I just love my X-Pro2, so I have a vested interest in wanting to like its replacement, but to me, at the very least, the X-Pro3’s rear screen seems like a misstep.
Above my love of the X-Pro2 is Fuji’s wonderful lenses; I have a fair bit invested in them (and would like to buy more) and really wouldn’t want start all over again with another company, so I really want the X-Pro3 to succeed.
Although it hasn’t let me down, next year I will be looking to replace my battered and bruised but fully functioning X-Pro2. The Fuji digital SLRs really don’t cut it for me (central viewfinder windows - I want one on the left side) and I want a weatherproofed camera body, so it boils down to the X-Pro2 or 3.
The 3’s folding rear screen doesn’t interest me one jot - I just don’t need or require one, but Fuji’s assumption that photographers such as me now won’t object to take two steps to view their shots on the screen (unfold the screen and view) is asinine. Even more asinine is the fact that if the X-pro3 photographer wants to use the rear screen for composition for an extended period, the screen now will be ‘dangling’ off the bottom of the camera.
The X-Pro2’s rear screen can be blacked out. Why the need to overcomplicate things and have a folding one to show a daft phoney film end box or other information? The chosen film simulation can be shown in the viewfinder together with every other shooting choice.
I totally applaud what Fuji has done for the small sensor camera. However, though I have not yet picked up the X-Pro3, its screen really bugs me and the news about its improved viewfinder worries me (I have a 16mm lens).
I really hope I’m misguided or over influenced by the reviewers (whom, lets face it, have to write or say something negative above every piece of equipment they review) and that I’m proved to be totally, totally wrong in my opinion. If not, it’ll be another X-Pro2.