Fuji XPro 2 announced

<p>Its a mystery as to why the new XE2s is priced lower than the outgoing XE2, but B&H pricing has always been somewhat of a mystery. The new cameras, XPro-2 and XE2s are missing that cool Fujifilm logo on top, so maybe thats it. Are the new Fujis still made in Japan, not that that matters?</p>

<p>There are many here that have done more homework on this than I have, but yes, Fuji camera's are made in Japan and after handling one in a shop recently, I'm impressed with the build quality, their made to last, but then that gets into the whole engineering theory on what modern materials work and don't. To me metal is a more durable substance than plastic and new DSLRs incorporate a lot of plastic in their camera's.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So I wonder how they can keep this going with camera's sharing the same sensor and processors, and the only variance are a few ergonomic features. Hmmm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>there are more differences than those you have mentioned. the XP series has a hybrid viewfinder; the XT series has a tilt screen. there's also a grip available for the XT. The ergonomic differences lead to the cameras being used in different ways -- the XT is more suitable for long lenses and zooms, the XP most at home with smaller primes. i actually like the redundancy in Fuji's lineup, because for one thing it means you can share batteries among different cameras if you have multiple bodies. That's actually field-relevant because of the short battery life.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> The new cameras, XPro-2 and XE2s are missing that cool Fujifilm logo on top, so maybe thats it. Are the new Fujis still made in Japan, not that that matters?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i dont think the lack of a logo on the front of the camera contributes to pricing, but it is advantageous for street shooters who want to be low-profile. The XE2s and XP2 both have the Fuji logo on the top plate btw, and the XE2s has the model number stamped onto the front, <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/7894641950/fujifilm-x-e2s-improves-upon-predecessors-af-system-and-ergonomics-adds-electronic-shutter">according to DPReview</a>. An XE2 is currently $720 at Amazon, while the XE2s' MSRP at introduction is $699, so not much of a difference there. i would expect the XE2 price to drop once the new body is released. Yes, new bodies are made in Japan.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm impressed with the build quality, their made to last, but then that gets into the whole engineering theory on what modern materials work and don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even the XE series is built very well, but the entry-level bodies are mostly plastic. So you have a tiered system of pricing and features, but essentially the same image quality throughout the line. (Or at least you did up until the introduction of the XP2, which has a 24mp sensor.) And as stated earlier, all of them can use the same lenses.</p>

<p>I like Fuji lenses and have used them for decades. I will be lusting for the new XPro2! Here is a neat site with pix of the assembly process. Here I go again; Don't tell my wife! :-)<br>

http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/18/10785038/fujifilm-x-pro-2-lens-factory-manufacturing-photos</p>

 

<p>"It's easier to achieve wide angles with full frame, with less extreme optical design and fewer compromises. Larger sensors mean larger cells, often producing less noise for the same MP size, or greater resolution".</p>

<p>It is also easier to achieve telephoto angles without full frame. Larger sensors are effective for very large prints on smaller prints there is a argument that they resolve less detail/ resolution. A number of years ago the Amateur Photographer (not really Amateur in the sense of the word) compared a full frame Nikon with a micro 2/3rds camera the 2/3rd camera they concluded....with images, the micro2/3rds sensor offered greater detail and resolution on average size prints...10 x 8" size.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that very few, unless serious pixel peepers...maybe, would not have a clue what size sensor a photograph was taken on.</p>

<p>The myth of full frame, which is not really full frame, is a marketing device along with the pixel counts to a large degree. Sharpness, tonal quality, is as much, if not more, about the lens used and its signature. Put a poor lens on a high quality camera, and compare with a poor quality camera with a high quality lens... Fuji are producing high quality lenses of near Zeiss, Leica quality without the price tag.</p>

<p>Wonder if its a given that a new XT-2 will inherit the XPro-2 24mp sensor and new processor, probably? Sorry if this has been covered already.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> A lot of companies are pushing f/4 zooms for FX now, which are the same as f/2.8 lenses on APSC. Combine with improvements in sensor quality and you're running out of things that FX can do and APSC can't.</p>

<p>The myth of full frame, which is not really full frame, is a marketing device along with the pixel counts to a large degree. Sharpness, tonal quality, is as much, if not more, about the lens used and its signature. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Having used both, i'd say there are pros and cons to both full frame and APS-C formats. For one thing, full frame lenses will always be physically larger than APS-C or m4/3 counterparts, which goes against the ethos of mirrorless as a lighter, more compact format. That's one possible explanation for why Sony doesnt have any 2.8 zooms for its FE line. What that means in practical terms is, you give back the stop of high-ISO performance you get from full frame when you are restricted to f/4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>an f/2.8 16-85 zoom is nearly as large as the non-cropping equivalent, 24-70/2.8 zoom, for FF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>does this 16-85/2.8 lens actually <em>exist</em>? Sony doesn't make one for E-mount; the closest they come is a 16-70/4. The also dont currently make a 24-70/2.8 for FE. OTOH, i have owned Tamron and Sigma 17-50/2.8 zooms for APS-C which are much smaller and lighter than my 24-70/2.8 Nikkor, as well as Nikon's 17-55/2.8 for APS-C.</p>

<p>Getting back to the Fuji 2.8 standard zoom, the 16-55 WR, it's 2/3rds the weight of the Nikkor and more than an inch shorter; Fuji's kit lens, the 18-55/2.8-4, is even more svelte. Given that there's no penalty in IQ for using the Fuji kit lens, the full frame 2.8 zoom gets restricted to event shooting or situations where i need the better AF performance and/or constant aperture, or stupid-high ISOs.</p>

<p>As an Optics manufacturer, Fuji goes back to the 1940s, so they have a lot of institutional knowledge of lens design. They also made film, and their tonal palettes reflect this legacy. A lot of Fuji shooters shoot jpeg because the RAWs arent necessarily better than SOOC files, although maybe this will change with Adobe support for the new body at launch.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji are producing high quality lenses of near Zeiss, Leica quality without the price tag.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true, but i should also note that modern lens design uses software mapping to correct deficiencies. this is true of all mirrorless manufacturers, although some of the Fuji lenses, like the 14/2.8, are so well-corrected that they don't need distortion correction. What's interesting is that the Zeiss Touitts they've made for Fuji have been heavily discounted, as they aren't superior to the native Fuji lenses. And if you're going to use adapted glass, a Sony A7 is probably a better choice than a Fuji. It makes the most sense to use Fuji lenses on Fuji bodies.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wonder if its a given that a new XT-2 will inherit the XPro-2 24mp sensor and new processor,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i have no insider information, but i would imagine the XT2 will indeed get the 24mp sensor, processor, and AF system. Which may be a reason to hold out on the XP2 if you like the centered EVF and the tilt screen. I would also imagine the sensor and possibly the AF system too will eventually make it all the way down Fuji's product line, although the new X70 has the 16mp sensor, as does the XE2s. It's also possible, though, that the XT20 and XE3 will get the second-tier AF of the XE2s.</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/07/30/lets-cut-the-crop-zack-arias-on-the-full-frame-vs-aps-c-debate</p>

<p>Just one of many about the so called full frame urban myth.</p>

<p>The handling, the feel of the camera, and the lenses on offer...and do they update their older cameras with the latest software.....methinks only Fuji do that having respect for their photographers who have bought into their camera systems.</p>

<p>I get excellent results from my Fuji X10 with smaller sensor. Given the wonderful lens and Fuji construction, I use this camera more than many of the SLRs/DSLRs in my collection. I do not find the "full-frame" vs Fuji's X10 (2/3) size sensor a problem or real compromise. The camera is nearly pocketable on top of shooting RAW and all the trimmings. I could really see the Xpro2 in my bag someday. *sigh*</p>

<blockquote>

<p> they update their older cameras with the latest software.....methinks only Fuji do that having respect for their photographers who have bought into their camera systems.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i think i read somewhere the original XP1 got 18 firmware updates, compared to 3 for the Canon 5dIII. The support for older bodies is really encouraging. their model is almost the exact opposite of Sony's, which is all about cutting edge technology and sometimes disappointing UI/ergonomics.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I get excellent results from my Fuji X10 with smaller sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've heard nothing but good things about the x10/20/30 series. but those things are pricey for a small sensor camera, especially since the introduction of the Sony RX100 and the canon Gx7. hopefully for the X40, they'll use at least a 1" sensor.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I could really see the Xpro2 in my bag someday. *sigh*</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i know, lovely-looking body, right? I almost pulled the trigger on an XT1 but held out because i thought the AF needed one more generation. Now i have no excuse, other than i'm also drooling over the Nikon D500.</p>

<p>Just for the hell of it....what a great photographer can do with one body (an XPro1) & one lens (14f2.8). Tim Wallace & Project Darwin (Death Valley)<br /> http://www.ambientlife.co.uk/gallery_259133.html</p>

<p>Awesome shots in that gallery, Mark. Projects like these really highlight what, to me, is one of the strengths of the XP and Fuji system: the ability to not be limited in your creative expression by your camera and lens. Restricting oneself to one focal length ensures a certain uniformity of look to the images, but perhaps more importantly, also lends an aesthetic. Projects like these help to illustrate why the debate between sensor formats is on many levels silly; the end results matter more than how you got there.</p>

<p>But, just for comparison's sake, let's note that the same results are achievable with full frame cameras and the Canon 20/2.8 or Nikon 20/1.8 lenses. However, the Fuji's native distortion is just -0.23%, while both the Canon and Nikon lenses are greater than -1.5%.(source: LensTip). In case you're wondering that's more than 6x the distortion from the full-frame lenses, and the Sigma 20/1.4 is even worse, with -2.15% distortion on full frame. You can correct this with a custom lens profile in post, but removing distortion on wide angle lenses especially will always alter your image, specifically impacting microcontrast. Therefore a case can be made that you can actually achieve superior results without extensive post-processing, with the Fuji 14.</p>

<p>(But what about Sony FE, you might say? Unfortunately, Sony doesnt make a 20mm lens for its A7 bodies. Zeiss does make a 21/2.8 Loxia for FE, which is a fairly new lens and doesnt have a lot of reviews out on it. However at $1500, the Loxia 21 is one of the more expensive, if not the most expensive, options here, and the distortion is also worse than the $900 Fuji 14 and both the Canon and Nikon options. )</p>

<p>It doesn't hurt, either, that i also have the 14/2.8, which hits a sweet spot to me in terms of price/performance/size/focal length. Of course, one doesn't need a $1700 camera to make a portfolio like this, and the current closeout price of the XP1 is a sweet deal for more considered/laborious projects where the focus is on composition. With the XP2, though, i can't help but think the photographic possibilities would be even greater. Fuji has added a new B+W film simulation mode as well as a tonal grain effect. And while the XPro1, and its little brother the XE1, were great for static subjects, the XP2's improved AF and processor should make it more versatile for shooting things that move as well.</p>

<p>Any thoughts of what Fuji lens to pick up with the X Pro 2? I'm deciding 1, when to buy the camera, and 2, looking at either the 18-55 as a first lens with versatility , or the 21mm which would give me my favored 35mm equivalent lens. Any other thoughts? I probably can't afford 2 lenses right now. <br /> I've been hovering around the Fuji thing for the last couple of months like a month near a light bulb. So I may as well take the plunge at some point.<br /> I would also get an adopter to use my 35 and 50 mm Summicrons. I should add that I do mostly street type of photography, but its a very wide range. Also a few events like the odd wedding. But I have stuff I can use for that if needed.</p>

<p>The 18-55 is a fine lens, far above the usual soft kit lens. Fuji makes a 23mm X-lens, not 21mm.<br>

M-mount lenses focus precisely on Fuji X cameras with their 3x/10x magnification in the EVF or LCD.</p>

 

<p>Sorry Charlie, mistyped 21 instead of 23. Do you have any thoughts on that lens?</p>

The 23 is an excellent lens. You wouldn't be disappointed. The 18-55 is also very good, much better than your average

18-55 lens (though not as fast as the 23, of course, or as sharp) and can be had for not much money. (Try keh.com.) it

comes down to whether you'd rather have a zoom or a prime.

<p>Actually, Barry, I've never even seen the Fuji 23/1.4 in real life. I hear it is large. The 18-55 is good, and the more expensive 16-55 is said to be very good, although also large for a mirrorless lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any thoughts of what Fuji lens to pick up with the X Pro 2?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the new 35/2 seems to be developed with the XP2 in mind: small, sharp, water-resistant. reportedly, it focuses a bit faster than the 35/1.4, which i have, and like. i really like the 18-55 too, it's really quite excellent for a kit lens. the problem with Fuji is that they have so many must-have prime lenses. i really like the 14/2.8 too as a wide angle. if you already have 35 and 50mm lenses you plan on using, then probably the 23 or the 18-55 makes the most sense to start off with. <br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>the more expensive 16-55 is said to be very good, although also large for a mirrorless lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that one is designed to work more with the XT1. not sure if it will clear the OVF on the XP2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 18-55 is also very good, much better than your average 18-55 lens (though not as fast as the 23, of course, or as sharp) and can be had for not much money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i dont doubt that the 23 is sharper than the 18-55, but the 18-55 is very sharp in and of itself, and actually sharper than the 18/2 pancake. For street shooting, the 27/2.8 is very unobtrusive and corner to corner sharp, if you can live with the awkward focal length and relatively slow speed. i got mine for like $200 on sale, definitely worth it at that price. </p>

<p>Thanks Eric, I was looking at the 27 and its supposed to be very good, but I'm missing the 35 mm equivalent and the speed. I like to wait a couple of months to wait for any production kinks work through and maybe even for the price to drop slightly. Maybe I'll get the 18-55 and the 23. You guys have any special places you buy beyond Amazon, KEH, B&H, the usual suspects?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe I'll get the 18-55 and the 23.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i would perhaps start with the 18-55 and wait for a sale on the 23 unless you must-have 35mm equivalency and fast aperture right away. Fuji tends to have lens specials at least twice a year, and the savings can sometimes be pretty good. As far as stores, i usually go with the usual suspects, although if you live close to toronto, henry's is supposed to have a lower price on the XP2. you might also want to ask this question on the Fuji X-Forum. Also a good place to find out about upcoming lens deals. </p>

<p>Thanks Eric, much appreciated.</p>

<p>Also, thanks Charlie and Andy.</p>

<p>>>> Any thoughts of what Fuji lens to pick up with the X Pro 2?</p>

<p>I've been using the 10-24 f/4 on my XT-1 for almost two years now. Pretty much my standard lens. Had the 23 f/1.4 for awhile and it was OK, but sold it. Would sure like to see a MK II version of that.</p>

<p>On the long end the 10-24 gets me to my favorite 35mm focal length for portraiture. But being an f/4 it's nowhere near as nice as my Canon 35mm f/1.4. <em>That's</em> a sweet lens (though big and heavy).</p>

<p>Will probably have to use my Canon 6D and 35 f/1.4 for an upcoming project.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. Tough choices!</p>