How does the image quality of the Fuji X-Pro1 compare to the 5Dc? I recently lost my 5Dc and 50 1.4 to the Caribbean, and this has me thinking about how my photography has changed. I'm very seriously considering selling off my 20D, 70-200 2.8L, and 17-40L and switching to the X-Pro1, but I'm worried about that APS-C sensor. I'm ok with the effective increase in DoF, but how does the image quality of the X-Pro1's sensor and the XF mount primes compare to the 5Dc and L zooms?

On pure image quality alone the FujiFilm X-Pro1 can be a very satisfying camera and system:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/re...review-samples
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/fujifilm/x_pro1

Of course, the basic camera layout and shooting philosophies are pretty different between the two systems.

Is there any particular trait or quality of the Canon 5D (Classic) that you would like to retain or build upon/improve upon?

Have you considered one of the dRebel cameras as a replacement? They are pretty small in size, take your existing lenses, and the image quality is really very nice (at least equal to a Canon 7D image quality for many subjects and in many applications.)

I have a 20D, so I don't see a need for a rebel if I'm going to stick with EF. I really liked the colors and image quality provided by the 5Dc, which I always attributed to the FF sensor.

As far as the body style, I much prefer the X-Pro1. I wish it were an SLR, but I can accept that you can't make a dSLR with AF that size. I often grab my old Nikon FM2n and bag-o-primes, but film just isn't practical anymore. I like the weight, size, and handling of the X-Pro1 package. I do think I'll miss the ability to shoot sports, but the reality is I almost never do that anymore, so the one or two times a year I do, I can always just rent a dSLR and lenses, and they'd be a better body and lens than I could afford to buy anyway.

Really, I think the X-Pro1 is better for my uses in every single way (except for the 1 or 2 times a year I shoot sports), but I don't have any first hand experience with the image quality of the lenses and sensor, so if those are good, I think I'm sold.

Oh, and the reason I can't go off the sample galleries is I find comparing jpegs to be unhelpful, as a lot gets done to them even in in-camera processing.

Originally Posted by marlinspike I have a 20D, so I don't see a need for a rebel if I'm going to stick with EF. I really liked the colors and image quality provided by the 5Dc, which I always attributed to the FF sensor. As far as the body style, I much prefer the X-Pro1. I wish it were an SLR, but I can accept that you can't make a dSLR with AF that size. I often grab my old Nikon FM2n and bag-o-primes, but film just isn't practical anymore. I like the weight, size, and handling of the X-Pro1 package. I do think I'll miss the ability to shoot sports, but the reality is I almost never do that anymore, so the one or two times a year I do, I can always just rent a dSLR and lenses, and they'd be a better body and lens than I could afford to buy anyway. Really, I think the X-Pro1 is better for my uses in every single way (except for the 1 or 2 times a year I shoot sports), but I don't have any first hand experience with the image quality of the lenses and sensor, so if those are good, I think I'm sold.

if you don't shoot sports the X-Pro could be a choice but it looks expensive - $2400 for body and lens

Originally Posted by Brett1000 if you don't shoot sports the X-Pro could be a choice but it looks expensive - $2400 for body and lens

???
You can get one brand new from a reputable store for $2k with a 35mm lens (53mm equivalent).