Fuji X-E2 vs X-Pro1

Lightmancer

Super Moderator
Aug 13, 2011
164
Sunny Frimley
Bill Palmer
As things stand today, I could replace my X-E1 and X-M1 with either an X-E2 refurb for £550, or an X-Pro1 refurb for £500.

Which does the panel think offer the better value, and would contrast or complement best my X-T1...?
 

Kay

Veteran
Dec 27, 2013
43
Apart from all the differing features (AF, OVF, EVF/LCD resolution, 14 vs. 12 bit, yadda yadda ...) I still call my XP1 'the brick' - for a reason. If it weren't for the OVF I wouldn't have bought it.
 

Lightmancer

Super Moderator
Aug 13, 2011
164
Sunny Frimley
Bill Palmer
Indeed... I understand the differing features bit, The bit that exercises me is whether the OVF is worth going for the older camera for, given that it is the biggest functional - as opposed to technical - point of variance. I shall say in advance that this is probably an impossible question, but it's Friday...
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
123
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
I love the optical viewfinder and would recommend the X-Pro because of it, but ONLY IF you're inclined toward the lenses it's optimized for. It was designed with two levels of magnification to work perfectly with the 18 and the 35mm lenses. It works OK with the 23 and 27 primes as well, but the framelines are smaller than optimal with the 23 and either larger or smaller than optimal with the 27 (I haven't tried it so I'm not sure which level of magnification it uses). It works with the 60 (and similarly the 56), but those framelines are really small and I wouldn't use it with either of those. And the 14mm frame extends beyond the full frame of the level of magnification designed for the 18mm. The coming 16mm prime should work reasonably well, although without as much outside the framelines area as the 18mm. It works with the 18-55, but I'd personally use the EVF with the zoom. And forget it for anything wider than 14 or longer than 60. Also, keep in mind that even with the lenses it's optimized for, the framelines are not precise. They're great for the kind of street photography I did a lot of with it but if you prefer precision framing to being able to see beyond the frame the camera sees, you may not like it even WITH the lenses it's best with.

So, if you'd lean heavily on lenses it works well or acceptably well with and you like the whole OVF experience, go for it - I'd say it's worth the slower AF, larger size, the need to find the right diopter lens, etc. I personally loved shooting with it. But if you anticipate using other lenses much and will rely on the EVF most of the time, then go for the XE2. It's now a more refined camera from head to toe - better in roughly every respect OTHER than the OVF. And it's EVF is vastly better.

Yeah, the OVF is worth it if you limit yourself to the lenses it's best with and it fits your shooting style. Other than that, there's no reason to get the X-Pro anymore...

-Ray
 

Kay

Veteran
Dec 27, 2013
43
All I can say is that I enjoy my XP1 a darn lot and would buy it again, despite the 'age' and bulk/weight. I use the OVF most of the time, even with the 1855 (18-23-27-55), really wouldn't want to miss it and with the latest firmware the AF is even fast enough for my street/documentary stuff. I also had an XE1 for a couple days, but for me the OVF makes all the difference.
Bill, I had all the stuff I really needed already around 30 years ago, an Olympus OM-2, a Rollei SL2000F and a Blad 500c, I've been happy with my F3 for more than 20 years without any symptoms of GAS whatsoever and if the XP1 were the last camera on earth ... what in hell would we really miss ?
 

Lightmancer

Super Moderator
Aug 13, 2011
164
Sunny Frimley
Bill Palmer
This is really good thinking - the sort of thing I was after.

Bear in mind I have used Leica M for years, so am very familiar and comfortable with an OVF, particularly one that lets me see outside the frame. That is part of my thinking behind my question.

A couple of points if I may.

Ray, your reference to the right dioptre lens implies no built-in dioptre correction, yes? If that is the case, what is it like to use the X-Pro in either OVF or EVF mode with spectacles? (again, bear in mind that I shoot regularly with a Leica M2 so I understand the principles, particularly the need to centre your eye).

I assume that the framelines are digitally projected; are there any that cannot be displayed?

I'm increasingly thinking that the X-T1 will be (is) my camera for 18-55, 55-200, long lens (300+) and macro use, while my "rangefinder-style" body - currently X-E1 but in future X-E2 or X-Pro1 - will mostly be used with primes and occasionally with the 18-55. For me that would mean 14, 27, 35 and 56 (I'm going to sell the 60). That makes a compact and high-quality prime set. On my "personal roadmap" in the future lie the 16-55 (to give a weatherproofed solution with the X-T1) and possibly the 23. Most of my photography could be loosely classed as "travel", mainly because that is the only "me time" I get to focus (geddit?) on my pastime.

Snapdawg. I had all the stuff I needed 25 years ago - I hear you... ;)
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
123
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Ray, your reference to the right dioptre lens implies no built-in dioptre correction, yes? If that is the case, what is it like to use the X-Pro in either OVF or EVF mode with spectacles? (again, bear in mind that I shoot regularly with a Leica M2 so I understand the principles, particularly the need to centre your eye).

I assume that the framelines are digitally projected; are there any that cannot be displayed?
Bill,

Right, no adjustable diopter - I think the whole OVF mechanism was just too complex already to introduce an adjustable diopter. So you have to buy the right lens for it. I wear glasses and I tried a couple of different lenses, found the one that worked, and bought a couple (one to have as an extra, which I ended up needing).

Yeah, the framelines are projected. If the lens is too wide, they can't be displayed. When I tried the 14mm with the OVF, it doesn't show framelines, but rather four little arrows pointing out from the corners to indicate there's more there than you can see. If the lens is too long, they just get smaller and smaller to the point where they're of questionable usefulness.

The other thing is lenses blocking the corner of the OVF. Some people are real sensitive to that, others not. I'm not, but I'm aware of it. The first few lenses were designed with hoods that wouldn't add to the blockage of the EVF and there was little or none. With the 14 there was quite a bit, particularly with the hood. Same with the Zeiss Touit 12 I tried briefly. I'd guess the 23 would block a fair amount with the hood, but might or might not impinge on the rather small framelines. Same with the 56, but I'd guess it wouldn't hit the framelines, because that's a pretty small frame.

-Ray
 

Lightmancer

Super Moderator
Aug 13, 2011
164
Sunny Frimley
Bill Palmer
Thanks Ray, that's really useful. Blocking has never been an issue to me - I have learned to "visualise" over the years.

This is all good food for thought... I suppose I have a decision to make!
 

pfogle

New Member
May 17, 2014
3
If you're an OVF fan, it's the XP1 or Leica.

I can't afford Leica :(

Currently using the XP1 with 18mm and 35mm. Viewfinder is great for these lenses. For the 18-55, I have an XE1.

My 2c? Use the XP1with the lenses it's designed for (that's what it does best), any other camera for other focal lengths. The XPro1 in EVF mode simply isn't that impressive compared to the newer releases. It'll do in a pinch, but I wouldn't want to use it professionally. Poor EVF and below par focus peaking make it less than optimal. But, like I said, if you love the OVF, and can deal with the limitations, it's a great camera.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom