Why is the X-E1 cheaper then the X Pro 1?

[jon_kobeck1]

I don't get it? Why is this camera cheaper? I'm looking for either one of these or possibly the X100. I really wish they updated THAT

camera. I don't need interchangeable lenses and a 50mm normal lens is all I mostly use

[john tonai]

<p>Doesn't have the hybrid viewfinder</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

That's it? I don't get it. What's so special about the hybrid viewfinder? This camera also looks a little smaller

[jon_kobeck1]

Is the sensor in this camera similar to the X100s sensor? I read that the X1-Pro IQ is very similar to full frame DSLR

sensors

[steve_solomon2]

<p>As John said, the X-PRO1 has the hybrid viewfinder. Other things about the X-PRO 1: Has a larger and higher resolution screen, faster fps (6 vs. 3) and is aimed more at professionals. Frankly, I was also considering the X-100, but I just read about the new Sony RX-1, a full-frame compact with a superb fixed 35mm Zeiss lens! Anxious to read test results on that one! Good luck to you!</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

That Sony is $2800!

[steve_solomon2]

Yes, I realize the Sony RX-1 is priced initially at $2800, but I am hopeful that it will come down substantially, as full-frame systems become more popular among discerning photographers like us!

[dave_donaldson]

<p>The big difference is the viewfinder. I have extensive experience with my X-Pro 1. I only shoot the EVF except for when the object is moving. The EVF takes a moment or two to lock in. It just does not work on anything that moves. But for still objects it's incredible.<br>

The only way you can focus on a moving object with the X-Pro 1 is to use the "real time" optical viewfinder. I use it's optical viewfinder when shooting flying birds and moving cars/trucks. It is absolutely impossible to shoot flying birds with a EVF.<br>

So, the X-E1 only has the EVF. Which is great as long as you are not shooting moving birds, cars, kids, sports, etc.</p>

<p> </p>

[Sanford]

<p>Simply because the X pro1 is overpriced. </p>

[bill_tuthill]

The pentaprism optical viewfinder costs maybe $100 more to produce than an EVF. You can compare the Sony SLT line with similar-spec DSLR to verify. The X-Pro1's hybrid viewfinder is probably even more expensive to produce than a pentaprism. Price difference between the X-Pro1 and X-E1 is $700, which is probably more than the cost of a hybrid viewfinder, so I agree with Sanford. Is $999 overpriced for the X-E1? I don't think so. The NEX-7 costs more and I would much rather have an X-E1.

 

I have been an EXR fanboy for years, but the X-Trans sensor gives me the dynamic range I like, plus fantastic high ISO capability. So I might abandon my former fanboy-ism.

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>So, the X-E1 only has the EVF. Which is great as long as you are not shooting moving birds, cars, kids, sports, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Yes, but it has the NEX-7 EVF, which was quite responsive when I used it. I don't know what EVF the XP-1 used, but I was doubting it was very good and your comments support that. The focusing issues and the hybrid viewfinder were the main things I didn't like about the XP-1. Nice to see the XE-1 fixes both.</p>

[steve_solomon2]

<p>Bill, your comments are instructive...As a Pentax K-5 owner, and a sharpness/detail fanatic, I am contemplating a high-quality "travel" camera, and was considering the NEX-7, the Canon M or the Fuji X-PRO1. However, I now am very interested in test results for the upcoming Sony RX-1, the Fuji X-E1, possibly the updated Pentax K-5IIs (without AA filter), and even perhaps the Nikon D600 (although this with the requisite high-end f/2.8 Nikkors would definitely <strong><em>not</em></strong> be a small kit). My Pentax optics are wicked sharp, and the Limited lenses are small, but with the K-5 and several of them, it starts to become a bit substantial for a "travel" camera. True, I'd be giving up focal length choice and convenience, but I would do it <em>only</em> if the aforementioned compact systems give significantly sharper, more detailed large print output (24x36 in.), using good technique! </p>

[m_m3]

<p>They used a lesser quality rear lcd on the x-e1.</p>

[jake_cole]

<p>You say that like it's a bad thing; :)<br>

They never expected to sell a large number of X-Pro1 cameras; they expect to sell a lot more X-E1 cameras as it is aimed ad a larger audience (see Fuji interviews). Volume means a lot when were talking the relatively small number of units being produced for something like the X-Pro1. In fact they expect to sell a lot of the X-E1 kits, but no matter most people that buy them will buy a Fuji lens or 2. They are building a new system in a very smart way. These guys/girls are very smart.</p>

<p>... as others have said, no hybird finder saves a lot of money, the EVF is better, but outsourced they may have got it at a good deal. Lower-cost LCD panel, manufacturing and supply chain improvements. </p>

<p>The X-Pro1 is on sale not if you buy it with a lens (e.g. 35mm f/1.8) you save $300 so the package is quite reasonable.</p>

<p>Fuji is on a major roll... hope they hit the jackpot.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>I find the hybrid viewfinder to be quite a treat. I generally use the optical VF for street photography. I really like the ability to see the whole field from both eyes. Using optical, with the VF image turned to OFF (the view is never obstructed by the picture you just took), the X-Pro works just like my old rangefinder cameras - which is to say GREAT!</p>

<p>When I set it on a tri-pod, I use the manual focus with the EVF, and WOW you can really zoom in and get nice focus. With firmware 2.0, I don't have any complaints about the manual focus.</p>

<p>If you never liked film rangefinder cameras, chances are you won't like the X-Pro either. It's a legitimate alternative to the more popular dSLRs.</p>

<p>What I am liking the most is that the JPG engine does a better job than I can do by processing the RAW files in LR. I also like being able to carry the whole kit of body and 3 lenses in a small, light camera bag. A neat camera.</p>