Why the Fuji? Besides the hybrid viewfinder, future M mount compatibility, and style, there were three main selling points.
- The sensor. From samples I've seen the performance at high ISOs rivals any camera out there.
- The fast primes. Many other mirrorless lenses were just a kit zoom or a slower pancake lens. The 35/1.4 is my kind of lens
- The hybrid finder, which is both an optical viewfinder and a EVF. Focusing my M mount lenses will be different than a split coincident beam rangefinder, but it will be useable.
What about the crop factor? Crop factor widens depth of field and changes field of view
With the 35/1.4, at f/1.4, I can get the same depth of field as a 50mm at f/2. I think that is sufficiently narrow to suit my tastes. I can get Fuji's own wide angle lenses and just live with the crop factor on the long end. After perusing some photos, many could even use a little crop.
The other options just didn't do it for me:
- M9 - $5,800 used. At first, I was thinking to go for broke and get a used M9, but the M9 isn't perfect. Even at 1600 ISO, the M9 starts to show noticeable noise. For the cost of an used M9, you could buy a new X-pro 1 and get every gadget and lens.
- M8 - $2,200 for a vintage 2005 sensor, poor ISO 1600 performance, noisy shutter, and quirky need for IR filters. No thanks
- Epson R-d1 - While some people rave about this camera, it is still $1,300 for a 2004 vintage sensor.
- Sony Nex-7: ($1,200 once released). The biggest drawback is that their lens selection is dominated by kit zooms. They have only two semi-fast lens, the Zeiss 24/1.8 ($1000) and the portrait 50/1.8 which I would have plenty of. I like the Fuji 35/1.4, of which sony has no equivalent. I held the Sony Nex-5 and found it ergonomically odd. (Edit: deleted statement that Nex-7 didnt have a EVF)
- Micro 4/3rds - Smaller sensor and effect on DOF becomes more of an issue. Their lens selection is also dominated by zooms, except for the Voigtlander 25/0.95, but that is $1,200
- Ricoh GR-A12 - Will cost $1250 for the body, M mount module, and EVF. If the Fuji wasn't on its way out, I think I would be heavily considering this setup.
Fuji X-Pro 1. Photo courtesy of Dpreview
I still think a M8 is a viable choice :)
ReplyDeletelooking forward to the Fuji pics
The Sony Nex-7 does have an EVF, and apparently the best there ever was!
ReplyDeleteI definitely stand corrected. I've seen the Nex 5 which doesnt have one and the photos on the net of the 7 looked so similar.
ReplyDeleteThe M8 is viable, but not at $2200. It would be a different decision if the M8 was $1400. Same with the Epson, if it was $600.
I also can't wait for the M adapter. I'd love to do some lens tests on my LTM and M lenses, but with film
ReplyDeleteit is slow and expensive.
I have to say that as an X100 owner (and I love it) that the focusing scheme that Fuji has won't cut it if you are mounting M lenses. I used (and ultimately returned) the NEX-5N, and can say that Sony's "focus peaking" is a cinch with manual glass mounted via adapter, allowing me to focus faster than my Leica and nail 95% of shots.
ReplyDeleteI'd recommend trying out the X100...it's really a great camera and the only digital camera that I really use with any frequency.
BTW...nice title for your blog :)
First, Great Blog! I am a devout film shooter but am expecting my first kid. I opted for a Pentax DSLR and an Olympus E-P2, after having your same predictment. My wife loves the speed of digital. I love the look and specs of the XPRO and am looking formard to your take.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I liked the idea of the Olymous, but never was thrilled about their initial lens selection. There are some better ones out now, but I'm going for thr Fuji. I also liked the look of the Fuji X100, but i am more of a 50mm shooter, because I'm photographing the kiddos. I am looking forward to the X Pro 1. I think it will help my photography, being able to get instant feedback, like "what happens if i bounce the flash off this wall instead."
ReplyDelete