deva

8-16 sounds great to me... I want it

get the 10-24 lens and you are set

The joystick, 2 card slots, faster all around performance and yes better video (X-Pro2 video > X-T1) are plenty that for me it is a no brainer. Each person will have to decide for themselves. For me, the moment the X-T2 is available, I'll be ordering it and selling the X-T1... I love my X-T1 in quite a few ways, but the performance is just a bit too slow. The X-Pro2 addresses that and I'm confident the X-T2 will equal or exceed it.

I have an X-T1 and an X-Pro2. The 8 MP's are not important to me. However, rather than bigger print sizes, I do like having more room for cropping. The joystick makes a huge difference. The X-Pro2 is faster: it wakes faster, turns on faster, blackout time is less and AF is faster and works a bit better in low light. The EVF refresh rate is faster too... and that also makes a difference in quick moving situations. Generally, the reviews have been saying that the high iso performance of the X-Pro2 is a bit better than the X-T1. I haven't shot them side by side enough to have a definitive opinion, but after about 1500 images shot with the X-Pro2, I think the IQ of the X-Pro2 is a small bit better. However, I felt happy with the X-T1 in the first place so I'm not really concerned. I like the location of the review image button much more on the X-Pro2. My thumb easily hits it without looking. The X-Pro2 is easily my favorite of the two, even though it is missing the tilt screen. That is mainly due to the better performance... not the 8MP

The reason to switch are the Fuji lenses If you love primes, then Fuji is kinda unmatched The 16 1.4... and the 23 1.4... and the 35 1.4... and the 56 1.2... and the 90 f2... all amazing lenses. A pleasure to handle, work with, consistent in feel and great image quality.

my guess (based on nothing)... $1499

I've started using the X-Pro2 more and it gets warm enough that it concerns me. That is when the turn off/on error shows up too. I hope the X-T2 does a better job with heat than the X-Pro2

This error is becoming a problem now that I am using the camera for real work. Shooting a lot of images fast, the X-Pro2 gets too warm for my liking and then this error happens.

Well... he set up a terrible situation... I just wouldn't get rid of any of them... heh

Never photographed whales... more birds and various animals... I've seen whales when out on boats, but never planned so didn't have a camera. Of course it really depends on how close you can get... or how close the whales get to you. I had a friend go out and he ended up using close lens cause there were whales all around the boat. He still didn't get any iconic shots. I think his experience was better than the photographic result. And hey... you do what you can and then some luck is needed. Also, if all you can get are shots at 600mm, they are not so likely to be spectacular anyway. I would much rather be close to the whales with a closer lens.

why do you want to get rid of a lens? (my choice would be the 18-55)

It is unrealistic... There is a reason Pro DSLR's are big. They have bigger motors, more/faster processing, bigger batteries, more heat dissipation, more robust mechanicals etc. They can be rapid fired all day long and handle it. A camera the size of the X-T1 just cannot match that nor is it meant to. That doesn't mean that someone cannot shoot some wildlife or sports with an X-T1, but it is nowhere near the level of performance of a Pro DSLR.

Zoom out to 100 to locate, then zoom in to compose. The 100-400 handles pretty well. It also just takes lots of patience and paying attention and developing some sense of the behavior of the critter you are photographing.

Pro's wont... because the Fuji AF is significantly slower when tracking than the Canon and Nikon Pro bodies. The save buffers in the Fuji cameras are not big enough... The frame rates are too slow. Fuji has no facility to deal with flickering stadium lights. Etc. Etc. There is no aspect of the Fuji system that can compete in that area.

I would take the 100-400... regardless of what other lenses I brought. There is nothing more annoying when shooting critters than not having enough reach. But then I already own it, so it is an easy decision.

I agree... for me, the X-T1 is a perfect size. I hope that is not true that the X-T2 will be substantially bigger.

Nothing in the Fuji lineup... cameras, lenses, other gear would lead me to believe they are interested in that market. If I were shooting sports at the Olympics, I would not even consider using Fuji.

The Sigma 50-100 weighs the same as the Nikon 70-200/2.8... so not much lighter feeling. There would be savings in the camera body though. I didn't just switch to Fuji because of the weight savings, but also because of the solid line of prime lenses. I have the Fuji zooms for when I want them, but I like shooting the primes. It is a different and for me, a more kinesthetic experience. Without a zoom, I move myself more. I miss the long battery life of my Nikon kit... I miss the speed of it, though the X-Pro2 is definitely closer than the X-T1.

There is a small bag I often use. It's outside dimensions are 11" wide, 8" deep and 7 1/2" high. I comfortably fit 2 Fuji bodies and 4 lenses (1 on each body) in that bag. By comfortably, I mean everything immediately accessible. The D500 with the Sigma 50-100 attached is 10" long... so the only way it would fit in this bag is length-wise. Turn it a bit sideways and you could put the 18-35 Sigma in as well but that is about it... and it would weigh a pound more than my 2 Fuji bodies with 4 lenses. My bag happens to fit the Fuji's well and a taller bag would be better for the Nikon and Sigmas, so this is a biased comparison, but I am including 2 bodies so I don't think there is much difference in physical space either. I have the flexibility to go out just with my X-Pro2 and the 56/1.2. It is so light and agile. Using the Sigmas as prime replacements, then that means the D500 plus the Sigma 50-100. That combo is 5.2 pounds. The X-Pro2 + 56 is 1.9 pounds. That is a huge difference in handling. In your case, when talking about such a heavy APS-C setup. why not stick with full frame? Nikon has a much better FF lens selection including lots of quality primes. The D750 + the 85/1.4 and the 135/2 together still weigh less than the D500 + the Sigma 50-100. Anyway, it's all good... just some friendly discussion

If you want to shoot full frame, go for it... but saying that basically everyone who prefers smaller systems is confused (because their priorities are not yours) is... well...

The Sigma 50-100 does not have OIS and it weighs over a pound more than the Fuji 50-140. The OIS on the Fuji is exceptional. I can shoot it at 1/30th or 1/15th of a second handheld (even 1/8th if careful), and it has a longer telephoto reach. The Fuji zoom is more versatile. And compared to primes, there is the Fuji 90/2 which weighs a full 2 lbs. less than the Sigma. Hell, I can carry the Fuji 23/1.4, 35/2, 56/1.2 and 90/2 and all 4 together still weigh less than the Sigma 50-100.

Reality check? How about not even 0.1% of photographers are ever going to rent a 400/2.8... and hundreds of times as many photographers are interested in small compact and good quality lenses.

I find the payoff with the 16-55 is the AF speed and sureness. And of course it is a zoom which certainly helps in fast changing situations. I'm very happy I purchased it, but I also wish it had OIS. But of course we are talking about a luxury of quality and diversity that was unimaginable 20-30 years ago. I don't mind being spoiled :-)

And if that matters to you that is fine... from my perspective, the difference is so tiny that I consider it of no practical consequence. And my guess is that 99.9% of potential viewers will not care in the slightest. Subject, perspective, composition and lighting so overwhelmingly define value/appreciation.

10-24 is a great lens... and not only do you get a wider lens than say the 14, but you get the OIS. I was shooting at night recently and took a handheld shot at 2 seconds. Ridiculous of course... and even though looking closely it is a bit blurry, it is useable. Lots of people enjoyed it as part of a slideshow. 10-24, 35 and 55-200 would make a solid kit. I couldn't help myself though... I would also add the 26 and 23 ;-)