, significantly.
A note in hunting in low light. Depends a lot on the lens, as with any camera. The 35 will hunt quite a bit. Similar to the X100. I stopped using it in low light unless I'm shooting stationary objects or I can afford to wait for the shot to come to me. The 18 will immediately lock focus on near anything and do it quicker (use afc) than any of the Fuji lenses I own (14, 18, 35, 18-55).
A note in hunting in low light. Depends a lot on the lens, as with any camera. The 35 will hunt quite a bit. Similar to the X100. I stopped using it in low light unless I'm shooting stationary objects or I can afford to wait for the shot to come to me. The 18 will immediately lock focus on near anything and do it quicker (use afc) than any of the Fuji lenses I own (14, 18, 35, 18-55).
willie_901
Veteran
You are correct. 3.1 addresses a movie recording bug. I have seen reports that focus performance for still photography is affected.
Hmmm, so because it's not a DSLR we should not want fast AF? And how does wanting quicker AF in a camera stop us from enjoying photography?
honozooloo
Established
AF accuracy, not speed, is more of an issue for me personally. To be honest, I don't consider Fuji's AF that "slow" in an of itself (they feel no worse than a 5D mkii, for example), but its inaccuracy also contributes to that feeling of slowness at times. Real, mechanically-linked RF mechanisms are slower still but because of the feedback from the RF patch, they are more accurate. And those who are used to the accuracy of a nice RF would agree with me that one properly focused photo shot with an RF is still faster than two shots taken with an AF system because the AF bungled the first shot by focusing on the background instead of the subject. Many here who are accustomed to using "real" RF systems would find the delays/slowdowns resulting from having to refocus via AF annoying because they're used to extremely short "lock" times on their RF cameras, and direct, instant focus feedback.
Despite these issues, I LOVE my Fujis and have been on board with the X system since a month after the X100 hit the market. They aren't perfect, and we wish they did some things better than others. But when is that not the case? M240 owners probably wish they had the X Pro's high ISO capabilities. 1D X owners wish their cameras didn't weigh so damn much. And film camera M owners probably all secretly wish they had rear doors that swung out when it's time to load a fresh roll (HERESY! but come on be honest with yourself).
I agree with jsrockit; just because it isn't a DSLR doesn't stop us from wishing the Fuji Xes were a little faster in the focusing dept. But to use your art analogy, while we're all happy with our existing tools, some of us wish those tools were just a little sharper. I think the quest for better tools has been around since the first primitive human drew an ancient graffiti dong on humanity's first cave-bathroom wall with a piece of charcoal (and you totally know that happened, yo).
The grass could always be a little greener on the side of the field you're standing in is what I'm sayin. And that doesn't have much to do with "art".