aceflibble

Not used the 35mm with an extension tube myself, but to pass on what Fuji staff have told me, the extension tubes are good if you only do occasional macro, but the 60mm still does it a little better if you are doing macro more frequently. I would imagine that's more due to the longer focal length and working distance than actual resolving power.

"What's that?" "New [lens/body/filter/bag/guitar/games console/TV/phone/whatever]." "Oh. So what's that do that's new?" "It does [function] 0.02% faster." "Huh." And that's how that conversation goes, every time. Easy.

Calling in from the south west of England. I like to keep my actual name and business/career details obscure so when potential clients are putting my name in Google, they're not getting a flood of random tech-nerd forum posts. (It's not actually hard to find out my actual name, but I prefer not to link personal and business anyway.) I suppose you would call what I shoot portraiture, both casual on-location and formal in-studio, and the occasional event (not weddings! Ever!). Most of my day-to-day income comes from boring product shooting, though. I try to dabble in wildlife photography, too, but I'm very much a beginner in that area. Same goes for music photography. There's not much I won't point a lens at! I am hugely technology-minded and I spend too much time hanging around with shop managers, magazine writers and manufacturer representatives, so my comments are usually either musings on the state of the industry or geeky maths. I first used large format when I was 7—my father also did a lot of product work back in the day—and finally went fully digital in 2007... then back to film in 2013. I rarely own a piece of equipment for more than two years, as I constantly trade-in for whatever the latest exciting gadget is. Though I've been using cameras for quite a while, I'm only 27, so I don't believe I know everything but I like to think I've got a better-than-average grasp on what's what. I've sold all my Canon and Mamiya gear to switch to Fuji, after picking up an X100S at the start of last year. I've had several issues with my spine and knees, so I was more or less forced to downsize my gear, and it just-so-happened that Fuji started to really take off at the same time, so the switch was a natural one. Right now I'm using the X-T1, 14mm, 35mm and 56mm, with the X100S as a sort-of second body. I've got an X-T10 pre-ordered to be a proper second body. I had the 18-55mm and 60mm lenses, too, but have sold those as f/4 is just too slow for me most of the time and the 60mm was often too sharp. Borrowed/rented every other Fuji lens, so I feel comfortable with the whole range. My 14mm will probably be replaced by the 16mm soon and the X100S will be sold to make the 50-140mm a permanent fixture in my bag, rather than an occasional rental. I regularly harass Fuji PR to make a 70mm lens. Other gear is a Billingham Hadley Large bag, Black Rapid straps, the lovely Cactus flash and trigger system for when I am allowed extra light on location—most events I go to don't allow flash—and more reflector boards, diffusion panels and lens filters than I can keep track of. (I have also kept a Canon 7D and 400mm f/5.6L lens for wildlife, but ssh, don't tell anyone!)

X-T2, unless the X-Pro2 happened to acquire the T's tilt screen and ISO dial. The Pro's a nicer-looking camera, but I don't care about the OVF—which I never thought I'd say, because I originally resisted using Fuji specifically because I wanted an OVF—and the tilt screen has become too integral to how I shoot. That screen difference is really the defining trait of each body, to me. I only use the EVF for checking image playback in bright sunlight, otherwise I'm using the screen for anything. And to think, I used to buy Canon 1D bodies specifically just for the larger viewfinder! The other thing is tethered shooting. I can live without it, but I'd much rather have it available as an option. Assuming the X-T2 has better tether support than the X-T1's janky solution, that would be my pick. Again, if the X-Pro2 happened to get the tilt screen, the ISO dial and the tethered shooting support, then I'd go for the Pro.

x-tc: I wrote my second post at 1:20am, following a regrettable night of Eurovision drinking games, so yes, re-reading now, it does seem we're mostly agreed and there's just been some poor phrasing confusing things. citral: See, I would guess the first image is a zoom and the second is a prime, but that's more due to the contrast. In terms of bokeh, to me they might as well be the same. Neither's smoother or rougher than the other in that regard. The second image does look sharper to me, but again, that looks like it's more due to contrast. I'm more of a prime user myself, but as you say, if you're looking for versatility and to keep the weight down, zooms—especially the Fuji zooms—do just as well at similar focal lengths and apertures. With other brands I do often seen a good argument to be made in favour of zooms or primes, but with the Fuji stuff... eh, it's all good. Give me the 56mm, the 60mm, the 90mm, the 18-55 or the 50-140 and I know I'll be able to get a good portrait out of any of them. (Maybe the 60 would need a weak diffusion filter, though!) I only really choose primes myself because it's just what I grew up using and when I use zooms I keep forgetting they can, er, zoom!

I wouldn't have thought the X-T10 would be of any value other than as a way for Fuji to use up the last of its leftover parts before the X-Pro2 brings along a new sensor. Then I actually used an X-T10 for myself and I got it. If Fuji can get that thing on store shelves for the public to try, it'll be a big deal. The X-T1 is already their most successful body, and a half-price version of that should fly off the shelves. The problem is shops don't want to stock bodies they're not sure will sell, and the X-T10 is very hard to sell without showing it to someone in person. On paper it looks like a cheap toy. Not surprised it's doing well at launch, because every new camera does. There's always a rush of people who want the latest gadget. Whether those sales will actually sustain until the end of the year, or whenever it is the X-Pro2 launches, is another issue entirely.

Huh, strange. Well, assuming they will give you the usual 14-day/30-day return period, might as well go for it. The X-T10 is very nice but for just $100 more, the X-T1 is the better camera.

Changing the base ISO would be a problem, anyway, because the actual Fuji base ISO is 140, not 200. They call it 200 because the shadows are pushed up half a stop even when you are using the lowest ISO and you don't think you are using the dynamic range feature. It's actually recorded like that for the raws. It's only the 200% and 400% options which are then done with further processing, which aren't saved as the raw but are saved to the .JPG. It's a way of faking that the sensor has more dynamic range than it actually does. Canon do it, too, as their ISO 100 is, for most of their sensors, actually ISO 80 or so. Also, Fuji's sensors are a form of 'ISOless' sensor, so the noise technically stays the same no matter how much you push or pull the file. you just notice it more the more you push the file because of dynamic band compression. So you can simply underexpose an ISO 200 file, or expose normally and reduce the exposure in processing, and you get the same results as if Fuji let you shoot at ISO 100. So, Fuji could reduce the sensor's base ISO down to 100 and it wouldn't increase the noise, but it would really mean you would be shooting at about ISO 64 and there wouldn't actually be any benefit to it. It would just mean that ISO 100 would then be allowed for raw files, instead of only being for .JPG. I don't disagree that it would be nice to have the option, but it truly would be pointless. ... That's assuming they stick with the same sensor, though. If they make a new sensor then who knows! They could certainly make a native ISO 100 sensor with less noise. As for myself, the main thing I would like is simply higher resolution. If they can reduce the noise at the same time then that's good, but the same noise at a larger size is fine. It's been very hard to convince clients that 16mp is enough, and getting to 20mp—the arbitrary number many of them have decided is the minimum—would simply make my lif easier. No more having to explain or excuse, I could just hand over a 20mp file and be done. Oh, and of course, something with a deeper buffer, proper tethering and longer battery life. 25+ raw files, plain USB tether to either Lightroom or Capture One without BS plug-ins working through a wrapper, and a minimum 500 shots per battery charge, hopefully giving about 700 in actual use. Or a mains adapter! Make the X-T2 a proper studio camera and I'll be very, very happy.

Bokeh quality is, by its very definition, entirely subjective, as is contrast. Sharpness isn't, which is why I typically conclude with a comment on sharpness alone. I think it's important that everybody tries to remember that image quality is, mostly, down to interpretation. Back in the day (and still, in some circles) you had loads of people arguing about Fuji film vs Kodak film. You'd often talk to some wedding photographer who would swear their Kodak film was categorically, technically better than a Fuji film they had tried, when really the Fuji film they had selected simply wasn't as suitable for that particular task as the Kodak film they were used to. Or maybe they just preferred the warmer colours of the Kodak film, or maybe they liked that there was more grain, or less grain, or whatever. Point is, with any piece of equipment, everybody is going to have different definitions of what is good or bad. Sharpness—plain resolving power—really is the only thing you can actually compare, and even that can be confused by microcontrast. And of course, some people will complain that a lens is "too" sharp! This is incorrect and a common mistake. You need to understand that pixel pitch and resolution are two different things. When you cram, for sake of argument, 18mp into a crop sensor, the pixel pitch is much higher than if you make an 18mp 35mm sensor. This greatly magnifies the qualities of the lens. You'll get more detail out of a lens which resolves well, but at the same time, any tiny flaws in that lens will become far more obvious. Now, if you're making a lens specifically for crop sensors, you design that lens with this tighter pixel pitch in mind You don't just take a full frame lens and cut the corners off. You know you don't need to use as much glass, so you can afford to make the glass you do use as good as possible. You generally don't worry about achiving the highest resolving power, because the cropped 'magnification' is kind of zooming the lens in closer for you anyway, and instead you just make sure that every possible flaw is as well-controlled as you can make it. A moderately sharp lens with no aberration looks like it resolves far more detail with better microcontrast than a higher-resolving lens with fringing all over the place. Conversely, if you're making a lens for 35mm sensors—as most primes and premium zooms are—you know you're dealing with a much more relaxed pixel pitch. You spend less time worrying about controlling flaws and more time on the overall quality. You're also trying to stretch the quality over a larger piece of glass. Higher-resolution full frame sensors are bridging the gap a little, because they obviously get more out of a lens—both good and bad—than older 35mm sensors do, but they still don't have quite such a tight pixel pitch was the higher-reoslution crop sensors. So, to use my earlier example again, the 5D mark II (21mp 35mm) shows up some flaws, but it's something like the 760D (24mp APS-C) which will really magnify and exaggerate the clarity, or lack thereof. Now, all that said, the fact of the matter is that very, very few companies bother to actually make really good lenses for crop sensors. The thought is that crop sensors go in cheap, low-end cameras and the people buying them won't want to invest in higher-quality and more expensive lenses. This is really the main reason that Sigma 18-35 zoom stands out so much. It's not that zooms overall are as good as or better than primes, it's more just that Sigma actually bothered to put some effort into making a premium crop sensor lens and that's a bit of a novelty. This is where it becomes a very tricky subject to talk about with Fuji users, because Fuji are more or less the only company out there who are making multiple high-quality lenses specific to crop sensors. Look at the 60mm, for example, and the resolving power that has. Look at how sharp that is. It's a tiny piece of glass, 39mm at the filter thread, it's dirt cheap and it's a semi-macro, high-resolving portrait lens which is "too sharp" for most portaits! To get the same results from a full frame lens from another manufacturer, you need to be looking at the top-of-the-line stuff; I used to match it with the Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro and that costs over twice what the Fuji 60mm does. Fuji's 18-55 zoom is actually sharper at the 18mm end than the 18mm prime is, but that's really because Fuji went out of their way to provide a 'kit' zoom which far exceeds the standards people expect from such lenses. So this is really the wrong place and the wrong crowd to be comparing zooms vs primes. As Fuji users, we're used to zooms which are sharper than primes and cheap, light and small primes on crop sensors which are as sharp and as faultless as the very top red-band and gold-band lenses on the largest full frame sensors. We're spoilt because Fuji have designed all of their lenses to be as technically good as possible when paired with a crop sensor. There aren't any Fuji lenses which have soft haze, two stops of vignetting and six pixels of aberration in the middle of the frame. Us Fuji users are not the people who should be worrying about which type of lens is best. Fuji users don't need to worry about that. I used to use Canon and Mamiya and I used to have to weigh up primes vs zooms, quality vs flexibility, and I mainted a separate kit of lenses for my crop bodies (APS-C and 6x4.5 digital) as I did for my full frame bodies (35mm and 6x7 film). Then I ditched it all and picked up Fuji because I can buy whichever lenses and I know they're all equally good. Maybe we'll come back to this subject when the X-Pro2 is out, if it indeed does have a 24mp sensor, or if that rumour of a 1.3x crop sensor Fuji is true. That will be the time to start measuring the primes vs the zooms. Even then, you're not going to see that much of a difference, I suspect. For now, just rest assure that no matter which lenses you buy for your Fuji, they're going to be fine.

The X-T1 is objectively the better camera. For that little of a price difference, there's no major reason to not get it. Bigger EVF, full dial layout, weather sealing. However, there are a couple of small points in favour of the X-T10: "like new" suggests the X-T1 is used, so I would assume that does not come with a warranty, whereas a new X-T10 will; the battery life of the X-T10 seems to be very slightly better; if you trade in or sell your X-E1, that + the extra $100 would probably be enough to buy you another lens, if you fancy it. Double-check the X-T1 really is "like new" and make your decision from there. If it really is as good as new, I think this is a no-brainer.

It's more a case of glass being made for crop sensors vs glass being made for 35mm sensor. That Sigma 18-35mm is a helluva lens because it's made specifically for crop sensors. When you take a 'full frame' lens and put it on a crop sensor, every slight flaw becomes magnified. Same as if you go from a lower pixel count sensor to a much higher one. For example, when Canon made the 24-105 L lens as the 'kit' lens for the 5D, that lens seemed great. On a 12mp full frame sensor, everything looked perfect. Below-average distortion for such a versatile zoom range and pin-sharp with no aberration. Then the 5D Mark II came out with a 21mp sensor and the lens started to fall apart. Then people tried it on the 18mp crop sensor 7D and the lens looked even worse. The pixel pitch got so tight that every flaw became magnified by over four times. Huge colour fringing everywhere. Soft right across the frame. Out of focus areas rife with onion-ring artefacts. Now it's notorious as being one of Canon's worst lenses. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is an incredible lens, there is no doubt about that. Put it against any full frame lens on the same crop body and it will win. I've come very close to buying it on many occasions, I've rented it for a couple of jobs and I would rate it as, for the price, the best lens any Canon or Nikon owner can buy for a crop body. But in the sharpness stakes it does get beaten by some other lenses made specifically for crop sensors. And, of course, we can't get it on Fuji bodies anyway

So to get back to the OP's actual question... Unless you're going to shoot the 56mm at f/1.2 all the time, forget the APD version. It's very slightly smoother at f/1.2 at the cost of nearly a third of a stop of light. For f/1.4 there is almost no difference and at f/1.6 onwards it looks no different to the regular 56mm and you're still losing a little light. If you ever talk to people from Fuji, even they will tell you the APD is pointless unless you're glued to f/1.2. So, 56mm vs 90mm. Same as 85mm vs 135mm for 35mm sensors, I personally always wish 85mm lenses were a touch longer and 135mms were shorter, so I typically end up using 100mm-105mm lenses or their equivalents. Sadly, Fuji doesn't make a 100mm equivalent yet! Generally, 90mm is going to be good for headshots and, if you're outdoors or in a really huge studio, you're going to be able to back up enough to get a waist-up shot. Don't bank on it for much else. And, if you do have that much space available, the 50-140mm f/2.8 gives you even more subject separation, anyway. I used to have a 135mmm lens on a full frame Canon body and I sold it pretty quickly because I found it was always either too long to use or, when I did have the space, the 70-200 zooms did a better job anyway. The 56mm is good for waist-up and can do full-length if you have the space. For tight headshots it introduces a little distortion, so only risk that if your subject has very well-proportioned features. Your typical professional model is going to look fine in a 56mm headshot because they're probably going to have the features to get away with it. Your average family shot is going to be fine because nobody cares about a little distortion there. Anything between, it's going to be distractingly unflattering. Again, I wish Fuji would make a 100mm equivalent. Really, the 56mm and 90mm are going to work best as a pair, or you just grab the 50-140 zoom. If you are only going to have one lens, the 56mm is more useful—lighter, smaller, can work with less light, and you can always shoot wider then crop in for a headshot—but it's definitely a tough call. What one person calls a portrait, another may say is too wide to be a real portrait, or they may complain it's too tightly-framed. If you like wider, the 56mm is definitely the way to go. If you like tight, the 90mm is worth considering but is still hard to recommend. Usually, the people with the space and career to make full use of the 90mm will be better off with the 50-140 anyway. That's not to say there aren't exceptions here and there, but, for most people in most situations, the 56mm is going to be the more useful of the two. If you have an X-T1 or will be buying an X-T10 then I'd also consider the 60mm. It's just that fraction tighter than the 56mm, enough to make headshots not quite as unacceptable, while still being significantly wider than the 90mm. You're giving up a lot of speed to the 56mm but not much compared to the 90mm, and for most closer portraits you'll probably be stopping down, anyway. And it's still faster than any portrait zoom. The 60mm does focus slowly with other bodies, but on the X-T10 it's as fast as any other Fuji lens and the X-T1 will be getting a firmware update which, I would hope, will also bring the 60mm up to speed on that, too. I wouldn't bother looking at the 60mm if you have a X-Pro1 or X-E camera, though, as the focus is just too slow on those.

I really want a 70mm, at least f/2 but ideally f/1.4. I'm not fussed about reaching the spec-sheet-boasting f/1.2 since I'd rather keep the size and weight down. The one thing I really miss from my DSLR and medium format kits is a 100mm-105mm equivalent portrait prime for the classic hollywood look. The 56mm isn't quite long enough. The 60mm also falls just short, is a fraction too slow for when I really need the light and the focus is that one step behind the other lenses. The 90mm is going to be too long; I hated the 135mm lens I had for my Canon system. I made my name with 100mm f/2 (DSLR) and 210mm f/4.5 (medium format) portraits and when I switched to Fuji I thought either the 56mm or 60mm lenses would get me close enough to keep my look, but they just don't. That extra 10mm-15mm makes a hell of a difference when you're getting up close to someone. If Fuji make a 70mm f/2 or faster, I'll pre-order one on the day of announcement and pay any price. And I know it would be harmful to their own product line, but a 15mm f/2 would make life much easier instead of stressing about whether to take the 16mm f/1.4 or the 14mm f/2.8! Or, in my wildest dreams, a true crop equivalent of the standard 24-70mm f/2.8 zooms Canon and Nikon have. In crop sensor terms it would need to be something like 16-47mm f/1.8. Sigma has the 18-35mm f/1.8, which is the right idea, but it falls just short on each end. (And you can't get it for Fuji mount.) I'll happily give up some of the wide end, and if they gave me that 70mm lens I want I'd let a little of the long end go, so 18-45mm f/1.8 would be perfect. Doesn't need OIS, doesn't need weather sealing, doesn't need macro. Just get me the focal length and the actual equivalent aperture.

23mm is a nice all-rounder with an emphasis on a full scene (as opposed to something like the 35mm which is a nice all-rounder with an emphasis on an individual subject), but if it's the only lens you ever use indoors, in my experience there will be the occasional time when it's not wide enough. The 14mm does of course distort subjects quite a lot, so until now the 18mm (or 18-55 - it's actually sharper at 18mm than the prime) was the best compromise. Now, if you have the money, the 16mm is the best option. It's easy to take a wider shot and crop in, you can't take a narrow shot and magically fill the rest of the scene in later. If the price difference doesn't bother you, the 16mm is the no-brainer. A 'kit' of 16mm, 35mm and 56mm can do absolutely anything.

Both. I used to live near a store dealing in rare, custom and vintage guitars, and most of their customers were wealthy dentists and lawyers who would spend four- or five-figure sums on something to hang on their wall, not knowing how to actually play anything. From my experience with the music biz, and making guitars, the Fender fans are a little more snobby than the Gibson fans and more frequently are worse players, though the very worst group are the Ibanez/Schecter/ESP/Mayones lot. Amplifier geeks are even worse than the guitar collectors. Anyhoo...

If you like your X-T1, make the swap. The X-T10 is 95% the same as the X-T1, just much smaller. It's not as nice of a main body as the X-T1 is, obviously, but as a second body it's perfect. I didn't think it would be. Like you, I was eyeing the rumoured prices and was thinking I'd just buy a second hand X-E2 as a backup for my X-T1. Then the prices came out and aren't so bad and at the start of this week I got to try out the X-T10 for myself. It's absolutely a better system than the X-E2, from a technical, objective point of view. The styling won't be for everyone, but if you're already using an X-T1 then I'm guessing you're okay with the SLR-like body. Everything else is categorically better than the X-E2. It's noticably smaller and lighter, which for a second body is great, to me. The viewfinder isn't as nice as the X-T1's but it's an improvement over the X-E2, with less lag and a smoother image in all light. The AF is considerably better than the X-E2's. (An X-T1 with fw 4.0 was not avilable to try, but the rep said the X-T1 would absolutely match the X-T10's AF once that firmware is out.) Obviously you get the tilt screen and a more functional button layout. I was told the battery life has been improved slightly, too, though as I was only around it for a couple of hours, I couldn't test that, obviously. I started the morning thinking the X-T10 was pointless and a used X-E2 was the smartest purchase. I ended the day pre-ordering the X-T10. I'm even considering selling my X-T1 and buying a second X-T10 and just pocketing the £200 left over. They're that close in performance. If you can trade in the X-E2 for as much as you paid for it, and you won't miss the rangefinder-styled body, there is no reason to not get an X-T10.

The Nissin i40 can do TTL with Fuji systems, though god knows how to get it working on a wireless system. I saw Damien Lovegrove use it with a Canon cable, so maybe Canon-compatible triggers would work, but I'm pretty much blindly guessing at that and I certainly don't care to spend the money to find out. If you simply want some form of remote control over flash power, take a look at Cactus flash guns and triggers. They give you remote power control of any brand of flash (and remote zoom control with their own flashes) and allow you to mix brands of flash however you like. It's not TTL, but it gives you on-camera control of your flash power. Since with flash you'll need to either take test shots or meter anyway, you're not losing anything by not using TTL when it comes to off-camera flash.

I doubt that's at all possible. Off the top of my head I don't recall exactly how the current lenses and X-mount would line up with a 6x4.5 sensor, but a 6x6 or 6x7 would definitely be larger than the x-mount is capable of covering. There's also the simple fact that the vast majority of the current Fuji lenses would all be considered super-wide on medium format, and their maximum apertures would be more or less incapable of getting anything in focus. For example, the 'standard' lens on my Mamiya RZ67 is 110mm f/2.8, which gives a similar look to a 50mm f/1.4 on a 35mm sensor body. For 6x4.5 medium format, around 80mm is usually considered 'standard'. Anything around 50-60mm is a wide-angle and anything 40mm or wider is a super-wide. So the new Fuji 90mm f/2 lens, the longest of the Fuji XF primes, would be the standard lens. The 56mm f/1.2 'portrait' would become a wide-angle. The 14mm would be like some kind of super-fisheye.

While I saw the X-T10's focusing being very slightly quicker than the non-4.0 X-T1, which in turn is very slightly quicker than the X-E2, I only really noticed it with the fastest primes. (And the 60mm, oddly.) Didn't notice any difference when using the 16-55, 18-55 or 50-140 zooms. So if you're a zoom shooter, I wouldn't worry about the AF so much. If you're a prime shooter, the X-T1 or X-T10 are the way to go; I don't see any reason why Fuji would update the X-E2's AF, and even if they did, why it would actually become any faster. Remember, the main difference in AF is the new tracking zone modes; the speed and accuracy difference is absolutely marginal and may not be something which can actually be improved on the X-E2. So, live music and theatre. Having tried shooting gigs with the X-T1 and, foolishly, an X100S, I'd say the X-T1 is pretty much your only really reliable option. Even then you're going to want to match it with the fastest primes. The X-T10 did seem a tiny, tiny bit faster with most prime lenses, but the larger EVF of the X-T1 is more helpful in darker, more frantic spaces and the X-T1's AF should match the X-T10 with the next firmware update. That said, the X-T10 is smaller and lighter and cheaper. You could buy two X-T10s for the price of one X-T1 and have a different prime lens on each, ready to go. That would maximise flexibility and speed at the cost of the nicer EVF, buffer depth and the slightly tougher body. Depends what your priorities are. As far as waiting for the X-Pro2 goes, yes, it probably will give you more resolution, it may be a body style you prefer and there's no reason why it wouldn't have just as fast AF, if not even faster. On the other hand, we have no solid idea when it will actually be available, what the price will be or what the performance actually will be like. If anything, it would make a lot of sense for Fuji to target the Pro2 for slower shooters in need of higher image quality and the T line for speed. In short, I'd rank your potential purchases thus: X-E2: the X-T10 is the same price and you know it is faster, no relying on a firmware update which may never come or may not do what you want. Unfortunate if you prefer the rangefinder styling, but forget the X-E2. X-T10: If you don't need the size and weather sealing of the X-T1, save money and get the X-T10. Same IQ, same AF. With prime lenses it's as fast to focus as any DSLR other than a 1DX or D4S. X-T1: Pay more, get weather sealing, larger buffer and a bigger EVF. X-Pro2: You could be waiting until next year before it's actually in your hands and, though it shouldn't be any slower than the T cameras, we've no idea if it will be any faster, either. If more resolution and fastest AF is important to you, or you want to use zooms: Get a DSLR.

If it's a GF670-style, and assuming it's not priced any higher than other existing medium format options, it's going to do very well for them.

Several pro X-shooters have said they've 'hinted' to Fuji to make a medium format camera, and as I recall, Arias did mention Fuji had brought out some of the old medium format models to quiz him on. 'Full frame' is quickly becoming a bit of a weird middle ground in the image quality stakes these days, so I would expect a medium format camera before a 35mm sensor body. There's also no reason why a body with a 35mm sensor would be referred to as a whole new type of camera, unless it was getting a totally unique lens mount. (Which would be stupid just for the sake of a slightly larger sensor, but isn't stupid for the big leap to medium format.) So, medium format is my guess.

I used the X-T10 yesterday with nearly every lens Fuji has out. (No, the 90mm was not available.) As someone with an X-T1 (and X100S) looking for a second body, I was thinking about either a second hand X-T1 or a brand new X-T10. After using it, I've put in my pre-order for the X-T10. If I had no existing Fuji cameras, the X-T10 is still what I'd go for. If a used X-T1 doesn't appeal to you then the X-T10 is unquestionably the way to go; 50% of the price and, to me, 95% of the performance. If money is no object to you then the X-T1 still is the better camera, obviously. I really didn't think I'd like the T10, but using it I found several things to like over getting another X-T1: - The more rubbery covering makes it easier to hold with one hand, even though it's a smaller unit. I noticed this especially when using the tilt screen to take a shot overhead. - The dials seem harder to accidentally knock, even though they don't seem to have any way of locking. They're just that little bit smaller and out of the way. - It feels better proportioned for the smaller lenses like the 14mm, 60mm, 27mm and 18-55. - Though the EVF is noticably smaller, it's a tiny bit nicer than the X-E2's EVF and when I pointed it towards dark areas, I felt it looked nicer than the X-T1's. By having the same resolution and refresh rate but scaled down, it actually looks smoother. Conversely, there were a couple of things which did make me hesitate, and the X-T1 still does better: - Assigning an unmarked function dial to ISO is one action slower and not quite as nice to use as the ISO dial of the X-T1. - The EVF of the X-T1 obviously is much larger and in normal light and bright light, the X-T10's doesn't remotely compare. - The X-T10 started to feel very slightly unbalanced with the 16m and 56mm lenses and was totally ridiculous with the 50-140. (But even the X-T1 feels too small compared to the 50-140.) The 90mm wasn't there to try, but I'm sure it will dwarf the X-T10, too. - The X-T10 definitely does look cheaper. There's no getting around it, it's got much more plastic and rubber and looks like a toy when you hold it next to a graphite silver X-T1. I decided to put an order in for the X-T10 because, as a second body, saving a little size and weight is nice and the differences in build quality, EVF and dials don't bother me, considering how I'll be using it. If I didn't have the X-T1, I'd probably still buy the X-T10 because the difference in price is almost the same as a lens, and that is what I would suggest for you. You're getting virtually the same camera—same sensor, same AF, same tilt screen—for half the price. Buy an X-T10 and a 16mm, 23mm or 56mm lens for almost the same price the X-T1 body alone will cost. In fact I'm pretty sure you'll be able to buy the X-T10 and the 35mm f/1.4 for the exact same price as an X-T1. If you'd buy a used X-T1, that evens things out a bit but the X-T10 is still cheaper and now I know how similar they are, I'd still suggest you save money and get the X-T10. If you can easily afford an X-T1 and every lens you want without thinking twice then just go for the X-T1. It is a nicer camera, it's just not twice-the-price-nice if you want to be at all smart with your money.

Real. And having used it today for myself, I will concede that the X-T10 is a much better-looking unit in person—though absolutely tiny—than any of the promo photos suggest.

I asked a Fuji rep about this today while trying out the T10. He said that as far as he was aware, there was no difference in how the .JPGs are being compressed.

I used the X-T10 today and there was absolutely no difference in low light EVF performance compared to the X-T1. If naything, by virtue of everything being crammed into a smaller space, it was actually nicer to use when I pointed it towards a dark space. Obviously you don't see details as large, but the tighter spacing completely removes every hint of lag and flicker.