EyesUnclouded

One thing about "ultra high resolution" 135 format sensors: "diffraction at f/4 anyone?" If Canon or Sony are foolish enough to pursue resolutions over 50Mp, this will be their own undoing. Please also keep in mind that even the "cropped" 50mp Sony MF sensor is about 80% larger in surface than a FF sensor (thus, larger pixel pitch, for equal resolution)

I think you virtually answered your own question: from your list of favorite features, only "discretion" perhaps favors the X-Pro2. Mind you, the X-T1 is actually physically smaller than the X-Pro2, but we can't know about the X-T2. The X-T2 shall also probably feature a more advanced EVF than the X-T1 (perhaps the new Epson 4mp one?) The trouble is, there is absolutely no information on release date. Are you ready to wait, say, until the end of 2016? Perhaps the best course of action for your needs (as described) would be to get a X-T1 now (perhaps even used, to cut on costs) and build your lens collection until the X-T2 becomes available.

Responding to my own question, for those that might be interested. I had the opportunity to test the X-Pro2 hands on today, and, indeed, it allows flash shooting during burst mode, like the (newest firmware) X-T1. I understand this may be of no concern to most users, but this gives definite advantages for some types of photojournalistic use, as well as when shooting flash with standard pattern movements (e.g. dance).

Just curious about what your focal length preference might be... It is rumored that the the X-200 will feature a 28mm "equivalent" lens, plus digital crops for 35 and 50mm. The X-100S/T featured a couple of conversion lenses, offering 28 and 50mm equivalent focal lengths. If this continues on with the X-200, how would you feel about ~21mm and 40-42mm equivalent conversion lenses?

Ooook... First of all I'm glad that the X-Pro2 seems to have stirred the interest of, not only the loyal customer base but, the general photographic public too. I've seen this from groups and pages I manage in social media and even several personal communications with fellow photographers. In that regard, serious "no strings attached" reviews are needed. I think the video tries to be objective (and the guys at the camerastoretv generally are) but falls short due to a couple of (crucial) details: 1) The now infamous "Fuji is cheating with their ISO" statement. Please check, if you haven't already, this older article: https://photographylife.com/does-fuji-cheat-with-its-sensors and especially Iliah Borg's answer in the comments, which, IMO puts the matter to rest once and for all. All that said, I have always found that Fuji files pushed in PP to the point that they are "equivalent" exposure-wise to competitive cameras, always show better detail and noise characteristics. This is a point Nasim makes in the article also. So, no, you don't have to shoot the X-Pro2 at 12800 ISO and the D7200 at 6400 ISO to "make them equivalent". 2) The RAW conversion issue. Again, we are usually shown samples of RAWs processed through ACR (LR or PS) for both cameras, in similar comparisons. We all know how insufficient ACR still is in processing X-Trans files, especially for sharpness and noise. In particular, noise patterns look rather unatural with ACR, while other coverters (e.g. Photo Ninja with Noise Ninja) offer much better processing. I wish Fuji could work with Adobe to offer a better solution, but, for the time being, such comparisons are not "real world", in my opinion. A Fuji-X user with high demands on final image quality, would probably chose a RAW conversion software that delivers the best possible results. All in all I think the review was objective and honest, but seen from a more "consumer oriented" view. The X-Pro2 especially is not directed to the consumer market. But, having said that, I'll repeat I wish Fuji made things simpler...

Couldn't find this info anywhere: can the X-Pro2 shoot flash in burst (either low or high) shooting mode? The X-T1 gained this feature with the latest firmware update.

I don't have the latest ACR version, but in older LR versions (pre 6.4) best results were achieved by setting 100 on the detail slider. I have found this to be the case repeatedly, on a variety of photos. It's supposed that LR switches into a different algorithm when set at detail=100 On the subject of RAW conversion, I did a test today: I downloaded the test scene shots from dpreview and converted X-Pro2 files using the latest PhotoNinja update (which supports X-Pro2 RAW, but only non-compressed ones). I used what, in my eyes, were optimal settings for sharpening and noise reduction, and I'm happy to say results are pretty good. For example, in a comparison with the same shot from the Nikon D750, also optimally processed in LR, the Fuji was absolutely comparable in noise performance while showing an advantage in color accuracy and gradations. The Nikon still held a small advantage in DR, I think, and also retained detail better in some parts of the image (while the Fuji was better at others). I know this is not a scientific approach, but it's a valid one from an end-user perspective: most Nikon users I know use LR/ACR as their standard RAW converter and it indeed gives good results with Nikon. Fuji, on the other hand, certainly benefits from using other software options. Also keep in mind that, when comparing such results, we are talking about heavy pixel peeping. I don't believe anyone can see real differences in the real world between these cameras, at least up to ISO 6400 (which, at least for me, is about the absolute maximum I use for 98% of my shots).

Dan, the 16-70 f/4 is hardly comparable to the 18-55mm Fuji, in image quality terms. Most people I know having used that lens, were left underwhelmed. Probably not deserving the Zeiss badge (same goes for the 24-70mm f/4 FE). An EVF-only, slightly smaller body, single SD slot derivative of the X-Pro2 would make much sense (it could also make-do without the integrated shutter/ISO dial and a couple more bells and whistles of the X-Pro. Now what that reminds me.... yeah, a future X-E3? C'mon Fuji.

It's a fact that most of us are used in composing using a viewfinder of sorts. A mirrorless option could do even more to get MF out of the studio and, even, detach it from the tripod, where off-studio MF cameras spend most of their lives.

First of all, Fuji had at least one camera with integrated grip in the past, this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinePix_S3_Pro Nevertheless, its successor, the S5 Pro, didn't feature the integrated grip at all, instead opting for a separate accessory. My opinion on grips for mirrorless bodies, which I've already expressed years ago in other fora, for OIympus/Panasonic cameras, is that the manufacturers should work on specialized grip designs for specific needs. Meaning they should offer more than one option for a given camera. For example, one design could feature two batteries, for extended use on the field. Another could provide extra connections, or even extra storage (for example, for video applications). In general, I believe a more modular approach is needed. Mirrorless cameras should remain as small as needed (but not smaller!) in their basic configuration (which would still satisfy probably 90% of the users) and be able to be "extended" by such attachements.

Is this still a joint venture with Fujifilm? Because I can't seem to find something suggesting this in the current press release. And, apart from the initial information a couple of years ago, there's no mention of Fuji regarding the organic sensor. Do we have any other indication that they are still on board? Edit: a quick google search revealed this rumor: http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-organic-sensor-panasonic-in-charge-of-production-in-change-of-fujis-technology/

I think these would round up the lens lineup pretty nicely. The 18mm desperately needs an update and I would add the 60mm macro in this category. Smaller/lighter/cheaper f/2 versions of the 16mm and 23mm are indispensable IMO. Overall, the only major type of lens I see missing after these additions, is a fast-ish 16-70mm or 16-80mm with constant aperture. Lenses such as Canon's 24-105mm are best sellers in their systems for a reason. I'd be particularly happy if Fuji managed to make it faster than f/4 but I'd be satisfied with f/4 with image quality at the levels of the 18-55mm, perhaps with better distortion control and better IS. Concerning the flash system, my opinion is that Fuji should outsource the whole deal, working with a couple of major flash manufacturers on Fuji TTL versions of existing flashes. For off-camera flash, honestly, there is no huge problem with Fuji. I can use a Cactus V6 plus a bunch of available flashes from several brands, and have full on-camera flash power control. I personally don't care much for off-camera TTL and, to be honest, I know of very few people in need of that. But, if this is an issue, again, just work with third party manufacturers for a TTL radio system; this is exactly what happens with Canon and Nikon. I may be in the minority here, but I don't find flash support to be a major weakness in the system.

There is absolutely no reason for an SLR Medium Format camera, anyway. The sole reason DSLRs still sell (apart from market inertia and brand value, of course), is because of the relative advantages in AF performance with the mirror design. A MF will never be used in sports/wildlife/action or, even, extremely low light environments. If it's one camera format where mirrorless makes absolute sense, it's digital MF.

Although IBIS would probably make it close to my perfect camera (including the other features of course), I think there's no way Fuji is implementing this in any camera, any time soon. What I (logically) expect would be: 1) All the major new features in the X-Pro2: new sensor/processor, dual card slot, joystick, etc 2) Tilt-screen (as in the X-T2, or, better yet, a newer design with more movement freedom) 3) Full weather/cold sealing 4) 4K and generally improved video capabilities 5) New 4.4mp EVF (i.e. the one in the Leica SL) with improved refresh rate. It would be great if they managed to increase the magnification a bit too. 6) Hopefully, they could expand the fps to 10 or slightly more and make the buffer bigger than in the X-Pro2. 7) Some improvements in the general shape of the camera to improve handling vs the X-T1, e.g. better buttons, more anatomically correct grip, etc. All the obvious improvements really... and it's probably going to cost about the same as the X-Pro2 in my opinion (the latter has the expensive OVF but the X-T2 will include several other costly features as well).

This may very well have to do with the lens(es) used with each camera. For instance, the APS-C Nikons use the 50mm f/1.4G in DPreview tests, while the D750 is shot with the 85mm f/1.8G. It may be that the 50mm resolves more lines at f/5.6 than the 85mm. As far as detail goes, let's also keep in mind that the 56mm f/1.2 is NOT the sharpest lens in the X-System, but this also holds true for the other camera/lens combinations too.

A great article relevant to our conversation: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/01/will-fujifilm-produce-a-medium-format-camera.html

I understand your logic; first of all, let us admit the conversation is, at this point, highly theoretical and speculative at best. I'm sure Fuji are doing their research, and they've shown to take customer feedback quite seriously. Sometimes even resulting in ambiguous decisions, such as the lack of a swivel screen on the X-Pro2 (I'm sure most original X-Pro1 users, being "purists" in some sense, were negative on this). OTOH I believe we should not underestimate the value of a compact MF for more photography genres and photographers that we may initially think of. The X-100, for example, was obviously an ideal street photography (and, secondary, documentary, travel, etc) camera. But a number of portrait and fashion photographers also use the X-100 line a lot: leaf shutter, for one reason, allowing for creative flash use. The compact Fuji MF would probably feature a ~40-42mm "equivalent" lens (which can be very compact), and, ideally, they could offer a ~24-28mm equiv. and a ~70-75mm equiv conversion adapter. I keep repeating myself about conversion lenses, because Fuji already proved they are an economical and technically feasible reality. Well, I can see myself doing about a million editorial shootings with such a combo. Again, I understand there are people more comfortable with a couple of zooms. I'm just saying that such an arrangement is by no means limiting overall, especially as a first effort into digital MF.

I continue to believe that this is how they should introduce their MF to the marketplace: through a digital version of the GA-645. I.e. the same road they took with the original X-100. They can even immediately introduce a couple of their (usually excelent) focal length conversion lenses to complete the camera. Such a camera would be unique and not in fact antagonize the MF status quo, but instead being offered as an alternative to the likes of Leica Q and Sony RX-1Rii. Following experience and feedback with such a camera, Fuji could go on and start a new MF system; again, mirroring the X-100/X-Pro1 experience.

If you refer to the film era, Fuji already had a number of MF cameras, both fixed lens and system, from 645 to 690 format. On a different note, I happened to watch one of Zack Arias tutorials the other day, and had a thought. I believe making two lines of cameras, one APS-C based and one MF based, makes sense in a way, since a lot of professionals would be rather confortable with such an arrangement. Many pros have found the X-System to be adequate for most of their work apart from a limited very high end commercial segment (which is also high-paying). Using a FF DSLR or mirrorless for this segment doesn't make a huge amount of sense in terms of overall size and cost, over a more capable MF system.

In regards to the extra connections, a great way to do it is to introduce a specialized "grip" add-on, similar to the one for the GH-4, incorporating extra connections, perhaps storage, batteries, etc. That way most of the video-centric features for advanced users shall stay out of the way of still shooters as well as casual video-users. As far as Panasonic is concerned, they have already stated they are going for 8K by 2018. That will inevitably mean a larger sensor, since pixel density in a m43 sensor will be prohibitive. I'm thinking Panasonic is going to go for full frame or APS-H (see RED) sensors in the future, and perhaps is already working in such a direction.

This is a very interesting analysis, thank you! I would personally expect the X-T2 to be Fujis answer to D500 and probably the forthcoming E-M1 mk2; i.e. a high performance camera with a definite orientation towards action. This is not to say that it would be less capable in other lines of work, of course, but you get my meaning. 4K is inevitable, in my opinion, but, that said, perhaps a future X-T20 could play the role of a more video-oriented and targeted at enthusiasts camera. Fuji is never going to steal Panasonic's thunder in video, let's be honest. The comment about the Olympics makes sense, although I find it hard to imagine Fuji would invest in a fast super telephoto prime at this point. Nevertheless, the 100-400 seems more than capable in these conditions, and I'm sure we'll see the X-T2+100-400+TC combination in several sports events untill the end of the year.

Well, we finally have it from official sources that they actually considering making a MF camera (and probably starting a MF system?)

I tried to make a point recently about smaller, more practical lenses, and this is where I stand. I'm with Wolffbastien on the futility of getting enamored with ultra-fast exotic lenses; there are other parameters to consider. So, small(-ish), preferably weather sealed versions of the 16mm, 23mm, etc, one stop slower than the existing lenses, and possibly a fair bit less expensive too. Apart from that, a true 1:1 macro in the 90-120mm range would be a great addition. Finally, I think a 16-70mm constant aperture is a must for the system at this point.

This is a valid concern. At this point there are no "real" new entries on the mirrorless crop-sensor market. Panasonic presented the GX8 with a new sensor; I didn't have the chance to test this camera yet, but, from what I'm reading, it's not a breathtaking upgrade to the existing m43 offerings. Olympus new E-M10 ii is also an incremental upgrade. Samsung is nowhere to be seen; see also rumors circulating about them abandoning the camera market alltogether. OTOH, mirrorless FF has become a trend. The A7Rii is quite expensive for many users, but it has driven prices for the older a7 cameras down. You can now find used but mint a7 and a7R for close or lower than 750 and 1000 euro/dollars respectively. In this situation it's normal that Sony isn't in a hurry with their APS-C sensor cameras. Perhaps they feel the existing a6000 can fly the banner for a little longer.

Exactly that. This was my exact comment when I first heard of this rumor. It makes sense to capitalize on the concept Fuji themselves started, that of the X100. It also makes sense to use the existing "crop MF" Sony sensor, which has shown impressive low light performance among other things. Or, probably, use a more up to date incarnation of this chip, if available. Of course, using a latest X-Trans treatment on this sensor should furhter enhance its performance. We can also be confident on the lens performance, this being Fuji. A compact MF will be unique but also much more desirable as a second system, for other system users. Nobody would invest in a system with costs running well over 10K for a body plus a modest lens selection. OTOH, if Fuji manages to sell a compact MF at price levels similar to the Leica Q, plus offer a couple of high quality focal length converters (see X100 again), I can see a variety of photographers being interested. The (film) body GA645 format is superb, easily a better option for travel and documentary photography than any high end FF ILC or DSLR. But also having a leaf shutter, makes genres such as fashion and portraiture (using high sync speed flash), still life, etc, highly applicable. Finally, from a more practical and realistic viewpoint, such an investment would be rather low-risk; at the very least I believe it would easily break even, while an all out assault with a system camera would take years to take off and would be very high risk, considering the very competitive market landscape (on high-end cameras) coming in the next few years.