UPDATE: I have seen a full HD video by the X Pro 1 here:
It is horrible: the only thing you can hear is the very noise auto focus... See for yourselves
Fuji is indeed getting the most out of smaller sensors in terms of low light performance and resolution.
Images are courtesy of dday.it (in Italian)
However, is that really important?
If you look for a documentary compact to shoot a tribe in it's forest camp at fire light, it's probably really cool to have. If not, why is the world who you shoot past ISO 3200 ?
Knowing that the D7000 is already performing top notch at 3200 (on a A4 print you couldn't see the difference I guarantee you, stop counting pixels on 100% view :p )
Anyway, the good news is Fuji is innovating and figuring out way to produce super sensors with terrific performance, that's really cool. To make it short, Fuji sensors have:
- great dynamic range (not as good as film but great)
- low light performance for a small sensor size
- better color rendering
The bad news is that once again manufacturers pitch resolution and extreme low light results as the most important characteristics of a camera. This is wrong. I looked at these shot above, and yes they are quite clean with good resolution, but they look boring as f#1%. Look at my previous post, here is one of the pictures from it:
I couldn't tell you what used to shoot this, but I can assure you it's medium format. See how it feels compared to the Fuji stuff. Point made.
And clearly, that's why I still don't shoot digital for anything in natural light. I love the convenience and all, but it looks boring. Can't help it.
I do see great digital work from people who really use post processing like a painter would, and I love it. It's just not what I do. I'm not being underground or snobbish or anything: I just suck balls at post processing.
An other example: 67 format, Fuji pro 400h film, 1/15s. No editing.
Tones are not realistic, but they look great, clarity, blur and details are simply humiliating any DSLR (only a 30000$ digital sensor can get close to that, but won't even match it). And I have seen full size D800 36MP sample shots and no, it still doesn't get anywhere close to it. It simply is a matter of sensor size. Ok noise is huge at ISO 400 and 800 on film, but who shoots with no light? And the feel, the FEEL people ! I mean look at it ! That's what it's all about, not pixel counting.
Ok so what's my point? I did write the same in about 10 posts already. My point this time is:
Fuji, Pentax, Nikon and Canon people, when you send us sample images of what your cameras can do, can you ask an actual photographer to make those samples? This way, we can see how your gear can help transmit a feeling.
So what's left to remember about our X-Pro 1 friend:
- great sensor performance for digital
- but slow AF, no proper MF (unusable)
- if lenses and built quality are matching the X100, should be great
- if you want to travel light, could be a great camera
- it you want to shoot art photography, not even close.
- it's too expensive.
Does it outperform the 5D MKII and D7000? No. It's like saying the Twingo outperforms the Porsche 911 because milage is better. It's one metric, one feature. Resolution and low light performance? Not even important for proper photography.