I Am NOT Saying the Fuji X-Pro1 Sucks...

By Ctein

Those of you who are regular readers of my columns know that I've been kinda sorta of shopping around for a new camera. My Olympus Pen E-P1 still works just fine and produces files of quite satisfactory quality. But after four years, camera technology has progressed enough that there are some attractive alternatives in roughly the same size range (for me), at various price points: the Olympus OM-D, the Sony NEX-7 and the Fuji X-Pro1. I haven't made up my mind that I will get a new camera, but I might.

Jeff Goggin was kind enough to lend me his Fujifilm X-Pro1. It pushes beyond the normal top end of my price range, but I'd heard good enough things about it that I felt I needed to give it consideration. I'm going to get three columns out of my experiences with it...none of which will be a review of the camera, for reasons that are quickly going to become apparent as you read this.

Let me make one thing very clear at the beginning. To borrow a friend's catch-phrase, this is all about me. It's not about you, it's not about the camera, it's about me. This week, egocentrism reigns. Just so you know.

Cut to the punchline. I hate this camera. I hate it so much that if someone offered one to me for free, I am not sure I would take it; there's a good chance it would sit on my shelf almost never getting used.

The eye level viewfinder is a letdown. I'm left-eyed, which means whenever I use that viewfinder I put a great big greasy nose print in the middle of the LCD screen. LCD screens are my preferred way to work. Having to whip out a microfiber cloth every time I use the eye level viewfinder is a severe discouragement to wanting to ever use it. The only eye level viewfinders I had used before were centered in the body of the camera, where my proboscis fit better, so I didn't realize what a problem this would be.

Then there's the lack or near lack of several important user interface features. Possibly I missed something reading the manual. If I'm wrong about this, someone correct me.

I get a choice of two screen layouts: a default one which is cluttered with all sorts of crap I don't want obstructing my view, and a customizable one which has much, much less crap, but isn't entirely free of it (can't figure out how to disable the "silent mode" and "slow shutter" warnings). I would prefer to be able to bring up a screen that has no garbage on it under any circumstance.

I also want to be able to bring up a live histogram so I can check exposures. There isn't a way, except to embed it permanently in the customizable screen, and it's buried so many levels of menu deep that it's not something I'd want to be turning on and off frequently. Forget that. Well, at least I can check the exposure after I make the photograph by looking at the histogram when reviewing my already-made photograph on the back LCD. Okay...I don't see any way to get histograms of photographs I've already made. That is not good.

What's my fallback? Turn on the shadow/highlight out-of-range warnings. Wait a minute—there aren't any, in live or review mode. So far as exposure goes I'm photographing blind. As Timprov put it, mildly sarcastically, "Gee, you might as well shoot film."

There's no way to zoom in by more than a factor of two when reviewing RAW photographs. That won't tell me if my focus is correct, if there's subject movement, or how noisy the photograph might be. It's barely enough to judge facial expressions.

Really, this is sounding more and more like using film, and I don't mean that in a good way.

If I capture RAW plus JPEG, I can zoom all the way in. It's kind of dumb, and I just waste time later throwing away the JPEGs (I have no use for them), but it works.

So, let's summarize: an eye level viewfinder that doesn't really work for me; no way to check the quality of the exposure; no way to zoom in on the results except to capture files I don't really need.

Now you understand why I hate this camera.

The lesson? I would have had no idea that this camera was so unsuitable for me if I hadn't had a chance to use one. Based on reviews, I could very well have bought it blind. On paper it sounds pretty fine. In my hands it's awful. (Remember what I said earlier:  this is all about me. It's not about you, it's not about the camera, it's about me. Also remember: when you buy a camera, it should be all about you.)

Well, it's nice to be able to scratch the most expensive camera off my list, but it's going to make me leery of buying anything without testing it first. Good that I learned this lesson the easy way rather than the hard way:

Try before you buy.

Ctein

Ctein's weekly column appears on TOP on Wednesdays. For more, see the "Ctein" Category in the right-hand sidebar..

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 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by John Robison: "'Try before you buy.' Getting next to impossible for an increasing number of enthusiast photographers. We cannot even lay hands on most new equipment at a camera store. I live in South Puget Sound, Washington State. I might as well be on the moon."

Featured Comment by Roger: "I have an X-Pro1 and enjoy using it. However, it is without a doubt one of the best examples of why cameras manufacturers should open source their firmware. Or publish a set of APIs that permit others to adjust the camera's operation. Great image quality, build quality, and ergonomics (a shutter speed dial! Aperture rings!). All dragged down by really bad software engineering. Mine is in aperture priority mode and currently has a Konica Hexanon 40mm ƒ/1.8 lens mounted on it. Love it, warts and all."

Featured Comment by John Krumm: "Hmm, wonder if I could market nose covers to the left-eyed crowd...there's always a micro-niche for the savvy entrepreneur. I could make it out of micro-fiber cloth so the LCD actually becomes cleaner as you use the camera. Better check the patent office."

Mike adds: I could see Ctein wearing an eye patch (he already has the parrots!), but not a nose patch. Shades of Tycho Brahe.

Featured Comment by Bill Pierce: "As another left-eyed X-Pro user, I agree with much of what Ctein has to say about the camera. However, as an elderly rangefinder photographer with a love for bright-line viewfinders but little desire to spend the money for a brace of digital Leicas, the X-Pros (which do a good job with both their lenses and the longer lenses which might normally go on a DSLR) suit me well.

"Only one disagreement with what Ctein says. I, too, normally trash camera JPEGs. But the X-Pro JPEGs are very good. They are the only ones I save, whether as instant back up against the loss of the image; a quick, transmittable proof or, in rare occasions, the source of the final print when subtle but important color differences from what my processing programs can easily and quickly produce from the Raw files are important.

"The major problem I currently see with the camera is the processing programs available. The unique sensor pattern that replaces the conventional Bayer pattern has created problems for both Lightroom and the furnished program. But that's the subject of another thread. Ctein has the knowledge to comment on this intelligently—and that's the real reason I regret his moving on to other cameras.

"I think Ctein is a groundglass, LCD kind of photographer and I'm a wire-sports-finder, bright-line-finder kind of photographer. Each of us will have to live with less than perfect camera, and it will be interesting to see what he chooses."

Comments

[Libby]

Ctein, thanks for the blatant honesty. So tried of the regurgitated crap from sites that haven't even handled the camera.

A trusted acquaintance alerted me to pitfalls regarding my own way of working, so that killed any joy for me.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

At least 4 manufacturers make lenses for Micro Four Thirds, which has to count towards a diverse ecosystem. I think there are actually a couple more.

[Steve Jacob]

I would offer one more option in addition to try before you buy, and that's RTFM.

[ctein]

Dear Ray and Steve,

OK, both you guys are saying that a histogram is available when viewing RAW files. Dunno how both DDB and I missed that, and I sure couldn't find it in the manual (but if I were to damn a camera because of a lousy manual, I'd have to go back to using film). But if you say it's there, it's there.

So, any way to get exposure info (either a histogram or out-of-range blinkies) in live view without permanently cluttering up the custom screen? If so, I might have to put this back on my "maybe" list.

~~~~~~

Dear Michael B.,

I haven't found that a reliable way to judge exposure, myself. Way too much guesswork. Maybe it works well for others.

I'm not sure what you mean by benefits of the X-Pro system that I don't get in u4/3. Some incremental improvements, yeah, to be sure. But nothing earth-shattering. Somewhat better image quality (but lots of cameras have that). Nice lenses (but I've got those, although I don't mind switching if there's a good reason). Reasonably compact (but I got... oh you get the idea).

pax / Ctein

[Roy]

+1 with a bullet.
I didn't have long to test this overpriced turkey of a camera, just half an hour in a shop. That was enough. No diopter adjustment? On a camera whose viewfinder - in theory at least - is one of its principal USPs. OK, I wear glasses but how come the OVF was in focus and the evf out? Would a different eyepiece lens solve this? In any case anyone know a shop where they have alternative eyepiece lenses to try? I didn't think so.
A narrow escape. Based on the reviews I almost shelled out sight unseen. Then I looked at some sample files and handled an OM-D E-M5 (appalling designation). Not without its faults but a delight to use and a lot cheaper, with a large range of excellent lenses at reasonable prices.

[ctein]

Dear Roy,

I found the lack of a diopter adjustment a peculiar omission on a semi-professional camera (yeah, I've heard the explanation-- doesn't excuse it). But, is that really a big deal? Lots of film cameras required supplemental screw-in diopters. They ain't expensive. I wouldn't let it affect my buying decision.

Now, different focal distances for the two kinds of finders could be an unresolvable issue if you suffer from advanced presbyopia.

Just 'cause I hate it doesn't mean I think the camera is either overpriced nor a turkey. I don't. It just doesn't do what I want it to do.

Don't confuse a personal dislike with a review or an objective evaluation. I reiterate what I said at the beginning.

It's not about you, it's not about the camera, it's about me.

pax / Ctein

[ctein]

Dear Steve,

Two of us RTFMed and couldn't find the business about bringing up the histogram on the backside display when reviewing photos.

pax / Ctein

[Jeffrey Goggin]

@ Ctein:

FYI, the histogram that comes up when you push the "disp back" button is very small and doesn't show the individual RGB channels, as the E-P1 does, but only the luminance channel. So even though it technically does exist, I don't believe it will meet your needs very well.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to toggle the histogram on-and-off pre-exposure, so you're SOL unless you're willing to dive into the menu to do so, which is a non-starter for me as well. However, after capturing over 7000 photos with the X-Pro1, I've come to have a pretty good sense when and by how much I need to compensate exposure (just as I did with film!), so this hasn't been as important to me as it was with, say, the E-P1, which I found to have less headroom than the X-Pro1 and thus wasn't as tolerant of exposure errors.

As we have discussed, my attraction to the X-Pro1 has more to do with its traditional form-factor than its performance. While this certainly was not the only reason I bought an X-Pro1 (two of them, actually), it was perhaps the primary one. Here's hoping other camera manufacturers take the hint and follow Fuji's lead!

[Steve Jacob]

Hi Ctein, I know the manual is a bit opaque, but the info is on page 22, which describe the display options in playback mode accessible from the DISP/BACK button. It works for RAW images too.

[Ray]

@Ctein

A cellphone snap of an XPro snap of the clutter in my basement... but demonstrates the histogram for image review.

For me, the simplest thing would be to use the standard display mode for the back LCD (toggle the DISP/BACK button). Nothing but the exposure meter on the left, exposure mode, shutter/aperture/ISO on the bottom, and focus spot in the center. If you want a histogram, set it up on the custom display screen, then in use you can toggle to it with two taps of the DISP/BACK button. Back to standard with three taps. The only fly in that ointment is in manual exposure, because then (and this is a teeth gnashingly annoying issue) the histogram stops being live, and starts being what the histogram WOULD be if you were letting the camera set the exposure. I reserve judgement on that because, based on the X100, I assumed that the initial firmware would be a work in progress, with incremental tweaks, and so simple stuff like that will get fixed. And since I tend to shoot in aperture priority, I just use exposure comp, so not that big of a day to day an issue for me. Also, despite the slow-ish refresh rate, the EVF mode of the hybrid viewfinder is quite accurate in my experience (I've shot a lot of live music with my XPro, so not exactly uncomplicated lighting conditions), so in higher contrast situations I tend to use the EVF and check for bright spots.

My $0.02, YMMV, etc.

[ctein]

Dear Ray,

And, so, there it is, in living color. Whaddaya know!

Had I found this myself, it'd require some rewriting of my original article, but not much. I'd have had to excise the bits about hating the camera (too bad, hyperbolic prose is such fun). But I'd still not have liked it. The standard back screen is too cluttered and distracting for me. The custom one still isn't entirely free of distractions (neither Jeff nor I could figure out how to turn off the slow shutter and silent mode warnings. Even if I could, there's no way to get any exposure info before exposure except to "permanently" obscure the custom screen with the histogram. And after exposure, the histogram is pretty minimal.

Unlike Jeff and some others, I care nothing about styling-- doesn't affect me one way or another. And all the cameras I'm considering have a wide enough array of lenses and lens adapters available that there's no special bonus there, either.

Combined with all my other (still accurate) observations, it'd get a distinct "meh" from me. Not a "hate", but nothing that's going to have me spending a premium price or even disposing of my existing kit.

Which takes us back to my original point. TRY BEFORE YOU BUY. I'd have had a very hard time figuring any of the foregoing out without being able to lay my hands on a camera. It still reads very good on paper. It doesn't work at all well for me.

pax / Ctein