X-Pro 2: any news?

^that has gotten me excited, curious to see what the specs are and see if it will be sufficient enough to sway me away from the M240.

otherwise I will just grab a X-Pro1 + 35 1.4 as backup
 
willie_901 said:
It's more than just a patent. There is an active R&D program. It is a joint venture between Fujifilm and Panasonic.

Organic sensors may never be commercialized. But the technology goals are:

o A 80% reduction in sensor thickness

o up to two a two stop improvement in analog signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range.

o an increase in the incident light angles of up to 60 deg compared to the current CMOS sensors.
Click to expand...

thank you willie. maybe you could help me a bit more on this. am i correct that i recall fuji marketed the xp1 as having an 'organic' xtrans sensor? if so, the site in this threads first post specifically refers to the new sensor in the xp2 as being 'inorganic'. so, was the xp1 sensor 'inorganic', and if not, what could that mean for the new sensor?
thanks
 
I do not believe there are any organic sensors available commercially. From what I know, it is still just a research effort.
 
rbelyell said:
...maybe you could help me a bit more on this. am i correct that i recall fuji marketed the xp1 as having an 'organic' xtrans sensor? if so, the site in this threads first post specifically refers to the new sensor in the xp2 as being 'inorganic'. so, was the xp1 sensor 'inorganic', ...
thanks
Click to expand...

The xp1 was never marketed as having a organic sensor technology. Fujifilm did market it as being superior to a 16 MP CMOS sensor with an AA filter.

However it is entirely possible someone, somewhere mis-translated the Japanese words for a marketing phrase like "more natural" to "organic" in another language. This would be confusing.

I speculate the mention of inorganic for the xp2 was used to correct/discredit earlier rumors the xp2 was behind schedule because Fujifilm wanted it to use organic sensor technology.

The X-Pro 2 sensor question is interesting, Increased pixel density minimizes aliasing artifacts. This could mean the current XTrans color-filter array pattern would be overkill for a APS-C sensor with more pixels. So, there might be an Xtrans III sensor. If there is, I hope Fujifilm is smart enough to support in-camera DNG raw as well as linear TIFF files. Otherwise history will repeat itself as third-party raw rendering platforms struggle to make the most out of XTrans III raw files.

I will speculate the new sensor will have lower read noise and could be described as an ISO-less camera (analog amplification is unnecessary to achieve post-acqusition brightness). The X-T1 is almost there and in some circumstance actually makes use of 13 bits in its 14 bit ADC (another characteristic of low read-noise sensors).
 
I'd love for the body to be slightly smaller. Closer to size of the x100-series or a film M. The current XP1 isn't huge, but it always felt hollow to me. Not to mention the fact that it was the same size as a digital M which feels bloated compared to film M's. So just a few mm's here and there and we'd be good.

Other than that, you should expect to see standard stuff like weather sealing, wifi, 'rangefinder' patch, larger EVF/LCD, better sensor performance, focus speed, etc.

Looking forward to it finally being announced/released
 
rbelyell said:
thank you willie. maybe you could help me a bit more on this. am i correct that i recall fuji marketed the xp1 as having an 'organic' xtrans sensor? if so, the site in this threads first post specifically refers to the new sensor in the xp2 as being 'inorganic'. so, was the xp1 sensor 'inorganic', and if not, what could that mean for the new sensor?
thanks
Click to expand...

When the xp1 first came out... Some people used the term "a more organic or more film like look" from the images from xtran sensor. It was never an organic sensor.

About a year ago there were rumors that the organic sensor tech that Panasonic and Fuji had partner up on would c light of day by 2016. The last rumor about it was that it was not clear when they would ship a camera w/ it due to heat related issue they were having if I remember correctly.

Gary
 
mdwsta4 said:
I'd love for the body to be slightly smaller. Closer to size of the x100-series or a film M. The current XP1 isn't huge, but it always felt hollow to me. Not to mention the fact that it was the same size as a digital M which feels bloated compared to film M's. So just a few mm's here and there and we'd be good.

Other than that, you should expect to see standard stuff like weather sealing, wifi, 'rangefinder' patch, larger EVF/LCD, better sensor performance, focus speed, etc.

Looking forward to it finally being announced/released
Click to expand...

Totally agree, something a little bit smaller than the XP1 would be tempting, not that I need another camera at this point, but you never know.

-Thomas
 
GaryLH said:
Plus one..

There is such a thing as too small.. Slightly smaller than the originally xp1 probably ok. The is a certain amount of minimal weight and size required to help w/ balance, comfort, and control layout.

there is also a rumor about a double xp2 announcement awhile back.
- 24mp apsc size sensor
- a bigger than apsc but smaller than ff one, so that current xf mount lenses can be used.

My guess is the 24mp size sensor. I don't c the in between size as a good strategy.

Gary
Click to expand...

Yeah, the APS-X sensor size doesn't seem logical. Sure, the image circle of most extant lenses might stretch to cover the area. But, what would the IQ in the corners look like?
 
Got a x-pro1 and like the camera and how it fits my hand. The technology however is another issue. Alignment of the ovf is dire, exposure a hit and miss and the stabilisation of the lens (16-50) far from good. Together with the low battery capacity and almost unreachable sd card makes it hardly leaves the house. Compared to my Fuji medium format stuff it is a serious step backwards.
 
Didn't enjoy the X-Pro1 much as it feels empty - either it's too fat or it's too light (weighs 16oz at a size large than a M).

The new 35/2 WR lens may give us a clue, as its exterior design deviates quite a bit from other Fuji lenses. Might meant to be attuned to the upcoming X-Pro2's design changes.
 
Hi Frank - do you have a Fuji X? I'm 95% sure I'll get an X100T, but an X-Pro is still a possibility.
 
One reason I didn't jump on the OM-D line is the size - too small. It's just not an OM, which for me was the perfect size, weight and form factor. That and all the damn menus :)

So I wouldn't be happy with an X-Pro that was significantly smaller.
 
The 35 f1.4 was one of my favorite lenses on the x-system. So far early reviews of the f2 have been extremely positive. Looking forward to that lens. If they create a 23 f2 in a similar size, I might have a new travel kit...

Archlich said:
Didn't enjoy the X-Pro1 much as it feels empty - either it's too fat or it's too light (weighs 16oz at a size large than a M).

The new 35/2 WR lens may give us a clue, as its exterior design deviates quite a bit from other Fuji lenses. Might meant to be attuned to the upcoming X-Pro2's design changes.
Click to expand...
 
FUJI RUMORS SAYS:

If you’ll fly to the CES in Las Vegas from 6th to 9th January in the hope to see the X-Pro2, you’ll be highly disappointed. In fact, when asked, if the Fujifilm X-Pro2 will show up at CES, the Top-Trusted Japanese Source said

“No, not at CES. Later“

Oh well, we're used to waiting!
 
At the Photo Expo in NYC, the Fuji rep said she couldn't tell us anything other than it will have an OVF. She volunteered that info without me asking.
 
X-Pro2 a worthy rangefinder replacement

X-Pro2 a worthy rangefinder replacement

I am nowhere near Leica's pricing scheme and cheaper solutions like R-D1/M8 are showing their age.

A hybrid OVF like the one in X100T will make the X-Pro2 a worthy rangefinder replacement. Actually an even better solution considering the multitude of focusing aids + the ability to focus in low light.

Since it is highly likely that it will have very similar sensitivity to the FF Leicas and the fact that most street photography does not require razor thin DoF, the FF argument becomes moot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom