Sample Photos Show Fujifilm X-Pro1’s Crazy Quality at High ISOs

When Fujifilm said that the X-Pro1’s sensor “resolution and low noise will surpass rival 35mm full size sensor[s]”, they weren’t kidding. Photographers Christian Fletcher and Michael Coyne have both been testing out the camera, and have extremely positive things to say about it:

My initial feelings are that this camera is a worthy replacement for a bulky dslr system. If you have to travel light, this is the camera for you. Physically it is only marginally larger than the x100 so slinging it around your neck for a day is no problem. In fact I am wearing mine right now!, it is a fashion accessory!! Man bling! or Girl Bling too for that matter. [#]

Fletcher has published a number of untouched sample photos to his blog, including the ISO 6400 image above shot by Coyne. Click here to check out the full-res version (be prepared to pick your jaw up off the floor). Some more sample photos can be seen here, including an ISO 25600 one.

First images from the Fujifilm X-Pro1 (via Photo Rumors)

In other news, Fujifilm has revealed that it has sold roughly 100,000 X100 cameras through 2011.

Image credit: Photograph by Michael Coyne

  • chuck

    That sheep shot looks like it has a ton of smoothing.

  • Edward De la Torre

    Really looking forward to this camera’s release. I’ll probably be picking it up towards the end of the year though. Can’t wait to travel light!

  • Pourio Lee

    WTF. Wow.

  • Sergio45

    Not many noise, but it has low detail and poor focus. Rather than a great sensor performance i see postprocesing denoise tricks there.

  • Tran-Shawn Yu

    I wouldn’t say a ton… looks better than my d7000

  • anon

    Looks like the Sigma DP series result, as I was expecting

  • Jim Doss – W9JIM

    Comparing quality of photos on the internet mean nothing!  Your computer monitor several limits the resolution.  My 12 old Olympus 850k camera even looks good.  you must compare printed photos to make any sort of judgment as to image quality.

  • Sergio45

    There isnt any printing method could reach the resolution and color deep of my eizo coloredge, and i told you as the printer who i am. You have to look at full-res version of the pic, not the resized one.

  • Randy Pakan

    Image IQ performance is nothing new, I say do a test shooting involving low light and shutter speed in the 1/800 – 1/1000 range were the chance of underexposure exist and you will the sensor true performance. I shot properly expose shot at 1600 on an old pentax ist DS and they look great, but underexpose a bit and they start looking like crap, same goes with my D3, it definitely better than my D300 but shooting above 1/1200 at low light with iso 800/1000 it starts to break down. In the real world you fight for the light  and demanding light do not always yield the perfect exposure, and
    that is when noise come in and aggressive  noise reduction kicks in, I can see it in the sample. I still think film still holds its avantage with the low light performance and hold the tonality and noise more evenly than digital. I think Manufaturer tend to try and seduce the consumer that the new camera can shoot fast, no blur, magical machine. Sadly they are just in it for the profit to sell you something you think you need in order to keep up with the crowd.

    Don’t be a sheep

  • Bob Kuo

    I can see a lot of luminance noise, but there seems to be no chrominance noise. This probably means that the pictures had went through noise reduction post processing. Anyway, the noise performance doesn’t seem particularly impressive, since the noise at 6400 iso is pretty bad.

  • thosh

    wow, not too bad for a crop sensor. comparing it to the luminance noise of my d700, i must say these are stunning results, honestly!

  • Dash Rendar

    I’d really want to know (from Fuji directly), how they’ll price the X-Pro1 body. :o

  • Daniel Hoherd

    Yeah, definitely looks like there was some in-cam high iso NR going on in those shots.  Would be nice to see it without any NR so we can get a raw view of where NR is starting from.

  • Mantis

    Stop the Pixel Peeping.  Sheesh.

  • lezko


    I don’t have permission to access /blog/wp-content/uploads/Shearing-sheep.jpg
    on this server.

  • Jim Warthman

    It seems to me that the most relevant test would be to compare images from 2 or more cameras by re-purposing the images in the way you will be using them in practice. If your thing is to make 16 x 24 prints, then that’s what you should be comparing. If you mostly resize images for posting to the web, then that is what you should be comparing.

    While pixel-peeping at 100% is interesting, and may tell you something about the “absolute” amount of noise (or smoothing), it’s more useful IMO to see what each camera can do when producing images the way you normally use them.

  • Guest


    I don’t have permission to access /blog/wp-content/uploads/Shearing-sheep.jpg
    on this server.

  • Spavlidis

    Too much excitement about nothing. Have a better look guys.