danwells

Interesting... I was proposing a fast 200 (so it gets to 400 by USING the converter - very few converters stack), but you're right that throwing a 2x on the 100-400 gives a manual-focus 1200 equivalent (it's f11). The even more interesting behavior of the 100-400 is with the 1.4x - almost 900mm equivalent, with AF on newer bodies. Fuji could build a fast 400 prime, but I think it's less likely than a 200 range prime that can fill the three classic big lens slots (bare, and with the two converters). Yes, a fast 200 is a heavy lens - I'd be surprised if it's much lighter than the aforementioned Nikkor. APS-C's weight advantage DOES tend to be in wider lenses. First of all, it might be a diffractive/Fresnel lens, which are much lighter (although they don't violate the laws of physics - Mr. Newton says you can't build a 200mm f2 without a 100mm or greater front element). Secondly, Fuji has now built all the obvious "mirroerless" lenses, and is moving into the additional lenses they'll want to be an alternative to a pro DSLR. They want to have everything from a 35mm f2 for the discerning street shooter (and they have a great one) up to big glass for sports and wildlife, and the latter will never be light. I suspect they've left it for last because it's tricky...

How about with a 200mm f2 or f2.4? No, I don't know anything, but it would make a LOT of sense with the X-T2 200 f2 and two converters gets you 200 f2, 280 f2.8, 400 f4. Full frame equivalents are 300 f2, 420 f2.8, 600 f4! Yes, I know that from a DOF/ bokeh perspective, those equivalents are off, but a lot of sports and wildlife photography relies on light (where they're correct) for high shutter speeds at least as much as it does on bokeh. Even if you take the worst case, and they're a full stop off, 300 at f2.8 is as good as any system gets (Nikon had a manual focus 300 f2, but VERY few were ever made - it was a "hey Canon, look what we can do" lens). 400 at f4 is well within the high-end professional range (it's what Nikon's $7000 big zoom and Canon's $10,000 big zoom do, as well as Canon's expensive DO lens). 400 f2.8 lenses exist, but they're huge! Only at 600mm is it arguably a stop slow from a bokeh perspective, and many, many pros reach 600 with a 300 and a doubler, which is f5.6. The 600 f4 is a very rare, huge lens!

That's Adobe for you - I switched from Lightroom to C1 as it became clear that Fuji was where I was going... Adobe loves Canon, likes Sony and Nikon, then falls off quickly after that. I've never heard anyone say that C1 favors one camera over another (with the possible exception of Phase One backs, which they make). Fuji's Achilles' heel is raw converter compatibility - it's "sort of" Adobe compatible, and DxO won't even open the files.

Thanks! It's looking like Fuji has a great camera, from all the pre-production reports...

I found the A7rII (no idea why it didn't show up in the dynamic range database this morning, or maybe I missed it), and, as Ektachrome said, it is a SPECTACULAR performer (as it should be - it's a much larger sensor of the same generation). Like the X-Pro 2, it has the high microcontrast and detail preservation - but it's 42 MP and full-frame on top of that. I am convinced, however, that the X-Pro 2 IS the class leader for APS-C (for $1700, it had better be), and is beating 24 MP full-frame in some areas of the image. The gray box they start you out on is a little deceiving - you get X-Pro2 and D7200 side by side, and the Fuji's grain stands out a little more, while its color looks quite a bit better. than the Nikon's (which has a slight magenta cast). Now move around the test chart, and in areas with more detail, the Fuji begins to pull away. Substitute a D750 for the D7200 and it's very, VERY close, with the Fuji giving a slightly more color neutral, detailed and microcontrasty rendering at the cost of a bit of noise. Even a D810 doesn't have the microcontrast or neutrality, although it does certainly have more detail (as it should). Only once you put in the A7rII is it a CLEAR win for the Sony in every area. There is absolutely NO question once the A7rII is in there - nothing can touch it. (which every review has said - that is one spectacular sensor)!!! I'd rather shoot the Fuji, with its huge selection of great lenses, best around controls and experience, BUT if you're at a focal length where the right lens exists for FE-mount, are willing to carry the lens, and use the kind of technique necessary to take full advantage of 42 MP, yet again, NOTHING short of a Phase beats an A7rII used right. What an interesting race it's become in mirrorless! Fuji's building great cameras and lenses that are photographer-friendly and a joy to use, and their image quality has just reached very close to the top. Sony is building cameras with a few more annoyances (mostly related to lens selection and build quality) with unbelievable image quality at the VERY top (and some beginner cameras with, in my mind, odd design choices). Olympus and Panasonic are clearly hobbled by their sensor, but they are innovating in video, build and image stabilization. Welcome, Canon (if the stories are true)!

I went wandering around that studio scene and DR test, and here's where the X-Pro 2 came out (to my eye): Dynamic range: best in class (better than any other camera with an APS-C sensor) A little noisier than a D750, but actually holds detail and contrast BETTER THAN A D750 (and it's not close) in many parts of the scene. Looking at DPreview's grey patch, you'd say " this is a very, very good APS-C camera, but it's NOT punching above its weight and competing with a full-frame camera - easy win for the D750, despite a slight magenta cast while the Fuji's shadows are pure". The slight magenta cast inspired me to move around the scene at a 5-6 stop push; and the story changes a bit. It varies based on location in the scene (sometimes it seems to me that the X-Pro 2 wins, sometimes the D750 wins, but overall, I'd rather have the Fuji file in the extreme shadows (remember, this is pushed FIVE STOPS). I'm not claiming the shadow noise is quite as low as a D750 (it's relatively close, but it's not there), but I AM claiming that there is significantly more detail in many parts of the scene than even a D750 can provide, and that the Fuji has microcontrast and purity of tone (no color casts in extreme shadows) that exceed ANY OTHER CAMERA IN THEIR DATABASE, even the mighty D810 (No, there isn't an A7RII in the dynamic range database). The D810, with its resolution advantage, does have more detail in the extreme shadows. It's almost as if the Fuji sensor is similar to, or slightly better than the D750 sensor, but Fuji chose to use less NR, so detail and contrast are preserved at the cost of a bit of noise Color: Better than anything I checked - X-Trans really wins the day. Resolution: I read it as 3825 lines (there's huge variability in how different observers read these charts, but much less variability in same observer, multiple cameras). It gains a bit in RAW and is VERY close to the Nyquist limit of 4000 lines (3950?) Nikon D7200 -big splotch of color moire between 3600 and 3800 lines makes it hard to read, but perhaps 3650 lines (RAW 3800 lines, although with color moire) Nikon D750 - 3600 lines (RAW 3700) Nikon D810 (36 MP) - disappears into color moire at 4200 lines (RAW an amazing 4500 lines) Samsung NX1 (28 MP) 3900 lines JPEG, 4050 RAW For those who claim Micro 43 can compete:Olympus E-M1 3200 lines, Panasonic GX8 (new 20 MP sensor) 3300 lines, both in RAW, both with severe color moire It's a very good 24 MP camera with a slight boost from X-Trans (and I suspect the freedom from color moire in fine detail may actually be significant in real world use), behaving closer to a 28 MP camera than other 24 MP cameras (I'm absolutely mystified about why the APS-C Nikons slightly outresolve their full-frame cousins, but they do, repeatedly, at least on DPreview's samples - and I can substitute similar models (D5500 for D7200; D610 for D750 with similar results). Resolution-wise, it's not close to a 36 MP camera (but remember that microcontrast from the dynamic range test - it could look sharper than it is because of that (and that is going to print). The color moire result is striking - as you approach the Nyquist limit, every other camera (except the Phase One IQ180, which runs out of resolution chart before approaching the Nyquist limit - I suspect the artifacts are there, but they need a bigger chart) gets color artifacts. The X-Pro 2 just sits there, looking like a Leica Monochrom (which CAN'T get color artifacts). Unfortunately, their Monochrom sample file has a tiny bit of tripod shake (the numbers below the resolution chart are slightly blurry). This is NOT what's going on with the 24 MP full-frame Nikons - after seeing the shake in the Monochrom file, I went back to the Nikons and checked, and the numbers are fine.

I've seen this rumor, too - I have to say it's faster than I'd imagine Canon (or Nikon) moving - I was thinking Photokina. No details anywhere I've seen it - the full-frame aspect of the rumor seems to come from the word "surprise" in a Canon document - they say they're planning to surprise us in some way, and that's being interpreted as full-frame. Of course, there was the time some years ago when Nikon built a huge amount of press around a BIG event at WPPI that they wouldn't tell us anything about - and it turned out to be a Blues Traveler concert! Many pundits had thought it was a medium-format camera, with all the emphasis on BIG - another popular choice was a Nikon-branded large-format printer (there was speculation afterwards that they had actually pulled back a product announcement, but no product that fit the bill emerged).. Assuming that this IS, in fact, a mirrorless camera (and not, say, a free screening of Star Wars: The Force Awakens), there are probably three basic routes it could follow. 1.) Just Another EOS-M. Still finderless, maybe with 4k video or some other upgraded feature, maybe even with a new sensor, but fundamentally an entry-level camera for the cell phone crowd. The one way I could see this being successful is if it's "Thom Hogan's Camera". He's been on the big Japanese camera companies for years to make Wi-Fi sharing and direct social media posting a bigger part of their products (whether through built-in LTE or (more likely) through enhanced phone tethering. None of us Fuji folks would give up our retro wonders for a Facebook camera (nor should we - I have a big deposit down on the X-Pro 2, and I wouldn't pay $10 extra for those features), but I am struck by how often non-photographer friends look at my X-T1 and say "but I can share my pictures instantly" . My reply of "yes, you can share your pictures with 5 stops of dynamic range instantly" doesn't diminish how people feel about iPhone photography. The iPhone is among the worst cameras ever to be in general circulation (it's today's equivalent of Kodak Disc), but it really is on to something among people who want to pass certain types of (baby, pet, etc.) pictures around. If Canon captures that, an EOS-M laughed at by hobbyists and pros could sell a ton of units. 2. )Still EF-M mount, but less oversimplified. A VIEWFINDER (presumably a decent EVF they bought someplace) is the first critical addition. They might throw in their latest Dual Pixel AF and a new or improved sensor. Perhaps base the controls around some modification of a mid-level EOS, rather than a mixture of the lowest Rebels and Powershot. Especially if they came out with a good-quality EF-M kit zoom and a couple of primes, they could actually sell a ton of these - mostly to existing Canon photographers who wanted to move to mirrorless (or add mirrorless to their kit). The big advantage (shared only with the $3200 A7rII) is that they could buy a body (and probably one everyday-use lens) and use a Canon-branded adapter to use the rest of their glass with full functionality. If they have the Dual Pixel AF in there, lenses that don't work well with contrast detection will be fine. 3.) Full-frame pro mirrorless. What some folks are hoping for! Hopefully either EF mount (an empty mirror box doesn't add much weight - it's the mirror and prism that are heavy)or a new mount entirely (with a good Canon-made EF adapter). If they try to use EF-M, they'll run into the same problem Sony did with FE - the shallow mount makes for small bodies, but huge lenses. If Sony had it to do over, I bet the A7 series would feature a new, somewhat deeper mount for easier lens design, rather than using an existing mount (that few lenses existed for) at the cost of large lenses that are unusually tricky to design. That would have meant losing the use of FE lenses on E-mount bodies (the other way around vignettes horribly and is really for special effects), but does anybody really put a big, heavy, expensive FE lens on a $sub-500 body? Canon would face the same issue - either keep EF-M and end up with a mount that doesn't work well at full frame OR do a new mount, leaving the new lenses incompatible with existing EOS-M bodies (come on, Canon, who's going to use a pro-grade full-frame lens on a body without a VIEWFINDER?). Of course, they could just use EF - it probably costs them an ounce or two and gives the camera 3/4 inch of protruding "nose" it wouldn't otherwise have had, but you get that ounce and that 3/4 inch back in the size of the lenses...

C1 would be great - I own it, and it is a far better X-Trans converter than Adobe, which is the other real option for most people, I haven't tried the niche solutions like Silkypix or Iridient. I agree that Fuji needs to up their game with included software, especially with the sensor that is a little trickier to convert from.Sony is bundling C1, Leica at least WAS bundling Lightrroom (I don't know if they still are)? If you're a smaller manufacturer, especially if your camera has a "favorite converter", and won't work with some (DxO still won't touch X-Trans of any variety), it is important to bundle a functional converter (and an old version of Silkypix doesn't count!). C1 is rapidly evolving into a full-function photo package, and is the only TRUE competitor to Lightroom. I don't think a Sony-style deal (C1 express restricted to Fuji cameras is free, upgrades available to Pro functionality, and to handle more cameras) deal would be all that expensive for Fuji, and the X-Pro and X-T series are expensive cameras that could support it (I could see NOT including C1 with X-A and X-M sales, which will most likely be used in JPEG mode anyway). Dan

If they're close to the theoretical maximum of 4000 lines/picture height, they won't quite reach what 36 MP cameras can do, but they won't be far off. The best number I've seen out of a 36 MP camera on any test is about 4200 lines. By comparison, a good 24 MP camera (no AA filter) is just over 3500 lines tested in the same way. These results vary quite a bit depending on how you interpret the chart (different sites have the same camera hundreds of lines apart), but the gap of about 600-700 lines between good 24 MP APS-C (Nikon D7200) and 36 MP full-frame of the same make (Nikon D810) is rather constant if you look at both tests from the same source (whether you interpret the chart tightly or loosely, as long as you do it consistently, the gap's not much different) X-Trans (also consistently) outresolves Bayer by about 300 lines at 16 MP, so the expected difference at 24 MP (assuming relative sensor quality is similar, and, if anything, the 24 MP X-Trans may be relatively better) will be somewhere between 300-450 lines in favor of X-Trans. That eats up about half the gap between the D7200 and the D810, leaving the 24 MP X-Trans III equivalent to something like a 30 MP APS-H sensor. If there IS a 36 MP APS-C sensor in the wings, and it's not a great performer, I suspect it'll outresolve the 24 MP X-Trans III at low ISOs, maybe not by much, but it might well fall behind at higher ISOs. Micro 43 sensors have a tendency to fall behind larger sensors of similar resolution, and the 36 MP APS-C has a Micro 43 like pixel pitch.

For me, it'll be one of each (I'm rough enough on cameras that I like having two bodies). I'm a landscape photographer who teaches and does a fair bit of backcountry photography - I'm planning on thru-hiking the Appalachian Trail in 2017. Why one of each instead of two just the same? There are times, especially at twilight, that I'll want the OVF on my primary body. Other times, I'll want the huge EVF (especially if, as I suspect, it's a very high resolution unit), or I'll want 4K video, On the trail, I won't carry both (it'll be one body, a primary lens that covers the normal range (I haven't decided between the versatility and stabilization of the 18-135 (already own) and the IQ of the 16-55 (might buy) - maybe Fuji will make it easy on me and introduce something in between), plus the 10-24), but I'll probably switch between bodies several times over the six month journey, and I may even hike with the 100-400 during some piece of fall bird migration??? Hopefully, after 1500 miles, I'll be in shape to go from 30 lbs total (most of it tent, food, water, etc.) to 33 as the big lens joins me.

How do the resolution and DR "feel" compared to the X-T1 - not on test targets, but in real world use? I know DR will be hard to judge due to 8 bit JPEGs - no way to see what's left in highlights or shadows... Thanks! Dan

Yes, that's excellent - I have a great deal of respect for Michael Johnston. Maybe there are more single-lens shooters than I think (I also admit that slight wide to normal is far from my favorite focal length - I'd actually like a single lens more if it were either slightly wider or slightly longer).

I like those three lenses (Pentax and Phase one already have 28 mm lenses that cover 33x44 and 36x48 sensor formats, so it's possible, and that givers the 21mm equivalent - Pentax's is actually a zoom). I'd encourage them to do a zoom in the 35-105 range as well (something like a 24-70 equivalent).

With the latest reports, Fuji seems to have hit this one out of the park! I'm glad I got my deposit down on the 15th. I've been using 3 mirrorless systems. Fuji (my most complete system) for day to day shooting. Sony (original A7r) for high resolution on a tripod, and Panasonic Micro 43 for video (I've never liked the stills that much). I think my Panasonic and Sony gear is going for trade for more Fujinons! I see no question that the X-Pro 2 will print 24x36" with good technique (I have a 24" printer, but not a 44", so I print right up to 24x36" all the time, but seldom over). I gave the A7rII a thorough look, but decided against it because the lenses were too heavy, not enough selection and of mixed quality (the best were great, but too many mediocre ones). I didn't want to mess with adapted lenses, but that's just my preference.

The only problem I have with this idea (it rules the camera out for me, although maybe not for others) is that the sensor is so expensive that we're looking at something like a $5000+ camera with very limited versatility. Of course, I've never seen the point of the RX1 series, either, and I don't own an X100 of any variety, although I at least understand them (I tend to own good zoom lenses, although I also have primes). Obviously, I like experimenting with fields of view, and others like really getting to know a single field of view. Does Fuji really want to restrict their audience in that way? If it were interchangeable, those who wanted a fixed lens could simply leave a lens (of their choice) on the body. Obviously, this is my opinion only - X100 models sell well, and even RxI variants sell surprisingly well for their price. There is a weight and cost penalty for the fixed lens aficionados, but it's not huge. An X-Pro 2 with the 35mm f2 is just under half a pound heavier than an X100t, and it's significantly more camera. Substitute an X-E2, and you can get the weight within about 4 ounces (but lose the OVF). The real penalty is probably somewhere in between - if you designed the sleekest possible OVF interchangeable lens body, it still might be heavier than an X-E2, but the X-Pro series has always been "Leica M sized", and that decision has added a bit of weight as well. Yes, the X100t lens is a 23mm, and the 23 for the interchangeable lens bodies is quite a bit heavier - it's also a full stop faster than the X100 lens, and it has a focusing clutch. I suspect a lightweight 23 f2 would look a lot like the 35 f2? The cost penalty is harder to calculate - use an X-Pro 2 as a comparison, and it's huge ($800). On the other hand, that is a LOT more camera - there is a very substantial generational jump in just about every feature, including a state of the art sensor, and it's a brand-new camera (with a long-awaited upgrade) that may carry a couple of hundred dollars of premium for the first six months. An X-E2s with the 35mm f2 is actually $200 cheaper than an X100t, but lacks the OVF..

Fuji has been far miore active in medium format than just the X-Pan - people forget just how much they've done, because the one thing they never did was a classic SLR in the mold of the Hasselblad 500C/M. They have put out at least 5 medium format lines that I can recall. 1.) A long series of "Texas Leicas" - medium format rangefinders ranging from 645 up to 6x9 cm, with both fixed and interchangeable lenses. 2.) A series of autofocus, autoexposure, power winding 645 cameras (one even had the smallest and lightest medium format zoom lens I've seen) that were medium format versions of 35mm compacts. 3.)A series of huge panorama cameras in 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17 cm formats, using large-format lenses. Most were scale-focusing, some may have been rangefinders. Some offered switchable formats. 4.) What has to have been the largest and heaviest SLR commercially produced in the last 50 years - the GX680... It had unique features including inherent tilt/shift and switchable formats, later models offered substantial automation. 5.) The Hasselblad H-system! At least the early bodies were Fuji designs, and I believe the lenses still are Fujinons by any other name. They're in an incredible position to offer a "GX-Pro 1", a Texas Leica for the digital era.

Seeing the (probably D5/D500 class (although Nikon won't release the specs of theirs) processor Fuji came up with, I don't think it'll be a huge problem. Mirrorless has some huge advantages as you get the frame rate up, and for video, since you're not flapping a big mirror around. The one place where Nikon may have an advantage, pending the performance of Fuji's new PDAF, is in AF tracking speed.

I absolutely agree that the X-T2 is going to be going after the D500, as EyesUnclouded says... One huge advantage of mirrorless is that, if you've built a high-speed camera, you've more or less got a highly capable video camera as well. Unlike Nikon, whose AF setup at high speeds is the one in the prism (phase detect, NOT on sensor), Fuji's AF is all on-sensor - it has to be, since there's no beamsplitter. Nikon can't get at their primary AF while shooting video, while anything mirrorless CAN. They can (and I believe will) go for the D500 and GH4 markets with the same body (in a mirrorless camera, you almost get a GH4 for free when building a D500). Of course, you still have to do the codec side of video, but a lot of that is just having a good enough processor and licensing the right codecs. Fuji has the processor, and already pays for H.264 - I don't think you pay more to implement a higher data rate? My version of an X-T2 has high data rates and excellent codecs, but it's still a DSLRish design (I'd expect it to look as much like an X-T1 as an X-Pro2 looks like an X- Pro 1). It has a clean HDMI output, but NOT specialized video connectors like HD-SDI or XLR audio - those connectors are too large, and would compromise its use as a still camera. I'd expect Panasonic, whose sales are tanking, to move their video focused GH series even farther upmarket, and away from still photography. The X-T2 may (is even likely to) have GH4-level video capability, BUT I'd expect the GH5, which is due around the same time as the X-T2, to have even higher end video codecs (probably native ProRes or similar and maybe raw video), professional sow notion, additional video-focused connectors, and perhaps even to LOOK like a video camera, with a rotating handgrip and a trigger. Time to stop pretending that thing is a still camera - I'm kind of expecting a "baby Cinema EOS" look to the GH5! Panasonic will probably maintain a true hybrid one level below the GH body, but I'd expect the GH to keep moving ever more towards being a dedicated video camera. In the $1500--$2000 non full-frame market, we'd have something like (released by Photokina, on the market by Holiday 2016), ignoring stray Leicas and the like: 1.) Fuji X-Pro 2 - "rangefinder" with superb stills, acceptable video, unique interface 2.) Fuji X-T2 - DSLR style with high speed, excellent stills, 4K video with high data rate (but no specialized video interfaces - maybe an "adapter box"), many dial controls. 3.) Nikon D500 - rugged sports DSLR, trades some image quality for speed, amazing high ISO, 4K video, but limited video functions 4.) Canon 7DmkIII - similar to D500, not QUITE as fast, but some additional video features. 5.) Panasonic GH5 - "baby Cinema camera" - yes, you can use this thing for 16 MP stills, but you can take a pickup truck to LeMans or use a Ferrari to buy groceries, too! Dedicated video form factor and connectors. Possibilities: 1.)Sony A6100 or A7000. If they mean to price it above $1500, they'd better introduce some lenses, too Probably has a 36MP sensor, good to excellent video features and a really lousy 16-50 power zoom kit lens! *From some of the interviews we saw with Fuji executives(they were asked "did you consider going over 24 MP", and replied "We found the best image quality at 24 MP", NOT "what sensor could we have used over 24 MP?", they experimented with some high pixel count sensor and weren't satisfied. Of course, that could have just been the known Samsung 28 MP sensor, which I'm sure is for sale, but I think they probably had samples of the Sony 36 MP unit, and CHOSE the 24 MP model... 2.) Canon or Nikon upper-end mirrorless body (if it's in this price range, it's more likely than not to be full-frame) 3.) Olympus E-M1 mkII. I don't know WHAT body they could dress that old sensor (or even the 20 MP variant) up in that would get the price over $1000, but that doesn't mean they won't try. I'd be surprised to see it touch $1500, but I guess it could. On a different side of Fuji's system, does anyone know much about the new flash? My guess is that it's a Fuji rebrand of some new Sunpak that's not on the market yet, but that's a guess.

I can't even figure out what the new flash unit IS. Fuji (as is well known) doesn't make their existing flashes - they buy them from (former maker of sturdy mid-line flashes, now junk flash purveyor) Sunpak. My first thought when I saw the announcement was "I wonder which Sunpak this is, and what the reviews are like"? Two of Fuji's three existing flashes are identical to Sunpak models, but sell for about 25% more (the EF-X20 has similar specs to the Sunpak RD-2000, but adds manually variable power, which the Sunpak doesn't have). The EF-X 500 is not any existing Sunpak... They made a flash with an identical guide number, but it's an older model with a much less sophisticated interface, and it's (recently?) discontinued. It could be the successor model to that, or it could be something else. One rainy afternoon, I sorted through B+H's collection of dedicated flashes (for other brands), to see if I could find out what this one is - hoping to find reviews. I hoped it would be from a well-known maker of decent flashes (Metz?) or someone up-and-coming like Phottix. I figured that I'd find it pretty quickly. It's almost certainly not a Metz - once you get into the higher power levels, including the GN 50 model this is close to, Metz flashes are touchscreen (with almost no buttons). I'm not AT ALL sure I want a touchscreen on a flash, but that's what Metz uses. It doesn't look anything like a Phottix, either - they don't have a model in this power range, and they don't use the wheel-and-softkeys interface that this unit has. I then looked at everyone else (once my three best theories were shot), and I still couldn't find it. Nothing's even close - most flashes with a control wheel have only a couple of (marked) buttons, and most flashes that use softkeys (unmarked buttons with the label on the display) have no wheel. Two of the very few wheel AND softkeys flashes are the Nikon SB910 (and the new SB5000) and the Canon 600EX, about the LEAST likely flashes for Fuji to get ahold of and rebrand (and the guide numbers are wrong)! I'm not AT ALL sure what this is! I briefly considered the idea that Fuji might have made the darn thing themselves, and it's not an especially close relative of any other flash. The reason I discarded that idea (besides that Fuji is known to buy flashes, and has never, to my knowledge, made one) is that it is made in China. I would think a genuine Fuji flash would be made in either Japan (at the Fuji Sendai plant that makes the X-Pro, X-T and X100 lines) or Thailand. Made in China suggests that it is most likely from one of the lower-end flash manufacturers (Metz is German, and makes their higher end units in Germany, and most other higher-end flash makers manufacture in Japan) - although Phottix may very well manufacture in China, and a Phottix would make a lot of Fuji photographers very happy. My best guess (unfortunately, in my opinion) is that we're looking at a brand-new Sunpak model. Sunpak may be planning to release their version of it at CP+ in February, and they could actually beat Fuji to market - maybe that's why the flash is delayed compared to the X-Pro2 and other announcements from Friday? Does anybody know more???

Note that this is NOT a fancy flash with an LCD back panel (like the higher end Metz flashes) - it is a very basic unit with decent power and quality.

This one's sealed, too... I don't think we've ever seen that design with a weather seal on it - my initial thought was "maybe the Nikon F4", but that had the ISO on the other side, with the rewind crank (actually, the BACKUP rewind crank - the F4 had a built-in motor drive, but they gave you a crank, too, in case the batteries died).

Ironically, staring at some great light (although very cold), on a day I have to write several things for the opening of classes...

I'm hopinf for some light so I can go take pictures (something like two weeks since we've seen anything except gray days with frozen ground and no snow).

Fuji is as well set as anyone in the digital camera business - there's some profit in an X-Pro 2, and in a great lens - with their more unusual lineup, they'll never sell 10 million interchangeable lens cameras/year, but they are set up to be profitable on a modest volume of enthusiast/pro cameras... Almost all of the profit has been squeezed out of a $100 compact. Companies that rely heavily on inexpensive compacts (or even low-end DSLRs) have the problem that they can sell all the units they want, but they can't make anything at it (ask any Android cell phone vender - or ask anyone making Windows PCs a few years ago). These are the camera companies that will probably make it: Canon and Nikon will probably be OK - they both have pro businesses that actually make money (and Canon, like Fuji, is a copier company that makes cameras). Sony WILL be OK - their real imaging business is selling sensors to everyone - ,actually mostly to Apple - their "real camera business", including both their own cameras and all the sensors they sell to everybody else in the camera business, is much smaller than cellphone sensors. If I were mostly a Sony shooter, what I'd worry about is that, with the restructuring, the highly successful sensor division no longer has an interest in the camera division. The camera division, taken alone, is not in a great place - they have huge sales volume in compacts and cheap mirrorless (no profit), plus a smaller business in high-end cameras with some REAL innovation in the bodies, but with a lens problem. When they are no longer using the A7 series to showcase sensors, will they stay as interested? Fuji will be OK - they are selling mostly high-end cameras and lenses with decent margins - FinePix goes away (and it will), and they're left with a profitable high-end camera business that keeps their name in the public eye - and several of their executives are passionate photographers (it came out in a recent interview that one of their chief designers is a Hasselblad Master when he's not designing cameras for Fuji, and I've heard of several others). They'd ditch that division if it lost a lot of money, but it's profitable (probably has better than decent margins), and it has a lot of PR value. A high-prestige, profitable little division is something a lot of companies would like to have. They make something like half a million high end cameras a year (300,000 mirrorless and a couple hundred thousand X100Ts and X70s - remember that they can make 160,000 X-Pro 2s, and half a million might even be low), and might net $300 on each one,including lens profits (a nice little $150 million business)??? They're one of the few manufacturers who sell a bunch of lenses per body (other than X100Ts and X70s, of course), and a lot of their body sales are X-T1s and 10s, with some XE2 bodies mixed in (all high enough up the scale to be profitable, and many will sell several lenses each), not X-A1 and X-M1 bodies (probably hard to profit on, and tend to keep their kit lenses). This year will be even better, with significant sales of X-Pro 2 and X-T2 bodies and high end lenses to go with them. Here are the companies I'd really worry about... Olympus has been wracked by scandal, and is trying to sell really nice cameras with a huge sensor disadvantage. The 16 MP Micro 4/3 sensor is a generation or so BEHIND the older X-Trans II (it's similar technology, but it's significantly smaller and uses a conventional Bayer filter). They have no state of the art X-Trans III coming to bail them out. Just like Fuji before last Friday, they're trying to sell one (or closely related, similarly performing) sensor(s) across their line. Panasonic has a big gap in their line - some great video-focused cameras and some low-end cameras that don't seem to sell all that well. They have a similar sensor problem to Olympus, but they have their niche to retreat into. However, they also have a well-known video camera division. The logical move is perhaps to give the video cameras to the video camera division and get out of the low-end business... Pentax has been making some great cameras, but getting no traction in the market (outside of medium format). Unfortunately, the medium format business is dependent on the DSLRs to have a parts bin to pull from - if the DSLRs go, the medium format business will soon follow because they aren't set up for ultra-low volume like Phase One - they grab processors and AF sensors made in much larger numbers and stick them in custom shells with MF sensors. Without that parts bin, they can't keep it up (at least not with the price advantage). Leica has an M line with a cult following, but the rest of their products are divided between collector editions (most of which could omit the image sensor without risk of discovery) and several random lines with nice features, but radically overpriced and without enough lenses. They'll continue to exist, but will anyone actually use them to take pictures? Hasselblad may have destroyed themselves with stupidity (who came up with the idea of rebranding consumer Sony cameras - in one case, complete with $100 kit lens)... A Hasselblad with a $100 lens???? Sigma will go back to making only lenses (what? they ever made anything else???), and Samsung will go back to phones, TVs and appliances....

Ephotozine came up with a production volume number for the X-Pro 2 - Fuji can make 800 of them per day(160,000 per year, assuming they don't work weekends - and they're already in series production - there was an image of a tray of X-Pro 2s ready to go). Unless it's COMBINED volume for all cameras Fuji makes at Sendai (X-Pro 2, X-T1 and X100T?), that seems like a lot - it seems very reasonable, even a bit low, for combined volume. Total mirrorless camera production is somewhere around 3-3.5 million units/year, of which Fuji has maybe as much as 10% (I can't find a good figure anywhere, but the largest share is Sony, and Micro 4/3 is also ahead of Fuji). The other trick in these numbers is that they exclude the X100 series (the breakdown is by interchangeable versus fixed lens) Fuji's volume is skewed toward the high end - a nice problem for any company to have (ask Apple - they make less than 30% of all cell phones, but 95% of the profit), but HALF of their total volume being a $1700 camera with an unusual viewfinder? If that's X-Pro 2 and X-T1 (X-T2) volume combined, it makes sense - half of their camera sales are high-end models made in Japan. With Fuji's lens line, that's reasonable...