danwells

I've watched a lot of the videos today, on a nasty, rainy Saturday, and read most of the reviews... There is only one feature I haven't seen discussed here. Ueno-san, the X-Pro 2's designer, discusses a "brand-new shutter mechanism", which doesn't make a ton of sense (it also gets picked up in a lot of reviews, but I think the original source is none other than the guy who designed the camera). I don't think it's a linguistic error - his English is very understandable. Wouldn't the shutter be an off the shelf unit (the shutter from the Nikon D7200 would serve very well, and seems to have the same specs, just as an example - I don't even think that shutter's new - it seems similar to what they've been using since at least the D7000)? I thought everyone just bought shutters from Copal, Seiko and perhaps one or two others, and a 1/8000 unit that covers APS-C and has 1/250 flash sync is a nice high-end shutter, but not anything revolutionary? It's listed as having a 150,000 cycle life, which is good, but pretty much what you'd expect in a high-end camera (coincidentally, it's also exactly what the D7200 shutter is rated for). The Fuji Guys (again, official source) mention that it is the new shutter that allows the tripod mount to end up in the right place (presumably something about how the shutter mounts to the body). Is there more to the shutter than meets the eye? Fuji seems to put a lot of focus on the shutter for a part they presumably bought someplace, and for which there are off the shelf components that have the right specs, so seemingly no need for a special part. A bunch of reviewers also mention an unusually nice shutter sound (both quiet and not clunky sounding). All modern shutters are very, very accurate. Could this one (assuming it's a custom job) be unusually well damped? I know the original A7 and especially the A7r had poorly damped shutters, and that they lost resolution to shutter shock - especially at longer focal lengths and in a range of shutter speeds from ~1/30 to 1/250 second. Could what's special about this shutter be that it's exactly the opposite? I can't think of anything else that could really set it apart and make it worthy of repeated mention. If it's just a standard Copal or Seiko, but new to Fuji, why make a fuss over it?

Thanks to all the great material on the X-Pro 2, including a ton of early reviews, I ordered mine from a favorite local dealer yesterday, and I can't wait to see what a weather-resistant, ultra-low noise 24 MP "rangefinder" with great dynamic range does in the field, especially with Fujinons on the front of it! It'll probably be the camera that hikes the Appalachian Trail with me (all 2189 miles of it) in the summer of 2017. It's been fun speculating and reading about the X-Pro 2 for a few rainy weeks in the middle of winter with the university closed, but the REAL fun with the X-Pro 2 will be shooting thousands of images with it as I pursue my doctorate studying how we interact with the wild (including artistic inspiration as a major part of my research). Since I do some video as well, I'm also interested in the X-T2, and I posted some speculation on that topic over in the X-T2 thread. I won't repeat it in detail here, but I think it's going to have a lot going for it. I couldn't find actual specs about any other brand's processor speed, either in mHz and core type OR in Fuji's useful megapixels/second, but our new X-Processor Pro seems to be in at least the range of something like a D4s or a 1Dx, if not closer to the power of a D5's CPU. What does an image-quality focused RANGEFINDER need with that processor? Half of it would have been just fine.. .My speculation(based both on the power of the X-Processor Pro and cryptic comments from Fuji folks) is that the answer lies in the X-T2, of which I'm thinking "GH4 meets D500". Video specs at least the equal of the GH4/A7s class, with stills somewhere in the 10-14 FPS range and fancy AF. If it looks like what I think, my X-T1 (becoming a backup body the day the Pro-2 arrives in my hands) goes up for sale, and my bag contains one each X-Pro 2 and X-T2, choosing based on what I'm shooting (I won't carry both while walking thousands of miles (preferring the 10-24 over a backup body), but I may well trade cameras a few times). As for the Sigma idea - interesting, but I tend to think unlikely. The reputation of the ART line is based on four DSLR primes in a very limited range (20, 24, 35 and 50) and a couple of odd fast zooms with limited range (18-35 f1.8 APS-C and 24-35 f2 fullframe). There is a more pedestrian 24-105 f4 zoom, a slower, less expensive 30mm prime, and three inexpensive mirrorless lenses that got thrown in ART because nobody knew where else to put them, but those aren't the lenses people talk about. The ART lenses are interesting because they fit mounts that people already have, and are often better than manufacturer equivalents (the superfast zooms are unique, but the primes aren't). Nobody would be interested if they were only for Sigma SA Mount. Sigma has a huge problem if they want to introduce a mirrorless of their own - Fuji! The Fujinons are right up there in quality with the ART lenses, there are a LOT more of them, and Fuji loves primes (and high quality zooms) as much as Sigma does (no waiting for Canon or Nikon to update a 10 year old prime, while they release 14 versions of 18-xxx kit zooms). I think the reason Sigma hasn't ventured near the X-mount is that Fuji's own strength is too darned close to what they're trying to do. Where Sigma could make a big impact is if they start churning out a lot of Sony E and FE mount lenses. Sony REALLY knows sensors, they sort of know bodies, but they aren't as good at lenses. B+H lists 15 Sony and Zeiss FE mount lenses (excluding Rokinon, Samyang, Bower and Lensbaby), with a LOT of focal length duplication in the 21-35mm range (because of Sony, Zeiss AF SOLD by Sony and a couple of variations of Zeiss MF). The shortest lens is 21mm (there's a shorter Rokinon, but no quality-focused choice) and the longest is 240mm (the long end of an indifferent travel zoom - there's a better zoom that goes to 200, and primes top out at 90). APS-C E-mount adds 20+ (again excluding Rokinon and friends), but they're largely variants on a couple of consumer zooms- (there are no less than five 18-200 f3.5-6.3s in there (two different Sonys, one in black and silver versions, plus a power zoom and a Tamron that is probably identical to one of the Sonys), and three low-end 18-55s (not counting the Zeiss 16-70), plus black and silver versions of an inexpensive 55-210. There is a single very wide-angle lens (the 10-18), but nothing longer than 210 (and the only quality-focused 200 is the FE 70-200).Yes, there are three or four really superb lenses in there, but only three or four... Compare this to Fuji's 26 lenses (excluding Rokinon (&co.), Lensbabies and color variants). Only two are low-end XC lenses, with all the rest better than most of the Sonys. Even the 18-55 and 18-135 are a step above normal consumer zooms, and the rest are almost all superb. There are three wide angles below 20 MM equivalent (10-24, 12mm Zeiss and 14mm Fujinon), and a new lens that fills the last gap by reaching 600 mm equivalent. You can find anything except a fisheye or a T/S lens, and have a bunch of options at f1.4 or faster. If Sigma started systematically filling in gaps in Sony's offerings, both APS-C and FE, they'd have a lot more impact than trying their own mount...

Fuji has been hinting strongly and publicly at the X-T2 showing up with the new sensor - comments like "the sensor and processor can handle 4k video, but that wasn't right for the X-Pro 2 - that's another camera". The new X-Processor Pro in the X-Pro 2 hints at something else, too (and Fuji's pretty much said as much) - you don't need that kind of processor speed in an image quality focused RANGEFINDER??? I haven't been able to find the processor speed (either in megahertz and core type or in megapixels/second) for any camera other than Fuji's new X-Processor Pro (and the old one by reference in the description of the new one), but it seems to be in the range of at least a Nikon D4s/Canon 1Dx class processor, if not closer to the D5...The only reason for that speed that I can see is that it is shared with another project, one where it makes sense.. I can only see three possible cameras that could need a processor like that (an X-T2 that competes only against the D7200/ EOS7D mkII class doesn't need it). : 1.) A "Top Pro" class DSLR (or in Fuji's case, the first attempt to put a mirrorless camera in that range)! 2.) A movie camera, or a true hybrid (GH4 or A7s type camera)! 3.) A medium format camera (this isn't the X-T2, but it may ALSO be sitting on Fuji's "interesting ideas" shelf, if not already in "interesting prototypes"). If I worked for Fuji, I'd be aiming at a combination of 1. and 2. above - the Nikon I'd be aiming at is the D500, not the D7200, and I'd add GH4 class or better video capabilities. I'm guessing here, but here's my version of the X-T2... X-Pro 2 sensor and processor Leica SL viewfinder (or something similar) Increased emphasis on video, since it no longer has to be the flagship still camera (I'd expect a LOT of video modes and options, some of them 4K, with GH4 level or better maximum data rates). At least 100 Mbps maximum data rate in 1080p and 4K, 200 Mbps certainly possible. MAYBE an innovative codec in addition to H.264 (we've just begun to see native ProRes in a few cameras) 12 FPS with full autofocus (it could be either 10 or 14 (or more - the processor, astoundingly, would allow 20 FPS - see my comment on "what's this thing doing in a rangefinder" above), but I'd split the difference among likely frame rates and say 12. Dual card slots, either SD/SD or maybe SD/XQD if they need XQD for some of the video data rates, or for an absurd frame rate Modified X-T1 body (if the ISO dial in the X-Pro 2 works out, it may migrate to the X-T2, leaving the left side dial for drive modes and perhaps metering modes)... Accessory grip with some additional video-focused connectors and the ability to take either multiple (3? one in the camera PLUS two in the grip ) NP-W 126s or a bigger battery Weathersealing at least at, perhaps above the X-T1/X-Pro 2 level. $1999 And the X-T20 (or more likely it'll be the X-T7 or some other in between number),using the 24 MP sensor, but perhaps a cut down, single core version of the processor. Existing X-T1 viewfinder Good (but not absurdly good) video - think 50 Mbps 4K and 1080p, H.264 only. This video will probably find its way to the X-Pro 2 with a little Kaizen firmware, which Fuji's even hinted at (the X-T2 video probably won't) 8 FPS Single SD slot Basically an X-T1 with the new sensor and a nice little video tweak. $1199. The X-T10 will stay a while, dropping to around $799 and giving an entry level choice between rangefinder and DSLR styling.- it's a similar camera to the X-E2s in a different style. I guessed at a split upgrade for a number of reasons having to do with Fuji engineer comments AND the power of the processor. Fuji engineers consistently mention a "multimedia camera", and the X-T1 really isn't one. It's a high performance still camera, but its video mode isn't even great for a midrange DSLR, let alone in the range of the mirrorless hybrids. That suggests the upgrade will have something distinctly new in that regard... The X-Processor Pro can handle a multimedia camera, and why build it for anything else (half of it would be perfectly sufficient for the X-Pro 2, or for a "vanilla" X-T2)? Fuji is small enough that they share a lot of parts between models, and that could explain the absurdly overpowered processor in the X-Pro 2. If I had to guess on timing, I'd say Photokina, with pre-holiday availability? It's a bit tricky, because Fuji'd want to hit Photokina with the pro camera (not have it already out 3-4 months, and have the cut-down version be the Photokina introduction). On the other hand, the cheaper camera is going to be the holiday seller... Maybe they'll slip the X-T2 out for the Olympics (Maybe with a great new telephoto prime - how about a 200mm f2.4 which becomes a 280mm f3.5 with the 1.4x AND a 400 mm f4.8 with a 2x converter)? A 200mm f2 does even more interesting things with converters, but that's a HUGE lens (5 lbs or more), and it's over $5000 (of course, so's everyone else's fast sports telephoto)... Given Fuji's sensor size, a 200 mm f2 is equivalent to a 300 mm f2 on full frame, then it can convert to a 400 mm f2.8 equivalent AND a 600 mm f4 equivalent. I haven't heard ANYTHING about a long, fast prime, but it's what a body like that would need to add to the present lens lineup...

There was a graph in Fuji's presentation (linked all over Fujirumors) that shows this... Actual resolution in the print is affected by the lens, the low-pass filter and the rest of the filter pack over the sensor, as well as by sensor characteristics, mainly noise. Fuji tends to be pretty darned close to optimum on all of the above (no low-pass, X-Trans seems to be pretty kind to resolution, VERY good lenses). Practical, printed results from the 16 MP X-Trans were MUCH better than many other 16 MP sensors (especially older sensors or Micro 4/3, and, by the time of the X-T1, most 16 MP sensors were Micro 4/3), and were not as far off 24 MP APS-C as one would expect - they were in the expected range for about a 20 MP sensor, and could catch a 24 MP sensor under certain conditions (until the FE lenses came along, E-mount APS-C always underperformed due to lenses - even now, you have to use a full-frame lens on the APS-C body, because the APS-C lenses are mostly cheap kit zooms). If you wanted to show 16 MP with higher resolution than 24 MP, the test was easy - XTrans II with a great lens (most of the primes will do, as will the 16-55 f2.8 or the 50-140) against a NEX-7 (the first and noisiest generation of the 24 MP sensor, and has a low-pass filter) with just about anything other than the best of the FE lenses. To get the 24 MP X-Trans III (which, by all preliminary accounts, is a truly wonderful sensor, coming very close to the theoretical limits of 24 MP with a good lens - and if Fuji has anything going for them, it's good lenses!) to outperform a 36 MP sensor, I can think of two routes. First, I suspect it might well outperform the not yet introduced APS-C 36 MP sensor in a relatively fair test (Fuji clearly spent a lot of time on the sensor, and would have bought the 36 MP if they preferred it). I have no proof, but that may not be a great sensor - Sony would have introduced it by now if they were happy with it, and it would have also been logical for a high resolution, lower speed variant of the Nikon D500. Add in a typical APS-C E-mount lens and you may well have something that underperforms the Fuji. Even if you look at a FULL-FRAME 36 MP sensor, especially an early model with a low-pass filter, the real resolution is not that much higher than a great 24 MP sensor - the highest numbers for 24 MP sensors are around 3200 lines/picture height, while a D800 is around 3500 (all of these numbers need to be taken with a BIG grain of salt, as two cameras with the SAME SENSOR, both with no AA filter, can come out a few hundred lines apart)! Put Nikon's standard 24-85 FX zoom on the D800, and a 90mm f2 on the Fuji (or the 16-55 f2.8, to go zoom to zoom), and there goes the difference! Yes, the lenses are no fair, but Nikons spend a lot more time with lousy zooms on them than Fujis do, even 36 MP Nikons...

What is this flash? Fuji doesn't, as far as I know, make flashes, so I expected it to be a close relative of something already on the market. Dpreview has some pretty good pictures and specs, so it shouldn't be that hard to sort out (I mostly wanted to know whether it was a decent make or a "cheapie" - some of which can have a lot of features, while not focusing on real quality). Unfortunately, the most likely possibility was a Sunpak, a brand that used to make great strobes, but the name seems to have been bought (like Vivitar), because that's what Fuji has rebranded (and raised the price of) in the past. It doesn't look like any Sunpak is even close (B&H doesn't carry any Sunpak with controls this fancy - softkeys and a dot-matrix LCD seem beyond Sunpak's range). I then looked through B&H's entire flash range, trying to find out what it was... Some pro flash maker - Metz has been discussed widely? Something up-and coming - lots of people have liked Phottix and Yongnuo recently? Utter garbage - better check the Vivitar/Bolt/others group of clones? None of the above! Even worth checking camera manufacturer flashes - could it be something like a Sony (or whomever Sony buys their flashes from)? No exact matches (Fuji's rebranded Sunpaks are pretty much exact matches to what Sunpak sells themselves), and few even decent matches. The use of BOTH a control wheel and softkeys is rare - most flashes with softkeys are all buttons, and most flashes with a wheel use labeled keys. The two most prominent flashes that use both,like the "Fuji" flash, are the Nikon SB-910 and the Canon 600EX - VERY common pro flashes, but rather unlikely for Fuji to get ahold of for a rebrand...

I wonder if this is the IMX271 (a third generation of the Sony 24 MP sensor first seen in the NEX-7), which doesn't seem to have made it into any camera (unless it slipped, unnoticed, into a Pentax or two, or some APS-C compact), although it started cropping up on Sony spec sheets in April or so? The other possibility is a FOURTH generation sensor that is too new to be on a spec sheet yet... Does anyone know if the IMX271 uses copper wiring? It's supposed to have an extraordinarily fast readout, just like this sensor. Whether it is the third or fourth generation, this promises to be quite the sensor. The Photoreview article mentioned single-electron read noise (and Fuji has been boasting of extremely low read noise) - I'm not aware of ANY big sensor with read noise quite that low - they're getting better, but I thought the best were still around a couple of electrons. The sample high ISO shots in some of the reviews DO look very clean, and some of the reviewers have commented that it is unusually clean at high ISOs. I'm not sure the full well capacity of 18,000 electrons is correct - it's lower than previous sensors of similar pixel pitch (it should be similar or higher) - Fuji designer Takashi Ueno says that the signal level from the new sensor is significantly higher, which doesn't mesh with a low full well capacity (that I can see). There is no way to get dynamic range greater than 14 stops out of a 14-bit analog to digital converter (yes, you can have a sensor whose full well capacity is more than 16,384 times the noise floor, but the converter won't give you more than 1 stop per bit). What may very well be happening here, and is happening with a couple of the very best full-frame sensors, is that we're coming right up on that limit. A 14-bit converter has noise of its own, so it won't give you QUITE 14 stops, and any sensor with more than 13 stops of DR is almost certainly seeing some limitation from the converter. A few modern sensors have begun to get into the range where this matters, and it sounds like the X-Pro 2 sensor is going to be one of them. The only cameras that can actually claim more than 14 bits of DR have a 16-bit A/D converter AND a sensor capable of picking up more than 14 bits. Right now, as far as I know, that group includes a few digital cinema cameras (some of the RED models, maybe an ARRI or two) and perhaps the new Sony 100 MP medium format sensor. Phase One has used 16-bit converters on a few of their CCD medium format backs, but the sensors themselves weren't giving more than 14 stops, so the 16-bit converter's function was to push the converter's own noise out of the picture, giving the best possible conversion from whatever 12-14 stop signal the sensor produced. The 50 MP CMOS back (which uses a medium format version of a modern Sony sensor) might have a 14+ stop signal, but it uses a 14-bit converter. The new 100 MP monster has a current-generation Sony sensor, which is at least pushing 14 stops, if not over, AND it uses a 16-bit converter. Could we get more out of modern sensors below medium format by using 16-bit converters? Probably... There is some actual signal in the 15th bit on some full-frame sensors, and it sounds like the X-Pro 2 sensor will probably be the first APS-C sensor to produce any signal (other than noise) down there.16-bit converters are expensive (Red and Phase One don't care, but everyone else does) and produce a ton of data (Phase One shoots at 1 FPS, and Red sticks a huge processor in their camera, powers it with a 2 pound battery and cools the resulting mess with a big ol' fan). The first 14-bit converter I'm aware of that made a difference was in the Nikon D3x, which had 12 and 14-bit modes. The 14-bit mode produced notably better files than the 12-bit mode, but it took the otherwise 5.5 FPS camera and reduced it to ~1.5 FPS. Later 14-bit converters are faster, and the processors are set up to handle them, but the first 16-bit converter in a "regular" camera will probably have a huge speed hit. Another spec that is worth a glance is that 480 MP/sec processing speed! That's high enough to handle any imaginable video mode, including uncompressed 4K 60p (just barely) , and more than fast enough to deal with the frame rate and resolution of the fastest pro DSLR. It almost smells of medium format aspirations to me (total guess). Even if it's not meant for medium format, it is fast enough for any POSSIBLE autofocus or other processing... The only other tidbit we hadn't seen all over the place that turned up in the Fuji Guys video is that the tripod socket is correctly positioned! It's right under the sensor, centered both from front to back and side to side. And then there's the mysterious flash! I dug through all of B&H's flash listings for other systems, trying to figure out what Fuji had rebranded - and I can't. Their overpriced Sunpak rebrands are rather obvious - the controls are exactly the same as the Sunpak model (except for the "retro" flash) and even the model number is often similar. I'm sure someone's making it for them, but it seems to be a custom job (I tried matching it to Sunpak, Metz, Phottix, Yongnuo and Bolt/Bower/Vivitar, without luck). Maybe it's a new model from one of those companies (one reason Fuji's version might be coming out in May), and we'll see a Canon or Nikon TTL version in April and say "oh, THAT's what the flash is"... Dpreview's pictures do reveal that it's made in China , which reduces the likelihood that it's actually made by Fuji - they make their higher end products in Japan, and a lot of midrange stuff in Thailand.

I've been looking, and it doesn't seem like there are any bundles (the price came in lower than many had feared, but no extra discounts).. One or two reviews do mention that it seems to have extraordinary dynamic range, although there is nothing resembling a measurement anywhere.4 A technical detail that appeared in the Fuji Guys (aren't they employees of Fuji North America?) video is that this is a brand-new sensor using COPPER wiring in place of aluminum. I don't know about the IMX 271 (which was only released a few months ago), but NO older Sony sensor uses copper - the only one I know of is the A7rII sensor. If it's a Sony, this looks like the APS-C version of that sensor - a full generation newer (and perhaps higher-end as well) than anything else in a camera. I need to watch that whole video - there may be more on the sensor in there (the Fuji Guys said that the copper "gave them more room for pixels by cutting down on wiring" or something very close to that - sounds like it could be BSI or even stacked BSI)? The other possibility is a Samsung sensor (they have used copper, and are (as far as I know) the only folks to do so in a large sensor outside of the A7rII sensor and possibly the new 100 MP Smedium format sensor) - but the resolution doesn't make sense for a Samsung... I'll watch the whole video and hope there's more on it (the copper tidbit was about 4 minutes in).

While I agree with ShutterNot that specs have a hard time giving us a real sense of what kind of a tool the X-Pro 2 will be in our hands (witness any Sony, especially older models - they've improved the controls on more recent ones), I strongly suspect that the X-Pro 2, being a Fuji, will handle beautifully - the only Fujis that cause any controversy at all are the lower end models with no viewfinder (nobody else has one on entry-level mirrorless, either!). Image quality is, of course, an unknown until we see images, but indications are that it will be excellent - I think I spotted the telltale blue surround of a Sony sensor (which was widely expected) in the Aussie image looking down the lens mount, and a Sony 24 MP sensor with no AA filter and X-Trans is going to be superb . Combing through the specs, I did find a few things of interest. Mostly it's just as has been reported. 1.) The extra depth IS the grip (and/or the viewfinder protrusion - minimum depth is exactly the same as the X-Pro 1, while maximum depth has increased a bit). 2.) The processor is QUITE A BIT faster than any previous X-camera (83 JPEGS continuous shooting at top speed, compared to 47 for the X-T1, both at 8 FPS) - remember that those JPEGs are bigger, too. The processor is fast enough that compressed raws are a little faster to write than uncompressed. 3.) What's Commander mode (flash)? The X-T1 has it, too, although the X-Pro 1 does not - looks like there should be some sort of IR (presumably) wireless flash - if it were radio, it would be a bigger deal, and there aren't any compatible flashes right now... 4.) Don't get too attached to any one battery - you'll need more! Only 250 shots with EVF.(X-T1 is 350). Does get 350 with OVF. 5.)RAW files have grown by precisely what you'd expect for a move from 16 to 24 MP (before compression) 6.) Weather sealing is probably X-T1 grade -10 C spec from X-T1 made it ( the -10 spec is a little uncommon - no Nikon or Canon claims it (including, incredibly, the D5 and EOS-1 DX, either of which I'd trust in the cold!!!), although the Olympus E-M1 does, along with a Pentax or two) , and sealing is mentioned in literature, unlike any previous X camera other than the X-T1. 7.) Movie mode options are essentially from the X-T1 (although the processor can handle more, so a future firmware could either improve data rate or even add 4k) - data rate is quite a bit higher than earlier X cameras. May very well NOT have the artifacts seen in X-T1 video (those could well be from the sensor, and this is a completely different sensor) - we'll have to see. MOD file format is probably a typo (it's MOV) 8.) SD slots (there ARE two) are asymmetric - slot 1 is faster for some obscure reason! 9.) Almost exactly the size of an X-Pro 1 with a better grip, a tiny bit heavier than an X-Pro 1 (although quite a bit lighter than an A7II or any DSLR except the very light D3300/Rebel variety). 10.) Finder resolution is the same as the X-T1 (TFT, not OLED, and the magnification is not as high), LCD resolution is quite a bit higher than any other Fuji (or any other interchangeable lens camera I can find easily, although a few high-end compacts use what appears to be the same screen) at 1.62 million dots. It's about the same pixel density as a Retina-type phone (although not the newest "beyond Retina" phones with full HD and even 4k displays).

What EVF has that high a refresh rate? Even the amazing module in the Leica SL is 60 Hz. Fuji doesn't MAKE EVF modules, so where are they getting this one?

The Sony 16 MP sensor that became X-Trans was not an older design when the X-Pro 1 was released (it first became popular on the Nikon D7000, released about a year before the X-Pro 1). Yes, the Sony NEX-7, which introduced the ancestor of today's 24 MP APS-C sensors, had been announced a few months earlier, but it was announced significantly before it was actually available, and that sensor turned out to have a lot of image quality problems, not to mention that the NEX lenses of the time, meant for the cheapest of consumer bodies, were entirely inadequate (aka mostly garbage). The 16 MP sensor was a very solid choice on the leading edge of mainstream sensor design, in an era when many DSLRs were still in the 12 MP generation, and the only 24 MP options were the NEX-7 (with a troubled sensor design that was never used again, although its descendants spread like wildfire a couple of years later) and two full-frame models - the VERY expensive Nikon D3x and the Sony A900 that used only old Minolta lenses and one or two lenses introduced with the body - it was the only FF Sony (and the only FF A-mount camera since the days of film) at the time, and it barely sold, probably due to a lack of lenses. The X-system had the highest image quality of ANY mirrorless camera (arguably unless you count a Leica M as mirrorless) until Sony released better lenses, the A6000 and the A7 series around 2014. It was competitive with all but a few (generally full-frame) DSLRs until the 24 MP DSLRs began to spread widely in late 2013. The reason Fuji has a reputation for older sensors is not that they were behind at introduction, but that they used pretty much the same sensor for so long. Perhaps due to X-Trans, they skipped a sensor generation. Their current sensor pick (to be revealed on Friday) appears to be at the leading edge of mainstream design again - a new generation 24 MP model. Yes, Sony may well introduce a 36 MP APS-C sensor a week or two later, but it's likely to be a repeat of the NEX-7 situation. If history repeats itself, a second generation version of that sensor will become mainstream in DSLRs in a few years, while Fuji sits on a well-optimized 24 MP sensor. I'm guessing they'll do the same thing in medium format if they enter that market - pick the best proven sensor at the time of release, but hold onto it for a long time. One difference in medium format is that everybody does that (new sensors are released, but the old ones hang around and make up a substantial percentage of sales). Phase One just released a brand new back with a 2011 60 MP sensor, and it sits in the middle of their range. Hasselblad also uses a similar 2011 era 60 MP CCD, except theirs sits at the top of their line! They both offer a 2014ish 50 MP CMOS design as well, but it is smaller, lower resolution and sometimes slightly cheaper, although with better DR and much better ISO performance.

I hope it's not $1999 in the US, at least not without significant lens deals contingent on the purchase of a body. One approach would be to price it very high, BUT make either a defined kit (and we'd need several good choices, because it will be going to people with a wide range of preferences and existing lens collections) or a build your own kit (lens rebates with body)VERY appealing. This has happened in the industry numerous times, and Fuji has done it themselves - as I recall, even the introduction of the X-Pro 1 was this way - of course, every X-Pro 1 buyer NEEDED a lens (or the M adapter, but almost everyone bought at least one Fujinon), because nobody had them, by definition. I'd rather see $1499 or even $1699 straight out, but $1999 with a big lens discount would work too - I have my eye on a couple of Fujinons, including the 100-400. If they price it at $1999, it'll not only be tied (with the 10 FPS, super pro build D500) for the most expensive crop sensor body (excluding Leica and Hasselblad) seen since 2007, it'll probably be above the median price of full-frame bodies sold in 2015. For this to be true, more than half of full-frame sales would have to be A7, A7II, D610 and EOS-6D (all of which list well below $2000) plus D750, EOS-5D mkIII, A7r and A7s sales at a discount (these all list right at or just above $2000, but get discounted). There is certainly a pattern of camera manufacturers trying to AT LEAST reset prices to what they were when the last generation came out, including in the case of very long-lived models like the D300(s) and X-Pro 1, and sometimes to get more than the predecessor model ever sold for (the three A7 models all went UP in price for the second generation, by around $1000 in the case of the A7r to A7rII). Nikon guru Thom Hogan attributes to this to declining sales to an ever-more dedicated audience. First compact camera sales, and now the most price-sensitive segment of DSLR and mirrorless sales are being lost to smartphones, so the manufacturers are moving up-market. This "price resetting" is clearly not favorable to the consumer - how unfavorable it is depends on just how improved the new model is. There haven't been that many complaints about the huge price jump on the A7rII , because it fixed so many complaints about its predecessor, and has two huge new features - enormous video improvements and the ability to use just about any lens ever made with full focus and exposure functionality, plus image stabilization even on lenses that didn't have it to begin with. Unlike the A7r, the A7rII offers an option to photographers with large collections of Canon and now Nikon glass who don't like their manufacturers' bodies, and that has been seen as justifying the big price hike. The counterexample is lower-end Nikon (and, to a lesser extent, Canon) bodies, where they have had a huge problem shifting premium priced new models because of cheaper older models. The X-Pro 1 isn't going to be a significant competitor to the X-Pro 2, BUT Fuji has to justify a full-frame price with full-frame performance. If it has the image quality of a D750, it has a couple of advantages, mostly related to the smaller, lighter body and lenses (and some photographers will prefer the viewfinder). Fuji glass is also significantly better than a lot of Nikon, Canon or Sony glass (even full-frame) - not the very top primes and zooms (which are competitive with, but not better than Fuji's best, while often much heavier and costlier), but what is on a lot of D750s, EOS 6Ds and A7IIs. I'd put even the humble 18-55 Fujinon up against the Nikkor 24-85, 24-120 and 28-300 lenses that find their way onto a lot of those bodies (or to the Sony 28-70, and probably the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f4 often seen on A7s). Yes, the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 is in a different league from those kit lenses, as are the Sony 90mm Macro and the Canon 85 mm f1.2L, but are they in a different league from the Fuji 56mm f1.2? The Fuji 16-55 f2.8 is a very worthy competitor to (and a pound lighter than) any full-frame 24-70 f2.8. The only real reason to prefer Nikon's or Canon's lens lineup is if you need a fisheye, a long, fast tele, or a tilt/shift lens. The only reason to prefer Sony's is adapted lenses (which really means a much more expensive A7rII, not the directly competitive A7II) - Fuji has a great answer for every decent FE lens, and quite a few more besides. They're really saying "take our body and lenses as a system, and you'll prefer Fuji to the D750, the 5D mkIII or the A7II". They just might be right for a lot of uses, if they can get performance at the top end of what they're going for. Unlike APS-C bodies in a full-frame system, Fuji's whole system is designed around their sensor size, so one of the two major advantages of full-frame is gone - Fuji's lenses give the focal length they're designed for, not the often awkward in-between focal lengths that come from FF lenses on crop bodies. They need sensor performance good enough to keep up with 24 MP full-frame, in order to minimize the remaining advantage of full-frame. Even if they get the sensor performance they need, they have three weaknesses that will matter to some photographers. One is that they'll have one (soon to be two with the X-T2) bodies with the great sensor performance they're designing for, and they're going to have very similar sensor performance to each other. This isn't an issue at the lower end - I'd (as a teacher) far rather see a serious photo student with an X-T10 or an X-E2 with beautiful controls and a very nice 18-55 (despite the older 16 MP sensor) than a 24 MP APS-C DSLR with a better sensor, but lousy controls and a kit lens made out of the bottom of a Coke bottle. Fuji will have a perfectly acceptable low-end to midrange sensor in X-Trans II, and the most commonly useful sort of high-performance sensor (a 24 MP, high dynamic range, low noise generalist) in X-Trans III, but they WON'T have either of the two more exotic types of high-performance sensor (ultra resolution or ultra-speedy/high ISO). While an X-Pro 2 or an upcoming X-T2 is hopefully going to be a worthy competitor to a D750 class camera, there's no D810, D5 or D500 for their special uses. The other body weakness of all top mirrorless cameras (except the GH4, which actually does use a DSLR-size battery), compared to higher-end DSLRs is the tiny batteries. Even a mid-size DSLR battery gets 600 shots and lasts through most shooting days, while almost all mirrorless bodies, including the X-Pro/X-T/A7 size bodies that could easily fit those batteries, insist on using the little sub 300 shot batteries instead. Once you're carrying extras, the itty bitty batteries are actually heavier and more expensive than the next size up. The second weakness is "oddity" lenses. It'll be a long time (if ever) until Fuji releases lenses that fill in the "corners" of Canon's or Nikon's lineups (Sony's not going to do that, either, but they have at least one body that uses other makers' lenses at full capability). I hope we'll see something in the 300 mm f2.8 niche, which could be a 200 mm or 250 mm f2.8, or perhaps more interestingly, a 200 mm f2.0 - it gets the 300 f2.8 niche by itself (a stop brighter!) AND the 400 mm f2.8 niche with the existing converter, plus it will even accept a 2x converter to fill the fast 600 mm niche - in the next year or two. I'd be shocked to see more than one fast tele, or anything fast longer than 300 mm, and the fast tele might be as modest as a 200 mm f2.8 to keep size and weight down... ( a 200 f2.8 on APS-C is very close to a 300 f2.8 on full-frame, BUT many Canon/Nikon photographers keep a top crop body around to "extend" their 300 mm f2.8, and that doesn't work here) Something like a 200 mm f2.4 might be an interesting compromise - it's a LOT lighter than a 300mm f2.8 or a 200mm f2.0, with a ~85mm filter size, yet it gets long with converters (including accepting a 2x with ease), while staying relatively fast. Full-time pro sports photographers won't love it, but they aren't going to be using a system without ultra-high speed bodies, anyway. I think tilt/shift lenses (especially more than one) and a pro fisheye are much less likely. The biggest weakness, though, is flash. A Nikon or Canon body in the same price range comes with access to a full professional flash system, including everything from "toy flashes" up to $500+ professional flashes with every feature under the sun, as well as specialized ringlights and the like. Sony doesn't have the same range and versatility, but they have a decent system of their own. All three have sophisticated wireless flash that allows up to nine or more lights, and even some of the "toy flashes" can receive wireless commands, making them useful as fill lights. Fuji has NO wireless flash, and only the one cheaply built Nissin flash with even midrange power and control - everything else is in the toy category. Fuji is saying "photography is about existing light" rather strongly, and, while my style happens to be almost all existing light (mostly landscape), even I would appreciate better flash options for the occasional wedding or product shoot I get talked into. I'm at the top of the wait list at my local camera store for my X-Pro 2, and I think its capabilities (especially with Fuji's great lenses) are going to make it a pretty special camera for a wide range of purposes, maybe even a "best all-rounder" type of camera. I'm planning to thru-hike the Appalachian Trail with a Fuji system in 2017 (one body, with a backup waiting to be sent out if my primary body breaks, and probably two lenses, which may change on different parts of the trail), and I think that the weight/IQ tradeoff is likely to be the best there is (I considered the A7 system, but the lenses are just too darn heavy - I'd only be able to carry one, which would either have to be a prime or a limited zoom, and the weather sealing isn't quite there). That doesn't mean Fuji got it perfect...

Do you (or anyone) know about the sensor used in the D5500? If neither the D5500 nor the K3II are using the IMX271 (what else could be? the sensor was released earlier this year) , Fuji may be the first to use a new generation of Sony's excellent 24 MP sensor that is supposed to offer even more dynamic range and lower noise than its predecessors (as well as an extremely fast readout that Fuji may or may not take real advantage of). On the A7rII, I had looked at the specs when it first came out, and concluded that it COULDN'T be binning 4k video - it didn't have quite enough pixels across, and I wondered why Sony had come so close to an 8k sensor that would make 4k simple, then missed. I made a mistake, though... I had assumed that, like most 4k cameras, it offered BOTH UHD (3840 pixels wide) and the slightly higher resolution Cinema 4k (4096 pixels wide). It doesn't - it's UHD only, and it has just enough pixels to get away with simple 2x2 binning in UHD. Since the UHD image JUST fits, there is one advantage - no crop factor in width, although video will always crop the height of an image, due to the aspect ratio. There is also a disadvantage - many cameras use electronic image stabilization in video modes to supplement the optical stabilizer. Sony doesn't have the extra pixels on the left and right edges to use electronic stabilization.

Really? I had seen the D7200 sensor listed both as a Sony (in at least one source, specifically the IMX 271) and a Toshiba in different sources. On the other hand, I thought the D5500 was certainly a Sony, and probably the IMX 271. Has the IMX 271 appeared in any camera yet? What about the Pentax K3 II? Makes perfect sense - I've never heard of a technology company not liking marketing opportunities. This explains quite a bit - the A7 mount has been a bear to design lenses for, as shown by almost all of their lenses being big, heavy and expensive, and some of them also having mediocre image quality, although a few are excellent. This also goes a long way towards explaining why the A7rII works better with adapted lenses than other members of the A7 family. Why go for 42 MP in the "fix"? If the extra pixels are not a consequence of increased fill factor, why not fix the sensor keeping it at 36 MP? Surely the difference between 36 and 42 MP won't be noticeable, except, perhaps in pictures of resolution test charts? Are the extra pixels solely for marketing purposes?

I'm very surprised by Sony's latest move in medium format sensors... I was expecting an upgrade to the 50 MP CMOS, perhaps to ~70 MP, using the technology from their most recent smaller sensors, but keeping the size. Instead what we got was a 100 MP sensor that is very close to the actual size of a 645 film image. It probably costs twice as much to manufacture as the 50 MP sensor, if not more, because of the increased area and lower yield. If Fuji uses the big sensor, I'd revise all cost projections upward by 50% or more. Anything close enough to 645 to be called full-frame has been well over $20,000. Fuji may come in lower, but I'd be shocked to see the body under $12,000 - $15,000 with that much sensor cost. What would other FR readers think about the following options? 1.) 100 MP full 645 sensor size, $12999, bulkier lenses 2.) 73 MP "medium format 33x44 mm" (Pentax 645Z sensor size but an upgraded version), $6999, lenses 30% smaller. 3.) 50 MP "medium format 33x44 mm" (using the 645Z/IQ250 sensor), $4999, lenses as for #2 above. #1 goes for the absolute ultimate in image quality, while #2 and #3 provide an option comfortably (and significantly) above 35mm full-frame image quality, while potentially maintaining size, weight and cost competitiveness with top full-frame cameras. I'd personally prefer #2, especially because it also enables #3. The existence of the big, very expensive camera makes lenses much larger, even if they also bring out a camera using the smaller sensor. I also think Fuji's not Sony, and they're likely to try and keep confusion down by sticking to one MF size.

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).

On the flash, I was thinking that it could be to both Fuji's and Metz's (or someone else in the flash business') benefit to partner...This could take the form of Fuji-branded flashes made by a flash manufacturer, or of Fuji giving a third-party manufacturer access to their protocols and engineering team and promoting their products as part of the X-system. Leica and Hasselblad have both promoted Metz flashes for years, and don't make their own. I'd hope that talk of full-frame or MF would actually be an inducement to a good flash manufacturer (the flash protocols are unlikely to change with an additional sensor format). Does anyone know if Fuji's flash protocol is relatively capable (would a top-end flash or a wireless system be supported, or could it be with simple firmware additions), or whether there is some gaping hole in flash communication that Fuji would have to fix? Inciderntally, I suspect that Fuji was well aware of the Sony 36 MP APS-C sensor, probably had samples of it running in X-Pro 2 bodies (maybe not an X-Trans version, but they had something to evaluate the overall IQ), and chose the IMX 271 (with the huge number of phase detect points, this is almost certainly the '271, and not an older sensor) as X-Trans III over the 36 MP option. I do NOT have any inside information - for all I know, the 36 MP sensor is spectacular and Sony won't sell it yet, but I have several reasons to suspect that this is likely not to be the case. First, the first Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor was nothing special - most reviews of the NEX-7 were underwhelmed by the image quality, saying "is it really better than 16 MP sensors?". It was the second generation of that sensor (the IMX 271 is the third) that gave us today's APS-C image quality. Second, Nikon (Sony's BIG sensor customer - far outselling Sony's own cameras) would probably have LOVED to release a 36 MP, 4-5 FPS version of the D500 alongside the speed-optimized 21 mp, 10 FPS version. Especially after splitting their sensor business from the camera business, I can't imagine Sony embargoing Nikon from releasing a professional DSLR to protect an amateur mirrorless body selling for half the price. Nikon HAS to have seen the 36 MP sensor, and they decided not to use it on their most important advanced APS-C release in eight years (I'm thinking ALONGSIDE the existing D500, not instead of). . Third, the repeated delays in the A6100, a camera that was supposed to be out nearly a year ago, are either sensor-related or lens related (they have no great lens for it in their current lineup).. I can't imagine that Sony (and Zeiss) lens designers are so inept that they are a year off on when a new 16-70 will be ready... The logical answer is that the 36 MP sensor doesn't work as well as it should. My suspicion is that the 36 MP sensor exists, is about to be released, but is underwhelming. I'd guess that it might behave a lot like a big Micro 4/3 sensor (it's a similar pixel pitch to a Micro 4/3 sensor in the 16-20 MP range). It probably has ~ 9-11 stops of DR at the limit, with 7-9 really usable due to noise, and noise characteristics between one and three stops worse than a good 24 MP APS-C sensor. I've shot 16 MP Micro 4/3 alongside XTrans I and II, and it isn't especially close. I get 16x24 prints out of X-Trans easily, and will go to 24x36 on many, but not all subjects. With recent Micro 4/3, my standard print size is 12x16, I will go to 16x20 on some subjects, and I have some very foggy atmospheric images (with low dynamic range and limited detail) where I'm comfortable a little bigger. The huge resolution of a 36 MP sensor will compensate for a lot of the noise of a noisy sensor at a given print size, but it doesn't compensate for low dynamic range. Both a noisy 36 MP sensor and a really good 24 MP sensor should print 24x36 inches at low to moderate ISO with good detail (the noisy 36 MP sensor will have noticeably more resolution at the lowest ISOs, but 24 good MP make a very nice print that big).On the other hand, a 9-11 stop 36 MP sensor will block up shadows and blow highlights a lot sooner than a 13.5 stop (again, at the limits - measured DR is always higher than what you can print) 24 MP sensor, in return for a marginal increase in resolution because some of the extra resolution is eaten by the noise. The IMX 271 is a spectacular sensor, making the most of 24 MP.. It has about the highest dynamic range and lowest noise of any sensor on the market today, other than medium format (it is competitive with the best full-frame sensors per pixel at most ISOs (although it doesn't have the resolution of the 36 and 42 MP sensors, of course) and well ahead of other APS-C sensors). If Fuji had the choice of the '271, which gains about 1.5 stops of dynamic range and ISO/noise performance over the IMX 071 they've been using, in addition to the additional resolution; or a 36 MP sensor which gains more resolution, but actually LOSES a stop or so of dynamic range and/or ISO/noise performance (which is approximately correct if the 36 MP behaves like a big Micro 4/3 sensor) compared to their current sensor, I can see why they chose the '271, and I would have made the same choice. Sony, on the other hand, is stuck. The differences between generations of 24 MP sensors are hard to market (the A6000 is an early second generation 24 MP sensor, while they could upgrade to the third generation for an extra stop of DR and lower noise, or to 36 MP at the cost of DR and noise). 36 MP is an easy, clear number to sell. If they don't have a really differentiated body from the A6000, they would be trying to get twice as much money (the A6000 has fallen to $500 or so for the body) for a similar looking camera with similar headline specs. How many people would pay $1000 or more for a camera that seems to be a small upgrade to the A6000, even if it has 4K video and IBIS. Give it a 36 MP sensor and it's "the highest resolution APS-C camera in the world", plus the high resolution makes processing 4K video easier (you can simply bin pixels instead of doing tricky subsampling). Awfully tempting, even if image quality is actually lower in most circumstances. The one problem with this route is that we know that Fuji takes a LONG time to switch sensors, possibly because of the complexity of making the X-Trans filter. The second or third generation of that 36 MP sensor may well BE spectacular, and everything under the sun, including $500 DSLRs, may have it, while we're seeing repeated 24 MP bodies. Maybe X-T1 sales were high enough that Fuji will keep up with sensor improvements better, maybe the IMX271 is good enough to be a "why would you want anything better" sensor, and maybe the 36 MP generation won't offer anything worthwhile. On the other hand, maybe a newer version of the 36 MP sensor will offer meaningfully better image quality than anything that came before, and Fuji will get "stuck". for today, Fuji seems to have picked the best sensor on the market and improved it with X-Trans. Coupled with their always-excellent lenses, the X-Pro 2 will almost certainly offer the best APS-C image quality of early 2016, and it should give all but the few very high resolution full frame bodies (with a great lens) a run for their money.

If Fuji adds a decent flash system (can they get someone to produce some decent flashes), what does the X-mount ecosystem lack to be a full system like Nikon and Canon? Look at our lens lineup - top quality offerings from 10 t0 140 (out to 400 coming soon),including both primes and zooms, with significant choice at many focal lengths (if anything, we have duplication in a couple of ranges, rather than any lack of selection). Almost every lens is at least good, and many are right up there with the best at their focal lengths. The only missing lenses once the 100-400 gets here and provides significant telephoto reach (and we get a newer macro lens)are exotica like very fast long telephotos, fisheyes and tilt/shift lenses. Unless you shoot sports, wildlife (full-time - general nature photographers who do some wildlife will love the 100-400) or architecture (tilt/shift), you're covered at a professional level by the Fuji lens line - as a matter of fact, you have more and better choices than in any other system except Canon or Nikon FF (I'd choose Fuji's lenses easily over Canon or Nikon's crop lineups, even including using FF lenses on crop bodies). Canon and especially Nikon do have the advantage of "mix and match" bodies - a D810, a D5 and a D500 are a VERY heavy, expensive collection of bodies, but they also combine to offer a ton of versatility. Fuji's basic body style lineup is excellent - EVFs are getting good enough that a modern system should be mirrorless - Canon's and Nikon's SLR design may well be seen as a legacy adding complexity and inhibiting creative lens design before too long. Right now, what's holding them back is a lack of sensor choice confined to an older sensor that doesn't perform quite as well as modern equivalents. That is about to be rectified, at least in one model - the IMX 271 that probably forms the basis of the X-Pro 2 sensor (all those phase detection points suggest that it IS the newer IMX 271) is the best performing APS-C sensor on the market. The only two things missing to make the Fuji system a full-fledged professional system for pretty much any need, apart from a few tiny niches, are a long, fast lens or two and, more importantly, any sort of a decent flash system. Right now, B&H (whom I use for a reference because they stock nearly everything photographic, even though I generally buy my gear from a great local shop) show 6 Fuji-compatible flashes, which seems OK until you see what they are. Three of them are basically replacements for pop-up flashes - tiny low-power units with nonexistent or limited bounce and modifier capability. Another one is an extremely inexpensive ($70) "cheapo" flash with a little more power, but no bounce or modifiers. The fifth is a Fujifilm-branded version of a simple, inexpensive Sunpak flash (for 1.5x the price of the Sunpak for other cameras), which does bounce, but is not terribly sophisticated. The final flash is a Nissin with decent power and features, but no wireless mode or upper-end features (more or less equivalent to Canon or Nikon's "second tier" flashes, but without the wireless capabilities. Nothing with wireless, and no "flagship" type flash. Why doesn't Fuji get someone to manufacturer a flagship flash with wireless, a good second tier flash (also with wireless), a commander unit, and possibly a ringlight? One simple (and previously discussed) option would be Metz. Other than a commander unit, they have all Fuji needs and more, and they make a wide selection of their flashes for some relatively obscure systems (Pentax, Leica). Fuji could either develop[ a wireless protocol (with Metz?) or just buy/license one from PocketWizard or somebody (many medium format systems and studio flashes now have inherent PocketWizard compatibility).. If they went with a PocketWizard type wireless protocol, they'd open up not only portable flashes, but also studio strobes.

I'd love to know what the kits will be like on the X-Pro 2. If I were Fuji, I'd go for a "buy body and lens together for instant savings" strategy, rather than defined kits. I don't think very many photographers will choose a nearly $2000 mirrorless body with an exotic finder as their first X-mount camera (perhaps a few who have been thinking about switching or adding Fuji, may have borrowed or rented one, or even own an X100 of one variety or another, but haven't taken the plunge). Most X-Pro 2 buyers will probably own an X-Pro 1, X-T1 or X-E body and a few lenses already, so any kit lens choice risks duplication for a lot of people. Nikon (perhaps others as well) has often run promotions on higher-end bodies where they have a list of lens savings ranging from $50 to $400 or so when purchased with a body, sometimes with extra savings for buying more than one lens (every time I've seen it, multiple lenses are eligible, but there is sometimes a bonus of $100 or so on top of the individual rebates for two lenses, and I think I once even saw a three lens bonus). Since Fuji has few cheap lenses, they might start the savings at $100 (unless they put the teleconverter at $50), and they might or might not reach $400 on any lens, since the largest numbers are sometimes on 300 f2.8s and such.

The specifications of the X-Pro 2 sound exceptional - pretty much everything any of us have asked for. I'm a tiny bit disappointed in the price, even knowing it was going to be expensive, I had hoped for around $1500, maybe $1600. Close to $2000 is territory no standard APS-C camera has inhabited in years, more expensive than the X-Pro 1 at launch, and we really haven't seen a relatively broad market APS-C model that expensive since the early days of the D300 in 2007 (I suspect the Canon 7D was in the same range at launch), although Nikon is now trying to get $2000 for the new D500. Even at $1500, the X-Pro 2 would have been among the most expensive APS-C cameras around (other than Leica and the Hasselblad-rebadged Sonys). At $1799-$1899, it will be well above anything else except the D500 and a few real oddities. Looking at non-full frame interchangeable lens cameras above $1000 (there is no question the X-Pro 2 was going to be well above $1000), and ignoring Leica and Hasselblad, there are only a few models presently on the market. The only models above $1500 are the not yet available D500, astronomical variants of cameras that are otherwise less expensive, and the Samsung NX1 and Sigma SD1, both of which have lens mounts so odd that you never see them. I teach photography at the college level (I only have time to post consistently because I'm both on semester break and have had lousy shooting weather), and have been to PhotoPlus and various other events over the years where people wear every imaginable camera, including Phase One systems. I have NEVER seen a Sigma SLR "in the wild" and the only Samsung NX camera I've ever seen in use is one of the very low end models a student brought to class a few years ago. I suspect that Leica outsells both Samsung and Sigma interchangeable lens cameras handily (at least in the US - the Samsungs may be more common in Asia), and they may actually be less common than medium format systems or astronomical variants of common cameras, given that I occasionally see Leicas and medium format systems at workshops or in use at events. I think that everything currently available above $1500 (other than full-frame, of course) can be dismissed as extremely limited market oddities pretty easily. Between $1000 and $1500, we run into a few relatively common cameras, although they all turn up under $1000 in bundles from time to time. There are two common APS-C cameras, two high-end Micro 4/3 models, and the questionable case of the Canon 7D mkII, which is consistently right around $1000 after rebate, and generally includes a free printer. The two APS-C models are Nikon's D7200 and Fuji's own X-T1, both of which turn up in $1500 bundles with upper-end travel zooms that sell for $500 or more, although it's rare to find the bodies for $999 alone. The Panasonic GH4 and Olympus E-M1 also crack the $1000 barrier, although the GH4 is really a video camera more than anything. The other question that affects how reasonable Fuji's price looks is Sony's A6100, which may have a 36 MP sensor. Sony's almost certainly going to aim over $1000, and one rumor said it might even be in X-Pro 2 territory. I find Sony getting over $1500 for an APS-C camera hard to fathom, almost no matter what the sensor is. They have too few decent lenses (apart from a few FF lenses that will be odd focal lengths on APS-C, many of them slow, bulky or expensive (or more than one of the above)), and they face too much competition from their own full-frame bodies, with the original A7 around $1000, and the A7II, A7r and A7s all clustered between $1500 and $1900. Sony has never built a truly pro-quality APS-C body, and even the original A7 series are fragile by the standards of expensive APS-C bodies (D7200 class build quality for sure, but NOT built and sealed like an E-M1 or even an X-T1). I'm guessing they'll aim right around the launch price of the NEX-7 ($1199), and getting more would require a really nice body (probably weathersealed with IBIS) AND a real commitment to top-end APS-C lenses. While I'd be unsurprised to see IBIS, I'd be a bit surprised by real weathersealing, and pretty shocked to see the lenses, with Sony's history of switching mounts and their current emphasis on FE lenses.They may aim for $1399 or even $1499, especially if it has IBIS and weathersealing, but I suspect they won't sell very many, due to lens availability. If the Sony is a "sensor in a box" with a lousy kit lens, relatively poor controls and less than stellar build quality, it almost doesn't matter how good that sensor is (until Nikon gets their hands on it and throws it in a (possibly mirrorless) D7200 successor, or Pentax sticks it in a sub-$1000 DSLR with several very interesting features that nobody has lenses for). On the other hand, if the sensor is spectacular AND Sony gets their act together on the body and lenses, it may put a lot of pressure on Fuji. Nikon's reasoning for asking $2000 for the D500 comes down to speed, high ISOs and durability. The D500 has a brand-new AF system that is supposed to blow anything else (except the D5) out of the water, calibrated ISOs as high as 51,200 (with a HI-range capability over "1.5 million"), 10 FPS, and is supposed to be built to the standards of the D810, which would be superior to any crop sensor camera currently manufactured with the possible exception of the E-M1. The speed-optimized sensor may or may not deliver optimum image quality at lower ISOs, and I'd be very surprised if it was as good as the X-Pro 2 below ISO 3200 or 6400. They are so confident in the appeal of the speed and durability for a specific market that they have actually priced the D500 above a couple of their own full-frame bodies. Can Fuji really get $1800 or more for the X-Pro 2 with this competition (and a lot of nice cameras at or below $1000)? I think so, but it has to be pretty close to perfect at what it is (and it may well be). It is a completely different, even opposite camera from the D500, although I hope for build quality of a true pro standard, as claimed for the D500 - at a price this high, it should be REALLY beautifully and ruggedly built, with excellent sealing. Its real competitors are NOT other APS-C cameras at all, but the various ~24 MP full-frame bodies from Sony, Nikon and Canon, which are clustered right around its price. The X-Pro 2 will actually be more significantly expensive than the original A7, D610 and EOS 6D, directly competitive with the A7II and D750, and somewhat cheaper than the aging 5D mkIII. The 24 MP Sony full-frame sensor (as used by all of these bodies except the Canons) is really excellent, but the APS-C sensor assisted by X-Trans may give it a run for its money, and needs to to justify the price. It needs to be right in there in terms of image quality with 24 MP full frame, and only a little bit behind the generally more expensive high-pixel full-frame bodies in overall IQ - no, a 24 MP sensor isn't going to compete with the 42 MP A7rII sensor, but it needs to make truly top quality 24x36" prints, leaving the differences to serious pixel-peepers and owners of 44" printers! I think Fuji has a significant lens advantage over Sony, and even Canon and Nikon are arguable (the very best Canon and Nikon full-frame lenses are as good as most of the Fujinons, but they are much heavier, bulkier and costlier, while the lenses of comparable price and weight are not as good). A 24 MP full-frame body is an unlikely pairing with the very exotic lenses where Fuji can't compete - most of the big telephotos will either end up on an ultra-high pixel count body, a high-speed body, or perhaps an APS-C body for extended reach (the D500 will probably be popular for big glass). The X-Pro 2 will be much smaller and lighter than a full-frame Canon or Nikon with lenses of comparable quality, and even than an A7 or A7II except with very carefully selected lenses. The choice of hybrid "rangefinder", pure EVF or SLR is up to the individual photographer, but that hybrid finder needs to be excellent in both modes, because the viewfinders on the competition are close to the best in the business. Similarly, the autofocus and metering need to be truly superb, because the X-Pro 2 is competing with the very best. Especially with the quality of the lens range, the X-Pro 2 has a good chance of justifying its audacious price tag, but everything needs to work just right to get it in that rarefied company. Fuji has set themselves a tough target by pricing the X-Pro 2 well above all other crop-sensor cameras except the superfast D500, and right in the middle of the current range of 24 mp full-frame bodies. They are really saying "compare our crop sensor camera to an A7II or a D750, and we think you'll prefer the experience, image quality and build quality" - a tough, but possible assignment.

Still seeing nothing solid on the sensor other than the Magnum leak, and manufacturers often have several prototypes with different sensors out there, although X-Trans may make that much harder....Patrick, can you ask sources whether they know anything? The new processor and lossless RAW compression, both from sources more solid than anything directly related to the sensor, do suggest a new sensor, but the fact that we're seeing two new cameras more or less confirmed to use the old IMX 071 (X70 and XE2s) suggest that Fuji intends to keep getting mileage out of the old warhorse. I REALLY hope we don't see a new $1700 vehicle for the five year old sensor from the D7000! If we do, it would reach two undesirable milestones. It would be both the most expensive camera ever to use that sensor (five years into the sensor's life) AND the most expensive (non-Leica) APS-C body on the market in several years while tied (largely with other Fujis) for the LOWEST resolution of any APS-C camera on the market. No matter how good the rest of the package is (and the suggestion is that it's exceptional), that's not an ideal combination! At the other extreme, we could see the new 36MP BSI sensor Sony seems to be about to introduce in the A6100. I'm not 100% sure we want it, even if we could have it... The first 24MP sensor on the NEX-7 came with a fair number of teething troubles, although it evolved into the exceptional sensor we see in a lot of 24MP cameras today. Sony could hit the 36MP generation out of the park on the first pitch, and, if they do, there's a significant advantage to having a future-proof sensor like that. I am pretty sure our better lenses are ready for it (Sony's AREN'T!, at least not without using bulky FF lenses of odd focal lengths, and only a few of those are great). On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if that sensor is noisy at lower ISOs than we're used to, and it might have banding or similar issues. The dynamic range might also not live up to expectations. I would expect (from the pixel pitch they'd need) to see a sensor that performs better on a per pixel basis than any 1" sensor, and about as well per pixel as a really good modern Micro 4/3 sensor, plus whatever improvements there have been since the latest Micro 4/3 sensors have been introduced. That's pretty good, arguably even better than pretty good, but it is NOT the performance per pixel we are used to. I've printed big from X-Trans II against the E-M1 and E-M5, and there is no comparison - the Fuji has substantially better dynamic range, among other things. There is another half generation of Micro 4/3 sensors, which I've never used, but I haven't read that they're THAT much better, either. It's possible that generational improvements (or even a breakthrough or two) mean that the new 36MP sensor is a better DR/noise performer than Micro 4/3 has reached at a similar pixel pitch, maybe even as good as we're used to, but I wouldn't count on that. The IMX271, perhaps the most likely sensor for the X-Pro2, seems to be a wonderful sensor - the latest of an increasingly good line of Sony 24MP sensors. It has a HUGE amount of low-ISO dynamic range (I've seen one measurement saying 14.6 stops, although I'm not sure how you measure that, since it doesn't fit in a 14-bit raw file, and I've never seen any suggestion of 16-bit output). It also seems to be an excellent high-ISO performer. One aspect of the '271 that I hope Fuji embraces, if that's the sensor we're getting, is that it has a very low low-ISO capability, perhaps down to a calibrated ISO 50, and certainly down to 100. PLEASE give us ISOs below 200, complete with raw capture. I'd call 100 very important, and 50 nice to have (and nearly unique, without getting into medium format). I've never even been tempted by the Hi ISO range on my X-T1, rarely if ever going above 1600; but I reach for the low setting all the time, only to find myself kicked into JPEG mode:-( I guess that another possibility (that wouldn't excite me, but it could excite people who like high ISOs) is a modern low-pixel count sensor, sort of on the concept of an A7s. It might provide slight improvements in low-ISO performance per pixel over a good 24MP sensor (but the '271 is very, very good (potentially better than a 14-bit raw file can actually record). What it would provide is absurdly good high-ISO and video performance. In my view, it's a shame to waste a sensor like that on a camera not aimed at video shooters. If Fuji wants to introduce an "X-V1" with a low pixel count sensor and really great video codecs, I could see that being an appealing camera to a significant market segment (if they aren't already using Sony or Panasonic, video shooters get access to a system of compact, high-quality lenses and Fuji colors). Why do it on a camera with no dedicated video button? Dan

Interesting to compare these specs to the newer versions of the Canon and Nikon lenses in the same focal length range - both of which are optically superb and quick to focus. The old film-era models Canon and Nikon only recently replaced (the new versions came out in the past couple years) are not valid comparisons, given what we hope and expect the performance of the Fujinon will be, even though they are still available and significantly cheaper than the newer lenses. The same holds for much less expensive third-party lenses.The newer, high-performance Sigmas are both much heavier and at least as expensive, although some ARE longer (the new, high-performing 150-600 Sports is more than twice the weight of the Fuji), and the "lesser" Sigmas and others are more in a performance class with the film-era Canons and Nikons than the new ones. The Fuji is a couple hundred grams (just under half a pound) lighter than the Canon or Nikon (1375 grams to 1575 (Nikon) and 1590 (Canon)). The Fuji may be a tiny bit (less than 1 cm (1/2 inch)) longer than the Nikon, and is about 2.5 cm (1 inch) longer than the Canon. This is less certain, and I'm hoping the Fuji is slightly shorter than we think, because the only length we have accurately for the Fuji is an extended length (which Canon and Nikon don't quote), then we have an "about 6 cm shorter" retracted length, but nothing exact. The uncertainty in the retracted length means that all we know is that it is about the same as the Nikon, maybe a tiny bit longer, and is a bit longer than the Canon. The Fuji has exactly the same close focus distance as the Nikon, and doesn't focus as close as the Canon (by a significant margin). The Fuji's 82mm filter size is either a misprint or a surprise. It is theoretically possible to make a 400mm f5.6 with a 72mm filter size, although it is so tight that it's probably impractical without cheating on either the focal length or the aperture - a couple of older Sigma lenses did claim that combination, but it was at a time that Sigmas were routinely mismarked as longer, faster or both than they actually were. Both the Canon and Nikon are 77mm, as were their predecessors, and most other lenses that reach 400mm at f5.6. The Fuji is probably a bit cheaper than the Nikon or Canon, at least in the US.. The Canon and Nikon are both in the lower $2000s, with occasional rebates bringing them just below $2000.

While nobody needs a purple X-Pro2, the silver body with brown covering is actually rather attractive, as are a couple of the other less crazy options...

Those combined dials were quite common for a while - haven't seen one since the beginning of the digital era, but a ton of film cameras, including the Pentax K1000 that many photographers in their 30s, 40s and 50s learned on, had them. There were several mechanisms - the most common was "turn to set shutter speed, lift and turn for ISO", but central lock buttons also existed, and there may have been external lock buttons or other mechanisms (I think one camera had the ISO dial exposed through a cutout in the side of the shutter dial as well as the top, and you turned by grasping the inner dial at the cutout). I haven't played with old film cameras in quite a while, so I may not have any but the most common lift and turn mechanism quite right. What do people think about the desirability of a different, larger battery? Li-Ion batteries come in a bunch of standard sizes - all the camera maker variations are really a few standard battery types that the camera makers move the contacts around on in order to sell batteries. The three that are of interest to mirrorless camera fans are all two-cell batteries in the 7.4 volt range (some fixed lens cameras use a single cell battery around 3.7 volts, and the largest pro DSLRs use three cell designs around 11 volts). The smallest is a ~700 mAh battery, used mainly in fixed-lens cameras, but also in some small Micro 4/3 and Nikon 1 cameras. The intermediate size, found in most mirrorless cameras and a few consumer DSLRs, is our NP-W 126 from the whole X line, as well as Sony's standard W50 from the A6000 and A7 series (among others) and Canon and Nikon variants for their smallest DSLRs. It holds around 1100 mAh, and gives about 300 shots. The X-Pro (and X-T) designs could easily accommodate the next size up, a ~2000 mAh battery found in many DSLRs and the Panasonic GH4. The advantage would be a lot more power for the dollar (they tend to be only $10-$20 more expensive, but last nearly twice as long) and somewhat more power for the weight (better ratio between cells and battery casing). The disadvantage would be that, unless Fuji designed a clever battery compartment that took both types, we'd need new batteries. A dual compartment is not impossible at all, but camera makers like to sell batteries .

I'm getting mildly concerned about the sensor, having seen no clear information about it. I'm at least slightly concerned about seeing a great new body with the same old IMX071 (originally the Nikon D7000 sensor, adopted by the X-Pro 1 a few months later) we've had for years. Since, at least to me, the 5 year old sensor is the ONLY major weakness of the present high-end Fujis, that would be a deal-breaker. An X-T1 plus OVF (or X-Pro1 with the X-T1 AF and processor - pretty much the same thing) would be a great camera, but it isn't worth $1500+ when I already have an X-T1. I'm hopeful for a modern 24 MP (or greater) sensor... Our lenses are MORE than ready for a new sensor - Fuji has the best overall lens lineup apart from Canon and Nikon FF (I'd take Fuji over Canon or Nikon APS-C - despite the overweight FF lenses at odd focal lengths that round out those lines). Almost all of our lenses are very high quality, and apart from the few XCs, are ready for 24 MP and beyond. I'd rather have the Fujinons than Sony's adapter flexibility, too - the adapters that preserve full functionality are of modest quality and add alignment variability, enough that a bad adapter could easily reduce the IQ from a 42 MP camera to below a really excellent lens on 24 MP. The probable performance of a really modern sensor with X-Trans filtration is excellent... I'd say that the X-Trans II is about 25% better (purely my opinion, and purely visually) than a conventional (AA filtered) Bayer interpretation of the IMX071. If we can get about the same performance increment out of a good 24 MP sensor, we'll have a camera with slightly better IQ than any other APS-C body on the market (the no AA 24 MP bodies may well be very close except in moire-prone situations), and outclassed ONLY by the D810 and the A7rII - I'm deliberately excluding the Canon 5Ds, because it has limited DR, and there are enough times when extra DR gets the shot that I'd often rather have the extra DR than extra resolution - I have no question that the 5Ds is much better from a pure resolution standpoint. Most of the Sony native lenses (apart from a few bulky primes) don't really impress me, and I don't trust adapters. The D810 is, without question, a higher overall IQ solution, BUT a D810 and lenses of quality equivalent to the Fujinons (which means the heavier/bulkier Nikkors, not the lightest FF versions) is about TWICE the weight and sometimes as much as twice the price.

You're right - it was the later R series that had the huge number of shutter speeds on the dial (in addition to the half steps, it had a marked 1/8000 AND several speeds longer than 1 second). I stand corrected when I said 1/8000 speeds had always been on wheels rather than marked dials. I had assumed that the only possibilities (given that Fuji has never used 1/8000) would have been one of two anachronistic, but relatively modern Nikons with shutter speed dials (either the FM3a or the DF, both of which only go to 1/4000). I had forgotten that 1/8000 had been around long enough to have slipped onto a couple of cameras during the transition from dials to wheels - those two Leicas and also the Nikon F4. I remembered that the F5 had 1/8000, but that was already a wheel-based design that really looks a lot like a D-series DSLR (or maybe the D-series all look like an F5) - I hadn't remembered it was also on the F4