jeremyclarke

Your pictures are simply stunning.  Just beautiful work.  I very recently took many photos at my daughter's wedding, exclusively using my X-T1 (with v3.1 FW).  I was extremely happy with the results (as was the bride) and I was able to provide her with an early look exclusively with SOOC JPGs, which gave me more time to do some extra work in Lightroom on the RAWs.  The images required very little or sometimes no PP work and the camera did a fantastic job.  To be fair, the entire event was shot in a brightly lit room (natural light through windows), so flash was basically unnecessary.  Fuji's one weakness is in the area of flash support, and I might have been a little less enthusiastic about the results if the wedding had taken place in a poorly lit venue.  Either way, I fully agree with your comment about the future of DSLRs.  There certainly are none in my future for sure.  Thanks so much for sharing.

In all frankness I find the camera rather more complicated that it needs to be ( for me that is) and in some cases downright awkward with functions that are there but only work , for example, in MS or with more than one setting to be switched in or out.
 
My answer to it is to use the camera with the functions that I need and keep the other functions in mind (and that’s why I wanted a NEW small portable manual, like the one I have from when the camera was new, with all the new functions in it and with simple instructions as in: if you want to do this, do 1, 2, 3...
 
Some members told me to buy a book that another member wrote (which is definitely too big to take with me and wouldn’t be as coincise as I had in mind because you can’t charge good money for what I had in mind).
 
Yes.......as they say, keep it simple. If Fuji can’t , we can.

On the X-E cameras my research indicated that the "true" underlying color was the silver/chrome version, while the black version was "painted" on (I realize it's not paint, but something much more appropriate). The effect was that people with the black one experienced various kinds of scraping/flaking of the black color (especially on the shutter button, probably because it's plastic), while the silver cameras just scratched/dented. I couldn't decide which I liked better aesthetically, but that was enough to put me over the edge and choose the silver one. 
 
With the X-T1 the principle is reversed. The true underlying color is black and the graphite silver is a coating on top of it. Now of course it's a much fancier coating, even further removed from "paint" and the marketing would have you believe it's even stronger than what makes up the black one, so it's probably not the same situation at the end of the day (though maybe it still hasn't been out long enough to know what the "patina" will look like on the graphite silver X-T1). 
 
Personally I hate the muted chrome of the graphite silver, much preferring the bright brushed steel of the X-E/X-T10. Obviously that's a matter of taste, but I find it interesting how different my reaction is to the two. If I was getting an X-T1 I'd definitely get the black, especially because it's cheaper (I agree with you it was a dumb move from Fuji, have just one color or charge the same for both!)
 
Finally consider how people will interpret your camera. I expected people to think my silver X-E1 was "neat" and call me a hipster, but I didn't realize how disarming it would be. People don't seem nearly as threatened as they are by a black camera, and their false assessment that it's a film camera further works in my favor when taking pictures of people nervous about cameras.
 
At this point even if I didn't like the silver color I'd be tempted to get it just for the social value. Then again I'm not a pro and I don't worry about people "taking me seriously" which might be easier if I had a black one and had to deal with idiots on a professional level

Milandro I agree with everything you said and (as I already said) I came to the same conclusions and have no regrets about my purchase. 
 
That said, you're being a bit defensive and I'm not sure why. The people who preferred the XF lens weren't attacking you or claiming your points were wrong, they were just sharing their experience and reasoning behind preferring the bigger, more expensive option. If this thread only had people saying the XC was cheaper and just as good it wouldn't be a reliable source of information for the OP, even if that was totally true. 
 
Anyway, peace and love to all who enjoy shooting things that are far away! I can't wait for that 100-400mm to come out and ruin our lives with it's weight, expense and excellence

Yeah exactly! It's both useless and confusing in different ways
 
For ISO the whole Q menu is overall a bad choice. It doesn't show you the "auto" parameters of auto-ISO when you switch so it's not helpful at all IMHO. Especially on the X-T10 the function button ISO menu is REALLY GOOD, letting you quickly scroll through the 3 auto-ISO slots and "see what's inside". Better than the other Fuji cameras and infinitely more useful than the Q menu version.

FWIW I'll add one more practical point that can get lost in the shuffle: An 85mm f/1.8 on a FF sensor may be the closest FF comparison to what you get from the 56mm f/1.2 on Fuji, but that doesn't mean the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 and Canon 50mm f/1.2 lenses shouldn't be compared at all.
 
If you choose Canon but you want the size/cost benefits of their APS-C cameras (i.e. 7DII) then the FF lenses are your only choice for all but a couple of their cheapest primes. There's no way to get a small, cheap 35mm f/1.4 for Canon, you HAVE to buy the huge, expensive FF L lens even if it's going on your Rebel. This is because Canon treats their "crop sensor" lineup as a discount brand, rather than as a valid tradeoff of size/cost v. quality. 
 
Fuji on the other hand treats their APS-C cameras as top of the line, so their APS-C primes are smaller and lighter than what you'd have to carry to get the same effect on a Canon APS-C camera. 
 
The day Canon comes out with fast awesome primes in EF-S (crop sensor) or EF-M (their half-assed mirrorless format) this may change, but I doubt they'll ever come out with anything comparable to the 56mm f/1.2 or 16mm f/1.4 lenses designed specifically to take advantage of APS-C sensors. 

Not quite the same but the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is an outstanding lens with next to perfect resolution figures across the image frame.
 
I do agree that they protect their higher end cameras by not fully supporting those who use the APSC bodies and I'll also add I'm not a Canon fan - I've lost sympathy with Nikon too which I've used for 30+ years for the same reason hence the switch to Fuji. I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind the Big Two and their refusal to see there is a future without a mirror. We'll see how things pan out but we live in interesting times and I love to be shooting at the leading edge of what is possible and not what we are given.

FWIW I'll add one more practical point that can get lost in the shuffle: An 85mm f/1.8 on a FF sensor may be the closest FF comparison to what you get from the 56mm f/1.2 on Fuji, but that doesn't mean the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 and Canon 50mm f/1.2 lenses shouldn't be compared at all.
 
If you choose Canon but you want the size/cost benefits of their APS-C cameras (i.e. 7DII) then the FF lenses are your only choice for all but a couple of their cheapest primes. There's no way to get a small, cheap 35mm f/1.4 for Canon, you HAVE to buy the huge, expensive FF L lens even if it's going on your Rebel. This is because Canon treats their "crop sensor" lineup as a discount brand, rather than as a valid tradeoff of size/cost v. quality. 
 
Fuji on the other hand treats their APS-C cameras as top of the line, so their APS-C primes are smaller and lighter than what you'd have to carry to get the same effect on a Canon APS-C camera. 
 
The day Canon comes out with fast awesome primes in EF-S (crop sensor) or EF-M (their half-assed mirrorless format) this may change, but I doubt they'll ever come out with anything comparable to the 56mm f/1.2 or 16mm f/1.4 lenses designed specifically to take advantage of APS-C sensors. 

Have you ever tried another camera before you wrote this? There are plenty of people in this thread who have observed the same thing and you dismiss them in an extremely arrogant way. If you want to help Fuji then point out to them where other brands are doing better. Don't belittle other people. It doesn't help anybody.

Jeremy's right. At first I thought these custom settings would be very useful, but as I mostly shoot raw, they are not helpful at all. Also, it gets very confusing since when you switch to one, you can't then switch back to how you had it set up before, you can only switch between custom settings, which I found especially problematic with the values I had set for Auto ISO.

I see...
 
tried it again, all manual (iso, shutter speed, aperture full open, focus), it's possible to get one shot in CL consistently, CH not so consistently, but doable.

For no other reason than “I want too & I LOVE it” I thought I’d review my (the) X-PRO1.
 
This review is merely the ramblings of an enthusiastic enthusiast, a mediocre amateur who’s entire skill (and I use the word in its loosest possible sense) set pretty much comprises thinking, ‘that looks nice, I think I’ll snap it’ a man who’s post posting technique pretty much stops at, “lets saturate the colours and make it darker”
 
Anyone subjected to hours of the kids show, Peppa Pig, should recognise the Mr Bull character and his catch phrase of “let’s dig up the road” well, that phrase could easily be applied to my desire to take pictures.
Now some of you may read this, and somehow get offended, how dare I say some of these things? Well try 1)reading to the end and 2)not skim reading.
 
Anyway…
 
Part One
 
So the X-PRO1, what’s all the fuss - mythology and downright untruths…
 
The X-PRO1 is so well built, easily the best in the Fuji range?
 
As the kidz say “lolwhut?”
 
The X-PRO1 is far bigger than it needs to be technically (don’t fret we’ll come to ergonomics later), it hasn’t got any extra stuff inside that the smaller X bodies don’t, and the net result is of a rather hollow feeling camera that belies its physical bulk. The dials have a pleasant tactile feeling, but wobble about a bit if pushed and the EV is so easy to rotate that checking it’s where you left it (it won’t be) quickly becomes second nature.
 
The Frame Lever sorry EVF/OVF switch is upside down IMO (well mine isn’t because I took it off and mounted it the correct way up!), it’s attachment feels flimsy and the whole mechanism for swapping between OVF & EVF feels like the camera is performing a great labour
 
The scroll wheel on the back feels especially flimsy, wobbling about with too much vertical play, but it does at least have the decency to double as a physical button (X-T1 why don’t you have this?)
 
The shutter button rattles about like a ball joint that passed its useful life several thousand miles ago.
 
The slow operational speed of the X-PRO1 makes me a better photographer. It gives me time to think
 
No. You give you time to think. BUT personally speaking the fact that the X-PRO1 is slow, means I have to work to its pace. This helps me; I suspect that you’re already capable of thinking photographically. Perhaps you’ve even learnt to plan your shots before bringing the camera to your eye or even before you’ve left the house that day!
 
The honest truth IMHO is that learning a slow and quirky camera makes you better at using a slow and quirky camera. If in the course of that learning curve you learn more about photography in general, then rejoice – but take the damn credit - YOU did that, not the camera.
 
The X-PRO1 files are almost film like in appearance
 
Are they F***. Film is film like. The X-PRO1 is just less digital looking than other more modern cameras (like any X-Trans II camera for example)
 
IMO, the X-PRO1 output is bit like CD vs MP3, sure CD sounds more analogue LIKE than MP3, but don’t be trying to tell me that CD is wild, raw and scratchy like a record (or indeed film) because it’s not.
 
OK so that’s my personal take on the myths and untruths, let’s move beyond this apparent unpleasantness and get straight too
 
Part Two
 
Emotive engagement - the importance of being Earnest
 
A crap job with a great wage is hard toil, a great job with a liveable wage is a joy to undertake
 
So, imHo the X-PRO1 is not the über build quality, files like film, free photography lesson with every click, that some would have you believe.
 
So what.
 
It’s without any shadow of doubt in my mind an absolute joy to shoot with. It’s truly greater than the sum of its component parts. Like a Morgan or Westfield sports cars or SS model Rolexes, less is definitely more.
 
In a disposable prosumer world where pretty much every camera is differentiated only by its manufacturer and lens mount, not its spec sheet, where every little black mag alloy box shares must have features that are ground into obsolescence by the next release, it is (in my opinion) an absolute bloody sheer magical delight to use a camera that’s kinda like a camera. No, I don’t mean shutter dials that miss off half speeds or fly-by-wire aperture rings or snail-by-wire focus rings – I mean a camera that doesn’t have Wi-Fi or GPS or have the need for the user to remember when to use or not to use an electronic shutter, the X-PRO1 is a camera that demands you to either 1)know 2)figure out 3)feel out with trial & error, the best settings.
 
Sure this process means more balls up shots, more missed shots, harder (MUCH harder) work with moving objects, but it also means a damn sight more reward when what comes out of the camera is pleasing, you can, with complete honesty say “I made that” and you can feel proud too, because with the X-PRO1 it might not of been easy
 
This brings me to engagement, for me I like LOVE that the X-PRO1 challenges me, it inspires me to try harder, then try harder still. OK, full disclosure… I also have a X-T1, because y’know, my 3 year moves around a lot, and it’s nice to be able to shoot wide open without needing an ND filter and its nice having so many controls at my fingertips.
 
But the X-T1 just makes me fire off more blanks than the Territorial Army, it’s a fast camera and it makes me feel the need for speed, it’s a hyper sports motorcycle, tearing up the highway, the X-PRO1 isn’t a bike… it’s a chopper baby, cruising the highway and taking in the sights and views
 
[i want to work the phrase ‘Zed’s Dead’ into that last paragraph but so far it’s alluding me]
 
Sure the X-PRO1 has a clearly digital output, but its files are its signature dish, run most cameras files through lightroom and they seem to turn out the same… again full disclosure, I don’t use LR, can’t get my head round it, but flick through Flickr’s explore and you’ll see many very samey shots, from many different cameras, nearly always processed with Adobe’s algorithm…
 
Well the X-PRO1 DOES have something with its files… I’m not exactly sure what….
 
(Reading DPR I think it may be the point at which the tone curve cuts to black, but I don’t understand all those graphs and shit like that. Sorry.)
 
…but there’s a grittiness to the X-PRO1, be it SOOC Jpeg or RAW that’s immeasurably pleasing. Words like ‘organic’ get used a lot… it’s as good as description as any… but for me, just unrelentingly pleasing, worthwhile, special
 
When I feel I’ve got a shot right with the X-PRO1, I’m pleased, I feel I’ve worked for it. The X-PRO1 as a body makes success harder to come by (than many more modern cameras), but because of this the delight when one manages to do so is tangible.
The ergonomics of the X-PRO1 are a little bit special too. I know some people love to hate the pseudo SLR styling of many mirrorless models, but let’s be honest here, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony et el all offer “range finder” shaped bodies… well they do if you define range finder as a rectangular camera without a central VF.
 
No the X-PRO1 is special as it’s just that bit bigger, that’s the plus point for that big hollow feeling that I pointed out earlier, you can actually hold the damn thing comfortably.
 
The other obvious thing that the X-PRO1 has is of course that OVF.
 
The inclusion of an OVF is simply to be applauded, no redaction, make that a standing ovation, a design triumph worthy of a ticker tape parade.
 
There are those that say, The X-PRO1 is a pseudo range finder, it’s not a true one. If you want a true digital RF, then the big L is the only game in town and let’s be honest, that’s a very true statement.
 
But it’s also a statement that is, in my view, an oxymoron. The X-PRO1 isn’t trying to be a Leica. Up until the release of the M240 the X-PRO1 was the only game in town that gave you the rangefinder shape, an optical VF AND the ability to use an EVF to check critical focus and framing.
 
And at time of writing (Aug 2015) the X-PRO1 is still the only camera that can offer this without taking your eye away from the view finder.
 
And let’s not forget the magic of having different strength magnifications of OVF to choose from!
 
The Leica cameras may indeed be the only digital range finder game in town, but the X-PRO1 is a whole new 21st century game.
 
The X100T shows how this game can go, and it can go in a very good direction.
 
[Full disclosure: I’ve nothing against Leica, or Leica shooters and I’d like to try one, one day…]
 
Part Three
 
Accessories – pimp my ride or must haves?
 
The X-PRO1 was as you’ll know, released with three prime lenses. Yup primes, the de rigueur 18-55 didn’t arrive until later.
 
I love the 3 original primes (& to a slightly lesser extent the XF27) they –too me- capture the essence of what the X-PRO1 is all about, a decent sized camera body, with small primes that are fast and sharp. I’m not completely daft, I realise the 16/23/56/90 are almost certainly better lenses, but they’re comparatively big, they’re comparatively expensive and –too me- they don’t fit with the original X-PRO1 design ethos.
 
[i might very well get the XF23 for my X-T1 though, and the 120 macro]
 
The X-PRO1 also has a leather case and the original hand grip.
 
IMO these products are both superb and perfectly fit with the X-PRO1. Namely each is pretty useless if you’re in a hurry, but if you’re prepared to take your time, and accept that they need removing to access anything and that removing them is s-l-o-w then the quality is excellent.
 
The grip may not have Arca Swiss dovetails and a hole for the batter/card door, the case doesn’t have that handy flap of the later X100 case, but… so what?!
 
The case is imo very well executed, the folding down front flap has so far managed to stay attached, even when left dangling for long periods of time (unlike my X100S case that I managed to lose the top part from)
 
The grip truly looks like it’s part of the camera, it simply improves the grip. Immensely.
 
The X-PRO1, the original primes, the original accessories even have a level of luxury packaging not found on the later bodies and lenses.
 
So, in summary, the accessories are must haves [especially the lenses ] they add to the camera, and they enrich the overall ownership experience.
 
I also tried an eye cup from another camera (didn’t like it) and I’ve fitted a soft release (love it) I also use 2 spare aftermarket batteries (no issues with them so far, after 15 months)
 
Conclusion
 
OMG dear reader, are you really still here? Oh no wait, now I get it, you skipped straight to this bit didn’t you?!!!
 
OK, so as I set out very clearly, just over 1900 words ago, I love this camera. I’ve even owned the damn thing twice.
 
Now for me, the X-PRO1 is famous for myths and untruths.
 
It’s not the last word in build quality. It’s the first of a line of steadily improving X bodies
 
Yes, yes, YES – I get it. The D Pad buttons are nicer to push than the blind key hole surgery that is the X-T1 D Pad. S-LO-W C-L-A-P. That doesn’t make for a superior build. You might prefer it (on th X-PRO1), sure why not, but IMO the X-T1 is a superiorly manufactured product in so many ways
 
The X-PRO1 is neither a Leica M clone nor a Leica wannabe. It’s a rangefinder concept camera born and dragged kicking and screaming with life into the twenty first century. People need to cut the umbilical cord on this Leica/Fuji shit. I suspect future iterations of the M will be more comparable to the X-PRO1 than vice versa…. Just a hunch.
 
The slowness of the X-PRO1 doesn’t make you a better photographer. You make you a better photographer, BUT the X-PRO1 is a fine tool to take with you on that journey.
 
The X-PRO1 files don’t look like film. The look like X-PRO1 files, not like Sony/Panasonic/Olympus files, not even like X-T1 files, they look like X-PRO1 files. Rejoice in them - for identity is important.
 
The Hybrid OVF is ingenious and very special.
 
OK… I think I’m done…..
 
If you care - all my X-PRO1 Flickr pics can be found here
 
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjUEpU8D
 
Regards
Adam
 

Is it really that hard to turn the dial on top of the camera?

I don't think changing the timing will require a hardware change so it should be possible to fix it in the firmware. I didn't say it's likely they will do so.

My card is a 95Mb/s and I have no complaints.......maybe you should consider a faster card.

10-24 for best performance? I strongly disagree. It's a good zoom but I find the 14 2.8 and 16 1.4 to offer superior IQ (and the 16-55 in the 16-24 range).
 
given the choice I would probably pick the 16 and save for either the 12 or 10mm (there's a walimex 10mm, too). I had the 10-24 twice and the OIS disappointed me twice, although the second copy was optically much better than the first one. Now I'm happy with the 14 and 16-55.
 
I'd still recommend you the 16 1.4 the most. Besides the FOV and aperture, it also offers a big creative potential with the ridiculously low near focusing limit.

Interesting results! I've always found that in real life the smallest and biggest focus point sizes give the least reliable results because the small one fails so often and the large one misfocuses so often. 
 
You're analyzing some very precise focus here with a very convenient subject (i.e. tons of tiny vertical lines) so it makes sense the smallest point works the best and is a good test for your purposes. 
 
Personally I'd support Fuji making a smaller focus point. It could just be an even smaller box that's smaller than the cross. That said it may not be a meaningful change, I suspect the current smallest size reflects the actual limits of precision for the AF engine, in which case a smaller box would do nothing. 
 
Hope they're working on it either way! I need to remember to be more careful about AF box size and make it smaller when there's enough light+contrast for it to still work.

Again thank you for sharing your experience! I´ve just finished some focus testing for 18mm and 23mm focals with a tripod. Testing both, the smaller square focus and the step up bigger square focus.
 
At 18mm the focus is clearly better with the smaller square. The same at 23mm. And this is with a tripod and still object... shooting with handheld and people... this gets much worse. So I still think we need a smaller square.
 
Here is the test, there is a quality lose in both ways, but if you can´t see it at 100% size try this: http://1drv.ms/1MsPAmM
 

 
Edit: I don´t own the 10-24 anymore,  but I tested a few weeks ago and as long as I was going wider with the focal lenght the focus lose got worse, that´s why I gave it back. (Fuji please... smaller points   )
 
Regards!

I would also like to see longer exposures. Don't understand the 30 sec limit of almost all camera's. Thats outdated. My Ricoh GR has 30, 60, 120, 240 en 480 and that makes life a lot easier when you do a lot night and daylight long shutter photography like me. I do have remotes, also for the x-t10 but its a hassle, risc of damaging the small interface-door when using it for hours and hours and constantly switching locatiobs and totally unnecessary in my opinion. Adding 60 and 120 secs would be sufficient for me. And if you don't need this simple addition? Just don't use it! ;-)

Or an 30mm f2.8 Tilt-Shift which would be equal to the Canon/Nikon in terms of FoV. A good allrounder. The cheapest way to have an TS now would be the TS adapter and a couple of old M42/FD/F-mount lenses.
 
I'd love to see the 100-400mm by Fuji anytime soon. And maybe a 300mm f4 prime.

I for one am glad that LR supports the film simulations now so I don't have to worry about this nearly as much. Fuji RAW are way too grey for my liking and every shot requires tons of work, but as long as they're in the Astia calibration profile in LR they come out workable from the start with gentle colors and really nice tones compared to the true RAW. 
 
If it wasn't for that, I might be tempted to shoot JPG like others here. 
 
Either way Fuji needs to stop this terrible smoothing effect or at least give us an option to disable it. If it's hardwired into the CPU (plausible enough) then they need to hard-wire it in with a SWITCH so it can be disabled! 
 
As anyone who's used the Detail block in LR knows, any noise reduction that works is going to do horrible damage to your detail. It's a travesty that Fuji would force users to deal with such strong NR and not even give us a way to disable it, even if it's just in JPG. 

sure,
 
Fuji, leave us texture! Pls!

Ignore that last post. I am and idiot for not reading the original Poster's remarks: and I agree completely, stop waxing, Fuji!

In LR you can change your camera calibration to match the Fuji Custom Filters.
 
I actually tried this last night, but I don't have any portraits to try it on to see if I got the same results as the OP or Trenton.

Ditto. This is a part of a feature set called "Image intelligence" (quote: "Automatically enhances skin tone and texture to create smooth, attractive images").
 
 Fuji! Leave damn texture alone!