X-Pro1-->X-T1: is there a point?

[Dante_Stella]

I bought an X-Pro1 when it first came out, on account of the lack of a viable Leica at the time. Subsequently, the M typ 240 came out, and I ended up with one of those as well. Right now, a couple of years later, I am looking to consolidate/rationalize three systems to cut down on clutter, keeping batteries charged, toddlers eating small parts:

• X-Pro1, whose use has largely been subsumed by the M
• Nex-5, which I use exclusively for video
• Possibly D700

So the questions I have about the X-T1 from an X-Pro1 user perspective are:

• Does the new EVF make life easier with the 14 and 18-55? I spend most of my X-Pro time with these lenses and use the EVF a lot.
• How is the video compared to a NEX? The NEX's video capability seems to be 30 minutes, the face-detect focus is pretty much flawless, but the sound capabilities are poor.
• Is the XT-1 focus capable of tracking small children (4 and 1.5 years old)? This is a big reason why I have a D700.
• Is using the 56/1.2 really practical and fun with a better EVF? It's not practical with the OVF, and it could be touchy with the older EVF.
• Is there anything else that would make a $500 upgrade to the same imaging system worthwhile? A tilt screen and an audio in are plusses for video, but

Thoughts? This is the first time I've gotten to the meh point in two and a half years with a system, but hey, there's a first time for everything!

Dante

 

[majid]

I'm in sort of the same situation as you - I have a X-Pro1 but all but stopped using it since I got my M240. For shots of my 2 year old daughter, about half the time I use my Canon 5DmkIII due to its fast AF and the optical excellence of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and a quarter of the time my EDC camera, a Fuji X100S.

I got the X-T1 a week ago but haven't really put it through its paces yet. I am planning on taking it as my sole system camera on vacation to Europe in 6 weeks' time. AF is significantly snappier than the X-Pro1 with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses, meh with the 35mm f/1.4 and sluggish with the 60mm macro (but then again there's a reason why even Canon and Nikon include focus limiter switches on their macro lenses).

The EVF is indeed excellent, and it's certainly a fun camera to use, as well as significantly lighter than the Canon heavy artillery. The controls are better, e.g. the MF assist magnification button is well-placed, and this is one of very few mirrorless cameras I would actually consider using with adapter and legacy lenses, e.g. a 90mm Apo-Summicron ASPH.

I can't compare video quality to a NEX, not having one. For AF tracking of small children, I will have to get back to you in a couple of months, but from the DPReview test of tracking focus on a moving cyclist, it should be fine, assuming you use one of the zooms with ultrasonic motors. The 56mm f/1.2, while stellar, reportedly has slow AF, so a lens for child portraiture it isn't.

 

[MCTuomey]

X-T1 AF tracking is better than I expected, but not nearly as good as the dSLRs I know well (Canon 1D series), no surprise at all there. There are some folks at getdpi who've used it with the 55-200 for lax and baseball, iirc, however. It is lens-dependent too, as far as I can tell. I wouldn't use the X-T1 for sports, but it seems to me it'd be ok for fidgety kid pics with one of the newer XF lenses, like the 23 f/1.4 or the kit zoom. Just got mine and have been getting accustomed to it, so take my opinion as a newb with the camera.

Fuji may be my path to meaningful consolidation for everything but sports/action and high resolution big print tripod stuff.

 

[elshaneo]

I use to have the Fuji X-Pro1 two years ago, now that I have the Fuji X-T1, I can confirm that it's like the Fuji X-Pro1 on steroids where for me, everything falls in the right place whatever I need to do to make the shot in terms of autofocus performance, plus its electronic viewfinder is unbelievable, you have to check it out yourself to understand how awesome it is. Furthermore you don't even need to read the user manual, it's that super easy to use, it is almost the photographer's dream camera !!!

I currently have the Fuji XF 18-55mm, Fuji XF 56mm and Fuji XC 50-230mm. They all perform great in autofocus speed and image output quality. My favourite is the Fuji XF 56mm f/1.2, I would never thought I'd say that but it's a better lens than the Leica M 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ASPH lens I use to own.

Next lens I would buy more probably is the Fuji XF 10-24mm ultrawide lens.

 

[willie_901]

o Does the new EVF make life easier with the 14 and 18-55? I spend most of my X-Pro time with these lenses and use the EVF a lot.

Yes for the 14. I don't own the 18-55.

o How is the video compared to a NEX? The NEX's video capability seems to be 30 minutes, the face-detect focus is pretty much flawless, but the sound capabilities are poor.

The video is weak. I don't own a NEX, but every single review says the video is not competitive

o Is the XT-1 focus capable of tracking small children (4 and 1.5 years old)? This is a big reason why I have a D700.

Yes. However the tracking only applies to the center PDAF 3x3 focus points. The challenge is to keep the subject inside these points. The tracking is not predictive like Nikon's system with lenses that support full color matrix AF. The system is not as sophisticated as Nikon's, but it is useful once you understand how it works and its limitations. If you know how to set up the D700 AF for action photography, The D700 will out perform the XT-1. I think the XT-1 requires a significant learning curve to get the most out of the new C mode. You may already know the C mode in the XT-1 is completely different than in previous X cameras. This throws a lot of people for a loop. In fact many people think the XT-1 C mode doesn't work at all because the lens hunts until you press the shutter. The PDAF is fast enough to focus. But many new users never press the shutter button because they think the lens can't/won't lock focus. It will. The previous C mode functionality is now available in other AF modes on the XT-1.

o Is using the 56/1.2 really practical and fun with a better EVF? It's not practical with the OVF, and it could be touchy with the older EVF.

Absolutely. (See below)

o Is there anything else that would make a $500 upgrade to the same imaging system worthwhile?

The EVF is huge and fast. The over all utility is way above the X-Pro 1's EVF.

The CPU is much faster. This makes AF faster. It also improves the feel and speed of focusing using the lens collar. With newer lenses (14, 56, 10-24) the focus by wire performance would surprise many. I find the dual-screen focus mode mode to be a significant enhancement for MF mode operation. I use the AFL button method or the lens collar. MF is quicker and I enjoy it. I assigned all the D control buttons to focus region selection. This means you can press the direction you cam move focus region quickly and intuitively. I notice a difference in the X-T1 raw files. They are a bit easier to work with. Many discount the possibility of any difference in raw between the two cameras. But I would rather work with the XT-1 files. Another advantage for me is the Fujifilm Remote Camera Control WiFi app. I use the XT-1 on a tripod and remote operation is a very useful. The touch-to-focus and examining a large image for lighting flaws really makes a difference.

The 56/1.2 is very easy to use with the XT-1. Of course it has all the pitfalls you'd expect with any lens with extremely thin DOF... such as missed focus caused by unnoticed frontwards or backwards camera movement when you press the shutter. But it is easy to use. I typically use dual-screen mode with red focus peaking enabled for the smaller focus screen. However, compared to lenses with wider angles of view, it is more difficult to keep moving subjects inside the 3x3 PDAF focus-point region with the 56. I found the X-Pro 1 OVF useless for this lens.

I replaced my Nikon D700 bodies and Nikkor lenses I use for gigs with the XT-1. The XT-1 outperforms the much older D700, but not by a lot. The XF lenses spank the Nikkor glass I've owned. The OOF color fringing and flare performance is much better. And most of the XF lenses are sharper than their Nikkor angle of view equivalents.

I use the X-Pro 1 as my daily carry and in the same situations I used my Ziess Ikon M. I'm not sure I would buy a XT-1 to replace my X-Pro 1 for this kind of usage. In fact, now that the XE-2 has firmware that improves the EVF response time, I would be more likely to replace the X-Pro 1 with an XE-2 even I really enjoy the OVF.

 

[Lss]

How is the video compared to a NEX?

It's much weaker in quality and control. If you use video anywhere seriously, you pretty much need to keep the NEX or upgrade it. For improved audio, add a Sony mic (better than nothing) or use a dedicated recorder.

 

[MCTuomey]

The 56/1.2 is very easy to use with the XT-1. Of course it has all the pitfalls you'd expect with any lens with extremely thin DOF... such as missed focus caused by unnoticed frontwards or backwards camera movement when you press the shutter. But it is easy to use. I typically use dual-screen mode with red focus peaking enabled for the smaller focus screen. However, compared to lenses with wider angles of view, it is more difficult to keep moving subjects inside the 3x3 PDAF focus-point region with the 56. I found the X-Pro 1 OVF useless for this lens.

Just trying out the X-T1 + 56 f/1.2 combo yesterday, headshots wide open, portrait orientation, single point focus confirmation only. 100% hit rate over 25-30 shots. The Fuji's impressive, can't do that well with my 5D II + 85L @ equiv f/1.8.

 

[daveleo]

Let me intrude here with a question, for anyone.....

How does the XT1 shutter noise compare to the Xpro1 or the XE1/2 or especially (if you have the experience) to a Nikon DSLR ?

 

[HKHoward]

I took the XT1 to Africa and shot wildlife with it and the 55 - 200. My companions used Nikon D4's and long Nkon professional zooms, including the 200 - 400. In AF-C mode the Nikons made focus about 80 - 90 % of the time while I hit focus about 60 - 70% of the time with the XT1 and the fuji zoom. A series of pictues of vultures landing can be viewed here:
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Howard+Cummer/Tanza2014/Vulturefightw.jpg.html>
The whole safari series is here:
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Howard+Cummer/Tanza2014/>
Please click on the enlarge icon top center of the picture to view it larger. In sum I think the XT1 AF-C is good enough that when the long super zoom is released I won't consider hauling heavy Nikons on safari.

 

[willie_901]

Dave,

I can't tell any difference in the shutter noise between the X-Pro 1 and the XT-1. If there is a difference, it's small.

Their shutter noise is much quieter than a D700/300/200.

I would not hesitate using the Fujifilms in situations where the D700 would draw unwanted attention.

 

[f16sunshine]

Willie and other who have used both Xpro1 and XT1.

Could you comment on the mf peaking on the XT1 vs Xpro1? Or XE2 for that matter.
This past weekend I used the Xpro1 and X100 for a very lo light gig.
I often was using peaking with both cameras and found it ok but mostly meh in active use.
It's fine if you have time to twiddle the focus ring back and forth....hunting mf.
Is the XT1 any better or more responsive with the peaking focus aid?
I want to be able to lock on straight away rather than hunt for the right focus.
You know ... so the peaking just lights up the eyes on someones face you know you have it and can capture or wait for "the" moment.
The Xpro1 peaking does not leave such confidence with it's cloud of white pixels sort of smearing over the subject in the evf.
After months of use it may just not be a fit for me or.... it just simply is not very good.
Hoping the XT1 gets a better report card.
Thanks in advance!

 

[mszargar]

Could you comment on the mf peaking on the XT1 vs Xpro1? Or XE2 for that matter.

I just tried X-T1 because I am considering switching to this camera and that from full frame (a7).

One of the main reasons for this is actually X-T1's implementation of peaking. The last time I used a X-Pro1, I couldn't pick the color of peaking, and this made peaking almost useless in many situations, as the focus-aid visual artefacts got completely merged into background. If that is still the case, I can tell you X-T1's peaking color options go a long way towards solving the issue...

There is a second point that makes Fuji's new implementation of peaking much more interesting than the other implementations I have experienced (including that of a7/r): When peaking is on, Fuji does not only show you the peaking points. It also sharpens the whole picture with a high-pass filter in a way that you can clearly distinguish between the in-focus and out-of-focus areas even without peaking! I found this tens of times more useful/accurate than the old Fuji implementation or the Sony implementation, which I am very much used to. I have used Leica lenses on X-Pro1, X-E1 and Sony a7. On all of them I had to use the digital zoom focusing aid for critical shots - which means peaking was not sufficient in many cases. This is not the case with X-T1.

I suspect Fuji's new implementation of peaking is helped by the contrast-detect pixels that are also used for split-screen focusing aid, but there is no way I can make sure of that, so I won't extrapolate. All I can tell you is that given X-T1's humongous EVF and this hi-pass sharpening filter it is more difficult to misfocus than to get it right. It is a very pleasing experience. Moreover, the dual view manual focusing aid is such a useful feature that you will find yourself using peaking less and less. It's very intuitive and accurate. A source of surprise for me (I found it highly distracting in review videos).

I am very attached to my a7, but the Fuji felt so manual/tactile/snappy and overall built for the enthusiast photographer (as compared to professional/industrial photographer) that I was immediately and seriously enticed. Other major differences with X-Pro1: Huge EVF, Much much better AF speed (that I don't really care about), extremely well-built body. Btw, my local vendor confirmed that the new batch of X-T1s have more embossed back controls as compared to those they have on demo from the first batch. This was one of the main criticisms against the camera...

 

[willie_901]

Andy,

I agree with just about everything mszargar wrote above. The XT-1's finder size and quality, it's focus peaking color options, and dual-screen mode make a huge difference in focus peaking utility. I confirm the observation that in zoom mode (dual screen or not) you can see both focus peaking and detail change as you turn the lens collar.

I don't do portraits, so I can not comment directly on how the XT-1 FP performs for eyes. I will say I think eyes have enough contrast to work well. One situation where FP does not work is when the focus object has very low contrast. Today I was focusing on some decorative wall molding (chair rail) painted the same color as the wall. The FP showed no response at all. I expected to see red on the vertical edge of the molding. Instead I used another object (AC outlet) at the appropriate distance and the FP was responsive.

The camera is on a tripod and I use manual focusing 90% of the time with the 10-24/4 XF lens. The focus collar has a tactile and precise feel on this lens when it is on the XT-1 (as do the other XF lenses with new AF motors and lens collar sensor technology). The X-Pro 1 has more lag, but the lens AF technology has a larger effect.

 

[GaryLH]

...

There is a second point that makes Fuji's new implementation of peaking much more interesting than the other implementations I have experienced (including that of a7/r): When peaking is on, Fuji does not only show you the peaking points. It also sharpens the whole picture with a high-pass filter in a way that you can clearly distinguish between the in-focus and out-of-focus areas even without peaking! I found this tens of times more useful/accurate than the old Fuji implementation or the Sony implementation, which I am very much used to. I have used Leica lenses on X-Pro1, X-E1 and Sony a7. On all of them I had to use the digital zoom focusing aid for critical shots - which means peaking was not sufficient in many cases. This is not the case with X-T1. ..

This high pass filter comment is quite interesting. Does anyone have a xe2 w/ the new fw update.. I know they were suppose to implement much of the xt1 related evf and peaking improvements. If this came w/ it, then a very worthwhile fw update.

Gary

 

[f16sunshine]

mszargar and willie thanks so much.

It's very very helpful to read these comments.
I'll have to go check out an XT1 this weekend.
I though I could wait for the next iteration of the Xpro1.
After this last event I don't feel nearly as confident with the Xpro1 in these lower light situations.
I sure do still love it in more generous lighting.
Thanks again for the replies. 🙂

 

[honozooloo]

Dante,

First off, always been a fan of your work. Good stuff!

I've been doing a lot of paid work with the X Pro 1 for the past year, and after I lucked out at the only local mom & pop camera store left in Hawaii (I went there for a lens filter, and it turns out that they have late serial # X-T1s in stock!), I walked out their front door with an X-T1 body this past Saturday.

I haven't had a chance to shoot the X-T1 at an actual gig yet, but here are a few of my initial impressions:

- Does the new EVF make life easier with the 14 and 18-55? I spend most of my X-Pro time with these lenses and use the EVF a lot.

HECK. YES. The EVF makes every aspect of using the X-T1 easier thank the X-Pro's EVF. There's been enough discussion about how big and how fast (the refresh rate is) and yes, it's very good, not in the same league as any other EVF I've ever experienced. Good enough for me to visually confirm focus on contrasty objects WITHOUT peaking or other focus aids. The built in diopter helps a lot with that as well. Interestingly the EVF's Exposure Preview mode is so good I found myself adjusting the shutter speed dial and using the Exposure Preview view in the EVF to dial in backlit exposures, with much success. It's the closest thing to "real time chimping" I've experienced. This might not be so much of a revelation to longtime EVF or rear LCD shooters here, but I've always preferred optical viewfinders on rangefinders and SLRS. The X-T1 is my first EVF only camera ever.

The X Pro 1 EVF looks like it's a first-gen product, the X-T1 is obviously a seriously evolved gen-2. I honestly don't know how you've lived with the X Pro's EVF, it gets the job done when I need a TTL view, but I generally try to avoid it whenever possible. Now that I've had time with the X-T1, looking at my X Pro's EVF kinda bums me out.

All's not absolutely perfect though; in extremely dark conditions the EVF will "lag" after the video feed's gain is maxed and the camera must slow its shutter to provide a useable view. Then again optical viewfinders would be nothing but blackness in those situations so I guess technically the EVF does better than optical?

How is the video compared to a NEX? The NEX's video capability seems to be 30 minutes, the face-detect focus is pretty much flawless, but the sound capabilities are poor.

You mean the X-T1 shoots VIDEO too 😀 ? I don't ever shoot video so I wouldn't know. But none of my videographer friends use X System cameras for video, even though a bunch of them use X Cameras for stills. Something about X-Trans cameras and a problem with moire and artifacting from what I could understand.

Is the XT-1 focus capable of tracking small children (4 and 1.5 years old)? This is a big reason why I have a D700.

Every camera system I've used has encountered focus tracking issues under specific conditions, and since every situation is different, I would imagine that no system is flawless. And that also doesn't mean that the system is useless either. That being said, the X-T1 seems to be as capable as a few SLRs I've used in the past (think 5D II or maybe 7D, definitely NOT 1D). I haven't tried it under challenging conditions yet but the face tracking AF seems promising for chasing running kids around as well.

Is using the 56/1.2 really practical and fun with a better EVF? It's not practical with the OVF, and it could be touchy with the older EVF.

Haven't yet experienced the 56 1.2, but I can tell you in the past 4 days I've tried the X-T1 with the 14, 18, 23, 35, and 55-200mm R and have been nothing but satisfied with performance. I've also played with 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, 5.8cm f/1.4 AI, 35mm Cron ASPH, 35mm f/1.2 ASPH VII, and 50mm M Planar lenses on the X-T1 and the incredible EVF has made it SO. SIMPLE. In fact the EVF has been so good, I find myself using peaking to dial focus in, and with a half press of the shutter button to disable focus aids, I use an "unaided" live view sans peaking and high-pass filter to make sure critical focus is just where I want it on a subject; it really is like previewing an image in real time! Don't want to repeat too much of my babbling above, but yes the EVF is pretty radical.

Is there anything else that would make a $500 upgrade to the same imaging system worthwhile?

That all depends on your own preferences and needs. Personally, I think that yes, there are plenty of advantages. The EVF and snappier overall user experience makes this camera a lot better for spontaneous, fast from-the-hip shots from what I've seen thus far.

For me, the biggest deal-maker (and what justifies the extra $500) is the weather-sealing. I shoot a handful of weddings every year, and do a lot of editorial/journalistic work. At least half of that work is outdoors. Being in 90% humidity and passing showers all year long here, it was worth it to spend the money to have an extra degree of protection on those days when "it's raining outside" isn't a valid excuse to skip an assignment. I haven't had the opportunity to put the weather sealing to the test (I've already put in my orders for both weather-sealed variable zooms), but for that reason alone the X-T1 was a worthwhile purchase IMHO.

Is it worth buying since you know the sensor is essentially the same as the X Pro's? Again, that boils down to your preference.

The X-Trans sensor has been an excellent, consistent performer for me on the X Pro, and actually I'm glad that Fuji has kept the sensor output fairly consistent between X models; as far as my unscientific testing can tell, both the X Pro and X-T1 both produce very similar looking RAW files. Just a year and a half ago, I remember double-fisting my 5D II and 1D IV when I needed to carry two bodies, and besides the insane weight, I remember how much it sucked to get consistent color/signature from both cameras in post. Personally I think it's smart of Fuji to not mess with the X-Trans sensor; besides cutting production cost and saving consumers a few bucks, I'd rather have the same (already excellent) sensor in every available model, rather than an incrementally improved sensor in the new X-T1 that would give me consistency issues in Lightroom. I'm sure that in the distant future, Fuji will update the X Trans, but until then I'd take consistency, cost savings, and most importantly TIME savings while editing over a slight bump up in performance.

Hope this helps!

 

[john neal]

Dante, I'm not in your league, but I too use a Nex 5n for video - definitely better results than any of the X cameras that I have tried, plus you still have the option to shoot video with legacy glass, which can be quite interesting.

 

[aizan]

would the nikon v2 be ok, or is it beyond the pale?

 

[mfunnell]

I've always preferred optical viewfinders on rangefinders and SLRS. The X-T1 is my first EVF only camera ever.

Aaron, thanks so much for posting your detailed response to Dante's question. I hope it helps him, and it has certainly helped me think through a few things. One of which is that I must check out the EVF on the XT-1. Not because I'm in the market for yet another camera, but just to see if the EVF really is up to the mark. I suspect it isn't, but that's only because I've been told, time after time, that EVFs are great, in their latest incarnation, yet to my view none have ever made it.

Not even close.

I may be an optical viewfinder bigot - for RF and SLR viewfinders - but if that's the case I'll live with the label. It's not that I reject the concept, but more that the execution hasn't been up to the mark. I'll have to check out the EVF on the XT-1 to see if it's worth revising my viewpoint.

I will note, though, that I've recently picked up an M type 240 (as Mr Stella notes he has done) and, despite the exorbitant cost, the camera is excellent and the RF/VF is the perfect reminder - to me - of how great optical viewfinders are, and how precise rangefinder focus can be within the range of focal lengths RF cameras are good for. So I'm not likely to pick up Fujifilm's latest offering. But I would like to know how well it performs, as my previous in-store looks at the x100, x100s and X-Pro1 weren't to my taste optically and even less in EVF mode, despite the 'rave reviews'.

You've convinced me to take another look, at their latest offering.

...Mike

P.S. Yes, I have an EVF for my M - the Olympus-branded version, thank you very much, and bought cheaply via the auction site. The VF-2 is decidely "old-tech" and not at all convincing compared to the optical, old-fashioned, RF/VF which makes the M what it is. I suspect I'll never use the EVF for my M except for verifying it worked so I could give positive feedback to the seller. But I did want one, just in case, because I suspect that if I ever find a need for the EVF I might run the risk that it's no longer in production. In the meantime, though, I find the "Thumbs Up" device, which occupies the hot shoe the EVF could otherwise sit in, far more useful than I suspect the VF-2 will ever be for me.

 

[MCTuomey]

Re EVFs, specifically the X-T1 version (and maybe others), it seems to me a major oversight, but maybe it's so obvious it's not mentioned: bright light, outdoor performance. Meaning it's terrible - any semblance of proper, useful contrast is lost unless you can vacuum seal the eye cup to your eye socket (visualize everything in nearly full silhouette) . So, where the lowlight EVF performance of the X-T1 is really good, the bright light performance is woeful.