X-Pro 2: any news?

[olakiril]

"Is astrophotography more frequent among Fuji users than monochrome?"

Full spectrum also has a market in forensic photography. That is what the Fuji IS PRO was marketed toward.

Shawn

That explains it.

 

[Dante_Stella]

I don't mind the lens being 50 or 35, as long as it does not have the fly-by-wire never-focus, but I don't understand why Fuji hasn't drunk from the monochrome well yet.

Is astrophotography more frequent among Fuji users than monochrome?

Can you image an Xwhatever with monochrome sensor and a truly manual lens (smooth and accurate focus with distances on the lens and no aperture delays) ? Damn I would even get rid of the back LCD and most buttons and sell it for $2000.

Fuji is not imitating Leica enough 🙂

Pointless. Fuji is a niche player with a tiny market share, and it's not a stretch to say that Leica sells more Ms than Fuji sells mirrorless bodies. If a Leica Monochrom typ 246 is an expensive, provincial exercise, you can ask for a monochrome Fuji until the end of time, and you won't get it.

A UV/IR camera is easy to make. In fact, you could simply buy off-the-shelf sensors and strip the original cover glass. Even as an aftermarket exercise, this is $200-500. Making a monochrome camera is not cheap because your choices are either spec-ing a new sensor (which you would have to commit to in huge numbers - why do you think we still have X-Trans II?) or grinding the Bayer filter off an existing sensor, which is an expensive and not likely precise exercise.

As for manual focus? It's there for decoration. Don't expect Fuji to redesign its lenses for smoother manual focus.

Dante

 

[Spanik]

Making a monochrome camera is not cheap because your choices are either spec-ing a new sensor (which you would have to commit to in huge numbers - why do you think we still have X-Trans II?) or grinding the Bayer filter off an existing sensor, which is an expensive and not likely precise exercise.

Each commercial sensor can be bought with or without bayer filter. Heck, all sensors are made without bayer filter to start with. Only difference would be quantity pricing that changes. All the other costs (other software, QC&QA, marketing etc) would be Fuji's problem only.

 

[coelacanth]

"And now the very full X-PRO 2 specs got leaked."

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/and-now-the-very-full-x-pro-2-specs-got-leaked/

The article sounded very confident about the specs. I went to the source site (Japanese) and that pretty much lined up with the FujiRumor translation.

I do like X-E1 size, but gosh it is really tempting. I really hope the new processor got similar rendering/characteristics to X-Pro1/X-E1 generation rather than X-T/X-E2 gen. That was one of the reasons why I sold X-E2 and kept X-E1 after the work project I needed multiple bodies for.

10 more days to go!

 

[Huss]

Sounds cool. Pardon my ignorance but does this bit mean it still has a crop sensor?:

24.3MP X-Trans CMOS III sensor

 

[f16sunshine]

It does.
The mount won't accommodate a larger sensor.
I'm stoked... a full frame sensor would mean larger lenses.
Pretty happy with the current crop of primes...nice and compact!
The New 2/35 looks wicked and I'm still smitten with the xf 1.4/35 🙂

From Fuji....Dual Card slots and fast engine at last!!! 😀

 

[coelacanth]

With the X-Pro2 looking pretty promising, I hope Fuji will release more lenses in smaller size a la 35/2. I'm happy with Summaron 35/2.8 and Elmar 50/3.5 on my film M as a compact travel kit. APS-C would gain about a stop worth of DOF compared to same F# FF lens at "equivalent" FL. I could totally live with 35mm and 23mm F2, becoming roughly 53mm and 35mm F2.8 worth of DOF with F2 light gathering power. I'm digging the overall package of Fuji 35/2, and OVF on X-Pro series could benefit greatly from smaller, less protruding lenses.

Back to X-Pro2 topic. This may become my air travel camera when I don't want to deal with film transport, and keeping the X-E1 (which I got for $175) as second body. I've got Japan and Northern Ireland trips coming up this year... 😉

 

[jsrockit]

...and it's not a stretch to say that Leica sells more Ms than Fuji sells mirrorless bodies.

Really? I wouldn't have guessed that.

 

[Archlich]

Just hope they could make the body smaller...now unlikely though, judging from the leaked pictures.

 

[jsrockit]

I'm glad they didn't make the body smaller. I love that it is "leica sized."

 

[FranZ]

Maybe "Leica sized" I don't know, but certainly "Contax G2 sized" I centaily loved my G2 and the accompanying Zeiss lenses like the 21mm Biogon.
The dimentions of the G2 and the XP1 are allmost identical.
Only the Fijunon lenses are much bigger I am afraid.
It is a shame Contax dind't survive to make a digital variant.

 

[jsrockit]

Maybe "Leica sized" I don't know, but certainly "Contax G2 sized" I centaily loved my G2 and the accompanying Zeiss lenses like the 21mm Biogon.
The dimentions of the G2 and the XP1 are allmost identical.
Only the Fijunon lenses are much bigger I am afraid.
It is a shame Contax dind't survive to make a digital variant.

Good points and a better description.

 

[danielsterno]

looks like my choice staying with original x100 until xproII worked out. I am looking forward to the 15th confirmation of the specs and further info….. assuming $1600-$1700 USD pricing?

 

[jsrockit]

Unfortunately it sounds like the same $1699 price tag as the original. I bit steep in this day and age vs. a Sony A7II and some FF DSLRs. Then again, there were / are some $1499 m4/3 cameras out there.

 

[olakiril]

Unfortunately it sounds like the same $1699 price tag as the original. I bit steep in this day and age vs. a Sony A7II and some FF DSLRs. Then again, there were / are some $1499 m4/3 cameras out there.

Especially considering that most probably you will be able to find it used half the price a year later:

 

[jsrockit]

true olakiril

 

[Huss]

Unfortunately it sounds like the same $1699 price tag as the original. I bit steep in this day and age vs. a Sony A7II and some FF DSLRs. Then again, there were / are some $1499 m4/3 cameras out there.

Whoa. A Sony A6000 is $500 for what is arguably the same thing.
Outside the small fan base, how can a salesperson convince a customer that this camera with a similar 24mp sensor is worth $1000 more? Cuz of an OVF?

 

[jsrockit]

Whoa. A Sony A6000 is $500 for what is arguably the same thing.
Outside the small fan base, how can a salesperson convince a customer that this camera with a similar 24mp sensor is worth $1000 more? Cuz of an OVF?

I agree... it's kind of like buying a Leica. You buy a Fuji not because it's the most economical, but because it gets the little things right. The average joe would never buy the Fuji over the Sony. However, certain types of photographers would.

 

[awbphotog]

I agree... it's kind of like buying a Leica. You buy a Fuji not because it's the most economical, but because it gets the little things right. The average joe would never buy the Fuji over the Sony. However, certain types of photographers would.

Agree further. No matter what caliber of photographer I speak with regarding Sony - the common evaluation is that the results are brilliant but getting them is more of a chore than it should be (i.e. the menus aren't too great). I have not had any experience with the Sony bodies, but I can say that after shooting an X-Pro 1 for some time and coming from shooting Canon digital and Fuji 690 medium format, the X-Pro is very intuitive and feels right. That being said, a lot of guys I know that shoot a lot of video absolutely rave about the Sony Ax series cameras because again...the results are incredible and the bodies are cheap.

 

[gavinlg]

Whoa. A Sony A6000 is $500 for what is arguably the same thing.
Outside the small fan base, how can a salesperson convince a customer that this camera with a similar 24mp sensor is worth $1000 more? Cuz of an OVF?

The sony is a gadget, the Fuji is a photographers tool. I'm a big sony fan but as a photographer the two cameras aren't really comparable.