[Qwntm]

So far, the Fuji has produced sharper jpegs. But I upped the sharpness settings on the K-5 to +2 and EX and things are about equal now.

I'm not sure if it's just Fuji applies more default sharpening, or the lack of the AA filter is a big bonus. (Probably both.)

I'm going to test some raw comparisons and that should tell a lot.

I'm not use to Fuji cameras at all, so I'm giving it extra time, but so far it's just not as satisfying as using the K-5. The technology is super cool, but at the end of the day I walk away saying so what. But we'll see if it grows on me.

The DA MF/AF abilities are amazing in light of Fuji's focus by wire attempt. I find it fascinating that most people and even Pentaxians take a lot of what's "normal" for Pentax for granted, and yet it's so much better then other companies that people are gaga over.

[JinDesu]

The DA MF/AF abilities are amazing in light of Fuji's focus by wire attempt. I find it fascinating that most people and even Pentaxians take a lot of what's "normal" for Pentax for granted, and yet it's so much better then other companies that people are gaga over.

You never know what you are missing...
...until you miss it

The Fuji should render colors like red better than the k-5, especially with regards to flowers and bright red clothing with details. But your report, along with a few others on the web, echo a very similar note - it's nice and all, but not much oomph.

[Anvh]

Does anybody know something about the longevity of the X-Pro 1 and the lenses, are new lenses or cameras even planned?

It's an interesting camera but if there is no future in it then i find that a problem, maybe it's better to wait what Leica will come with this year?

[Rupert]

In all fairness, these are two entirely different cameras, with totally different market targets. I suspect, just from the reviews to date and owner comments, that the IQ of the X-Pro will be second to none. However, if you are thinking of using it as a DSLR instead of the intended target of landscapes and portrait type work, then it will never live up to your expectations.

Good point though...we can't be sure where Fuji is headed or what will be next. Sort of like Pentax, no one really has a clue where Ricoh is headed next, so we aren't much different.

The K5....put some good glass on a K5 and if there is anything you can't shoot in most any situation and get stunning results comparable to almost anything out there, I would like to know why? It is superb, in good light and in low light, from landscapes to people...it is just plain amazing in its abilities. New cameras come and go, but I still don't see anything better in value or performance than the K5....and I have looked and looked!

Regards!

[tojason]

It is interesting. I haven't known that you can adjust the sharpness of K5. Would you please tell me how to do it. I am a learner. I would be very appreciated.

[Anvh]

Good point though...we can't be sure where Fuji is headed or what will be next. Sort of like Pentax, no one really has a clue where Ricoh is headed next, so we aren't much different.

With Pentax now we don't know precisely we Pentax is heading but they at least have a future and with the released roadmap we know what we can expect.

Just found that Fuji does plan to release 2 more lenses this year so to seems they are committing to something
Was really worried it was just a single launch, camera and 3 lenses and nothing more...

[Rupert]

With Pentax now we don't know precisely we Pentax is heading but they at least have a future and with the released roadmap we know what we can expect.

Just found that Fuji does plan to release 2 more lenses this year so to seems they are committing to something
Was really worried it was just a single launch, camera and 3 lenses and nothing more...

Yes, two zooms very late in the year....if they were available now I would give the X-Pro a try, but not being a prime shooter, the current lenses don't have a lot of appeal to me. For landscapes and portraits work, this should be a superb camera.....AF is not so important there. I like the Jpegs the X-Pro gives straight from the camera, they are excellent, and the Fuji colors are truly gorgeous....even in my little X10, the colors are wonderful.
Regards!

[NZ_Ross]

Good point though...we can't be sure where Fuji is headed or what will be next. Sort of like Pentax, no one really has a clue where Ricoh is headed next, so we aren't much different.

Rupert, I seriously considered the X-Pro1 before I purchased my K-5 a month ago. The big difference with Pentax is the lenses. If Pentax closed its doors today (unlikely) there is a huge number of lenses out there, that would keep most photographers happy - primes, zooms, macro's. A few specialist - tilt/shift, long telephoto not there - but that is about it.

With Fuji X-mount there are currently 3 lenses and some 'promised' lenses. Too much of a risk for me - what happens if they are delayed a year....or never delivered

I did the sums on a good 6 lens set (mix of primes and zooms) and in NZ I calculated the X-Pro 1 to be 20% more than the K-5, at retail pricing. When I factored in the ability to buy most of the Pentax 6 lens kit near new second hand in NZ on our ebay equivalent the difference looked like 40%. Purchasing Fuji X-mount lenses second hand here is not likely to be an option for quite some time.

So, I purchased the K-5 - proven technology - well thought of and reviewed camera, very high image quality, very good user interface, wide range of lenses (all I am going to need) available right now.

This all adds up to very low purchase risk for the K-5 - that is not the case with the Fuji X-Pro1, where there is much higher purchase risk because of the many unknowns.

I am happy with the K-5 .

Ross

[Rupert]

Those are all valid points, and you will not find me arguing against the K5, it is indeed a fine camera with outstanding abilities and plenty of available lenses. The X-Pro is, as I stated, for a select market of shooters, as is the X100 or X10. It doesn't mean it is necessarily better or makes any sense in a wide range of shooting, but it has an appeal that has been seen by Fuji as a success....so far.
All choices are good to have, for all of us, even if we don't like some of them. Your choice of the K5 was no doubt a wise one.

Best Regards!

[Asha]

As far as I can tell, the Fuji rangefinders are trying to compete with Leica. I had an opportunity to see/hold the X100 in a camera store (after I had already purchased my K-5). My conclusion was that I felt satisfied having purchased an SLR. On the other hand, the Fuji had an old camera feel that was extremely appealing. The large size of the X-Pro is a bit offputting, however. To me, rangefinders should be far more agile than the bulky size implies. Even the X100 was larger and heavier than I expected, having used old film rangefinder cameras.

[Frank B]

Did I read correctly, that the Fuji is focus-by-wire? If so, I guess that's just another big plus for the Pentax (or any other dSLR) when comparing, especially when comparing with the DA Limited lenses. It's nice being able to just use a fingertip to spin the focus ring back to infinity after a close up shot. Makes thing work really fast that way. Really helps in the dark too, where you can just focus to infinity by hand (and yes, I do realize that on an AF lens that's not all the way to the hard stop, but a hair before it).

[Asha]

Did I read correctly, that the Fuji is focus-by-wire? If so, I guess that's just another big plus for the Pentax (or any other dSLR) when comparing, especially when comparing with the DA Limited lenses. It's nice being able to just use a fingertip to spin the focus ring back to infinity after a close up shot. Makes thing work really fast that way. Really helps in the dark too, where you can just focus to infinity by hand (and yes, I do realize that on an AF lens that's not all the way to the hard stop, but a hair before it).

This type of focusing is typical of rangefinder cameras. The ones I've used form two parallax ghost images that line up in the viewfinder when the object is in focus. It means that the viewfinder system is rather complex (which is one reason most low end digital range finders don't have them), and it also must be properly aligned/calibrated to the imaging optics. I quite like this rangefinder functionality, and agree with you that it is very useful in a wide range of lighting situations.

[Frank B]

This type of focusing is typical of rangefinder cameras. The ones I've used form two parallax ghost images that line up in the viewfinder when the object is in focus. It means that the viewfinder system is rather complex (which is one reason most low end digital range finders don't have them), and it also must be properly aligned/calibrated to the imaging optics. I quite like this rangefinder functionality, and agree with you that it is very useful in a wide range of lighting situations.

I was thinking it (the Fuji) was more like the focus-by-wire found on the various Micro 4/3 cameras like the E-P2 that I've trying to get to like since I got one over a year ago. The "focusing ring" just spins and spins, and does not stop at an end point the way an SLR lens does. I thought real rangefinder lenses worked the same way as SLR lenses - not talking about the way you determine focus in the viewfinder but the way the rotation stops at or near infinity.

[Asha]

I was thinking it (the Fuji) was more like the focus-by-wire found on the various Micro 4/3 cameras like the E-P2 that I've trying to get to like since I got one over a year ago. The "focusing ring" just spins and spins, and does not stop at an end point the way an SLR lens does. I thought real rangefinder lenses worked the same way as SLR lenses - not talking about the way you determine focus in the viewfinder but the way the rotation stops at or near infinity.

Ack, that thought had never crossed my mind! I would think that is not the kind of feature that belongs on a pro-sumer camera that competes with a Leica, but who can say?

[Byrd-2020]

I have been somewhat hesitant to post this reply (especially since its been almost a week since the last posting.) However, there has been a lot a noise on this site from those who don't own the Xpro 1 but yet feel qualified to comment on the camera's sortcomings.

But first a brief comment on my experience with the K-5. I owned a K-5 for not quite two weeks before I returned it to Adorama. (Still, I captured several hundred images--jpeg and raw--during my brief period of K-5 ownership.) I returned it because I was enormously frustrated by its front-focusing issues. That--combined with the never ending QC problems--was a cause for concern. And, while there was an advance in IQ over my K-7, it wasn't, for me, enough to offset these problems. I decided simply to wait for the K-5 successor (the K-5n?).

But now along comes the Xpro 1.

Let me say straight-away that I have never been happier with a new camera purchase. And first on the list of 'why this camera makes me happy' is image-quality. It is, in short, stunning.

I have spent a good deal of time now comparing images (jpegs only) taken by the Xpro 1 to those from the K-5 (rightfully praised for its superb high ISO performance). And the Xpro 1 has, to my eyes, a significant advantage. What do you want to consider? Colour depth? Dynamic range? High ISO performance? The Fuji Xpro 1 has the edge on all counts.

And then there is the Fujinon 35mm f1.4. Many images taken with the K-5 were with my 'reference' lenses: my Zeiss 100mm makro planar, and my Voigtlander 180mm apo-lanthar. The Fujinon 35mm--a lens costing only $599--easily holds its own against these high-resolution optics. It is sharp in the center; sharp at the edges of the frame; and it gives up very little when shot wide open. As Nick Devlin said in his review of the Xpro 1: this lens is so good, it alone could justify the purchase of the camera.

Many have, after praising the IQ of the Xpro 1, started to apologize for its "handling". This is, to my thinking, rubbish. The camera handles beautifully.

While it is not your typical "spray and pray" dslr, it does provide extremely precise (albeit, somewhat slow) autofocus. (Much more so than the K-7 or K-5.) The "Q button" access to various features is something that, once used, you wonder why other manufactures have not implemented it. And the small size (and light weight) of the camera makes a long day of shooting a joy.

But what's my point here?

Perhaps I'm just trying to sort out my own photgraphic future. I've been using Pentax cameras continuously for more than twenty-five years now. I've got a sizebale investment in K-mount glass. And I, like many Pentax users, have been longing for that ever elusive Pentax full frame. But I now have in my hands an aps-c camera that is so good, that I have to wonder what Pentax could do (at least in the near future) that could equal this.

Certainly the Xpro 1 falls short for certain styles of shooting. It is not a camera for sports or fast moving children. We don't know what the Fujinon zooms will be like. And the jury is still out on how it is going to handle non-Fuji lenses.

However, if I were forced to choose a single camera and a single lens to meet my digital photographic needs, this would probably be it.