Post your x-pro1 FW2.0 impressions

Now that the focusing speed seems 1.5x as fast (actually, it seems a bit faster), and you can go from 1m to ∞ in 1/4 turn, what will people lament now? The new 3x has sufficient contrast that it almost focus-peaks.

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
what will people lament now?
Click to expand...

The inability to set a minimum shutter speed when using Auto ISO;

The framelines which are claimed to be too tight (but in reality are similar in coverage to Leica M framelines);

The lack of RAW support from Apple, and the lack of competent RAW support from Adobe;

The thickness of the sensor cover glass, which accentuates corner smearing with some wide angle lenses;

The perceived need for full frame;

And the fact that some people might call it a rangefinder.

(Only two of these issues actually bother me.)
 
Dante_Stella said:
Now that the focusing speed seems 1.5x as fast (actually, it seems a bit faster), and you can go from 1m to ∞ in 1/4 turn, what will people lament now? The new 3x has sufficient contrast that it almost focus-peaks.

Dante
Click to expand...


Well, I'd like to be able to save my current settings before I install a firmware update, and then re-apply them quickly at the end of the install. Not a huge deal, but it would be nice. :)
 
I also noticed that files with adapted glass appeared underexposed. If there is one thing I know about my living room in the middle of the day the correct EV is 1/60 @ f:2.8 at ISO 400.

I didn't understand the comment about DR being set to 100? What should it be set to?

[I see that the manual (RTFM) states that higher DR numbers are for lower contrast scenes. Does this matter if you are shooting RAW? It seems like it shouldn't but what do I know?]

Mildly clueless. . .

Ben
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I also noticed that files with adapted glass appeared underexposed. If there is one thing I know about my living room in the middle of the day the correct EV is 1/60 @ f:2.8 at ISO 400.

I didn't understand the comment about DR being set to 100? What should it be set to?

[I see that the manual (RTFM) states that higher DR numbers are for lower contrast scenes. Does this matter if you are shooting RAW? It seems like it shouldn't but what do I know?]

Mildly clueless. . .

Ben
Click to expand...

DR settings are only for JPEGs. In reality what they do is underexpose the file and then the processor in the camera brightens the dark parts of the file, so that highlights are 'kept' thus increasing DR.

In raw mode, the camera will just simply underexpose, and you will get an underexposed file on the computer, so keep it at 100% where it doesn't do anything.
 
GaryLH said:
Frame lines are not an issue.. U just need to know the trick.. It turns out that there are two settings for display brightness.

When u are not looking thru the ovf, q menu LCD brightness is for the LCD. after u set this to your liking, the ovf one can be set by placing your eye up to the vf and using the q menu again. The evf brightness follows the ovf in the past. Not sure if new fw changed this behavior (ovf/evf pairing)...

Gary
Click to expand...

Thanks much, Gary. I'll try this. :)
 
shadesofgris said:
Overall, a very nice update. It feels like a different camera. AF is pretty snappy. I especially like that the scene doesn't lock up in EVF while focusing.

Manual focus is the biggest thing I'm happy with though. I actually got used to the stock XP1 MF (it's much better than the X100), but the speed of v.2 MF is really nice. Speaking of the X100... I hope they do release a v.2 FW for that as well.

One issue that I'm noticing though on the new FW though...

For those of you that shoot an XP1 with adapted glass (I usually use a CV 25mm Snapshot Skopar and occasionally a Jupiter 8), do the any of the auto settings (Aperture priority, anything with Auto ISO, etc.) seem a little under exposed to you? It seems like everything is under exposed by about 1 stop.

I usually have to overcome this by either:
1. Turning off Auto-ISO and setting the exposure comp +1 stop.
2. Shoot full manual aperture, time and ISO then and just "know" what the correct settings are (generally +1 over the meter)

... wondering if any of you guys are experiencing the same phenomenon.

-- EDIT --

I guess the camera wanting to underexpose on an auto setting only happens indoors or dimly lit areas. Changing the metering mode from Multi to either Spot or Average seems to calculates a more correct exposure. Outside in the daytime seems fine. I don't remember having to adjust for this before.
Click to expand...

I've gotten some 'quirky' exposures when using legacy lenses. Until I read your post, I'd just assumed that I wasn't understanding some setting or another and that I'd figure it out later. Now I'll pay a bit more attention to when this happens and see if I can narrow down what's going on. By the way, I use the 25mm Color Skopar as well... great little "35mm" lens on the XP1; I love using it as a zone-focused lens.
 
semilog said:
The inability to set a minimum shutter speed when using Auto ISO;

The framelines which are claimed to be too tight (but in reality are similar in coverage to Leica M framelines);

The lack of RAW support from Apple, and the lack of competent RAW support from Adobe;

The thickness of the sensor cover glass, which accentuates corner smearing with some wide angle lenses;

The perceived need for full frame;

And the fact that some people might call it a rangefinder.

(Only two of these issues actually bother me.)
Click to expand...


Being able to set the minimum shutter speed when using Auto ISO would be VERY useful. I don't bother using Auto ISO without this feature.
 
Right now.. until I can shoot with it again - I am VERY happy with what Fuji has done. It makes me lust to use the camera again. I always enjoyed it but sort of lamented the AF and a few other minor issues (although the AF could be a major issue) but this makes using Fuji's lenses a dream now. I think I'll leave my Leica lenses for my M7s - heck... even for fish eye lovers there's even a third party 8mm being made and branded by Rokinon/Samyang/Bower and it's "cheap" at $349:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/876966-REG/Rokinon_28fe8mbk_fx_8mm_f_2_8_UMC_Fish_Eye.html

I may give up my DSLRs yet !!

Cheers,
Dave
 
Why is it that so many of these cameras these days aren't reaching their potential until a firmware upgrade or two?

What is it in their development/design that puts this part of the device's firmware so far behind it's hardware?

I'm genuinely curious because to me it seems akin to a car manufacurer giving you car with four speeds in a five speed transmission then fitting the fifth at the first service because it wasn't quite ready at sale. :p
 
Keith said:
Why is it that so many of these cameras these days aren't reaching their potential until a firmware upgrade or two?

What is it in their development/design that puts this part of the device's firmware so far behind it's hardware?

I'm genuinely curious because to me it seems akin to a car manufacurer giving you car with four speeds in a five speed transmission then fitting the fifth at the first service because it wasn't quite ready at sale. :p
Click to expand...

It's probably more like a 7 speed transmission that doesn't have ideal shift points, or the torque converter locking too early making the low speed ride jerky. In fact a lot of the DSG/SMG dual clutch auto transmissions now require software updates at service intervals. My dad has a VW amarok ute and at the 15,000km service (after run-in period) they loaded a new engine map that allows the diesel to run leaner and get better consumption/power.

To be honest I think it's because electronics and firmware (computer coding) is one of those things where there's ALWAYS going to be a better/more efficient ways of doing things. It just basically takes trial/error and time. The more you write and rewrite it, the more efficient it gets.
 
Keith said:
Why is it that so many of these cameras these days aren't reaching their potential until a firmware upgrade or two?

What is it in their development/design that puts this part of the device's firmware so far behind it's hardware?
Click to expand...

I think that in this particular case, Fuji put a HUGE amount of effort into the JPEG engine for the X-Trans sensor. De-mosaicing that pseudorandom array requires new algorithms and I suspect a LOT of processor horsepower.

Under most conditions, in fact, NONE of the stand-alone processors (talking to you, Adobe) does as well as consistently as the in-camera engine, given default presets. What this says is that what Fuji is doing in that RAW engine is DIFFICULT, even for experts, and all the more so in a compact battery-powered computer (even given a lot of VLSIC* optimization). This camera is not like cameras with Beyer arrays, the demosaicing of which involves generallty mature, well-understood, and highly optimized algorithms.

I think they simply didn't have the time to get the rest of the camera to where they wanted it. Given available resources, it may have been impossible to polish all aspects of the software for a 1.0 launch, and I see the existence of a relatively bug-free 1.0 camera with such amazing JPEG output from a pseudorandom color array as something of a triumph, even if AF was slow and other features were incomplete.

With the 2.0 software the camera really becomes something of a revelation. Just a fantastic piece of kit. Today I shot the speakers at a workshop in a very dark room with the XF 35/1.4. Major light source was usually light scattered off the video projector screen. Focus acquisition and lock were consistently fast, reliable and accurate. Used the OVF throughout.

*very large scale integrated circuit
 
Well that's different.

The new firmware is splendid. Thank you Fuji.

AF is quicker. I was messing around in a dim room with the 35/1.4 and even when there isn't enough contrast to focus, it even hunts quicker. The AF just went from a B to an A.

What really suprised me was using MF with the 35/1.4. It's like having a different camera. The 3X focus zoom is helpful. I am shocked at how much I enjoyed focusing by turning the lens barrel. I have to experiment some more, but this could be a game changer for how I use the camera. The first MF implementation with the X100 was only useful for tripod work. Then the firmware upgrades made it close to my old LUMIX G1... ok, but not something I'd want to use regularly. The XP1 was a bit better, but like the LUMIX lenses, mostly useful for confirming focus. But now MF is really nice. Of course the focus by wire method will never have the same feel as a high-quality analog-focus barrel. Still, the new firmware comes amazingly close to simulating focus with an analog lens. I can't wait until morning to try out using the camera in MF mode using the lens barrel. I look forward to playing with the 18/2 in manual focus mode as well.

So now I will purchase the 56/1.4 and the 23/1.4. Then I will finally have an angle of view equivalent to the ZI-M 28/3.5, 35/2, 50/1.5, 85/2 kit I sold when I gave up on film. I am curious to see what people think of the new Ziess 12/2.8 XF lens. I do plan to keep the X100 for daily carry and back up. Right now I plan to pass on the XE-1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom