raid
Dad Photographer
How would you compare this camera with a Leica M8?
Audii-Dudii
Established
I don't know which "you" you're referring to, but for me, the M8's sensor simply didn't have enough IQ (or pixels) to make prints of the size I like for the type of photo I would capture with it (i.e., 9x12) with the level of quality that I insist upon. It was also missing LiveView and required the use of an external finder for many of the lenses I would use with it, which I find to be problematic.
But that's just me and my quality standard threshold. I know there are many, many people who will claim that an M8 will print just fine at that size (or larger!) and for them, they're no doubt correct.
But IMO, even my P30+ with its 31MP files will only rarely capture files that I am willing to print larger than 15x20, so I'm an equal-opportunity nit-picker.
(Oh and did I mention that prior to switching to digital capture, I was shooting color transparencies with an 8x10 view camera? Perhaps this explains my abnormally high quality standard relative to most photographers?)
GaryLH
Veteran
I assumed Raid was asking u as well
Gary
Gary
raid
Dad Photographer
I was more referring to the title of this thread.
Fuji X Pro 1. Is it that much better than the M8?
Fuji X Pro 1. Is it that much better than the M8?
raid
Dad Photographer
The sensor in the Fuji X Pro 1 is superior to any sensor Leica has ever shown, and it is generally speaking one of the top sensors out there today. So this comment is absolutely crazy.
The sensor in the X PRO 1 is VERY very good.
So you would say that because the sensor is better that the camera is better overall or are there other factors to consider here?
Is the Fuji X Pro 1 overall a better digital camera than the M8? This is what I want to know from people who have used both cameras.
gdi
Veteran
Why don't you go to the DPReview site and do an image comparison between the M9 and the Fuji (I don't think you can directly compare with an M8)? You may want to compare the M9 raw with the Fuji jpg, since the raw Fuji is not that great. That may tell you a lot about the confidence people have in the Fuji vs its actual performance ( excluding new software developments).
As for which camera best? Come on... :bang:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Certainly not for M lenses, but taken on its own terms, and using its native lenses, I would say, for me, yes.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It's also important to think of "image quality" in more than one dimension. There's DR, color fidelity, high ISO noise (chroma, luminance, random, pattern), resolution, performance with wide lenses...
Saying one camera is better than another in general -- rather than under a specific set of conditions -- is usually a useless thing to do, and muddies rather than clarifies the discussion. For example, with the X-Pro1 I find myself shooting at ISO 3200 a lot of the time. That is not a comparison that would be favorable to the M9. On the other hand, I mount both native and ZM lenses on the camera, and it's a certainty that (except in the center of the field) the M9 would provide higher resolution with the non-native lenses, at least at moderate ISO settings.
Saying one camera is better than another in general -- rather than under a specific set of conditions -- is usually a useless thing to do, and muddies rather than clarifies the discussion. For example, with the X-Pro1 I find myself shooting at ISO 3200 a lot of the time. That is not a comparison that would be favorable to the M9. On the other hand, I mount both native and ZM lenses on the camera, and it's a certainty that (except in the center of the field) the M9 would provide higher resolution with the non-native lenses, at least at moderate ISO settings.
gdi
Veteran
Well, all this discussion (and "hypification" :angel
has gotten to me, in spite of my good intentions. I am finalizing a trade for an Xpro and 18 and 60, so I can see for myself. I looked at some of the results over at GetDPI and they really look good and one guy is doing some nice Astro work and another doing some IR - I hadn't considered those possibilities with the XPRO's style of filtering.
Then I can try beta Raw processors to my heart's content. If all the speculation pans out, I guess I can sell my Leica digital and have some cash to boot!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
GaryLH
Veteran
gdi
Veteran
That's good to know - it does put a cramp in my personal workflow, though. I use a PC for photo and video processing and now I'll have to use our Mac just for Fuji files. Hopefully that is a temporary situation.
GaryLH
Veteran
Sounds like u picked up the Fuji. Will be interesting to hear your thoughts about it after checking it out....
Cheers
Gary
Cheers
Gary
aeturnum
Established
Though this is a little old, and people have talked generally about the demosaicing algorithm, here's a blog post that goes into detail about the X-PRO's sensor and the challenges it offers.
If you go back to the studio scene and switch from RAW to JPEG, the color smearing vanishes. To me, that says the Adobe RAW converter is at fault (rather than the underlying sensor). That being said, "the camera will be better in the future," is a very lame argument. The X-PRO currently has problems with color smearing, but that will probably not always be the case.
gdi
Veteran
Aristophanes
Well-known
My samples posted were from the JPEGs.
Why RAW conversions has turned into a hobby effort is odd if Fuji is trying to sell a relatively expensive camera system. Whether the mosaic structure of the Fuji sensor is to blame or the software, it's just visible confusion in an art form that likes its colours to be what nature intended. If you love the form factor and can overlook these sensor issues, perhaps waiting for a software patch to plug the holes, then all the power to you.
gdi
Veteran
I just want to follow up on my earlier comments and skepticism regarding the X-Pro 1. (Note that I posted this as a separate post last week, but the thread was instantly crapped, so I took it down).
I have had an X-Pro kit for over a week and I have to say I really like it. I think it handles very well, and if you are careful you can focus it accurately most of the time with the OVF. If the situation is iffy (like focusing on a small object with a fairly detailed background), it so easy to switch to the EVF and get much more accurate focus with a small focusing box. The 35mm is really great, and the 18 is pretty good too, though I keep the 35 on most of the time. I have the grip and that really helps the handling as well, IMO.
Of course, I was skeptical that it could live up to the hype, and so far it hasn't quite managed to in the image quality department. The quality is really good, but not fully up to matching FF, with the convertors I have been able to use (RPP, LR, SilkyPix, and Helicon Filter/DCRAW) M9 shots have noticeably more detail and better color (of course this can be adjusted), but the X-Pro1 is a little better than the OM-D. (Comparing the FX 35mm, 50 Elmar-M, 25 PanLeica 1.4) Could this change if better convertors are developed? Sure, but it is good enough for me now as is; in fact I am just bought a 60mm Friday, so I'm as committed as I can be.
But the biggest problem the camera has to me is the out of focus OVF/EVF - it looks like mounting the proper diopter to adjust the EVF, would throw off the OVF, right? The OVF is in fine focus, but the EVF needs about +1.25 for me (tested with reading glasses.) It looks like this is just a "live with it " type of thing. I welcome any suggestions on solving this with diopters, or anything else.
Anyway, overall I feel this is a great camera for me; quirks don't bother me that much. It won't replace my M9, but if I had an M8 it sure could. Next I may try to get the M Adapter.
I have had an X-Pro kit for over a week and I have to say I really like it. I think it handles very well, and if you are careful you can focus it accurately most of the time with the OVF. If the situation is iffy (like focusing on a small object with a fairly detailed background), it so easy to switch to the EVF and get much more accurate focus with a small focusing box. The 35mm is really great, and the 18 is pretty good too, though I keep the 35 on most of the time. I have the grip and that really helps the handling as well, IMO.
Of course, I was skeptical that it could live up to the hype, and so far it hasn't quite managed to in the image quality department. The quality is really good, but not fully up to matching FF, with the convertors I have been able to use (RPP, LR, SilkyPix, and Helicon Filter/DCRAW) M9 shots have noticeably more detail and better color (of course this can be adjusted), but the X-Pro1 is a little better than the OM-D. (Comparing the FX 35mm, 50 Elmar-M, 25 PanLeica 1.4) Could this change if better convertors are developed? Sure, but it is good enough for me now as is; in fact I am just bought a 60mm Friday, so I'm as committed as I can be.
But the biggest problem the camera has to me is the out of focus OVF/EVF - it looks like mounting the proper diopter to adjust the EVF, would throw off the OVF, right? The OVF is in fine focus, but the EVF needs about +1.25 for me (tested with reading glasses.) It looks like this is just a "live with it " type of thing. I welcome any suggestions on solving this with diopters, or anything else.
Anyway, overall I feel this is a great camera for me; quirks don't bother me that much. It won't replace my M9, but if I had an M8 it sure could. Next I may try to get the M Adapter.
willie_901
Veteran
Thanks for the thoughtful and comprehensive update. I think your comments are accurate and balanced.
The camera has certain advantages and disadvantages like every other camera that's been introduced recently. For me the advantages are much greater that the disadvantages, so I'm a happy owner too. I'm looking forward to the 56/1.4. I may get the new 23 mm lens next year too.
I use mono-vision contact lenses (left for reading, right for distance). So I use one eye for the EVF and one for the OVF. I realize this solution is rather limited, but it works for me.
The camera has certain advantages and disadvantages like every other camera that's been introduced recently. For me the advantages are much greater that the disadvantages, so I'm a happy owner too. I'm looking forward to the 56/1.4. I may get the new 23 mm lens next year too.
I use mono-vision contact lenses (left for reading, right for distance). So I use one eye for the EVF and one for the OVF. I realize this solution is rather limited, but it works for me.
SausalitoDog
Well-known
- I have the ThumbsUp instead of the grip - you might want to try one of them - they have now made one specifically for the xp1 and it just slides into the hot shoe and fits very nicely but can be removed easily to insert a flash (no tools needed as with prior version)
- I bought a diopter before I knew anything about them - I'm not even sure what strength it was but think it may be a 2+ so I just use the VF without my glasses (which means the screens are tough to read without glasses but I'm learning to adjust without moving eye from VF).
- My next step (if there is a next one; I like the 35mm so much that everything else isn't really getting used) might be an M adapter and buying a low priced 28mm Leica lens to try manual focusing with that. My one challenge still is to come up with a decent manual focus workflow.
Cheers,
Tom
