skip to Main Content

Fuji X PRO 1 fails on price? And Fuji explains why they didn’t join m43.


Fuji almost did it! They almost made a super camera but there could be a problem. The price is very likely too high. $1699 for the body only? Niet! What are the other points in favour of the m43 system? The camera is also a bit to big compared to m43 cameras, video quality should be very low compared to what Panasonic cameras can deliver. The sensor looks promising but not revolutionary, no foveon alike design, no organic sensor, “only” the AA filter has been removed thanks to the new RGB pattern and with heavy postprocessing work. Not to play down the Fuji camera, it’s certainly a super nice camera, but I feel like there is a chance fro Olympus to get on par with this with the next Olympus OM alike m43 camera. While I am sure body quality and viewfinder technology of the Olympus will be on par with the Fuji X PRO 1 I don’t know if Olympus will make it right with the new sensor. Let’s cross the fingers!

The guys over at ePhotozine asked Fuji the following question: Why not join Micro Four Thirds?
Answer: “Fujifilm are a photographic company with a lot of history in Fujinon optics, using our own lens mount and sensor allows us to be in total control of the system and final image quality.

And here below you can hear a Fuji manager that at the end of the interview talks about the Olympus situation:

Fuji X PRO 1 at Amazon (notification only).
Fuji 18mm lens at Amazon (notification only).
Fuji 35mm lens at Amazon (notification only).
Fuji 60mm lens at Amazon (notification only).

  • Jorge

    Hi Admin, you expressed my opinion. The Fuji X PRO 1 will be a brilliant camera, but I don’t expect them to sell it like pancakes, and it looks more a rival for the NEX-7 or even Leica than most of the m4/3 cameras.

    As for the Fuji comment, “using our own lens mount and sensor allows us to be in total control” seems like “we don’t want stupid customers to attach cheap lenses to our cameras”. Really? Why not let the customer decide and control? Why should Panasonic prevent me from mounting a Holga lens on my camera? What they want, of course, is to control all revenue sources. Actually, the problem for them may be that there are already quite a few good lenses and they may fear not to sell their own (though they also miss the opportunity to sell lenses to other camera owners).

    • Mr. Reeee

      Just wait until Rainbow Imaging starts releasing lens adaptors for the new Fuji mount, then it may start to be interesting.

      • One interesting thing is Fuji is going to make a Leica M adapter themselves. Which is smart, I’m not sure why Panasonic, Oly, and Sony all don’t do the same. They all obviously know people adapt lenses, they’re loosing money by not making adapters themselves.

        There is a pretty big price gap in the adapter market. Right now, we have el cheapo $20-30 chinese made adapters, and on the other end of the spectrum we have ridiculously priced Novaflex adapters. Voitlander is a tad cheaper, but not much. Metabones is the only reasonably priced high quality adapters I know of, and they are really difficult to find.

        • Anonymous

          Panasonic makes a Leica M to m4/3rds and a Leica R to m4/3rds

          • Frederic Hew

            I would think Panasonic came out with Leica adapters because the two companies cooperate in so many things.

            Fuji doing so is a very interesting statement. It’s a full on assault on Leica, unlike what Panasonic did.

        • Mr. Reeee

          Those Metabones adaptors look quite nice. I hadn’t heard of them before. It seems as though you can only get them through eBay. Nikon and Leica M adaptors are $90.

          The adaptors I have are Fotodiox (Nikon F $30) and Rainbow Imaging (Nikon F $18.19, 2 Pentax M2 screwmount $15.39, Leica M mount $14.89 and a set of Macro Extension Tube Rings $8.59). They all work fine and focus to infinity. The Fotodiox and Rainbow Nikon adaptors look almost exactly the same.

          I had originally considered using adapted lenses mostly as an experiment, but for $179 each, I really couldn’t justify the price of Voigtländer adaptors, especially when it was to try on some 20+ year old Nikon lenses I have. But, was so pleased with the results, ended up with a pile of old lenses; the 2 original ones I had, the 2 Pentax lenses I inherited and a couple of Nikon macro lenses I bought used. There’s another Olympus OM 135mm f3.5 that I’ve inherited, but don’t have yet.

          As far as the Fuji goes, it appears to be a solid camera and not something I find very appealing. I’d prefer something more SLR-like, but not if it’s the size of the XP1. Although, the weight isn’t bad at 450g. My Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro weighs about the same!

          I’m curious to see real-world image results (not charts and whatnot), but also what see else they have in the pipeline in terms of cameras. The Fuji rep did mention that it was the first camera in a projected system. I guess they’re waiting to see how sales go before releasing more models?

      • L.Coen

        If Fuji thinks it can make money by making an Af camera to cater to the Leica crowd..then they will be out of business faster than you can say Leica. Fuji and the other Japanese companies are not in the business of making Leica money. Go walk the streets and you’ll be lucky to see one person using m43 let alone Leica. What boggles my mind is why so many people would want to use Leica lens on cameras built for AF lenses? Is the Leica m9 that bad that their users have to use nex or m43 bodies for their lenses? Some will say it’s because the Lieia m9 is too expensive..but how can someone who can afford Leica glass new or used not be able to afford a m9?

        If Fuji catered to the Leica crowd it would make about a thousand dollars a year.People seem to think Leica is some giant camera behemoth but the truth is, Leica is a very very very small marginal player in the camera biz. They have a market no one wants..which is the high end luxury status market. The people who buy new Leicas are- wealthy working pros and rich folks Leica wannabes and of course the rich who want a rolex that shoots pics. That market is around 1% of 1%. 99% of camera buyers can not afford a Leica nor can they justify one.It’s the 99 percent that drive the business and sales..not the guys all over the internet sites crying about full frame cameras and leica lens this and that. Leica can barely survive… its market is the only one they can have. Besides high end rangefinder cameras..what else to they have? Manual focus lenses? LOL. Who cares how good it is if no one is able to afford them? The world has moved on…Leica is at the end of a very long line.Someday Leica will need to charge 50 thousand dollars for their cameras in order to survive.

    • Renato S.

      I think you are misinterpreting their statement.

      Without the correction filters and the backfocus distance flexibility Fuji was able to use a very short flange distance and yet keep the lens in a reasonable size. They were able to make the aperture ring in-lens. I think it’s more about this kind of choices, about being able to control the whole system than “we don’t want stupid customers to attach cheap lenses to our cameras”.

      This is a very defensive type of comment, because you take it as Fuji is trying to offend the m4/3. Fuji had their experience with 4/3 and that probably didn’t work for them, just it.

  • Comparing two announcements from yesterday, the G1X is more appealing. XPro1 is kinda exaggerated, therefore makes me somehow nervous. With all aspects, I hope the upcoming Oly to be a better camera.

    • I agree. I expect to see much more Canon G1X on the streets than the FujiFilm “Pro”, even if they cut price on half. In fact, the presentation of G1X looks more professional than any of the FujiFilm promos. While self-proclaimed superlatives: “revolutionary”, “new standards in image resolution”, “the highest image quality”, “cutting-edge technology in a beautiful camera body”, “premium accessory lineup” are not backed up by any FujiFilm actual-size photos, as well as by Canon, at least you can see a person taking photos on Canon videos. There are already people, such as Chuck Westfall, claiming the G1X quality better than Canon 7D due the Digic 5 processor.
      FujiFilm “Pro” so far is a “white” (sorry “black”) overhyped “horse”.
      Considering quite a limited manpower resources of FujiFilm, and more than 30 (!) already announced cameras for this year, I hardly can expect a well designed product at this time.
      Taking into account the previous history of FujiFilm, expect a long waiting period of fixing camera quirks, etc. BTW, the new FujiFilm RAW (.RAF) format due to fancy “random” (non Bayer) color pixels would be probably not recognized by most of the raw converters. The current MyFinePix Studio is really slow and buggy.

      • Anonymous

        ” he presentation of G1X looks more professional than any of the FujiFilm promos ” hahaha :))) from what planet you came man? fuji looks 1000 better then crappy poin and shoot canon g1x … witch is not more than g series upgraded. :)))))

      • popeye

        ” he presentation of G1X looks more professional than any of the FujiFilm promos ” :))) hahahaha from what planet you came man :)))) fuji looks 10000 more pro than crappy g1x witch is not more than cannon g series upgraded and is point and shoot kind of camera . because o f peoples like you all those companies produced only pro cameras or ugly point and shoot cameras and not to many option between .. like GF1 or fuji pro x . i;m sick of this marketing based on too many stupid peoples . and btw 7d is rubbish compared with mark …

  • I can’t wait to ear the price of the Pen-PRO, if it ever comes.

  • Forbes

    Why do people keep saying it is too expensive? It might be too expensive for a specific person, but so far I have not seen a convincing reason why the camera would not be good value for money. Fuji is not aiming at the general enthusiast. Fuji is aiming at the high end enthusiast, the Leica M buyer.

    I don’t understand why people fail to see the camera in the context of its intended market. This is the poor man’s Leica M, the modern interpretation of a rangefinder. This is not a NEX7.

    I’m not buying one, but this is the first camera I have seen that I like as much as a Leica M.

    • kesztió

      Sorry, but a high end enthusiast is NOT a Leica M buyer. A Leica is a good piece for camera lovers, nostalgics and (uhhh, what an ugly word!) snobs, but not for photographs who want to take high quality photos in variously difficult circumstances.

      The usability of Leica cameras – due to the lack of autofocus, TTL viewfinder and real support for zoom lenses – is somewhat limited, not speaking about the price you should pay for it.

      • Forbes

        A Leica is for those who take their time to enjoy the experience of photography and are willing to pay a premium for outstanding quality. I think those people qualify as high end enthusiasts.

        This Fuji is clearly aimed at potential Leica M buyers. I say this because I am a potential Leica M buyer. Having looked at an M2 to compliment my Canon 7D, I am now following the developments of both Fuji and Leica. This Fuji looks so good that I will consider trading in my 7D. It will depend on Leica’s mirrorless and possible future Fuji releases (and budget of course).

        To contrast: I would not consider trading in my 7D for a NEX or m4/3.

        • jake

          perfectly well said, I actually traded my NEX5n and Zeiss24f1.8 in for this system(but if I could afford , I ‘d get a M9 not the Fuji).

          I am selling my GH2 for Nikon D4 or EOS5D3.

          I think we still need both a good DSLR and a ILC or Digital RF.

          • Bob B.

            Jake….I agree with your outlook in general. My take is a little different. I have a 5D MarkII and a kit from fisheye to 300mm. I have a MFT kit from fisheye to 350mm (equivalent) which compliments but does not REPLACE my DSLR. None of the mirrorless systems can replace what my DSLR can do from soup to nuts…but oh do I love to have a SMALL companion system when I do not have the need or desire to take out the big guns. MFT fits that bill (own G3 and GX1). I think the Fuji is an interesting camera…(and maybe a great one), but its size, and the limitations of its system capabilities put it in no-mans-land for this photographer

          • kesztió

            Hmm… Leica M9 and outstanding quality?

            In comformity with DxO labs measurements the M9 FULL FRAME CCD sensor is just slightly better thant the one from GH2 with only 1/4 surface(!) and far worse than ones from other high end full frame cameras. So I cannot understand why Leicas are claimed as cameras with outstanding image quality.

            Well, build quality is really good but even counting this Leicas still have one of the worst value for money.

            I sould admit though that Leica lenses are exceptional but every serious interchangeable lens system has now Leica M adapters so every enthusiast may benefit of Leica lenses just buying the appropriate adapter.

            • Boooo!

              “So I cannot understand why Leicas are claimed as cameras with outstanding image quality.”

              Because they cost a lot of money :D

              All these small cams are very nice to complement a DSLR, but they will never be able to replace them.

              Olympus, I need that E-7, seriously.

              • Boo

                What is it about an e7 that you need so bad?

                • Boooo!

                  I want an upgrade over my E-3. The E-5 isn’t quite that.

                  • Jorge

                    And what about the GH2 (or GH3)? What does it lack that you want? Or is it for the legacy lenses?

                    • Boooo!

                      The GH line is faaaaaar too small for the lenses and cannot focus them well, plus the camera is hard to hold. Besides, I’ve been told that SWD equipment on m4/3 will die quickly, and I have SWD lenses. I also have no interest in sub-par m4/3 lenses, and not a single good one was made by anyone thus far.

                      The E-5 is definitely nice, but not something I’d spend money on. If the E-7 doesn’t come out, I’ll just get a used E-5 several years from now.

                  • Scott

                    I upgraded to the E-5 from the E-3. It is def a great upgrade!!!!! Worth every penny.

                    • Boooo!

                      If you’re from the western world, then it might be a great upgrade. If you’re not, and if you have to save money for 8-12 months because the E-5 costs over two average monthly salaries and you need to live and eat, then it’s not ;)

            • Forbes


              Your criticism misses my point completely. Leica isn’t just the M9 sensor and a DxO analysis with little relevance for real world use. Personally I would sooner buy an MP than an M9. Are you going to say that a scanned Tri-X 400 negative from an MP is no different than from a Voigtlander Bessa and thus an MP is a waste of money?

              Consider the camera beyond just the sensor, or the film, and tell me which camera offers better quality than a Leica with Leica glass.

              Yes Leica is bloody expensive. Why? Because they are unique. What company would not cash in?

              • +1 anyone that brings up DxO and complains about missing features is missing the point of this Fuji or a Leica M9 ENTIRElY. I specificly like both cameras because they are limited. They focus on doing just a few things well, and that makes them great. I would rather pay for higher build quality, something I’ll notice every single time I touch the camera, over the the latest and greatest wiz bang features that I may or may not ever use.

                • camerageek


                  Professional equipment in general is usually about doing very specific things well. This is true of all cameras. Sure my 1Ds is a fantastic camera, but if I were a regular consumer a Rebel has far more features and a better bang for the buck value.

                  The X Pro 1 much like the M9 focuses on still photography and uses a “limited” feature set that provides the user easy access to the three most important controls in photography today; shutter, aperture and sensitivity. To paraphrase Baron Von Richtoffen (the famed Red Baron) anything else is just rubbish. Just control those three values and anything else is gravy.

                  • Johan

                    The ability to focus the image being exposed – manual or AF – is definitely up there in the “important controls”/functions required to capture images… IMHO

            • Oitzsek

              Maybe you should handle one, to see the jaw dropping quality of the m9, seeing is believing. It really is that good. Any 43 sensored cam looks like a cell phone image compared to this

        • Nathan

          Now that’s some spin- for those who take their time indeed.
          For those who don’t mind that their 6,000 dollar camera is slowing them down- because they’re label conscious and need people to see them with expensive stuff in order to feel good about themselves.

          Leica M is nice for casual photography. No pro could use just a rangefinder unless he limited himself to the capabilities of the camera instead of his own limitations.

          • Forbes

            It has nothing to do with labels or $6,000 gear. For $600 you can buy a good M2/M3 and get the same experience, same solid build quality, and most people will not understand why you use a 50 year old camera.
            With an M9 and 35 Summilux you can have a camera that has the same timeless quality and feel, as well as unsurpassed image quality.

            Pro’s don’t use Leica M cameras for different reasons than you might think. DSLR’s are simply a sensible choice for business.

        • Michael

          “A Leica is for those who take their time to enjoy the experience of photography and are willing to pay a premium for outstanding quality.”

          Right, because non-Leica photographers race through their pics and don’t take their time or enjoy it.

          I guess the GP called it: Leica’s for snobs.

          • Forbes

            I never said that. It’s simply that shooting a rangefinder (and Leica makes the only readily available digital rangefinder) is a different type of photography.

            I don’t look down on other brands, or up at Leica. I simply love what Leica offers, and they are unique in that. It has nothing to do with the brand. If Zeiss would make a digital IKON, I don’t think I would look at Leica again since I prefer the way Zeiss lenses render. That doesn’t make me appreciate Leica any less.

            • L.Coen

              Forbes, do you like the way certain lenses renders or do you like photography? there is a difference. Bresson’s photos taken with a Leica by today’s I.Q. standards would be worse then the worst 50mm plastic Af lens. The rangefinder does have certain merits, the separate Vf, the frame lines and the rangefinder itself. but what it is lousy at is macro, tele, and exact framing. the Leica is not without its faults.

              Leica use to be a camera with a forward thinking philosophy. the Leica was made so that photographers could use 35mm film on a small camera. As newer Leica models came about, more advances were made. That is why you see Bresson using newer and newer Leica models at that time. today, Leicas philosophy is backwards. It’s about special edition cameras, about status, it’s not the same Leica. Bresson used newer and newer Leicas during his time…Lieca fan boys use older and older Leicas…do you see my point?

              Can you imagine if Bresson was in his 30’s today using old film Leicas when digital ps cameras can do things so much faster? After all, Bresson even said himself he was never interested in photography, and that all he cared about was just taking the picture. The rangefinder may have been good for him 50 years ago, but we are not back in the 50’s and 60’s anymore.

              The only thing worthwhile in a Leica is the rangefinder.But Nikon and Canon also made rangefinder cameras too. Leica cameras are also not the most reliable in the world. Even the old nikon cameras and the Nikon f can run circles around any Leica for durability. the sharpest lenses in the world doesn’t mean you have the best photo in the world either.I always get a kick out of people who say that Leica lenses take “great ” photos. Great as in “sharp” or great as in great photo? No camera or lens makes a photo, it’s the person who chooses what and how to shoot.I don;t have a problem with people who enjoy Leicas…but what is annoying is when those people seem to think that Leica takes “better” pictures. Bresson took better photos better then anyone, using the rangefinder to focus and the its VF to compose…nothing more. I never once read or saw Bresson talking about how sharp his photos were or how it renders.Even Nikon and Canon and the rest gave up on the rangefinder 60 years ago.Leica has to move forward but it can’t. It’s only market it has left is the one it has left, which is the market that no other camera maker wants.

          • L.Coen

            You’re absolutely right Michael. If I had a dollar for every time i read some bogus Leica statement online I wouldn’t ever have to work again.Leicamen are the same sort of guys who find religion and have a hard time enjoying it..for themselves. In fact, they can’t seem to enjoy it without telling the whole world.It’s also funny how the Leica folks are always talking about using their manual focus lenses on state of the art AF digital cameras.Isn’t the m9 good enough? I guess not when you’re sticking Leica lenses on Japanese AF cameras.LOL. Leica is truly at the end of a very long line…and unfortunately, so are many of its users.

      • Bob B.

        Kesztio…clearly you have not actually looked at a file that came out of a Leica M9 with a German lens on the front of it. (no…I do not own one).

        • > no… I do not own one

          That should have been the first – and the last sentence – in your comment.

          Love people moaning and whining about something – only because some rich dude on a forum has praised it.

          To date, I haven’t seen any unique image, produce by Leica. (Excluding of course some images with AA artifacts – those are, yes, pretty unique to M9.)

          Considering how few people actually own it, I would call all that “experience” talks a BS.

          • Bob B.

            Dummy. Look at the files…from a Leica in the hands of a competent photographer, (not a snob and I agree…there are plenty of Leica-owning dweebs). If you have eyes in your head ….you have to admit the images are incredible. Does the camera have a lot of caveats …yes…but in the hands of someone skilled..the results are nothing short of astounding.
            I do not have to own one to see the quality. Similarly…an image taken by a competent photographer using a Phase One is like silk.
            Those are just the facts Jack. I am no snob…but I can take and can appreciate incredible photographs.
            Perhaps you are blind?

            • Jim

              no better than a d3 image or a 5D2 or any other FF cam….

              • You guys should all go read the Leica M9 review on Canon Rumors. Yes, the admin of Canon Rumors shoots with an M9. Perhaps then you’ll understand the appeal of that camera doesn’t lie in a spec sheet. People use them for the exact same reasons I regularly use 30 year old fully manual film cameras. Some of us enjoy a simple and pure shooting experience. No face detection, no flashing icons, no worry about image stabilization…just go out and shoot a damn photo, nothing more.

                • Forbes

                  My primary reason why I still have the M2 in the back of my mind. I lost the budget for it when the car broke down (had found a good one already), but I wanted to have a roll of TriX in my camera, Sunny 16 in my mind and nothing else. I still think any serious photographer should be able to do that (and I feel I’m falling short since I can’t ;) ).

                • Jim

                  What crap – set my EP1 into manual mode and turn of the IBIS… go out and shoot a darn photo….

                  The magic Leica look – my ass – I bet you or anyone else could not spot a Leica image over any other… (bar small tell tell signs like alising).

                  Eliteisum pure and simple!

                  • Forbes

                    And then the battery died…

                  • @Jim
                    I owned, and sold my E-P1. The feeling you get using that camera is NOTHING like the feeling you get using a rangefinder or nice old manual film camera such as an Olympus OM, Pentax LX, or Nikon FM. Am I an elitist because I enjoyed shooting my $400 Voigtlander Bessa and my $300 Pentax LX more than I did my $800 E-P1?

                    I’m in no way an elitist when it comes to cameras, I view high price as a very bad thing, but I know what I like in a camera and what I don’t like in a camera; and lets just say that I LOVE the fact that a freakin’ video record button or “Intelligent Auto” button doesn’t take center stage anywhere on the Fuji X-Pro 1.

      • Jim

        yep – totaly agree

        Leica is a waste of money for those who can afford to waste it!

        • Bob B.


      • Julien

        “Sorry, but a high end enthusiast is NOT a Leica M buyer. ”

        Haha, another internet lolexpert.

        I work for a well known parisian lab. You can’t imagine how much M9 is a big success in the high end enthusiast/pro niche. I can nearly state that every contract magnum photographer have one ( BEFORE the leica/magnum partnership) and i just met only one that don’t like it so much (but still use it sometimes). I’ve even seen some studio shot files from M9. M43 files are really rare (and totaly absent in the pro side, except some made by a friend with my gf1). From my personnal experience, but they are no so many high end lab in Paris, and i don’t think their customers are really different.

        So now you have three options:
        -Parisian are so much snob that even photographer are hype victims.
        -M43 parisian user never make high end prints
        -You’re wrong

    • lnqe-M


    • Bob B.

      Forbes..I agree….the camera is priced right in the market. The lenses are even cheap….(relative)
      but so far…i am not wowed with the images I have seen. Not at all.. Hope it is just a corporate screw up that they were presented poorly….The large images on the Fuji website are not sharp. Filter or no filter. Does anyone think that in Fuji images are incredible?????
      Seeing that photography is all about the photograph…can a company really be that lame as to present the images poorly?…or is the technology flawed???
      My GX1 looks damn good right now!
      Oh…..ahem..hope the Fuji is sharp in reality, and this is a camera..the NEX thing is a computer that is poorly designed. Somebody already said it…”HEY SONY…did you see the size of those Fuji lenses on the APS-C size sensor…Did YA??????..”. (How could a company with pockets that deep screw something so simple up, so unmercifully??????).

      • @Bob B.
        maybe the Fuji images are beautifully sharp for print and not for web/screen (two very different scenarios)

        • Bob B.

          Since the images were presented by Fuji on our web screens (which is how EVERYTHING is presented in 2012!) for consideration of buying THEIR product … there is no excuse for not presenting them correctly for THIS media. Period.

          • BLI

            Well the initially published pictures from the Nikon 1 system were downright *ugly* with a dirty greyish flare; still they have got remarkably good reviews, and pictures taken by good photographers look much better than what was shown initially.

            • Bob B.

              yeah BLI….I want this to be a good camera…I do REALLY….hopefully someone who knows what they are doing can get their hands on one and give us a heads up. (I was unaware of the Nikon images being lackluster in the launch…I would not buy that camera…but it seems to be a very good image maker and built extremly well).
              …Fuji is unveiling a object of beauty…this is the time that the most eyes will be on it…how could they not WOW us when they have the opportunity??????????????????

      • Stu

        Fuji talked the sensor up so much in the press release but the images samples on their site are very average as you said and don’t appear to live up to the hype. It will be interesting to see what the photos look like from test reports.

        • Bob B.

          If the large images on the Fuji website are correctly presented…I think I can hear laughter wafting from Solms, Germany….not sure, though. Does anyone else hear it?

          • Mr. Reeee

            +10 … to that and everything else you said, Bob!

            Underwhelming is about the only word that comes to mind to describe the Fuji. It seems to be a nicely made box, with some nice features, that attempts to target a peculiar… I mean… particular niche. ;-) Whether it succeeds or not is another issue.

            The sound coming from Leica HQ?

          • Forbes

            “…I think I can hear laughter wafting from Solms, Germany…”

            That made me chuckle!
            Don’t know about the sample images, but this is Fuji going into the deep end. Not a camera I would pre-order. Let’s first see if they pulled it together as well as the marketing suggests.

            • Bob B.

              yes..its the Laugh Wafta.
              If I had a name like Forbes…I could actually own a Leica! LOL! I am stuck with this damn Kodak Brownie.

              • Forbes

                LOL! Forbes is actually a reference to a nineteenth century biologist; Edward Forbes. (Strange, I know, but I’m a scientist/historian of science/philosopher of science. Nothing about me makes much sense. ;) )

  • I think the X-Pro 1 is (1/2) a “better Sony NEX System”: OVF Viewfinder and unchipped batteries ( yes I want to use cameras 20 years, do I get chipped Sony batteries after 20 years? ).

    I think the X-Pro 1 is (2/2) the “Sony NEX System for professionals”: Leica-like look, No AA Filter and this way better sharpness, high quality high aperture primes as lens system and most importantly for the image of Pro’s: its not in a family of pocket toy cameras with mobile phone-like touchscreen user interface.

    I think when the price falls to some degree after 6 months, this will be a good camera for those who looked at the Sony Nex system, but didnt buy it.

    The fuji X-Pro1 might also be a “prime lenses” second system for 4/3 users ( in the 4/3 system are not many primes, in the m43 system yes but those cameras are currently a bit to small for me ).


    • jake

      well said,the NEX UIF is terrible ,lenses are very very bad in terms of both build quality and optical quality including the fake zeiss.

      I think Sony does not know how to design a good camera system; although they know how to make a great LCD , EVF and superb sensor,they dont know how to put these well together.
      take a close look at A77V or NEX7 ? they both look great on paper but both are crappy cameras in real world use(terrible UIF , terrible low ISO noise due to SLT design).

      I personally never buy any more Sony camera, I am done with Sony but I will probably buy the upcoming GH3(announced in Feb in Japan).

      • Arnold

        Did you see the comparison at Luminous Landscape between the Zeiss and the Leica Summilux ?

        The Zeiss holds quite well against a lens 6 times more expensive.

  • Yun

    If it deliver FF IQ as claimed , the price tag is reasonable .
    Might consider it as my premier camera but prefer to wait for Oly & Pana’s reaction on this .

  • The Fuji is not a direct competitor to m4/3 as I see it: It is partly directed to another group of users. Not only by price but with set of features. Let’s say it is for super enthusiasts and pro’s with enough wallet.
    With m4/3 you step up from p&s and start develop your photography.
    With the Fuji you need to have matured your photography and know better what you want to achieve with it. The IQ of the Fuji is CLAIMED to be on par with Canon 5D MkII wich is a lot. Price is also similar. The Fuji is much smaller and weights only 50% of the canon.
    The Canon version of “X” is more a competitor to m4/3. I have used many of the earlier G’s and liked it. Many times I thought “why not put a larger sensor into this bulky but nice compact”? Now it is there.
    The m4/3 OM style camera does not need to be as bulky as the Fuji, neither be able to have IQ like Canon 5D MkII – nor to cost as much. It MUST have a far better sensor to start with with DR on par with current Nikon D7000/Pentax K5.

    • jake

      the IQ of the Fuji may rival that of the EOSFf or Nikon FF but the EOS or Nikon system is much more versatile with very wide range of speciality lens selection such as TSE24f3.5 , EF200f2LISMK2 or AFS14-24f2.8 or AFS24f1.4GED.

      so, as much as I love the Fuji as a walk around camera , it cannot be my main camera , especially for architecture work.

      this tiny Fuji is a great camera and definitely a good walk around camera but not competing against FF camera system from Nikon or Canon until Fuji gets out some good TSE or PCE type of tilt and shift lenses.

      I think ILC system camera makers should design some nice TSE/PCE type of lenses.

    • flash

      While the Cannon X has a lot of similarities to the m43 format it to is not a competitor as it is not a small system camera. It s a nice compact camera, seems to be better then the competition, if its view finder works reasonably well, which is a big question; it will again let Cannon be on top of the compact heap. While its lens is not as good as the Olympus xz1 and its finder not as bright as the Fuji x10, the total package with the right size sensor seems to be better on paper. It is a little big compared to the PEN M1, and a little pricy (for now).

      I hope Olympus comes out with a brilliant (literally and figuratively) xz-2 to compete with it.

      Hmm, Brilliant was it that a name for a Voigtländer camera? Maybe Cosinia will make a “Brilliant” compact for the enthusiast with a Voigtländer lens. (I wish) Maybe they will make that nice Ducati concept camera (that was circulaing the web recently) a m43 camera for Ducati. The original Ducati cameras were sort of a half frame Leica, but with as good or better lens (that is what the Ducati owners say), my next door neighbor had one when I; it had some unique features also. It was his toy, he was a professional photographer who used a lot of Nikon F1s for his work, but always had the Ducati with him when he was not working.

  • Somehow Fuji seem to do things right from the start, making the camera we asked for, unlike Panasonic and Olympus. The X PRO 1 certainly makes m43 a little less interesting, at least for me.

    • GreyOwl


      • lorenzino

        Two different concepts: m43 is definitively more pocketable, the Fuji aims at a having superior IQ.
        Both systems are lacking: the m43 because it is not as small as it could be, and at the same time it is limited by its “small” sensor, the Fuji because it is priced very high.
        Yes, it aims at almost-Leica users, but that is a niche inside a niche. Why not aiming at a more general audience (the Nex 5n-7 buyers)? After all, Fuji wants to sell a system camera, not only a camera body, and if they price the camera too high not so many will buy the lenses…

        • This is just the first x camera. The next one will hit the NEX and M43.

          • david

            ??? The first one hasn’t even been released yet. How do you know anything about the next one?

      • CRB


    • Atle

      Who is “we”? As you pointed out youself, its interesting for you, but what about others? Its a good deal less interesting than m43 for me. So they havnt delivered the camera I asked for.

    • We asked? Compared to E-P3 plus three primes the same Fuji equipment is a lot bigger and more expensive. It has a better sensor but everything else is right now subjective. And even with IQ (lenses, sensor, processing) we still have to see how much better. The same goes for differences in usability, feel and responsiveness in practice. Only after using it we know what kind of a camera is behind the specs.

      • Mr. Reeee

        Agreed. It’s amusing how many people make these glowing assessments of a new, untested camera system based solely on a seeing a few web images and perusing a spec sheet.

        The real test boils down to handling and real-world shooting.

        Having handled an X100 a few times, I’m skeptical that the new Fuji will live up to the hype. If it does, great. Either way, it’s nice to see a company at least attempting to build a quality camera that’s not using today’s cookie cutter sensibilities… just the sensibilities of yesteryear. ;-)

    • Gabriel

      Why m43 and not other system, Samung nx200 test show a good camera, there is also good quite fast prime, adapter for nikon, canon and pentax lenses. It’s an apsc sensor too. But yes, there is no evf/ovf, no direct control on speed and aperture, but with the kit zoom it cost half the fuji. Sometime, price matter.

  • napalm

    too expensive and too big for my tastes. i was hoping for the same size as the X100, this is a tad too much. so far from what we’ve seen, the IQ aint anything to shout about either. but I will reserve that judgement when we see real user images soon.

  • TheEye

    Looks like Woodford got himself some new hair. ;-)

  • The XPro1 is a super system and is priced accordingly. No complaints, really. I wonder what’s the point in the Leica mirrorless planned for Photokina except for the name.
    What bugs me is the 17mm flange distance in a body 43mm thick. Why? It calls for trouble, especially when detail is supposed to be the raison d’etre for this system. Among the APS-C mirrorless manufacturers Samsung has been the only one to come up with a reasonable optical design.

    • disco

      can you please explain why? there must be something you know that fuji engineers don’t.

      • The closer the sensor to the back of the lens the more acute the angles of light rays that hit it. A 17mm flange distance is just too short for an APS-C camera, which might cause excessive vignetting and corner softness with wider lenses. There are various solutions to this (larger telecentric lenses, offset edge photosites and back-illuminated sensors), but as far as available information goes none are utilized here.
        I don’t claim to know more than anyone, just wondering.

        • Jorge

          There is a good analysis on this topic at DSLRMagazine, at the middle of the article (seach for “17,7mm”), and explains how the lens design could deal with the issue, as Sneye hinted.

          The original unfortunatelly is in Spanish, but you have a box at the top of the page to get an automatic translation (don’t know if it is still understandable, since I read it in Spanish).

          • It seems at the back of the lenses there is an extra piece of glass (of size similar to the sensor) to make light fall on sensor almost perpendicularly.

            Somewhat reminiscent IIRC of the Oly’s patent (which was mentioned on the 43R long ago) on Super 43 where similar design was employed to enlarge the 43 image circle to cover FF sensor.

          • Thanks. Looks like a sound solution, although it doesn’t bode well for the performance of legacy lenses on this camera.

        • Sneye: Actually the opposite is true. Have you seen the image with the sectioned 35/1.4 lens? Note how the rearmost element straightens the light rays so they hit the sensor more head-on?

        • jake

          yeah , very interesting if it is really 17.4mm , it would be too short to design a zoom for it(I guess).

          maybe as you say the best ILC system currently is the Samsung NX200?

        • flash

          Could it be that is was designed originally for an organic (non-reflective) sensor? That would allow it to work the angles better.

  • Gabi

    This camera will definitely not be mine. It is a beast (sizewise):,258

    • Camaman

      Nice website!
      I see its wider than my D7000… :-/

      • jake

        serious? if this thing is bigger than your D7000 , it would also be bigger than my D7000.

        if this is true , I might keep my GH2.
        thanks for the link.

    • disco


      perhaps they came up with a lens design solution, knowing what fuji does best. guy on video seems to think the closer flange distance is a good thing.

      might not be an issue for native lenses.

    • Jorge


    • DR


      Looks small to me:,258

    • Trevor

      Ha, it’s within .5mm width-wise and 1.8mm height-wise of the Leica M9. Maybe there is something to the idea that Fuji is going after the Leica market.

  • Sören

    Well, I guess the Pen Pro from Oly will also be priced very high (E-P3 price + VF2 price + X). Olympus has to be more careful now with pricing their cameras, because now there is a real high end alternative from Fuji.
    If the Fuji would have been the rumored 1300 Euro as Kit it would be fantastic, because that would dumb all prices of µFT and Nex drastically.

  • Brian

    well thought, nice camera.
    Probably targeted for people who cannot afford lecia, definitely not designed to be used as a sub camera
    (considering its size – bigger than m9 and the price – $1700 body only seems too high)
    I honestly think the camera does not look good as much as i expected to be
    I would consider it to be a bit “ugly”
    Image quality? – we have see how this “revolutionary sensor performs” but I bet the quality of image won’t be greater compared to nx200 or nex5n

  • Sylwiusz

    Too Expensive? I’m not sure – in this more premium class of cameras this is quite normal price. Sony NEX7 and Pentax K-5 have somewhat similar price. With all the respect for micro 4/3 we’ll have to see somewhat similar yet in this system.

    • Gabriel

      K5 is 1300 $ with 18-55 kit lenses, 1000$ body only and it’s a wheater seal camera, with ibis and more direct control. Fuji looks really like a black M9, i wonder why fuji dont put a red dot with the word fuji in front of the camera ;)

  • Tomi

    For 1700 body only its too expensive.. Technology is nice thing, but its always about senzor size, right? APSC for a price of full frame dslr?? Its crazy.. But I also need to say that I like this camera and I would buy it, but for reasonably lower price..

  • Mar

    How did fuji make small aps lenses for x system?
    By making a huge body, so the lenses seem small!

    Haha :)

  • What

    obviously, m4/3 is a pocketable and easy-using system, there are no real pro camera yet.

    • jake

      no need pro MFT because it cannot replace FF anyway, it is better to use both a big FF or MF +MFT.

  • jocky

    What is your obsession with miniature cameras. Smaller and lighter than a D700 is fine by me. Give me quality optics and superb image files and I will pay the money.

    Plastic cameras with optical correction in camera are not good enough for a company like olympus.

  • Sylwiusz

    Actually lenses for X despite being purposed foa a larger sensor seems to be smaller than their micro4/3 equiv:

    • Mr. Reeee

      Are the Fuji lenses metal or plastic? Metal lenses are generally smaller than plastic.

      Look at rangefinder lenses. Very small.
      Compare a Voigtländer 25mm next to a Leica 25mm and the difference is striking, of course, the Voigtländer is manual focus.

      • mahler

        ??? The Voigtlaender is bigger (longer) and heavier than the PL 25mm. The PL has just a little larger diameter. So all in all, I would consider the PL the more “compact” solution.

        Your example is not very appropriate to prove that metal lenses are generally smaller / more compact than plastic ones.

      • Gabriel

        You can make small plastic lenses too (pentax and samsung pancakes), what make the size is the glass inside, not the plastic or metal around. For a zoom, the 14-42x pana is small

  • I’m still waiting for serious tests before I can say if it’s a good cam or not ;-)

  • Tropical Yeti

    Admin > Fuji almost did it! They almost made a super camera
    > but there could be a problem. The price is very
    > likely too high.

    Yes. Real 4/3 rumors namby-pamby is just never satisfied. When camera is “almost super”, price is to high. When price will be “almost super” – well something else will be wrong, probably left side EVF will interfere with ones eyelashes too much. And this will be the reason for furher days spend behind the computer, lamenting about “super-perfect” cam.

    • mahler

      Totally agree. Admin is mostly an Olympus fanboy and rangefinder fanatics. So if something is not in this direction, it has always a grain of salt, whereas Olympus – despite its narrow product line – is treated with a lot of tolerance. m4/3 form factors, which do not look like rangefinder? Forget it. Everything that costs more than 350 $, too expensive !

      • Oitzsek

        You are a payed panasonic troll

        Btw whats all tha +10000 shit on this site it s insulting my intelligence

  • fujifan

    too pricey. With that price, might as well get a full frame camera. Why no manufacturer wanna manufacture an entry level d3100 with full frame sensor? I’m sure all are waiting for it. I was waiting for that day. I know is wishfull thinking….

    • Gabriel

      Me too, i wonder why there is not FF entry level camera, not every one needs huge armored magnesium body with 10fps at 24mpx and more button than a teenager.

  • We have to wait for both test results and to see the actual street price. The later being high from start but will go down.
    Concerning manufacturer’s test images: Haven’t even loked at them. My experience is that that kind of examples never tells the truth. They can be lousy – or excellent. Have seen both and always tests tells a different story.
    Looking at X100 files, I think they are excellent: Smooth, good DR with distribution to the white end – no terrible blown out highlights like with m4/3 sensors (+ maybe the very unsophistcated exposre measure on m4/3 cameras).

  • Alexander


    Did CANON join m43?.. -> PowerShot-Reihe, G1 X

    I guess the saw the advantage of this format!?

    • Yes, I think they saw the advantage. But because of the “not invented here” syndrome, they had to make theirs just a tiny bit larger. By the way, the Canon sensor is almost exactly the same size as the one in the Panasonic GH2. So it could be used as a multi aspect sensor in m4/3, if Canon agree to sell some (extremely unlikely).

  • fujifan

    but it is just an improvement on x100,make it interchangeble,and it costs so much higher? what is the value added? and what are the values being deducted from x100?

  • DR

    The Fuji will have failed on price when it does not sell, not when a bunch of whingers on the internet say so.

    I like it. It’s a step up from u43, but if it measures up to the information put out so far, it will be a great camera.

  • DeZ

    Everyboddy is whinning on the price. It was stated before that the body with 1.4/35 will cost USD1299. Where is the problem?

    From my side I would be a little happier with a FF Fuji (to use Leica glass), until then I am waiting for a proper rangefinder styled m43 cam. Or buy a GF1 as it is closest to the form/usability factor what I lust for.

  • Al

    In the end, folks, it’s all about image quanlity. Let’s wait and see…

  • Scot

    Considering the size and price point they should have made it FF than it might compete in there target market. As is I don’t think it will have a real future. Had they joined the m4/3 they might have cleaned up selling bodies and lenses.

    As for the sensor tech I think it has promise look forward to seeing some comparative samples. If it does pull off stunning results the like off we have not seen yet than that might save it. Which doesn’t mean it won’t sell someone with money to burn will buy it for bragging rights alone.

  • I don’t know that it’s really too expensive: it’s a limited-use camera with a very limited line of available lenses. So it wouldn’t be able to be the “only camera” for most people, meaning that only a relatively small group of people would buy it no matter what. Most of those people will be One Percenters and professionals who can deduct it off their taxes; if they would have been happy to pay $1200 for the body, they won’t have any trouble coming up with $1700 for the body if they want.

    The real problem will be the somewhat underwhelming specs. Other than losing the low-pass filter and substituting software blurring instead, there’s no difference that anyone will be able to see. (I guess M9 users enjoy convincing themselves that their cameras’ false-resolution artifacts make their images look “crisper,” but nobody else will buy that.) Everything else is this-but-that: The control layout is nice, but the body is huge. The lenses have appealing specs, but there are only three of them (and the 60 is too slow for a “portrait lens.”) So other than the optical viewfinder, it’s a lot like you’re buying a Lumix GX for twice the money.

    And the viewfinder — that’s going to be the real deal-killer. Nobody’s going to enjoy composing pictures with an 0.6x finder, let alone the 0.37x wide-angle viewer. Almost everybody who buys this camera is going to switch the finder to EVF mode 99% of the time… and if you’re doing that, why not buy a smaller, lighter, less expensive NEX-7 with higher pixel count?

    Prediction: the Steve Huff crowd will buy them, will enthuse about them, will publish boring comparison tests showing how the images compare with those from their M9s, and next year they’ll be on eBay when another luxury photo-tchotchke comes along.

  • my oh my

    where is camerageek when we need him

    ‘So I cannot understand why Leicas are claimed as cameras with outstanding image quality. ‘ quotes like this make me throw up, a bunch of clueless consumer electronic toy buyers

    • camerageek

      I am here mere mortal! Thank You for invoking my name!

      It is obvious that the Admin has no clue. The Fuji is not geared to the likes of common filthy peasants such as him or the deluded others here who whine about price!

      It is for the Omnipotent greatness of we the GODLIKE photographic elite. Tell me again how your pathetic slow kit zoom for micro for turdists is going to be a better lens than the Fuji 35/1.4? It’s like saying a coke bottle is better than a Leica Summilux!!!! BWAHAHAHA!!!!

      This camera will be unobtanium for many month perhaps even a year, it will get great reviews and those who have the honor of owning and shooting one will be viewed upon with awe while those with micro four turds camera will be mocked perhaps even tarred and feathered for our amusement MUAHAHAHA!!!!!!

      • Forbes

        Now I want one! I feel too puny without it.

  • spanky

    Price is fine if the IQ is there – not an issue. Size is fine – not everyone needs or wants a super tiny camera. Most of us don’t use or care about video, so meh on the video quality. It’s a stills photography tool. I like it so far. The samples look great. Until Olympus and Pana start to introduce something revolutionary themselves I wouldn’t worry about Fuji.

  • spanky

    As an aside, I find it interesting that everyone’s been asking for a mirrorless L1, and now that Fuji apparently launches one it’s not good enough? We are a fickle bunch, aren’t we? I love my G1/GH1, but I’m not betrothed to the brand by any means. I’ve been waiting for 3 years now for something better than those two cameras, and I’m just not seeing it from Oly and Pana. I may just switch and see what happens.

  • zwagner

    Personally I think the camera is way overpriced, though as some have said, if somehow it does actually compete well with FF (or even other APS-C) cameras sensor-wise, then I suppose it’s actually not overpriced. But also as some have said, if any preliminary judgment can be made from scanning through the gallery on the Fuji website, the results are VERY underwhelming. I also noticed the highest ISO they go to on the site is 1600 (and most are at 200)… to me that’s not a great sign for a sensor that’s supposed to ‘outperform FF sensors’. IF that’s the case, wouldn’t you showcase that by putting up some 3200, 6400… heck even 12800 pics?
    Final judgment will of course remain reserved until the real reviews and test shots start trickling out, but for now, underwhelming construction (why so big?), underwhelming lens selection and roadmap (almost no really fast lenses, and I’m sorry but the upcoming 14mm is NOT ‘super-wide’ on that camera… though I do like the f4 zoom lens idea, at least it’s fixed), underwhelming FPS for the price (especially considering what Nikon was able to accomplish in that area with their CSC), underwhelming IQ (so far)…
    I do like that Fuji is at least attempting to innovate where others seem just fine with just marginally improving what’s there, though I suppose just removing a filter and randomizing the array isn’t much more than marginal improvement. And if it doesn’t translate to better IQ… meh.
    But we’ll see what happens!

  • dfgfsdgfsdgf

    a camera for a few. but not going to be the start of a great SYSTEM.

    i don´t know why people like the fuji EXR sensors.
    i had a few P&S from fuji and the images looked smeary as hell.

    what does more dynamic range offers when the details are smeared

    all in all i was never impressed by fuji sensors that much.

    • Fan

      SuperCCD 8 years ago was terrible for sure.

      • Martin

        What irritates me about the new sensor is that, first, the RGB-relation goes even farther to the greenish side than previously and, second, that there are pixels that do not even have a red- or blue-sensitive neighbouring photodiode. It is true that the dominance of green-sensitive diodes in the Bayer pattern was well-justified by the higher sensitivity of the human eye for green. But advancing this dominance from a 2-to-1 relation between green-sensitive and red- or blue-sensitive diodes to a 5-to-2 dominance may be a bit over the top; at least isn’t justified by the sensitivity relation in the human visual system. Furthermore, in the Bayer pattern, all pixels -if thought to be located between the photodiodes, as traditionally the case- are directly adjacent to photodiodes covering the full RGB range, namely one blue-sensitive and one red-sensitive plus two green-sensitive diodes. In Fuji’s new pattern, there are pixels which have a full four green-sensitive photodiodes around them, lacking red and blue sensitivity in their immediate vicinity. It seems that the demosaicing thus would have to “smear” pixel information a bit more than in the Bayer pattern. It remains interesting to see whether the result still can provide a higher resolution than an AA-filtered Bayer pattern…

  • Reto

    Too pricey? I don’t think so. If the quality of the files in real life are comparable to the ones on the Fuji website the price is right. Image quality seems to be way better than what we currently have, right?

    Now let’s just have that über sensor in a PRO-Pen. With a GH1/2-style oversized sensor that would be about 12 MP I think?

  • For a pro level camera 1699 is not too high. You get what you pay for and I was very happy to see this camera come in under 2000. I would rather pay a little more and get the quality I need to get my work done.

  • Ahem

    “Video quality should be very low compared to what Panasonic cameras can deliver”

    Based on what?

  • Carl

    There is some inferiority complex running around here. Fuji camera is not a direct competitor for m4/3. Fuji is aiming their product towards a different type of consumer.

  • Alfons

    That photo on the top really melts my butter.

  • pdc

    Time to restrict comments to registered forum members – at the least check that the posting name is the name that is set by the registered member who uses the registered email address. Apart from trolls you are getting far too many flippant and ignorant posts.

  • Raist

    Fuji didn’t fail on price. This is a camera aimed at professionals, and not gear heads. Good lenses cost money. I can’t understand why you think this is overpriced. Even more so considering it has a brand new custom sensor that nobody else has.

    – Raist

    • camerageek

      Excellent words! This peasant shall be welcomed to those of the elite. Welcome to the club

  • We will see what the real world thinks when the Fuji X Pro 1 gets in customers hands. till then I stick with my relatively cheap Nex5n.

  • Le Passant

    The price is high, certainly, it’s still too early to decide if it’s justified.
    I tend to believe that the size is perfect for the targeted group. Video ? I don’t care. This is a camera for people shooting stills.
    “no foveon alike design, no organic sensor, “only” the AA filter has been removed”: this was the funny, and a little bit childish part of your comment. The only thing that matters is: does this sensor deliver great pictures or not?

  • I think the Fuji was designed for a sensor a little larger than Aps-c but not quite H. The mount frame could accommodate it. Maybe the x evolution will steal the show

  • seo

    I am curious to find out what blog system you are utilizing? I’m experiencing some minor security issues with my latest website and I would like to find something more safe. Do you have any solutions?

  • jsirevaag

    I intend to own the Fuji X-Pro 1. I’m buying the camera for the interface, mostly. I want aperture and shutter-speed to be clearly available on the camera body and not just on a screen via non-descript dials. I use a Sekonic hand meter for much of my exposure calculation and the dedicated, marked-dial approach is comfortable for the way I work. I’d love to own a Leica but it just isn’t going to happen. The Fuji will be my Leica and I am grateful that Fuji had the insight to “bridge the gap,” as it were.

  • To be really honest I am selling my Canon gear to fund the XP1. I am not at all happy that the price is higher than my 5dmkII with a couple of L series lenses, but I need to get rid of the weight because of some arthritis developing in my hands and I don’t want to give up my photography just yet. In truth I think the XP1 with say the 18mm and 35mm shouldn’t cost any more than £1800 – that equates to £1000 for the body and £400 for each of the lenses including tax. The present price structure is way over the top, especially in the current economic down turn. Most of the quirks will be sorted via firmware updates so they won’t stop me buying. But price is still a big issue with me and may send me off in another direction no matter how much I love the design of the XP1. Take note on this Fuji and don’t be over enthusiastic with your pricing. The XP1 isn’t in the Leica M league on that score.

Back To Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.