There's a lot of anxiety about the pros and cons of the X-Pro 1 in that abode of hungry ghosts, the DPReview forums. I think most of that anxiety really boils down to one question—is it the right camera for you?
Thom at Sans Mirror:
Fujifilm X-Pro1 or Olympus E-M5? Still a little early to call, but initial impressions say E-M5 hands down. The X-Pro1 is a big camera, as big as a Leica M9. It has a limited (and expensive) lens set. It has poor autofocus performance. It has a large, eccentric sensor (APS, non-Bayer). It has a retro design with a hybrid optical/EVF viewfinder. The E-M5 is a smaller camera than it looks in photos. It has an extensive lens set. It has faster focus performance. It has the best of the m4/3 sensors so far. It has a very usable EVF. The problem I have with the Fujifilm is that it is really only great for one (slow) style of shooting, and it's doesn't take advantage of the size benefit that removing the mirror gives you. The hybrid viewfinder is fine, but it's a bit of a gimmick. A good EVF is enough, which is exactly what the E-M5 has. Bottom line: for less money you get a smaller camera that has a huge lens arsenal and very good autofocus performance.
I almost agree... even if I think I can smell a whiff of irrational bias there. How is a 'large, eccentric sensor' a disadvantage?
First, he characterizes the X-Pro 1's autofocus performance as "poor." It isn't. It's not as good as on the latest µ43 cameras, but it is not "poor" by any reasonable definition of the word. "Poor" means that it gets in the way of using the camera. The Sigma DP1 had poor autofocus. Most compact digital cameras before the Fuji F30 had poor autofocus. The EOS-10D had poor (as in inaccurate) autofocus. The X-Pro 1's AF is not poor. It's perfectly adequate for the one type of shooting where it truly excels.
That brings me to the second point. Thom calls that one type of shooting (slow). It's not slow. On the contrary, it's a very fast type of shooting. Timing is critical in it, and a slow camera will seriously get in the way. "Deliberate" is a better word, because the idea is that you stay a step ahead of the action and anticipate it. That's what the "gimmick" of the optical viewfinder is for, too. That's not just sugar-coating something; it's describing a real difference. Shooting with a view camera, for example, is a slow style of photography. It takes a lot of effort to set up every shot. But situational shooting with a rangefinder-style camera, whether it's a true rangefinder or something like the Contax G3 or the X-Pro 1, is not slow. Of course it would be nice to have AF as good as the OM-D's, but it would not change much about how the camera shoots.
However, I concur with the larger point: the OM-D does almost everything better than the X-Pro 1, does it for less money in a more compact package, and does a great deal more than the Fuji can do, at least with its current very small lens selection. This is true of any current µ43 camera. So if you do want an all-rounder, then the Fuji is not the right camera for you.
But if it so happens that you value the particular type of shooting the Fuji is made for, there really is nothing else out there that does it better. What's more, it's entirely capable of coping with types of shooting its antecedents simply couldn't do—close-ups and macro, for example, and once the telephoto lenses from the roadmap materialize, that sort of stuff too. Fuji's lens roadmap does suggest to me that they plan to extend the camera system with more general-purpose bodies as well. If the X system survives in the marketplace, it could evolve into something much more versatile. I hope it does. If the optical viewfinder goes the way of the dodo, something significant will be lost.
At this point, though, the answer to the "is it for you?" question is something like "If you have to ask, then no." The µ43 system is better for general photography. The Sony system—with focus peaking and better EVF's—is better for legacy lenses. Or, naturally, the Leica system, if you can swing the entry cost. But if you do inhabit the niche the X-Pro 1 serves, then hell yes, it is for you.
It's a bit like a road bike. If you have to ask, then it's not the right kind of bike for you—but there's nothing out there that reels up the miles on a twisting country road quite like one.