X-Pro 1 vs Nikon D3 ?

[jsrockit]

David, I agree. You cannot satisfy the RFF crowd unless you bring out an exact M9 clone for 1/3rd of the price... and then someone will still complain.

 

[bigeye]

Is the the "X100 vs. M9" thread or am I in the wrong place?

.

 

[David_Manning]

I'd like to see a Godzilla vs. M9 thread. I think Godzilla would win, but I'm sure someone would say its because he's bigger and heavier 😉

 

[Imagestreet]

X-pro thoughts

X-pro thoughts

I've read all the reviews and nearly pulled the trigger on a x-pro pre order last week. However can't help being bothered by the thought, that essentially you would be buying a £2k compact camera. Although the D3 sensor (or better) in a small package would be great (and I have a D3), this fly by wire focus nonsense could be miserable. Surely focussing in low light (or judging your distance manually) and setting your zone focus in advance is the modus operandi of rangefinders. For static subjects it might be ok but for street or discreet wedding/function shots of people this doesn't sound a good solution. I've heard dreadful things about the x100 auto focus, although people seem to like the hybrid viewfinder. Can any x100 owners put my mind at rest?

 

[Turtle]

Clearly the X100's focus is not perfect - far from it - but I take most of my street shots with any camera with the focus set to a particular focus point and stopped down to f5.6-11, depending. With the X100 you can do this just as you would a Leica M and then, if you need AF, you only need to flick the switch to put it back on.

With the APS-C sensor, DOF is tremendous, so for regular street shots where you are happy to have lots of DOF, it makes getting everything sharp easy. I tend to find that with street, things happen so quickly that no AF system would ever be able to read my mind fast enough, so I zone focus and tweak where that zone of focus falls more than I actually focus per se.

The X100 focuses just fine IMHO. Not brilliantly, but well enough, and unless the light is terrible, it focuses more quickly than I have ever been able to with the Leica.

I was getting put off the X-Pro due to the lack of amazing AF until I realised it actually does not matter much to me. Form factor and sensor and lens quality are much more important. If I get one, I will prob do a lot of shooting with the 20mm, where DOF will be in abundance.

I would think the camera would be great for wedding candids in decent light, but I personally do not find any reason not to use a SLR for this. Its not as if people are shocked to see cameras at a wedding... It probably will not be very good for pin sharp shallow DOF portraits, but this is no surprise. Thats FF + fast 85 territory.

Horses for courses. A Leica M is a niche tool. I find it interesting that few seem able to accept that the X-Pro is too. It will do different things well to a Leica M and some things worse. But its a tool and if its the right one for the job, then...

.. For static subjects it might be ok but for street ... this doesn't sound a good solution. I've heard dreadful things about the x100 auto focus, although people seem to like the hybrid viewfinder. Can any x100 owners put my mind at rest?

 

[fearofhummingbird]

Turtle, you use the X100 much as I do. You might try this refinement: I leave AF-S on all the time. But I have set up the AF/AE Lock button to lock focus only and I have it in the toggle on/off mode. So, if I wish to zone focus I tap the button once when I have the focus point where I want it. I can then shoot as many frames as I like at this focus. Then by tapping the button again, the lock is disengaged and AF is full operational again.

 

[Mcary]

I've read all the reviews and nearly pulled the trigger on a x-pro pre order last week. However can't help being bothered by the thought, that essentially you would be buying a £2k compact camera. Although the D3 sensor (or better) in a small package would be great (and I have a D3), this fly by wire focus nonsense could be miserable. Surely focussing in low light (or judging your distance manually) and setting your zone focus in advance is the modus operandi of rangefinders. For static subjects it might be ok but for street or discreet wedding/function shots of people this doesn't sound a good solution. I've heard dreadful things about the x100 auto focus, although people seem to like the hybrid viewfinder. Can any x100 owners put my mind at rest?

Can't say how the X100 AF matches up against the D3 as I've never used a D3, but I have used a Canon 5D, which many photographers use for Wedding, and personally I couldn't see that much difference if any in AF speed and accuracy between the two.
So maybe not the best in the world but not anywhere near as bad as some people, a lot of whom I bet have never even used it, would lead you to believe.

 

[willie_901]

I often use the method fearedhummingbird described above.

In EVF mode focus and recompose can be used much as you would with an analog rangefinder. Then you can switch to OVF and enjoy the optical VF's benefits.

The speed of focus lock is related to contrast. The X100 will hunt more and react slower than a phase-detection system. For street work I start with the EVF with the AF focus frame at the minimum size. This prevents the AF from locking on a higher contrast object. Again, I switch to OVF as needed. For scenes where focus is easy (say a store front) I just stay in OVF.

With all the complaints about the X100 AF, you rarely hear mention of how flexible the AF system is. Once you understand the its strengths and weaknesses and experiment with how to use the system for your work, the X100 gets the job done as well as an analog rangefinder. The exception would be EV levels below 6 where there must be reasonable contrast for the AF to work.

 

[Turtle]

I'll give this a go. Seeing as it confirms distance in the right VF mode (I find knowing the number helps me understand DOF, this could work nicely - thanks!

Turtle, you use the X100 much as I do. You might try this refinement: I leave AF-S on all the time. But I have set up the AF/AE Lock button to lock focus only and I have it in the toggle on/off mode. So, if I wish to zone focus I tap the button once when I have the focus point where I want it. I can then shoot as many frames as I like at this focus. Then by tapping the button again, the lock is disengaged and AF is full operational again.

 

[archeophoto]

Yes I can put your mind at rest. The X100 is a fantastic camera, the autofocus works just fine. Even in low light. Have a look at my Las Vegas photos on Flickr, light doesn't get lower than this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archeophoto/sets/72157628071174362/

All photos were taken with a X100.

Of course there are occasions were things are not 100% in focus, but that's true with EVERY camera I ever used.

I've read all the reviews and nearly pulled the trigger on a x-pro pre order last week. However can't help being bothered by the thought, that essentially you would be buying a £2k compact camera. Although the D3 sensor (or better) in a small package would be great (and I have a D3), this fly by wire focus nonsense could be miserable. Surely focussing in low light (or judging your distance manually) and setting your zone focus in advance is the modus operandi of rangefinders. For static subjects it might be ok but for street or discreet wedding/function shots of people this doesn't sound a good solution. I've heard dreadful things about the x100 auto focus, although people seem to like the hybrid viewfinder. Can any x100 owners put my mind at rest?

 

[jsrockit]

Yes I can put your mind at rest. The X100 is a fantastic camera, the autofocus works just fine. Even in low light. Have a look at my Las Vegas photos on Flickr, light doesn't get lower than this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archeophoto/sets/72157628071174362/

Light certainly gets lower than this...Las Vegas is full of high contrast bright light... and when you have a low light, low contrast situation, the X100 cannot focus well at all. That is a fact. I love the X100 and have used it since day 1, so I know.

 

[gavinlg]

x100 AF is fine. Seriously.

Exposure 0.033 sec (1/30)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 23 mm
ISO Speed 4000

Exposure 0.011 sec (1/90)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 23 mm
ISO Speed 5000


Just got to know how to use it. Willing to bet 99% of people who are complaining don't know how to use AF systems well.

 

[f6andBthere]

x100 AF is fine. Seriously.

Exposure 0.033 sec (1/30)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 23 mm
ISO Speed 4000

Exposure 0.011 sec (1/90)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 23 mm
ISO Speed 5000


Just got to know how to use it. Willing to bet 99% of people who are complaining don't know how to use AF systems well.

Define 'fine' and once you've defined it please describe the type of photographers it's 'fine' for!

(respectfully) Those two photos you've shown us have strong contrast points where the camera has actually focused ... it demonstrates little IMO! That wouldn't stretch the AF of any camera!

 

[gavinlg]

Define 'fine' and once you've defined it please describe the type of photographers it's 'fine' for!

(respectfully) Those two photos you've shown us have strong contrast points where the camera has actually focused ... it demonstrates little IMO! That wouldn't stretch the AF of any camera!

The second example had decent contrast points, the first had NOTHING. ISO 4000, f2, 1/30th and I STILL had to push the exposure in lightroom, and the room lighting was dead flat and almost pitch black. It took me 2 tries to lock onto the back of his shirt. My 5d would have done the same. In both pictures the cameras high ISO abilities are making it seem like there is WAY more light and contrast than there actually was.

As for defining 'fine' - if you're using a 5d or d300/d700 to take photos of things under iso 3200 during day and night, this camera will be able to do that too. Sometimes it won't be quite as good at locking under REALLY low light conditions, but you have to remember that the camera AND lens costs 1/3 of what a 5d or d700 body ALONE costed when new, and thats also taking into account that the fujinon lens is much better than either the canon or nikon 35mm f2 (which I've both owned), which would be $400 on top of the body price. You should also remember that it has a AF assist light, and this can be used in pitch darkness to achieve focus very quickly.

In the end you have to ask yourself what you're expecting? If you're expecting 1d AF performance in a $1100 point and shoot, you're an idiot. If you're expecting d700 or even 5d autofocus in a $1100 point and shoot, you're an idiot (d700 was 3k, 5d was 3k). I can confirm that the camera definitely has better AF than nikon d3100 - of which I use every day for work (and is a piece of ****).

 

[jsrockit]

Just got to know how to use it. Willing to bet 99% of people who are complaining don't know how to use AF systems well.

I know how to use it. Try to photograph something with very dim light and no real contrast...(i.e. all one tone). That is where it happens. You know I defend this camera all the time, but in this case, the AF does fail. You keep posting low light situations with contrast. It's no big deal to me, but it does happen.

 

[jsrockit]

The second example had decent contrast points, the first had NOTHING. ISO 4000, f2, 1/30th and I STILL had to push the exposure in lightroom, and the room lighting was dead flat and almost pitch black. It took me 2 tries to lock onto the back of his shirt.

The shirt is black and white... contrast.

 

[gavinlg]

Can't say how the X100 AF matches up against the D3 as I've never used a D3, but I have used a Canon 5D, which many photographers use for Wedding, and personally I couldn't see that much difference if any in AF speed and accuracy between the two.
So maybe not the best in the world but not anywhere near as bad as some people, a lot of whom I bet have never even used it, would lead you to believe.

The shirt is black and white... contrast.

At the level of light, the contrast of even the black and white shirt was extremely low. I agree that it's difficult to focus where there's no contrast - if the shirt was all one dull color I would have had to MF it - but my 5d would have done the same! The 5d is a little bit better in these conditions, but not much!

 

[willie_901]

In Live View mode my D700s use contrast detection AF and guess what? AF won't lock reliably when the focus frame is over an area with low contrast. Contrast detection AF is less effective than phase detection methods. The X100 AF is difficult to lock under some conditions and in others it is slow. However a photographer who is familiar with the system can get the job done.

 

[andrew00]

Don't forget also the benefit from a smaller camera, both from a shooting perspective, but also the way the subject reacts.

I know no-one bats an eyelid to my X100 but my 5dmk2 caused them to wince and get all tense from it's 'professional photographer' size and vibe.

 

[rxmd]

Does it even to make sense to have this discussion at this point, comparing not-yet-out, medium-end cameras with well-established, high-end cameras?

Currently it inevitably and always boils down to some people being happy and others unhappy with how the X100 focuses, which seems kind of pointless as a discussion.