First Look Video of the Fuji X-Pro 1 and all of the lenses

The First Look Video of the Fuji X-Pro 1 and all of the lenses by Steve Huff

1st things 1st, this is NOT my review, just a quick 1st look preview! So with that…OK guys! The Fuji X-Pro 1 has finally arrived! A week or so late but better late than never. Fed Ex rang my bell this afternoon and there it was, a big box from FujiFilm USA. Inside was the X-pro 1 body and all three of the lenses. The 18 f/2, the 35 1.4 and the 60 2.4 Macro. They also sent me the VERY cool hang grip accessory which I can highly recommend as it adds a really nice grip to the camera.

I have only had this camera in hand for a few hours but will be evaluating it over the next 2-3 weeks before I write my full and thorough final review. For now, my VERY 1st few hours impression can be seen in the 19 minute video ABOVE. So far I love the feel of the camera (with the grip) and it is absolutely beautiful in person. AF is faster than the X100, but not blazing fast. In other words, it still has the Fuji AF but with about 20 shots taken this afternoon (just snapshots) I had no issues with mis-focus or non focus. The camera is larger than the X100 and feels MUCH better in my hand, and it is about the same size as an M9.

 [ad#Adsense Blog Sq Embed Image]

I will have some images up this weekend (or Monday) as I will be shooting this camera in Las Vegas this weekend for my mini meet up at the Palm hotel. To those joining me, you will be able to check it out Saturday 🙂 If anyone knows where I can get a Leica to Fuji adapter for this let me know as I’d really like to try my Leica glass on this camera 🙂

Stay tuned to this site for X-pro 1 updates and in about 2-3 weeks I will have my final review up where I will go over everything with the X-Pro 1 and all three lenses. So far, so good. The images below were all shot JPEG and they are all straight from camera files, just resized. All were shot with the 35 1.4, mostly all wide open, you can click them for larger version. Enjoy!

BTW, You can still pre-order the X-Pro 1 at B&H Photo HERE. 

The 35 1.4 HERE

The 18 f/2 HERE

and the 60 2.4 Macro HERE.

Below – 35 1.4 at 1.6 – ISO 320

Below – 35 1.4 at 1.4 – ISO 250 – Monochrome

Below: ISO 800 – 35 1.4 at 1.4 – OOC JPEG – Velvia Mode

Below – 35 1.4 at 1.4 – JPEG

Below: 35 1.4 at 1.4 – OOC JPEG

Below: 35 1.4 at 1.4 – OOC JPEG


  1. Steve, what sort of strap are you using in the intro to the review – looks very cool. Looking forward to my xpro 1 arriving tomorrow.


  2. Hi Steve,

    can not wait for your review any more 🙂 I almost had a chance to buy X-Pro 1 in one of Vienna/Austria stores tomorrow, but they got only camera and not a single lens. However, they will receive them in next few days and will keep one set for me (XP1&35/1.4) so…. thank you for all information that has already been given, it helped me a lot.

    Still, as everybody I guess, we would like to see some photos taken with all of the lenses, and impressions how the system works in everyday life, preliminary of course, if possible.

    Take care, r

  3. Damn, that 35,1.4 lens is really something.

    I hope Sony gets their act together and release something like that.

    Will wait for your full review Steve. 🙂

  4. Steve wrote: “I just never warmed up to MFT”

    Tell us more! I’m guessing you’ve handled and shot more MFT bodies and lenses than any of the rest of us so it would be really interesting to hear your thoughts on why ultimately the format doesn’t do it for you. Anything in particular that’s switched you off or is it a combination of factors?

    • I think you are confusing me Steve bad photographer with Steve Huff good photographer. But MFT is a great format. It’s probably more me not being good with a camera than anything wrong with the format. If you pressed me, I’d say all these new cameras are really incredible. You just have to find the one you like to use. I like Nikon and Fuji but that’s just me. I’m sure Canon or Sony or Pentax or Olympus are every bit their equal or better. Actually I like Nikon I just don’t like carrying the darn thing. But I do REALLY like that 35mm F1.4 lens. I have made a commitment to myself to use the E-P3 more over the next couple of weeks. I probably won’t get the OM-D becasue all my camera money for the next two years is spent on the X Pro and D800. The E-P3 is a REALLY great camera. I just like using the X100 more, but I don’t think one camera is better than the other one.

  5. I’m heading to Vegas tomorrow, but not lucky enought to have received the X-Pro1. I so wanted to test it out in Vegas.

  6. I think DSLR are fairly common nowadays, so I don’t necessarily agree that an X-Pro 1 would be less “intimidating” in a street shoot. However you wanna break it down, a lot people are just not going to like having strangers pointing cameras at them. It depends more on how you act and approach things. I thought maybe about saving up for one, but I came to the conclusion that a small, capable DSLR would be a better choice at this point. Sizewise, a D5100 with a 35/50mm is fairly compact, probably more so than an X-Pro 1. IQ, they’re both awesome. the X-Pro 1 wins in the looks and noise (shutter) department, but the D5100 is cheaper and has faster and more reliable AF. For me personally, the choice was easy. I love having a reliable camera more than a good looking one.

  7. The X-Pro1 is far too expensive for an APS-C sensor camera. My suggestion: Get a full frame D700 for nearly the same price now that the price has dropped. Unless you want to pretend being a Leica-like photographer, of course. In that case, get this fake Leica.

    • Ron,

      Trying carrying around a Nikon D700 and a 35mm F1.4 G for about 3 hours and see how much you like it .I know I have one. I won’t even mention mounting the 24-70m or 70-200. Great lenses but it’s like going to the gym using the D700 with one of those. It’s a nice camera, but to be honest, from what I’ve seen so far from the Fuji it’s IQ is easily as good and in some cases better than D700. But hey, if you want to buy my D700 I’ll sell it to you. I’m upgrading to the D800E. But the Fuji is the camera I’m excited about getting.

      • I use the D700 for studio work and the M9-P for walking around. The X-Pro1 really is too expensive for what you get, don’t you think?

        • I think the X-Pro 1 is a tad expensive. I think $1299 for the body would be perfect. At the same time, I feel the M9-P is overpriced as well and should be $3995 for what it actually is. BUT the thing is, if we want a Leica M9-P, we HAVE To pay it, and many do. The Fuji is $1699 for the body only, but does have a KILLER sensor and if IQ is your main concern the X-Pro 1 and 35 1.4 is an amazing machine just as capable as the $13k Leica/35 1.4 setup with improvements in high ISO shooting and low light AND color.

          The X-Pro 1 is NOT a Leica though, not even close because it is not an RF. It does have the style and look and IQ though, and if an M9-P is worth $8000 than the Fuji is worth $1700. Both are overpriced but there are always those of us who will gladly pay it. With the Fuji you get better DR, high ISO, color, and sharpness is on par with the M9 (with the 35). With the Leica we get the name, the build, the feel and the RF experience but lack in high ISO, color and the occasional need to send the body in for calibration (if you want absolute perfection for your fast glass).

          I love the M9-P for what it is, not what it isn’t. I assume I will also feel the same about the Fuji, loving it for what it is, not isn’t.

          • I guess you’re right, Steve, but for an APS-C camera it really is overpriced. If it was full frame, it could have even been $ 500-750 more, but in this case… I don’t know. I’ll be waiting for your full review before selling my M9-P… 🙂 Because… if IQ is really just as good, there’s no point for me to own a Leica anymore. I would then only keep it for sentimental reasons… being a RF. I am curious to know how you rate the other Fuji lenses. Thanks.

        • I always think if you use it it’s worth it. I think I overpaid for the D700 because I rarely use it. Photography is just a hobby for me. I have 3 rescue dogs and we are out hiking and walking 3+ hours Mon-Fri and longer on the weekends. I end up taking the X100 and the GXR + 50mm. I just never warmed up to MFT but it’s a great format with some great lenses. I still have the Pana 25mm and Oly 45mm and an E-P3. I have some what I assume are good Nikon lenses (24mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4, 85mm F.14, 70-24 and 70-200). But at most I use the camera 2 or 3 times a month. Then it’s almost like I’m forcing myself to take it out because I spent so much on it. I never have to force myself to grab the X100. It’s just a fun camera to use. I decided to upgrade to the D800 because I got paid for some photos I did and can probably sell the D700 at not too much of a loss. But in the end I bet I use it about as much. So…I guess that’s my way of saying if you use it you can probably justify the expense. I wish the X Pro was cheaper but it costs what it costs and I know I will use it constantly.

    • Agree. I also think most people will get pretty tired of the fixed lenses and not so good AF. Don’t think it will be a big success for these reasons including the high price.

      • I’m not sure this is the kind of camera a person who likes to use zoom lenses would buy. I have two zoom lenses which I actually rarely use. Probably more people use zooms but I don’t this is a camera for most people. It’s sort of specialty camera. Comparing it to DSLR with a 24-70mm or whatever zoom is doesn’t really make sense. I think Steve’s earlier assessment was right on the money. This is a camera for someone like me who can’t or won’t spend $6000+ on a camera body and wants something different than a DSLR. There’s a market for that. I think Fuji knows what they are doing but they probably aren’t going to outsell Nikon or Canon. I bet they sell quite a few X Pro’s. I think they sold a lot of X 100’s.

        • I think it’s significant that the X100 is still $1200, a year after launch. If sales had dropped off, the price would have dropped too.

          If someone thinks they’d get tired of the non-zoom lens, that’s fine; it’s a matter of preference. But they’re not the person that Fuji is trying to appeal to.

          • it’s dirty cheap here in the UK £699 everywhere, I bought mine last August for £899 and it was a weekend promotion, £100 off so it was £999 just in August.

          • Paris- I couldn’t agree more. Fuji seems to have a very good idea of who likes their cameras and what they want and what they are willing to work around. I sure wouldn’t expect DSLR type sales figures but I doubt the X Pro will bankrupt them.

        • You may be right. But based on my experience with the x100 I would say no. Many people got frustrated with the AF (including me) and sold it again. The IQ is very good in good light, but decreases a good deal in low light, where it is still very easy to see that it does not come close to a FF like the d700.

          The new Pro is even more specialized, but still with bad AF performance and from what I have seen it has the same IQ as the x100. Now if the price for the body had been about the same as the x100 that would have made a lot more sense to me.

          It is as if the manufaturers of small sensor cameras are trying to harvest a lot more profit than can be justified by what the camera is actually worth. (that goes for the OMD as well).

  8. OM-D is an inferior camera that just tries to look cool, OM-D is good against Nikon 1 or other panasonic garbage, why do people think its comparable to the X-pro 1?!

      • OMD is an EP-3 packaged in a vintage body, with no optical viewfinder or real dials, not to mention the 4/3 16mb sensor and olympus over saturated colours…..

        • Correction. The OM-D is an all new camera, not a repackaged E-P3. Improvements include 5 axis IS, new sensor, much better high ISO, 1st Oly with an EVF, great build and design, weather proof, and speed. It also has real dials and the color can go from muted to saturated depending on how you set it up.

          • I think you are wrong, comparing the prices of those two cameras and lenses.

            Fuji X-Pro 1 & 18mm B&H Photo = 2300USD
            Olympus OM-D & 12mm B&H Photo = 1800USD
            a bit more then 20% difference

            in Europe, where I can/could buy one of these systems, they will cost me:

            Fuji X-Pro 1 & 18mm = 2200EUR
            Olympus OM-D & 12mm = 1800EUR
            less then 20& difference

            Olympus kit lens 12-50 is something that is not offered by Fuji so far, and we can not compare it, still, I think that image quality you can get from it is average. For 35mm 1.4(50mm) we do not have lens from Olympus to compare prices. Maybe Fuji 60mm an Oly 45mm, where we can see a bigger difference, but this somehow does not look like targeted first choice lenses by them.

  9. I applaud the idea from Fuji. The direction they are taking the camera business is overall a good thing, I think, and the image quality from the camera and lenses seem to be capable of some great things in the right hands.

    On the whole, though, from reading different reviews, this camera seems like it’s an Alright product that’s a generation or two away from being a Great product. People who like the idea of the camera and have the money to spend will probably buy it and like it fine, especially they are in the camera’s target market as Steve said. The Olympus OM-D on the other hand seems like a mature product that was polished after the developers learned from previous cameras.

    In summary, just judging from what I’ve read and seen so far, if I was buying a camera for now and forever as the systems stand now between the two I’d buy the Olympus. But I think the Fuji camera system might have the higher ceiling in the long run.

    Looking forward to seeing your reviews Mr. Huff!

  10. For me a camera has a certain minimum size. Anything smaller won’t leave a place to put my fingers on. I hate really small cameras because after a while my hand cramps just from holding them.
    To see that X-Pro 1 “handled” in that video is really informative for me, because I can virtually put my hands on it. It looks about the same size as my old F3 but without the hump – so I am very much looking forward to putting it into use.

    • Yes, it does look chunky ! And if the AF is slow, I guess it is no proper alternative to the M8/M9. I would really enjoy a smaller camera with fast AF… Oh, wait, I have one, the Panasonic GX1 🙂
      Anyway, I tend to appreciate manual focusing on the Leica M more and more : It always focuses on my subject and not the forefront or the guy behind the blonde !

    • It is – but only a little – you are talking fractions. It is almost the same size as an M9 too – but lighter.

      Go to,133 and do your own comparisons. Most comments here re. the XPro-1 size are trying to say it is bigger than most M4/3 stuff. That’s simply because it is APS format, enabling it to produce images to rival many FF competitors. QED.

      • Well… OK, it is an APSC but the Nex 7 is way smaller…
        A camera with the form factor of a Leica CL would be perfect.

  11. Had the xpro 1 for a few days. Great street camera. As for slowness, I am not bothered by that. It’s no slower than the old film cameras I used to use …

  12. The sharpness is very good, but I’m most impressed by the bokeh. It looks pleasing to my eye.

    Steve, if you have any sun stars to post, please do. And thanks for posting the OOC JPEG images. While not as funky as alien skin tone, it helps me compare apples to apples.

  13. Mr Howe, I’ve not bothered to look at your link, couched as it is in rather poor form language.
    You appear very agitated that a brief mention about an associated issue, albeit an important one, was mentioned in passing. I’ve seen many patients who have their heads firmly in the sand over problems and inevitably they are ignorant of facts, but more distressingly, do not want learn anything more.

    See if you can let go of this without resorting to inane attempts at put-downs.

  14. I received mine last week. Very impressed with the OOC JPEGs. To me, AF is on a par with the NEX 7. The resolution is probably equivalent to a 5D II or my A900 (but obviously the DOF is different) and is better than the NEX 7. However, I have managed to find moire on a photo of a chap with a grey check suit on.

    The 18mm does suffer from distortion but is actually a decent lens (it really isn’t as bad as some of the reviews indicate), I took some great photos of St Paul’s Cathedral with it. The 35mm is stellar and you can produce fabulous DOF effects as Steve does above. The 60mm is my least favourite lens – the IQ is good, but it’s not really a patch on the 100mm macro I use with my A900.

    • If the OOC jpg’s are anything like the X100’s, then it’ll be pretty awesome. The X100 is the only camera in which I decided that shooting RAW didn’t give me much of an advantage over OOC jpg’s.

      And somehow I knew you’d eventually end up with one Ashwin!

  15. Nice first impression video and solid images. I am back on the pre-order list for this camera. I’d like to try it out, though I have my hesitations that it’ll really separate itself from the rest of my kit in a meaningful way, as I have the M9, NEX-7, and K5….I am most curious about the sensor, autofocus performance, and low light. To those whom have used the adapter from Kipon for M lenses, how easy is it to focus? Are you magnifying and then focusing?


    • I did a night shoot in central Tokyo to capture street scenes AF was OK, it’s just sluggish compaired to what you would expect of a current digital camera. More of an issue is processing time and having to wait if you want to quickly check the shot.

      I’ve shot with a number of lenses, all three Fuji, Leica, Zeiss and CV. The manual focus of the Fuji lenses has the fly by wire feel (remote), the DVF is sluggish which makes it a little tricky expecially when magnified and of course no focus peaking. The best way is to set up the shot, exposure etc, then last of all switch to a magnified image.The NEX-7 is streets ahead for manual focusing, but using the X-Pro 1 is a more involved experience, the camera has some soul.

      I’m impressed with the results from using the CV 35mm f/1.2 (II) and 50mm Summilux with the X-Pro 1.

        • I’ve just been experimenting with the 50mm Summilux taking shots close up shots (0.7m) of a figurine in strong sunlight at f/1.4 – I’m impressed both by the rendering of the image and the EVF in these conditions, certainly good enough to focus very accurately.

          I did try a 18mm Super Elmar and 12 & 15mm CV yesterday (briefly), but was less impressed, however I do need to revisit and compare with the lenses on the M9

  16. Steve please compare it with the Olympus OMD E5, the Sony NEX 7 and the Canon 5D mk3. That should be interesting !

  17. Very interesting first look. It’s great to see a company like Fuji continuing to plough their own furrow in the industry and long may they continue. However I have one question: what is this camera actually for? Leaving aside questions of image quality etc. (which is obviously critical, but bear with me) I can’t help thinking that this camera risks falling into a ‘no man’s land’ between MFT and DSLRs. As I see it, MFT cameras have taken off because they are much more capable and flexible than point and shoots and much more compact than DSLRs. We accept some compromises relative to DSLRs e.g. limitations on shooting fast action, because bodies and lenses are so much smaller and lighter. However, I saw the X-Pro 1 and lenses in a shop here in Hong Kong and while it certainly looks like a sexy piece of kit, my first thought was “man, that’s big!” The lenses in particular are pretty hefty – MUCH bigger/heavier than the Olympus/Panasonic primes and pretty close to my Nikon primes.
    So my question is, why would you scale up (in price and size/weight) from MFT to the X-Pro 1? I could understand it if it was a rangefinder and there was therefore a legitimate case for it being a poor man’s M9 but it’s not. I could understand it it it if it replicated the fast autofocus of a DSLR in a smaller package, but it doesn’t. That only leaves IQ so it had better be pretty special in that department to persuade people to set aside their Nikon / Canon lenses and buy into a new lens mount system! If the IQ is demonstrably superior to anything available in MFT then the X-Pro 1 will more than justify its existence. If not…

    • Hey Colin,

      Have to chime in and say the lenses are no bigger than most Micro 4/3 lenses. For example, the 35 1.4 is about the same size as the Panasonic 25 1.4 for M4/3. The 18 is smaller still and the 60 is not that big. They are also very light lenses (well, compared to Leica) and maybe just a tad heavier than some of the faster M4/3 glass. The body is about the size of an M9, but thinner. I see it as a camera for the tens of thousands of people who want a Leica styled/sized camera that can actually pump out incredible IQ and offer fast lenses. It has the style down, the lenses are fast and the IQ so far seems incredible in good and low light. Not everyone has $15k to spend on an M9 and two lenses, but many can push $3k and what they get in return is amazing IQ, a great EVF/VF, great styling, and fast glass. While you do not get the RF mechanism and manual focus of an RF, you do get everything else and much better high ISO and low light performance while saving about $10k+

      • Hi Steve,

        I guess I was comparing the Fuji lenses in size/weight to the lenses I have for my GH2 – Panasonic 14 & 20, and the Olympus 45 (which, with respective crop factors, roughly correspond to the 3 new Fuji lenses). Against those, the Fuji lenses do seem considerably more bulky.

        However, I certainly take your point that the X-Pro 1 may be targeting those who can’t afford an M9 and lenses (99% of the world’s population!!!) rather than those who are making the comparison that I talked about i.e. MTF vs DSLR. The question, I suppose, is whether the the Fuji can legitimately play the ‘poor man’s Leica’ role when it lacks the M9’s main USP, namely the rangefinder.

        Anyhow, you have the distinct advantage over me of having a full Fuji kit in your hands whereas I have only pressed my nose agains the window of a camera shop! Looking forward to your comments on IQ and the general user experience as I really want Fuji to succeed with this system and I would be very happy to be convinced that it’s a winner.

        • I gotta agree, It’s a brick of a camera. I don’t really see of an advantage to getting it over a DSLR. It has looks going for it and may be quieter, but it seems like the AF is only slightly less dodgy than the X100.

          • Jeez – it’s a ‘brick of a camera’ …. it’s almost exactly the same size as an M9 –,213. It even weighs less and performs a similar function to a Leica.

            Brick! A brave comment to post on a Leica orientated site.

            Big Cojones! Are you the kind of person who walks up to polar bears and prods them with a stick for fun when you’re bored?

          • I don’t know about Leica, I just saw it and it looked pretty big to me. Maybe it’s because it’s all black and therefore looks like one solid block…or perhaps because I own an X100 (that im trying to get rid of) and its way smaller…but yeah, kind of bricky.

          • Hi jms – sure, the XPro is a little bigger than the X100 but – as demonstrates – it is still firmly in the M9 category.

            Not in the M4/3 small camera camp perhaps, but certainly about half the size/bulk of most ‘serious’ DSLR bodies.

            I think you hit the nail on the head when you mention colour – chrome/silver bodies (or just top/bottom plates) always make a camera look visibly smaller than it’s darker brethren.

            Read as pure ‘stats’ on camerasize or similar comparison sites, the XPro-1 simply isn’t as big as it looks. Certainly nowhere near as large as an EOS 5DII …. as one early (pre-release period) internet rumour attempted to claim!!!

      • I’m surprised the 25/1.4 and 35/1.4 are equal(ish) in size – I envisioned the 25 as being a good bit smaller. Glad to hear that, makes me feel even better about the XP1 over the OM-D.

      • Steve… Here’s another vote for looking into the adapted rangefinder lens issue(s) as deeply as you’re able to in practical terms. Not just Leica, if possible — there are the Contax G fans here, as well; though I seem to be the one here with the biggest bee in the bonnet for adapting the Zeiss/Kyocera glass.

      • The Fuji may seem big if you’re used to m4/3, but go to and compare it to, for instance, a Pentax K5 (probably the smallest current APS-c DSLR). The Fuji is 8.5mm wider than the Pentax, but all the other dimensions are smaller, and the weight is 290gms (half a pound) lighter.

        Comparison to the Nikon D7000, also a smallish prosumer DSLR, is similar.

        Compared to a hulking Canon 50D, it’s tiny.

        So you could say you’re getting APS-c quality and interchangeable lenses in a pretty small package.

    • I may get run up in front of the committee for mentioning another site’s X-Pro 1 review, but over at Luminous Landscape I found the perfect explanation of why size doesn’t have to mean “pocketable” to appeal to people:

      “…the rangefinder method of focusing was actually very low on the list of reasons people use “rangefinder” cameras as a class. The real reasons a whole school of photographers are attracted to these cameras as their tools of choice lie in the cameras’ size, their way of seeing the world, their relative silence and their less aggressive posture of use when photographing people (that’s a whole other article, but I find that people react differently when a rangefinder-style camera is pointed at them than in response to an SLR).”

      Bingo. I bought a Sony NEX-5, not because I needed something small enough to jam in a front pocket (even with the 16mm it’s not a pocket camera), but because the whole demeanor of the camera keeps people at ease – I’m never in their face with a bazooka-sized camera.)

      The X-Pro 1 really appeals to me. I like the styling, features, and the size (although significantly larger than my NEX-5 – it still doesn’t have that aggressive in-your-face feel that I get with DSLRs). Will I buy an X-Pro 1? Not unless I win the lottery. I’m married, with a 2-year old. My NEX-5 will be my camera for a while yet.

    • Colin, Though I’ve mentioned it previously… before folks G.A.S. up their enthusiasm over the PRELIMINARY Fuji snaps too much, may I suggest again a look at what Robin Wong [.Blogspot] got out of the Olympus OM-D? Do those results appear to meet ALL your criteria, Colin? I’d love to hear a response on this alternative evidence from others here — any negatives (empirically speaking) especially — since we already know the X-Pro 1 and lens system to date isn’t going to set class standards across the board. Thus, it’s a comparison game for most of us, I think — those who are planning to gear up… or just GASsing. Of course, we know Steve’s going to give the Olympus as fair a shake as will likely be found. I can’t wait.

    • Well, I have Nikon D700 and some of their best zooms and primes. While the IQ is excellent and amongst other things, I can only carrry 1 superzoom on my trip when I have no cars and have to rely on public transport. That thing built like a rock but also weight like one! In comparison, the Xpro is a lot lighter and I can easily carry the whole system the whole day long with the same if not better IQ!

  18. a little offtopic – could someone tell me case name of iphone steve’s son is using? thanks and sorry 😉
    x1-pro is amazing

  19. Oh boy, there is Steve with allegedly the hottest camera of 2012 and I feel no GAS. Should I be concerned and see a specialist?

  20. Hi Steve!

    Great you got your example of the X-Pro 1…now I can’t await when you will be able to compare it with the OLYMPUS OM-D!



    Michael S.

  21. Great first look Steve. Only thing I don’t like so far is the fact that you will have to buy the extended grip if you want to center the lens of your camera on a tripod!

    Nice first pics and classy looking system otherwise.

  22. Nice preview video. Very informative and to the point. Camera and lenses look nice. …but Fuji forgot to send you the $5400 Harrod’s briefcase for your full review! LOL!

  23. I think there is not to much sense to buy the X1Pro as a second body for M lenses unless you are a M8 user. But the lenses turn out so differently from a FF M9 to the APSC Fuji there is just no point in it. I would think the reason to buy M Lenses is their look due to their focal length, because these lenses are strongbin their special “character”.

  24. Looking forward to your full review; hopefully you have a Fujifilm or Kippon M mount to X mount adapter on hand too. The good news with this camera seems to be a general absence of magenta or cyan shift at the edges of the frame when using wide angle lenses. The bad news is… edge crispness just isn’t there – lots of smearing with many wide angle lenses, covering a goodly portion of the frame. For some that won’t matter, but for a great many it will (subject depending of course).

    I’d hoped for better because it’d be great to have another solid alternative for hosting rangefinder lenses but now I think the X-Pro 1 makes the most sense for those shooting the native lenses, or those few folks that shoot wide open and relatively close up almost all of the time. They won’t care or even notice smearing away from the central area of focus.

  25. Hi Steve, would appreciate any early impressions you have on the 18mm. Thinking of cancelling my pre-order, as a number of testers (inc Chris above, thanks Chris) are saying it’s the weakest of the three, and saving my hard-earned for the 14mm due out later this year (pending good reviews, of course!) Keep up the good work!

    • I think ‘weak’ is a very subjective term here … most reviewers seem to be saying the Fuji 18mm does not quite meet the standards of the other two (current) lenses … not that it’s a poor lens.

      Traditionally, the strongest lens in any system line-up is the so-called standard lens with many of it’s siblings fitting in somewhere on a sliding scale of good to less good – or less effective – choose your own metaphor.

      I’m often amused at the very high prices paid for old optics on eBay – always listed as for use ‘with adaptor’ – for digital adaption. Many of these paragons of optical performance – some from top lens makers – were often described as poor, or lacking quality in their day, particularly Eastern Bloc products.

      Now? They are all ‘superb’! Changing values? Historical re-assessment? Or simply horses for courses perhaps as modern lens prices spiral?

      • Yes. Some of the older lenses were pretty good. Others, even from the big name brands, were not. And none of them were designed to work with a digital sensor.

        Are they worth the trouble of working with a manual aperture and a clunky adapter? For me, mostly not.

        Incidentally, I have to laugh at most of the comments about how this or that new lens is “soft”. I’ve been taking pictures (excuse me, “creating images”) for 40 years, and I’m still hoping to be as good as my worst lens.

        • Heartily agree with that last sentiment Paris – me too I’m afraid! Very few of us match up to our equipment – yet, for some photographers – it’s the first thing they blame.

          If you’ve been around photography for 40 years (or a little longer, like me) then I’m sure you have heard the phrase “… if I only had ‘X product’ my photography would improve immensely ….” repeated countless times.

          Even used it myself a few times. It is rarely the equipment that is at fault ….

          • I have a few fancier lenses, but my overall favorites for outdoor shooting (on film) are the Summaron 35mm f2.8, and the Dual Range Summicron 50. Both are 50 years old. Compared to modern lenses, neither is as “sharp”, but both render better.

            If I only had “X”, I’d $4000 poorer, but my pictures would be the same.

            Sounds off-topic, I know, but my point is this: I can guarantee that the X-Pro-1 lenses are as good as a real photographer will ever need.

  26. Steve did you upgrade your X100 to firmware 1.2, the autofocus is snappier now, maybe very close the new toy in town, keep us updated!

  27. I have had the camera and all 3 lenses for a week now and I can confirm that side by side comparisons with OOC JPEG from my Nikon D3s show very little to distinguish the Nikon over the somewhat cheaper Fuji.

    Of course, IQ is not everything – I would not want to shoot a Formula One race with the Fuji – but for appropriate use, it more than matches up in my view.

    RAW processing not straightforward yet until Aperture and LR have capability. Silkypix is clumsy and too hard really – although you can create a largely unaltered TIFF and import that into LR and Aperture to get more information in the file than a JPEG would have. Also the latest version of Sillypix is not Mac compatible at present so the free version is a bit elderly.

    Apparently a Nikon adapter is on the way and I am looking forward to trying a few Nikkors and my Nikon mount Zeiss primes. MF is a kludge though compared to a camera designed around it – or even a D3s with a split prism screen in it.

  28. Even though this lens and camera are great, you have to be a good photographer to take those kind of shots. You see the image steve, no way i can get such photos even in raw. I wish i have your talent Steve. Like i often say, having a Ferrari doesn’t make you a a good driver. I really feel like a drunken driver next to you 🙁

    • Oh come on. These are snapshots. And Steve has a talent to take pictures with cameras that fit to the strengths of the system. His MFT pictures alwasy impressed me. But please. Differ thecquality of pictures and do not make people holy. Let s see what Steve will get out of tge Fuji in Vegas.

      • Haha, i was a little wasted last night when i wrote that, so i got a little bit emotional. I’ve seen a lot of great photographs through this webiste, i also have friends who are great photographers and i’m not making Steve holy 😀

        What i meant with my post was, even though you’re well equiped, that doesn’t make you a good photographer.

        Steve is very dedicated to his website and he gives a lot of good infos. He also have to put through test a lot of cameras but even when he get a camera just for one day, he can manage to get some good stuff out of it, something i’m not capable of.
        I discover this website cuz i wanted to learn more about photography. First thing i learned was, i still have so much to learn hehe.

        Something i learned today, don’T drink and post 😀


        • Enthusiasm’s a good thing — pack as much as you can of it in, ’cause life is short. Just default to (rational) skepticism when they’re actively trying to sell you something!

        • All fine. Me too I was a little picky. But as I said. Honour Steve when it is worth it, and he has lots of such moments 😉

    • Leica glass at least with the Kipon adapter seems to awful on the x1pro.

      I ve read many other reviews – yes, there are at least 4 good ones with beautiful pictures – and the photographers all seem to recommend the Fuji with the 35 lens. The AF seems to be better than most say but the Fuji tends to overexpose.

      • Buy they way the good news with Leica glass is: the manual focusing seems to work great. I would post a link but I am not sure if Steve would appreciate.

  29. Other than the blown highlights in the waitress’ white blouse in image 2, image quality looks very impressive. But, do they in fact match quality with a full frame camera as Fujifilm’s press releases suggest?!

    I look forward to your thoughts Steve, and would like to see some X-Pro 1 vs M9 comparison photos.

    Viva Las Vegas!

    • Pictures will never be of the same impression on two different sized sensors, but in terms of technical quality Fuji reached their goal I think.

  30. I’ve now had mine for three weeks. Having owned a X100, the X-Pro 1 is a much more user friendly camera, my only complaint is the slow autofocus, so forget trying to take close in shots of moving subjects using AF. All 3 lenses are OK, the 18mm being the least impressive with distortion and softness at the edges. Build quality is up from the X100, the grip is great as Steve says, the leather case is nicely made. If you place the X-Pro 1 alongside the M9, it’s slightly larger, starts to feel more like a DSLR body in bulk. I’ve experimented with M and CV lenses via a Kipon adapter, no issues so far. Overall it’s a nice camera and fun to shoot with.

    • As AF is too slow for street, how does ZF with native lenses work and if using m-mount lenses, can you relay on their distance and dof scales with the adapters?

    • I had a chance to try the X Pro 1 today, the AF I would say is about the same as X100 (maybe a tad faster). The shutter blade of the 35/1.4 lens flaps when moving from normal to a strong light source (ceiling lights). I found this to be similar when I used the Leica/Panasonic 25/1.4 on an Olympus mFT body. I’m not sure if these issues can be fixed in a firmware update so my plan to purchase this camera is on hold for now.

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. First Look Video of the Fuji X-Pro 1 and all of the lenses (STEVE HUFF PHOTOS) « Mertschevy
  2. First Look Video of the Fuji X-Pro 1 and all of the lenses – « justgoshoot
  3. PREVIEW: First Look Video of the Fuji X-Pro 1 and all of the lenses |
  4. Mirrorless Rumors | Blog | Mirrorless news roundup (with Fuji X lens test by Kai).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.