X-Pro 2 rumor update: 24 mp APS-C sensor

The initial attraction to Fuji is the EBC coated lenses and the tradition Fuji brings with them.
The optical hybrid finder in the x100 is genius. Carrying it to the Xpro1 is also genius.

I adopted the xpro1 early after some real success and production out of the x100.
The early RAW issues caused me to bench the xpro1 for a while. Those issues now long in the rearview I think this system is it for me for the years to come.
Fuji is on to something special. In 30 years folks will refer to the FujiX series in the same way they do Leica M or Nikon F or Rolleiflex today.

OK now start throwing rocks!! 😛
 
prices of large sensors are steadily falling. would you rather have a full frame fuji now (say at photokina), or a medium format fuji later (say 3 years from now)? or a used leica m240 in a couple years?
 
f16sunshine said:
MUCH SMALLER? 😉

How much is much? It's very nicely sized for the size of the lenses it mounts natively (Fuji lenses).
Improper size is not a complaint I would ever voice for the Xpro1. It suits me perfectly in that regard.
Seriously... how Much is "Much smaller"?
Click to expand...

Fully agree
 
semilog said:
Because there are not already enough different lens mounts that support FF sensors? Because Fuji would be wise to obsolete their existing, superb lens line?

Sorry, but I totally disagree. There are already more FF cameras and mount standards than the existing market demand can support.
Click to expand...

All this, plus the fact that an APSC size sensor now outperforms a 24x36 from just a few years ago. There's no need for it to be 24x36.
The point was that it could be small.
 
aizan said:
prices of large sensors are steadily falling. would you rather have a full frame fuji now (say at photokina), or a medium format fuji later (say 3 years from now)? or a used leica m240 in a couple years?
Click to expand...
The Leica(for me) is a loser because of it's 1953 viewfinder that doesn't allow me(with my glasses on) to see anything wider than about 50mm.
If Fujifilm made a 24x36 rangefinder-themed camera, it'd come close to wiping out Leica.
 
pluton said:
The Leica(for me) is a loser because of it's 1953 viewfinder that doesn't allow me(with my glasses on) to see anything wider than about 50mm.
If Fujifilm made a 24x36 rangefinder-themed camera, it'd come close to wiping out Leica.
Click to expand...

Are you against optical viewfinders?
 
jsrockit said:
No, it wouldn't.
Click to expand...
I full agree with jsrockit: Leica can command a price because there are many willing to pay the price to have a Leica camera... I should know as I had one! I bought an M9 but made the mistake of buying a 35mm lens instead of a Leica 50mm which would have suite my kind of photography. While trying to get used to the M9, the Fuji X-Pro1 came out, and went out and bought one with the 35mm (50mm equ) and found I got on better with this camera. So I sold the Leica kit. Two years down the road, I do have regrets selling the M9 as I now have the X100s which is, as we all know, the equivalent of a 35mm! The reason why I agree with jsrockit is this: Leica isn't just a camera manufacturer, it's also a cult in the way Apple is. Many aspire to owning a Leica camera, whether it is a D-Lux 5, M9 or the new T-System range and will break the bank to own one. They're not necessarily buying the state of art camera, even the T-System isn't the most modern of cameras when you look past the Apple/Audi style body, they're buying into a cult/club/brand that has a degree of exclusivity about it. Why did I buy into it? Well it was due to the M9 having a full frame sensor, and a manual focus lens. It was the only compact FF camera at the time too. Now, we have others to choose from and I'd probably have gone for the Sony range of Mirrorless FF cameras rather than spend the extra on the Leica, but, that's hind sight. Also the new M cameras are much improved over the M9 and that is what I should have got but again that's water under the bridge. To a degree, Fuji copied the M9 when they designed the X-Pro1: no bad thing there. In many ways, the X-Pro1 is the the better camera especially after the firmware updates but... It isn't a M competitor as it's not FF. Yes I know, APS-C isn't that much smaller, but as we've seen in other parts of this forum, FF & APS-C stalwarts will argue until their faces turn blue which is better (FF is better ;-)) Oh, and you can be as silly as a Leica user with the X-Pro1, using the OVF and forgetting to take the lens cover off has the same effect! :-(


X-pro1, x100s and Apple fan boy.
 
back alley said:
don't need full frame…we're not all pros or making money with our cameras.
Click to expand...

Depends on the Pro. Most of my photojournalism peers bought in to FF, few of my contemporaries, and even fewer of the younger ones.

12 years ago I was at Perpignon, I saw the 'famous' journos walking around with brand new Canon 5D & 1D whatever mk versions were new back then, and made sure to be seen with them, but on the other shoulder or in the bag were video cameras.

Now, I see most of my contemporaries have 70D's and again others multiple Nex cameras.
 
irq506 said:
Depends on the Pro. Most of my photojournalism peers bought in to FF, few of my contemporaries, and even fewer of the younger ones.

12 years ago I was at Perpignon, I saw the 'famous' journos walking around with brand new Canon 5D & 1D whatever mk versions were new back then, and made sure to be seen with them, but on the other shoulder or in the bag were video cameras.

Now, I see most of my contemporaries have 70D's and again others multiple Nex cameras.
Click to expand...

I agree, there seem to be quite a few young photojournalists/art photographers etc of my generation (mid 20s-30s) who are even using m43 and smaller for their "pro" work. These days "pro" systems have little to do with sensor size and more to do with overall reliability, customer support, and lens/accessory range.
 
I can't see that there's anything Fujifilm would gain by introducing a full-frame camera and a whole new lens line-up to support that. My impression is that their current APS-C line has established a significant market presence which has been very successful for them. As others have suggested above, it seems to me that if they wanted to do something different to attract a different market segment then they might do better taking their current design approach and applying it to digital medium format, where they might address a whole new market, rather than splitting an existing small-format market sector they are already very successful in. This seems, to me, especially appropriate given Fujifilm's substantial historical background with medium format cameras.

But that's just me, and a top-of-the-head opinion. I'm sure their strategic marketing folks have some hard numbers which will guide their approach far better than semi-informed opinions from the likes of me. If the numbers work, they'll no doubt pursue full-frame. I'd just prefer it if they stuck with APS-C, improving on an already-excellent product line (which I'll also say I'm not invested in) and looked at applying similar excellence somewhere outside a somewhat crowded full-frame market segment. I'm well aware that my preferences are hardly a guide for corporate expenditure decisions!

...Mike
 
First a disclaimer: I don't know this camera or company; I've been into m43 since 2009; I currently have the Pen mini and shoot mostly with small prime lenses. I've watched Fuji come along and have always been interested. Nice cameras, especially the X100 and XE series. Never understood what the X-PRO brought to the plate, however. With an optical viewfinder, the old dream of adapting RF lenses to digital seems possible, instead we hear:

Kwesi said:
Sounds like an XT1 with an OVF.
Now that Fuji has a full complement of its own lenses, i doubt we will see any manual focus enhancements for the OVF - definitely not for legacy lenses.
. . .
Click to expand...

I may be missing something, but isn't the point of an optical viewfinder to make manual focus possible? If you have nice manual focus on an optical viewfinder then it would be possible to use legacy lenses--kind of like a digital RF. I just don't quite get it.

Kwesi said:
. . . . There really isn't anything for its successor to differentiate itself . . . from the rest of the fuji X cameras beyond the form factor and an OVF.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah.

Kwesi said:
In a way I think fuji has listened too well to an audience that has placed AF performance over anything else.
Of course if you are earning a living from the x cameras I can understand the need but I hope it doesn't end up being at the expense of the original xpro mojo
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that the AF feature might well be a matter of "keeping up with the Joneses." Panasonic and Olympus have lightning fast AF lenses and cameras now. But the main question remains what is the XPRO's niche? Maybe someone could explain what is the "original xpro mojo"?
 
jsrockit said:
Ergonomics for those used to RF shaped cameras, shutter speed dial and aperture rings, optical VF (even when used with AF), etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, ergonomics. I was in the market for a Zeiss Ikon Zm, but was tired of film. I was also tired of the slr style and size. I wanted traditional controls, and an optical viewfinder. So the xpro1 was for me 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of the 110 Cartridge Format. Part 1: Drop-in cartridge film formats: Prioritizing user convenience.
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
neal3k
neal3k
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 2, K-mount 35mm SLRs, 1975 to 1980. From the first K-mount K2 to the magnificent pro caliber Pentax LX
2 3
Replies
47
Views
6K
Archiver
A
J
  • Article Article
How Canon Reinvented Itself for Mirrorless and Now Leads the Market!
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
JeffS7444
JeffS7444
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
882
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
17
Views
1K
Mos6502
Mos6502
Back
Top Bottom