Canon G1X and Fujifilm X-Pro 1

Well now this is interesting—and unexpected. Here I was looking around at the official announcements for the very cool new Fuji interchangeable-lens X-Pro 1 at CES, and what crops up but this Canon "G" camera with a nearly APS-C-sized CMOS sensor.

Like all the compact G cameras before it, it has a fixed lens, but no more tiny digicam sensor—the size of the sensor in the G1X is 14x18.7mm (Canon APS-C is 14.9x22.3mm—meaning the G1X sensor is nearly the same height but not as long. More, um, square). Looked at another way, it's just slightly larger than Micro 4/3, which is 13.5x18mm. Image aspect ratio is selectable between square and four different rectangles.

The lens is fixed, with equivalent focal lengths from 28–112mm. And it has image stabilization, and shoots Raw. There's an optical viewfinder taking second place to the large viewing screen that's obviously meant to be the primary aiming tool. Price should be around $800.

Cool, or what? We are really spoiled for choice with small cameras these days.

Meanwhile, from Fujifilm comes the X-Pro 1, the mouth-watering interchangeable-lens rangefinder inspired by the X100. The lensmount is proprietary, but will definitely have a Leica-M-mount adaptor available for it. The initial lenses are an 18mm ƒ/2, 35mm ƒ/1.4, and a 60mm ƒ/2.4 Macro, roughly equivalent in 35mm terms to a 28mm, 50mm, and 90mm.

Most enticing is the radical new 15.6x23.6mm 16.4MP sensor. Dpreview.com in its Hands-On Preview says "The X-Pro 1 uses a proprietary, Fujifilm-designed 16MP APS-C 'X-Trans CMOS' chip that eschews the conventional Bayer-pattern colour filter array in favour of a more complex layout. The result, claims Fujifilm, is a practical immunity to colour moiré, which means that an optical low-pass (anti-aliasing) filter is no longer required. This suggests that in terms of detail resolution the X-Pro 1 should punch above its weight based on pixel count alone—indeed Fujifilm is claiming it will out-resolve the full frame 21MP Canon EOS 5D Mark II."

No image stabilization, apparently. No word on price yet, either, but it's unlikely to be cheap. It appears that the X-Pro 1 goes beyond all the other mirrorless offerings so far, and might even reach for the heights of M9-killer status. Bears watching closely!

Mike

P.S. Not to editorialize too much here, but I'd like to refer you once again back to this essay. Seems pertinent; I await the 1XG, the X1G, and the 1GX.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by ILTim: "I have a seriously hard time understanding why Fuji wouldn't jump on the Micro 4/3 bandwagon here. It would be a bigger market for both lenses and cameras. Seems like a no-brainer."

Featured Comment by Ctein: "A nearly APS-C-sized CMOS sensor? Come on, now, really? It is less than 5% bigger—roughly 1/2 mm—than Micro 4/3. For standards reasons, it can't be called Micro 4/3, but that's really what it is, format-wise.

"Nothing wrong with that at all. But kicking it up to the next larger format (which too many readers think is important, even though it isn't) would be kind of like cheering on a camera that came out with a 25x37 mm sensor as being 'nearly medium format.'

"As for the Fuji, I have this recollection that an early Kodak DCS  camera also used a non-Bayer array (720?). The results were impressive. I have this possibly-erroneous memory of very decent 8x10s from a 2-megapixel image. Fuji's resolution claims are plausible, although more modest than they might seem. The resolution difference between a 16.4 and 21 megapixel camera, all things being equal (they never are), would be 13%. That's barely observable in practice, which is why I tell people to never even think about buying more pixels unless they're getting at least a third more, and I recommend they hold out for half. Typically, eliminating the anti-aliasing filter adds 10–15% to the resolution (people who report miraculous improvements are mostly suffering from "golden-eye" syndrome). So, yeah, it might out-resolve the Canon. Fuji has made some awfully, awfully good sensors in the past....

"A number of different sources, of mixed reliability, appear to peg the price of the camera between $1500 and $1800, with lenses running half that each."

Featured Comment by brian: "It looks like you have a candidate for your list of 'The Most Desirable Cameras on the Planet' for 2012. My wife will be pleased that the initial lens set for the X-Pro 1 didn't include a 35–40mm equivalent."

Mike replies: Why, because then you would have had to buy it?

brian replies: "Yes, Mike, because if the X-Pro 1 had a lens available in that focal length today, I'd probably be hiding from my wife the fact that I'd preordered it. Of course, it does seem that the planned stable of nine lenses should include something of interest to me. Besides, I really loved my Mamiya 7 II (cursed be the swine who stole it!), and, while I know that this is a very different camera, it's boxy, it's got a real viewfinder, and it's...all black...."

Featured Comment by Ed Hawco: "At $1700 just for the body, the X-Pro1 is not the poor man's Leica. It is the less rich man's Leica."

Mike replies: C'mon, we have enough good bargain cameras to choose from. Let's have some spendy ones too. The more money the manufacturers have to work with the more they can do, price being the #1 constraint on any camera and especially lens designer.

Ed Hawco continues: "...But regardless of the price, the direction that Fujifilm is going with this line of cameras is really exciting. I just wish I could afford to buy in.

"By the way, my comment about the XPro-1 being 'the less rich man's Leica' was less of a complaint about the price as it was an early swipe at the inevitable and abundant 'poor man's Leica' descriptions we will be subject to in the coming months. :-) I agree there's room (and even a need) for pricier cameras, as long as said cameras have the chops to justify the price."

Featured Comment by Tom: "$1700 for the camera and $600 or so per lens. Cheap compared to Leica. Expensive compared to Micro 4/3."

Featured Comment by Paul H: "X-Pro 1: Pure camera porn!"

Featured Comment by Gary: "Nature abhores a gap in a market's price progression. The chasm between Leica and Micro 4/3 DEMANDED the X-Pro 1!"

Featured Comment by Bambang Indrayoto: "...Still waiting for Nikon FM3D...."

Featured Comment by Ben: "After watching the Fuji Guys' intro video it looks like the X-Pro 1 controls are spot on. So long as the aperture ring is Pentax M snappy and not Nikon Ai soggy, then that and a nice shutter speed dial is all you need. It's what made the Pentax MX so great, despite being so basic."

Featured Comment by Tom Kwas: "All I need is for a camera to give me an 8.5x11-inch bleed image for a magazine page with as little trouble to me as possible. The Canon G1X could be the golden bullet I've been waiting for. A matched lens with a large image chip. No lens changes, so no chip cleaning, check. I virtually shoot at ƒ/5.6–8 all the time, check. Never have shot for money wider than 28mm or longer than 105mm, check. Face recognition far more important that any other focus type, check. If the images from this in Raw and JPEG are my dream, I'm buying two of these and dumping my DSLR and lenses. I would have no problem shooting annual reports with this all day long. BUT, I want to rent one first to make sure. New Years Resolution: never buy another piece of equipment without physically handling it and using it!"

Featured Comment by scott kirkpatrick: "You can see the new Fuji color array at Luminous Landscape (and probably in other articles).  It's called a 'random pattern,' but that is a misnomer. It's really a 3x3 pattern with five green, two red and two blue filters in each. This pattern occurs four times in a 9x9 array, with every other instance rotatied 90 degrees to the right. That is a greater fraction of green than the standard Bayer RGBG (2x2) arrangement offers, so this should give a little better B/W performance.  It will take a while for really good decoders to be written so that Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom, Capture One and the like can handle the images. Of course, Dave Coffin's DCRAW probably will manage this by the end of the coming weekend...."

Featured Comment by Steve Jacob: "I don't know if you have all seen the projected Fuji lens roadmap posted at DPReview. It really has something for everyone; in fact, I can't think of a more carefully considered roadmap. Most impressive, and confirmed by Fuji as 'pretty close' to the real one. I am beginning to wonder if this could actually function as my 'only' camera. If so the outlay would actually be worthwhile. Moreover, it has all the appearances of a fully professional camera body, something you would not feel that reluctant about turning up to a major shoot with. Roll on the reviews. If this really turns out to be as good as promised (similar resolution to the 5D Mark II) then my bank account will be taking a deep breath. Mind you I could probably recoup a lot of it by selling off all my other gear."

Comments

[Mark]

Delightful. At the moment, I like the look of both, and should I happen to remain gainfully employed, may actually purchase one or the other or both.

But please, for the love of Daguerre, let the Canon have a "manual" zoom by hand and by touch, not powered or controlled by a rocker switch. Please.

[Mike Plews]

Back in 1968 I remember walking into a camera store in Naha, Okinawa to look at a Fuji "Texas Leica" in the case with three interchangable lenses next to it.
Before long the whole interchangeable lens business went away and what emerged was the line of lovely fixed lens roll film Fuji rangefinders we have today.
Now Fuji seems to have started with fixed lens cameras and worked back to an interchangeable mount.
Doesn't matter, I couldn't afford one in 1968 and I can't swing the cost of admission now, sigh...

[Michael Bernstein]

While the G1X looks like a bit of a brick, kudos to Canon for trying something new and hopefully ushering the era of large-sensored compact cameras with zoom lenses. My first digital camera was the G5 and it's heartening to see that the with the G1X Canon managed to squeeze a sensor 6.5X larger in a body exactly the same size as that camera, while losing none of its other charms (flip screen etc.).

[Richard Man]

The street price for the X-Pro 1 seems to be $1699.

No doubt many will gaga over the sensor, the hybrid EVF etc.

What I found interesting is the lens flange distance - a mere 17mm - meaning that an M adapter is definitely possible and is indeed has been announced.

And second, the design spec is for some lens to recess as deep as 7.5mm into the body. Meaning that they may have deeply recessed wide angle lens ala Super Angulon, Biogon in the work.

Interesting indeed!

[Karl]

Oh my - I'm salivating over that new Fuji offering. I'll take one plus the 18mm and 35mm and would be able to almost all my photography with that kit.

Unfortunately, monetary reality (at least for now) dictates that it's just a wish and dream for the immediate future. Can't wait to read more about it!

[Ted]

Bummer on the no-IS.
Otherwise a gorgeous piece of kit.

[Stephen Best]

Pass on the Canon, but the X-Pro 1 looks like a sensibly sized camera and, at 637g with the 35mm lens, a very attractive proposition. The first thing I'd do though is tape over the ugly AF lamp.

Interesting to see how this one shakes-out ...

[Dan L.]

Reminds me a bit of that old Bronica RF645 you loved so much! http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-02-16.shtml

[Ben]

Zzzzzooooooom! What was that?!
Well, that must've been been the mirrorless bandwagon speeding by the Canon product development office.

The G1X is larger than the anagramically named Panasonic GX1 with a near-as-makes-no-difference sized sensor and a fixed-and-not-particularly-fast zoom.

I guess if you want something with decent quality but don't want the option of enjoying fast primes then it could be a valid option. Me, I'll stick with Micro Four Thirds with one of them fancy collapsing zooms.

Or am I missing something?

[Ken White]

The Canon is very interesting indeed. The Fuji is out of my price range for a secondary camera but the Canon should be just right once the street price goes down a little. I like my Olympus m4/3 cameras but the Canon has a newer sensor and IS. If the lens is good quality, the image processing can output Raw files quickly and the focus is snappy it will likely have a place in my bag.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

dpreview.com says here that the body is about $1700 and lenses about $650. Looks like an update to the article, you probably didn't overlook it.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

The Fujifilm X-Pro 1 really looks good. Perhaps it's because I own two Contax G2 kits but first sight of this image sure reminded me of that camera system.

Perhaps most important, Fujifilm appears to introducing a new lens line for this camera. Leica M9-killer? Surely you've set the bar too low. True believers will continue to lust and kill for the M9. The only cure for M-obsession is death or dementia. If Fuji's predecessors are any indication of this camera's performance I'd say it will easily outperform the M9, not to mention be far more accessible to the average mortal's resources.

Well I guess I'd better get crackin' to sell one of those G2 systems to help fund this. Hmm...the black or the gold/silver? (BTW, I think the G2 was the greatest 35mm rangefinder system ever developed...just in time for species extinction.)

[Kelvin]

I am really glad that the advanced compact digital camera is finally coming of age. It's taken almost ten years (from the initial 4/3 proposal) to get here, but compact cameras with excellent image quality, in all situations, have finally arrived. I remember how much hard work was involved getting decent images during exposure and post-processing from a Canon 1Ds in the early Noughties - now my Fuji X100 exceeds it without even trying hard, and in a package around a quarter of the size and weight. I've even stopped worrying about what ISO is automatically set by the camera.

Perhaps the SLR mirror box will all but disappear after another ten years - which, I must say, is a good thing.

So Mike, no more yearning for your DMD - it is here, and you have choices!

[marcin wuu]

I spy, with my little eye... an aperture ring! Now, this is classy!

[Carsten Bockermann]

After having used the X100 for a while I'm really looking forward to the X-Pro 1.
What I really don't understand is the general obsession with M-mount adaptors. While there are some truly excellent Leica M lenses out there they were all computed for a full-frame sensor (or film). Using them on crop sensors seems a bit of a waste. Maybe that's because I mainly shoot in the 28-35mm range, so the only really interesting lenses on a 1.5x crop sensor would be the 21 and 24mm ones.

[Chris Gibbs]

The Fuji X-Pro 1 looks very reminiscent of my much beloved X-Pan. (:-)

[John Camp]

Now we're getting somewhere. They're both very interesting cameras.

I first encountered them on Digital Photography Review's "News" section this morning, and found DPR's "Hands-On Preview" of the new Canon...interesting. They went far out of their way, IMHO, to stress the goodness of the new camera. In comparing it to the Panasonic GX1, for example, they say that the sensor is "larger," which is true -- the biggest size difference is in length, where the Canon is .7 of a millimeter longer...that's about 1/40 of an inch, or perhaps the thickness of a fingernail. A distinction without a difference, I think, and perhaps doesn't warrant actual enthusiasm. They also stress the usefulness of the Canon's 28mm-112mm equiv. lens range, as opposed to the somewhat smaller Panasonic lens' 28x84 equiv. They then conceded that the Panny lens *is* more compact, but then took that back when they said that it was the only such compact lens for m4/3, implying a certain deficiency in the Panny product. At that point, I wanted to jump up and shout, "Wait -- what part of 'Interchangeable Lenses' don't you understand? If you need to, you can go to 14mm equiv. with the m4/3, and out to 600mm equiv. Can you do that with the Canon?" They also didn't mention where the f2.8-f5.6 zoom was at when it reached, say, 85mm portrait length. Was it still at f2.8? Me thinks, no way. And there's an excellent and gorgeous and compact and fast Olympus 90mm equiv portrait lens out there...

Although I thought the DP Preview was somewhat (and perhaps very) over-cooked, I still think the Canon is interesting, and would have been even more interesting at, say 24mm-100mm equiv.

And given all that, the Fuji is even more interesting...

JC

[mark lacey]

I'm still not sure how much of an advance the new canon is over my 5 year old Sony R1, which still has that lovely Zeiss lens going out to 24mm equivalent.
The Fuji however is Gorgeous, can't wait to see what other lenses they bring out. Shame I can't afford it however.....

[lynnb]

Mike,

I am sure they will both sell well, particularly the Fuji as it looks like a poor man's Leica with those nice primes, and even an M-mount adaptor.

With the Canon I can't see any mention of shutter type or maximum flash synch speed. Does this camera allow high speed synch without having to resort to the HSS setting on EX Speelites? Flash synch at all speeds - like my LX3 - would be very welcome.

It would also have been nice if Canon had included in-camera remote flash control, rather than having to rely on a master EX Speedlite or a ST-E2 controller - both expensive items.

The Fuji just looks drop-dead gorgeous. If the IQ is indeed comparable to a 5DII (or even a 5DI) and the autofocus is fast and accurate, I suspect a lot of DSLR owners tired of lugging a large and heavy camera bag will be tempted.

[John McMillin]

Just after reading the announcements, I came here because I knew you'd be excited by these latest retro rangefinders.

At face value, one of them is a sleek, understated beauty with classic lines, and one is a hash of ugly typefaces and artless shapes. What do you see when the Canon is facing you head on? Forty-one characters of type, in three different fonts, including the brand name redundantly repeated. Of course it's a "Canon Lens," it's permanently attached to this Canon camera! The italicized "G1X" is a blocky, '80s-mod design quote to match the squared-off grip and prominent control wheel, which reminds me of Minolta 7000. Then there's the VF window, which looks like an unhappy compromise between the designers of the body and lens.

There's so much less to say about the X-Pro 1's looks. It's ... simply... perfect. Elegant, beguilingly distant, a tough mysterious. Familiar, in an unmistakable Old World style. This eye appeal can have practical benefits. Your portrait subjects will smile wider and look at you more closely -- "What's that camera?" --- while anyone you point the Canon at will still be reading the labels.

Tomorrow I think I'll start a company making little stick-on red dots for this thing...

[Stan B.]

The Canon's interesting- and the Fuji looks and sounds every bit the limo! Even if I could afford it, the line to drive that one's gonna be hella long...

[John Brewton]

I think the writing is on the wall for the digital Leica M series and the astronomical prices they ask compared to the competition.

[David Bennett]

The chunky grip on the Canon reminds me of the Bronica 645.

And I am imagining a meeting in a bar somewhere of the 'aesthetic-designers' from the Canon team and the Fuji team.

I am imagining their clothes, style of talking, hand movements, etc.

[Jan]

I'm a bit torn between these two really.
But if you look closely they're vastly different cameras.

Both have 28mm lenses, that's great, exactly what I want.

The Fuji is a stop faster (with the 28), and the sensor will probably be a bit better as well, so for pure speed (sensitivity that is) it will be better.
The Canon however has IS. That makes up the difference for static images, but is also essential for video (both have full HD video).

The fixed lens on the Canon has one distinct advantage, I will never have dust on my sensor. This is an important aspect for me, especially for video. Most of my 5D2 videos are messed up by some kind of crud on the sensor because you are forced to use a small aperture during the day, and this is not nearly as easy to remove as in a still photo. As a result I don't use the video mode as much as I would like, in fact I use my little S95 more for that. The dynamic range of the S95 is a bit limited though, and it's only 720p.

Then there is size. The Fuji is not that compact anymore really. It actually is more of a replacement for my 5D2 than a side camera. And it could never really replace a DSLR I'm afraid, both in functionality and in lens selection.
The Canon is a lot more compact, and I could see this more as a useful addition to a DSLR.

Finally the price. The Fuji looks to be about 1300 plus 500 a piece for the lenses. That's pretty steep, although the lens price seems fairly reasonable. But all in all the Fuji plus a couple of lenses would set you back a couple of grand, that's a bit rich for my blood.
The Canon MSRP is 799, which is also a bit much, especially when you compare it to the 1100D's etc. of this world. But below 600 it would become pretty attractive.

Also there will be a underwater housing for the Canon, if that's not too expensive it would make a really nice compact underwater setup.
This is important to me because I would like to start doing underwater photography in the near future, I'm just considering which camera would be best, taking price and image quality into account. Until now I was considering a cheap micro 4/3's or even just my S95.

The Fuji looks really enticing though, maybe I'll sell all of my Canon equipment and just get one of those and have some money left over to make that trip around the world (or maybe I'll stick to Europe).
Okay now I'm just dreaming..

[Michel]

two things about the Fujifilm X-Pro 1. One, I guess this puts to rest, once and for all, the rumours about Nikon coming out with a digital rangefinder. And I wonder if this (seemingly awesome) product was all designed after the X100 took off. I'd be interested to know what people in the know think about that possible short development cycle.

[wchen]

If the lens on the G1X reads f2-2.8 (as that on Fuji X10) rather than 1:2.8-5.8, Canon would have put the X right on my face. But now, I am pretty safe.

As for the new Fuji, oh, that is something more charming than a NEX-7! And the lenses!

Looking at the Fuji, I cannot help but thinking of Kodak,the inventor of digital camera and also a sensor maker, which is dying in the process of maturation of digital camera technology...

[ben ng]

I'd spoken with a Fuji rep a year ago saying that I wished there was a digital version of my old Mamiya 6 rangefinder, and that I felt only Fuji could produce such a camera. This new Fuji looks like someone was thinking along the same lines.(hooray!!) I don't need image stabilisation, I just use a monopod. The Fuji rep was also rather pleased to know I am still using my 6-megapixel Fujifilm S2 Pro (circa 2004) which continues to produce 2ft x 3ft prints which people think come out of a medium format camera. I will just have to buy this new camera....!

[Tom]

$1700 for the camera and $600 or so per lens.

Cheap compared to Leica. Expensive compared to m43.

[Ray]

The X-Pro 1 makes me wonder whether I really need two whole kidneys.

[Bambang Indrayoto]

It's undoubtedly the reincarnation of Fuji G(S)W670/690 family.. with lens interchangeability as a bonus

[Erik]

I guess we are spoiled a bit. I would have killed for this Canon a couple years ago, but now I feel like the lens is too slow, particularly at the 5.6 end, not quite wide enough, and zooms with a motor *sigh* Overall, the camera is just a bit too large for those compromises.

The Fuji is much more interesting, albeit, a bit rich for me.

[hugh crawford]

The Fuji X-Pro (hey it sort of looks like their X-Pan , especially from the top) sure is tempting. I'm kind of surprised there isn't a pixel binning high ISO mode to take advantage of those 2x2 clumps of green sensors.

I can hardly wait for the arguments about how the DNG files from this will either be a nonstandard abomination, or Fuji's gift to interesting demosaicing algorithms.

For low light low noise optimization, I'd go with binning the 4 contiguous green sensor sites, limiting each single green sensors to the range of it's 12 closest neighbors , and deriving only the color information from the red and blue sensors.

For bright light high acutance optimization you could use the results of the low noise optimization as a difference mask to bump up the sharpness at the Nyquist–Shannon limit.

(in film "bump up the sharpness at the Nyquist–Shannon limit" would be "take advantage of the adjacency effect" , I'm not sure what the term of art would be here maybe some sort of oversampling-subsampling?)

Should be spectacular for B&W too.

[J. Wolford]

So,does it have the same hybrid viewfinder as the X100? Haven't used the X100, but really like the idea of a best-of-both worlds viewfinder.

[Indigoid]

The G1X looks compelling. I have held back on upgrading my trusty G10 - the camera I bought to be an interesting sidekick for my EOS 20D, but ended up being used much, much more, mainly due to its size.

In turn, I'd held back on flipping over to another camera system, despite them looking so good... they won't drive my Canon flashes, at least not in fancypants magic-metering mode. The G1X, like my G10, will certainly do that.

I'm glad I waited! I'd been thinking about the G12... Of course, an S100 replacement with Canon's wireless flash control functionality would be even better. So compact, so versatile!

[Kevin Schoenmakers]

According to DPReview the body will cost about $1700, and lenses should go for around $650. However, Amazon had some pre-order pages up erroneously, which showed the lenses at $600 for the 60mm and $500 for the other two. The price for the body was the same.

[Sam]

I saw the preview on dpreview. My heart just flutters looking at the pictures. Boy does Fujifilm knows how to build rangefinders or what.

I didn't get to buy the TX or any of their MF rangefinders but I might just part my money for this.

...sigh.......

[MJFerron]

Damn it I wish they would stop making new and attractive cameras. I am not a rich man.

[Lowell]

Selling a used Leica lens at a very modest profit* gets no takers even with recent price increases and new lenses still being unobtainable. Seems there are more used M9's for sale too. Could it be these new cameras are bursting the M9/Leica bubble?
* kidding ... sort of

[Steve Biro]

Okay, I understand it's a great time to be into photography and I'm all for choice. And I'm sure there'll be a lot of people who'll love the new Canon. To them, I say more power to you.

Still... somehow this camera is a disappointment to me. It also strikes me as a bit of a desperate move. One gets the impression that the sleeping (or over-confident) giant finally woke up and realized there was a sea change going on and this was the best it could do on a short-term basis.

Canon waited longer than anyone to respond to the mirrorless movement - and finally gave us a an oversized G12 with a larger sensor, slower lens and slightly less direct manual control (no ISO dial). Feh.

Now, the new Fuji: A lovely camera and lenses. But it's all way more money than I can swing right now. Besides, I'm sure my Pentax K-5 equipped with DA Limited primes will give it a run for its money.

But if I'm honest with myself, I most certainly would buy it if I could swing it. Leica beware... it looks like this is the camera for which so many have been waiting for so long.

[aizan]

Terrific, now I have to rethink the tradeoffs once again. Can't wait to see the Leica, Canon, and Pentax/Ricoh mirrorless cameras later this year.

[Barry Prager]

I'm a believer in enhanced sharpness when the anti-aliasing filter is removed. I converted a Nikon D40x with a 10mp chip to infra-red, and while infra-red will cut right through atmospheric haze, the image files look more like a 6x7 without the AA filter. I took a picture on the beach in San Francisco of the Golden Gate Bridge with the D40x and a Nikon 16-85 VR zoom. When I blew the photo up on the desk top I could clearly see an adult holding a child's hand standing at a popular viewing area in the Marin Headlands 2.1 miles away according to Google Maps. With world class Fujifilm lenses, it should be scalpel sharp.

[Boglev]

It looks beautiful, doesn't it? But, I have a feeling that Fuji tricked me in buying X100 and X10. Now, I'll have to save for this beauty as well...

[Peter Simmons]

Now if Canon can get this sensor and a half decent lens into the S100 case then they will have the ultimate compact camera, the S1X!!

[Rob]

Does this mean that there will be some decently priced used X100's coming on the market soon? :)

[Pak-Ming Wan]

Why is it every time I look at these Fuji cameras I think to myself that these are the kind of cameras that Leica should be making ...

... oh well, out with the old, in with the new!

Pak

[Mike Johnston]

"Should be spectacular for B&W too."

Stop it.

Mike

[Mike Johnston]

"Damn it I wish they would stop making new and attractive cameras. I am not a rich man."

Funny, I had that same feeling. I looked at these and thought, "I want them both. And I need neither."

Mike

[Steve Jacob]

Both nice, both interesting, both niche products that are unlikely to be the owner's only camera.

I suspect the Canon is a sign of a new sensor that will possibly appear in a new system camera at some point. I wonder. If not, it seems like a huge investment for a single model type. Its also seems like a strange choice of sensor size, given how slow the lens has to be to make it "compact" enough for this format. A 1" sensor would make more sense for a G camera.

It's interesting how Canon and Nikon have ended up at completely different ends of the same spectrum.

The Fuji is another retro beauty. I'm intrigued by the sensor design, but I wonder if it will have the same RAW processing issues as previous non-bayer cameras from Fuji (like the S3). It will sell even at the price is has because people just like buying beautiful stuff, but the price clearly reflects Fuji's low volume intentions.

But neither are close to the flexibility or price-performance ratio of any of the system cameras (including the Nikon 1) and it's actually quite hard to see what they offer over and above them in a practical sense.

It's great to see Japanese camera makers experimenting and trying new ideas, and it creates more choice for all of us, but neither fit any of my particular needs and desires, except possible the pure desire of ownership in the Fuji case.

[Leigh Youdale]

I feel the Canon is really competing with Fuji's X10. The new Fuji is in a class above any compact camera bearing a 2.8-5.6 aperture zoom. Even the X10 can do better than that!

I also feel that Fuji's lack of interest in m4/3 arises from two areas.

One is that they have a better proprietary sensor technology than they would have to use if they had to meet the m4/3 licensing requirements set by the other members. Why cripple a new design with someone else's ideas on sensors?

Two is that it is quite possible that m4/3 will become another orphan format with Olympus, the prime movers and shakers in developing the standard, in so much trouble that people question whether they will survive.
I think we might see that Fuji have leapfrogged over the m4/3 design. Mightn't suit those who have m4/3 lenses to find a use for but it looks like it will suit a lot of people including some with M lenses that can be adapted. Don't be surprised if Panasonic break ranks and suddenly come up with their own new sensor within two years.

[Mandeno Moments]

Canon put nice, subdued grey text on the lens barrels of the S95 and G12. Now the S100 and G1X have garish white text. Memo to Canon: a good portion of the target demographic wants stealth that is not dependent on black electrical tape (and direct access to WB that is not dependent on the shortcut button).

Fuji got the memo a while ago, so the X10 and X-Pro 1 are all-black and have no pointless text on the front.

[mbka]

Well, most of the Fuji specs are mouth watering, with two main failures (to me):

One, I find it aggravating that Fujifilm as a member of the (m)4/3 consortium produces a camera with yet another lens mount but practically in (m)4/3 size. So no existing lenses for that new Fujifilm except adapted Leica M lenses. And no Fujifilm bodies for existing m4/3 lens collections either.

And two, it is apparently meant for pros but once again not as a modern and full DSLR replacement. It nicely has the PC port and the retro cable release, lovely all, but no swivel screen the necessarily limited lens selection due to the once again, unnecessarily proprietary format. AF system isn't mentioned so it may not be among the key technologies and may not be up to the current CDAF standards of Olympus and Panasonic either. So once again, a mouth watering camera that won't be able to serve as a workhorse. That is assuming that few people use Leica M cameras as true workhorses.

The only credible workhorse now in the CSC market still is the Panasonic GH2 - the most all around usable camera. Unfortunately the GH2 doesn't have the many other innovative features seen here on the Fuji or the Nikon V/J1.

What is it that makes most manufacturers manically obsess about either miniaturization to the extreme (Panasonic, Olympus for most their bodies; Nikon CX format) or retro-fixation (Fuji, Panasonic GX-1). The potential DSLR-reinvented-as-mirrorless seems to scare them all - all solutions save for the GH2 and the later NEXes are targeted at PnS upgraders or at specialty markets.

[Mandeno Moments]

I should have said that Fuji received half of the memo, because the WB button failed to make it from the X10 to the X-Pro 1. Whose bright idea was that?

It's not rocket science: many advanced photographers want direct control of WB, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and exposure compensation. Pressing a button and spinning a dial is not direct access (it's direct access to a menu), but it will suffice on a small camera. Why do nearly all cameras fail to meet these simple requirements?

[Alex H.]

ILTim: "I have a seriously hard time understanding why Fuji wouldn't jump on the Micro 4/3 bandwagon here. It would be a bigger market for both lenses and cameras. Seems like a no-brainer."

The answer of course is lenses. Fuji wants to sell some of them. Had they joined m4/3, everyone would just just put the Panasonic 20, the Olympus 12 or 45, or the Panaleica 25 on the camera. It's too late in the game to join m4/3. Sure, there are still some holes to fill, but generally the most marketable focal lengths/zoom ranges are already available.

From a consumer point of view, though, it would have been fantastic...

Regards,
Alex

[drcraig]

With a name like X-Pro I'd be worried about the colour accuracy.

[Friedrich]

I'll probably be murdered for this, but Fuji should release a small standard zoom for the X-Pro 1, maybe even a superzoom. Oh, and while I'm at it, I'd also like a swivel screen and decent video controls (which, as should have been proven by now, can be added without taking anything away from the still photo experience).

Still, this is a really exciting camera. (I was actually thinking Pentax was going to release something like it. And part of me still hopes...)

[Mark]

Now this really isn't** helping my current dilema about moving away from a DSLR for my digital work.

Square format (in camera) a manual aperture ring(!)oh my. Though one question I have to ask, is why are they going for what looks to be fly by wire MF? It's perhaps the main thing that's stopped me using a mirrorless camera so far.

** or 'is', take your pick.

[Robert Roaldi]

I love new camera introductions, especially sexy different I-have-to-buy-one models. Every time one comes out, the prices of the 2nd hand bodies that I am interested in drop another little bit.

I picked up an Oly E-410 last year for $160. Basically, that's almost free. Soon, the 620 will be dirt cheap too.

[Troels]

Is it just me, who thinks the X-Pro have the looks of a Leica CL? Yay!

[DC Wells]

I doubt that it's an accident that the new Fuji's dimensions are virtually the same as the M9's.

At least a few M9 owners have been awaiting the Fuji to compare to the Sony NEX-7 as a potential backup camera. Both can mount Leica lenses (with an alternative field of view), cost much less than a second M9, and offer other modern features. I see one shortcoming, though, with the Fuji. Like the M9, it lacks a built-in flash. That makes the Sony a little more attractive even for those, like me, who hate flashes. They might still want their back-up to provide easy fill, etc.

[Cliff Lee]

It seems like a logical step that Canon would convert its advanced compact (G series) line to a larger sensor. A strong digital compact heritage that it can draw from.

I'd be rather happy to see an M43 camera with the Canon's build quality, controls, viewfinder and swivel screen that could take my m43 lenses...

[John Robison]

Fujifilm's offering looks interesting. Is that a real shutter speed dial and aperture ring? Be still my beating heart! The carping about price is somewhat understandable but if this is a big hit then volume may help that. Really, I just spent almost $600 on a furnace repair for my house, 3 hours work and parts. Ugh! Development and marketing of digital cameras has to be a minefield with an 18 month cycle to 'customer perceived' obsolescence. So you set the price about as high as the market will tolerate to make up for your R&D and continued work the next version that has to hit the market not later than July, 2013 with enough 'perceived' improvements to cause customers to think they need to upgrade.

[Ted]

uhhmm stop the presses, I just looked at the dpreview preview and..it's the same size as a M9..much larger and chunkier than an x100..they could have put a full frame sensor in that..

[Mani Sitaraman]

Interesting that the sensor to flange distance is only 17mm. That sensor must be designed to "take in" some pretty shallow angle light rays. With an M mount adapter and Leica lens will be much further, and have a larger image circle, I daresay the Fuji should perform very well indeed with M-lenses, certainly better than some current 4/3 cameras can, with fewer vignetting or fall-off issues. Or is my understanding of optics off?

[Mike Johnston]

"they could have put a full frame sensor in that.."

And then the lenses would have had to have been much larger. No thanks.

Mike

[Robin P]

Such a pity that Fuji (and Ricoh with the GXR) could not take the opportunity to buck the trend of old fashioned (equiv.) standard focal lengths.
To modern eyes 28mm is no longer wide but is too wide for most as a "walk around" lens. As for 50mm - yuk! Always not quite wide enough or not quite long enough to be of any use.
Why not (equiv.) 24mm, 40mm and 85mm as the new standard triumvirate? I'm sure it would suit more of us - the 28/50 lengths were what finally put me off buying into Ricoh GXR.

[charlie]

As we used to say back in the high school...SWEET!

[Mike Johnston]

"To modern eyes 28mm is no longer wide but is too wide for most as a 'walk around' lens."

...By Western convention. It's a very popular focal length in Japan, which I'm sure is what Fuji were thinking about.

Mike

[doug reilly]

The other day you were talking about square sensors. One of the little joys of the micro4/3 system for me is the 1:1 crop mode. Yes, I'm "wasting" sensor area. But you get the experience of framing in 1:1, which is quite different than cropping later on. I note that the x-pro has the same mode. I wonder if the projected framelines will change to squares too? That would be a little bell (or whistle) to turn my head!

[Andrew Burday]

Ctein writes: "I have this recollection that an early Kodak DCS camera also used a non-Bayer array (720?)". According to this Wikipedia article, the DCS 620x and 720x used a filter array that was Cyan-Yellow over Green-Magenta. A few other non-Bayer patterns have been tried by Sony and others. See links from that article.

From what I can gather in a quick look, previous non-Bayer arrays have mostly been intended to improve dynamic range and low-light noise. Fuji's design, which is intended to eliminate Moiré, appears to be new. Would be interested in hearing more from anyone who really knows about this.

Ken Tanaka's comments sound about right to me: this could be the digital G2. Obviously we have to see about implementation (especially usability) and Fuji's ability to produce the thing and get it in stores, two problems with the X100. The price, unfortunately, looks like it'll be out of my tax bracket for the foreseeable future.

[A]

Several Canon G1X preview shots from Canon Hong Kong:

http://www.canon.com.hk/tc/club/article/itemDetail.do?itemId=10254

[Rick Baumhauer]

I don't find the Canon that intriguing - as others have noted, the lens is disappointingly slow at the long end and that, combined with the decision to stick with a mediocre OVF instead of a state-of-the-art EVF kills the whole package for me. Being stuck with that viewfinder or shooting via the rear LCD is not the choice I'm looking for.

The Fuji is enticing, though perhaps a bit too retro for my tastes in the long run. I'm looking for something to replace my current 7D (which mostly acts as a backup to my 5D2), but the Fuji is too large and too expensive for that duty - it would really have to replace the 5D2 to make sense in my bag, and the lens lineup at release won't let it do that.

I really wish the lens lineup started with a 14-16mm (a 14 is rumored for later this year) for wide angle needs, then a 23-27mm (~35-40mm equiv) as a 'normal' lens (I find ~50mm equivalent too long for that purpose), and then the 60mm portrait/macro. However, I find myself wishing that was a bit faster. I'd rather carry the olympus 45 1.8, both from a weight and cost perspective.

All that, plus the lack of IS in either the body or the lenses, and the fact that video becomes an afterthought in pursuit of the old-school style, leave me looking at m4:3 as the likely replacement for my 7D. I can bring a m4:3 body and interesting set of lenses in for what I can get for the Canon equipment it's replacing, and it would give me an entirely different set of options and capabilities for those times when I don't want to carry a DSLR.

Still, it is nice to see these options hitting the market, though I do hope the G1 X doesn't indicate a truly head-in-the-sand attitude from Canon. I would wait to see what they do later in the year, but I fear that a Canon mirrorless will either start off like Nikon's/Sony's (nothing but slow zooms for too long) or Fuji's (too expensive and limited at launch).

[Michael Barkowski]

Lots of people like their favourite lens "bolted on" to their favourite camera, either literally or figuratively. Looks like Canon might have created another line of fave+fave. I love the Ev dial replacing the ISO dial - awesome.

[andy k]

Mike,

Obviously, you and I both know why the Fuji must be purchased, budgets be damned. The hoods look like they mean the business, don'ty they? Like little photographic bunkers just staring you in the face.

I'm surprised that none of the usual crew picked up on this most important fact.

Andy

[MIkal W. Grass]

Ted, I agree with you. If Fuji had a full frame sensor in it, which they could have done, it would have been the death of the M9.

If it was full frame I would have sold my a900, the Leica R 50/1.4 and whatever else I could to get the camera. Now I will just have to wait for a full frame Fuji with an M adapter.

[Abbazz]

As stated by a few others, the X-Pro 1 reminds me of the old G690 Series with their interchangeable lenses:

Cheers!

Abbazz

[Dennis]

The new Fuji kit is too rich for my blood ... maybe in the future, when my shooting needs no longer require a 70-200/2.8, I could entertain the idea of scrapping my DSLR kit in favor of this excellent looking 3-prime system (I know more lenses are in the forecast, but AFAIC Fuji nailed it with these first three). Part of me would love to buy this system, simply because I'd enjoy it, but also to reward anyone for intelligently producing something aimed squarely at still photographers any more !

In December, I opted to buy a D7000 and 70-200 rather than invest any more in my Sony kit and sold off a few Minolta lenses & accessories. My main reason was to get "back to basics" with a more traditional system. I didn't care for the A77 and have lingering gripes over aspects of the Sony systems usability.

I have a Sony NEX-5 that I loved at first, but ultimately relegated to family video use and occasional 2nd camera or travel use, because the lack of a VF is frustrating (even though I love composing with a tilting LCD *at times*). An example of Sony's rampant cluelessness is that the LCD is virtually unusable in "Auto Brightness" mode in bright sunlight, so I have to frequently go into the menu and manually change it to "Sunny" (why can't "Auto" figure that out ?) and then back again when I go indoors. On a camera without a viewfinder. (The menu is ugly and if you change anything else in the meantime, you have to navigate around to find it again). Meanwhile, my wife's Sony HX5V lets you change the LCD brightness directly from the 4-way navigation button on the back at any time. The NEX-7 is a wonderful camera, but the menu still stinks and Sony's marketing/strategizing leaves me scratching my head. Other than the wonderful 18-200 (for video, primarily), there are really no lenses in the lineup that I want, or that I see as trying hard to appeal to enthusiast photographers. The CZ24 is a fine lens, but overpriced and oversized on a system like NEX. 50/1.8 represents an utter failure to think like a photographer. (I believe marketeers simply look at what sold in the Alpha line, where 50mm was purchased as a poor mans portrait lens for APS-C in lieu of anything designed for APS-C and decided hey, that must be what people *want* !) 16mm pancake available on day 1, but still no sign of a compact normal ... but a 30/3.5 shows up that's as big as the kit zoom, as slow as the kit zoom, reportedly no sharper than the kit zoom, but does 1:1 if you can get within an inch or two of the subject. (I've heard that it might be popular with "food junkies" ... apparently people like to blog about what they eat).

Canon's G1X is intriguing, but I don't see the great appeal of a slow lens (with no option of ever using a fast lens) on a big sensor. I can see some uses for it, but bleah ...

Sigma rolled out two lenses for NEX/m43. 19/2.8 and 30/2.8. Samsung offers a 30/2 for the NX system that tests out really well, is 1-stop faster, smaller, lighter, closer focusing and lists for only $299. Thanks Sigma.

There's Pentax. Q. 'Nuff said.

Ricoh. GXR. 'Nuff said. OK, not quite. I credit Ricoh for thinking about photographers. Unfortunately, they're just insane.

There's Leica. Photographer-oriented, dedicated to a niche market that excludes most of us, but I'm glad they're still around.

That leaves Panasonic & Olympus. They're probably closest (in the mirrorless market), after Fuji, to thinking about photographers, at least in some of their product line. Olympus has yet to put out a camera with a built in VF. And it took them 3 years to come out with an interesting prime. Panasonic dropped the ball after the GF1 with the NEX copycat GF2/3 but finally went back to an enthusiast model in the G1X/GX1/whatever combination of G/X/S they decided to use for their product. (There are 36 alphanumerics, guys !) They have EVFs, if only in DSLR-like cameras. I don't have much else to comment on as I don't follow them too closely due to their sensors performing below their size.

Kirk Tuck recently wrote about these same new cameras, saying that we're spoiled for choice.

I don't really think so. I think that outside of the good old dead-any-day-now-according-to-the-forum-crowd DSLR, there's a whole lot of junk out there designed for soccer moms that we can use, to, if we want to adapt.

I'm adapting by basically giving up on mirrorless for anything other than casual use, and using my DSLR(s) more than ever before.

And I'll root like crazy for Fuji while contemplating supporting them with my money.

I still hold out some small hope that Canon is going to wow us one day with a killer mirrorless system.

[robin]

If the Fuji was MFT compatible and had image stabilisation then it might be worth the inflated price. I certainly look forward to seeing images from the new sensor. Though we are certainly spoilt for choice in this market, no-one has yet made the killer unit. And given the state of the company, Olympus might never release a pro model with built-in viewfinder.

As for Canon, I laugh! Ugly, slow and proprietary.

[ctein]

Dear Mike,

Not only bigger (and more expensive) lenses but a much more expensive sensor. The body'd come in at over $2K. A major market-killer. And contrary to what some folks think, this could not successfully go head-to-head with Leica. They sell cachet, not hardware specs.

~~~~~~~~

Dear Mani,

A short flange distance doesn't HAVE to be used by a lens design. What it does do is eliminate much of the need for "retro" optical designs. It is harder (tr: more expensive) to make retro lenses that output paraxial light. So, ironically, that short flange reduces the demand on the sensor to take in shallow light rays.

pax / Ctein
==========================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
==========================================

[Carson]

Fuji has reinvented my film system for the digital age: Contax 159mm (later Aria) with 28mm, 50mm, and 90mm macro. The macro was the only reason I never went with a rangefinder for film. The EVF solves that. And the OVF means no more blackout when doing people pictures. Knobs and dials. Lightweight enough for the backcountry. Whatever the rest of you want or need, this looks like the camera system that someone designed especially for me. It seems many people feel it's too expensive. I'm just going to look at it as an opportunity to de-clutter through fund-raising.

[Bob Dales]

I wonder when someone will make a m43 adapter for the X-Pro. That would make the sale for me even if there were lens coverage issues on the larger sensor.
bd

[hugo]

Two new cameras quite at the two opposites of the mirrorless market.

Canon's answer is interesting. Too much people views Canon as a company which like other makers thinks in term of camera segments imho. But really I think Canon is rather the company which thinks the most in term of consumer segments, if nothing else. So the G1X (ah ah GX1 was taken a few months ago too bad) is Canon's acknowledgement that there is a market of P&S upgraders who does not really care about the multiple lenses thing. I think they also know that they don't need to rush into the other higher ends of the mirrorless markets until their APS-C DSLR sales are strong.

Fuji XPro, very interesting camera. But first, it s really quite expensive ! At that price it has to deliver on image quality and photographic usage. I am a bit underwhelmed by the viewfinder. Again 90% coverage, 0.6 mag for the standard 50mm lens with 14mm eye point, it s not going to be very big. Still not very much info about autofocus (which is not a good sign). I just saw a presentation video by "the fuji guys" and it s clear they are heavily targeting the rangefinder users.

[Ken Ford]

After many tries through the years at using one camera system for everything, I've come to terms with the fact that I need (OK, desire) three main camera systems to keep me happy:

1. One for everyday carry
2. One for action shooting
3. One for discrete shooting

The first has changed several times over the years, most recently to a Nikon V1 kit which is working admirably. It does both action and discrete shooting quite well despite not being optimized for either, and it's small enough for having along all the time. A good tweener rig, for me in any case.

The second has been very satisfactorily filled for decades by Nikon SLRs of the film and digital persuasion. No changes needed here.

The third, meanwhile…

I've had an on-again, off-again love affair with 35mm rangefinders since the eighties. This role has been filled with an M6 and a small handful of lenses for the last ten years or so, but to be honest I'm burnt out on analog workflow. For a few years I've creaked along shooting wet and having things scanned for digital post, but this is a major pain in my tukis which has really slowed my activities. A Leica DRF just isn't in the cards for me, either - it's much too expensive for a digital camera which after all is a disposable piece of technology.

This is where I can see the new Fuji working for me assuming their lens lineup expands a bit: a replacement for my Leica M6 and glass. If they develop a 24/2 and a 50/2, I'm there.

[Gaspar Heurtley]

I always liked the pure utilitarian and "machinery" approach of Pentax cameras.
At the same time, I always complained that Pentax was the only possible choice I had for a camera like that.
Now a new contender has arrived; not sure if I'll buy the X-Pro, but I'm glad its out there.

[Patrick Perez]

@John McMillan said: Tomorrow I think I'll start a company making little stick-on red dots for this thing...

May I suggest the red dot read 'Like' in a nice script typeface, followed by a stylized thumbs-up icon (and maybe the thumbs up could sort-of look like a script 'a'. You know, to indicate that the camera is something the owner likes, using the 21st century standard indicator of liking something) (g)

Patrick

[Kevin Purcell]

I thought I'd posted this comment on X-Pro1 color filter array yesterday. Perhaps defeated by the confirmation system.

Two things come to mind:

1. The reds, greens and blues aren't quite balanced unlike in most CFAs: there is a small excess of green. Not a big issue and perhaps a small advantage if it helps luminance contrast (acutance).

Of the 36 pixels in each 6x6 block (about 28ish microns on side -- about dye cloud sized) 20 are green, 8 are blue and 8 are red. In a Bayer array 6x6 block there would be 18 green, 9 blue and 9 red. Green is where most of the luminance info (and contrast detail)

2. The array has an interesting set of symmetries: the 6x6 block is composed of four 3x3 blocks (of 2R5G2B) with the same layout which are related to each other by 90 degree clockwise rotations as you go around the four blocks in a clockwise order.
This symmetry drives the (small) imbalance in the green which appears in a center 2x2 block of green pels.

Aside from the central 2x2 block all the other 2x2 blocks in the 6x6 array have set of RGGB so they can sample color info with about half the resolution of the array (as you would expect).

When you tile the array you can see the "all green" 2x2 block repeats every 3 pels in both vertical and horizontal directions. The outside of this block is decorated with repeating GRB pels as you go around the "all green" block.

I suspect those 2x2 blocks of green pels improve the luminance sampling rate (reducing aliasing issues) and are possibly also useful (in pixel binning) for CD AF or scene brightness measurements?

All of this must come with a new demosaicing algorithm that makes the best use of the data provided by this "odd" CFA.

Of course Fuji gloss of the other aliasing issues (other than color moire such as jaggies, stair-stepping, sparkling, "snap to grid", wavy lines, bands, patterns, fringing, popping, strobing, noise, and false detail) that come from removing the optical low pass filter but this layout may help more than just color moire. It won't be perfect (you can't remove alias artifact after the fact) but it may be "good enough". These are all issue for both reviewers and critical users to examine: is the trade off the correct one (and in what circumstances).

There are pictures of the (titled) CFA layout at to help you visualize some of the above comments on my blog.

http://kevinpurcell.posterous.com/fujifilm-x-trans-color-filter-array-layout-ha

Thinking about it in the shower this morning the green islands surrounded by color pixels do look a bit like "grains" .

[JohnMFlores]

With all of the twittering and blogging and general hysteria surrounding these cameras, I better start seeing some dramatically better photos on the Internets once people start getting their mitts on them. Otherwise I'm going to start thinking that people have their priorities misplaced - on the object in front of their eyes instead of the object behind them.

It's easy for me to say this, having purchased 6 new cameras in the last 12 months. Pot, meet kettle.

[juze]

I just preordered the body + 35 mm lens from a fairly reputable online retailer for EUR 1089 + VAT.
I either
a) won't get at this price,
b) will get it, hate it and sell it to early adopters for a profit
or
c) love it, cherish it and have it take loads of nice pictures for me.
Either way, I think I may, for once in my life, be a winner.

[Dave Karp]

This Fuji looks like every small camera I have ever really wanted, whether it be a Nikon SP, a Texas Leica, or whatever. A rangefinder camera with the capacity to use a zoom if needed. No mirror hump. An aperture ring on the lens. Fuji lens quality. I might have to get a second job.

[David H.]

Ahh..the Fuji. An anticipated answer to my question of whether I should spend any more money on m43 system. Not that I worry that Olympus will fail---the fix is in on that---but that I will not be giving anymore of my money to them.

Now with the Fuji, that's all gone, and I'll be able to spend a lot of money on it and additional lens. With that and my Nikon D300 with which I am fully satisfied, my spending days will be over I am sure.

Except that Lightroom 4 with softproofing just came out. Well, after April I'll be through spending.

[Earl Dunbar]

I agree with John McMillin; I refuse to buy the Canon cuz it's damn ugly.

[Dean Forbes]

Both of these cameras are DOA for me. The G1X because of the useless optical viewfinder, and the X1 Pro because of the odd focal lengths of the primes. And I don't see the lenses I would want on Fuji's road map. No 24-70 equivalent zoom, no fixed 24 or 35 equivalent.

[hugh crawford]

The idea of a Cyan-Yellow-Green-Magenta filter array makes my head hurt with it's use of the imaginary color Magenta.
Do you subtract the yellow from the magenta to get the blue and subtract the cyan from the magenta to get the red?
Seems like some interesting math compared to just adding the RGB values and subtracting a constant.

[Richard]

Mike Said re: FF sensor

"And then the lenses would have had to have been much larger. No thanks."

Maybe only if you need autofocus. Look how small Leica M lenses are on the M9 (FF). One thing that surprises me about the latest M43 etc is how big some of the lenses are

[Richard]

re my last comment, and autofocus, I forgot how small the Pentax 21-40-70mm lenses are - albeit non-FF. How big would a Pentax 40mm FF pancake be I wonder?

[Barry Reid]

@carson, funnily enough, the first thing I did after looking ar the specs of the Fuji was compare the size to my 159MM! It looks like my ideal digital walk around - I like my walk around gear to be discreet but also fun to use. I've yet to come across a digital system that actually enhances the experience of shooting like the 159 does, but think this may be the one that does it.

[Mike Johnston]

"Both of these cameras are DOA for me."

You're a hard man to please.

Mike

[psu]

I like the idea of the Canon's single lens camera because most people seem convinced that they want interchangeable lenses when they are usually wrong.

Everyone starting out with cameras should be forced to shoot with a fixed lens with a focal length between 24 and 35mm (equivalent) for a year until they figure it out. Then they can be allowed to use whatever they want.

Sadly, the Canon lens is a bit boring. But it's probably good enough for most.

[Ricardo]

Fuji on micro four thirds- I still don't understand why people can't comprehend that micro four thirds is a CLOSED STANDARD. Maybe Fuji didn't get invited to the party or was asked to give too much.

And if Fuji can make more cash with their own system, why not? Fuji is a capitalist company, not charity.

[robin]

Richard: No need to imagine, since the Pentax FA 43mm and FA 77mm lenses are full-frame and barely larger than their APS-C counterparts (hood included). As for a FF 40mm, the SMC Pentax-M 40mm F2.8 is only 16mm long!

(Of course it has no electronics for focusing etc.)

[Bruno Masset]

On Monday, 09 January 2012 at 04:31 PM, Dan L. wrote:
> Reminds me a bit of that old Bronica RF645 you loved so much!
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-02-16.shtml

That LL article is also germane to one recent TOP topic, as its well-known author voiced this practical observation:

"It [645] is significantly bigger than 35mm, amounting, as it does, to a
cropped 6x6, which I always crop anyway."

 
Might this be a case of honne and tatemae ;-) ?

 
Tatemae:

Why not square sensors as the norm? Then give people their choice of rectangles in the camera settings.

Honne:

With a square format, I — and probably most people — would end up cropping the results anyway.

 
More seriously, I kind of like the square format, but I see a few reasons why it's a non-starter, at least with the large camera manufacturers:

Lens incompatibility. The built-in light baffles or shades — be they located at the rear or at the front of many camera lenses — are specifically designed for a rectangular format and would cause clipping with a square-format sensor of comparable imaging circle diameter.

There's strong statistical evidence that painters past and present, who were basically free to cut out from a canvas roll a piece of any aspect ratio they wanted, tended to prefer rectangular formats.

If pictorialists are statistically more likely to prefer rectangular aspect ratios, a rectangular sensor makes more sense. It's preferable to choose a sensor aspect ratio fitting the most probable usage scenario, so that in most cases the least amount of pixels are cropped / wasted. Also note that if a user ultimately tends to crop most pictures coming out of his camera, then it would mean that portions of the camera's sensor surface, the focal plane shutter bulk, the camera body and the lens optics are systematically wasted, and that a smaller camera and lens design should have been possible.

 
 
On Tuesday, 10 January 2012 at 08:25 AM, Mani Sitaraman wrote:
> Interesting that the sensor to flange distance is only 17mm. That sensor
> must be designed to "take in" some pretty shallow angle light rays.
> [..] Or is my understanding of optics off?

Yes, it's off.

The light ray's tilt is not a function of parameters like flange distance and back focus — the tilt is governed by the distance between the "exit pupil" and the focal plane.

The exit pupil is the apparent position of the diaphragm when you peer at the lens from behind.

Just as your apparent position, when looking into a mirror, is "inside" the mirror, the apparent position of the diaphragm opening — i.e. the exit pupil — is ipso facto the source the light rays will appear to emanate from, and will thus govern these rays' tilt.

Look at a typical "made for digital" 18-55mm APS-C kit zoom lens from behind, and at the 18mm position, it's likely that the exit pupil will appear to be several centimeters further than e.g. the mount flange, thus reducing the tilt of the light rays.

Similarly, it's quite possible — and likely — that the lenses Fuji designed for their new camera are retrofocus-ish and have exit pupils located quite far from the focal plane.
It's probably not a coincidence that Leica quickly scrapped most of their existing lens designs and released new, retrofocus-ish lenses — including the 21mm and 24mm Summiluxes — within a few years of the market introduction of the digital M bodies.