danwells

I can reliably tell between 16 MP Micro 43, 16 MP XTrans II and 36 MP D800 looking closely at a print in the 24x36 inch range. The Micro 43 image just seems to "fall apart a little in areas of fine detail. The XTrans II mostly holds up, but what gives the D800 away is looking at patterned surfaces on rocks and the like. The other thing that is visible is shadow detail - Micro 43 just loses enough in deep shadows that it's visible if there are any shadow areas below about Zone II. The 36 MP sensor has an amazing ability to hold detail in near-black areas. I'm hoping that the combination of extra resolution and increased per-pixel image quality will bring X-Trans III from "almost there" at 24x36 to "there"). As for the iPhone? I can tell a phone image from a camera image in a web JPEG (unless there are no highlights or shadows in the image). It is possible that cug's test was set up in such a way that scene fit within the iPhone's 5 or so stops of dynamic range (people outdoors on an overcast day, or using fill flash, certainly could have). The signature of a phone is not the resolution, it's unnaturally blown highlights and black shadows that shouldn't be black.

The beauty of the APS-C sensor, combined with today's ISO performance, is that the 150mm front element isn't really necessary - in terms of light and reach, a 200mm f2.0 with a 1.4x (or a 300mm f2.8 used alone) is actually longer while letting in as much light as a 400mm f2.8 on full frame. Yes, I know that it has a stop less subject isolation (minus the effect of slightly increased length, so really 2/3 or 3/4 stop), but many sports photographers use a 400mm f2.8 because it's the longest lens that lets in that much light (under the artificial light of a stadium), not necessarily because of its rendering. One $5000 lens is a much more reasonable development effort than two lenses, one of which would be over $10,000. In terms of attracting pros, I'd far rather see Fuji either build some flashes or outsource the whole flash project than take on TWO exotic telephotos (and a first tilt/shift lens is probably more valuable than a SECOND exotic telephoto, unless they're saving the tilt/shift project for medium format) To have a true professional flash system, one that complements the lens range they've built, Fuji would need: A "flagship" flash with the features and power of Canon's and Nikon's best, with wireless capability, probably by radio A "step down" flash with a stop less power and minus some advanced features for a much more reasonable price (this is the soon to be introduced EF-X 500, assuming the quality is reasonable - I mention this because some of the Sunpaks aren't decent quality) A little wireless flash for fill light A commander unit (this and the little wireless flash could actually be the same device, if the costs could be gotten reasonable) Possibly a macro light All on the same wireless system, of course. Fuji could make a flash system like this, but they could also go to Metz or Phottix and just get them to make a Fuji-compatible version of what they already have. Leica has simply sold Metz flashes with Leica-compatible TTL for years, and nobody seems to care that most of the flashes don't say Leica (and it frees Leica up to do what they're good at).

True, but you still need to deal with the shutter and move the focusing elements (including some pretty big ones if you're got a 200mm f2, even though it will be internal focus). I could easily see the X-T1 replacement being 12 FPS, and that could be hard with the little NP-W126!

As I've stated in other threads, an entirely logical lens that makes Fuji the first mirrorless maker with a truly complete lens system (other than Sony with the help of third-party adapters - one could argue that Sony's lens line for certain bodies includes Canon's AND Nikon's, an argument that would be easier to make if the adapters said "Sony", rather than "Metabones" and maintained weathersealing). With the two converters, it will offer near-equivalents of the three (somewhat) common FF exotic telephotos. Once this is added to the lineup, the only thing Canon or Nikon will offer over Fuji is tilt/shift lenses (yes, our fisheye is presently a Rokinon, but it exists). It makes me think the X-T2 will be a beast in the D500 range well-suited for sports and wildlife photography. I'm guessing (without evidence) that we may see three X-T models, rather than two - the high-end model will be VERY fast, with superb still and video features, but be substantially more expensive (and perhaps heavier) than the X-T1. There would then be a middle model that got X-Trans III and weathersealing, but was aimed at the D7200 rather than the D500. The X-T10 would stay where it was for at least a while. Another option would be one new body, in the X-T1 price range, but with an expensive grip that upped the frame rate. There actually IS potential logic to this, rather than just a marketing gimmick - grips that affect frame rate either use a larger, higher-voltage battery, or draw from two batteries in parallel.

A simple request would be the 18-55 in a WR version... It's small, decent speed, decent range and excellent image quality. Great backpacking lens on a weathersealed X body! More complex - Fuji has been hinting at a few new lenses, and they'd show different directions. The 33mm (or is it 32mm - doesn't really matter) f1.0 is an obvious lens for Fuji's "rangefinder ethos". It's the legendary Noctilux in an APS-C version. It's almost certainly of interest primarily on X-Pro bodies. Two big questions about it - how much does it cost, and how much of the viewfinder does it block? The Noctilux is actually a tricky lens to compose with on any M body , because it blocks a good-sized piece of the finder. It is also so expensive that Leica sells VERY few of them (of course, many fewer M bodies are sold annually than X-Pro bodies). By the end of 2016, there will be somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple hundred thousand X-Pro 1 and X-Pro 2 bodies out there. What price can the "Fujilux" sell for if Fuji wants to sell a thousand lenses? Ten thousand lenses (which would be unprecedentedly high for this type of lens)? I think it's likely to be a ~$2000 lens - much more expensive than the Chinese superspeed lenses like the IBELUX, which seem to settle in around $800 despite initial attempts to price them higher, yet 1/5 the price of the Noctilux... I think an 8mm fisheye may be a mistake? There is already a Rokinon in X-mount, and I'm not sure what the critical difference in a Fujinon would be? A fisheye doesn't really need autofocus (depth of field from 3.5 feet to infinity at f8). Yes, the Fujinon would probably be sharper, but the Rokinon is not bad...Would Fuji get many takers at twice the price or more? If they can get it under $500, maybe - but closer to $1000 against a $250 Rokinon, for a lens many people would consider a novelty? I wonder how many lenses Fuji needs to sell to break even on a design (this question applies to the "Fujilux" as well)? With their largely hand assembly, it may not be that many, since you can have a technician assemble one type of lens one day, then something else the next, unlike a robot.. If the break-even point is low, a fisheye may be worth doing since it's a relatively simple design, and it adds to the completeness of the range. What I'd rather see than a fisheye, unless a fisheye is easy to do, and worth it because "why not", is an 8mm rectilinear lens. A few lenses with that field of view exist (Sigma has an APS-C 8-16 and a full-frame 12-24, and Canon has a full-frame 11-24). Since we have the 10-24, this could easily be a prime at 8 or even 7mm, with a 120 degree or greater field of view. The last lens that gets bandied around is a 200mm. The most "mirrorless" approach is a modestly-sized 200 f2.8, a lens that used to be common until 70-200 zooms became as common, and as good as they are. Now there is no reason for a 200mm f2.8 in most systems - just use the long end of the zoom. Unless it is a REALLY modestly sized lens (probably a Fresnel or diffractive lens), a 200mm f2.8 is not that interesting even in the Fuji system where it has no equivalent. Go half a stop faster, and things start to get interesting, especially with the converters - a 200mm f2.4 is also a 280mm f3.5 and a 400mm f4.8 - all three of which are substantially faster than the 100-400 at the same focal length. If the 200mm were a f2.0 lens, it would be big, heavy and expensive. It would also be a direct challenge to the DSLR duopoly where they live... It's the APS-C equivalent of the famous 300mm f2.8, except that it lets you use a shutter speed one stop faster or an ISO one stop lower for the same field of view and subject isolation. With the converters, it becomes a 280mm f2.8 and a 400mm f4. These are respectable "exotic telephoto" specifications - excellent from a light collection viewpoint, and respectable even for subject isolation, where the 1.5x focal length advantage is balanced by a ~1 stop disadvantage in isolation. No mirrorless manufacturer has dared to build such a lens - one that would try to sell mirrorless as an alternative even for sports and wildlife. As a matter of fact, nobody other than Canon, Nikon or Sigma has designed a new exotic telephoto in years (although Sony and Pentax both sell a few using older designs). I'd love to see Fuji give it a try - I suspect their system performance with the new sensor and processor is up to the challenge.

The a6300 coming out with the X-Pro 2 sensor in it suggests that either a 36 MP APS-C sensor doesn't yet exist, or it was developed, but Sony wasn't able to get satisfactory noise or dynamic range performance out of it, so they shelved it (at least for a generation). There has been enough noise about it that I suspect it actually DOES exist in fairly late prototype form (as in there are (probably Sony, maybe Fuji as well)) 36 MP APS-C bodies around in small numbers, but they take pictures with a lot of detail, but poor dynamic range. Fuji engineers made comments that sounded like they'd looked at such a sensor, not specifying resolution, but something >24 MP, and ended up choosing the X-Pro 2 sensor instead. That could have just been the known Samsung 28 MP sensor, but there has been enough of a kerfluffle about a REALLY high resolution a6000 replacement that I suspect it was a Sony prototype over 30 MP.

This is pure sensor semantics and speculation, but if "The sensor the X-Pro 2 and a6300 share" and "the IMX271" are not the same thing, then what is/was an IMX271? I'm absolutely convinced that the X-Pro 2 sensor is also the a6300 sensor (what umad? said about phase detection pixels being easily reconfigurable surface stuff like the color filter made me more certain).I'm also convinced that we've never seen this particular (very fast, with a nice little boost in dynamic range and noise handling) sensor in a camera before. How many generations of the Sony 24 MP sensor have their been? There are clearly at LEAST three primary variants, and maybe more. 1.) NEX-7 sensor - seen in the NEX-7 and some Sony SLT cameras, including the original A77. Ever used by anyone except Sony? 1a.) Was there another generation of this sensor in here? If so, it would have turned up in some Nikon and/or Pentax DSLRs - the D7100 and D7200 use Toshiba sensors, but what about some of the D5xxx or D3xxx models? Or various Pentaxes? 2.) A6000 sensor - in the A6000, A77II and probably other places 2a.) IMX271 (appeared on a Sony spec sheet around April 2015 - very fast). If the X-Pro 2/A6300 sensor is NOT the sensor referenced on that spec sheet (it was not seen in a camera for ten months after that reference if it IS the same sensor on the spec sheet), the only cameras the IMX271 could possibly have appeared in are the Pentax K3II (which could also be the A6000 sensor or even a Toshiba sensor) or Sony's own A68 (possibly our old friend the A6000 sensor). 3.) X-Pro 2/a6300 sensor. First with copper wiring, current state of the art in APS-C image sensors, very fast with exceptional dynamic range and noise characteristics . If there wasn't a generation between the NEX-7 and A6000 sensors, AND the X-Pro 2/ A6300 sensor is in fact the IMX271 that appeared (perhaps prematurely) on a spec sheet nearly a year ago (I don't think the spec sheet said anything either way about copper wiring), it could be the third generation Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor. If there WAS a generation in between the original NEX-7 sensor and the A6000 sensor, AND the X-Pro 2/A6300 sensor is NOT the IMX271 from that spec sheet (which was either never bought in quantity, or was featured in only one or two relatively obscure cameras), it could be as much as a fifth generation sensor. If Sony's on a (roughly) 2 year cycle, the NEX-7 sensor appeared in late 2011 (although they were more or less impossible to get until 2012 - review samples, then months of silence), its successor arrived in the A6000 in early 2014, and this sensor is the third generation, leaked on a spec sheet under the name IMX271 10 months ago, but not making an appearance until it showed up in the X-Pro 2. If they're on closer to a one year cycle, some DSLRs had a sensor in between the NEX-7 and A6000 generations (which seems likely - there were DSLRs about with better performance than the NEX-7 sensor could explain, yet introduced before the A6000). In this case, the IMX271 never found a buyer except possibly Pentax or Sony themselves for a relatively obscure camera.

I haven't used the 16-70 Sony Zeiss myself (I HAVE used the 24-70 Zeiss and agree that it's underwhelming, especially for the price). Although I have read the less than great reviews, I was afraid I was being too HARD on the Sony, by comparing it to a kit lens (admittedly a VERY nice kit lens that sells for $500+ on its own).. I have used the 18-55 extensively, and it's a GREAT little lens - not as sharp as my 50-140, but what other zoom is? I'd really love to see Fuji put out a WR version of the 18-55, because it is so compact for its image quality, and not especially slow.It could be optically and mechanically unchanged, just weathersealed.. Ektachrome, there might be something else coming down the pike with excellent video specs (it DOES look like the a6300 has very good video) that uses glass you already own. How about an X-T2? Your Fujinons (especially with the great new ones you will be able to get from the A7rII kit) are great lenses, and they're probably better than most C/Y glass from the 90s (some of the better Carl Zeiss lenses may give Fuji a run for its money). If Sony made an effort in lenses for APS-C, the a6300 could be a lot more interesting than it is for many people. I'd probably STILL go with the X-Pro 2 even if I didn't own lenses (I need weathersealing, and Fuji bodies just handle better than pretty much anything else). Given how much Fuji glass I own, I'd CERTAINLY go with the X-Pro 2 (my preorder is in, a big deposit is down, and the a6300 wasn't going to change anything even if it HAD lenses). The use of the little 16-50 powerzoom as the kit lens for a camera with the X-Pro 2 sensor is just pathetic, though. That little powerzoom was made for extreme compactness on cheap consumer cameras, not for performance. It's one of the worst-performing interchangeable lenses on the market- beaten easily by even such modest lenses as the 16-50 XC, the Canon and Nikon 18-55 kit lenses, and Sony's own non-retractable 18-55. There are almost no performance lens options in APS-C E-mount (arguably the 10-18, the Touits and the new Sony Zeiss 24). Other than that, it's a mess of cheap consumer lenses and a bunch of video lenses... Even in FE, Sony seems determined to give up their body size advantage by making lenses that are as large as, or larger than DSLR lenses. The half pound difference between an A7rII and a D810 quickly gets eaten up by lenses! Nikon has some lighter options, while Sony's are comparable to the heavier Nikkors with few options. I completely agree with EyesUnclouded about an X-E3... That sensor in a nice Fuji body with a great lens line for $1100-$1200 or less? That will knock Sony out of the higher end of the APS-C market (not that they're really trying there, anyway! I wonder if we'll see it, because they may be determined to keep the new sensor and processor in higher end cameras. I'm confident we WILL see an X-T2, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a price (and spec) jump over the X-T1, with superb video and a very fast still frame rate?

Sony just introduced their new a6300 - basically an a6000 with a brand-new sensor... Is it a 36 Mp sensor? No - that mythical beast still doesn't exist in APS-C (or if it does, Sony withheld it at the last minute because the performance wasn't good enough). It's a "brand-new 24 MP sensor with copper wiring" - where have we seen one of those (with a better color filter) before? It does have 4K video, which confirms that the sensor can do it. Otherwise, the body is ho-hum - it's an A6000 with an X-Pro 2 sensor minus the X-Trans. It has an even more enormous number of AF points than the already huge collection in the X-Pro 2, perhaps by dividing the points up differently? Sony also released three big, heavy FE-mount lenses (including a 2 lb 24-70 f2.8 and a 3 lb 70-200 f2.8), but NO new lenses for APS-C If you don't already have Fuji lenses, it's an interesting price proposition - they want $1000 for it, but it loses a bunch of important features compared to the X-Pro 2. 1.)No X-Mount (not that I'd have expected one from Sony, but a non full-frame E-mount REALLY raises questions about what lens you're meant to use with it). Sony's kit lens for it is the execrable little 16-50 powerzoom - a sub $200 (when bought with a camera) consumer lens. Anyone want a nice 16-50 XC to go with your X-Pro 2? This ridiculous pairing is actually BETTER than the horrible little powerzoom!. If you want a reasonable zoom, there's always the 16-70 f4 Zeiss - $1000 for image quality about equal to the 18-55 Fujinon (NOT the $1200 16-55, the 18-55 kit lens). There's the brand new 24-70 f 2.8, which may very well be a beautiful lens (it probably is), but it's HEAVIER THAN THE 50-140 FUJINON and it costs $2200, not to mention that it's the wrong focal length range for APS-C. If you want a standard prime, there's a $400 35mm f1.8 of decidedly modest reputation, or there's (and this is actually a full-frame lens), an absolutely gorgeous 35mm f1.4 Zeiss Distagon, which costs $1600 and weighs as much as the 16-55 Fujinon. 2.)No real weathersealing - it's got the typical Sony language about "not splashproof, but designed to resist dust and water entry" - this means "decently built with some concern for dust, but no seals". 3.)No hybrid viewfinder - pretty ordinary EVF (I have no reason to think it's better or worse than what's on an X-E2). 4.)Classic Sony controls - push a button and turn a dial for just about anything (and not even the better a7 version with dedicated exposure compensation and an extra dial)... Probably classic Sony menus, too.Not that Fuji menus are great, but we never use them! 5.) No dual card slots The question it begs, since it's almost certainly the same sensor, is "is $700 extra worth it for an X-Mount, X-Trans and a great body"? If you want good lenses for the Sony, you'll probably be paying for FE lenses (and putting up with extra weight and odd focal lengths). An expensive FE lens or two could make up the difference. If Sony were serious about APS-C glass, they could have a real competitor - the X-Pro 2 body may not be worth $700 to everybody without the lens mount difference, but the mount should make the difference for a lot of people. If you only want a lens or two, and Sony has what you want, it could very well be compelling... Of course, this makes for a potentially very interesting lower-end Fuji - nice controls and an X-mount in a body around the same price as the a6300?

On the battery charger, that's a VERY interesting contraption... I've seen plenty of camera chargers with a USB OUT port - plug the charger into 120v (or 12v), and it'll charge a camera battery and a cell phone (or whatever else that charges via USB) simultaneously. I think I've even seen a few that will power their out port FROM a camera battery (your iPhone's out, but you have three camera batteries left - use one of them to charge the iPhone). What I haven't seen is one with USB IN. It's theoretically possible - it just needs the same voltage boost circuit the Sony A7 series use to charge from USB directly - but I didn't think it actually existed until you mentioned having such a device. Depending on efficiency, it could be very interesting, because it opens USB cell phone packs and solar panels as sources of charge for Fuji batteries. It takes a decent-sized solar panel to have a 12v output (bigger than anything one would want to bavkpack with for multiple days, for example). If a USB-equipped solar panel could charge a Fuji battery in reasonable time, that opens a route to charging the darned things on the trail!.Since the solar panel's output fluctuates, and the boost circuit might not like that, the actual route would probably be to charge a cell phone booster pack, then use that to charge the Fuji battery. Dan

If Marc's rumors are correct, that's great - the only disappointment (and it's minor) is the 8 fisheye as opposed to a rectilinear 8... I think the Rokinon serves for a fisheye (they're supposed to distort, aren't they), and a rectilinear 8 would be a more unusual lens that offered a perspective we don't already have. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a great clamor for a sturdy, AF fisheye with great optical quality. As for the flash, I think outsourcing the whole deal would make a ton of sense - Metz already makes one (available) toy-level flash, and one (hard to find, at least in the US - as in B+H doesn't stock it, and they stock most things) midrange flash. If they just made Fuji versions of a couple higher-end models, we'd be in good shape. As for the EF-X500, if it's of decent quality (e.g. not a Sunpak with a big price premium), it is the best possible SINGLE flash introduction - it'll suit a lot of people (myself included). Pros who use wireless flash will want a "big" flash with a stop more light and extra features, and a little off-camera one, both compatible with the EF-X500's wireless protocol. If Fuji just gave Metz the protocol, Metz already make wireless flashes for other systems that suit both roles well.

Even if the converters were universal, they have an effect on maximum aperture - the 1.4x takes one stop, and the 2x costs 2 stops. Because of this, the only short zoom that could be interesting with the converters is the 16-55 f2.8 (and then only with the 1.4x). That combination would create a 24-83mm f4, similar to one of the more frequently requested lenses (a 16-70 or 16-80 f4). It wouldn't be stabilized, which is a significant drawback. Even the fast 16-55 would drop to f5.6 with the 2x converter (at that point, why not just use the 18-135 or, better yet, the 50-140 (most converter owners will also own the 50-140, and this would be so even if the converter worked with the 16-55 - you'd buy it for a long lens and use it with a shorter one as a bonus).

The internal roadmap shared on Fujirumors suggests a 33mm (or is it 32mm? X-Pro 2 bodies differ on which frameline is shown) f1.0, a 200 mm f??? and an 8mm lens being among coming attractions for 2016. The 32 or 33mm is the easiest to see for a company building cameras with a rangefinder-like ethos. It's basically our old friend the Noctilux, but in an APS-C appropriate focal length. Complete guess on the price: $2000 (it'll be substantially more expensive than the Ibelux, which is presently selling for $799, but 1/5 the price of the Noctilux). If it's $2000 or less, it will be a substantial seller, probably over 1000 per year, maybe well over - Fuji builds somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 bodies per year, and one in several hundred seems somewhat reasonable for a lens like this. It might be worth building even if it were to cost more than that, and sell in the hundreds per year - mainly as a "halo product". Since Fuji does a lot of hand production anyhow, it's not terribly expensive to build a few of something unusual every year. Filmmakers also love fast lenses, and with the good video capability of the X-Pro 2 and the presumed superb video capability the X-T2 might have, this is not to be ignored - this would be a sixth lens at f1.4 or faster from Fuji! Canon only has 5 such lenses in EF mount (6 if you count both old and new versions of the 35 f1.4). Nikon has 5 plus a very old manual focus 50 f1.2 and multiple generations of 35 and 50 f1.4 lenses. If the 8mm is a fisheye, it's not that interesting a lens - 8mm fisheyes exist for most APS-C systems and even on full frame, and the X-mount already has a Rokinon/Samyang. Yes, the Rokinon is manual focus, but since the depth of field at most apertures extends roughly from the surface of the front element to the surface of the moon, the manual focus is not a huge disadvantage - fisheyes have occasionally (some versions of the 6mm Nikkor, maybe others) been built with no focusing mechanism at all... A Fujinon would certainly be much better built than the Rokinon. It might very well also be optically superior, but it would be a lot more expensive (how many people would pay $750 or whatever, instead of $250 for a lens that gets that little use). Certainly there are a small number of photographers for whom the fisheye is a bread and butter lens, but for most of us, it's an effects lens if we have one at all. If, on the other hand, the 8mm is a rectilinear lens, it becomes a rare bird indeed. There are two rectilinear lenses almost exactly as wide among B+H's extensive stock, and one the merest fraction wider. All are zooms, and two require a full-frame body to reach their full width. The "exactly as wide" lens is an older Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6, with generally pretty good image quality, but the high sample variation that characterizes older and lower-end Sigmas. I wouldn't be shocked to see Sigma do an ART variant on this lens that was half a stop or even a full stop faster, and sharper with lower variation, but we haven't seen it yet. The wider lens is the new $3000 Canon 11-24mm f4. Sigma also makes an APS-C dedicated version of their 12-24, an 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 zoom that will be exactly as wide as a Fujinon 8mm (if used on a Nikon or Sony body - Canon will be a bit narrower). Fuji's lens would be the widest rectilinear prime around, almost certainly faster than the zooms, and smaller and lighter (perhaps by a wide margin). It would also be significantly wider than any other lens for a mirrorless mount. The image quality would probably be closer to the Canon than to the Sigmas (although a Sigma ART lens could be much closer). Perhaps the most interesting lens of the three, largely because of what it signals about Fuji's future intentions, is the 200mm.. Tere are three reasonable maximum apertures for a 200mm prime, and Fuji could go for any of them. If it's a f2.8 lens, it's a reasonable size, weight and cost, but it's not an especially ambitious lens. It's probably compatible with the converters, but they aren't terribly useful, because it's only marginally faster than the 100-400 if used with the 1.4x, and it's not faster at all with the 2x .200mm f2.8 primes have become rare, only because the focal length and aperture combination is so common as the long end of a zoom. If it's an intermediate speed around f2.4 or f2.5, it's somewhat bigger and heavier, but still not an "exotic"-sized lens. It's a little more ambitious - the fastest long lens in any mirrorless system, and it becomes more interesting with converters, because it maintains a speed advantage over the 100-400 used alone. If, on the other hand, it's an f2.0 (or, if Fuji's really ambitious, even f1.8) lens, it's the first new lens in years to go up against the Canon-Nikon duopoly in long, fast lenses - Sigma makes a few, mainly FOR Canon and Nikon mounts, and Sony (A-mount only) and Pentax both make 300mm f2.8s, but they're older designs - neither one sells enough to update them) -. It's a type of lens we haven't seen for any mirrorless system - a big, heavy monster of a lens that throws down the gauntlet and says "we're going up against DSLRs in every field, even where AF speed matters and size doesn't". It is really interesting with the converters. 200mm f2.0 isolates subjects like 300mm f2.8 on full frame, but it lets in a stop more light, buying the photographer either a shutter speed or an ISO setting. 280mm f2.8 (1.4x converter) isolates subjects a bit better than a 400mm f4, but lets in light like a (much bigger and more expensive) 400mm f2.8 400mm f4 (2x converter) isolates subjects like a 600mm f5.6 (arguably a stop slower than pro standard, but 600mm f4 lenses are the most exotic of the exotics), but lets in light like a 600mm f4. Decent coverage of the three common exotic tele focal lengths in one lens and a pair of converters... No mirrorless maker has dared go up against the DSLR duopoly in the heart of their dominance with that kind of lens. No matter how good their bodies and lenses are, it might not work - a huge number of big lenses are owned by newspapers and the like who have been with either Canon or Nikon forever. On the other hand, if it did, Fuji would have established themselves as the third true pro alternative. Nobody is being as creative with lenses as Fuji, nor releasing lenses of as consistently high quality. Sony has seemingly adopted a different strategy - very few, and oddly positioned, native lenses, but adapters for everything. If I were Sony, I'd release Sony-branded Canon and Nikon adapters. It would be a lot more reassuring to photographers if their body maker said "we're still filling out our lens line, but here are our native solutions (that work with our weathersealing) for using the two biggest lens lines in the business at full capacity". What they're saying now is pretty much "we're still filling out our lens line, but we hear that you can find solutions on eBay from a company you've never heard of that let you use the big lens lines - oh, and good luck with the weathersealing, we have no responsibility if that $300 adapter ruins a $3200 body or a $8500 lens". If I were Fuji, my next lenses after this roadmap wouldn't be lenses at all - they'd be flashes! Unless they have a real interest in the low end of the market, which Fuji has avoided so far (at least as far as what they promote and make their reputation on, the entry point is an X-e2s/18-55 kit for $1000), their lens lineup will be pretty darned complete. Sure, they could build a tilt-shift lens or two, or release more speed options in the same focal lengths, but they will have well over 20 pro-grade lens choices spanning from a 12mm equivalent to a 600mm equivalent (pushing it, you could even claim 840mm equivalent - slap the 1.4x on the 100-400 - it might even focus on a sunny day). That lens line deserves a full pro flash line to go with it (and I say this as a landscape photographer who keeps a dusty old flash in the bottom of his bag for the times he can't avoid shooting an event as a favor). I'll probably buy the new EF-X500 if it's any good at all, and be satisfied with one of it and a couple of diffusers for my limited flash use. However, I know plenty of Canon and Nikon shooters who say "how do you like your Fuji", and I say "it's great - reasonable size,rugged, nice controls, fantastic lens line, very good image quality (when my X-Pro 2 arrives, I'll be able to say "fantastic image quality"). Their next question, unless they shoot only landscape, is inevitably "what's the flash system like"? Currently, my response has to be "a few toy flashes, one overpriced Sunpak adaptation, a lower-midrange Metz nobody can find and one Nissin with OK features but durability issues". Not exactly the response that anyone who uses flash wants to hear. Even adding the EF-X500 to the mix, it will still be one decent midrange flash plus the dreck mentioned above (if the EF-X500 proves to be decent, and not another overpriced Sunpak). Fuji needs to make (or more likely get someone to make) a flagship flash above the EF-X500, a "baby wireless" flash below the EF-X500 that is part of the wireless system the EF-X500 initiates, a commander unit (unless the "baby" wireless flash is also a full-featured commander), and maybe a macro ring or twin light...

Not sure whether to trust the numbers, but all the reviews put AF speed in the "very fast, don't notice it's mirrorless" category. This is a rangefinder-style camera meant for a more contemplative style, NOT a sports monster (that's called the X-T2), but it's a ridiculously fast rangefinder.

That's a 3.6 volt battery... I have to admit I'm surprised that as "big" a camera as an X-100T would use a low-voltage battery, but I looked it up and it's 3.6 volts, making USB charging easy...

They ARE already there with the X-Pro 2 processor (assuming their claim of 480 megapixels/second bears any relationship to reality, and there's no shooting mode on the X-Pro 2 that needs that much, so no way to tell even if you had an X-Pro 2 in hand). That's 9 FPS on the 50 MP sensor, and about 6on the hypothesized 72 MP sensor. Of course, that's without AF or the viewfinder, BUT medium format frame rates are MUCH slower than smaller formats (the Pentax 645Z and current Leica S are considered EXTREMELY fast at 3-4 FPS - Hasselblad and Phase One are mostly hovering at less than 2). At 3 FPS, the processor has 2 X-T1s worth of speed left over, just to handle AF and viewfinder duties. If, for some reason, the processor isn't fast enough, Fuji could simply use TWO of them - some Nikon and especially Canon pro bodies use dual processors...

It's not going to charge via USB - the battery is 7.2 (or 7.4 - that's just a marking difference) volts, and USB is 5 volts. I've never seen any non-Sony camera with a built-in voltage boost regulator that lets it charge via USB (not saying no others exist, just that I haven't seen it except on Sonys). The voltage-boosting Sonys are notoriously slow to charge that way (their external chargers are 2-3 times as fast as charging in camera), and there aren't many situations in which you'd want to use a $3200 A7rII as an inferior replacement for a $20 battery charger. While travel may seem an obvious one, the charger isn't very big (Fuji, take a look at Sony's little compact charger, or, better yet, just ask them where they bought it), and there are an awful lot of places with funky power where I'd much rather plug in a $20 object than a $3200 one... Non-Sony compacts that charge via USB are generally using a 3.7 volt battery (single cell, while most interchangeable lens cameras use dual cell batteries at twice the voltage). Like a cell phone (also 3.7 volts), a 3.7 volt camera charges easily from 5 volts...

Tikcus's fundamental speculation would be mine as well - that it's an X-Pro 2 derivative, so we know the processor and sensor (and would be crazy not to want them both, from those few who've used an X-Pro 2). It's certainly EVF only (that's the fundamental distinction between X-Pro and X-anything else). The question is "more expensive, with a groundbreaking EVF (Leica SL style) or less expensive with a good, but not unbelievable EVF"? My guess is more expensive, great EVF. I think we know the PDAF pattern - if they're coming out a few months from each other, it's the X-Pro 2 setup (which is about as good as it gets in early 2016). We've met the shutter before - it's the 1/8000 sec unit from the X-Pro 2. Again, we want it - I haven't read a thing about shutter shock or the like, and several reviewers have specifically said it doesn't have problems (and apparently has a gorgeous sound) I suspect it's pretty much an X-T1 body, probably with the X-Pro 2 focusing selector joystick? I'd expect a tilt screen like the X-T1, maybe fully articulated. We probably get the 1.62 million dot panel from the X-Pro 2. It certainly has 4K video - Fuji execs were tripping over each other to hint about THAT. Again, there's a question of "decent 4K at a decent price, or great 4K for more money"? I'm guessing very good, but not the absolute top of the line.- probably as good as the GH4, or even slightly better, and perhaps including 4k60p (but it'll come out around the same time as the GH5, which I'd expect to be another major step up). If Fuji really wants to surprise us (and I think this is unlikely), the processor and perhaps the sensor are capable of 5k 30p I'd expect a step up in frame rate from the X-Pro 2 - the X-Processor Pro is capable of reading the sensor out at 20 fps, and the sensor itself may be capable of full readout at 19 fps (the new Sony IMX 271 is, and that may be the sensor behind the X-Trans III). Of course, that leaves nothing at all in the processor's tank for AF or keeping the viewfinder fed, so that (if supported) would be a niche mode for oddities like golf swing analysis or certain types of wildlife photography where you prefocus and wait for the action. I'd expect a more realistic top speed (retaining AF and the finder) in the range of 10-14 FPS, with 12 the most likely value. That's D500 territory - I suspect Fuji may have their sights set on Nikon's top DX body. If the other specs are towards the top end of these ranges, I'd expect the second SD card slot to stay, and both slots to be UHS-II (or there's a slight possibility that one of the slots is XQD). If the other specs are closer to the bottom of the range, I'd expect a single UHS-II slot, or possibly dual slots configured like the X-Pro 2. Weathersealing will be at least X-T1/X/Pro 2 standard, with some (significant) chance of better than that, especially if other specs run closer to the top of these ranges. I'd speculate that, with its mix of capabilities, it will wind up being more expensive than the X-T1, and Fuji may release an intermediate model as well (probably after the X-T2). Total guess, but world-beating X-T2 at $1999 or maybe $1799 if we're lucky (D500 money, for a relatively direct D500 competitor with better IQ and video); X-T7 (or whatever) at $1199 with lower level video (4k, but no high data rates, slo-mo or 4k60p), 8 FPS, no second slot, "ordinary" EVF, several other odd features missing (but retaining the X-Trans III and some level of weathersealing) - a competitor to the D7200 level of cameras.

$5000 is actually probably the "lower bound of reason". I'm not sure Fuji could get it that low, but, unlike calls for $3000 and the like, I'm also not sure they COULDN'T. Yes, it's lower than the Pentax, by a substantial margin, but the mirror, all the motors (Pentax has screw-drive lenses to deal with, and those are BIG screw-drive lenses, requiring a substantial focusing motor), the AF module, and most importantly, that huge prism, all have costs. At $5000, there's no chance of the big sensor - it's GOING to be 33x44mm, if it comes in that low, and, in just the same style as the X-system is optimized for, but locked to APS-C, it will be optimized for and locked to 33x44mm. Of course, a 33x44mm mirrorless has a ton of appeal. It will give medium format mobility it hasn't have since the days of Texas Leicas. The lenses will be a lot smaller than 645 lenses could be. Zooms, at least in modest focal length ranges, may even be a reasonable size. . The image quality would be a significant step above any 35mm full frame camera of the same generation (with 1.7x the sensor area, assuming similar pixel pitch and technology, the jump should be similar to going from an X-Pro 2 to an A7rII). The current Sony 50 MP sensor isn't the latest generation, and, by giving up a generation, is not all that much higher quality than the A7rII (it usually wins side-by-side comparisons, but it's pretty close). Hopefully, the sensor would be a new development of the X-Pro 2/A7rII generation, but another big jump in pixel count - at 70-75 MP, it would be close to the same pixel pitch as the current APS-C and FF image quality champs. A camera with 1.7x the image quality of an A7rII, paired with well thought out Fujinon lenses, is nothing to sneeze at. Sure, it gives up some image quality at the extremes to the high end of the Phase One line, and some flexibility in the studio as well - but it's half the weight and little more than 10% of the cost.

The new X-Processor Pro offers plenty of speed to more than keep up with any sensor (when I saw the specs of the processor, my reaction was "there are only two reasons for that kind of processor - medium format or 4K video"). Fuji rates it at 480 megapixels per second - that's enough to shoot the big 100 megapixel sensor at 4.8 FPS (not that the sensor can read out that fast, anyway), or the 50 MP sensor at around 10 FPS. It's also a general purpose processor, meaning that, if they wanted to use a SECOND one to handle focus, for example, that's not hard to do - simply divide the code between them. As for size and weight, I'm thinking lighter than a D810 - the Leica S is already only 40 ounces, 6 ounces heavier than a D810 (and close to 10 ounces lighter than a D5), and that is a SLR. An X-Pro 2 is roughly 17 ounces, an A7rII 22, and the lightest full-frame DSLRs are around 27 ounces. I'd say a 33x44mm mirrorless might wind up in the 27-30 ounce range. Sizewise, it might take up the volume of a small full-frame DSLR, but be a little taller, especially if it had a hybrid viewfinder, and not quite as thick. If it had the big sensor, which is 54x40mm, it would be a little bigger, especially if the sensor were mounted in traditional 645 orientation (all the Texas Leicas were 645 vertical when held horizontally). If the sensor were mounted in a horizontal orientation, as small-format sensors always are, the body wouldn't necessarily be especially tall, but it might be quite wide. I'd also be surprised if that big sensor would end up in a body lighter than a D810. Certainly lighter than a D5 or a Phase - maybe lighter than a Leica S? Lens sizes and weights for 33x44 mm would probably not be far off full-frame equivalents, especially given that MF lenses are traditionally a stop or more slower than 35mm lenses. If the sensor were 54x40 mm, the lenses would be a little bigger, but they might not be huge. Midrange lenses for medium format can be quite reasonably sized, although wideangles get big rather quickly, and telephotos, while reasonably sized for their focal length, get very big for their angle of view, because the big sensor needs longer lenses to get the same angle of view. Telephotos have plenty of coverage, so format size doesn't matter for lens size - Mamiya's 645 300mm f2.8 is actually smaller and lighter than Olympus's 300mm 2.8 for the old 4/3 system (the new Micro 4/3 lens is much lighter, but it's f4, and it's actually almost twice as heavy as the new full-frame 300mm f4 Nikkor). Canon's and Nikon's full-frame 300mm f2.8 lenses are substantially lighter than either Olympus's or Mamiya's. The problem comes in when you realize that the Olympus lens has a 2x crop factor (and it does manage to be lighter than any fast 600mm lens), and the Mamiya lens needs to be 50% LONGER for the same angle of view (it's about equivalent to a 200mm on 35mm). If Mamiya had even MADE a 500mm f2.8, it would have been a monster, while Olympus's 150mm f2.8 is quite reasonably sized. Lens pricing is rather variable - many of the midrange focal lengths can be quite reasonable - at least a couple of the Pentax lenses are actually cheaper than comparable (but faster) APS-C Fujinons. Anything out of the ordinary gets expensive FAST. The Fujinons for Hassselblad are more expensive, although some of that is the fact that they say Hasselblad on them. Hasselblad had the gall to charge thousands of dollars for cheap Sony E-mount lenses (to go with their dressed up NEX-7) until they realized they weren't selling any when Sony sold the same lens for $249. Leica and Phase One lenses are ALL hellishly expensive, although that's true of Leica lenses for any of their lines, and Phase One stuff is never cheap. Hopefully, Fuji will adopt some version of the Pentax pricing model - you know you're in a crazy market when Leica is the mid-priced option!

The poll on the front page of FujiRumors this morning reveals an issue Fuji will have to overcome. A lot of people want an MF Fuji, but they expect it to be priced like an A7rII. The ONLY time a medium format digital camera has gotten into that price range is Pentax trying to clear inventory of the old 645D (after the 645Z and the A7rII were already out). It's also the only time a medium-format digital camera has had image quality LOWER (in ideal circumstances) than the best smaller format camera on the market (there is no circumstance in which the 6 year old CCD in the 645D produces a better image than the A7rII with a good lens, and vanishingly few where it beats a D810). There are plenty of cases (higher ISOs (above 400), dynamic range) in which an X-Pro 2 can beat that old CCD. The CMOS-based 645Z is around $7000 (and beats all non-MF cameras in shooting situations where MF is the right choice). The only two reasons anyone might want the older 645D with today's competition are if they had a bunch of old Pentax 645 lenses, or as a backup to a 645Z in an area where the CCD was acceptable (product/catalog photography is one example). Nobody would introduce a camera based on a 40 MP CCD today (and I'm guessing Pentax is not making money on 645D's - simply trying to get rid of a few they have around because they introduced the 645Z relatively quickly). If Fuji's entry is based on the 645Z sensor, it might be marginally cheaper than a 645Z, but it won't be a LOT cheaper. My best guess would be $6000 (Pentax is at $7000), and I wouldn't be shocked if it were $7000 or more, since Pentax is very aggressive with their pricing and recycles a lot of their DSLR parts (the 645Z has 27 AF points, but they all fit in an APS-C area at the center of the frame, because it's the K3 AF system). Fuji MIGHT get it to $5000, but that would be breakthrough pricing. If it's any other sensor (newer, larger or higher resolution than the 33x44mm 50MP CMOS from early 2014 at the heart of the 645Z), it'll be more expensive. Right now, Sony makes two possible CMOS sensors - that 50 MP sensor and the much larger 100 MP sensor (which is also probably using their newest copper technology as seen in the A7rII and X-Pro 2). If it's the big sensor, I'd expect the body to be around (or over) $10,000. Still better than the $50,000 Phase One charges, but far from A7rII territory.. Sony may very well come up with a ~70 MP sensor that uses the technology of the big sensor, but in the 33x44mm size (it's just cutting technology they have into a different shape and size). That might show up in a $7000 body (and I'd expect it in a similarly priced Pentax at around the same time)... $7000 for a medium format body with 70 million pixels, each as good as an X-Pro 2 or A7rII pixel - that's realistic. $5000 for that would be a bombshell that realigned the top end of the camera market, but not totally impossible. The other way they might surprise us is with a completely different sensor shape. Some people here have been mentioning the X-Pan, and Fuji has always enjoyed fooling with panoramic cameras. What about a 22x44 mm sensor or something like that? 40-50 MP for around $4000? That's not a lot more sensor area than an A7rII, and much of the price premium would be because of relatively small production volumes. Fuji was smart, if they're planning on doing this, to get the X-Processor Pro out in other cameras. Their old processor would have been too limiting even with the 50 MP 645Z sensor, but the new one can handle any sensor they might use. They can recycle parts Pentax style to keep prices down (part of the reason Phase One prices are so high is that they sell a couple of thousand cameras/year, and that's what has to pay their R+D expenses). Even if Fuji and Pentax sell 5000 medium format cameras a year each, they can share the R+D with higher-volume products.

I can't see Fuji doing anything except some form of mirrorless/rangefinderish design. I'd say an X-Pro design is the most likely (given that we're thinking interchangeable lenses), but I wouldn't be surprised to see an X-E design either. I'd be more surprised by an X-T type design, given how few medium format cameras have ever been built in that format (the famous one is the Pentax 67 in its variations, but there were also quite a few Eastern European versions of something similar). The famous Hasselblad square shape is dictated almost entirely by the mirror, and I'd find it hard to believe that Fuji would use a mirror (they built a few 35mm SLRs as recently as the 1980s, and the GX680 "monster SLR" a little later than that, but their camera line has never been focused on SLRs). The only digital SLRs they ever built were Nikon-bodied chimeras where Fuji's contribution was the (odd, of course) sensor.

Sony and C1 work closely together... If you were looking at Sony+Fuji, and didn't need the PS features (Or the power of LR's Catalog - C1 9 is a huge improvement, but it's not yet LR), I'd certainly go C1. Interestingly, Phase One owns Media Pro, a very powerful cataloging application. I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of Media Pro make its way into C1.

The Sony Alpha Rumors guys are promoting a Sony/Fuji partnership (with both names on it). Fuji provides lenses and (hopefully) bodies. Sony does the sensors (a huge contribution, but not one that traditionally gets the name on it - a D810 isn't a Nikon/Sony D810, although perhaps it should be) and what else? Accessories is one real possibility - take a look at Sony's great flash system - far preferable to anything we have to choose from. Sony also has some wireless release stuff that is better than Fuji, although neither one holds a candle to what Capture One and Capture Pilot do for Phase One (and Phase One isn't selling THAT to anyone with a dastardly, devious plan to sell cameras as good as theirs for $7000-$10000 instead of $30000-$50000).Sony also has some really nice batteries, not so much the little A7 battery,(although that has a good power meter - otherwise, it's just like the NP-W126 we know and sometimes love), but some of their camcorder batteries, which could be the right size.

Still working on it, considering going to a C1 workshop. I'm getting pretty good just by playing with it extensively, but I see Capture Integration's various classes and I wonder (they have an office 45 minutes from where my folks live, so it would be an easy weekend)... Dan