...
How do people who have gone from the 1 to the 2 feel and how do you think they compare to m9.
cheers.
The X-Pro 2 is better than the X-Pro 1 in every way. The AF/MF is faster, more versatile and has a higher success rate. However, to get the most out of the X-Pro 2 one has to use newer XF lenses (I use primes) because their AF motor technology is quick as well. Keep in mind, the X-Pro 2 has a built-in diopter adjustment while the X-Pro 1 requires a Cosina-stlye screw-in dipoter.
The X-Pro 2 raw file quality is better as well. This makes a difference in bright light (dynamic range), low light (S/N) and shadow regions. Whether or not the level of improvement is worth the price difference is entirely subjective. I don't use JPEGs, so I can't compare those.
I have no idea how they compare to the M9. These cameras have very little in common.
I don't use adapted M or LTM lenses either.
I can tell you both my X-Pro 1 and X-Pro 2 are set up so I can use them as I used my Zeiss Ikon M film RF.
Both Fujifilm cameras offer numerous automation options and modes. It does take a while to figure out how to use the X-Pro bodies in an minimalistic, manual mode. For instance, the OVF display can be stripped down to display a bare minimum of informational, but it will take a while to figure how to do so. I find the X-Pro 2 OVF electronic rangefinder mode satisfying to use. Even fly-by-wire MF is finally practical with newer XF lenses. Obviously the experience is only similar to an optic-mechanical RF. I would
never claim it is superior. But it makes me happy. While the X-Pro 2 OVF frame line estimates are better than the X-Pro 1's, I assume the M9's will be better.