Why NOT replace a DSLR with an X-Pro 1?

[jonasv]

I'm not sure I am in the right forum for this, but I need reasons why I should NOT buy an X-Pro 1 over a Nikon D600/D800. 😱

I shoot with a Fuji X100 and a Nikon D7000+50/1.4 (75mm equivalent) and find it's a pretty neat set-up that covers 98% of my shooting. Since going semi-professional I was pretty sure about adding a Nikon D600 or D800 and shoot with the pair of Nikon DSLRs.

Nikon (D)SLRs have never let me down. But I really love my X100 and I'm not really looking forward to carrying two DSLRs or investing in two camera systems.

So, in what areas would the Nikon DSLR outperform the X-Pro1? What would I lose?

- I shoot available light, no flash
- I do portrait and documentary (including documentary style weddings) (see website)
- No sports, macro, landscape
- Image quality and high ISO quality are important to me, but not the be-all and end-all... I sometimes wish for slightly better performance than the X100/D7000, but it needn't be much.
- I always shoot primes, one 35mm and one 75-85mm are must-haves for my shooting, whereas an occassional 21-24mm equivalent would be a nice-to have.

Objective reasons for NOT getting an X-Pro1 I can think of:

- Smaller sensor means more DOF, which is a slight minus in my book.
- No RAW support in Aperture, which is what I'm currently using.


Any more you can think of?

At any rate, I would borrow/rent an X-Pro1 and test it before making the decision. And I might wait for an X-Pro1s or 2 if such a thing is coming soon? I would need to wait for the 35 and 85mm equivalent 1.4 lenses anyway, since those are what I would be using. The X-Pro+85 to start with, combined with the X100, adding another X-Pro+35 later on. Ending up with a two-shooter kit and a back-up body, which is what I'm looking for.

 

[2WK]

I went to X-Pro from a 5dmkii. I much prefer shooting with the X-pro.
I also have a D3, but I haven't picked it up since going fuji.
Get the xf 35, 14 and wait for the 56.

As far are the raw support... I have use Lightroom 4 without much issue. Lately I have been mostly using CaptureOne. It handles the .rafs much better.

 

[jsrockit]

I shoot with a Fuji X100 and a Nikon D7000+50/1.4 (75mm equivalent) and find it's a pretty neat set-up that covers 98% of my shooting.

Will either the X-Pro1 or D600/800 provide the missing 2%? That could be a factor.

 

[jonasv]

Will either the X-Pro1 or D600/800 provide the missing 2%? That could be a factor.

I think 1% is missing in image quality at high ISO, for which I think the D600/800 will outperform the X-Pro1, but both outperform my current shooters.

The other 1% is in having a wider angle lens, which is easy enough to acquire, but which I am postponing until I know which system to get.

So there's no clear answer there.... 🙂


PS. Oh, and then there's another... 5 percent missing for having to use two systems with different control layouts etc, which is not a big issue, but slows me down occassionally. Either DX00+D7000 or two Fuji's would solve that.

 

[kzphoto]

Quite frankly? Lens selection. I can't grab a 70-200 f/2.8 from my local rental house to shoot fashion or head shots. Nor can I grab a 24 PC-E to shoot architecture. The X system is a fantastic camera system but I think in a year or two it will be much better. Fuji needs to put out a few more lenses before many pros consider switching.

 

[f16sunshine]

I still prefer an SLR for mid-long tele. My 5Dii usually has a Zuiko f2/100mm mounted with a 135mm or 180mm in the bag.
The xpro or x100 and a Full frame DSLR are a great combo for events. The reflex is just plain faster and more comfortable to focus (not to mention write speeds) when using longer lenses.

I find the EVF dizzying with a longer lens mounted (85mm and longer). It's just all so wiggly in the VF.
The true optical VF of a prism and focus screen of a dslr will always have a place in photography for this reason alone.

 

[kbg32]

X-Pro1's auto focus is anemic at best. That is my only complaint. Optics and files are outstanding.

 

[jonasv]

Thanks for the comments!

I've had a lot of lenses longer than 85mm and sold them all. I just don't do long...
And I can still keep my D7000 at any rate, as a backup to the Fujis. If I ever need to rent a long lens, the DX sensor of the D7000 is even a plus, don't need a D600/D800 for that.

I think it will come down to feel (when testing the camera) and autofocus speed. If both satisfy my needs, I think I'll skip the fullframe Nikons...

I might wait for Photokina though, perhaps the XP2 is announced and worth jumping for, or the XP1 drops even more..

 

[jonasv]

I find the EVF dizzying with a longer lens mounted (85mm and longer).

I'll be using the 85 equivalent for a lot of shots. Guess I'll have to try that out carefully then, see if it can match up to the DSLR or not. Thanks for mentioning this. I had not really thought of the 85 equivalent as really being in this 'long' category yet, for which a DSLR is better suited.

 

[CaptZoom]

If you're doing documentary type stuff, the auto focus is some thing to consider before committing to a system. Fuji's slower AF maybe a deal breaker for you. If you're shooting professionally, you may want to separate personal photography from your professional work, which may (usually) means two separate systems. I'm fortunate because my rangefinder works for both. I've never been good with autofocus (Canon 40D, 7D, 5DMKII), and have realized that manual focus is the only way to go (for me). In any case, if you're used to Nikon's AF, definitely make sure Fuji's AF will work for you in a professional setting before you decide on the system.

 

[furcafe]

Ditto, especially in low light, which is precisely where I use digital most often (daytime = film). I got the X-Pro1 hoping that it could replace my comparatively bulky D700 (like jonasv, I don't shoot a lot of sports or routinely use telephotos) but was disappointed to find that the X-Pro1's AF doesn't deliver (though to be fair, even the D700's AF is occasionally thwarted by the conditions I shoot in). Hoping the upcoming firmware update will improve things, but I'm no optimistic. Both the D700 & X-Pro1 were supposed to make up for my departed M9's anemic high ISO performance, but my gold standard for low light focusing is still a Leica M, so until I can get my hands on the 240, I have to drag the D700 out for available darkness shooting.

X-Pro1's auto focus is anemic at best. That is my only complaint. Optics and files are outstanding.

 

[Buzz40]

I shot film SLRs (manual focus, no less) from early 1980's to 2008. Switched to Nikon DSLRs and hated the experience. I shoot primarily environmental portraiture and documentary style weddings. Switched to the X Pro about four months ago and couldn't be happier. I did keep a D7000 and 18-200 and 35 dx for my wife, and "just in case." But, try one out. The XPro can be quirky at times, but I like a little bit of a challenge when shooting. It keeps me on my toes and focused.

 

[jsrockit]

Honestly, I don't think you can go wrong either way. All of these options will yield excellent results. I guess it comes down to ergonomics and how fast you need your AF to be. However, if you are trying to make money, it is probably better to think with your head instead of your heart.

 

[kbg32]

Honestly, I don't think you can go wrong either way. All of these options will yield excellent results. I guess it comes down to ergonomics and how fast you need your AF to be. However, if you are trying to make money, it is probably better to think with your head instead of your heart.

Very true John.

 

[jonasv]

Thanks for all the comments everyone.

Honestly, I don't think you can go wrong either way. All of these options will yield excellent results. I guess it comes down to ergonomics and how fast you need your AF to be. However, if you are trying to make money, it is probably better to think with your head instead of your heart.

Thanks for the advice, it was exactly what I was thinking, but I wanted to make sure I was not missing anything.

Will rent an X-Pro from a store and see how it goes!

 

[dcsang]

I've been considering it for some time now.
Here are a number of reasons:
1) Bulk - as I get older I find it's extremely difficult to lug the D700+grip+SB-900 (or even SB-700) and attached lens (even worse if it's an anchor like the 70-200 f2.8 VR) and then lenses in a lens belt around my waist for a good 8-10 hour wedding. I almost want to be in traction the whole next day - and I'm in GOOD shape - but at 47 going on 48.. it's getting a bit much.

2) Frequency of Use - if you consistently use the SLR for all sorts of things then don't chuck it. Me? I use it only for weddings and the occasional portrait - otherwise it never comes out - so what's the point in keeping it? I've used the film FM3a more often than I've used the D700 in the past 6 months.

3) Getting To "Know" A Camera - I've become so accustomed to the Leica's because I use them so often. I've shot weddings with them and people look shocked that the camera does not have autofocus nor a motor winder nor does it have long lenses and yet the job gets done. Same goes for the Fuji - as I've been using it for the past little while I've grown accustomed to what it can, and can't, do. I have been able to, for the most part, figure out work arounds. This all comes with time with the camera and if I have too many cameras I never fully understand the camera's quirks (or drawbacks or benefits)

Cheers,
Dave

 

[jonasv]

I shot film SLRs (manual focus, no less) from early 1980's to 2008. Switched to Nikon DSLRs and hated the experience. I shoot primarily environmental portraiture and documentary style weddings. Switched to the X Pro about four months ago and couldn't be happier. I did keep a D7000 and 18-200 and 35 dx for my wife, and "just in case." But, try one out. The XPro can be quirky at times, but I like a little bit of a challenge when shooting. It keeps me on my toes and focused.

Thanks. Sounds quite similar to what I'm doing! Been shooting with film SLRs for a long time, same subjects, didn't mind the switch to DSLRs that much, but the thought of carrying just two fuji bodies instead of two DSLRs makes me happy. I think I can get used to the quirks, I've no trouble forgiving my X100 for it.

The AF and how it fares with the 85mm will be crucial when testing it. If both are OK for me, I'll go with the X-Pro. And with a Nikon D600/800 as a plan B, there really is no wrong way to go here...

 

[jonasv]

Thanks Dave. Your post about shooting a wedding with the X-Pro was one of the things that really got me thinking.

Bulk is a very good argument... even though I don't consider myself as getting older yet ;-)
But I always shoot primes, two of them, so I always carry two bodies... The primes aren't heavy, but two Nikon DSLRs is a terrifying thought 🙂

Even though I used to do it with an F3 + F4s... then again, that almost broke my back...

I've been considering it for some time now.
Here are a number of reasons:
1) Bulk - as I get older I find it's extremely difficult to lug the D700+grip+SB-900 (or even SB-700) and attached lens (even worse if it's an anchor like the 70-200 f2.8 VR) and then lenses in a lens belt around my waist for a good 8-10 hour wedding. I almost want to be in traction the whole next day - and I'm in GOOD shape - but at 47 going on 48.. it's getting a bit much.

2) Frequency of Use - if you consistently use the SLR for all sorts of things then don't chuck it. Me? I use it only for weddings and the occasional portrait - otherwise it never comes out - so what's the point in keeping it? I've used the film FM3a more often than I've used the D700 in the past 6 months.

3) Getting To "Know" A Camera - I've become so accustomed to the Leica's because I use them so often. I've shot weddings with them and people look shocked that the camera does not have autofocus nor a motor winder nor does it have long lenses and yet the job gets done. Same goes for the Fuji - as I've been using it for the past little while I've grown accustomed to what it can, and can't, do. I have been able to, for the most part, figure out work arounds. This all comes with time with the camera and if I have too many cameras I never fully understand the camera's quirks (or drawbacks or benefits)

Cheers,
Dave

 

[thegman]

I used to have a D7000, I liked it, but did not like digital. If I was to go digital again, then Nikon would be high up my list. I liked how it worked, simpler than expected.

For me, full frame would be a great attraction, all that manual glass etc. The X-Pro is cool, I fondled one in Jessops once, it feels like a real camera, but I think on balance, I'd get the DSLR. Mostly for the manual glass, full frame, full size optical finder.

 

[emayoh]

I just faced this question myself. Semi-pro, have a day job, not a dentist.

My original 5D is on its last legs, hotshoe starting to fail, etc. I was weighing a 5DmkIII vs spending that $3K on X-system and lenses. For me it's a serious outlay.

My own photography for fun is an old beater M2 and a Rolleiflex. I love the idea of the X series and am sorely tempted. My semi-pro work involves corporate events, portraits, and concert photography. And I have a good set of lenses and Canon flashes that serve me well.

In the end, the extreme ISO of the MkIII was too much to pass up this time around -- that and I love my 15mm fisheye on full frame for concert stuff. I also feel like I know EOS so well right now that it's an unconscious competence. The transition would likely involve some unforeseen hiccups.

But, I am fairly certain that it will be the last DSLR I ever buy.