macjim
Well-known
For some time now, I've been wanting to buy an X-T1 to replace my X-Pro 1 with. There's nothing wrong with the X-Pro 1 and I do enjoy using it but I do find I tend to use my X100s more and more, especially since I got the TCL-100. When I saw the announcement of the X-T10, I initially wasn't impressed with it. I thought it looked a bit ugly compared to the X-T1 but, having read the preview reviews and other articles about it, I've mellowed and now think it's a nice wee camera. The fact that it's a good £300-400 cheaper than the X-T1 and has the same image quality too makes it an affordable option. So, why would I consider changing from my X-Pro 1 to a DSLR style of camera? Well, it might have to do with to EVF giving me a wysiwyg image rather than the optical view and parallax lines. It might have to do with the much improved autofocus over the older autofocus. It might have to do with the more compact body but the X-Pro 1 isn't too large either. I bought the X-Pro 1 as a companion to my M9 that I had at that time (now long sold), and it gave me a similar way of working as I had with the M9, but I have come round to the idea that my X100s is the camera that is the nearest to the M9 in use (yes, I know it is not a manual focus dream like the M9). So why the X-T10?, well it might have to do with me hankering for a camera that works like, and feels like my old love, the Olympus OM-1n. It's much nearer to that camera than any of the latest Olympus micro 4/3rd OM-D cameras, plus at the price of the X-T10 it's a much better choice all round and on the pocket too especially as Fujifilm are giving an extra £90 back for a trade in. The X-Pro 1 is sadly not worth much in a trade in, I should know as I have tried to get a good deal against the X-T1. So what are your thoughts, is it worth doing what I have said previous, would you consider it over the X-Pro 1, would you even buy it instead of the X-T1?
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I know full well what it is to lust after a new piece of gear. So the real question is: how badly do you want it? If it is going to disturb your sleep and turn you victuals sour, you'd better get it. ;-)
Seems like the same sensor, though. I have the X-P1 and a couple of other cameras. The high technical qualities of the cameras I already have has made me comfortable skipping a "generation" or two of "new" offerings before getting back on the merry-go-round.
Between 2000 and 2010, I really felt like each new offering from a major camera company materially advanced what I could do with a new camera. For the last several years, the majors have been wrapping their existing imaging chips in new and attractive skins . . . no doubt there are firmware improvements as well. But they have made their products into more like those of the fashion industry, which must change every year or perish, and less like the tool industry, in which the durability of their lineups was key to manufacturers' reputations.
Me? I will be sitting this one out and see what next year's fashion brings.
Seems like the same sensor, though. I have the X-P1 and a couple of other cameras. The high technical qualities of the cameras I already have has made me comfortable skipping a "generation" or two of "new" offerings before getting back on the merry-go-round.
Between 2000 and 2010, I really felt like each new offering from a major camera company materially advanced what I could do with a new camera. For the last several years, the majors have been wrapping their existing imaging chips in new and attractive skins . . . no doubt there are firmware improvements as well. But they have made their products into more like those of the fashion industry, which must change every year or perish, and less like the tool industry, in which the durability of their lineups was key to manufacturers' reputations.
Me? I will be sitting this one out and see what next year's fashion brings.
willie_901
Veteran
This is a hard decision.
One of the X-T1's strengths is the EVF (X 0.77 magnification). The X-T10 offers a X 0.62 magnification factor. I keep the X-Pro 1 because I value the OVF. But the first time I held the X-T1 viewfinder to my eye I was startled by its quality. I'd have to hold the X-T10 up to my eye before a purchase. Both finders will strobe in very strong fluorescent light from old-style fluorescent tube fixtures. Newer CFL lighting does not produce this effect.
The price difference is not trivial considering the data stream technologies (IQ) are essentially identical.
At any rate, since the X-T10 has the same AF functionality as the X-T1 and WiFi so. I assume the in-camera CPU clock rates are identical. In my view, this is the main advantage compared to the X-Pro 1.
[off topic comparison to X-Pro 1 follows]
I work with raw files from the X-Pro 1 and X-T1 on a regular basis. The XTrans II data stream uses a 14 bit ADC which means one of two things. Either the signal-to-noise ratio (and analog dynamic range) benefits from the extra two bits or it's just a marketing upgrade. While my ad-hoc conclusion is the XTrans-II data delivers better IQ, the difference is almost ever an important factor.
One of the X-T1's strengths is the EVF (X 0.77 magnification). The X-T10 offers a X 0.62 magnification factor. I keep the X-Pro 1 because I value the OVF. But the first time I held the X-T1 viewfinder to my eye I was startled by its quality. I'd have to hold the X-T10 up to my eye before a purchase. Both finders will strobe in very strong fluorescent light from old-style fluorescent tube fixtures. Newer CFL lighting does not produce this effect.
The price difference is not trivial considering the data stream technologies (IQ) are essentially identical.
At any rate, since the X-T10 has the same AF functionality as the X-T1 and WiFi so. I assume the in-camera CPU clock rates are identical. In my view, this is the main advantage compared to the X-Pro 1.
[off topic comparison to X-Pro 1 follows]
I work with raw files from the X-Pro 1 and X-T1 on a regular basis. The XTrans II data stream uses a 14 bit ADC which means one of two things. Either the signal-to-noise ratio (and analog dynamic range) benefits from the extra two bits or it's just a marketing upgrade. While my ad-hoc conclusion is the XTrans-II data delivers better IQ, the difference is almost ever an important factor.
FranZ
Established
Hi macjim, I think it all depends on the lenses you use.
I have both the X-T1 and the XPro-1 and use the latter with my 14 to 35mm lenses and the X-T1 with 35 - 60 mm and the zooms since I don't like to use the longer focal length lenses on the XP1. My favorite setup is: XP1 with 23mm and XT1 with the 56mm lens.
So, if you shoot only wide, then the XP1 still hold its ground. If you shoot longer focals, the XT1 or XT10 are both viable options.
Two other thing to contemplate; (1) when you buy the XT10 you might not need to trade-in your XP1, giving you a 2 camera setup.
(2) personally, I buy all my Fuji gear 2nd hand with no problems whatsoever, which would give you the option to buy an XT1.
choices, choices . . . .
I have both the X-T1 and the XPro-1 and use the latter with my 14 to 35mm lenses and the X-T1 with 35 - 60 mm and the zooms since I don't like to use the longer focal length lenses on the XP1. My favorite setup is: XP1 with 23mm and XT1 with the 56mm lens.
So, if you shoot only wide, then the XP1 still hold its ground. If you shoot longer focals, the XT1 or XT10 are both viable options.
Two other thing to contemplate; (1) when you buy the XT10 you might not need to trade-in your XP1, giving you a 2 camera setup.
(2) personally, I buy all my Fuji gear 2nd hand with no problems whatsoever, which would give you the option to buy an XT1.
choices, choices . . . .
GaryLH
Veteran
I picked up my xt1 at a good price used..but it was still more expensive then the new price of the xt10. For me, the only thing to really look at is that the evf is more like the one from the xe2 than what is on the xt1.
Given what we are seeing in the xt1 and 10.. Can't wait for the xe3 and xp2 announcements...
and of course for fw 4.0 for the xt1
Gary
PS also to c what the rumored xe2 fw update is like.. I am actually fine w/ 16mp of existing sensor. I am more interested in better af performance and I don't tend to shoot landscape w/ the Fuji cameras since I use my foveon based cameras for that.
Given what we are seeing in the xt1 and 10.. Can't wait for the xe3 and xp2 announcements...
and of course for fw 4.0 for the xt1 Gary
PS also to c what the rumored xe2 fw update is like.. I am actually fine w/ 16mp of existing sensor. I am more interested in better af performance and I don't tend to shoot landscape w/ the Fuji cameras since I use my foveon based cameras for that.
the hoarder
Established
Everything Franz has said.
I've got both xpro1 and xt1. use 35mm and 18-55 on the xpro1 and 56mm on the xt1 - the 56 hunted around more on xp1. All bought 2nd hand.
The new XT10 looks smaller than the XT1, it would depend on which lenses you wanted to use with it, but it looks too small to be comfortable for me.
Good luck with what you decide.
macjim
Well-known
Hello, thanks for the responses to my question. I have the XF-18, 35 & 60 mm lenses that I use with the X-Pro1. I might go for the X-T10 as is not a bad price in comparison to the X-T1, even though that is my preferred camera.
I was trying to see if others had a similar feeling about the X-T10 and whether they had decided it was a more palatable cost for a similar performance to the X-T1.
Do we really need the full weather sealing that it offers? Maybe, and the larger grip is useful too but for an extra £400-500 over the cost of the X-T10, I don't know plus, you could but two X-T10's for the price of the X-T1!
I was trying to see if others had a similar feeling about the X-T10 and whether they had decided it was a more palatable cost for a similar performance to the X-T1.
Do we really need the full weather sealing that it offers? Maybe, and the larger grip is useful too but for an extra £400-500 over the cost of the X-T10, I don't know plus, you could but two X-T10's for the price of the X-T1!
emayoh
Established
I am in a similar position. Love my XPro1. Realize its faults. Know how great the XT1 is. (thought XT10 is ugly too) My own solution is to sit tight and squirrel away my acorns for when the XPro2 comes out.
gavinlg
Veteran
The EVF for me is pretty amazing for stuff where framing and exposure is critical - like when I'm using the camera for work. But in terms of form and handling for me the x-pro1 is still the king, and the OVF is just svelte for every day shooting. I feel it's better made as well. The tilty swivel screen on my xt-1 is borderline irritating to me - not only have I never used it, the sight of the exposed wiring loom under the screen and the lateral wobble in the mechanism gives me the heeby jeebys.
gavinlg
Veteran
I'll also add that the x-pro1 is better with High ISO - more natural noise control than the newer x-t1 processor.
willie_901
Veteran
Only for in-camera JPEGs. I find the XTrans II raw is marginally better (signal-to noise ratio and dynamic range) with raw files. This is consistent with the 14 bit ADC in XTrans II data stream. Not because the extra bits increase IQ (they don't). Rather the extra bits could be justified by a slight increase in SNR and reduced dependence on ISO amplification (a more ISO-invarient sensor assembly).
Spatial Fourier transform analysis indicates Fujifilm does not noise filter raw data in-camera.
However the IQ difference is rather small. I don't feel it's a factor for raw users.
There is a work around for the high-ISO noise filtering signature of XTrans II in-camera JPEGS. I don't remember the trick though because I never use in-camerfa JPEGs.
blackfriday
Member
I love feeling the X-Pro in my hands...its so solid and clear.... and I never have thought about replacing it by X-T1 or T10. Unfortunately I am the limiting factor for better pictures, nor AF neither ISO nor anything else...
Bike Tourist
Well-known
If I want an SLR-type viewfinder I have my Nikon. I bought the X-Pro1 specifically for the RF-style experience (even though it's not one). The dual purpose VF does give me the option of an EVF if I occasionally need it. Basically I use the Nikon equipment (you could substitute X-T1 here) with zooms and the XP1 with primes. The best of all possible worlds for me.
The difference between 16mp and 24mp is not important to me, but I'm sure to be tempted by the X-Pro2 when it appears.
The difference between 16mp and 24mp is not important to me, but I'm sure to be tempted by the X-Pro2 when it appears.
kuzano
Veteran
Remember, you started this????!!!!
Remember, you started this????!!!!
Since I don't know where my victuals are located, I don't know if I can tell if they are sour. Are they located where I can reach them with my tongue. Sounds like a British Term and considering some things that are eaten in the UK, not sure if I want to take that part of the test.
I was just getting ready to pull the trigger on the Father's day Special at Olympus... The two lens EM10 Kit for $598 new.
I've had the X-E1 and liked it a lot, but sold it to move back to Olympus.
Now this new XT10 has me in a quandry.
Remember, you started this????!!!!
Since I don't know where my victuals are located, I don't know if I can tell if they are sour. Are they located where I can reach them with my tongue. Sounds like a British Term and considering some things that are eaten in the UK, not sure if I want to take that part of the test.
I was just getting ready to pull the trigger on the Father's day Special at Olympus... The two lens EM10 Kit for $598 new.
I've had the X-E1 and liked it a lot, but sold it to move back to Olympus.
Now this new XT10 has me in a quandry.
kuzano
Veteran
Huh??????
Huh??????
I only got the first line of that... after that, again, HUH?
Not interested in going back to Electrical Engineering school. One degree in 1964 was quite enough. Can you break that down into something meaningful for me.... perhaps a couple of others?
Huh??????
I only got the first line of that... after that, again, HUH?
Not interested in going back to Electrical Engineering school. One degree in 1964 was quite enough. Can you break that down into something meaningful for me.... perhaps a couple of others?
narsuitus
Well-known
Similar to Bike Tourist, I use my auto focus Nikon zoom lenses on my Fuji S5 when I want an SLR-type viewfinder experience.
Fuji S5 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
I use fast auto focus Fuji prime lenses on my Fuji X Pro1 when I want a simulated rangefinder-type experience.
Available Light Kit by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Fujifilm S5 Pro....great camera.
willie_901
Veteran
ADC Bit Depth In Digital imaging
The ADC bit depth determines what doesn't become digitized. Usually this is noise from the electronics or from artifacts such as banding, pattern noise or other very low-level imperfections in the sensor photo sites. These are analog phenomena.
Increasing the ADC bit depth implies the noise level is low enough that information (low voltages from photo sites) about low light levels should be digitized. Put another way, the signal-to-noise ratios from the sensor sites are high enough to justify the extra bits.
One must also consider using a 14 bit ADC might just be a gratuitous upgrade that has more to do with marketing than sensor performance.
Cooking Raw Files
When a new camera model outperforms the signal-to-noise ratios and dynamic ranges of previous models or surpasses other brands, some people insist the improvements are due to deceptive manipulation of the data in-camera. The most common claim is the "raw data is cooked". By cooked they mean the noise is filtered or otherwise manipulated, which means the raw data is not really raw data. The sensor/data stream is not really superior. Instead the brand manipulates the data to fool people onto thinking the sensor/data stream is superior.
While photographers and software companies always use the term "noise reduction", noise can not be reduced. Instead the noise is filtered... which is a term that means data with more information is cleverly averaged with data with less information. This can improve image aesthetics, but in fact the total information content remains constant. It is impossible to increase the the recorded signals' inherent information content after the shutter closes.
Fortunately Fourier transformation is a straightforward, objective technique to detect raw-data noise filtering. The Fourier transform mathematically converts data from the time domain to the frequency domain. The same principal can be applied to spatial frequencies. All MRI images are constructed from a spatial FT.
It turns out the spatial FT technique can also detect noise filtering in raw-image data files.
ISO-Less or ISO Invariant Data Imaging
In practically all digital cameras increasing ISO amplifies the DC voltages from the sensor sites after the shutter closes. About 4 years ago Nikon released the D7000 DSLR. This camera's data stream was unique because when ISO was set above base ISO the DC signals were not amplified. Instead the raw data was digitally multiplied in-camera. This means a rendered raw images will appear identical (especially with respect to noise) at all ISOs
For a fixed set of exposure parameters (shutter time and aperture) the meter estimates ISO should be increased when the light level decreases. An ISO-invatiant data stream means increasing the brightness during post-production raw rendering can provide the exact same image as digital multiplication of the data in camera. Increasing the camera's ISO setting does affect technical IQ in any way. Electronic ISO amplification is not required to compensate for data-stream deficiencies (usually involving the ADC design).
By contrast, both ad-hoc comparisons of rendered images and statistical analysis of raw data files clearly show for some brands some ISO parameters degrade raw file quality. This means for raw rendering shadow regions' rendering will benefit from using a lower ISO and increasing the global brightness during post production. This is true to some degree for all ISO-variant data streams. However with some camera the benefit is significant.
In general, ISO-invarience requires excellence in data-stream engineering and component performance. Recently, many brands that still use electronic signal amplification approach ISO invariance.
The ADC bit depth determines what doesn't become digitized. Usually this is noise from the electronics or from artifacts such as banding, pattern noise or other very low-level imperfections in the sensor photo sites. These are analog phenomena.
Increasing the ADC bit depth implies the noise level is low enough that information (low voltages from photo sites) about low light levels should be digitized. Put another way, the signal-to-noise ratios from the sensor sites are high enough to justify the extra bits.
One must also consider using a 14 bit ADC might just be a gratuitous upgrade that has more to do with marketing than sensor performance.
Cooking Raw Files
When a new camera model outperforms the signal-to-noise ratios and dynamic ranges of previous models or surpasses other brands, some people insist the improvements are due to deceptive manipulation of the data in-camera. The most common claim is the "raw data is cooked". By cooked they mean the noise is filtered or otherwise manipulated, which means the raw data is not really raw data. The sensor/data stream is not really superior. Instead the brand manipulates the data to fool people onto thinking the sensor/data stream is superior.
While photographers and software companies always use the term "noise reduction", noise can not be reduced. Instead the noise is filtered... which is a term that means data with more information is cleverly averaged with data with less information. This can improve image aesthetics, but in fact the total information content remains constant. It is impossible to increase the the recorded signals' inherent information content after the shutter closes.
Fortunately Fourier transformation is a straightforward, objective technique to detect raw-data noise filtering. The Fourier transform mathematically converts data from the time domain to the frequency domain. The same principal can be applied to spatial frequencies. All MRI images are constructed from a spatial FT.
It turns out the spatial FT technique can also detect noise filtering in raw-image data files.
ISO-Less or ISO Invariant Data Imaging
In practically all digital cameras increasing ISO amplifies the DC voltages from the sensor sites after the shutter closes. About 4 years ago Nikon released the D7000 DSLR. This camera's data stream was unique because when ISO was set above base ISO the DC signals were not amplified. Instead the raw data was digitally multiplied in-camera. This means a rendered raw images will appear identical (especially with respect to noise) at all ISOs
For a fixed set of exposure parameters (shutter time and aperture) the meter estimates ISO should be increased when the light level decreases. An ISO-invatiant data stream means increasing the brightness during post-production raw rendering can provide the exact same image as digital multiplication of the data in camera. Increasing the camera's ISO setting does affect technical IQ in any way. Electronic ISO amplification is not required to compensate for data-stream deficiencies (usually involving the ADC design).
By contrast, both ad-hoc comparisons of rendered images and statistical analysis of raw data files clearly show for some brands some ISO parameters degrade raw file quality. This means for raw rendering shadow regions' rendering will benefit from using a lower ISO and increasing the global brightness during post production. This is true to some degree for all ISO-variant data streams. However with some camera the benefit is significant.
In general, ISO-invarience requires excellence in data-stream engineering and component performance. Recently, many brands that still use electronic signal amplification approach ISO invariance.
macjim
Well-known
Well, today, I had a wonder into the Glasgow Jessops store to see if the X-T10 was in store. I thought I'd have a look at it just to see what it was like and to hold. I was informed that it would be nearer the end of the month before they would have it in stock so I decided to have a look at what was in store. On the shelf was a X-T1... Hmmm... Let's have a wee look at it. I was firstly surprised at how small it was but at the same time, very impressed with it too. The grip and thumb rest was ideal and comfortable to hold so that made me realise why people were raving on about it. I'm now having second thoughts about buying the X-T10 and may go for my original choice of getting the X-T10. I don't really need the weather proofing but it would be an advantage. So maybe I'll go back to my first choice and go for the X-T1 after all especially as the X-T10 is even smaller than the X-T1.
macjim
Well-known
PS. Yes, I like my X-Pro1 but if I decided to replace it with either the X-T1or 10, I still have my X100s with the TCL-100 as my second camera... Now that is a nice combination.