Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Camera pr0n: The Fuji X-Pro 1 - First Impressions

Onions. Straight out of camera JPEG.

Update: If you're only arriving here now, please note that I've got two other posts up about this camera already, including some semi-controlled lens test shots.

Time for a break from the heavy Buddhisty type stuff I've been posting about lately, 'cuz I just bought a camera.

I've been without a "big" camera since I sold my Canon EOS system a few years back. I loved everything about the 5D except the bulk—it's a heavy and very visible piece of kit, and as compact cameras improved I eventually reached a tipping point where the 5D just stayed at home. It was too nice a system to keep gathering dust, so I sold it.

In the interim, I've been using a Canon S90 compact and a Panasonic GF1 with the 20/1.7 pancake. These get the job done well enough, but nevertheless have some limitations that I kept bumping into. The Canon is fantastic for a pocket camera, but neither the optics nor the electronic image quality are as good as on a larger camera; the Panny was capable of superb results in the right conditions, but I was missing the viewfinder, and I was pretty often bumping against its imaging limits too—specifically, in bright light I would tend to blow out the highlights, and in poor light I would struggle with noise.

Somebody finally built the camera I've been waiting for since the digital revolution—a thoroughly modernized re-invention of the Leica CL. This would be the Fuji X-Pro 1. I finally got mine, and since this is a new model that has evoked a quite a lot of interest, I'll be blogging about getting to know it. I've only had it for a day, so this post represents very preliminary first impressions, which are usually all about being tremendously excited. So be warned.

So, what's so special about the X-Pro 1 that I was ready to shell out a good deal more for it than, say, the excellent Panasonic G3 or the upcoming Olympus OM-D EM-5, jumping into a new and untried system to boot? Or, put another way, what's so special about the Leica CL that I've been waiting for a digital re-invention of the concept for so long?

That Rangefinder Thing

I won't go into a long dissertation about the pros and cons of rangefinder cameras here. If you like to shoot street or situational photography and have never shot with a film rangefinder, I would strongly recommend that you try one out. An SLR insulates you from the scene; you're hiding your face behind the camera and looking at the picture painted on a matte screen framed in black space. A camera with a big, clear viewfinder in the corner puts you in the scene. You're more present to your subjects because your face isn't hidden, and you can anticipate better because you can see outside the frame. You're looking at the scene, not at a picture. It encourages a different way of photographing; you anticipate what's going to happen, stay a step ahead of it, and then shoot when the time is right.

This makes a rangefinder—or rangefinder-style camera—something of a special-purpose instrument. An SLR is much more versatile; it's equally at home with super-telephotos as with fisheyes; shooting architecture with tilt-shift lenses or fast-moving sports; portraits or wildlife. Rangefinder-style cameras are at their best in situational shooting of human-scale, human-range subjects in the field. The X-Pro 1 can, obviously, do a lot more; the electronic viewfinder even makes it totally feasible to shoot it with lenses that are wider or longer than can be used with the optical viewfinder. I'm pretty sure that it would be fairly frustrating to try to shoot, say, sports with one, though, compared to an SLR. So if what you're looking for is a great all-rounder, then this ain't it. It'll do other jobs than its main mission in a pinch, but it really is intended primarily for street/situational/event shooting—but I'm expecting that it will do that better than just about anything else out there.


Technically, the X-Pro 1 isn't a rangefinder camera, because it doesn't have a rangefinder. It has contrast-detection auto-focus, like most of 'em out there. It is, however, designed to recreate the way of shooting with a rangefinder camera, in a completely modern package. Fuji has an impeccable pedigree designing and building rangefinder cameras, from the Hasselblad X-Pan to the 645 and 6 x 9 "Texas Leicas," so this type of camera is very much in their corporate DNA.

When Fujifilm came up with the X100 last year, it was already clear which way they wanted to go. I almost bought it then, but canceled my order after the first reviews were in. I felt that it still had too much of the engineering prototype to it. There were the slow startup times, the clunky menu system, the control lock-up while writing, the cranky AF, and the other numerous little issues excellently covered in reviews that all seem to conclude with "Great camera, but..." Even the design looked a bit unfinished, with some unsightly bulges and the flash sitting uncomfortably where you'd expect the bright-line illuminator window. I felt I didn't want to put up with that kind of stuff in this day and age, and decided to wait a bit.

The X-Pro 1 smooths out the wrinkles in the X100 design and takes the concept a notch further. True to my handle, I was delighted to see a camera system being launched with not one, nor two, but three normal-range prime lenses, and no zooms!

The other half of the attraction of the rangefinder is the lens system. Fuji started its X-system with three primes: an 18/2.0, a 35/1.4, and a 60/2.4 Macro. On the Fuji's APS-C sized sensor, these lenses have imaging characteristics that are as good as identical to 28/2.8, 50/2.0, and 90/4.0 lenses on full-frame, which just happen to be the three lenses you'd be most likely to find in a PJ's bag in the glory days of rangefinders, in the 1950's or thereabouts. Only the 35/2.0 equivalent is missing from this starter set, and I hear there's a 23 mm lens on its way next year. Even the physical lengths of the lenses are within a few millimeters of their Leica counterparts.

It's also clear what Fuji had in mind when tweaking the lenses' rendering characteristics—in particular, the bokeh (quality of the out-of-focus areas) on the 35/1.4 is simply lovely: it would be interesting to see the results of a blind test between it and the Summicron 50/2.0, or even the fantastic but insanely expensive Summilux 50/1.4. I love the way this lens renders scenes, above and beyond measurable characteristics like resolution and contrast, which are excellent too.

So why the X-Pro 1? Because I feel very strongly that it's trying to do something that's worth doing, and I believe that it does it well. While they market it as a "pro" camera—and I'm sure many pros will find uses for it—I still think that I'm a more likely customer: an amateur who likes rangefinders and has enough disposable income for something pricier than the mass-market CSC's, but doesn't want or can't justify the cost of a Leica.

I do catch occasional bouts of serious Leica lust, but hanging out on Leica owner forums for a while usually cures that. I have a mild phobia of dentists.

The Viewfinder

The viewfinder is the main reason this camera holds such an attraction for me. And now that I see it, I like it. A lot. It's slightly smaller than the one on my Leica CL, but optically a good deal better. It's sharper and contrastier and there's virtually no visible chromatic aberration. With the higher magnification (the 35 mm lens) there's almost no barrel distortion either; at the lower magnification there is a bit, about the same as on the CL. The electronic overlay is clear and crisp, and I can customize it to my heart's content. What's more, the clever automatic magnifier Fuji engineered in does a good deal to offset the smallish size of the viewfinder—the real estate is more efficiently used than on a finder with a fixed magnification when using it with anything other than with the widest framelines.

I'm especially impressed by the way they addressed the parallax problem with AF—there are two boxes showing the position of the AF box at infinity and at minimum focus distance, and when I focus, the green box settles somewhere between them. This means I can compensate for focus distance already when placing the AF spot on my subject by eyeballing it, and I get confirmation that the AF snagged on what I intended, rather than, say, the background. It's a very elegant solution to a complex usability problem. So bravo. Beats me why they don't have it set up this way by default, though.

The electronic viewfinder is better than I expected too. Resolution is high enough that I can get acceptable focus on it in manual-focus mode, at least at relatively close focus distances. It's also less laggy than most other EVF's I've used. It freezes for a split-second when auto-focusing. The EVF is totally usable in a pinch; I suspect that when I get the 60/2.4, I will be using the EVF with it more than the optical viewfinder; its framelines in the optical viewfinder will be pretty small.

The LCD is also excellent—sharp, great contrast and color. The antiglare coating is a bit of a fingerprint magnet though, as is the antireflective coating on the front of the optical viewfinder.

Build, Fit and Finish

The camera and lenses are very nicely put together. Much better than the Panasonic GF1 or the Leica CL, for that matter, and at least on par with the EOS-5D I used to have; the fit and finish of the buttons and dials on the back are perhaps even a hair better, other than the jog dial which does have a bit of play to it. There's been a bunch of griping around the Net that the camera feels "light." Well, it does, but only in the way a nice bicycle feels light. It's made of aluminum and magnesium rather than brass like Leica M's, but it is in no shape or form "cheap" or "flimsy." I think you'll only be disappointed if you expect the weight and massively overengineered feel of a Leica. Compared to anything else, it feels great.

As far as I'm concerned, light is good. A kilo of camera—like the 5D with the 50/1.8 Mk 1—gets heavy during a day. This is half that. More so because the camera is just a hair bigger than I would've built it, had I been able to commission one to my personal requirements—it's about a centimeter wider and a half-centimeter taller than the CL, which feels just about perfect to me as dimensions go. So not a pocket camera by any stretch of the imagination, but a good deal lighter and more compact than a dSLR, even a small one like a Pentax K-5.

The lenses don't have the beautiful buttery feel of perfectly-engineered micromechanics you get in really nice manual-focus lenses, but then AF lenses never do. In terms of tactile feel, these Fujinons feel better than the Ugly Ducklings I used to like so much in the Canon system.

Oh, and the hoods are among the nicest I've come across. And they were included. Ch√Ępeau! Both project slightly into the viewfinder, but not so much that it's a bother. The rubber caps supplied for the hoods are a bit weird, though; I'm not convinced they'll stay put very well. The normal lens caps—pinch-style—are very nice.


The X-Pro 1 feels pleasantly snappy in action. It starts up and wakes up quickly enough that by the time it's up to my eye, it's ready to shoot. The menus are responsive enough to be as good as instantaneous. Shot to shot times are quite fast, say a half-ish second between shots in single-shot mode.

Auto-focus is fast enough that I don't really notice it anymore; I have always used the focus-recompose-anticipate technique, though, which means I'm not as demanding of AF speed as some. Subjectively it feels about as fast as the GF1, or the EOS-5D with those old lenses of mine. It does slow down noticeably in low light, but remains perfectly manageable. I just tried a Panasonic G3 at the store, though, and that was noticeably faster. As far as I'm concerned, the AF performance seems entirely sufficient for this type of camera. If you're the type who rams through to shoot, though, you might find it less satisfactory. Or maybe not; this is subjective.

I think the best way to shoot this—for my type of shooting anyway—is to set the AE-L/AF-L button to AF-L, and make it toggle. I'll see how this will feel once I get used to it; I had the EOS-5D set to focus with the AE-L button, like the X-Pro 1 does in MF mode. This way might be better, or not. I don't think I'll leave it in MF mode because it doesn't have that nice little dance with the white and green boxes.

My first impressions of manual-focus are a bit mixed. While the haptic feel of the manual-focus ring is pretty good for an AF lens, the throw on it is way too long; you have to twist a lot to get from close to infinity. Perhaps they figured that MF would be primarily used for macro, where precision is paramount. It's odd.

So no major complaints on the performance front, at this point anyway. A few niggles, but that's it.


Despite the fundamental simplicity of the design, there are gobs of features packed into the camera. I'm pretty confused about them at the moment, and have figured out so far mostly how to switch things off. Like image review. It's distracting when it pops up in the optical viewfinder after shooting a frame. There's stuff like, oh, a histogram, a level, a composition grid, lots and lots of film simulation modes (unlike with my previous cameras, I think I may actually be using these—what I've seen of it, this guy seems to be capable of producing remarkably nice color out of the box, so the raw format might end up as more of a fallback than before), and so on and so forth. Oh, and it even does video. Don't know how well, and don't care.

The Q button seems nifty as it gives fast access to the most important ones. I haven't yet figured out what all those little icons mean, but that oughtn't take too long.


The shutter sounds nice. Quiet but crisp. I bet they put some effort into engineering that sound. This would certainly work as an event camera at least as well as a Leica. It's not as whisper-silent as a leaf-shutter camera like the X100, but certainly not noisy. The AF motors on the lenses are audible—noisier than the Panny 20/1.7, say—but a good deal quieter than the Canon 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 Mk 1. One surprising sound is the relatively frequent whispering that comes from the iris adjusting as I pan around brighter and darker areas. That's a bit odd, since it does it even when I'm using the OVF and it presumably doesn't need to stop down to get a picture on the screen.

If It Ain't Broke, Why Fix It?

I dislike modal controls, and have long been wondering why everybody was so eager to ditch the simple, elegant, and obvious aperture and shutter speed controls on classic rangefinders: turn a dial to set the shutter speed, with A for auto, and turn the aperture ring to set the aperture, again A for auto. Instead we get all this PASM and scene mode nonsense with the control dials switching function depending on which mode you're in. This two-dial method of setting the exposure value works as well as it always did, and you get aperture- or shutter-priority or full-auto too if you want it. The third main control dial is for AE compensation between -2 and +2 stops, at 1/3 stop intervals. Nice and clicky. I concur with the folks who pointed out that it would've been nice to add some tactile feedback on the zero point; you can see what the AEC is set to in the viewfinder and of course by looking at the position of the dial, but it wouldn't hurt to be able to feel it too. It'd be quite easy to file a little notch into the dial at the zero line but... no. Just... no.

I'm not sure if I'd also want a dedicated dial for ISO; I used to think that was rather necessary, but since this sensor appears to give pretty much uniform results between ISO200 and ISO1600, there's less need to fiddle with it. We will see in due course if this starts to feel like something that ought to be changed; there is something to be said for simplicity, too.

I gotta rhapsodize a bit about how this looks. As a hipster colleague of mine who shoots film only commented, "Hey, that looks like an actual camera." Well, it does. Retro, yes, but good retro.

There are three types of retro design: there's good retro, there's bad retro, and then there's indifferent retro. Good retro is a re-invention of an old design concept, true to its original purpose and not for simple nostalgia value. Bad retro means imposing an old design on something that's functionally different, resulting in something that usually neither looks very good nor functions very well. Indifferent retro just means taking a perfectly functional design and adding some visual design cues to make it look like something else, without materially affecting the usability. There are examples of all three types of retro among cameras. I won't say which is which, as I would only earn more enemies, but I do have a certain famous mantra cycling through my head. Ommm...

Anyway, the X-Pro 1 is a handsome, purposeful-looking camera, with a design language that isn't obviously aping any particular other model on the market. It most reminds me of the Konica Hexar RF, a lovely Leica clone with built-in motor drive and aperture-priority AE. It's clearly not a copy of or homage to anything, though—the design seems purely functional, and similarities with old rangefinders arise naturally where the same solutions to the same problems are used. The overtly retro touches, like the faux leather wrapped around the body, or the engraved FUJINON LENS SYSTEM logo on the top plate just accentuate it.

There's no reason they couldn't have gone the silly-money Leica M9 Titanium way, and prettied up the same camera with a carbon-fiber-and-metal futuristic sports-car look, but the retro look is probably safer and certainly more discreet.

Niggles and weirdnesses

The X-Pro 1 is a niche camera. That means that Fuji wouldn't have the kind of resources Nikon, Canon, Sony, or even Olympus or Panasonic brings to bear on one of their mainstream camera models. This inevitably leaves some niggling weirdnesses in—from what I've heard, royalty like the Leica M9 isn't quite free of them either.

So far—which isn't very far—I haven't encountered anything really serious, but there are definitely a few odd decisions and rough edges left in there. For example:

  • The mysterious whispering aperture. Even when I'm in OVF mode and my eye isn't on the viewfinder. Why?
  • Why isn't the 35/1.4 an internally-focusing design? An extending front element is so... 1980's.
  • Those rectangular rubber caps that fit the front of the hoods seem like an afterthought. I'm pretty sure they'll fall off and get lost sooner rather than later.
  • The EVF freezes momentarily when focusing.
  • The manual-focus throw is really long. There has to be a reason they made it this way, because it would've been just as easy to gear it up, or even make it logarithmic (fast movement, short throw, slow movement, long throw).
  • Why is the tripod mount next to the battery door? I understand if there's an engineering reason not to center it on the lens mount, but if it was on the other side, it'd be possible to swap batteries with a tripod plate screwed on.

As niggles go, these are pretty minor. Another niche camera I used—the Sigma DP1—had them up the wazoo, to the point that they made using the camera a bit of a chore. AF was really slow, the LCD was really low resolution making it not so much fun to compose on it, and the whole thing locked up while writing, which took ages. Compared to that, the X-Pro 1 is slick as a greased weasel.

General first impressions

Overall, highly positive. Fuji appears to have split their effort between putting as good technology as they're able and making that technology as usable as they're able. The imaging characteristics of the camera are superb, even class-leading. Performance is a few years behind the leaders of the pack: the latest mirrorless cameras from Olympus and Panasonic are undeniably faster and more polished. However, where Fuji really excels is in making the most of the technology that's in it. They've made a real effort to put everything at my fingertips. My fingers don't yet quite find all the switches and dials, but I don't think it'll be too long before they will. I don't think I'll be buying any more cameras in a hurry. Just a lens or two, perhaps.


  1. Thanks for sharing! I admit to lusting after the same camera, but being currently too cheap for it.

    Instead I got my first CSC/EVIL cheap on the used market (Olympus Pen E-P2) -- and having been a dedicated SLR user for two decades, I really like the convenience and size and look and some ergonomics. The viewfinder is a big one. I still keep bringing the Pen up to my face until I realize there's nowhere to peek through.

    The Pen allows you to pick the operating direction of the manual focus ring. It would seem, since it's electronic anyhow, that focus-by-wire cameras could just let you pick the direction of rotation and the resolution, so you could make the throw as long or short as you want.

    As to the tripod mount, almost every non-SLR camera I see these days appears to have it in a silly location, that's both off-center and blocks a hatch. I haven't quite figured out why, but it's slightly annoying.

    Please, do return to the topic once you've used it some more, and let us know what you think. I may start to put change in my piggy bank...

  2. Absolutely. I'm taking Friday off just to go shoot pictures and otherwise get familiar with it. It'll be a while before I'm completely fluent, but I'm starting to appreciate how they placed the controls—everything is very literally at your fingertips. Even the position of the lens release button, which is a bit unusual—I find that when I pick up the camera to change lenses, the button falls naturally under my left ring finger—which is the only finger that actually curls around the front. So I just squeeze and twist the lens off with the other hand. Clearly not coincidence.

  3. Mine is on order - I actually sold my Nikkor 300mm 2.8 to pay for the complete X Pro kit. I rarely used the 300 but figured I will use the X Pro 1 a great deal.

    I am sick of carting my D3s bodies and 2.8 glass - although I need them for work - and to have something that produces saleable images in a small package will be great and, I hope, liberating.

    I would sell my soul to have an AF Leica M9 but this is the closest we are going to get to that for a while yet.

  4. Hi Petteri

    I have read in a couple of reviews of the X-Pro that the aperture blades 'chatter' as they move around in changing light. As a DSLR user I find this an odd idea and cannot imagine why it should be necessary.

    Have you noticed it and would you care to share any comment on how distracting (or not) it is if so?

    Thank you.

  5. Yup, they do. How distracting? A little. Enough that I noticed, but not enough to distract my cat.

  6. Hi Petteri,
    I have just read you 'how to' post - simulating film effects with curves. Some great detailed information on there. I found it really helpful as I am making the transition from film to digital (sometimes) and am trying to recreate the look of film. I will try out your advice. Thank you.

  7. This is by far the most complete review I've read of this camera--a photographer I follow did a review of the X100 last year and was over the moon about it, although it was a complement to his Nikon D700 (talk about clunk). I probably won't be looking at making a transition to something like this Fuji anytime soon, but you certainly make it out to be an attractive, sweet deal for those wanting something more than point-and-shoot and something way less than the full-frame digital SLR options out there. Most folks who do professional work and have a full-frame dica seem to talk about this camera as their "other" camera. Easy to see why, after reading your review.

    Can't wait to see what you get up to with it; pictures will get posted here, yes?

  8. Anyone wanting to simulate film results in digital files would be interested in DXO Labs Film Pack.

    It is an application that very accurately allows you to apply processing that replicates film types and so on to your images.

  9. I assume it doesn't chatter in aperture priority mode?... else it would make a mess of that mode.

  10. Great review details, thanks for sharing!

    The aperture blades chatter because they're adjusting to the ambient light for the sake of keeping the EVF bright, as well as for the histogram display in OVF mode. If you disable the histogram in the OVF, they will not move or chatter anymore. The X100 exhibits the same behavior.

  11. @Anon 05:03 -- It does chatter in aperture priority mode as well, but it doesn't make a mess of it. @Christopher: disabling the histogram in OVF mode doesn't stop the chatter. I think you're right about the cause, though; I can see the brightness of the framelines adjust as it chatters.

    Let's not make a too big a thing about this, by the way; it only happens when the light changes fairly dramatically. I can get it to chatter e.g. by panning from the window to the room; i.e., daylight to fairly dim indoor light. Panning around the room or panning around in the daylight causes at most the occasional whisper.

  12. I used to read your earlier well-written photography blog and found you again when searching for user reviews of the X-Pro 1.

    The X-Pro 1 is an interesting camera. If I'm going to switch from a DSLR to the X-Pro it needs to be quick. I don't mean frames per second, I mean shutter lag. Street or people photography is hopeless unless the camera reacts instantly when you press the shutter. I'd like to ask you - what about shutter lag? How responsive is the camera?

    Best regards,
    Hakan, Stockholm

  13. As good as instantaneous. No issues there.

  14. Damn! Now I am even more tempted than before :o)


  15. Looks like Fuji got many things right with the X-Pro1. Very nice ;-) However there is also something to complain about :-(

    Based on my X100 experience, I think the slow fly by wire manual focus is the biggest and most stupid fundamental design flaw in this Fuji system. The much discussed autofocus will propably improve with new firmware versions and ultimately with Fuji X-Pro2.

    However, given the route Fuji has taken, there is very little they can do with manual focus. Maybe the mf will also come better, but to really compete with Leica M, Fuji should have a conventional focus ring. This system cropped and it will be mostly used with rather short focal length lenses - making manual focus and hyperfocal focusing often the preferred method.

    Another thing I do not like is the lens price. The 35mm normal is expensive. I can get better 1.4/50mm AF-S normal to my fx Nikon for 2/3 price. Also the 18mm feels expensive if quality is medicore. Reasonably priced good quality lenses are important if Fuji wants to have good momentum for this system.

  16. Re the Nikkor 50, could you point me to some samples? If it really is better than the 35, it's gotta be one hell of a lens.

    I disagree about the importance of the manual-focus gearing. This is an AF camera; shooting it in MF is asking for trouble to start with. It doesn't affect setting hyperfocal distance or zone focusing much at all; you can do that quite easily as it is. I haven't had to use MF for anything other than extreme close-up experiments, and I can't imagine under what circumstances I'd want to. MF is a PITA even on a camera designed for it.

    1. MF a PITA even on a camera designed for it?

      Of all the camera advances since the 80's, AF ranks just below P mode as the improvement that most detracts from the photographic experience. ...and this from somebody who shoots an AF SLR and AF Rangefinder 50% of the time.

    2. :shrug: Whatever you say. I'm glad to be rid of it.

  17. I find the Xpro1 a very exciting camera for ALL the same reasons that you listed in your review.
    Here are a big "+1" and also a "100% ACK" from me.

    Jesper M. Pedersen / Copenhagen

    1. Hello Petteri!

      Thank you so much for reviewing the camera and then taking the time to answer questions!

      Fuji said that the X1 Pro matches and/or surpass the quality of the 5D. Is that your impression too?

      Many say that this camera because of its looks and size could be everymans Leica. Do you have any comment regarding this? Are they similar in many aspects or are they in two different categories?

      Thanks again!

  18. Re image quality of the 5D, oh boy yeah. Easily. About the 5D Mk 2 I don't know, not having used one.

    Everyman's Leica? Hum, yes and no. Yes in the sense that it's built for the same mission as the Leica used to be. No because it's not a copy, and you shouldn't expect it to be like one. But overall I would put them in the same category, yeah.

  19. Hi Petteri,
    Thanks for a very detailed review.
    Good to know that you're once again writing about photography. I found your blog last year when i was looking for cheap primes for my 5d mark II. Your ugly ducklings series was much help.
    If you'll like to see X-Pro 1 in a street situation, i recommend having a look at Zack Arias blog. He has been hired by Fuji to shoot with X-Pro 1. He is in my country shooting in the city of Mumbai.
    I hope you'll write more about photography since you have got yourself a new camera.
    Dinesh Bhadwal.

    1. Yeah, I'm following Zack's blog. Great photos and great writing. Mumbai looks pretty exciting too.

  20. Petteri,

    So pleased I found your review. What file formats are offered? I assume jpeg, but is there a fuji RAW or a DNG also?

    1. Fuji RAW. Not yet supported by anything other than SilkyPix bundled with the camera (results are OK but the usability is awful), or the camera itself. The camera's own converter is pretty neat, actually; it lets you do basic adjustments like exposure and WB correction, and apply any of the camera's own effects on the photo. The in-camera JPEGs are the best I've seen.

      Adobe are working on Lightroom support. Shouldn't be too long.

  21. Thanks for the review. I am sitting at my computer as my battery charges for the first time. I am very excited, yet will likely read the manual cover-to-cover before venturing much into the camera itself. I have the 35mm lens. I also have an x100. Thinking of putting it up for sale though I could be talked out of it...

  22. Thanks for review, it was excellent and very informative.
    thank you :)