Fujifilm X Pro 2 anyone?

I have just bought a second-hand XPro2 and a 35 f2 XF lens, to try out against my Sony A7r (Mark I) with FE 55 lens and my A6500 which I use either with a Loxia 35 or a Sony 35 2.8. A few test shots on the XPro2 look very promising but here are some random comments;

1. Having dithered for a long time between MF, AF and back button AF, my current preference is AF and a shutter button that has a clear half-press position to trigger the AFS without accidentally firing the shutter. The XPro2 meets that requirement.

2. I mainly use aperture priority and like to be able to glance down at the camera and see what aperture is set without having to look at the back screen or bring the EVF up to the eye. On my D810 there is a display window on the top-plate that shows this and other settings but mirrorless cameras are too small to have a top window so I prefer a lens with an aperture ring on a mirrorless camera. Most of the XF lenses have an aperture ring as well as being AF whilst only the MF Sony/Zeiss lenses have them.

3. The A6500 has a fantastically large EVF and its eye point is sufficiently long for me, as a spectacles wearer. It is much better than the small EVF/OVF on the XPro2 for someone like me. I imagined that, having been a film Leica enthusiast, I would like the OVF of the XPro2 but I now prefer a modern EVF for the WYSIWYG aspect including the ability to see over or under exposure before taking the shot.

4. The last comment also means that I appreciate a dedicated exposure compensation dial.

5. I also prefer dual SD card slots, not only for backup purposes but also to split RAW from JPEG so that I can take out the card with the JPEGs and import just them into my iPad Pro for previewing if away from home.

6. Since I am getting older I appreciate a camera that is significantly lighter than my D810.

7. I prefer a less-conspicuous rangefinder-style body.

The XPro2 ticks many but not all of these boxes. The A6500 is lighter, has a larger integral grip, and ticks other (but not all) of these boxes. An XT2 or one of the more recent Sony A full frame cameras might provide more of my desired features but with an SLR style body and with the Sony being at increased cost and weight. Finding a reasonably priced camera and lens combination that meets all my preferences is proving difficult!

Philip

It depends on your needs.

I am impressed by the JPEGs and in camera editing options of the Fujis.

If you are into longer lenses, once in a while, SLR styled X-T2 might suit you better. I think it has higher EVF resolution?

I only dabbled with x-Pro2 in my electronic mall's petting area.

• AF speed of the 56mm f1.2 didn't knock my socks off.
  
• Switching from OVF to EVF seems to work electromechanically; i.e. it takes a while. - Flipping the magnifier into a Mamiya chimney and out again is faster.
  
• Using the hybrid setting felt less intuitive than a lenshood blocked RF.
  

Is a system with awesome but unstabilized primes what you desire?

My take on my less awesome older Fujis: They are nice tourist cameras outdoors. Combining their slow zooms with flash and dim indoors environments feels unbearable to me. - I'll bring and shoot something else.

I might buy the current crop used someday. I see no sufficiently significant advantage in the X-Pro2 and lenses I'd have to buy too over my Leica kit, that would justify spending. But if you don't own an easily portable system in that caliber yet, maybe go ahead.

1. Having dithered for a long time between MF, AF and back button AF, my current preference is AF and a shutter button that has a clear half-press position to trigger the AFS without accidentally firing the shutter. The XPro2 meets that requirement.

I have no problems using a half-press to activate AF and AE on my Sony A7Rii. I do it virtually every time. I also use Aperture Priority nearly all the time, and it's as easy to set using the viewfinder as with an aperture ring, and less likely to be disturbed. I see no reason to change the aperture setting without good cause, so once set I tend to leave it alone unless I need more light, less light, or a change in depth of field.

Remaining inconspicuous has more to do with your demeanor and technique than the camera itself. My Sony is the same size as a Leica, but the lenses tend to be larger. That said, the Summicron 90/2 is a very useful lens, heavier than corresponding Sony lenses, and considered a kludge by many Leica users. (Just as well, because it is hard to get sharp focus with a rangefinder.)

Demeanor is important. If you look confident, like you belong in the place, you are invisible. If you stare and hide behind corners to take pictures, you look like a pervert. Technique for "stealthy" photography includes pre-setting the distance and exposure, and whipping out the camera for a quick shot and putting it away again. Actually hiding it under your coat makes it more conspicuous, not less. You can do that even better with auto-exposure and auto-focus. I use a Basis 25/2 in that way, assured that the shot will be well exposed and in focus. It's a large lens, especially with the lens hood, but relatively light. I can also use a manual Loxia 35/2, which is small but slower to use. At 42 MP, depth of field has little meaning.

I have just bought a second-hand XPro2 and a 35 f2 XF lens, to try out against my Sony A7r (Mark I) with FE 55 lens and my A6500 which I use either with a Loxia 35 or a Sony 35 2.8.

Philip, I would imagine you would find the X-Pro2 to lighter, and quicker with very high IQ in comparison to the A7RII. However for sheer image quality, even though the fuji is great, I can't imagine it would quite compare with the A7RII. What has been your findings in that regard?