Fuji xpro 1 revisited

[phillym]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello

 

preparing to dive back into the Leica world again I handled the new M. Not much different than the M9 I sold. Still bothered by no auto focus and poor jpegs I still was convinced I would rather carry the M than my Nikon D3 or the toy like X100t that I bought 6 months ago. At the dealer I took some shots with the M and was so unimpressed with the images I started to question what I was doing. While there a customer had an xpro1 with him. After speaking with him for a while he told me about the new firmware 3.40 and how amazing the xpro1 was after the new firmware. I tried it and without question the images we put on the dealers computer were far better than the M. Colors were more accurate and the 35 he had on the camera was tack sharp. I bought the Fuji without hesitation. Granted the M is better built but build does not create great IQ. 

 

In in summary the M in my opinion is a great  camera but not equal to the Fuji as far as image quality. 

[Exodies]

It's a pleasure to see someone happy with his purchase. Next!

[Guest Her Berger]

Hi phillym,

 

I had the same experience.
I'm a B/W shooter and loved my M8. When I saw the Fuji xpro IQ, I sold my M8 and bought the xpro and a 1.4/35.
Great IQ, very low noise at ISO 6400, but, it's not a rangefinder.

I kept my xpro 1 and bought a used M9.

Have fun with your xpro.

(And, the X100T is a real gem)

[250swb]

. I bought the Fuji without hesitation. Granted the M is better built but build does not create great IQ. 

 

 

 

Terrific! Hope you got the current deal on the Xpro 1 where the online dealers are giving away two free lenses! (Encouragement to buy, I suppose this means it's about to be replaced, but hey, it's still a camera).

 

Sorry to see you go to the Fuji forum, we'll all have to soldier on with our crappy Leica's but everybody will be thrilled for you, and some a bit jealous.

 

Steve

[rafikiphoto]

Hope you got the current deal on the Xpro 1 where the online dealers are giving away two free lenses! (Encouragement to buy, I suppose this means it's about to be replaced, but hey, it's still a camera).

 

My thoughts exactly when I saw £299 body only on Amazon UK at the moment! 

[lct]

Jpeg users here i suspect.  As mush as i like my Fuji X-E2 for its small size and modern EVF, it doesn't play in the same league as the M240 IQ wise IMHO. Aside from its APS-C format, the Fuji needs more sharpening and i find its raw files more difficult to tweak out of Capture One than those of the M240. I have no experience with the xpro 1 though.

[bernie.lcf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have owned and used the Fujis since the X100, leading to X-Pro1, X-E1, X-T1, and X100s. In other words: the fairly regular Fuji CMOS and those two generations of X-Trans.

 

There is one thing where the X-Trans truly excel: high ISO. It's quite amazing what an APS-C sensor will output at ISO 6400.

 

Between X-Trans generation 1 (essentially the X-Pro1) and generation 2 (starting with X-E1 and X100s) I quite strongly prefer the first generation as there is something they have done on dynamic range. Very light skinned faces would overexpose quite easily and in scenes of high contrast, the dark past would turn out quite dark. I have been able to replicate this every time. The two generations behave differently.

 

However, between my Q (essentially a modern M-240 sensor) and the X-Pro1, I prefer the Q every time.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have both. Out of camera the Fuji jpegs are indeed lovely, although I wouldn't call them accurate. Pleasing is a better word.

 

However for RAW files the Leicas are significantly better, to my eye, with some simple post processing.

 

I do like the layout of the Xpro-1 (as most M shooters would) and I'm looking forward to a much improved focus system on the X-Pro 2 as the 1 completely fails in low light. It'll make a great compliment to my M.

 

Gordon

[CharlesL]

Try X-Pro1 with rangefinder prime lens. The only reason to go from that to a Leica M camera is for full frame. Of course, start from raw file for highest image quality.

[johnloumiles]

If you're dealing with jpegs only then mayyyyybe it's better but as far as raw images go it's not really a contest. In fact I stopped using my xpro and eventually sold it when I saw that my x1 had much better iq after I did some side by side shooting. I'm not joking when it seemed like there was a thin layer of dirt on the XP1 images compared to the X1. Also if your going to shoot with M lenses only then forget about it. The results are pretty terrible when compared to Fujis own lenses or Leica lenses on an M9. All this is not to say the Fuji is a bad camera, you can get great images from it, just don't fool yourself into thinking you will get better images from it the a full frame M9.

[pierovitch]

I think that Fuji have made raw obsolete when the results from jpg give the highest picture quality rather than vainly trying to retrieve it from an intermediate form of storage from a legacy technology chip.

[lct]

Not my opinion i must say. There is a word of difference between a Fuji OOC jpeg and a Fuji raw properly processed IMHO.

[mca]

In my experience (Fuji X100T and Leica M9) and regarding image quality, the Fuji only has advantage on high ISO and jpg colors, but that's where it all ends. If you compare images done side by side on both cameras, my Leica M9 will produce sharper images than what I was getting in the Fuji, especially wide open where the detail goes away in the Fuji. But even if you stop it down to f/5.6 it's still not the sharpness and punch I get with the 6 year old M9 technology. For this I ended up trading the X100T for an additional lens for the M9. 

 

I know the X-Pro1 has an older sensor and it could be slightly different but I suspect the new X-T1 / X100T / etc have the best Fuji can do at the moment and it's not the Leica M9 by any means. Now of course I never tried the M240/262 so I can't compare with that one but I would be very disapointed if it had image quality inferior to the little Fujis.

[mca]

Here is an example of the kind of difference I find in image sharpness. These 2 photos were taken last Sunday, at the same time, side by side. The first by a friend of mine with a Fuji X-E2 + Fuji XF 35mm f/2 @ f/2.5 while the second taken by me with a Leica M9 (new version sensor) + Summicron 50mm (I don't remember but I was either at f/2.8 or f/4) so roughly both lenses were about 1 or 2 stops down from wide open and both are primes with good known image quality:

 

Fuji X-E2 (16mp APS-C sensor without AA filter):

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/t3mujin/23874434895/sizes/o/

 

 

Leica M9 (18mp FF CCD sensor without AA filter):

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/luismca/23768760442/sizes/o/

 

 

Of course there is a slight post processing on each. On the Leica I shot in RAW and the editing in Lightroom was not substantial. On the Fuji I don't know whether it was JPG or RAW and there might have been post processing to fade down the colors but I don't know. 

 

To my eyes there is a significant difference in detail between both images. I don't know the amount of post processing involved in the second image, which could account for some of the difference, but the Fuji photographer is more experienced than me so I would expect better post processing skills on the Fuji shot. 

 

These illustrates exactly the kind of thing I found with the Fuji X100T, where the images, while great in terms of low noise even at high ISOs, never had the level of detail I have grown to love from my old Leica. 

[jaapv]

I think that Fuji have made raw obsolete when the results from jpg give the highest picture quality rather than vainly trying to retrieve it from an intermediate form of storage from a legacy technology chip.

Have you ever tried to do some serious editing on those files? Hopeless. Fine for the point-shoot-drop-off-for-print crowd (not meant negatively, each to his own), but otherwise...

[pedaes]

If you are buying a x-pro1 why not wait for x-pro 2  coming in the next couple of months.

[mca]

The difference is price.. X-Pro1 goes for 600 eur with a 35mm 1.4 included while the X-Pro2 is probably going to be about 1500 eur with no lens. 

[pierovitch]

Have you ever tried to do some serious editing on those files? Hopeless. Fine for the point-shoot-drop-off-for-print crowd (not meant negatively, each to his own), but otherwise...

After decades of digital editing since before Photoshop I find the freedom to see a result in the viewfinder more involving. The smooth tonality and the ability to manually control the process is like shooting chromes again. $290 to use my M lenses again was definitely a cheap thrill [emoji3]. I am sure an SL raw file would be technically better.

[cbretteville]

I did the X-Pro1 switch with a hope that It would be a platform for using my M-glass and found that 35mm and longer works, if you can handle the pain of engaging the focus aid. Be prepared for horrible corners if you use anything wider than a 35.

 

The X-Pro1 with Fuji's own glass is a different story, but I didn't enjoy it the way I enjoy using an M so I sold it off and put the money towards a second hand M240. Happy days!

Carl

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hepcat]

Hello

 

preparing to dive back into the Leica world again I handled the new M. Not much different than the M9 I sold. Still bothered by no auto focus and poor jpegs

 

While there a customer had an xpro1 with him. After speaking with him for a while he told me about the new firmware 3.40 and how amazing the xpro1 was after the new firmware

 

 

Ahhh...  the venerable XPro-1...   the camera that drove me back to Leica because it missed focus as often as 2 out of 3 of the shots...   If autofocus is important to you, then you shouldn't even be considering an M body.  You just won't be happy with it.   I wanted to like the XPro-1.  I had it for several months.  I tried to make it do what I wanted it to do, but it just wasn't up to the task.  It didn't have an optical rangefinder, and there was no way to focus it using the optical rangefinder...  and autofocus was abysmal.  So, I dumped it and paid the price of admission back to Leica.

 

... but, it's not a rangefinder.

 

Which is why is foolish to compare the M bodies and the Fuji bodies.  The ONLY thing they have in common is that both have an optical viewfinder.  Past that, there's nothing that they share in common.

 

I have had an X-T1 now for a year and a half or so, and it's a perfect complementary body to the M9P I have...  but neither can substitute for the other.  And frankly the files out of the X-T1, while eminently usable require significantly more post processing than do those out of the M9P.  The X-T1 has a feature set that the X-Pro1 should have had.  I'll be interested to see what the X-T2 offers.

 

If you want a rangefinder camera, buy an M.   If you want something else then buy that...  it's a binary decision.