[JohnBee]

Official Fuji JPG samples: http://www.fujifilm.com/...s/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/sample_images/

FUJINON LENS XF18mmF2 R

click for larger images


FUJINON LENS XF35mmF1.4 R

click for larger images



FUJINON LENS XF60mmF2.4 R Macro

click for larger images

- info. courtesy of Sagar Joshi @ dpreview.com

[JinDesu]

That flower shot of the 35 1.4 is either badly focused or really soft. At F8 it looks good.

The 18mm looks nice. Seems to match our kit lens at 18mm and F8.

The macro looks pretty good too. Not as sharp as most macro's I've seen though. Although I guess I haven't seen that many macro shots.

The X Pro 1 is an APS-C sensor? The noise at 1600 (the first macro shot) seems very very light. I don't know how much noise reduction was done to it. The ISO 200 shot at 18mm (the dusk one) also seems really light on noise in the shadows.

[JohnBee]

The X Pro 1 is an APS-C sensor? The noise at 1600 (the first macro shot) seems very very light. I don't know how much noise reduction was done to it. The ISO 200 shot at 18mm (the dusk one) also seems really light on noise in the shadows.

Yes, APS-C.

Though to say on the issue of noise though.
Were likely seeing the JPG engine at work and so there's no telling what things truly look like at this stage. Though I'm not sure I'm seeing the better than FF performance that Fuji spoke of in their press release. Anyone?

[jsherman999]

.


Bad misfocus on the flower, so it doesn't tell us much:



The colors look good in this shot, though (f/8)



Camera Fujifilm X-Pro1
Exposure 0.167 sec (1/6)
Aperture f/8.0
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias -1.33 EV

[JinDesu]

As far as detail goes, the sharpness isn't AMAZING. But that could be the lenses... I'm used to some ridiculous sharpness in lenses after using the M50 1.7 and my Tamron 70-200. Color rendition is another factor of lenses, so we'll chalk those up to that. Dynamic range - the 18mm shot of the building is looks good - but I don't really know how much range is actually in that shot, and how much recovery is used in the shadow and in the highlight right at the top of the building, you see some detail lost in the sunlight).

And the noise - yeah, I don't know what is being done there. It seems ridiculously low though, 1600 ISO and no chroma with a little bit of luminance noise? If there isn't much noise reduction, that'd be pretty damn awesome.

[junyo]

As far as detail goes, the sharpness isn't AMAZING. But that could be the lenses... I'm used to some ridiculous sharpness in lenses after using the M50 1.7 and my Tamron 70-200. Color rendition is another factor of lenses, so we'll chalk those up to that. Dynamic range - the 18mm shot of the building is looks good - but I don't really know how much range is actually in that shot, and how much recovery is used in the shadow and in the highlight right at the top of the building, you see some detail lost in the sunlight).

And the noise - yeah, I don't know what is being done there. It seems ridiculously low though, 1600 ISO and no chroma with a little bit of luminance noise? If there isn't much noise reduction, that'd be pretty damn awesome.

They did say it would rival full frame. I put it down as marketing hype, but maybe their engineers are just badass.

[Emacs]

I will be amazed if they'll catch 5d mk ii in ISO performance (K-5 is about 0.7 stops worse). So, it looks more like a hype. Altghougj I'm really interested in rumored Fuji EVIL MF. Wonder if it would be the size of K-5.

[jsherman999]

They did say it would rival full frame. I put it down as marketing hype, but maybe their engineers are just badass.

(I really would like that 35 1.4 for $500... )

Well, it's either a pretty soft macro lens, or there's a bunch of NR going on with the jpegs, and the blacks look like some NR has been applied to me... as John said, we need the raws to know anything (and properly focused images )


.

[cali92rs]

Very, very interesting...
The 35 f1.4 would be an awesome lens to start with. But I don't know about the 18mm, seems like a wimpy focal length. Why not a 16mm, preferably wider??

[twitch]

Very, very interesting...
The 35 f1.4 would be an awesome lens to start with. But I don't know about the 18mm, seems like a wimpy focal length. Why not a 16mm, preferably wider??

18, 35, 60 were chosen because they are close to some traditional rangefinder 35mm equiv focal lengths of 28, 50, 90 which could be considered a good complete kit.

[junyo]

(I really would like that 35 1.4 for $500... )

Well, it's either a pretty soft macro lens, or there's a bunch of NR going on with the jpegs, and the blacks look like some NR has been applied to me... as John said, we need the raws to know anything (and properly focused images )


.

Agreed. But..

This camera is so much like my dreams it's scary. If the 35mm is any good at all it's all I really need. Unless it causes man parts to burst into flame when you pick it up I"m probably pre-ordering. Heck, even if it causes man parts to burst into flame I'll probably still pre-order if they sell gloves that match the case.

[Urkeldaedalus]

Am I wrong or is Fuji generally a little bit stylistically soft and dreamier with their digital offerings so far? I seem to recall that with the X100. Ricoh is the opposite as they go sharp and high contrast.

[jsherman999]

Agreed. But..

This camera is so much like my dreams it's scary. If the 35mm is any good at all it's all I really need. Unless it causes man parts to burst into flame when you pick it up I"m probably pre-ordering. Heck, even if it causes man parts to burst into flame I'll probably still pre-order if they sell gloves that match the case.

I kinda agree. I'm going to do my best to find faults with this camera, because if I don't... It will end up in my bag before I can stop myself.

[pinholecam]

Price with a 35mm that is f1.4 and sized so small is pretty fair imho. (of course it would be better if its cheaper )


PENTAX!! WAKE UP!!

[tuco]

Official images as in their best efforts to showcase a new product? Not off to a good start.