[jogiba]

Conclusion - Pros

Excellent image quality at all ISO settings - impressive resolution and low noise
Wide choice of film simulation modes offer superb out-of-camera colour rendition
Intuitive and straightforward traditional control layout (aperture ring, shutter speed and EC dials)
Well laid-out 'Q' Menu offers quick access to a wide range of settings
Impressively solid build quality
Hybrid viewfinder offers detailed information in optical finder (live histogram, electronic level etc.)
Reliable and accurate metering and white balance systems
Relatively quiet, discreet shutter
Well-implemented in-camera RAW conversion

Conclusion - Cons

Slow autofocus compared to its mirrorless peers
Dysfunctional manual focus
Overly-conservative DOF scale useless for zone focusing
Poor auto ISO implementation (uses too-slow shutter speeds)
Live Histogram doesn't work in manual exposure mode (always implies correct exposure)
No face detection AF system
Unimpressive video mode
Limited control customisation
Continuous drive mode uses different filename convention
Very low playback magnification when shooting RAW only

Fujifilm X-Pro1 in-depth review: Digital Photography Review

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[Rondec]

Not surprised. It doesn't seem like the kind of camera that DP Review would like.

[kenafein]

What this camera does well is very enviable. I think next generation this might be the camera to have.

[rawr]

Yes, it sounds like the X-Pro2 is the one to look out for.

[pinholecam]

And it scores better than a K-01.... hmm.....
Questionable......

Having tried one out, and I'm usually pretty tolerable of camera differences/quirks, but it had to be the worst camera I've tried (inclusive of PnS)
It had nothing to offer other than RF like looks.

1. AF/EVF to shutter response really bad -2 tries, 1 was OOF the other the subject was not even in it anymore
2. Looked nice and solid, but did not feel so on the hands.
3. AF was slow (compared to every other MILC)
4. Price is too much
5. Hybrid finder has its merits, but quirky too
6. Poor MF aids
7. Handling - I can adapt.

Its really a camera that I could imagine if I was chairman of Fuji and the product manager presented me with the 'latest and greatest' (ie. XPro1), I would have thrown it into the dustbin and asked the whole team to redesign.


Edit :

Just look at the number of perceived/subjective/contrived Cons on the K-01, which is shorter than that of the X-pro1

Cons:

Autofocus system lags behind the competition, especially in low light
- Ok, factual enough, but its far from unusable like Xpro1

Chunky body defeats the purpose of mirrorless design; ergonomics leave something to be desired
- Subjective 'con'

Display on LCD screen can be hard to see in bright light
- Subjective 'con'

Redeye a problem, no in-camera removal tool
- Subjective 'con'

Unusually severe rolling shutter effect in movie mode, exacerbated by SR vibration reduction
No continuous autofocus in movie mode
- Subjective 'con'

Frustrating rubber flap over memory card slot and I/O ports; some buttons are hard to reach
- Subjective 'con' see
whatblogisthis.blogspot.sg/2012/05/accessory-door-of-pentax-k-01-after.html

Continuous shooting in RAW mode limited to 1 frame/sec - Ok, fact (and shame on Pentax)

No built-in EVF, (and no provision for adding an external one)
- Ok, factual enough, but its a cheap camera

[deadwolfbones]

Having used both, I think the X-Pro is definitely a better camera than the K-01. They both have serious flaws, though.

[gtxtom]

And it scores better than a K-01.... hmm.....
Questionable......

Having tried one out, and I'm usually pretty tolerable of camera differences/quirks, but it had to be the worst camera I've tried (inclusive of PnS)
It had nothing to offer other than RF like looks.

1. AF/EVF to shutter response really bad -2 tries, 1 was OOF the other the subject was not even in it anymore
2. Looked nice and solid, but did not feel so on the hands.
3. AF was slow (compared to every other MILC)
4. Price is too much
5. Hybrid finder has its merits, but quirky too
6. Poor MF aids
7. Handling - I can adapt.

Its really a camera that I could imagine if I was chairman of Fuji and the product manager presented me with the 'latest and greatest' (ie. XPro1), I would have thrown it into the dustbin and asked the whole team to redesign.


Edit :

Just look at the number of perceived/subjective/contrived Cons on the K-01, which is shorter than that of the X-pro1

Cons:

Autofocus system lags behind the competition, especially in low light
- Ok, factual enough, but its far from unusable like Xpro1

Chunky body defeats the purpose of mirrorless design; ergonomics leave something to be desired
- Subjective 'con'

Display on LCD screen can be hard to see in bright light
- Subjective 'con'

Redeye a problem, no in-camera removal tool
- Subjective 'con'

Unusually severe rolling shutter effect in movie mode, exacerbated by SR vibration reduction
No continuous autofocus in movie mode
- Subjective 'con'

Frustrating rubber flap over memory card slot and I/O ports; some buttons are hard to reach
- Subjective 'con' see
whatblogisthis.blogspot.sg/2012/05/accessory-door-of-pentax-k-01-after.html

Continuous shooting in RAW mode limited to 1 frame/sec - Ok, fact (and shame on Pentax)

No built-in EVF, (and no provision for adding an external one)
- Ok, factual enough, but its a cheap camera

The X-Pro1's AF can be tricky to use, but it's hard from unusable.

[snake]

I think they're focusing on people who want a Leica M9, but don't want to shell out for the body. Maybe they have the lenses or will buy them and this body and feel they got a bargain. The real bargain is a K-5 and a few limiteds, when compared to the Leica.

[jogiba]

Having used both, I think the X-Pro is definitely a better camera than the K-01. They both have serious flaws, though.

The X-Pro 1 body is $1,699 vs $746.95 for the K-01 body at B&H so you could get the K-5 and K-01 for less than the X- Pro 1 body alone .

[RonHendriks1966]

I'm a little surprized by the hi rating. For a mini-M9 it still should have a bigger sensor then APS-C I think. It has limited movie-functie (wich is still more then M-9) wich isn't a problem for anyone choosing this camera, but it shouldn't be a problem as well for any other camera. It is much slower then K-01, it can make 11 RAW in a hartbeat, but K-01 can keep running 1 fps RAW for ever wich is much more then this expensive tool (for that you don't use this setting, because it leaves you with a dead tool in your hands for over 40 seconds). The 18mm lens is in a high need for lens-corrections, making it a either jpg-only (for those who just want pictures and not to many work on it) or RAW for people who use Lightroom and are experienced photographers.

It does sell at the moment, but my guess is that this is only for a limited audience. Who knows, when more lenses are available and a second generation.

[snake]

I don't think the APS vs. FF debate is much valid here. Outside of the FL issue, one really needs to look at the performance.

[deadwolfbones]

The X-Pro 1 body is $1,699 vs $746.95 for the K-01 body at B&H so you could get the K-5 and K-01 for less than the X- Pro 1 body alone .

Yes, that's true. The X-Pro should be better than the K-01 at its price, and it is.

[pinholecam]

The X-Pro1's AF can be tricky to use, but it's hard from unusable.

Maybe unusable is too harsh a word, but in the context of what I wanted to shoot (my daughter who I asked to stay still as best I could), it really was pretty close to unusable with its slow AF/EVF/Shutter response.
Depending on subject matter, YMMV of course.

The Olympus booth was next to the Fuji one, and OMDs amd EPLs were flying off the shelves (big crowd and queue lines).
Fuji counters, the salesmen were swatting flies......
I did the same test shots with my daughter using the OMD, and the AF was very quick and accurate.
Not that surprised of course since I have a G3 which is at most marginally slower if not as good in AF. (I've been told by a friend who has tried both at the same time that G3 is actually faster in low light)

[gtxtom]

Maybe unusable is too harsh a word, but in the context of what I wanted to shoot (my daughter who I asked to stay still as best I could), it really was pretty close to unusable with its slow AF/EVF/Shutter response.
Depending on subject matter, YMMV of course.

The Olympus booth was next to the Fuji one, and OMDs amd EPLs were flying off the shelves (big crowd and queue lines).
Fuji counters, the salesmen were swatting flies......
I did the same test shots with my daughter using the OMD, and the AF was very quick and accurate.
Not that surprised of course since I have a G3 which is at most marginally slower if not as good in AF. (I've been told by a friend who has tried both at the same time that G3 is actually faster in low light)

I try not to use the EVF unless I can't get the framing right due to parallax, etc.

Hah I've only heard amazing things about the OM-D I guess I should've tried that out before the X-Pro1, but I already have a M43 camera (albeit and older one) and didn't really want another.

[snake]

I've heard good and bad about the OM-D, such as now the banding issue. The other problem people are having is false advertising, as it was advertised to stabilize even legacies and apparently, that is not the case. If so, that's a huge step back, as even my old E-510 will stabilize manual lenses.