bhu

Sensors keep improving farther beyond the abilities of the human eye. Full-frame, or larger, sensors and big, fast, long glass will be useful for capturing images people would not normally see with their own eyes. I am happy with the APS-C sensor. It will still capture more than is humanly possible with Fuji's great sensors and lens selection but there is less to carry around. Fujifilm may, eventually, need to introduce a <1" sensor size if the sensitivity and read-out speed of future sensors continue improving. Sony and others' cell phone camera modules will also be creeping up-market. Most people want photographs of what they can see and want them too look like what they see but there will also be interest in the world they cannot normally see, too, so I expect larger-than-necessary sensors that reveal hidden worlds will also have a place.

I reserve the right to change my mind but right now... 14 18-135 27 56

My personal conspiracy theory on the X-E2s is that component cost reduction and component obsolescence were the driving factors. The expense of any sort of re-design is large and requires sales of many cameras to recoup. Certainly, the MSRP for the X-E2s is much lower on release than the original X-E2. Re-designs without adding a new feature capable of selling it need a very good reason. To me, cost reduction and addressing obsolete parts are the two most likely suspects. Otherwise, I would let the X-E2 continue without changes for another year. Look how long the X-Pro1 lasted on the market.

Replace flash with small OLED display facing upward for head-down viewing instead of consuming more mass and volume on a tilt screen. Add a sensor above the rangefinder to toggle the OLED on as long as a finger is . Focus point selection on the rear touch screen display shows focus points on both the EVF and upward-facing OLED when they are active. Enlarge the EVF exit pupil, if possible while keeping costs reasonable. Keep the optical (focus) correction dial and the eye sensor. No preference on WR

I was hoping the 120 mm macro would come out sooner.

Consider adding a wide angle lens. I have the 14 mm and am happy enough with its performance to not be tempted by the newer 10-24 zoom or 16 mm prime. I tend to use fast primes for lower light photos or when I want more subject separation and the 18-135 as the standard zoom.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/atclen/news_en/15mk/020400354/

I honestly did not expect an X-E3 to be released within a year of the X-E2s or X-Pro2 to prevent the former from cannibalizing sales of either of the later releases. X-T2 using the new sensor will also have to wait but, perhaps, not a full year. The new sensor will probably be incorporated into the X-T2, first, followed by a X-E3 but, if Fujifilm waits too long to transition the new sensor into other bodies, they may not be able to take advantage of reduced sensor cost and increased profit/competitiveness before the sensor loses its shine in the market. The optical viewfinder is something I can live without, though. Its usefulness at longer focal lengths is less than at the shorter end. Frankly speaking, OVF on a fixed lens design makes a lot more sense than on an interchangeable lens so I would have omitted it from the X-Pro2 in favor of other super-premium features. The X-E line's selling point is its rangefinder style at a lower cost but I am not sure the OVF of the X-Pro line is as attractive as, maybe, some other feature(s).

Although this does not really count due to the zoom, 14, 56, 18-135 is my all-purpose, 3-lens setup.

Well, Sony uses a Beyer pixel mosaic, which is the standard and is virtually guaranteed broad industry support for our entire lifetime. Fujifilm does not so, to ensure there will always be one converter blessed by Fujifilm as being "correct", they may feel obligated to continue developing Silkypix. If Phase One was purchased by another company with less incentive to support Fujifilms unusual pixel mosaic... (These things do, unfortunately, happen frequently enough to remain a concern.)

For me, the hybrid view finder on the X-Pro is a neat feature but not really that useful at long focal lengths. I typically look through the viewfinder with both eyes open and only close the left eye to concentrate on reading the information from the electronic portion. When tracking targets, i have both eyes open so it is nice to see the close-up view in the right eye using just the EVF rather than a small box representing lens field of view. Maybe this sounds weird and I am missing something an OVF would provide. Anyway, there are a few opportunities to trim cost on a notional X-E3 based off the X-Pro2: Hybrid VF -> EVF Remove ISO from the shutter speed dial to lower the dial's complexity Remove joystick (as much as I like the concept), perhaps one or two of the programmable or more remote buttons attached inside by long flexes, then transfer some of the functions to software If enough money is saved maybe a touch tilt screen can be added. (A tilt screen is more easily damaged than a fixed one, adds a lot of mechanical complexity, and divides the camera body into two, sealed pieces, some structure, and a sealed electrical cable between. It is very useful but not without significant cost and reliability impacts, which Fujifilm would transfer to the customers.) An OLED display with an integrated touch sensor costs more than a LCD but is visible over a much wider field of view. Hopefully, it can be dimmed more than the LCD, too. (As another side note, the front of the camera and the image sensor should measure subject luminance levels and adjust both the OVF and rear display luminance to better match. It is inconvenient for me to be blinded by the camera in dim environments.)

I will just leave this article on HDR WCG here. Digital display hardware is changing. Many new TVs, monitors, and cell phones can "reproduce" colors not available in the original media and so are out of calibration. I do hope Fujifilm will offer settings to encode images that conform to the new wide color gamut and high dynamic range for accurate reproduction.

No dilemma for me. The XF-100-400 has been on my list for quite a while, now. I have also been waiting for the 120 macro prime rather than pick up the 90 prime to determine if the 120 can do enough of the 90's job.

Aside from the optical view finder, what hardware features could you live without for a camera body 2/3 to 1/2 the price of the X-Pro 2? Assume a notional X-E3, and other variants like the X-Ts, would use the same sensor as the X-Pro 2. What should a lower-cost, potentially simpler like X-As, camera look like that could capture more casual users? Which expert controls could you live with being transferred to software to reduce the component count?

This is a discussion on the future of television and how it may impact digital photography, cinematography, print, and other media; particularly how extensively the new ITU Recommendation BT.2020 could, or should, be supported by future Fujifilm cameras. First, read up on the developing specification, if you are new to the standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020 https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bt/R-REC-BT.2020-0-201208-S!!PDF-E.pdf Next, assume pixel count is not a limitation for 4K (8,299,400 picture elements) in the near future and 8K (33,177,600 pixels) sometime farther into the future. Assume, also, that photography, cinematography, and television will further converge as new video standards like BT.2020 improve image quality toward something more acceptable for photography. Now, I have some questions to ask the community, especially those with color science and imaging science background. 1. How close are current and near-future sensors to meeting BT.2020 color bit depth and chromaticity targets for red, green, and blue primaries? Is it possible to have a Fujifilm camera capable of meeting the BT.2020 standard anytime soon? 2. Would additional primary colors be more desirable? For example, two green elements with different dominant wavelengths like a 530 nm green and a 505 nm green, or two green elements having the same dominant wavelengths but different half-maximum bandwidths for a "pure" 530 nm green and a "leaky" 530 nm green like Fujifilm's EXR pixel mosaic. A combination of both examples is also possible. Sensitivity is a trade-off to obtain higher pixel density and higher color purity but sensor technology should continue to improve over time. Developments in quantum-dot-based sensors may, or may not, pan out but there is a lot of potential, yet, for sensor dynamic range and color purity, as well as display reproduction of recorded images. Color (reproduction) accuracy will likely be a hot topic for some time to come as displays like OLEDs and quantum-dot backlit LCDs continue entering the consumer market capable of displaying greater color space than recorded media and the sensors doing the recording. A Fujifilm camera able to accurately record images (and video) to the ITU BT.2020, and other future standards, would be very forward-thinking but, as an outsider, I do not have the insight into sensor and calibration development. Please post your thoughts and insight and I apologize in advance for any inaccuracies or misconceptions in my post.

Is there a Pancake 12 mm f4-ish lens available/coming from anyone? Looking for a sub-fish-eye flat lens.

The 120 captured my interest. I almost hope it is a long, large, fast lens. Light gathering at that range is challenging but IQ is Fujinon's marketing line. The 100-400 could change to start at 120 to even 200 if that would help increase aperture. At that range, stabilization and light gathering are more important to me than zooming.

This has, no doubt, been asked many times before but what are your major new features wanted for an imaginary X-E3 theoretically showing up after the less imaginary X-Pro2? For myself, it is enough to get a well-made rangefinder but I do hope the sensor has even more dynamic range. Good monitors and print aside, it is better to start with more bit depth than less. It is probably too late to influence development less than two years out but you can still try.

Your 23 for low light or action shots and the 18-135 for multi-purpose and wide zoom range when you have good lighting, which should be most of the day on a bicycle. If you want portability and only 2 lenses, these are the two I would take for an almost entirely outdoor holiday. Another option is to use an XF18 pancake in place of the 23 but then you might consider just using a cell phone for quick, informal shots and keep the faster XF23.

Started thinking about a split lens (not sure of the technical term) for taking 3D video and fair 3D stills and wondered if anyone else might be interested. There are some 2-path + combiner lens designs out there as examples you can find on a search for 3D lenses. Ideally, the lens would have twin shutters synchronized to the camera for field-sequential 3D. If the sensor can capture continuous 60 fps stereo (120 fps) and switch to the maximum capture rate for a burst to obtain a pair of stills with minimal temporal separation, a single-sensor body may be good enough. The lens, of course, would be optically slow and heavy along with being expensive but I might be interested in purchasing it. The current generation sensor and processor should work and the next generation will be even more capable as physical and electronic shutters become faster in order to minimize ghosting. Varying pupil distance, or whatever the photography term is for it, for hyper/hypo-stereo, or a zoom, may be too much to ask of a lens this unique for Fuji X systems right now so I would settle for as fast a prime as possible in a package not too horribly bulky. It may be difficult enough to calibrate focus for the two optical paths before they are combined in front of the sensor. IQ will be challenging. Anyway, are there any thoughts on this?

I take the 18-135 with my primes for the zoom utility and OIS when light is good. I also have the 18-55, which has OIS but duplicates a lot of what the primes give with the exception of very low light, extra shallow depth of field. The reach of the 18-135 is nice if you want to carry an all-in-one lens, have good light, and do not need strong subject isolation.

I use the 56 non-APD for low light shots that push the sensor's capability so no trade for me. The APD filter would slow it up a bit. Maybe when the next generation of sensor arrives the trade space will change.

For a long zoom like this, I would like it fast with OIS without making it overly bulky and heavy. That should be easy enough

100-400 zoom and 120 macro The 90 was on it before news of the 120 came out. For primes, I have 14, 23, and 56 so the 120 will fit the progression nicely. For zooms, I have the 18-55 OIS and 18-135 OIS. The 100-400 will, I hope, have OIS or I will need a much faster sensor or need to consider the 55-200.

Your setup looks fine, to me. If you really value compactness, get a used X100-something, an even smaller P&S, or a phone with a good camera. The 16 has more glass than you need for indoor, or close outdoor, shooting unless you like a lot of subject-islolation. The 16 is for low light, wide FoV. The 10-24 is handy for architectural work but is relatively bulky. The 16-55 is larger and does not have the OIS of the 18-55. 14 does great for FoV and I stop it down as it is, turning up the camera's ISO, instead. 23 does great for low light shots and is between wide FoV and portrait lens options where traditional 35 mm has always been. 18-55 is great for OIS in a relatively fast and compact zoom If you know you are going to have a lot of light and can handle the added bulk, the 18-135 is all right. It is smaller than "pro" zooms.