Jump to content

Fuji XPro 2 announced


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I ordered X-pro 1 last year at a huge discount with 18 mm lens. But I did not buy it in the end. <br />Despite the luxury box, <br />1) The optical viewfinder seemed a tiny to me. I did not see a thing, testing the camera in the store. I started to hate it and I rejected it at once. <br />2) Looking into VG my nose stuck to the rear display.<br>

3) Artifacts of the pictures - watercolors and color smear. There are lot of patterna online. Excessive NR kills the picture. I did not like skin tones in every picture online I had seen on the net. They are very cold and overall the pictures have "electronic" and plasticky look even with magnificent 56 mm. <br>

4)No raw for ISO 100, no weather resist. Slow AF. <br /><br /><br>

And now they ask a good amount of money for this new X-pro 2 camera. It is more expensive in my country than Canon EOS 6 with which the Fujifilm can not match the Canon EOS 6 regarding its picture quality. <br />There is also the powerful and fabulous Pentax K-3 ii with a good reflex VF and it is cheaper than Fujifilm. <br /><br /><br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hmm, that's interesting, Ruslan. the XP's offset rangefinder-style VF is supposed to be easier on the nose than the centered VF in the XT1. Regarding waxy skin tones, Fuji claims to have addressed this in the XP2. No argument on the XP1's slow AF -- the camera was nicknamed the "X Slow 1" prior to the FW upgrades -- but the XP2 now has Fuji's fastest AF to date. i personally dont see any problem with the sample images in that review, some of the portraits are quite lovely. but the XP1 does appear to have a colder tone than the 5DII. And i do find the Velvia film simulation setting is sometimes a little too vibrant, especially for people. Regarding image quality WRT to the Canon 6D, i dont think it can be conclusively stated that the 6D's 20 mp full frame sensor provides superior picture quality -- the Fuji technically has greater resolution. However, i would imagine the 6D to have less noise at extreme ISOs, and of course you can get shallower DoF with full frame and appropriate glass. The Fuji sensor may also be sharper due to the the lack of an anti-aliasing filter. Also, in terms of performance metrics, the XP2 has a more sophisticated AF system than Canon's entry-level full-frame body. We can also note that Nikon's entry-level full-frame body, the D610, is less expensive than the Fuji, but... the XP2 is a "flagship" body, with a higher level of overall specification apart from the sensor format pursuant to both the 6D and D610. i personally wouldn't directly compare entry-level FF with flagship APS-C; a more apt comparison might be between the XP2, Canon 7DII, and Nikon D500, which are all high-performance cameras.</p>

<p>That said, camera choices are entirely subjective, and dependent on personal taste and specific requirements/criteria. All things are not perfectly equal across the board, since Canon, Fuji, Pentax and Nikon all have differing lens options. Choice of lenses should factor into any decision, and most Fuji shooters are pretty enthusiastic about the options for that system, which has filled out nicely in just a short time. But, if you'd rather have a 6D or K-3 than an XP2, then go for it. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>." But I did not buy it in the end.</p>

<p>Despite the luxury box"</p>

<p>I understand, the luxury box was a serious consideration...I like boxes sort of fun to open.</p>

<p>I think most folk understand Fuji skin tones are a bit special...but lets cut the crap... show me some of your superior xxxxx camera skin tones and I will show you mine...lets go for it, head to head.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> show me some of your superior xxxxx camera skin tones and I will show you mine...lets go for it, head to head.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ruslan didnt appear to mention skin tones specifically when making the claim that the Canon 6D has superior "picture quality," without clarifying exactly what he meant by that. as noted in my prior post, i can't really see much of a factual basis for that argument. It can certainly be said that the 6D has a larger sensor, which in and of itself doesn't impact picture quality -- except when it comes to extreme ISOs and shallow DoF. But the XP2 has a higher-resolution sensor, without an anti-aliasing filter, so on that basis alone, the XP2 would probably win for detail and sharpness.</p>

<p>if you're asking what camera would be better to shoot at ISO 6400 or for shallower DOF, the 6D would likely win there, although bokeh quality is dependent on the lens used. i dont think the Canon 85/1.2 has a clear advantage over the Fuji 56/1.2R in terms of sheer bokehliciousness, even though the Canon can shoot at an actual 1.2, while the Fuji loses a stop of DoF, since the 56/1.2R is specifically engineered for bokeh.</p>

<p>In terms of dynamic range, i'd have to see a test of the XP2 before evaluating that, but it's worth noting the 6D lags behind the Nikon D600 in both dynamic range and low-light, <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-review-The-best-value-for-money-in-the-EOS-range/Comparisons">according to DXO mark</a>. It also <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D7200-The-new-APS-C-champ/Nikon-D7200-Measurement-Outstanding-Dynamic-Range">scores lower in dynamic range</a> than the 24mp APS-C Nikon D7200, which we can use as a proxy here in lieu of an XP2 test, to confirm that FF sensors don't always beat APS-C sensors for DR. So, without any qualitative data to back it up, it would appear Ruslan's claim is entirely subjective, and may be inaccurate as well.</p>

<p>Now if Ruslan was comparing the XP2 to the 50mp 5DS R or the 42mp Sony A7RII, he might have a point. Of course, both those bodies cost much more than the XP2, so it would be an unfair comparison.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>From a left eyed user, the screen on the XE1 gets easily messed up while the XT10 screen remains clean</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is what I meant. I am also a left-eye user. I just don't like to use the right eye and I hate to squint my left eye all the time during long sessions. <br />Eric, generally the 24 Mp sensor has more noise at around already ISO 800, the quality starts to degrade easily. It is no wonder the EOS 6D pictures are very clean at even 1600. Also, I have seen a lot of EOS 6D photos in full resolution at low ISO, they are tack-sharp with the proper lenses and the AA filter is thin (or weak). Noise and artifacts (color smear) are vulnurable points of X-pro1 (did they finally cope with color smear with the new X-pro 2?). I think the reasonable limit for APS would be around of 16 Mp and that's why DxoMark ranked the amateur Pentax K-50 much higher in terms of picture quality than Canon EOS 7D Mk2.<br />Speaking of the quality I meant interpixel clarity and noise from ISO 800 and above. I don't care about DR as I do not shoot landscapes with extreme brightness difference. <br /><br /><br /><br>

Yes, I could not fall in love that RF-like mirrorless camera. Just I had a feeling that's not my cup of tea.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> show me some of your superior xxxxx camera skin tones and I will show you mine...lets go for it, head to head.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Allen, your challenge has been meet and responded. <br />I have just created a folder <em>Olga 2</em> with a single photo, for you to see. No post-production, JPEG just out of the box. Olympus E-420. This is exactly what I saw at the time os shooting with my naked eye. <br />I prefer this muck more than what Mr. Podakuni showed in his test <em>(by my link)</em> above. Too cold for my taste, the ones on Red Square are of strange color. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> generally the 24 Mp sensor has more noise at around already ISO 800, the quality starts to degrade easily. It is no wonder the EOS 6D pictures are very clean at even 1600. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Picture Quality" may mean different things to different people. however, if we are talking in an absolute sense, it would reasonably include all imaging characteristics, not just noise. if we are cherry-picking criteria, we can say anything we want about PQ, but... that's entirely subjective. We don't actually know how well the 24mp sensor in the XP2 holds up, because no objective testing has been done on it yet. But as i already pointed out, DXO Mark scores for the 6D are lower in dynamic range than the 24mp APS-C sensor in the Nikon D7200, and also lower than the 24mp full frame sensor in the Nikon D600. These are not insignificant findings, if we are assessing PQ as a whole.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, I have seen a lot of EOS 6D photos in full resolution at low ISO, they are tack-sharp with the proper lenses and the AA filter is thin (or weak).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So? The same could be said of most cameras at base or low ISO.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Noise and artifacts (color smear) are vulnurable points of X-pro1 (did they finally cope with color smear with the new X-pro 2?).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you missed it, but Fuji addressed this specifically in the XP2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the reasonable limit for APS would be around of 16 Mp and that's why DxoMark ranked the amateur Pentax K-50 much higher in terms of picture quality than Canon EOS 7D Mk2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No offense Ruslan, but obviously Fuji's design team doesn't share this opinion. Also, DXOMark doesn't have a category called "picture quality"; they rate cameras in terms of color depth, low-light ISO, and dynamic range, and then do an overall score. Your argument again appears to be cherry-picked. It completely falls apart when we compare the 16mp Pentax K-50 to the 24mp Nikon D7200. The DXOMark ratings score the Nikon higher in every single category, with the overall score showing a significant advantage for the Nikon. Since the XP2 also has a 24mp APS-C sensor, it's reasonable to speculate similar results are possible, and may well be borne out by actual testing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Speaking of the quality I meant interpixel clarity and noise from ISO 800 and above. I don't care about DR as I do not shoot landscapes with extreme brightness difference. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok, but as i said earlier, that's your personal criteria and not reflective of picture quality as a whole. If DR doesnt matter to you, that doesn't mean it's insignificant to other people. My experience with the Fuji 16mp sensor is that it's remarkably clean (for APS-C) even at high ISOs, up to 5000. Whether the 50% resolution gain in the XP2 can maintain or even exceed this performance metric remains to be seen, but it's certainly possible, and has been achieved with other APS-C sensors. Returning again to the Nikon D7200, it beats the 16mp D7000 in all of DXOMark's metrics. So the notion that 16mp stands as a theoretical limit for PQ on APS-C appears to have been proven false.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have just created a folder <em>Olga 2</em> with a single photo, for you to see. No post-production, JPEG just out of the box. Olympus E-420.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, no offense, but i would choose a 16mp Fuji APS-C pic over a 10mp 4/3 pic every single time. and if we're talking about noise, older 4/3 bodies are noisy from like ISO 400 onwards. It seems disingenuous to uphold this as a stellar example, since you complained about noise earlier. The Olga pic isn't bad, but i can't say it's better than the output ive seem from Fuji shooters as far as skin tones.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Too cold for my taste, the ones on Red Square are of strange color.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is also subjective. i dont dispute that the XP1 is colder, but it also may be that the 5dII is excessively warm. These differences can easily be explained by Fuji's X-Trans sensor, which reads colors differently than typical Bayer sensors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I don't think this new camera is for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, and would like to add that this is perfectly OK. I personally wouldnt let a bad experience with the XP1 cloud my judgment on a completely different body, but then again, i'm not trying to convince Ruslan to buy an XP2. If you dont like RF-style bodies, don't get one. it's that simple. There are plenty of other options out there, so do what makes you happy. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>I haven't seen anything in both Fuji 56/1.2 lens iterations to keep them. Something didn't click in that design..I have both 2x FD and 2x EF 85/1.2 and all those are keepers, even though I don't do any paid work anymore.<br>

I like Fuji 35/1.4 optically. I like it very much indeed<br>

Ruslan, it seems that the Olympus you used makes a better color temp evaluation of the whole scene, judging by the compensation of the blue hue in the shadow on the model's left (viewers' right). Yet we don't have the same scene shot with a Fuji or any other camera for that matter.<br>

Mirrorless today, shutterless tomorrow.. it's all psychosomatic, Doctor</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually some current Fuji and Olympus models already have a shutter less mode (electronic shutter). They are silent and

capable of very quick shutter speeds, but do have the possibility of occasional odd artifacts.

 

Ruskin, not meaning any offense but I don't think that shot shows anything you can't do using a lot of different cameras,

and if you don't like the color in any particular shots from any review of any camera, chances are there are a ton of

different settings that could have been used for different looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I haven't seen anything in both Fuji 56/1.2 lens iterations to keep them. Something didn't click in that design..I have both 2x FD and 2x EF 85/1.2 and all those are keepers, even though I don't do any paid work anymore.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>really? something didn't click? not sure what to tell you. that lens has been received pretty enthusiastically over in X-mount land and has gotten great <a href="http://www.jonasjacobsson.co/review-of-the-fujinon-xf-56-mm-f1-2-r/">reviews</a> as well. i'm seeing lots of impressive photos over at the 56/1.2 flickr page <a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/2634710@N22/pool/">here</a>. but whatever, personal evaluations of lenses are just that, sometimes people just have an affinity for one lens over another. my point in mentioning that lens was just to note that it seems to compare quite well to the Canon 85/1.2, and holds its own in terms of color rendition, micro-contrast, and bokeh. i wouldnt hesitate to get one for portraits and low-light if you're a Fuji shooter, but if i was already emotionally and financially invested that deeply into Canon --owning no less than 4 versions of the fast 85 ! -- it might take movement of mountains to get me to switch.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />I like Fuji 35/1.4 optically. I like it very much indeed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, that's nice. i have that lens too, it's been fairly solid. not what i would call perfect, but certainly good enough for a fast 50 equivalent. i dont have a Leica cron to compare it too, but i've heard plenty of comparisons to that, so that's gotta be good, right? i love fast primes, but if i was buying today, i might be tempted by the new 35/2 for the slightly smaller length, the water-resistance, and faster focusing speed. optical performance seems a bit of a hit and miss, in some ways it's better than the 35/1.4 and in others, not.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>88 responses regarding a camera that can only be described as a marginal player sales wise. What we got here is the beginnings of a cult camera!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>to be honest, the XP1 <em>is</em> a cult camera. there's really no reasonable explanation for its enduring popularity, despite all its warts. The XP2 appears to fix many of those warts. I'm a little hesitant to call a camera that's not even on the market yet "a marginal player sales-wise" since it technically hasnt even started shipping yet, although it is true that Fuji is a niche market operator, and their design/aesthetic choices to some degree reflect this philosophy. It's highly unlikely they could increase market share to even 20% of overall camera sales, but then again, it doesn't seem like that's their goal.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Eric,<br>

The 85/.12 are highly liquid: no problem liquidating those at all. I still use them quite frequently. The slower ones to operate are my favourites: a different shooting and compositional culture so to speak. The XF 35/1.4 can be as poetic as a lux, it's beyond the crons in terms of character, my wife doesn't want to sell any of hers. It's not only luxury packaging, there are some lenses and bodies in Fuji line that have plenty of substance, not just form. The 'outdated' XP1 has very nice dynamic range and the camera processor is close to impeccable, when it comes to color and curve - the camera is a bargain right now for those, who can live with its limitations. I like Olympus colors too, and Panasonic has a lot of things going on for it as well. So, it pays to keep good, old, highly liquid glass and play with all of them on occasion.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently picked up a used XP1. When it was new it was too much a luxury for me but now a mint one can be had for

under $400. It's no speed demon and can't keep up with an XT1 or even an XE2 in technical specs, but it's wonderful to

shoot. Today was really warm here and I had hours between meetings so I took it with my 35 and walked 5 miles around

Cambridge and up the Charles. The lens is the first Fuji lens I bought, almost 3 years ago, and it's fantastic - small, sharp,

very well made. The camera does render beautiful jpgs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Ruskin</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andy L., my name is Ruslan. You managed to make 2 mistakes in 6-letter widespread name. Do you know Alexander Pushkin <em>"Ruslan and Ludmila"</em> poem? If you don't - do a Google search. Good read. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> The 'outdated' XP1 has very nice dynamic range and the camera processor is close to impeccable, when it comes to color and curve - the camera is a bargain right now for those, who can live with its limitations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, that's true. at $500 new currently, the XP1 is a serous deal if you can get the most out of it. no speed demon as andy says, but produces quality output.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...