f16sunshine
Moderator
The initial attraction to Fuji is the EBC coated lenses and the tradition Fuji brings with them.
The optical hybrid finder in the x100 is genius. Carrying it to the Xpro1 is also genius.
I adopted the xpro1 early after some real success and production out of the x100.
The early RAW issues caused me to bench the xpro1 for a while. Those issues now long in the rearview I think this system is it for me for the years to come.
Fuji is on to something special. In 30 years folks will refer to the FujiX series in the same way they do Leica M or Nikon F or Rolleiflex today.
OK now start throwing rocks!!
The optical hybrid finder in the x100 is genius. Carrying it to the Xpro1 is also genius.
I adopted the xpro1 early after some real success and production out of the x100.
The early RAW issues caused me to bench the xpro1 for a while. Those issues now long in the rearview I think this system is it for me for the years to come.
Fuji is on to something special. In 30 years folks will refer to the FujiX series in the same way they do Leica M or Nikon F or Rolleiflex today.
OK now start throwing rocks!!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
f16sunshine
Moderator
You have to be a pro to need full-frame ???
Wait, this camera isn't pro already? Man, the model name said it was... I've been falsely advertised to...
back alley
IMAGES
You have to be a pro to need full-frame ???
…as an amateur i am very satisfied with aps-c…no full frame needed!
aizan
Veteran
prices of large sensors are steadily falling. would you rather have a full frame fuji now (say at photokina), or a medium format fuji later (say 3 years from now)? or a used leica m240 in a couple years?
back alley
IMAGES
a medium format…designed after the x100!
JohnL
Very confused
MUCH SMALLER?
How much is much? It's very nicely sized for the size of the lenses it mounts natively (Fuji lenses).
Improper size is not a complaint I would ever voice for the Xpro1. It suits me perfectly in that regard.
Seriously... how Much is "Much smaller"?
Fully agree
pluton
Well-known
All this, plus the fact that an APSC size sensor now outperforms a 24x36 from just a few years ago. There's no need for it to be 24x36.
The point was that it could be small.
pluton
Well-known
The Leica(for me) is a loser because of it's 1953 viewfinder that doesn't allow me(with my glasses on) to see anything wider than about 50mm.
If Fujifilm made a 24x36 rangefinder-themed camera, it'd come close to wiping out Leica.
Samouraï
Well-known
Are you against optical viewfinders?
No, it wouldn't.
macjim
Well-known
I full agree with jsrockit: Leica can command a price because there are many willing to pay the price to have a Leica camera... I should know as I had one! I bought an M9 but made the mistake of buying a 35mm lens instead of a Leica 50mm which would have suite my kind of photography. While trying to get used to the M9, the Fuji X-Pro1 came out, and went out and bought one with the 35mm (50mm equ) and found I got on better with this camera. So I sold the Leica kit. Two years down the road, I do have regrets selling the M9 as I now have the X100s which is, as we all know, the equivalent of a 35mm! The reason why I agree with jsrockit is this: Leica isn't just a camera manufacturer, it's also a cult in the way Apple is. Many aspire to owning a Leica camera, whether it is a D-Lux 5, M9 or the new T-System range and will break the bank to own one. They're not necessarily buying the state of art camera, even the T-System isn't the most modern of cameras when you look past the Apple/Audi style body, they're buying into a cult/club/brand that has a degree of exclusivity about it. Why did I buy into it? Well it was due to the M9 having a full frame sensor, and a manual focus lens. It was the only compact FF camera at the time too. Now, we have others to choose from and I'd probably have gone for the Sony range of Mirrorless FF cameras rather than spend the extra on the Leica, but, that's hind sight. Also the new M cameras are much improved over the M9 and that is what I should have got but again that's water under the bridge. To a degree, Fuji copied the M9 when they designed the X-Pro1: no bad thing there. In many ways, the X-Pro1 is the the better camera especially after the firmware updates but... It isn't a M competitor as it's not FF. Yes I know, APS-C isn't that much smaller, but as we've seen in other parts of this forum, FF & APS-C stalwarts will argue until their faces turn blue which is better (FF is better ;-)) Oh, and you can be as silly as a Leica user with the X-Pro1, using the OVF and forgetting to take the lens cover off has the same effect! :-(
X-pro1, x100s and Apple fan boy.
irq506
just curious
Depends on the Pro. Most of my photojournalism peers bought in to FF, few of my contemporaries, and even fewer of the younger ones.
12 years ago I was at Perpignon, I saw the 'famous' journos walking around with brand new Canon 5D & 1D whatever mk versions were new back then, and made sure to be seen with them, but on the other shoulder or in the bag were video cameras.
Now, I see most of my contemporaries have 70D's and again others multiple Nex cameras.
nongfuspring
Well-known
I agree, there seem to be quite a few young photojournalists/art photographers etc of my generation (mid 20s-30s) who are even using m43 and smaller for their "pro" work. These days "pro" systems have little to do with sensor size and more to do with overall reliability, customer support, and lens/accessory range.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I can't see that there's anything Fujifilm would gain by introducing a full-frame camera and a whole new lens line-up to support that. My impression is that their current APS-C line has established a significant market presence which has been very successful for them. As others have suggested above, it seems to me that if they wanted to do something different to attract a different market segment then they might do better taking their current design approach and applying it to digital medium format, where they might address a whole new market, rather than splitting an existing small-format market sector they are already very successful in. This seems, to me, especially appropriate given Fujifilm's substantial historical background with medium format cameras.
But that's just me, and a top-of-the-head opinion. I'm sure their strategic marketing folks have some hard numbers which will guide their approach far better than semi-informed opinions from the likes of me. If the numbers work, they'll no doubt pursue full-frame. I'd just prefer it if they stuck with APS-C, improving on an already-excellent product line (which I'll also say I'm not invested in) and looked at applying similar excellence somewhere outside a somewhat crowded full-frame market segment. I'm well aware that my preferences are hardly a guide for corporate expenditure decisions!
...Mike
But that's just me, and a top-of-the-head opinion. I'm sure their strategic marketing folks have some hard numbers which will guide their approach far better than semi-informed opinions from the likes of me. If the numbers work, they'll no doubt pursue full-frame. I'd just prefer it if they stuck with APS-C, improving on an already-excellent product line (which I'll also say I'm not invested in) and looked at applying similar excellence somewhere outside a somewhat crowded full-frame market segment. I'm well aware that my preferences are hardly a guide for corporate expenditure decisions!
...Mike
traveler_101
American abroad
First a disclaimer: I don't know this camera or company; I've been into m43 since 2009; I currently have the Pen mini and shoot mostly with small prime lenses. I've watched Fuji come along and have always been interested. Nice cameras, especially the X100 and XE series. Never understood what the X-PRO brought to the plate, however. With an optical viewfinder, the old dream of adapting RF lenses to digital seems possible, instead we hear:
I may be missing something, but isn't the point of an optical viewfinder to make manual focus possible? If you have nice manual focus on an optical viewfinder then it would be possible to use legacy lenses--kind of like a digital RF. I just don't quite get it.
Well, yeah.
I'm afraid that the AF feature might well be a matter of "keeping up with the Joneses." Panasonic and Olympus have lightning fast AF lenses and cameras now. But the main question remains what is the XPRO's niche? Maybe someone could explain what is the "original xpro mojo"?
I may be missing something, but isn't the point of an optical viewfinder to make manual focus possible? If you have nice manual focus on an optical viewfinder then it would be possible to use legacy lenses--kind of like a digital RF. I just don't quite get it.
Well, yeah.
I'm afraid that the AF feature might well be a matter of "keeping up with the Joneses." Panasonic and Olympus have lightning fast AF lenses and cameras now. But the main question remains what is the XPRO's niche? Maybe someone could explain what is the "original xpro mojo"?
Ergonomics for those used to RF shaped cameras, shutter speed dial and aperture rings, optical VF (even when used with AF), etc.
Herjulfr
Established
Yes, ergonomics. I was in the market for a Zeiss Ikon Zm, but was tired of film. I was also tired of the slr style and size. I wanted traditional controls, and an optical viewfinder. So the xpro1 was for me