Fujifilm Press Release
FUJIFILM announces X-Pro1 and X-E1 firmware updates to offer faster AF and the addition of a “Focus Peak Highlight” function
The upgrades will provide improved AF performance for all FUJINON XF lenses and, amongst other benefits, will add a ‘Focus Peak Highlight’ function for manual focusing.
FUJIFILM Corporation (President: Shigehiro Nakajima) today announces the release of two new firmware updates for the FUJIFILM X-Pro1 and X-E1 compact system cameras, one on 25th June and a further one on 23rd July. . . . read more
Rico's article also includes the handling of the Metabones Speed Booster adapter on a Fujifilm camera:
"The X-Pro1 is not a rangefinder camera. It’s a pure-bred autofocus camera and as such—despite its hybrid viewfinder—it is only marginally equipped to work in combination with manual focus lenses. Currently, the only tool that the X-Pro1 and X-E1 feature to assist with manual focusing is a magnified digital viewfinder. The camera also offers some kind of focus peaking when you magnify the viewfinder image: It will enhance contrasty edges, indicating that they are in-focus.
Unfortunately, there are a few further aspects that render the X-Pro1 and X-E1 not yet perfectly equipped for working with third-party lenses: When a lens is attached to the X-Pro1 via an adapter, Auto-ISO operates with a minimum shutter speed of 1/30 second—independently of the actual focal length that was set in the adapter menu. 1/30s may be too fast for many wide-angle lenses and too slow for most standard and telephoto lenses. The cameras also set the . . . read more
It is not every day Adobe goes back and changes the de-mosaicing algorithms for previously supported cameras, but this time they've done it, and the first preliminary reports are in. DPreview's Amadou Diallo runs some tests with a couple of X-Pro1 raw files:
"Capture One Pro 7 produces more crisp results than ACR with contrast and saturation defaults that more closely mimic the in-camera JPEG. Having said that, however, ACR 7.4 RC avoids the edge halos and even more obvious aliasing patterns that exist in the Capture One Pro 7 renderings of our real world and studio test scene. Overall, the ACR 7.4 RC files deliver more realistic, natural results in areas of organic low-contrast detail like the foliage in the street scene above and the fuzzy balls in the studio scene below." . . . read more
Wow, his must be the most serious case of X-Trans sensorophobia on the whole wide Interwebs. I still have a lot of respect for much of what he otherwise does, but when it comes to the X-Trans artifacting issue he clearly fails to see the sum of the image (heh): As a total, Fuji's sensor produces some gorgeous images, a fact that is stated in confessions and declarations by numerous pro, avid and generally accomplished photographers. I can point you to a zillion galleries and essays, but I choose just one for now and rest my case: Check out Dave Piper's gallery of images he got with the X-Pro1.
"Why bother with a problematic sensor? Or a company that can’t get its act together and just pay Adobe $250K a year or whatever to deliver exceptional results from ACR (if this is even possible, which I begin to doubt). This dog doesn’t hunt. Get a Sigma DP1/DP2/DP3 Merrill and enjoy real resolution with zero artifacts, totally clean, not even Bayer sensor demosaicing yuck. Or get a D600 or D800E system which isn’t that hugely different in size, but has a full frame sensor. I see no point in investing in a 2nd-tier system with a sensor that forces photographers to jump through hoops." . . . read more
Well, that was distracting, but the darn OM-D keeps turning up in places it shouldn't. This time its in Tech Radar's Fujifilm 2 flagship cameras comparison, and their place among the top competitors, the NEX7, the GH3, and the E-M5. Things look pretty normal until the Raw performance comparison charts. Also noteworthy, the rather unimpressive results given by the GH3:
"The signal to noise ratios of the TIFF images (after conversion from raw) from the Fuji X-E1 don't compare quite as well for signal to noise ratio as the JPEGs did, coming behind the Olympus OM-D at all sensitivities and below the Panasonic GH3 at ISO 200 and 400. The Fuji X-E1 beats the Panasonic at higher sensitivities though, and beats the Sony NEX-7 andFuji X-Pro1." . . . read more
Some quick notes on user reactions: Apparently the XF 35mm firmware upgrade makes the lens noisier in operation, at least that's what many people report.
The X-E1 update does not result in as dramatic AF speed improvements as the earlier X-Pro1 update did. The camera DOES focus more accurately now, especially with the 18-55mm kit lens, but many users claim it does so at the expense of speed. And finally, one big issue Fujifilm did not resolve is the much wanted minimum shutter speed at auto Iso setting. Finally, Rico Pfirstinger has posted some nice tips about firmware upgrading on Fujifilm bodies: . . . read more
The firmware update Ver.126.96.36.199 incorporates the following issues:
Applicable models for the raw file converter are added as follows
FUJIFILM X-E1 / XF1 / X-Pro1 / X-S1 / X10
FinePix X100 / F800EXR / F770EXR / F775EXR / F600EXR / F605EXR / F550EXR / F505EXR / HS30EXR / HS33EXR / HS20EXR / HS22EXR . . . read more
I believe there is something special about the crowd of photographers posting at SteveHuff.com. I will not delve into the kind of 'special' I'm reffering to, but, in any case, here's a review-or more properly, user experience, with the Metaboners Speed Booster mounted on the Fujifilm X-Pro1 and used with a bunch of (of course) Leica lenses: Leica R Elmarit 19 /2.8, Summicron 35/2, Summicron 50/2 and a Summicron 90/2. Daniele does not go into the very specifics of image quality issues, So I tried to pixel-peep the mostly blurred and noisy pictures she provides with the review, and came out empty handed. And then, there's the Colombus egg:
"But last night when I saw the Metabones Speed Booster ad everything was so clear. It is a Columbus egg! If you cannot have a full sensor size why don’t you reduce the image circle of a full frame lens to an aps c size sensor? The effects are . . . read more
I'd say its the camera for the Smart man and woman, the poor Leica
snobs suckers usually go with a dented semi-functional Leica M4 they snatched off Ebay or Craiglist for a few hundred bucks.
"Initially my choice fell with a Leica M9. I’ve dreamt of this camera for years, but the price always made me quickly stop and think. I wanted to give the Leica a chance, so I borrowed an M9. I was excited by the Leica, in fact a lot for me. So of course there was a 9,000 Euro start up cost, with only a 35mm lens. After intense consultations with my conscience and lots of sorrow on my brow, I came next to the M9 and engaged with the mirrorless system cameras. There were a good . . . read more
Dave Kai Piper is famous for his award winning model & portrait work and also known to work with only 'with natural light or an Orbis Ring Flash'. So, here's his wonderful X-Pro1 gallery, but at least the dozen or so images I've checked out so far are all shot with a Nikon D700., according to their EXIF. The disparity is compounded by the fact that each file name contains the words 'fuji-Xpro1'.
Since the same EXIF information is repeated in photo after photo, all shot on the same day, with a 85mm lens, at ISO 200 and 1/200 sec speed, it makes this probably a case of EXIF manipulation gone wrong, but it still begs the question: Why?
Update: Dave Piper sent us this message:
"Hello Sir, I can clear up this problem - All of the photos in the gallery had been placed onto a template in photoshop ( all of the photographs in my portfolio have been laid out this way
Another day, another pro photographer that dares to make the move to mirrorless gear. Here, Kent supplies a lot of photographs with his essay, and some X-Pro1 out of camera Jpeg vs Adobe Lightroom vs Silkypix raw files rendering comparisons. Also, kudos for not stripping the EXIFs out the photos.
"For me the decision to use the Fuji X-Pro1 on this shoot was definitely the right call. The Camera and the XF35mmF1.4 R were a perfect combination for the contemporary fashion look and feel we were after from the shoot. The image quality is superb and the cameras ability to focus accurately and quickly (in that order) allowed me to focus more on what was happening in front of the camera; the shots, than worrying if the shots were really in focus or not. And as I wrote in my X-Pro1 review on Street Fashion Sydney; this is a camera that enhances your photography instead of hindering it. Love it! . . . read more
Download links provided at bottom of page, but they will become alive tomorrow, because right now we're in the future :) (Via Fuji Rumors) From Fujifilm:
Fujifilm X-Pro1, X-E1 and XF35mm firmware updates available. New firmware versions for the X-Pro1 and X-E1 cameras and the XF35mm lens are now available to download.
Fujifilm X-Pro1 - firmware version: 2.03
* Allows compatibility with the new “XF14mmF2.8R” lens.
* Improved performance of Auto Focus under various shooting conditions. . . . read more
Roel takes the XF 18-55mm to the Bahamas and slaps it on his X-Pro1:
The Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS zoom lens is a fine addition to the X camera system. Fujifilm has a long history of building lenses with high optical quality and it shows. Having used the initial (and excellent) three prime lenses for the X cameras during the past year, I was curious to see how this (first) zoom would perform.
It did not disappoint. . . . read more
Set Yourselves free from Silkypix Crappy interface, and Lightroom's crappy rendering of Fujifilm RAF files, Patrick from Fuji Rumors (and others) reports: "Here is the email I received yesterday from Lionel of the Capture 1 team: Let’s see what the final version of C1 can get out of the X-Trans RAF files.
“Dear Beta Customer.
The beta of Capture One 7.0.2 has now ended. The terms of the beta will terminate on Monday Jan 14, 2013, at 14.00 CET, where Capture One 7.0.2 will be officially released. Thank you all very much for the participation in making Capture . . . read more
No, we won't spoil it, coz we at Estiasis love Mike, and we want youto head over to TOP and read his award rant that circles mostly around American football:
""Best of" awards have always annoyed me because of a principle I'm highly aware of, yet which doesn't, to my knowledge, have a name. Namely: the closer to equal two things are, the less important it should be to rank them, but the more important it seems to be to humans to do so. So if two DACs (digital to analogue converters) are almost indistinguishable . . . read more
A user at the Serious Compacts forum has posted raw conversion samples from the latest Capture one beta that is supposed to relieve Fujifilm owners of X-Trans cameras from SilkyPix hell. The results are encouraging, but not in all cases:
"This evening I installed Phase One Capture One 7.0.2 beta and ran some test with Fuji X-Trans RAW files in comparison with Adobe's Lightroom 4.2. The test was simple, I grabbed an existing RAF file, imported and exported it in LR4.2 and . . . read more
Since there's no entry in my lexicon for 'camera of the year methodology' will refrain from a rant flood, and pass you on to the article, as the Pop Photo editors explain the why and how of the whole thing:
"2012 proved a truly great year for cameras. In the wake of 2011’s devastating tsunami in Japan and flooding in Thailand, camera manufacturers released nearly two years’ worth of terrific models in 2012, all within a span of eight months.
But our Camera of the Year choice came down to just three real finalists—the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, the Nikon D800, . . . read more
"Overall I was not impressed using the X-Pro 1 with firmware 1. In fact if I purchased the system I would return it right away and buy a beer to cry into. The photo quality is great, the color is good but the areas that the Fuji fails in…well it really fails.
Am I happy with the results of the X-Pro 1? Kinda..
The poor operating performance of firmware version 1 really soured my enjoyment of this camera. I did have the opportunity to upgrade the camera and lenses to firmware version 2 which to the credit of Fuji is much faster then . . . read more
Kevin Mullins is a well estabilished pro photographer that has seriously began working on assignments with the X-pro1 nad his 3 Fujinon lenses, the XF 18mm, 35mm and 60mm macro.
"The camera really has great image rendering and performance in low light and I’m comfortable using it at 6,400 ISO where necessary. I’m interested to see where the new Fuji X-E1 takes the X range in terms of performance and any improvements (or, as I presume, its effectively an X-Pro1 without and OVF).
In summary, after six months of use, the X-Pro1 remains a primary camera for me for my wedding photography work. I don’t see this changing, even with the introduction of new Canon DSLR’s. Quite simply it’s a marvellous camera, rolled into a little portable box. The optics are wonderful, the weight and portability are excellent.
Battery life and start-up time have been improved with recent firmware updates but could perhaps have a little more legs in them. I’d like to see a minimum shutter speed added and I’d also like to see an adjustable dioptre. Perhaps, even in future cameras I’d like to see a built in wi-fi module as this would allow creativity and communications combination whilst out travelling or shooting street photography. . . . read more
"Fuji is on the right track with the X-Pro series and not with just a me-too offering. But there are enough annoyances with the X-100 and X-Pro 1 that Fuji needs to appreciate the need for sweating the details when it comes to product execution. Their designs are brilliant, build quality is very high, and optical quality second to none. . . . read more
"Fuji is on the right track with the X-Pro series and not with just a me-too offering. But there are enough annoyances with the X-100 and X-Pro 1 that Fuji needs to appreciate the need for sweating the details when it comes to product execution. Their designs are brilliant, build quality is very high, and optical quality second to none. Now they just need to refine their functional execution to have class-leading products." . . . read more
Fuji is on the right track with the X-Pro series and not with just a me-too offering. But there are enough annoyances with the X-100 and X-Pro 1 that Fuji needs to appreciate the need for sweating the details when it comes to product execution. . . . read more
"I got a few requests for a "how-to" article on the Fujifilm X-Pro 1. When I started to write one, it quickly got out of hand. There's a lot to say about this camera. Too much for a single post. I think such an article is needed, though, because this is a bit of an unusual beast, and going by the talk on the DPReview forums, there are a quite a few people who are somewhat confused by it.
So I decided to write not one, but several articles. I don't know if I'll ever get around to writing the others, but here's one, anyway—the basic approach to getting to know the Fujifilm X-Pro 1. If you're considering this camera, this might be worth a read too, because it might turn out it's not the camera for you after all. It is a special-purpose instrument which excels at one thing and can handle a quite a few others, but there are cameras out there that are better suited for almost any of those other things. . . . read more
"Of the three lenses supplied with the Fujifilm X-Pro 1, the 60mm lens produced the least deviations between centre and edge resolution in our Imatest tests. This flatness of field was maintained throughout the aperture range of the lens, which spanned fro, f/2.4 to f/22 (the smallest aperture setting for the trio).
Peak resolution was obtained at f/8, with a steady upward climb from f/2.4. Diffraction began to have an obvious effect on resolution at f/16, although resolution remained acceptably high at f/22. This is handy when you need extra depth-of-field for close-up shots. The graph below shows the results of our Imatest tests.
Lateral chromatic aberration was extremely low throughout the lens's aperture range. In the graph below, which shows the results of our Imatest tests, the red line marks the boundary between negligible and low CA. . . . read more
"The X-Pro1 also takes another departure mostly ignored by the others: its newly-developed colour filter array removes the need for an optical low-pass filter to solve moiré and false colour issues.
In this array, RGB pixels are arranged in 6×6 pixel sets with high randomness, emulating the seeming haphazardness of film grain. . . . read more
In this extensive two part review, Nick Devlin gives the 'photographer's eye' lowdown about the X-Pro1. There are no Iso trains, technical charts and pixel peeping exercises here, just some grey matter at work and a couple of eyes:
"At the very head of the not-so-great but not-so-terrible category is the X-Pro1's autofocus performance. It's ok. In macro-mode it's really slow. Do not try an X-Pro1 after handling a Nikon D4. You won't be happy. . . . read more
"The X-Pro1 delivers most of the goods in terms of its handling, with a few caveats. The multitude of external controls, optical viewfinder and stunning appearance have been cunningly combined with some truly cutting-edge features, most notably the hybrid viewfinder. As on the X100, the ability to frame your subject in not one, not two, but three different ways, each of which offers . . . read more
When the verdict in a review at a reputable site incudes the word 'excellent'
five six seven times, you know there's something special at hand:
"Focus speed is quickest with the 18mm lens, followed by the 35mm, then the 60mm macro. Focus is generally quite rapid, unless . . . read more