caterham

No built-in flash, no d-pad, much shorter eye-point. The last one is what killed the X-E3 for me because it's such a pain in the rear to use with my glasses. I had one for a short time, sold it again and went back to X-E2.
Other differences are the joystick, faster processor, and a lot of other smaller differences. 

That wobble just doesn't look right,

What's IBIS?

At a time when the mirrorless market is trending relentlessly upwards in cost the best thing Fuji can do with the X-E3 (as they have, to their credit, done with the X-T20) is maintain their commitment to high quality affordable options. Not everyone wants to, or is able to, spend 1200, 1500, 1800 or more a camera. And for those who think there is no market for the X-E line this site shows otherwise since the poll carried out in Feb 2016 (http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/2214-which-fuji-x-cameras-do-you-use) showed the X-E2 to be the second most popular X model.
 
The X-E3 should get the core updates - the new sensor and the improved autofocus system. The rest is detail. What it should not get is a host of additional changes that drive up the price. For those who want the features found on the X-T2 or X-Pro2, buy an X-T2 or X-Pro2. The options are already there for you. For those of us who want a good quality affordable camera in the rangefinder style we're still on the X-E2s. Only Fuji knows the real size of this market, but the partial information we can pick up suggests it is significant.
 
Fuji, if you're listening, keep it affordable.

the difference  in viewfinder refresh rates of XP1 vs XE2(X-T1 & Xt10 as well)  makes  your decision simple: XE2, hands down.
that was my biggest  gripe  with  the first gen Fuji's, and at least for me,  is  the difference between a  frustrating, low  hit rate  experience and an engaging and successful shoot.

I also hate the ISO dial on the X-T1, but eventually I still got used to it. My workflow changed to adapt that silly dial.
 
But yeah, I still don't know why they didn't made it clickable, press it once and you are on free roll ISO, press it again and you lock it down. I would have loved it so much more that way.

I absolutely agree and did similarly. My intention is to soon replace both my X-T1's in favor of the E2-series, primarily for their simplicity and ease of use and by extension, their *lack* of features. I find little of the T-1's additional abilities over X-E2 to be very useful in most daily useage and in certain ways, even annoying (ex.- the friggin' locking buttons on the shutterspeed and iso dials). Many of the tricks that the newer cameras have added are only accessible relatively deeply, inconveniently or just added complexity to the menu. In regards to ES (imo,a not yet fully mature feature), a ND filter in the pocket works just fine.
anywhoo...
...if Fuji generously provides me with an X-T1-like focus system and perhaps frees up the R&L D-pad buttons to FN use, the T-1's are outta here and I'm an enormously happy camper.

I bought an X-E2 as an upgrade from the X-E1 in the summer because of the extra features that it already had, but knowing that an X-E2 firmware update was coming soon(ish). I am looking forward to seeing what improvements the X-E2 gets, but it will still be the camera that I chose to purchase back in the summer.
 
Ultimately, the X-E2 is already doing everything that I want it to do but any extras that I pick up through this firmware update will be a bonus and will be much better than anything that was ever improved in any of my Nikon DLSRs through a firmware update.
 
I am sure that everyone is correct and that there will be a backlash from disgruntled X-E2 owners when the X-E2s is announced and has more features than the updated X-E2 but it is important to see this from Fuji's perspective - they have to make money to survive and (to my eyes) they are trying to look after as many of their existing users as they can within that.
 
To try to put this in perspective, I am also a member of one of the Nikon forums, where the announcement of the D500 has left many feeling very unhappy because they have recently paid out for D7200's believing that Nikon were never going to produce a true D300s replacement - having only just lost money on D7100's which had inadequate buffering for the required frame rate.
 
Andy

Frankly speaking, I got my X-E2 because it's an awesome camera that already does everything I want. I bought it based on its initial specs and capabilities, for me the later improvements are nothing more than a cherry on top of an already tasty cake.

Didn't know spelling was an issue on a global forum, for non-native speakers.
 
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Yes, the sensor speculation is very speculative - nobody knows what's going on inside Sony (or Fuji)...
 
What we do know for sure is that the A6100 has been VERY delayed, suggesting some unsatisfactory part (unlike the X-Pro 2, which has been WANTED for a long time, and was RUMORED for this past fall, the A6100 was actually on an internal Sony roadmap OFFICIALLY for release nearly a year ago). That roadmap got released in the huge Sony hack, so it was not meant to be public... Rumors suggest three or four delays since then, but those are not official.
 
The "Micro 4/3" level of performance for the 36 MP sensor is highly speculative, based on two things (and it could well be better than that, while not being up to the standards of the 24 MP sensors). One is that the pixel pitch is substantially smaller than any sensor larger than Micro 4/3 ever released for consumer photographic use  (i have no idea of what sensors exist for industrial or intelligence use that never see the inside of a camera store), while remaining similar to existing 16 and 20 MP Micro 4/3 sensors. The second is that this has been roughly the performance level of a fair number of sensors with big leaps in resolution over the years (losing dynamic range and noise performance has been an Achilles' heel of sensor designs that explore new resolution territory).. The experiences of using Micro 4/3 sensors alongside X-Trans are my own, and based on a substantial number of large prints.
 
The dynamic range differences between existing sensors are based on real data - you get different numbers depending on whether you trust Bill Claff or DxOMark, who use different measurements, but the RELATIVE performances are quite close. DxOMark has some sensors over 13 stops, while Claff tops the best out around 11+, using very different noise floors, but they agree that "this sensor is about a stop better than that one", although DxOMark won't test Fuji (they rely on Bayer patterning for some part of their analysis).
 
According to both DxOMark and Bill Claff's Photographic Dynamic range, the latest Nikon APS-C bodies (presumably using the IMX 271, at least in many cases) are VERY close to the D750 (DxOMark calls it a tenth of a stop, Claff about 1/3 of a stop). That's almost never going to be visible, whether it's a tenth or a third, and the X-Pro 2 could conceivably even have overall IQ BETTER than the D750, due to superior processing (at least at lower ISOs - bigger pixels are going to make a difference as ISO rises). Sensor DR is important, but even raw image quality, let alone JPEGs, depends on other things as well. Fuji's support electronics have always been really excellent, and the sheer cost of the X-Pro 2 suggests something better than you get in a $600 D5500 with a very similar sensor (yes, the hybrid viewfinder and the chassis account for some of that, and low production numbers also play a role, but we're going to get high-end, image quality focused insides as well).
 
There is one VERY interesting case in Claff's data (DxO doesn't have the 645z, so the comparison is impossible there) that shows the effect of support electronics. The Pentax 645Z and the Phase One IQ250 are known to use EXACTLY the same sensor - there are no variants in medium format, production numbers are just too low. Phase One has a reputation for the EXTREME high end in electronics (as well they should - the IQ250 is a $30,000 camera BACK (although you can usually find a deal that at least includes the rest of the camera for that price , and they'll sometimes even throw in a lens)). Pentax has probably recycled a lot of parts from their APS-C DSLRs in order to make a medium format camera with the same sensor that sells for 1/4 of Phase One's price. Some of the recycled parts are easy to see - why else would you have a medium format body with a whole bunch of AF points, all crammed into the very center of the frame (not coincidentally, all the AF points fit in an APS-C frame)?
 
Bill Claff found a full stop difference in dynamic range at most ISOs between the two (in favor of the Phase One), and the little I've read suggests that the difference in image quality is real - the Pentax is superb, the Phase better yet.
 
As for the A7rII, it has almost EXACTLY the same dynamic range as the A7r(within a couple of tenths of a stop, and different measures actually disagree as to which is higher) at low ISOs. The newer sensor holds its DR a little better starting at ISO 400 or 800. The D810 shows a very similar curve to the original A7r, with differences of a couple of tenths at various ISOs, perhaps due to support electronics (or measurement inconsistency)?
 
The pixel pitch of 36 and 42 mp sensors of the same physical size is VERY similar. It could even be the same - if Sony was able to reduce the gaps BETWEEN pixels, which is one of the things BSI does, they might have crammed in more pixels of the same size. This would be a good explanation of why there was a tiny increase in resolution from 36 to 42 MP (if resolution were the design goal, I would have expected at least a 25-33% increase, not 15%). The major generations have jumped from 3 to 6 MP (100%), 6 to 8 (33%), 8 to 12 (50%), 12 to 16 (33%), 16 to 24 (50%) and 24 to 36 (50%). Canon has complicated the picture by using a bunch of "in between" resolutions, especially between 16 and 24 MP (they have also used 10 MP and maybe 14), but if you look at all non-Canon interchangeable lens cameras, VERY few don't fall on one of those resolutions. I was guessing 54 MP for the next generation full-frame sensors, as it is a logical jump from 36, and it shares a pixel size with 24 MP APS-C. 42 was a very surprisingly moderate jump, and one that almost has to be an "accidental feature" coming from something else (like reducing the gaps between pixels).
 
A 24 MP APS-C sensor has a pixel pitch roughly equivalent to a 54 MP full-frame sensor, somewhat denser than current full-frame cameras, and probably not achievable with the same size pixels by narrowing gaps (at least not in the same sensor generation). A 36 MP APS-C sensor is roughly equivalent to an 81 MP full-frame sensor, a completely different beast. Once the 42 MP A7rII sensor came out, I had guessed (and Sony fooled me again) that their next move in APS-C would be a high-performing ~28 MP BSI sensor, using the same technologies as the A7rII sensor  (prior to the A7rII sensor, I had guessed something a lot closer to 36 MP (at least 32), as a more logical generation jump).

Nobody's calling anyone's preference or reasoning wrong. But to say Fuji lost or changed its way in any way, that is simply not true. They are doing the same thing they have always done. One may notice that after covering the basics they get on to the more serious and specialized optics and such, as soon as they had the confidence to do so, but it remains true to everything they have been saying and doing from the beginning.
 
Like i said, most of us are here for the same reasons. But too many people keep saying the same thing, they're here for 'no compromise' quality, yet they complain when it ends up bigger than the **** that Sony or such (used to) pull or even DSLR. Some things just don't get any smaller without sacrificing something, whether it's body handling, or optics .. it is whatever size it needs to be. Deal with it, or go MFT. 
 
Seriously though. Something like a 100-400mm, it just doesn't scale well or at all when aiming for equivalent results to FF. It's just how it is, and that is what they keep telling us they're aiming for.

Lets all respects others viewpoints, and read before commenting.  Different opinions and preferences are not "wrong".  One of the biggest selling points of MILC has always been size...  When I gave up 20 years of Canon and L glass, I did it because Fuji delivered comparable quality at a much smaller and more useable form factor.  Fuji may deliver great image quality with the X line but is not competing well in terms of size.  The X70 is a nod to this I think:  no compromise quality (APS-C sensor...) in the smallest body they could design.  For those of us who hit the bush for weeks with only a backpack, this is a great solution.  After all, if Fuji can make a camera with equal quality in a minimal form factor why would that be a bad thing...that's the real spirit of no compromise.

I dunno... the more I read, the more i'm picturing a mildly reworked X-M1 with a fixed lens and touch screen

SO T-Man's price may go up $100.  As far as I see, he's just reporting what happened and what he knows.  $100 is not that huge of an increase in price is the store he put his deposit down got it wrong, but obviously they have some idea.  Even if it's $200, T-Man seems perfectly happy to pay the increase.  With his information, and Patrick's we have a good idea of what the cost will be and neither are that far apart from each other... $100-$200 dollars is not a substantial difference when you are talking about $1700.

As a former CES,T.H.E Show,& VSAC audio exhibitor (GreaterRanges/Neuance, w/ Toffco, Neat Acoustics,Sakura Systems,Bottlehead),I'd say that your 23 is your friend with it nearly fused to the X-T1 for most of the show but I'd carry the 18-55 in your jacket pocket with a small bounce flash for portraiture and general room & venue shots.
There's little to no opportunity to set up a tripod during show hours with mulling crowds of showgoers and press.Depending on your specific interests, a single extension tube might be advised for close ups/semi-macro views.
Assuming you're going to post to a blog or netzine rather than print media, I'd opt to bump up the ISO's and rely on OIS, a steady hand with the drive mode set to CL or CH and live with a bit of noise.HiFi reportage isn't fine art but you need to show off the details and get some decent product hero shots.
 
k
 
ps- hint-ask the exhibitors to have their pics taken next to their gear first-
a bit of ego stroking is often helpful and appreciated in show situations. it also helps in organizing your "notes" and comments for later reportage.

LOL! That's ironic.

I'm one that just this past fall sold off one  of  my X-T1's  in favor  of purchasing a NEW X-E2 in anticipation of the release of  FW4.0.
I've no problem with the release of X-E2S so long as an XT-1/10 level AF firmware  eventually comes. I've read nothing to  date that  implies the  expected firmware not to be  released .
In fact, the mild  revision that X-E2S  appears to represent gives me  greater hope that the X-E line  will continue as  I personally work faster and  enjoy my X-E's (X-E1 and X-E2) handling better than  the T-1.

They should definitely take inspiration from their GL690 interchangeable lens rangefinders from the 70s. But since a whole new lens mount maybe prohibitive, they should do the X100 route - start with a 35-40mm equivalent fixed lens, and then add adapters or two different versions (28mm equivalent & 40mm equivalent, like their GF670).
 
I LOVE the GF670 and also used their GA645zi before and it would make perfect sense to adapt one of those to the digital equivalent (45mm x 45mm format maybe?).

how  very bizarre, the reactions to the pic of  my x-t1. just reminds me why I rarely post on various internet fora these days.
 
the contax badge  was stuck on  with sticky tape as a personal/inside joke.
 
I've been shooting  film exclusively  using contax 35  and fujica 645 since  the early 80's and only made the switch to digital as my primary  photographic media with the  introduction of X-pro 1.
I still occasionally  dust off and shoot a few  rolls with one of my various generation RTS's,S2b or GS645 compact  folder.
 
 Anywhoo..dunno if anyone else has  noticed (apparently not  by the response) but the  general styling and form of  x-t1 appears much  like a cross between an Contax ST and an Aria.
 My wife  teases me that the reason that I chose to get the x-t1 bodies  was so that she wouldn't notice *more* camera bodies appearing on the shelves, confusing them as my old contaxes .
fwiw-The badge  came from  the presentation box of a contax T.
 
bye.
k

I have  2 X-T1's, one of which ,when shut down with the  HP mode activated, will have it's  eye sensor glow for approx. 20+ minutes and is clearly seen from a distance across a dimly lit room.  The other x-t1's eye  sensor LED can only been seen  in very low light .  early/late production sequence does not appear to be a factor as the  one that glows more  prominently has the higher  serial number and  later manufactures  date. I have not been able to judge any difference in  battery life between the two.