willie_901
Veteran
I owned the X100 and X-Pro 1. I use X-100T and X-Pro 2.
If you value using a rangefinder-style OVF, then the X100 and X-Pro are your only digital options other than a M8 or M9. By RF-style I mean a non-electronic finder view where one can compose while viewing what's outside the frame lines.
The X-100S is far superior to the original X100 because it's in-camera CPU is much faster. The primary advantage is found in more flexible and successful focusing. All other aspects of camera operation is quicker as well. The X-100T has a higher signal-to-noise ratio than the S. If you don't care about dynamic range in bright light or shadow region detail in low light, the S would be fine.
The same goes for the X-Pro 1 vs X-Pro 2. Here the differences are greater. The X-Pro 2 IQ is far superior (dynamic range and low light performance). But not all of us value more dynamic range and low-light performance. The focusing performance difference is also much improved.
The newer cameras' focusing improvements are less important if you plan to use adapted M mount lenses - but the additional focusing views can be useful.
If using a RF-style OVF is not important, than the XE-2 or XE-3 would be good choices.
I use the X-100T and X-Pro 2 as I used my Canonet G-III QL17 and Zeiss Ikon M - focus and recompose withmanual aperture and shutter selection. I'm pleased with the Fujinon prime lenses. I have no plans to pursue the newer FUJIFILM models.
If you value using a rangefinder-style OVF, then the X100 and X-Pro are your only digital options other than a M8 or M9. By RF-style I mean a non-electronic finder view where one can compose while viewing what's outside the frame lines.
The X-100S is far superior to the original X100 because it's in-camera CPU is much faster. The primary advantage is found in more flexible and successful focusing. All other aspects of camera operation is quicker as well. The X-100T has a higher signal-to-noise ratio than the S. If you don't care about dynamic range in bright light or shadow region detail in low light, the S would be fine.
The same goes for the X-Pro 1 vs X-Pro 2. Here the differences are greater. The X-Pro 2 IQ is far superior (dynamic range and low light performance). But not all of us value more dynamic range and low-light performance. The focusing performance difference is also much improved.
The newer cameras' focusing improvements are less important if you plan to use adapted M mount lenses - but the additional focusing views can be useful.
If using a RF-style OVF is not important, than the XE-2 or XE-3 would be good choices.
I use the X-100T and X-Pro 2 as I used my Canonet G-III QL17 and Zeiss Ikon M - focus and recompose withmanual aperture and shutter selection. I'm pleased with the Fujinon prime lenses. I have no plans to pursue the newer FUJIFILM models.