Fuji XPro 2 announced

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by eric_arnold, Jan 15, 2016.

  1. DPReview link (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1682763312/fujifilm-announces-its-flagship-24-megapixel-x-pro2-mirrorless-camera)
    Headline features:
    • 24mp x-trans sensor
    • new AF system with 77 PDAF points
    • dual memory slot
    • Hybrid VF, 2.36m EVF
    • 1/8000 shutter
    • 1/250 x-sync
    • 1080p, wi-fi
    • mag-alloy, 61-pt weather sealing
    • $1699
    Initial thoughts: an incremental, rather than revolutionary, update which seems to fix most of the issues with the XP1 while upping the resolution by 50%. Count me as very interested, especially in new AF system. The price seems high, though, especially considering you can get a full frame camera for less. Not chomping at the bit to be an early adopter, but the price should drop in a few months.
     
  2. Forgot to note the XP2 has a joystick thingy for direct-access focus point selection. Glad to see Fuji addressing this, as it was one of the annoying things about their previous bodies.
     
  3. Yay, the world is turned upside down. - Before Fuji had great lenses and cameras making it hard to enjoy these and now "Fujifilm claims the X-Pro2 offers the fastest AF of any of its X-series models, though it's worth keeping in mind that performance will vary based on lens - many lenses in the line, particularly primes, tend to have slower focus motors that can significantly affect continuous AF performance." (<- depreview) we apparently need to wait for them to make lenses with faster motors. I guess those will be available once the X-P3 arrives? - Irony off; just waiting for test results and rushing nothing.
     
  4. we apparently need to wait for them to make lenses with faster motors.​
    there's some truth to this; the original X-lens primes were pretty slow. and one reason Fuji came out with the 35/2 even though they already had a 35/1.4. i dont think this will be an issue with recent lenses like the 17-55/2.8 and 50-140/2.8, and the 14/2.8 is supposedly one of their faster lenses. in practice, i havent noticed any issues with the 18-55 and the 27/2.8, although the 60/2.4 is anything but a speed demon. Still, the new focus system addresses one of Fuji's biggest weak points, so that has to be a good thing. I'm sure the more fanboyish Fuji users have already put in pre-orders. Havent checked out the X-forum's reactions yet, but i'm sure they are salivating. Myself, i'm waiting for some rigorous testing of AF-C performance under challenging conditions.
     
  5. Beta testers are reporting ACR and LR support will be available on launch.
     
  6. has 61 points which are sealed against dust and moisture.​
    I love this kind of statement. 61 is good if there are only 61 possible points of ingress, but not good if there are 120. What does it mean really?
    Nice camera, I'd be interested if I was in the market for one. Seems pricey?
     
  7. I love this kind of statement. 61 is good if there are only 61 possible points of ingress, but not good if there are 120. What does it mean really?​
    who knows? i dont think any of these cameras are really submergeable, but when paired with a WR lens, should at least allow one to shoot in inclement weather. not the kind of thing i would pick too many nits over.
     
  8. After using a Leica M9P for a few months, I found the Fuji XPro1 an interesting alternative, a rangefinder with benefits (such as auto focus and live view of sorts). The XPro2 is an improvement on that model, but only in an evolutionary manner. While I dawdled, frustrated by the limitations of the M9P, Sony announce the A7ii, with the same nearly universal lens compatibility as the Fuji, but with in-body image stabilization. And so it goes.
    Rangefinders, and the XPro cameras, offer a sense of the good-old-days not found in generations of reflex cameras, not to mention a small, unobtrusive footprint of both body and lenses. The shortcomings become abundantly clear with regard to focus and framing accuracy, and the relatively narrow range of useful focal lengths. My main problem with the Leica was focusing lenses longer than 50 mm, and even 50 mm wasn't a sure thing at f/2. The Fuji overcomes that, kind of, with variable magnification in the optical finder and, naturally, live view. Live view is somewhat awkward to use, and Fuji plays tricks with the aperture setting in native lenses, stopping down to control viewfinder brightness, which steps on focus accuracy. It's better to keep the lens wide open, as in an SLR, or at least stopping down no further than the taking aperture.
    Real-time control over the focusing spot position is useful at times. I have that on my Nikon D3, and actually put it to use a few times for portraits and repetitive shooting of of an off-center subject. For nearly every other situation, including active sports, there are better alternatives, including focus and re-compose or various tracking modes.
    The Pro2 is somewhat a step backward for Fuji, which like most other interchangeable-lens "mirrorless" cameras, have evolved to a "reflex" type configuration with a full-time electronic viewfinder (EVF). Fuji's entry into the latter realm is the T1, which will be the Pro2's main competition within the Fuji line along with those of most other manufacturers. An optical finder offers some advantage in seeing outside the frame lines, good for anticipating action. Having grown up with Leicas, my go-to camera for nearly 40 years, I appreciate that fully. Yet I have no misgivings with the overwhelming benefits of the accuracy of reflex cameras, now full time EVF, as my needs have evolved. For a retro look and feel, the Pro2 is worth considering.
     
  9. The best thing about the announcement is that the Fuji X-Pro 1 is now $500 new!
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839135-REG/Fujifilm_162255391_X_Pro_1_Digital_Camera.html
     
  10. The XPro2 is an improvement on that model, but only in an evolutionary manner.
    The Pro2 is somewhat a step backward for Fuji​
    uh... there's no such thing as "backwards" evolution. Did you mean to contradict yourself?

    Regrettable choice of phrasing aside, Both DPReview's first impressions writer and the Admin at the X Forum both noted this same conundrum about the OVF, i.e., it will get in the way of lenses longer than 60mm or so. But Fuji also gives you an EVF option here. There are both aesthetic and stylistic differences to the XP and XT lines -- some prefer the left side VF, while others prefer the middle VF. It's not too difficult to see why Fuji came out with an updated version of the XP1: the original is four years old, the sensor was looking ancient, and as Fuji's first ILC body, it was showing its age. Still that camera has a lot of fans, even loyalists, who will be sorely tempted to upgrade for several reasons: resolution bump, better AF--the original was jokingly called the XSlow1--dual card slots, refined body and UI. It also gains weather-sealing, as well as a new processor which almost doubles buffer size, and a higher-res EVF with a faster refresh rate. Others may indeed have reason to wait for the XT2, which will most likely have the same advanced AF system, but slightly lower build quality than the XP2, and a dedicated EVF instead of the hybrid version.

    The bottom line seems to be that Fuji has made a pro-spec camera which will be an enjoyable experience to shoot with, especially for rangefinder fans. No, it doesn't have in-body stabilization, and no, the video is nothing to write home about. The price, as mentioned before, is also steep for a non-DSLR, and those who don't need the advanced features should definitely consider getting an XPro1 at closeout prices. Choosing between this and the Nikon D500 is a tough one, as the Nikon has better AF tracking, but arguably worse native lens selection. The XP2's price point is also the same as the Sony A7II, which is full frame in addition to having in-body stabilization and better video. So that could be a difficult decision as well. Fuji generally gets better marks for ergonomics, UI and haptics--an important consideration for some--but for me, it would probably come down to comparing lens options. As it stands now, Fuji has a bunch of lenses Sony doesn't yet offer, and may not ever get around to offering. Regarding XP2 vs. D500 vs. A7II, each has relative merits, so this really comes down to personal preference.
     
  11. Evolution has no direction. Over 90% of all lineages failed. In Fuji's case, evolution took a step backward from the T1. 24 MP might be a step up from 16 MP, but is by no means state of the art. Furthermore, it is still APS-C, hardly main stream for "pro spec" cameras.
    I'm surprised at your dismissal here of the newly-announced Nikon D500. From your comments in the Nikon thread, I should think the D500 constitutes a revival in the DSLR world.
    Still, it's good to be enthusiastic about new things. The Fuji Pro series have a lot to like, not the least of which are Fuji's exceptional lenses. The features and handling are akin to Leica rangefinders, which have a dedicated following. It almost worked for me.
     
  12. It is not full frame and I am not interested.
     
  13. unfortunately, these days, I need in-body stabilization. Going big with Sony and small(travel) with Olympus. My Fuji stuff will be on the block.
     
  14. In Fuji's case, evolution took a step backward from the T1. 24 MP might be a step up from 16 MP, but is by no means state of the art. Furthermore, it is still APS-C, hardly main stream for "pro spec" cameras.​
    Sorry, Edward, but most Fuji shooters would disagree with you here. the evolutionary DNA in the Xpro2 quite obviously distills from the Xpro1, which is the correct camera to compare it to. I see no steps in anything other than a forward direction there. What you are describing is not reverse evolution, but merely personal preference: if you prefer a DSLR-style body over a rangefinder-style body, then you are more in the XT camp. But these are different bodies, with, perhaps, different purposes.

    Also, i don't think anyone expected a state of the art sensor from Fuji. That's more Sony's game, isn't it? The beauty of the X-mount approach is, Fuji has more going for it than tricked-out silicon and a soulless shell. Fuji doesnt need a backside illuminated double osmosis sensor coming in at some ungodly number of megapixels; after all, they competed very well in the image quality on the basis of a 16mp sensor even after almost everyone else went to 24. Now they are playing in that arena. Want more proof of their design philosophy? They also just announced another 16mp camera, the X70 (a 28mm X100 type). It seems evident, that Fuji has its sensor envy under control. Or, more to the point, they believe they are delivering a photographic experience, not just a newfangled bit of tech. I think what we're seeing is a maturation of their X line -- they also have a new flash, which was another weak point that's now been addressed.

    As for "pro-spec," the assumption that pros only use full frame or medium format is quite false. If Sony built a high-performance body around the RX100 sensor, i would consider that pro-spec, just like the Ricoh GR and Fuji X100t are pro-spec cameras. The XPro2 is built to professional specifications; pros are using them right now, and will continue to in the months and years to come. And by professional specifications, i mean, there's not a whole lot that's "consumer" on the XP2 in terms of build quality, features, and UI. It even has 2 control dials, which is a first for Fuji. But please, ask yourself why Fuji -- a niche player in the camera market -- would want to be "main stream" ? And is there even a mainstream for pro-spec cameras? Does such a thing exist? I don't think so, because once you get above the $1500 price point, you're not buying something because everyone else has one. You're spending that because that's the tool you need. Sure, you can spend more, and get a full frame sensor -- with scene modes and other consumer features. But that's not the point of the Fuji experience, to be homogenous and monotonic. The point is to inspire creativity with a solid photographic instrument. Which the XP2 appears to be.
    I'm surprised at your dismissal here of the newly-announced Nikon D500. From your comments in the Nikon thread, I should think the D500 constitutes a revival in the DSLR world.​
    Dismissal? That's a curious reading of my comments, especially since i didn't dismiss that body. if you actually read what i wrote, i noted that the XPro2 and D500 are natural competitors, both in terms of sensor format and price point (though the Nikon starts this race up $300). They have similar features, but only to a point; the Fuji obviously offers more dials and has the hybrid viewfinder; the Nikon has the more performance-tuned AF/metering system -- as i noted. But, then the Fuji's AF is completely goosed too from all previous models, and for some shooters, may be more than good enough for what they want to do. But again, let's remember the d500 is a different type of camera than the Fuji -- a sports/performance-oriented crop sensor body. the Fuji isn't quite so specialized, and its also engineered to work more fluidly with small primes. The XT 1, which offers a grip accessory, is more of a direct competitor to the D500 in that both can and will be used with longer/heavier lenses. So you have to know that going in. i see the XP2 as a great camera for street, documentary, maybe a bit of landscape or environmental reportage -- much more of a jack of some trades than the D500.

    Which brings us to lenses and intended use. The XP2 is gonna see a lot of stick time with primes. A lot. Luckily, Fuji has a full set of fast primes from wide (14) to telephoto (135). That body wouldn't be my first choice to shoot the rather massive 56/1.2 on, or the 135, but it matches perfectly with the new 35/2.

    As a Nikon shooter, i can say that unfortunately, the DX lineup isnt so hot; they've released exactly one pro-spec DX lens in 15 years. Their DX primes list is still incomplete. That's not the fault of the D500 body, per se, but perhaps an unintended consequence of choosing one brand over another. There are some good Nikon lenses, but the best Fujis are equal or better, pretty much across the board. That said, there are some excellent 3rd party offerings for Nikon which balance the playing field somewhat. Anyhoo, i imagine the d500 will probably be most at home with the kit 16-80 lens, and 17-xx/2.8 zooms (for pros especially), and maybe some longer lenses. Nikon doesn't make a 50-140/2.8 or thereabouts like Fuji does --it's one of the holes in the DX lineup -- but many Nikon FX shooters might have a 70-200 to put on there instead.

    I don't want to digress too much in a Fuji thread, but if you read the 300+ comments on the d5/d500 post, there was a basic consensus that the camera wasn't for everyone, due to its specialized nature. For what i shoot, i could easily make a case for both, especially since i already have the lenses for both systems. (I'm most curious about how they will compare in high-ISO, as my Fuji APS-C bodies are way cleaner than my older Nikons.) but for the casual buyer, or should i say enthusiast, the XPro2 has a lot going for it, including a more compact footprint; i would recommend a d500 more to a DSLR shooter who is shooting a lot of high school sports and wants fast frame rates and the best AF this side of $6000. i dont know that i would recommend an XP2 to a beginner, as it's an advanced camera, but definitely for a street shooter or former film rangefinder user.
    The features and handling are akin to Leica rangefinders, which have a dedicated following. It almost worked for me.​
    Was wondering how long it was going to take before "the L word" was mentioned. Of course the joke is that Fuji's are poor man's Leicas, except they actually work. it's no big secret that Leitz has struggled in a digital world, and those bodies are far more glitchy than they should be at those price points, to the point where some Leica lenses actually work better on other manufacturer's cameras. But still, you make a good point about handling being a strength of Fuji -- all the way down to the lowly XE line. I think that will certainly be seen as a strength of the XPro2, and even a reason to choose it over other brands/cameras.
     
  15. It seems evident, that Fuji has its sensor envy under control.​
    Under sedation ;)
     
  16. Under sedation ;)
    idk, from where i sit, it seems Fuji's been consistent in their philosophy. why would anyone need more than 24mp for an APS-C sensor? what really matters is the quality of the files. i dont really see Fuji as being "better" than Sony or Nikon, i see them holding their own and carving out a niche, to the point where a photographic artist can say, this is my instrument. i dont know that i would use an XP2 as my main studio camera, but in the wild, it looks like it could get busy.
    Getting back to the d500 comparison, i don't see that as an IQ camera. i'm sure it's competent, but possibly lens-limited. you can get better IQ from the d5500, although you wont get frame rate and better AF. what you get with the d500 is unbridled action-oriented performance at a not-exorbitant price. With the Fuji, you get capability across a broad set of parameters (with the requisite lenses). The Xpro1 was a terrific camera -- except when it came to responsiveness. Now they've addressed that. How is the XP2 not an evolution? It improves performance metrics across the board in almost every category. It's biggest downside is probably battery life.
     
  17. It's hard to rip people from their life long brand. Moving to another brand is a commitment in the, knowing lenses have to come. Wherever one has been in their Photographic pursuits, its hard to position oneself to beat up Fuji and what they have done here, and its like their just getting started! Very attractive. And I though I could not give the APS formula a look, but a sensor without an anti-aliasing filter teamed with this new processor is significant.
     
  18. Always curious why people need "full" frame. Full compared to...? It's just 35mm which used to be regarded as amateur territory. Witness David Bailey's now legendary 60's shoot with Jean Shrimpton in NYC. His employer (Vogue) insisted he MUST use medium format as "full" frame (i.e. 35mm) was for amateurs only. He told them to " {use your imagination}" and shot 35mm anyway and proceeded to change fashion photography forever. You can see all this in the biopic "We'll Take Manhattan". A good camera is a good camera regardless of sensor size. ( Hello Olympus). I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I'm still waiting - years now - as to the reason why people NEED 35mm. My colleague (Mrs D800) bought an XT1 and her 35mm need waned. Another (Mr 5Dmk3) is also losing the hots and wants an XT1. So is the "FF" thing just an Arnie/Clint/biggest gun thing? Or is mirrorless/apsc/m43 still regarded, as 35mm was, as an "amateur" format? Cheers from a very hot Oz ;-)
     
  19. 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. Sony and Leica are the only game in town for full frame mirrorless, and it seems to work for them. Fuji and Olympus do just fine too with smaller sensors. Your money, your needs, your choice.
    Mirrorless cameras lend themselves to wide angle photography. For one thing, short lenses are smaller. An f/2.8 300 mm (actual) lens is going to be big regardless of which camera it is used. Mirrorless ILCs make it possible to use lenses from other cameras, especially rangefinder cameras, which are generally designed for use with full-frame film. You'd like a 35 mm lens to be somewhat wide angle, but on an APS-C camera, it's not. Fortunately, Fuji and Olympus have other options.
     
  20. Lack of full frame can be cured by using faster lenses. Fuji has a lot of fast glass available now. An APSC camera with
    f/1.4 lenses is almost exactly the same as an FX camera with f/2 lenses. 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.
     
  21. Sony manages to squeeze a FF sensor into about the same footprint as the APS-C Fuji XT1. Video cameras are migrating to Super-35 size (approximately APS-C) from fractional inch sensors. The industry, it would seem, is growing up. While long lenses have an advantage with APS-C sensors owing to the 1.5x cropping factor, this doesn't extend to shorter focal length primes or zoom lenses, which require other compromises to handle the short flange distance. A Sony 16-35/4 zoom is the same size and weight as a Sony 90/2.8 prime (macro), and an f/2.8 16-85 zoom is nearly as large as the non-cropping equivalent, 24-70/2.8 zoom, for FF.
    At least there are choices.
     
  22. Yes, there are choices and the choices of our time as compared to 30 years ago yields ever so slight differences as to the percieved impact of the image. Meaning, if we take the same Photograph with 5 different camera's today it would be hard pressed to to identify a dud.
     
  23. Fuji didn't go with 4K video either. Maybe they are more interested in perfecting a now pretty successful tech. People wanting them to go FF may not realize the commitment it takes to do that. They sound like typical marketing people, snap your fingers and expect it on demand.
     
  24. If the Fuji system wasn't viable, we wouldnt be having this discussion now, and none of their bodies would have manifested a second or third iteration. Certainly in terms of image quality, the 16mp x-trans punched well above its weight, and Fuji moved pretty quickly to fill out its lens line with what i would call essential options. The only knock was really that aps-c sensors had moved on in resolution, although that's not necessarily field-relevant in every situation, but somewhat a marketing thing. So now we get a resolution bump as well as a major under the hood upgrade. There's a lot of excitement among the Fuji camp, although many of the improvements are incremental. But i look at this camera and the nikon d500 as a validation of hi-end APS-C -- which can also be viewed as a nod to the shrinking overall camera market: companies across the board are pushing higher-value products to absorb shrinking sales units.
    It really would have made no sense for Fuji to develop a FF camera at this time. That would have meant an entirely new lens mount, and also split their focus between formats -- something Sony E mount users can relate to.
     
  25. What's interesting to me is why is there's not much disparity between models like the XPro-1 and the XT-1. Seems that between the two its just a matter of what handling style one likes. Viewfinder in the center verses off the left corner. These camera's are great on their own merit. The build quality, the sharing of X lenses, viewfinder clarity to name just a couple of points. There are other Fuji camera's in the line that vary feature's but not by much. I recall when the XT-1 was released it got tremendous attention and so much so it replaced some XPro-1s in many a camera bag. 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?
     
  26. 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?
     
  27. 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.
     
  28. 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?​
    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.
    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?​
    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, according to DPReview. 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.
    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.​
    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.
     
  29. 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! :)
    http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/18/10785038/fujifilm-x-pro-2-lens-factory-manufacturing-photos
     
  30. "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".
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  31. 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.
     
  32. 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.
    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.​
    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.
    an f/2.8 16-85 zoom is nearly as large as the non-cropping equivalent, 24-70/2.8 zoom, for FF.​
    does this 16-85/2.8 lens actually exist? 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.
    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.
    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.
    Fuji are producing high quality lenses of near Zeiss, Leica quality without the price tag.​
    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.
    Wonder if its a given that a new XT-2 will inherit the XPro-2 24mp sensor and new processor,​
    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.
     
  33. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/07/30/lets-cut-the-crop-zack-arias-on-the-full-frame-vs-aps-c-debate
    Just one of many about the so called full frame urban myth.
    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.
     
  34. 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*
     
  35. 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.​
    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.
    I get excellent results from my Fuji X10 with smaller sensor.​
    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.
    I could really see the Xpro2 in my bag someday. *sigh*​
    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.
     
  36. 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)
    http://www.ambientlife.co.uk/gallery_259133.html
     
  37. 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.
    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.
    (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. )
    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.
     
  38. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  39. The 18-55 is a fine lens, far above the usual soft kit lens. Fuji makes a 23mm X-lens, not 21mm.
    M-mount lenses focus precisely on Fuji X cameras with their 3x/10x magnification in the EVF or LCD.
     
  40. Sorry Charlie, mistyped 21 instead of 23. Do you have any thoughts on that lens?
     
  41. 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.
     
  42. 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.
     
  43. Any thoughts of what Fuji lens to pick up with the X Pro 2?​
    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.
     
  44. the more expensive 16-55 is said to be very good, although also large for a mirrorless lens.​
    that one is designed to work more with the XT1. not sure if it will clear the OVF on the XP2.
    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.​
    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.
     
  45. 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?
     
  46. Maybe I'll get the 18-55 and the 23.​
    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.
     
  47. Thanks Eric, much appreciated.
     
  48. Also, thanks Charlie and Andy.
     
  49. >>> Any thoughts of what Fuji lens to pick up with the X Pro 2?
    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.
    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. That's a sweet lens (though big and heavy).
    Will probably have to use my Canon 6D and 35 f/1.4 for an upcoming project.
     
  50. Thanks guys. Tough choices!
     
  51. New Question:
    Does the new Fujifilm X-Pro2 allow for shooting in the 1:1 ratio (square) and in RAW?
    I bought a Fuji XT-1 and was very discouraged to discover that if I want to shoot 1:1 then I am force to shoot jpeg.
    Thank you.
    Mark
     
  52. The info that's already out doesn't have those details - you'd probably have to wait until production models are available to find out.
    Fuji tends to take a "raw is raw" approach and not bake a lot into the files. I know that on an X-T1 if you use a raw+jpeg mode and set 1:1 ratio you'll see your framing in 1:1 and the 1:1 JPG image will be the preview image in playback. Then you can apply the crop in post.
     
  53. "Thanks guys. Tough choices!".
    The Fuji Pro has a nice natural feel and any of their lenses will not disappoint...any of them regardless of price.
    And of course you can use your Leica lenses.
    00dho5-560398984.jpg
     
  54. in case anyone's interested, here's a recent interview with Fuji execs where they share their design philosophy.
    an excerpt:
    We think that the most important thing is overall image quality. So for example just increasing [pixel count] won’t make a better picture. We [also] need better high ISO image quality. It’s always a tradeoff, and to find the optimal point is very difficult. That’s the reason we why we picked the APS-C image format. A 35mm full-frame sensor is bigger, but it’s difficult to handle and will make the camera bigger. So we’re trying to pursue the optimal [combination of qualities] for photographers.​
     
  55. Andy,
    Thank you for the response. I was hoping someone got the camera early and could provide an answer. My Fuji X100-T and XT-1 will not let me set 1:1 ration and RAW.
    Mark
     
  56. Right, Fuji bakes almost nothing into raw files, including cropping. Their approach is "raw is raw". If you want to set 1:1
    crop mode, put the camera in raw + normal jpg and set it to use a small 1:1 resolution for the jpg. Your live view and EVF
    will show in 1:1 and the saved 1:1 jpg will show in playback. The raw will load in your raw software in basic unadjusted
    form and you can add the 1:1 crop.
     
  57. My X-Pro 1 can set 1:1 image size whilst saving a JPG and a raw file. The latter is at the native aspect ratio of the sensor, not 1:1. The JPG is Fine per Raw+Fine setting. Check your firmware version. My X-Pro 1 version is 3.40.
     
  58. Allen, is that very nice photo with a Leica lens?
     
  59. Thanks again for the information. So this means that this new Fuji XPro 2 mostly will be like the past cameras. For me, this greatly reduces the likelihood that I will be getting the Fuji XPro 2, since that is the one feature I want.
    Mark
     
  60. Mark, nobody knows whether the X-Pro2 will save raw files in 1:1. But what's the point of that? With raw you always have
    to do post work. Just add a 1:1 crop as part of your default import settings.
     
  61. "Allen, is that very nice photo with a Leica lens?"
    No, I did not use a Leica lens; I think the tone of my post mislead you into thinking I did. I thought about using a Leica lens on the Fuji, however, Im very happy with the results Im getting from my Fuji lenses.
    The lens I used for the post was a 50-230mm lens which I recently purchased. I do not really use a telephoto lens that much on this system but it is nice to have one in my bag. I chose that lens because it is relatively small and light but does not comprise on image quality...small and light were the important factors.
    00dhtn-560411884.jpg
     
  62. I was hoping someone got the camera early and could provide an answer.​
    approximately 100 pre-production bodies were sent to bloggers. so, maybe ask one of them?
    this means that this new Fuji XPro 2 mostly will be like the past cameras.​
    yes and no. body shape and style havent changed, but there are significant changes to what's inside, as well as ergonomics. i for one am looking forward to handling one in person.
     
  63. Eric,
    Sorry, I did not see your response sooner. I hope your right. I did post a comment on a blogger's page and hoping for a response. Also, I have visited the Fuji website and found a photographer on their site but not way to know I am sending him a direct message.
    Mark
     
  64. Andy,
    I wish to shoot in that aspect ratio in RAW. I have a working method that I often use that involves shooting full frame. So when shooting square, I want it to be square from the very beginning. Personally, I think why would the camera makers make a higher end camera (i.e. allows for shooting in RAW) and not allow all the aspect ratios offered in the camera to be available in RAW?

    Mark
     
  65. Mark, this is a really easy setup. What software are you using? In Lightroom, take a raw image and apply only the crop, then save a preset from that and apply it in the import dialog. Same in Capture One only you're making a style, not a preset.
     
  66. Limited amounts of cropping is fine and easy is post, that's where RAW files go anyway, so I see Fuji's point. In camera editing has come a long way and its welcome suit, but if there is a limit I think cropping would be the candidate.
     
  67. Andy,
    I use Photoshop and Bridge. I think of all the endless "bells & whistles" these camera makers include and too few other a variety of aspect ratios and then to withhold RAW with those options when offered is even more silly.
    I know it is easy to crop later, even before digital. I have cropped more times than I can count but when I shoot, I prefer the cropping has been done by me at that moment, no turning back on that exposure. It is a quirk if mine but I am entitled, after all I am an artist. :)
    With that being said, I may have to resort to what you mention Andy.
    Mark
    [​IMG]
     
  68. Ricoh series have the crop in-camera and the iPhone allows for a square crop in-iPhone.
     
  69. Barry,
    I have an iPhone and it is wonderful for some snap shooting. I am interested in cameras with an APS size sensor or bigger that allow shooting in square and RAW.
    I use to own a Phase One camera with a digital back that let me shoot square. The quality is excellent but I tired of the "boxy & bully" handling of it. The photo I posted above of the flowers was done with my Panasonic G2 which has surpassed my original expectations. I also now have a Panasonic G7.
    I will look into the Ricoh. Thanks
    Mark
     
  70. The whole point of mirrorless cameras (wusiwyg) in general and Fuji in particular is that RAW has been rendered superfluous.
     
  71. Sanford,
    I do not see how that would be. A RAW file provides the photographer great quality control by allowing the photographer to process the image in the way that better fits their needs. Like with film, by processing it yourself you can tailor it to your needs. Mirrorless camera can potentially help reduce camera weight, bulk and make less noise while shooting (no mirror bouncing).
     
  72. JPEG files are so much better than they used to be from these cameras, good, better and better, but best? Depends on the subject matter. For landscapes the optimum control in post with RAW files would be a needed flexibility. Street stuff, pictures of the kids, the modern JPEGs are amazing.
     
  73. Fuji has the best SOOC jpegs, particularly skin tones. it's a bit of an inside joke to say RAWs are superfluous, since it's almost impossible to match the JPEG results with certain converters. i would probably amend Sanford's comment to say "sometimes superfluous." It all depends on what you want to do with the image.
     
  74. Don & Eric, I agree with your point, all of us have different needs in our photography. I am a fine art photographer with traditional roots, so I like to push for "high fidelity" images. RAW is clearly the advantage here. I don't live to spend endless hours editing but don't mind the editing either. For my, the editing is an opportunity to mold the image more to me creative liking.
    Mark
     
  75. yeah, well, if i was strictly a fine art kind of guy, i probably wouldnt even be looking at a Fuji XP2 and would instead go straight for a higher-MP full frame or even medium format camera. not saying that you can't make a fine art-quality print from a rangefinder-style body with a 24mp APS-C sensor--ive seen some amazing panoramic nature work from a guy who still uses a 10mp Nikon d200 and a fisheye-- but i dont think this camera is about chasing max resolution and working at a labored, slow pace. i think it's a camera that hits some sweet spots in terms of size/performance/ergonomics/aesthetics, and is more targeted toward street photographers than any other segment, although there's obvious appeal to photojournalists and documentarians as well. The big attraction for Fuji shooters isn't bodies so much as lenses, but the XP2 changes that somewhat as its a significant upgrade from its predecessor. Fuji tends to prioritize skin tones, which makes their cameras great "people" cameras, but perhaps not as ideal for landscape as some other choices. of course, if you're shooting in monochrome, color tonality is much less of an issue, and most cameras nowadays can be dialed in to user-specific settings.
     
  76. Eric nailed it right up above.
     
  77. I ordered X-pro 1 last year at a huge discount with 18 mm lens. But I did not buy it in the end.
    Despite the luxury box,
    1) The optical viewfinder seemed a tiny to me. I did not see a thing, testing the camera in the store. I started to hate it and I rejected it at once.
    2) Looking into VG my nose stuck to the rear display.
    3) Artifacts of the pictures - watercolors and color smear. There are lot of patterna online. Excessive NR kills the picture. I did not like skin tones in every picture online I had seen on the net. They are very cold and overall the pictures have "electronic" and plasticky look even with magnificent 56 mm.
    4)No raw for ISO 100, no weather resist. Slow AF.


    And now they ask a good amount of money for this new X-pro 2 camera. It is more expensive in my country than Canon EOS 6 with which the Fujifilm can not match the Canon EOS 6 regarding its picture quality.
    There is also the powerful and fabulous Pentax K-3 ii with a good reflex VF and it is cheaper than Fujifilm.
     
  78. And what I meant speaking about "tradidtional Fuji" skin tones.
    Some biased russian test of the Fujifilm X-pro 1
    City looks as though it were on advertizing cards or in a leaflet.

    http://podakuni.livejournal.com/675627.html
     
  79. Hmm, that's interesting, Ruslan. the XP's offset rangefinder-style VF is supposed to be easier on the nose than the centered VF in the XT1. Regarding waxy skin tones, Fuji claims to have addressed this in the XP2. No argument on the XP1's slow AF -- the camera was nicknamed the "X Slow 1" prior to the FW upgrades -- but the XP2 now has Fuji's fastest AF to date. i personally dont see any problem with the sample images in that review, some of the portraits are quite lovely. but the XP1 does appear to have a colder tone than the 5DII. And i do find the Velvia film simulation setting is sometimes a little too vibrant, especially for people. Regarding image quality WRT to the Canon 6D, i dont think it can be conclusively stated that the 6D's 20 mp full frame sensor provides superior picture quality -- the Fuji technically has greater resolution. However, i would imagine the 6D to have less noise at extreme ISOs, and of course you can get shallower DoF with full frame and appropriate glass. The Fuji sensor may also be sharper due to the the lack of an anti-aliasing filter. Also, in terms of performance metrics, the XP2 has a more sophisticated AF system than Canon's entry-level full-frame body. We can also note that Nikon's entry-level full-frame body, the D610, is less expensive than the Fuji, but... the XP2 is a "flagship" body, with a higher level of overall specification apart from the sensor format pursuant to both the 6D and D610. i personally wouldn't directly compare entry-level FF with flagship APS-C; a more apt comparison might be between the XP2, Canon 7DII, and Nikon D500, which are all high-performance cameras.
    That said, camera choices are entirely subjective, and dependent on personal taste and specific requirements/criteria. All things are not perfectly equal across the board, since Canon, Fuji, Pentax and Nikon all have differing lens options. Choice of lenses should factor into any decision, and most Fuji shooters are pretty enthusiastic about the options for that system, which has filled out nicely in just a short time. But, if you'd rather have a 6D or K-3 than an XP2, then go for it.
     
  80. ." But I did not buy it in the end.
    Despite the luxury box"
    I understand, the luxury box was a serious consideration...I like boxes sort of fun to open.
    I think most folk understand Fuji skin tones are a bit special...but lets cut the crap... show me some of your superior xxxxx camera skin tones and I will show you mine...lets go for it, head to head.
     
  81. "russian test of the Fujifilm X-pro 1".
    From Russia with love.
     
  82. From a left eyed user, the screen on the XE1 gets easily messed up while the XT10 screen remains clean.
     
  83. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9AeIdMQqR8
     
  84. show me some of your superior xxxxx camera skin tones and I will show you mine...lets go for it, head to head.​
    Ruslan didnt appear to mention skin tones specifically when making the claim that the Canon 6D has superior "picture quality," without clarifying exactly what he meant by that. as noted in my prior post, i can't really see much of a factual basis for that argument. It can certainly be said that the 6D has a larger sensor, which in and of itself doesn't impact picture quality -- except when it comes to extreme ISOs and shallow DoF. But the XP2 has a higher-resolution sensor, without an anti-aliasing filter, so on that basis alone, the XP2 would probably win for detail and sharpness.
    if you're asking what camera would be better to shoot at ISO 6400 or for shallower DOF, the 6D would likely win there, although bokeh quality is dependent on the lens used. i dont think the Canon 85/1.2 has a clear advantage over the Fuji 56/1.2R in terms of sheer bokehliciousness, even though the Canon can shoot at an actual 1.2, while the Fuji loses a stop of DoF, since the 56/1.2R is specifically engineered for bokeh.
    In terms of dynamic range, i'd have to see a test of the XP2 before evaluating that, but it's worth noting the 6D lags behind the Nikon D600 in both dynamic range and low-light, according to DXO mark. It also scores lower in dynamic range than the 24mp APS-C Nikon D7200, which we can use as a proxy here in lieu of an XP2 test, to confirm that FF sensors don't always beat APS-C sensors for DR. So, without any qualitative data to back it up, it would appear Ruslan's claim is entirely subjective, and may be inaccurate as well.
    Now if Ruslan was comparing the XP2 to the 50mp 5DS R or the 42mp Sony A7RII, he might have a point. Of course, both those bodies cost much more than the XP2, so it would be an unfair comparison.
     
  85. From a left eyed user, the screen on the XE1 gets easily messed up while the XT10 screen remains clean​
    That is what I meant. I am also a left-eye user. I just don't like to use the right eye and I hate to squint my left eye all the time during long sessions.
    Eric, generally the 24 Mp sensor has more noise at around already ISO 800, the quality starts to degrade easily. It is no wonder the EOS 6D pictures are very clean at even 1600. Also, I have seen a lot of EOS 6D photos in full resolution at low ISO, they are tack-sharp with the proper lenses and the AA filter is thin (or weak). Noise and artifacts (color smear) are vulnurable points of X-pro1 (did they finally cope with color smear with the new X-pro 2?). I think the reasonable limit for APS would be around of 16 Mp and that's why DxoMark ranked the amateur Pentax K-50 much higher in terms of picture quality than Canon EOS 7D Mk2.
    Speaking of the quality I meant interpixel clarity and noise from ISO 800 and above. I don't care about DR as I do not shoot landscapes with extreme brightness difference.



    Yes, I could not fall in love that RF-like mirrorless camera. Just I had a feeling that's not my cup of tea.
     
  86. show me some of your superior xxxxx camera skin tones and I will show you mine...lets go for it, head to head.​
    Allen, your challenge has been meet and responded.
    I have just created a folder Olga 2 with a single photo, for you to see. No post-production, JPEG just out of the box. Olympus E-420. This is exactly what I saw at the time os shooting with my naked eye.
    I prefer this muck more than what Mr. Podakuni showed in his test (by my link) above. Too cold for my taste, the ones on Red Square are of strange color.
     
  87. I agree with you Rusian. I don't think this new camera is for you.
     
  88. generally the 24 Mp sensor has more noise at around already ISO 800, the quality starts to degrade easily. It is no wonder the EOS 6D pictures are very clean at even 1600.​
    "Picture Quality" may mean different things to different people. however, if we are talking in an absolute sense, it would reasonably include all imaging characteristics, not just noise. if we are cherry-picking criteria, we can say anything we want about PQ, but... that's entirely subjective. We don't actually know how well the 24mp sensor in the XP2 holds up, because no objective testing has been done on it yet. But as i already pointed out, DXO Mark scores for the 6D are lower in dynamic range than the 24mp APS-C sensor in the Nikon D7200, and also lower than the 24mp full frame sensor in the Nikon D600. These are not insignificant findings, if we are assessing PQ as a whole.
    Also, I have seen a lot of EOS 6D photos in full resolution at low ISO, they are tack-sharp with the proper lenses and the AA filter is thin (or weak).​
    So? The same could be said of most cameras at base or low ISO.
    Noise and artifacts (color smear) are vulnurable points of X-pro1 (did they finally cope with color smear with the new X-pro 2?).​
    Maybe you missed it, but Fuji addressed this specifically in the XP2.
    I think the reasonable limit for APS would be around of 16 Mp and that's why DxoMark ranked the amateur Pentax K-50 much higher in terms of picture quality than Canon EOS 7D Mk2.​
    No offense Ruslan, but obviously Fuji's design team doesn't share this opinion. Also, DXOMark doesn't have a category called "picture quality"; they rate cameras in terms of color depth, low-light ISO, and dynamic range, and then do an overall score. Your argument again appears to be cherry-picked. It completely falls apart when we compare the 16mp Pentax K-50 to the 24mp Nikon D7200. The DXOMark ratings score the Nikon higher in every single category, with the overall score showing a significant advantage for the Nikon. Since the XP2 also has a 24mp APS-C sensor, it's reasonable to speculate similar results are possible, and may well be borne out by actual testing.
    Speaking of the quality I meant interpixel clarity and noise from ISO 800 and above. I don't care about DR as I do not shoot landscapes with extreme brightness difference.​
    Ok, but as i said earlier, that's your personal criteria and not reflective of picture quality as a whole. If DR doesnt matter to you, that doesn't mean it's insignificant to other people. My experience with the Fuji 16mp sensor is that it's remarkably clean (for APS-C) even at high ISOs, up to 5000. Whether the 50% resolution gain in the XP2 can maintain or even exceed this performance metric remains to be seen, but it's certainly possible, and has been achieved with other APS-C sensors. Returning again to the Nikon D7200, it beats the 16mp D7000 in all of DXOMark's metrics. So the notion that 16mp stands as a theoretical limit for PQ on APS-C appears to have been proven false.
    I have just created a folder Olga 2 with a single photo, for you to see. No post-production, JPEG just out of the box. Olympus E-420.​
    Again, no offense, but i would choose a 16mp Fuji APS-C pic over a 10mp 4/3 pic every single time. and if we're talking about noise, older 4/3 bodies are noisy from like ISO 400 onwards. It seems disingenuous to uphold this as a stellar example, since you complained about noise earlier. The Olga pic isn't bad, but i can't say it's better than the output ive seem from Fuji shooters as far as skin tones.
    Too cold for my taste, the ones on Red Square are of strange color.​
    This is also subjective. i dont dispute that the XP1 is colder, but it also may be that the 5dII is excessively warm. These differences can easily be explained by Fuji's X-Trans sensor, which reads colors differently than typical Bayer sensors.
    I don't think this new camera is for you.​
    I agree, and would like to add that this is perfectly OK. I personally wouldnt let a bad experience with the XP1 cloud my judgment on a completely different body, but then again, i'm not trying to convince Ruslan to buy an XP2. If you dont like RF-style bodies, don't get one. it's that simple. There are plenty of other options out there, so do what makes you happy.
     
  89. Eric,
    I haven't seen anything in both Fuji 56/1.2 lens iterations to keep them. Something didn't click in that design..I have both 2x FD and 2x EF 85/1.2 and all those are keepers, even though I don't do any paid work anymore.
    I like Fuji 35/1.4 optically. I like it very much indeed
    Ruslan, it seems that the Olympus you used makes a better color temp evaluation of the whole scene, judging by the compensation of the blue hue in the shadow on the model's left (viewers' right). Yet we don't have the same scene shot with a Fuji or any other camera for that matter.
    Mirrorless today, shutterless tomorrow.. it's all psychosomatic, Doctor
     
  90. Actually some current Fuji and Olympus models already have a shutter less mode (electronic shutter). They are silent and
    capable of very quick shutter speeds, but do have the possibility of occasional odd artifacts.

    Ruskin, not meaning any offense but I don't think that shot shows anything you can't do using a lot of different cameras,
    and if you don't like the color in any particular shots from any review of any camera, chances are there are a ton of
    different settings that could have been used for different looks.
     
  91. 88 responses regarding a camera that can only be described as a marginal player sales wise. What we got here is the beginnings of a cult camera!
     
  92. I haven't seen anything in both Fuji 56/1.2 lens iterations to keep them. Something didn't click in that design..I have both 2x FD and 2x EF 85/1.2 and all those are keepers, even though I don't do any paid work anymore.​
    really? something didn't click? not sure what to tell you. that lens has been received pretty enthusiastically over in X-mount land and has gotten great reviews as well. i'm seeing lots of impressive photos over at the 56/1.2 flickr page here. but whatever, personal evaluations of lenses are just that, sometimes people just have an affinity for one lens over another. my point in mentioning that lens was just to note that it seems to compare quite well to the Canon 85/1.2, and holds its own in terms of color rendition, micro-contrast, and bokeh. i wouldnt hesitate to get one for portraits and low-light if you're a Fuji shooter, but if i was already emotionally and financially invested that deeply into Canon --owning no less than 4 versions of the fast 85 ! -- it might take movement of mountains to get me to switch.

    I like Fuji 35/1.4 optically. I like it very much indeed​
    well, that's nice. i have that lens too, it's been fairly solid. not what i would call perfect, but certainly good enough for a fast 50 equivalent. i dont have a Leica cron to compare it too, but i've heard plenty of comparisons to that, so that's gotta be good, right? i love fast primes, but if i was buying today, i might be tempted by the new 35/2 for the slightly smaller length, the water-resistance, and faster focusing speed. optical performance seems a bit of a hit and miss, in some ways it's better than the 35/1.4 and in others, not.
     
  93. 88 responses regarding a camera that can only be described as a marginal player sales wise. What we got here is the beginnings of a cult camera!​
    to be honest, the XP1 is a cult camera. there's really no reasonable explanation for its enduring popularity, despite all its warts. The XP2 appears to fix many of those warts. I'm a little hesitant to call a camera that's not even on the market yet "a marginal player sales-wise" since it technically hasnt even started shipping yet, although it is true that Fuji is a niche market operator, and their design/aesthetic choices to some degree reflect this philosophy. It's highly unlikely they could increase market share to even 20% of overall camera sales, but then again, it doesn't seem like that's their goal.
     
  94. Eric,
    The 85/.12 are highly liquid: no problem liquidating those at all. I still use them quite frequently. The slower ones to operate are my favourites: a different shooting and compositional culture so to speak. The XF 35/1.4 can be as poetic as a lux, it's beyond the crons in terms of character, my wife doesn't want to sell any of hers. It's not only luxury packaging, there are some lenses and bodies in Fuji line that have plenty of substance, not just form. The 'outdated' XP1 has very nice dynamic range and the camera processor is close to impeccable, when it comes to color and curve - the camera is a bargain right now for those, who can live with its limitations. I like Olympus colors too, and Panasonic has a lot of things going on for it as well. So, it pays to keep good, old, highly liquid glass and play with all of them on occasion.
     
  95. The XF 35/1.4 can be as poetic as a lux, it's beyond the crons in terms of character . . .​
    Probably goes without saying the above is an opinion. I happen to prefer Cron's to Lux's.
     
  96. I recently picked up a used XP1. When it was new it was too much a luxury for me but now a mint one can be had for
    under $400. It's no speed demon and can't keep up with an XT1 or even an XE2 in technical specs, but it's wonderful to
    shoot. Today was really warm here and I had hours between meetings so I took it with my 35 and walked 5 miles around
    Cambridge and up the Charles. The lens is the first Fuji lens I bought, almost 3 years ago, and it's fantastic - small, sharp,
    very well made. The camera does render beautiful jpgs.
     
  97. Ruskin​
    Andy L., my name is Ruslan. You managed to make 2 mistakes in 6-letter widespread name. Do you know Alexander Pushkin "Ruslan and Ludmila" poem? If you don't - do a Google search. Good read.
     
  98. The 'outdated' XP1 has very nice dynamic range and the camera processor is close to impeccable, when it comes to color and curve - the camera is a bargain right now for those, who can live with its limitations.​
    well, that's true. at $500 new currently, the XP1 is a serous deal if you can get the most out of it. no speed demon as andy says, but produces quality output.
     
  99. Sorry Ruslan. Auto correct failed me.
     
  100. here's a hands-on test of the XP2 which highlights some of the features: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQmKcmC8Kmg
     

Share This Page