Fuji XPro 2 announced

<p>DPReview link (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1682763312/fujifilm-announces-its-flagship-24-megapixel-x-pro2-mirrorless-camera)<br>

Headline features:</p>

<ul>

<li>24mp x-trans sensor</li>

<li>new AF system with 77 PDAF points</li>

<li>dual memory slot</li>

<li>Hybrid VF, 2.36m EVF</li>

<li>1/8000 shutter</li>

<li>1/250 x-sync</li>

<li>1080p, wi-fi</li>

<li>mag-alloy, 61-pt weather sealing</li>

<li>$1699</li>

</ul>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>we apparently need to wait for them to make lenses with faster motors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Beta testers are reporting ACR and LR support will be available on launch.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>has 61 points which are sealed against dust and moisture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Nice camera, I'd be interested if I was in the market for one. Seems pricey?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The best thing about the announcement is that the Fuji X-Pro 1 is now $500 new!</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839135-REG/Fujifilm_162255391_X_Pro_1_Digital_Camera.html</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The XPro2 is an improvement on that model, but only in an evolutionary manner.<br>

The Pro2 is somewhat a step backward for Fuji</p>

</blockquote>

<p>uh... there's no such thing as "backwards" evolution. Did you mean to contradict yourself?<br>

<br>

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.<br>

<br>

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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

It is not full frame and I am not interested.

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. <br>

<br>

Also, i don't think <em>anyone</em> 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.<br>

<br>

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 <a href="http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/2016/1/6/from-leo-to-revelation-journey-with-the-x-pro2">right now</a>, 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.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

<br>

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.<br>

<br>

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. <br>

<br>

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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The features and handling are akin to Leica rangefinders, which have a dedicated following. It almost worked for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <em>other</em> 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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> It seems evident, that Fuji has its sensor envy under control.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Under sedation ;)</p>

<p>Under sedation ;)<br>

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 <em>quality</em> 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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 ;-)</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. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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.

<p>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.</p>

<p>At least there are choices.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>