milandro

Next to the type of card, much depends on the settings of the camera, mine is not experiencing this delay that you describe.

I’ve very often sent post to and from Italy ( since a large chunk of family and friends live there) which took 3 days. Postcards might not have the highest priority both to and fro. Last year, I’ve received an envelope with glasses for me from Italy, it took 3 days from Siena to where I live. I couldn’t believe it. By the way, last week I’ve sent something to France and it has yet to arrive.

than you must be a lot older than I am

I wouldn’t put any money (or wait) on a X-E3 with the same toys as the top models. I’d buy a secondhand X-T1. “ better an egg today than a hen tomorrow” because the hen might never be there. My “wondering" was rhetorical, of course it is zone focussing. this has worked for every photographer in the past and although digital photography is more unforgiving when it comes to motion blur, we have the benefit od setting the ISO levels much higher than anyone ever could in the past.

we will only know when we get there, the comment by Alexandre is, due to something which went " lost in translation”, absolutely unclear to me.

The camera we are talking about is the X-A 3, there is not (yet and or probably ever) an X-M2 ( X-M1 had a x-trans and was the worst selling camera of the X range).

yes, ridiculous isn’t it? Sic transit, Gloria mundi!

well, it is not by accident that ALL the cameras of the X system with interchangeable lenses were equipped with the X-Trans while only the cheapest of the all ( The X-A1 and 2) ever had a Bayer. But yes, there was some debate about it... http://www.fujirumors.com/x-trans-vs-bayer-round-2-riflessifotografici-dpreview-and-matts-feedback/

might be... or not. The practice has shown that the predecessor of these camera only sold in Asia and not in the rest of the world, by sticking to the Bayer processor they would replicate the same pattern of the past, while by means of using the same X-Trans processor, in the scale economy logic, will lower the production price while at the same time offering a real alternative on the lower segment of the digital photography. On the other hand if this were true, it would necessarily mean that the X-70 or whatever it would be called by then ( X-70S?) should receive a sensor update too, because otherwise the X-A3 with the 18mm would compete with the X-70. I think that Fuji is trying to keep too many balls in the air and that all these cameras that show up only briefly on the market ( like the X-A2 and the X-M1) cost more than they deliver.

Well, we’ve heard that 24Mp X-Tras has the same resolution of 36Mp bayer, at least that’s what Fuji appears to have claimed. Now, if that were Fuji’s position, it shouldn’t be a Bayer sensor. http://www.fujirumors.com/fuji-x-pro2-excellent-high-iso-at-12800-fast-af-100-convincing-wedding-with-x-pro2-ef-x500-images-more/ http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/2056-24-mp-x-trans-iii-has-the-same-resoution-of-36mp-bayer-sensor/

Is this Aps-C 24Mp not a X-Trans III? Whether this would be a bayer sensor or an X-Trans is not at all clear to me, although the previous X-A1 and 2 were indeed equipped with one of those, it might very well be an X-trans. My stance on pixel count is clear, although most people are bound to opt for the motto “ bigger is better” ( and that includes equipping the X-T2 with an extra battery holder which in my opinion nullifies any size advantages of a mirrorless camera over DSLR) in terms of usability it makes no to little consequence for the overwhelming majority of applications for both professional or amateur. I have yet to find anyone who ( in practice not in so-called theory) has been able to tell me what was that they couldn’t do with 16Mp that they now can do with 24Mp. But if people want more pixels ( for whatever reason, rational or not) they are gonna get them. If rationality would play any role in human choices certain politicians would never put themselves to the public scrutiny, if this would be based on rationality that is, but they know very well that most people trust their guts more than they trust their brains...and you know what the guts are filled with.

well, this lets us think that ALL the new cameras will sport the 24Mp capabilities. If they start with a X-A3 who knows what will happen with the X-E3 and X-30...(will they be called like this) to come?

http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/tutorials/understanding-volume-deformation from this article (connected to the sales of software) “.. The shorter the focal distance (F), the farther the projection will be from the center (distance D), and the greater the deformation The farther the subject is from the axis, the more visible the phenomenon will be For a conventional lens, distortion is tied to its physical properties, but volumes can be very distorted...."

interesting but that doesn’t illustrate what Peter Gabriel is talking about. In fact I believe that he’s asked that question already before and he got a number of answers that he confuses “ distortion” with " volume deformation”. http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/3306-14mm-f28-zero-distortion/

makes one wonder how did fathers ( unfortunately I din’t have any grandfather who was alive in the ’50 or ‘60 ) ever took pictures of children running about before the invention of autofocus camera and even before digital cameras when film was expensive and missing many shots would have been a costly hobby.

Oh yes, Aswald but you forget that the X-T1 is stuck on 10 and will never ever get to the magical 11 ( continuing the “ spinal tap" analogy). Logic doesn’t always apply where cravings are involved. You know the dichotomy between to have or to be? Fromm identified that in 1976 and after 40 years his message is as true now (if not more) as it was them. one thing that I’ve learned during my learning curve ( so far, who knows what I am bound to learn further the lane...) is that the best way to save or not waste any (of my) money is to refrain from buying something that I don’t need or that exceeds my needs or capabilities to use the thing that I might covet. But of course, that’s me... mileage varies between people and my perspective is certainly different from the one held by other people with other needs, wants, priorities. A friend of mine ( 65) told me about his 30.000 books in his digital library... which is very impressive by any standard. Of course the fact that he, in all likelihood, hasn’t got 30.000 days (about 82 years) to read all those books means absolutely nothing to him. He has them available to him. Gives him a choice. Similarly you can buy an X-T2 and take the exact same pics that you would with with a X-E1 at 1/10 of the cost. But yes, horses for courses. We all have our idiosyncrasies.

sure! I don’t shoot videos but for sure I wouldn’t want to miss out on the off chance that, if I ever decided to shoot a mediocre video, I would shoot it with the best equipment possible! ... not to mention the all too necessary battery holder, of course! Yes it will make it the largest “ small" camera in the world but it’s ok, it is the best and maybe from 11 we can go to 12, who knows?

It would be about merits of each camera if the discussion would be conducted in terms: “ the camera that I need to do the things that I do”. But it seems to me that it is about the “ camera that I want is the best that money can buy” which is also a way to see it. An emotional choice. Emotional choices are almost impossible to discuss. Indeed we are all different.

I know...

then a used X-T1 would be already a major improvement

No reason to take my advise to OP personally. What you do with your money and what you in the end do with it is your business.

Some people might like Leica for good reasons ( that I don’t understand) but some definitely like them for the show off factor, like those who bought the Lenny Kravitz model. They call it a tribute to the “ correspondent” whom they are not and perhaps they could only ever fantasize that they might be... when they buy the camera. That has to be perfect “ wannabe photographer" tool, it’s a good job we don’t see what comes out from the shots taken with this camera... but of course it’s their money, their camera, their shots, good or bad. But you know, it’s not the “ tool" you use but what you do with it. Which brings me back to OP’s asking for advise. I will only say that I hope that he ponders about these thoughts.

you will, the question is will you enjoy yourself $2000 more than you did already?

Sure but let’s not forget the fact that a camera is means to an end. But yes, there maybe many other reasons to buy anything other than what you do with it.

Everyone uses cropping to that end but the only thing that matters is what you do with what you shoot and if that is looking at pictures on your computer screen 12, 24 or 36 Mp, are just as good. Even 12 Mp are enough for prints larger than what most people will ever do. But again a lot of people buy things because they can not because they need to. Enjoy your camera.