Fuji Used X-Pro 1 today?

Well, I now that this question has been asked and answered several times - most seems to say that the X-Pro 1 is still a capable camera. My situation is, as I have stated in another thread in here, that I always wanted the X-Pro 1 because of the form factor. Since I have the OM-D System already I do not want to spend big money on another system too and it has always made more sense to stick with micro 4/3. I like it, but do not love it. I will keep my EM-1 for kids in action and rough conditions (light and temp).

For travel I got a GM1. Big mistake, way to small - but fine other than that.. So I was thinking again on the Fuji and that a used X-pro1 now should be possible to get reasonable priced. But still with a sharp prime (35 F 2.0 I think, maybe the 27 F2.8) it would still cost money and I would like to understand (if I can) if the X-Pro1, today, is an option I would be happy with. I would like to have it for a few years and prefer a interchangeable system for versatility in the future. Besides X100 cost the same as an X-Pro1 with a lens. At least not far from it!

So, autofocus is on question. Not too concerned if it struggles a bit in low light (although I prefer not), but is it snappy in good light? Compared to the Mu4/3s? Please consider the two lenses I mentioned above.

Another is the viewfinder. I like them and use only the viewfinder on my EM-1. X_Pro 1 is kinda old, but is the viewfinder good or is it more a curiosity?

With this I would shoot quite a bit monochrome and I like to use JPEGs for a couple of reasons. Is the X-Pro1 fine with that?

Of course, for the price of X-Pro1 + lens I could get another mu4/3 camera and I may still do that, but I like to have more than one camera type as options.

Sorry for the many questions, your input is very welcome!
 
Although I have an X100T and an X-T1 the X-Pro1 is still my go-to camera for most purposes. It is, thanks to firmware upgrades, a considerably better camera than it was when it was first released. I have an X-Pro2 on order and am likely to sell my X-T1 before I sell my X-Pro1...

So, to answer your questions:

Autofocus speed and accuracy depends on four variables; the camera, the lens you are using, the light you are shooting in and the contrast of the subject you are pointing at. The X-Pro1 manages well in all but the dimmest light or lowest contrast. It is not "state of the art" but I have no complaints.

Viewfinder - this is an absolute deal-breaker for me. The OVF is one of the primary reasons I use the X-Pro1. It is not as informative as the X100T or the new X-Pro2 but it is still very usable. Old? Hardly. This is old...
41007914.e8407edc.800.jpg

SiJ Day 26 Proper Camera
par Lightmancer, on ipernity
...and still in regular use ;)

Monochrome - I am predominantly a mono shooter myself. Fuji is rightly famed for the quality of the SooC jpgs it produces. Look here and see if you like what you see - most of these shots are Fuji and many are X-Pro1

I think the X-Pro1 represents cracking value in today's market. You should be able to pick one up really cheaply as the X-Pro2 rolls out. I wouldn't hesitate.
 
Although I have an X100T and an X-T1 the X-Pro1 is still my go-to camera for most purposes. It is, thanks to firmware upgrades, a considerably better camera than it was when it was first released. I have an X-Pro2 on order and am likely to sell my X-T1 before I sell my X-Pro1...

So, to answer your questions:

Autofocus speed and accuracy depends on four variables; the camera, the lens you are using, the light you are shooting in and the contrast of the subject you are pointing at. The X-Pro1 manages well in all but the dimmest light or lowest contrast. It is not "state of the art" but I have no complaints.

Viewfinder - this is an absolute deal-breaker for me. The OVF is one of the primary reasons I use the X-Pro1. It is not as informative as the X100T or the new X-Pro2 but it is still very usable. Old? Hardly. This is old...


Monochrome - I am predominantly a mono shooter myself. Fuji is rightly famed for the quality of the SooC jpgs it produces. Look here and see if you like what you see - most of these shots are Fuji and many are X-Pro1

I think the X-Pro1 represents cracking value in today's market. You should be able to pick one up really cheaply as the X-Pro2 rolls out. I wouldn't hesitate.

Thank you for your post! Yeah I like the X-Pro1 mono shots, particular the car and gorilla. The lenses 56 mm and 90 mm are probably very sharp! Would you consider the 27 2.8 a sharp lens? The X-Pro1 and 27 combo is available to me used - thats why I consider this lens.
 
I recently picked up a brand-new X-Pro 1 body on close-out for the friendly price of $499. I think the price is well worth it. Are you in the U.S. or do you have access to U.S. camera retailers? I'd advise going this route rather than buying used.

As you have probably already read, firmware updates have brought this camera's auto focus performance solidly into the "acceptable" category. But it's still not a speed demon. I'd say in normal light (and using the latest firmware) it locks focus and fires in perhaps 0.25 second. But that slows to a second or so in dim light. Those are my seat-of-the-pants estimates. A modern micro four-thirds camera like the E-M1 is faster.

The viewfinder is fine. Of course, you have the option of using the electronic viewfinder or the optical viewfinder. Many X-Pro 1 users default to the OVF unless they need the EVF - such as if they need a 100 per cent view or if the lens blocks some of the lower right-hand side of the view at wide angles (the 35mm f/2.0 WR was made to specifically avoid this issue on the X-Pro series). In low light, you may prefer the OVF as the refresh rate of the EVF isn't the best (although still serviceable).

Black and white? The X-Pro 1 gives you several options, including monochrome, monochrome with red filter, monochrome with green filter, monochrome with yellow filter and sepia. Or you can convert from raw files yourself. Mike Johnston of The Online Photographer has said he prefers Fuji's X-trans sensor for black-and-white conversions:

The Online Photographer: Black-N-White

The Online Photographer: Open Mike: Why I Chose Fuji

So, yes, I think the X-Pro 1 might be able to give you what you want. I'd probably start out with the 35mm f/2.0 WR and work from there depending on your needs. The 27mm f/2.8 pancake offers a more "relaxed" view (41mm vs. 53mm) and is plenty sharp. No aperture ring, though.

Also, if you decide you really want an X-Pro 1, by all means grab a new one at $499 with warranty before they disappear. But it looks like Fuji will be offering some lens discounts starting on Feb. 15:

Fuji Instant Savings Feb15th thru April 2

Good luck... hope this helps!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good advice there. Also have a look at Fuji refurbished lenses and bodies - that's how I got my X-Pro1 in the first place. They come with a full warranty and are often heavily discounted. The 27 is a good lens - I love the 40mm field of view, particularly for street, but it is built to a price and does not have an aperture ring, nor does it come with a lens hood (although you can fit your own). The new XF 35mm f2 WR is a better lens in every respect and is weatherproofed too. See here for my comparison piece: Review: Fujinon XF35 f/2.0 WR lens and a glance back at the XF27
 
I recently picked up a brand-new X-Pro 1 body on close-out for the friendly price of $499. I think the price is well worth it. Are you in the U.S. or do you have access to U.S. camera retailers? I'd advise going this route rather than buying used.

Fuji Instant Savings Feb15th thru April 2

Good luck... hope this helps!

Sorry, no I am in Norway - far and remote and only online dealers. A new X-Pro1 is very hard to get now here. Do you know if the lens deals are international offerings?
 
Akashi, not sure how the used market is in Norway, but prices in the US are $350ish. You can also buy a used X-E2 here for similar amount, and with new upgrade it almost matches the new X-E2S from a feature standpoint. Just another thought. I was ready to buy an X-Pro 1 but ended up with the X-E2 instead.
 
Importing is sadly not an option. VAT monster (25% + Adm fee). I am traveling through Heathrow in a couple of weeks, any dealers on the airport? :)

Sadly, the only "dealer" (I use the term in the loosest sense) in most British airports is "Dixons Travel". They are worse than rubbish and do not stock a full range of Fuji, let alone the X-Pro1, sorry.
 
Agree with everything above - it's not as fast as M4/3, but it's also perfectly usable. And I thought I'd add some XF27 samples...

Shot over my shoulder while biking:
13983718660_4677cf8fb2_c.jpg
DSCF2352
by gordopuggy, on Flickr

At f6.4:
14123489214_2188d2506e_c.jpg
DSCF2147
by gordopuggy, on Flickr

At f2.8 (wide open):
21239961642_18743b340d_c.jpg
It's Always Sunny Somewhere
by gordopuggy, on Flickr

Also f2.8:
18866790860_f8feb13d7f_c.jpg
5 Year Old Ennui
by gordopuggy, on Flickr

If you can live without an aperture ring (you control it by scrolling a small wheel on the camera body), then you get a truly tiny lens with very good sharpness and decent bokeh. It's not AS Sharp as the new 35mm, but ... if you can't get good shots with the 27, sharpness will not be the reason. :) Also, focus speed on it is pretty good, not because it has a ton of motors like the newer lenses, but because there's so little mass to move back and forth.
 
If it were me, the decision whether or not to get an X-Pro 1 would come down to one thing - the hybrid OVF/EVF. If you don't plan on using the OVF, there are better Fuji cameras out there for the money: The X-E1 has the same image quality, features and a better EVF for less money (though the X-Pro1 has a better LCD), The X-E2 offers better AF performance among many other advancements. If you love the OVF though, the X-Pro1 is still a very good camera and the only interchangeable lens Fuji camera to offer that that costs less than $1700 (not counting the conversion lenses for the X100 series of course)
 
My one does the job just fine, including AF performance and I'd get one again in a heartbeat even with the X-Pro2 around the corner. If you don't need or want the OVF I'd second a used X-E1/2 or X-T1.
 
The OVF is really what it is all about :) .
I'd say the OVF makes the main difference :).

How does X-Pro1 renders B&W JPGs? Is it considered good or is it "better shoot raw
We all have different preferences but coming from decades of film and printing large on a regular basis I can't stand jpgs. Even at base ISO and the noise cancellation turned to -2 the jpg engine, including the built in RAW converter (same, same) destroy a good amount of low level micro-contrast, no matter what film sim or what other settings you're using.
With an external RAW converter you get much more control over your results (12/14 vs. 8 bits), don't lose micro-contrast or details, you get more control over your tones! - not only highlights and shadows, ...
 
I'd say the OVF makes the main difference :).


We all have different preferences but coming from decades of film and printing large on a regular basis I can't stand jpgs. Even at base ISO and the noise cancellation turned to -2 the jpg engine, including the built in RAW converter (same, same) destroy a good amount of low level micro-contrast, no matter what film sim or what other settings you're using.
With an external RAW converter you get much more control over your results (12/14 vs. 8 bits), don't lose micro-contrast or details, you get more control over your tones! - not only highlights and shadows, ...

Out of curiosity, would you suspect that any camera would be to your liking shooting B&W JPGs?
 
Out of curiosity, would you suspect that any camera would be to your liking shooting B&W JPGs?
At least none that I knew of. Consider me picky when it comes to dynamic range/tonality and noise (detail & micro contrast) reduction, especially for large prints - snapshots are a different matter. To me jpgs are like canned food, you can still eat some of that stuff but once the harm has been done you can't get your vitamins, the structure and vitality back. Many folks are happy with them, maybe because of a noise allergy or for the sake of convenience or whatever, others are OK with in-cam conversion or the way Lightroom renders X-Trans details and don't mind the artifacts and mushy greens and so on and so forth - to each one his/her own.
 
At least none that I knew of. Consider me picky when it comes to dynamic range/tonality and noise (detail & micro contrast) reduction, especially for large prints - snapshots are a different matter. To me jpgs are like canned food, you can still eat some of that stuff but once the harm has been done you can't get your vitamins, the structure and vitality back. Many folks are happy with them, maybe because of a noise allergy or for the sake of convenience or whatever, others are OK with in-cam conversion or the way Lightroom renders X-Trans details and don't mind the artifacts and mushy greens and so on and so forth - to each one his/her own.

Thanks. The reason I shoot JPEGs is process. I like that the process starts and finishes with the camera. I like that I can´t think "Just shoot, you can always adjust later". I do not want to process of creating pictures to be extended to my computer. That, and I am lazy :) But I do understand and appreciate that many feel like you do.
 
Back
Top