danwells

No marked shutter dial has ever had 1/3 stops (not saying it couldn't be done, just that it would be a lot of clicks and possibly slow when changing to a speed a long way away). I seem to recall someone (Leica?) having once done one with half stops (the half stops were unmarked clicks between the marked full stops), but traditionally, shutter speed has been in full stops and fine exposure control has been achieved through aperture and exposure compensation. This changed when unmarked wheels became the control device of choice for shutter speed. Interestingly, this is also the first marked shutter speed dial I've ever seen with 1/8000 on it - between having 1/8000, adding 1/180 for X-sync, the A position and having both T and B, this one has a LOT of positions even without intermediate steps. There is really no reason to have more precise control of shutter speed than full stops most of the time, as long as you have another variable that is adjustable in smaller increments - motion blur/stoppage doesn't change THAT much between full speeds. The two major exceptions are matching shutter speed to frame rate precisely for video (you want the shutter speed to be pretty close to twice the frame rate, so 1/50 is a much better match than 1/60 for 24 or 25 fps) AND getting at the particular intermediate speed you want for flash sync (in the case of Fuji, 1/180, although many older cameras were 1/90, and 1/45 was not unheard of in medium format) - and Fuji's solution allows for both of those. 1/180 is shoehorned onto the dial, and you can get at 1/50 (or any other intermediate speed, but most of the others have few real uses) through the wheel.. Have we seen any further confirmation on the sensor of this beast? Any size or weight specs? I hope it hasn't grown since the X-Pro 1 (the Sony A7 series did from mk I to mk II). With the big front window, it's CLEARLY a hybrid finder - what else could that possibly be for? The lens release isn't visible, but I'm assuming it's just buried under the lens - with a wider-barreled lens, it's not necessarily easy to see from the front. The video button is also apparently missing - could it be that it doesn't have video? There are certainly plenty of buttons, but none of them seem to be video dedicated, although it could easily be on one of the arrow keys or something. What's the very traditional looking front lever? Is it the viewfinder mode toggle? I thought I remembered that being on the back of the Pro-1 (and there's a button on the back that seems to say VF Mode), although it's up front on the X100 series. The other possibility is a DOF preview - they have often been on levers like that. . I don't see how the HECK a DOF preview would work in OVF mode - the only two possibilities I can think of are that it switches to the EVF temporarily, or that they have SOMEHOW figured out how to overlay peaking on the optical image). Hopefully, they didn't waste a prominent placement like this on a self-timer (which also often looked like this, because they used to be mechanical, and the lever actually wound the mechanism).. One last possibility... Could it take a bigger battery? It has always looked like there's been enough room in some of Fuji's larger bodies for a battery one size larger (like a Nikon EL-15, closer to 2000 mAh than 1100). This would be a mixed blessing - the battery would last nearly twice as long, but it wouldn't work with the NP-W126s we've all accumulated, unless Fuji did something really clever and had a dual-size battery compartment. Dan

A "factory monochrome" wouldn't be that hard for Fuji to do, for a few reasons. 1.) The X-series is already getting a custom filter pack that nothing else uses, so Fuji is either modifying the sensor stack themselves (getting bare sensors from Sony and attaching the filter pack) OR paying Sony to do custom work - it's possible that SONY makes and attaches the X-Trans filter to Fuji's specification, but if so, they are certainly doing something beyond "ship Fuji 1000 IMX071 sensor assemblies". Since the filter pack is ALREADY modified, it wouldn't be a big deal to add "oh, put a piece of clear optical glass on a few of those instead of the XTrans". 2.) Fujis don't use an AA filter, which is one of the trickier pieces of the sensor stack to deal with. As far as I know, no mono camera (stock or conversion) does either. 3.) They are already (supposedly) doing an "X-T1 IR" for a couple hundred dollars extra. That is almost exactly the same piece of work, except for messing with the ISO. Anyway, it would be trivial for Fuji to turn out even a few hundred of these - the biggest piece of custom work is probably recalibrating the ISO and making custom ISO dials if the original camera had one(a mono camera is quite a bit faster, and might have a base ISO of 500 or 640, depending on how dense the XTrans filter that gets removed is). Since it's trivial, why not? Total sales will probably be in he hundreds or low thousands per year, but it may well lure some photographers to the X-system - someone buys a monochrome even though they aren't primarily a Fuji shooter, likes it, adds a color body and more lenses...

We can't tell Fuji what to make (they're building them now), but what do we all want to see in the X-Pro 2? 1.) How many people would buy an X-Pro 2 in the first place (assuming it has the best of reported specs) - no fantasy specs like full-frame, BUT it has a great new 24 MP sensor, AF significantly better than the X-T1, an improved hybrid VF, weathersealing, etc.? 2.) Would you still buy it if the OTHER specs were great, but it had the same old 16 MP sensor (not identical to the X-Pro 1, but X-T1 generation)? I wish there was something more concrete against this, other than the Magnum leak, because it worries me both that trusted sources don't mention it (in either direction) and that the X70 seems to be confirmed to use the old sensor. 3.) What if the Hybrid VF's gone, replaced by the Leica SL's spectacular EVF, but only an EVF (and the rear screen)? 4.) What if it has no weathersealing? 5.) What else matters to you - "I'm buying an X-Pro 2, but not if it doesn't have.../still has..."? For me personally, I'd buy it in a second if all the specs come true (I have an X-Pro2-sized chunk of money sitting in my bank account waiting for it - there's even another chunk that says "XF 100-400" on it...). I wouldn't buy it without weathersealing, but no huge deal - I'd just wait for the X-T2 that isn't far behind. If the 16 MP sensor shows up AGAIN, I'll start tearing my hair out, because it's not QUITE there for my largest print size, and I don't think Fuji's likely to reuse the sensor for the X-Pro 2 and then immediately replace it in the X-T2. Seeing it here means it's with us for another generation (and quite probably we'll never see a different conventional APS-C sensor from Fuji - they're counting on organic and/or MF in a few years"). I'd buy any X- Pro 2 that didn't LOSE any X-T1 feature other than the tilt screen (like weathersealing or the newer autofocus) and had a significantly improved sensor. The hybrid viewfinder actually isn't key to me - I'd welcome it, but buy just as quickly with the Leica SL SL finder, and only be a tiny bit disappointed if it was the X-T1 finder. I have big hands, so I hope it retains the basic X-Pro shape, which is an unusually small camera to be comfortable in larger hands (due to its height)...

If the per pixel quality is similar to the existing models (or better), and the pixel count is up 50%, the image quality will be quite similar to the A7II (plain A7II, NOT the much more expensive A7RII), except at the highest ISOs. Full Frame only makes a ~ 1 stop difference over APS-C, and X-Trans plus Fuji's processing is good for 0.5 stop or so, leaving the intrinsic difference in IQ all of HALF A STOP. The Fuji will be a much better made body, fun to shoot with a sensible set of controls as compared to the Sony's "computer with a lens and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, you are choosing between Sony's oversized lenses (many of which are also underwhelming, although there are some great ones) and the Fujinons - the best thought out lens lineup around. The A7II doesn't do the "take any DSLR lens, keeping native AF and IS" trick that the RII does - Maxxum lenses will autofocus, but not the (much more common) Canon or Nikon lenses. I'd take a well thought out X-Pro2 or X-T2 over an A7II any day - the major argument in the other direction is the Sony's IBIS (Fuji's faster lenses make up for Sony's DOF advantage, and IQ is probably very similar). What Fuji doesn't have an answer for (other than Sony's marketing) is the specialist A7RII and A7SII models. The image quality of an A7RII under ideal conditions exceeds that of anything short of medium format, and it takes any lens with pretty much native capabilities. In low light, nothing but an IR camera sees farther into darkness than the SII.These special models are expensive, and between the weight penalty of full frame and adapted lenses, a system is probably twice as heavy as a comparable Fuji system, but they DO have meaningful extra capabilities.

There is one further complication, the consolidation of the mirrorless market and the camera market in general. There were once as many as ten (Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung, Nikon, Canon, Samsung, Pentax, Leica) pursuing mirrorless. A few of those made their own sensors, but Sony sold sensors to Fuji, Leica, Pentax (APS-C) and possibly Olympus and Nikon (smaller sizes). There were also four DSLR players (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentac). Today's mirrorless market outside of Asia (where Canon and Samsung have footholds) has four players plus the MUCH smaller Leica. The DSLR market adds the two major players and the niche Pentax. Sony's mirrorless line has bifurcated into very inexpensive APS-C models supported with a limited line of cheap lenses and the successful midrange to extremely high-end full-frame A7 series. Olympus and Panasonic are using a unique sensor size (they always have been), leaving Fuji the only serious player in APS-C mirrorless above the bargain basement. The success of the A7 series has probably shelved plans for an A7000 (where do they price it, when you can get an A7 for $900)? The A6000 successor will probably sell for an X- A2 level price (it'll have a better sensor, video and viewfinder (which the X-A2 lacks entirely), but lousy build quality and lenses). Additionally, Nikon may be striking long-term sensor deals with Samsung, depriving Sony of their big DSLR sensor customer - they still have Pentax, but Pentax is a fraction the size.. This has both positive and negative implications for Fuji. On the plus side, it now seems very unlikely that Sony would withhold any sensor other than full-frame from Fuji. Sony probably has a higher net profit on a sensor sold externally that goes in a $1500+ camera than they do on an internal sale for a <$600 camera. Even if Fuji wanted to go full-frame, they'd probably find the A7rII sensor off-limits (Sony's not about to risk sales of a $3200 camera), but I can't imagine Sony saying "you can't have the IMX 271 - we want it for $500 bodies, and will turn down business going into $1600 bodies to get it". Sony can probably make the same profit (lets say $100) selling an IMX 271 to Fuji that they can selling an ENTIRE A6000 successor, and they put much less into it. The negative implication is where has Sony's incentive to develop APS-C sensors gone? Previously, their business was themselves (including cameras like the NEX-7 and A77II), Nikon and then feed a few to Fuji and Pentax plus an occasional sensor to Leica on the side. If they don't seem to be interested in APS-C themselves above the low end (which won't fund development - low-end cameras tend to use old sensors, not custom low-end sensors), and the rumors about Nikon and Samsung are correct, their market has become Fuji, Pentax and Leica, plus their own $500 cameras. If Nikon keeps using a lot of Sony, we're fine, because Nikon will need sensors for the D7xxx line, and maybe even for a line above that (Nikon DOES have room for one more camera between the D7200 and D610). If not, I'd be surprised to see much attention paid to APS-C on Sony's part...

Video of some sort is almost a "free" feature - if you have the sensor reading out continuously anyway (and the only cameras that don't are those with optical viewfinders ONLY), you have the raw materials. 4k video means you have to have the sensor reading out a higher resolution signal - 4k is ~8 mp, and even the highest resolution viewfinders aren't close to that, and you have to have a very powerful processor to compress the signal. I can see three possible reasons why the X-Pro2 doesn't have 4k, only one of which is a problem (assuming you don't care about 4k itself, but only about what else it means for the camera). 1.) It's in fact capable of it (sensor, processor and card write speed are all fast enough), but the software isn't ready or Fuji doesn't want to pay to license the right codec, especially on a camera that is rarely used for video anyway. Knowing Fuji, they wouldn't want to throw in terrible 4k with a poor-quality codec just to check a box. Licensing a decent 4k codec probably isn't cheap. If this is the case, they could add 4k with a (possibly paid) firmware update, or just save it for the X-T2 with essentially the same hardware (X-Pro2 and X-T2 for around the same price, same sensor, similar features, but one has hybrid VF and the other has 4k and maybe a couple of other extra tech features). The X-Pro2 is already going to be expensive, and they don't want to make it worse with a license fee for a 4k codec that could add $50-$100 to the price. I suspect Fuji wants to keep the price under the $1700 of the A7II (leaving only the older A7 as a full-frame option that's actually cheaper than the APS-C Fuji). 2.)The sensor is capable of it, but the processor isn't fast enough to do it right, or the card write speed can't handle it. This might well be a battery-saving decision instead of a money-saving one. The faster you drive the electronics, the faster they eat the battery (and the NP-W126 isn't a very big battery). The same problem would arise with the X-T2, but the X-T1 is often used with a battery grip, and I'd imagine its successor might be as well. Nobody uses a bottom battery grip on an X-Pro (the balance is similar to putting a motor drive on a Leica, which is to say not good!). 3.) (here's the worrisome one). The sensor can't do it. This means we're either getting an older 24 MP sensor (which could still be really nice when combined with XTrans) or the same old IMX071 we've had for years. The only REAL evidence I've seen that we're finally moving on is the Magnum images - none of the solid rumors have mentioned the sensor either way. This would also mean that NO Fuji of this sensor generation will have 4k, including the X-T2. From what little one can tell from sensor specs, I really liked the specs of the IMX271 someone posted a few days ago. That didn't explicitly say it does 4k, either; but its read speed is so fast that it almost has to, no? Hoping it IS the '271, but 4k got left out to save licensing costs or batteries (I'd support either decision - who wants to use a rangefinder for video, anyway)!

What else would you want from an X-T2 that isn't covered by one of the three things you mention? The first two seem to be the most commonly mentioned shortcomings of the X-T1, and the third is the Achilles' heel of almost every mirrorless camera. The X-T1 already has: About the best handling of any mirrorless camera The best lens line around (except, perhaps for Nikon's or Canon's full-frame lineup, which don't have quite as many great choices in the midrange, but DO have quite a few exotics Fuji can't match). a very durable body superb image quality per pixel... Are you saying that there is no possible X-T2 that would interest you (unless you either print big, want video, or need better AF, an X-T1 satisfies most needs), or are you looking for something you don't think you'll get?

That's great news about the Magnum image - I can't imagine Magnum upscaling for download... Maybe modifying a color filter to accommodate phase detection pixels (which are unfiltered?) isn't as big a deal as doing a whole new filter for a different resolution? That's all I can think of - otherwise, why would they have bothered with a variant of the IMX071?

Did someone see full size images from the Magnum leak, and they were 24 MP? I thought they were resized to some figure that would have been a downsize from either 16 or 24... had thought the excitement over Magnum was that the metadata said "X-Pro2", but the images were resized to something like 1500x1000 pixels, and weren't anything that you could tell anything else about image quality from, either. If someone saw 24 MP originals, that's good news - since any variant of the 24 MP Sony sensor (other than the old NEX-7 sensor, but that hasn't been in production in years) would have AT LEAST the DR and other characteristics we have now, plus substantially improved resolution. My understanding of the X-Trans is that it is an unmodified sensor with a custom color filter attached to it late in the manufacturing process. As I understand sensor manufacturing (I don't claim any expertise), there is a basic sensor made of silicon, with a few characteristics: 1.) Number of pixels and pixel size 2.) Sensitivity/noise/dynamic range (these all have to do with how the light sensitive pixels are designed and arranged). 3.) Phase detection pixels (number and arrangement) 4.) Illumination - a BSI sensor is quite different from a conventional sensor 5.) Readout type - some sensors have the A/D circuitry on the sensor, while others have it externally (and there may be other subtleties here) 6.) Layering - all normal sensors are one layer, but the Foveon is three-layered, and this is, to my understanding, a characteristic of the base sensor) 7.) Any on-chip noise reduction 8.) Pixel shape - generally square, but there have been exceptions This sensor will produce a (monochrome, unless it's a Foveon) image on its own, but there are generally several layers of cover glass and filters over it. 1.) Color filter array (except for Foveons, the Leica Monochrom and multi-sensor video cameras) - usually Bayer, but sometimes X-Trans or another unusual design (Sony has experimented with adding emerald pixels, and some phones add sensitivity at the expense of color by leaving some pixels unfiltered) 2.) IR and UV cut filters 3.) Anti-Aliasing filter (sometimes omitted) 4.) Cover glass - protective (anti-reflective as well?) As I understand it, a camera manufacturer chooses from a relatively limited number of base sensors (Canon, Sony and Samsung make their own, everybody else buys them), and either accepts the base set of filters the sensor manufacturer offers or adds their own. While X-Trans is the biggest difference we usually see (completely different color filter, plus omits the anti-aliasing filter), it's not uncommon for a camera maker to create a "variant" of a sensor that is in fact the same base sensor with different filters layered on top. Nikon is often thought to get increased performance out of Sony sensors by modifying the filters, and, of course X-Trans is a substantial variant that performs quite differently (and often better) than a conventionally filtered version of the same sensor. Changing a filter pack is nowhere near as big a deal as using an actually different sensor. As a matter of fact, filter packs are occasionally modified after a camera is purchased, generally by removing IR, UV or anti-aliasing filters. The Nikon D800E and a couple of other cameras are effectively factory-modified with variant filter packs. I would be surprised if the X-Trans II sensor doesn't exist elsewhere (with different filtration, of course). If the phase detection pixels are a custom job, why didn't Fuji go to a higher resolution sensor at that juncture? It seems weird to get Sony to produce a short run of custom sensors (and phase detection would be inherent to the silicon) instead of redesigning the color filter to accommodate an existing sensor with phase detection.

The one concern I have is the sensor... Two reasons. One is that none of Patrick's trusted sources have commented on it (we have multiple rumors of a new sensor, most likely around 24 MP, but none are from top sources). The second is that the A6000 successor (and a possible "A7000") have fallen off the radar screen. The logical sensor for the X-Pro2 (and at least the higher end forthcoming X bodies) would be the A6000 successor sensor with an X-Trans filter. To add mystery to the whole thing, it looks like Nikon just bought Samsung's camera business, presumably with intent to use a lot of Samsung sensors (eliminating Sony's largest single market for high-end sensors). Nikon has never been "all Sony", but they have used a LOT of Sony sensors. Fuji is left with three options, two of which are tricky (and the third may involve yet another delay). 1.) Stick with the same old 16MP sensor for another generation. I, for one, won't buy an expensive camera with that sensor - I'll either stick to one body (the X-T1 I have) or buy a relatively inexpensive X-E body as a backup. The X-T1 is so good at so many things that the only reason I'd spend a lot of money on a high-end body is if it had a sensor upgrade (I like 24x36" as a print size, and I consider the X-T1 acceptable, but not perfect, at that size). 2.) Use the A6000 sensor. This is a GREAT solution in the short term - it's a really nice, relatively modern sensor, and I think it will have excellent performance with an X-Trans filter. The problem is that, because of X-Trans (I'm guessing that the custom color filter is expensive and needs quantity), Fuji only switches sensors occasionally - we've had pretty much the same sensor for four years. The already two year old A6000 sensor will be very long in the tooth in 2020... 3.) (what I'm hoping for). The A6000 successor sensor exists - Sony's either holding back that camera for another reason, or they haven't made enough of them to release for the holidays (or they simply have a lot of A6000s built that they want to sell this holiday season). First of all, the Sony successor could release at CES/PMA a week before Fuji's event, and then Fuji uses the same sensor in an X-Trans version a week later. It's also possible (if less likely) that Fuji could actually release a camera with the new sensor BEFORE Sony does. Sony might actually make more money selling sensors to Fuji for a $1500+ camera than selling their own $500-$600 camera. I'd be shocked if the X-Pro 2 doesn't launch as the most expensive non full-frame non-Leica mirrorless around - depending on what Nikon does with a D400, it could even be the most expensive non full-frame non-Leica camera in regular production. There are good reasons for this - it's a complex, high-end camera with a ton of desirable features - but it's just not going to sell like a $500 camera! If production of the new sensor is relatively limited, directing it to Fuji could make sense - the X-Pro 2 will probably sell very well for a $1500ish mirrorless body ,which will probably also sell in a few different kits with primes and higher-end zooms for around $2000. It won't come close to the sales of the $500-$600 A6000 successor with its $150 kit lens (yes, Fuji HAS a lens they could kit for $150, but who'd use the 16-50 f3.5-5.6 XC on an X-Pro 2)? More realistic kits might be with the 35mm f2, the 18-55 f2.8-4, the 16-55mm f2.8, or possibly the 18-135, the 23 or the 56, in addition to body-only - many X-Pro 2 purchasers will already own a collection of Fujinons. Even the 35 or the 18-55 are likely to add around $300 to the body price, and any of the others will be closer to $500 (or more for the 56 or the 16-55), pushing the starting price close to $2000. Due to the difference in sales between midrange cameras and expensive cameras, there could be enough sensors around by January to make 10,000 or less X-Pro 2s, but not enough to make 50,000 A6000 successors.

Given Tom's definition of a purist camera, I agree with almost all of it. What many of us, including Tom and I, seem to want is a menu-free (or nearly menu-free) camera with great lenses that we primarily interact with through the best viewfinder we can find... I guess that makes us Fuji shooters Apart from the low-end models that lack a viewfinder, most X-series cameras are closer to that ideal than just about anything else (and the X-Pro2 may be the closest yet). They do pretty well at letting us turn off unwanted functions, too (although I think that we are unlikely to be able to get rid of JPG, but we MIGHT get even less menu dependence than we have now, which would accomplish similar ends - who cares how complex the menus are, if you never have to use them)? The only use I ever make of Wi-Fi is in order to text images with 11 stops of dynamic range to overly smug iPhone hipsters who say "why do you need that heavy thing - I have a camera (with 5 stops of DR ) that sends images straight to the all-important social media". I love showing the iPhonies that I can send images right away (if I really need to), and they'll actually be decent images. I own an iPhone, but I'd just as soon try to call a friend holding my X-T1 to my ear as take a serious picture with a telephone.

If the pricing is accurate, this is very, very good news. That's about $400-$500 cheaper than the comparable Canon and Nikon lenses (nearly $1000 cheaper than Nikon's was introduced at). I'm sure the Fujinon will be at least at the quality level of the recent Canon and Nikon optics, and much better than Canon and Nikon's older offerings and the various less expensive third-party lenses. Dan

What do you mean by "without live view", Tom? Fuji's electronic rangefinder requires it - it's using a version of live view to provide manual focus information. If you mean "no live view at all", focusing options are severely limited (assuming you aren't adding a reflex mirror and making a SLR, which would require new lenses because the present mount distance won't permit a mirror). 1.) It could be autofocus only, with central point AF (possibly with a switch between spot and wide AF). This was the option chosen by all 35mm compact cameras, and by the last of the Texas Leicas. 2.) It could be an optomechanical rangefinder, like classic Leicas (Texas and otherwise), which would limit useful lens choices severely. Oddly, it would be reporting focus distance to the rangefinder electronically - the Fujinons aren't cammed to report distance mechanically. There is no reason an electronically reporting optomechanical rangefinder wouldn't work, but it is a bit odd. 3.) It could be a scale-focuser, with no indication of what's in focus. There haven't been many of those in a long time - the most prominent examples other than Holgas and the like are Minox spy cameras and a few of the film Olympus Pen and XA cameras. REALLY oddly, it would be an electronic scale-focuser, because only a few of the Fujinons can move the elements mechanically (the few lenses with sliding-clutch focusing rings). To make scale focusing work (assuming you aren't using an external rangefinder - perhaps a golfers' laser measuring device), you need wide angles and modest apertures. It's easy to scale focus a 10mm lens at f8, impossible to scale focus a 56mm at f1.2! 4.) If it can have electronic viewfinder overlays, it could have sophisticated AF, using the overlays to report focus points. Any of these options are feasible, but the only one I can imagine appealing to any significant number of photographers is the rangefinder (possibly in combination with sophisticated AF using overlays to show what it's doing). I can't imagine anyone buying a premium-priced camera with only primitive center-point AF and/or scale focus, with no way to confirm focus. There is an alternative definition of "without live view", which is that you never use the rear screen (which could be present for reviewing images or initial setup, but unimportant, or it could be entirely absent), just the viewfinder. That definition allows for live-view based electronic aids to manual focus, and also allows for sophisticated autofocus that needs overlays. It is even possible with only a good EVF (no OVF at all). I shoot my X-T1 very close to this way - composing and focusing through the viewfinder, setting almost everything on the dials (which I can find by feel with the camera at my eye), occasionally using the screen to check an image or format a card. I'd barely notice if it didn't have a rear screen. It is easy enough to use most X cameras this way - their controls are well set up for it, and they have few menu settings that cause them to behave unexpectedly. Almost all of our lenses are also well suited - good manual focus rings on all but a few of the cheapest lenses, and marked aperture rings on the primes and some zooms. An X-Pro 2 should the best Fuji yet for this type of use (combining an OVF and an ISO dial). About the only thing missing for no-menu use is Nikon's two-button format command. I have never seen a digital camera other than high-end Nikons that lets you format a card without menu gymnastics... Of course you don't want a format button - much too risky! Nikon uses two buttons held down for three seconds, which is hard to do by mistake. Fuji's simple video doesn't take any effort on the designers' part - it's a "why not" afterthought that doesn't take away from the still camera. I'd be shocked if the X-Pro 2 had any more effort put into video than that (and it should be easy enough to turn the video off altogether if you don't want it). The X-T2 might have more than that, and go in the Panasonic/Sony hybrid direction, or it might not...

I think the X-Pro2 will probably be pretty "purist" (as even the X-T1 is - no X camera is a still/video hybrid, and you can shoot an X-T1 all day long using the menu only to format cards), by modern digital standards - very likely simpler than the X-T1 (no articulated screen, maybe no (or less emphasis on) Wi-Fi). We aren't going to see a fancy video mode, although it may well keep Fuji's "afterthought" video from the rest of the X series. Losing live view completely, however, means losing any form of manual focus other than scale focusing, and losing any way of controlling autofocus - it becomes AF-only, and center focus only (at most, it could have a spot/wide switch). Of course, purists would say "put in a true rangefinder". Fuji last did that in some of the earlier Texas Leicas (the electronic "rangefinder" in the X-Pro1 and X100 series depends on Live View). The later 645 Texas Leicas were actually center autofocus instead of rangefinders - they were 645 versions of 35mm compacts. Some of the earlier 645s and the larger formats WERE rangefinders, but they had either fixed lenses or very limited lens selections. The X-series lens range already includes quite a few lenses that would be no fun at all on a rangefinder (note that the classic Leica lens range only reached from 28 to 90mm, with some relatively rare wider lenses using auxiliary viewfinders and a slow 135 that was a bear to focus or compose with). On APS-C, that means 18 to 60 (or so), with anything wider using an auxiliary finder, and longer or very fast lenses just not working well (the 90 is a possibility, but not an easy lens to use). Both the X-series 56 and the 90 are actually too fast for a rangefinder - Leica's 90 is f2, much easier to focus than a 56 f1.2 with a similar field of view on APS-C, and the Leica 135 that is equivalent to the Fuji 90 is actually a f3.4 lens, 1.5 stops slower than the Fuji. The way Leica gets away with the Noctilux is that it's a midrange focal length, plus it's very hard to focus. I could (maybe) see Fuji releasing a very low volume model at some point that accepted these limitations and WAS a rangefinder, without even a rear screen. Kind of like the special edition Leica M that is floating around with an ISO dial on the back instead of the screen (yes, it's digital, although it has no menus and no image review). I REALLY hope the X-Pro2 is NOT that camera - I like my 50-140 and 10-24! I hope the X-Pro2 is an X-series flagship, somewhat purist but a part of the system, rather than a special model for street photographers that uses three or four lenses! On the other hand, Fuji has worked with Cosina (Bessa rangefinders and the recent "Zeiss Ikon") in the past, and it might not be that much work to combine some X-Pro and Bessa parts to make a cult camera! If it had X-Pro heritage, it could use enough electronics to do zooming frame lines and the like, and to have far better viewfinder displays than any Leica. It would be likely to contain an X-Pro 2 board, but with some connectors not attached - I'm sure the screenless Leica actually has the electronics to drive the omitted screen... If they do that, one possibility is to keep a version of the hybrid VF, maybe with certain overlays but without EVF mode (meaning it actually HAS Live View, but is only using it in a limited way), allowing movable autofocus points and an electronic rangefinder. If I were Fuji, I'd do the line as follows (in order of release date). I actually think this is more or less in order of potential sales volume (although the X-T2 may outsell the X-Pro 2, and the X-Pro 3 at the very end will be a big seller) - I think the rangefinder will sell less than medium format (Leicas sell in the medium format range, especially when you exclude collector sales, and the Leica special model with no screen was a run of 100 or so). From January to maybe 3-4 years from now (and omitting X-E and lower end cameras for clarity's sake): X-Pro 2 (hybrid VF or VERY good EVF, new 24+ MP sensor, X-T1 AF or better, X-Pro1 shape (side finder), weather sealed) X-T2 (EVF only, SLR shape, X-Pro 2 sensor, new video mode that is not an afterthought (?), a few new features (GPS?), improved Wi-Fi) GX-Pro 1 (medium format 50+ MP, release with three primes and a zoom) X-R1? (rangefinder (traditional or electronic) purist model that uses certain X lenses, but don't even think about the 100-400 or some others, perhaps no rear screen at all)... Release with updated versions of the 18 and 60 (not 56 - it's too fast unless it's an electronic rangefinder), and possibly a couple of other midrange lens updates meant to work well with this body. X-Pro 3 (organic sensor).

Not sure what you mean by the 24 mp having come at a cost? I see no other spec that has declined (if the minor specs are correct, it doesn't seem to pick up a few desired X-T1 features that the X-Pro1 didn't have, most notably the tilt screen). That isn't a cost compared to its predecessor - it's a feature pickup from another model that didn't happen. It may well be a durability issue - note that NONE of the Nikon D4s, Canon 1Dx, Nikon D810 or Canon 5Ds (or their predecessors) have an articulated screen of any description, despite the fact that they are common on $500 DSLRs - the only camera that claims pro-level durability and DOES have an articulated screen (limited, tilt-only) is the E-M1 - the X-T1 is almost certainly the second most durable camera with that feature. I suspect that it is being left off the Pro2 on purpose, because they don't think they can make it sturdy enough (unless it's actually there, and simply hasn't been leaked - I don't think they are leaving it off to maintain differentiation from the X-T line, nor because they forgot it)... I wonder if the articulated screen craze is on the way out, to be replaced by really good Wi-Fi and apps? The Fuji Wi-Fi app is already relatively useful, and it's not hard to imagine a remote screen app getting good enough to replace most uses of an articulated screen - the exception is handheld shots at really high or low angles - for anything on a tripod, the phone screen is clearly superior (and a phone mount suitable for shooting handheld could be built). The X-T1 rear screen is only a little higher than VGA resolution (it's almost certainly VGA, but wider to accommodate 3:2 instead of 4:3), and that is close to state of the art for camera screens - the brand-new, super high tech A7rII is barely higher (a 16:9 variant of the same basic resolution?). Even cheap phones from the past few years are WXGA or better, and many newer phones are Full HD (or even higher - there are even a very few 4k smartphones, just in case you want to use a focusing loupe from your old 4x5 view camera). Why don't camera manufacturers buy phone panels (in smaller sizes)? It may be a power question? Is there another missing feature? I didn't find one, but I might be missing something?

Unfortunately, at that range, size and weight (with the weird exception of diffractive/Fresnel lenses, which have the same front element size, but can bend light more tightly, and are shorter and lighter as a result) are determined almost exclusively by maximum aperture at maximum telephoto. A 400 mm f4 is the same diameter, about the same length (and only a little lighter than - zoom groups do weigh something) a 200-400 f4. The f5.6 maximum aperture at 400mm of all the lenses in the class of the proposed Fujinon is the result of Newton's Laws, and any lens that was f4 at 400mm would have a 105mm filter size, and would probably look a lot like Canon and Nikon's 200-400 f4s. If Fuji were to do that, they'd probably start it at 140mm, to match the existing 50-140 (the Canon and Nikon lenses are meant to pick up where 70-200 f2.8s leave off). As a matter of fact, I don't know why this lens doesn't start at 140. The rationale for the range of the SLR lenses is that they start more or less where extended range standard zooms leave off (e.g. 24-85, 28-105). The big, heavy 200-400 pro lenses match the 70-200. 100 does Fuji little good - the lens should either reach down to 55, to pick up the standard zooms,or start at 135 or 140, to match the 50-140 and the superzoom. The better choice is probably 135 or140 - this will be an expensive lens and likely to live alongside the 50-140 in many bags, and image quality improves as zoom range reduces 400 means f5.6, unless you want to pay in size and weight (and cost) - a 400mm f4, whether prime or zoom, has a similar front element to a 300 f2.8, and costs about as much. Most manufacturers have chosen to make their reasonably sized zooms that get to 400mm variable aperture f4-f5.6 rather than constant f5.6. An interesting lens to think about, and one that may make more sense than this one (depending on whether any Fuji body autofocuses at f8 - 400mm plus the converter is a REALLY long, if slow, lens), is a 140-300 f4. That COULD be a constant f4 - 300/4 is only 75mm, so a 300 f4 can have a 77mm filter size if the barrel is extremely slender, and it can have an 82mm filter with no issues at all. It's only a 2x zoom, so image quality could be VERY high. What makes it get interestingly long is that it'll autofocus with the 1.4x converter without a problem (it's a 420mm f5.6 with the converter on). If it were designed specifically to go with the converter, the image quality loss from using it could be minimized. It's a slightly lighter, faster, somewat higher quality lens most of the time. When you need absolute maximum reach, put the converter on, and you have a 420mm f5.6 lens, giving a full-frame equivalent well over 600mm. The only reason not to go with this design (most people with a really nice Fujinon collection will be willing to invest in the converter, especially if it also performs well on the 120 macro) is if the 100-400 would be usable with the converter as well. If that combination will focus reasonably and deliver image quality (wildlife with manual focus or poor AF is a drag), Fuji becomes one of the few systems with a reasonably priced 800mm+ equivalent. At least the Nikon version of an 80-400, and I believe the Canon as well, is really iffy with teleconverters. Fuji may or may not be able to overcome this... The most reasonably priced way of getting into the 800mm+ equivalent range right now is one of the third-party zooms that reach 500 or even 600 mm, plus a crop body. None of those lenses performs like a Fujinon. Nikon's new 200-500 is the only first-party option I know of (apart from $10,000 exotic primes and 200-400 f4s with converters) that gets close (few reviews as yet, but it is a relatively inexpensive lens, clearly positioned well below the 80-400 and presumably the Fuji). I'd guess the new Nikkor will probably perform similarly to comparably priced Tamrons and Sigmas, but that is a guess based on its positioning, not experience or even extensive reading.

I'd hope for the $2000 - $2500 range, because both Canon's and Nikon's new generation lenses in that range are under $2500. Fujinons don't tend to be more expensive than their direct competitors in other mounts, although they sometimes seem so because Fuji doesn't make the cheaper alternatives that Nikon and Canon offer (there's no 70-300 on the Fuji roadmap, and those tend to be less than half the price of 100-400s)...

24-30 mp range on APS-C, somewhat more if full frame or medium format for me. Beyond that, you gain detail (minor) with certain lenses, under certain conditions, but you pay with reduced dynamic range and increased noise. 200 MP on APS-C or FF, you're in the pixel density range of a cell phone! I can spot phone pictures even as tiny jpegs, simply because they have blown highlights, muddy shadows or both. The current generation of 24 MP sensors are similar to the 16MP sensor we have, just with more detail. If Sony puts a modest increase in density on the A6000 replacement, I'm relatively confident it'll be similar as well, but a big jump would probably lose in other categories. Dan

The critical question is viewing distance - how big a print can you view how close? For me, the X-T1 is terrific up to 16x24, and just on the edge at 24x36 (the largest size I regularly print). I make 24x36s with it, and they are great at normal viewing distances, but there is a range of potential display conditions in which "too close" is a possibility...

I like the name GX-Pro1... Fuji's not a sensor maker, and Panasonic (their partner on the organic sensor project, who do have fabs) would probably not be interested in some portion of a few thousand sales per year. Leica (in a Forbes interview) estimated that there were about 6000 medium format cameras sold per year (in 2013). This was before the 645z - let's say that Pentax and Fuji between them manage to double the market to 12,000 cameras/year, and eat a substantial portion of Phase One's lunch (Phase sells about 2500 cameras/year, almost certainly mostly CCD) and most of Leica's (about 1200, many of them CMOS). At the very high end of possibility, medium format CMOS (mostly Pentax and Fuji, but also a few Leica S models with a different CMOS sensor, and a vanishingly small number of Phase and Hasselblad cameras that cost $30,000 for the same sensor that costs $7000 from Fuji and Pentax) might account for 10,000 cameras/year - does Panasonic want to challenge Sony for a piece of that small pie? I was a little surprised to see Sony jump into a market that small, and I can't possibly see someone else big jumping in with Sony already there (the tiny non-Sony players are derivatives of a military/industrial market). Assuming Fuji doesn't want to mess with CCDs, their one logical choice is the Sony sensor or its successor, and they could possibly get the 37.5 MP CMOS sensor Leica uses instead. That sensor is a different shape (3:2 instead of 4:3), but actually a bit smaller, and substantially lower resolution.

How likely does a new sensor seem to Patrick and others in the know? I ask mainly because my X-T1 is already near-perfect, EXCEPT that its resolution is right on the edge for larger prints. Drop a really good X-Trans version of a 24+ MP sensor in that body, or in an updated X-Pro 1 body (assuming that it doesn't lose any DR, color rendition or other positive characteristics of the present sensor), and you have a REALLY compelling camera. On the other hand, I can't see much Fuji could do to make another camera using the same sensor compelling. What feature, other than a new sensor, would cause people to upgrade? I wouldn't add an X-Pro 2 that was really just bringing the X-Pro 1 up to X-T1 standards... One thing that makes getting this sensor right so important is that Fuji, unlike Nikon or especially Sony (similar to the Micro 4/3 crew, though) hangs on to a sensor forever. I'm assuming this is because the X-Trans filter makes switching sensors much harder. While I may seem to be asking for new things, I'm asking primarily because Fuji is SO close to having the unequivocally best system on the market - at least in my opinion, nothing handles like a Fuji, and they have heir colors nailed ... Add some resolution to the sensor and some focal length to the lenses (both of which have been discussed for a long time - and a lens with a ton of focal length is ALREADY on the road map), and you have a system that is far superior to anything else out there for most needs (no, you don't have 11 fps or a 600mm f4, but how many 600mm f4 lenses are sold per year, between Canon and Nikon)? Outside of the specialized realms of sports and to a lesser extent wildlife, they will have the best solution on the market in the advanced hobbyist to pro range (although flash is another weakness)...

Also remember that Fuji is probably largely responsible for the leaf shutter technology in the current generation Hasselblad lenses (they make it, and I'm almost sure . The classic V-system lenses were Zeiss with Copal and Compur shutters. The H-system lenses are more or less Fujinons, and, I believe, were sold as such in Japan (the early bodies were certainly sold as Fuji, and I believe the lenses were branded Fujinon). I know they're presently branded "Hasselblad", but, at least until that point, Hasselblad had never made a lens, and I don't believe they make those - Hasselblad knows how good Fuji lenses are!. Hasselblad is actually NOT an optical company - their genius was in body mechanics, and in picking great lensmakers to collaborate with . Fuji has decades of experience with leaf/central shutters (I don't know whether they've ever made one themselves, but they have been sourcing and integrating them forever). They have been a respected manufacturer of large format lenses, both for their own 612 and 617 rollfilm cameras (which stretch the line between medium and large format) and for other makers' view cameras. In medium format, the lenses for their GX680 and every variant of the Texas Leicas all used leaf shutters, and the Hasseblad Fujinons are probably the most modern set of leaf shutter lenses around. Some of these may even be Fuji's own shutters. As for the f1.6 lens, yes, it would be the fastest medium format lens ever sold commercially - I don't want to say that no spy ever saw faster on an airplane or satellite. I think they'd want to have a portrait lens in that speed range (it's more like a full-frame f1.4 lens, or an f1 or f1.2 lens on APS-C, rather than an f0.7 lens) - remember that this is a 33x44 mm system, with focal lengths comparable to Leica S, rather than conventional medium format, so it has something like a 1/2 to 1 stop more DOF than 645 or 6x6. A f1.6 lens would provide beautiful shallow DOF effects, and studio photographers would love it (and some would shell out $5000-$10,000 for it). As for whether one could build the right leaf shutter for that lens - yes, it is possible. At least one shutter like that has already been built (as a matter of fact, it could support a 90mm f1.35 or a 100 mm f1.5) - the company who built the lens it's in is none other than Fuji! The issue with leaf shutters is how fast they can open and close (and the larger the aperture opening, the trickier it is to build a fast enough shutter to cover it). The lens with an extraordinarily large, fast leaf shutter is the Hasselblad H-system 300 f4.5 - a maximum opening of 66 2/3 mm (1/800 max shutter speed, $5700 at B&H). A 90mm f1.5 only needs a 60mm aperture opening. Mamiya built a 500mm f6 for the RZ system, which they claim used a #1 shutter, but there is no way it could have - a #1 has a maximum aperture opening of 30mm, and this monster would have required an 83mm opening. A few large format lenses may have had even larger openings (some very long focal lengths for 8x10 and larger), but if those lenses had shutters at all, they were very slow (maximum speeds of 1/60 or 1/125 second, or even slower). Since these lenses were mainly used for multi-second exposures, many of them probably had no timed shutter at all - exposure was controlled with two presses of a cable release, or even with a lens cap!

For compactness' sake, I hope the lenses are specifically designed for 33x44.That is one of the secrets of the present X-system - really high quality APS-C lenses, instead of full-frame lenses that are too big (mostly at the wide to normal end). Fuji will never get ahold of a sensor larger than 33x44 at a reasonable price unless Sony plays around with CMOS sensor sizes. The bigger Kodak (now Truesense) and Dalsa sensors are incredibly overpriced CCD dinosaur derivatives of military or industrial sensors (market leader Dalsa is a division of spy satellite parts (among many other things) maker Teledyne)- the camera market (as we'd define "camera") is meaningless to those companies/divisions. Sony is the only supplier of camera-specific medium format sensors, and the market is probably too small to attract a competitor. Given this, a 33x44 system with specialized 33x44 lenses will be much more attractive (primarily in size and weight, but also possibly in image quality - area coverage is one of many competing goals in lens design) than a 33x44 system with oversized lenses. There are at least four separate markets for this system, and the lenses need to satisfy all as best they can. 1.) Studio. Lenses as fast as possible for depth of field/bokeh, and with leaf (AKA central) shutter for flash sync. 2.) Wedding/fashion/location portraiture. Lenses a good balance of speed and compactness, with at least some leaf shutter options 3.) Landscape. No need for fast lenses - make them compact, weather resistant and sharp (really sharp zooms mean fewer lens changes in the field). PLEASE no leaf shutters - they add weight and have slow maximum shutter speeds, which is sometimes important for light control. 4.) Architecture. If this system gets a tilt/shift lens or two, the architectural photographers will flock to it (not that landscape photographers would mind T/S lenses, either). Again, no need or desire for fast apertures or leaf shutters. Street and travel photographers will probably share lens tastes with landscape and/or wedding photographers. If I were Fuji's lens designers, I'd release the system with four initial lenses (plus leaf shutter versions of a couple of them). Every lens (with the possible exception of leaf shutter lenses) should be weather sealed. The diagonal of 33x44 is 55 mm, so a normal lens is actually 55mm (this sounds very close to full-frame, BUT the 50mm normal on full-frame is actually a bit long - it should really be 42mm). 30mm f2.8 (f4?). This is a significant wide-angle, equivalent to about 25mm on full-frame, about 16-18mm on APS-C. f2.8 would be ideal, but it might be huge. 30mm and under lenses exist for medium format, but they're big, heavy lenses with a lot of distortion correction in software. If a 30mm f4 is much smaller, lighter and less distorting than a 2.8, it's worth it. 60mm f2 (f2.8?) Most medium format normal lenses are f2.8 - the smaller format may permit a reasonably sized and priced f2 normal lens. Important to have a leaf shutter version. Not sure if leaf shutter and f2 are compatible (if they are, a 60 f2 LS and a 60 f2.8 with no leaf shutter (but excellent weather sealing) might be an interesting set of options. 100 mm f2.8 (plus leaf shutter version). A fast portrait lens (by MF standards) 35-105 mm f4-5.6. The modest maximum aperture is to keep the zoom compact. If the 20-40 (or 20-45) is feasible, this lens might start at 40. If it's not, there's an argument for starting it as wide as 30. Additional lenses (not necessarily available at launch). 90mm f1.6 (leaf shutter if possible, maybe APD). Not light or cheap, but the fastest portrait lens ever built for medium format (there is no medium format lens faster than f2 right now). This should be a leaf shutter lens, but I'm not sure about very fast LS lenses - Hasselblad Zeiss lenses for their focal plane cameras tended to be a stop faster than their leaf shutter versions. Either a 20mm f4 or (ideally) a 20-40 mm f4 (or f4-f5.6). The widest lens ever for medium format - ideally, it's a zoom. 135mm f2.8 or f4. A long portrait lens or short telephoto (possibly macro, especially if f4). Eventually, the studio crowd would kill for an f2 leaf shutter version, but that is a very large, heavy, expensive lens. 250mm f5. Nobody's going to shoot sports or wildlife on medium format, and the f5 keeps it a reasonable size for people who would use it for landscape or travel. 105-240mm f4-f5.6. A long zoom. If this would be similar in size and quality to the 250, no need to make the long prime. No need for anything longer - any photographer who owns a medium format X system will have at least one other system (probably an APS-C X system, likely a DSLR as well), with longer lenses if they care. Exotica might include a 10 or 12mm fisheye , a 35mm (or so) faster than f2, a 60mm f1.4 (I'd actually release the really fast portrait lens before superfast wide or normal lenses - bokeh is MOST important in a portrait lens), and a couple of tilt/shift lenses for the architectural folks. I'd hope for the normal lens to be under $1500, maybe closer to $1000, with several lenses under $2000. The zooms might be around $2000, with the fast leaf shutter lenses ranging up to $3000 or more. Tilt/shift lenses and other exotica would probably be even more when released, both because of complexity and low production. This is similar to Pentax pricing (except that there are a couple of very expensive newer Pentax lenses that don't seem especially exotic). In terms of the body, I'd hope for: ~$5000 (at least cheaper than the $7000 Pentax) Focal plane shutter (with the ability to disable it to use leaf shutter lenses) - speed range of at least 60 seconds to 1/2000 Around 2 lbs or less (the huge advantage of being both mirrorless and 33x44 - it shouldn't be too hard to get the body lighter than a D810 or a 5Ds) Weather sealed "Texas Leica" shape Either a really good EVF (what Leica just used in the SL?) or a hybrid finder 4"+ LCD - crib it from the cell phone market - plenty of room. Oddly, I'd expect it to use two standard Fuji W126 batteries - Fuji might not want to do a big battery for one camera - Pentax didn't (theirs actually uses their APS-C DSLR battery). It would have a very short battery life if it used a single W126, but two would work. Dual card slots (probably dual SD - why would Fuji put in a CF slot, when they've not used one in years?). No real need for XQD - this isn't a super-fast camera. Controls similar to X-Pro1 (perhaps with some X-T1-style additions) Sensor: Possibly the Sony 50 MP (as per the Pentax 645z), or possibly a 72 MP BSI variant (which would have the pixel pitch and technology of the A7rII, and should be easy for Sony to build - it's just a big A7rII sensor).

These devices were once very popular, back when drive capacities were many times the capacity of any memory card, and memory cards were horribly expensive. They were nearly killed off by high-capacity memory cards at reasonable prices (B&H still lists a few - divided between relatively reasonably priced models from obscure companies, very expensive models for pro video and one Canon meant to hook to a TV). These things were almost never made by camera makers - there were a bunch by Epson, whom I guess technically made a few cameras, and Canon and Nikon each made a single short-lived model). The higher-end models were from Epson and darkroom supplier Jobo (and had nice screens - at least one could actually be calibrated), while the cheaper versions were from companies you'd never heard of, and reported cards copied with a few LED lights. Perhaps the biggest problem they've always had is that their battery life lets them copy only one or two high-capacity cards. Interfaces and drives have gotten faster, but cards have gotten bigger in rough proportion. I just looked, and the machines B&H is advertising today only copy 1 64 GB card on a battery (manufacturer claims 3, but B&H claims 1). They are also about $500 (even for the cheaper units) for a terabyte of storage. When you can get good 64 GB memory cards for as little as $30, 128 GB cards around $60 and 256 GB around $120 - add 30% for the VERY best, these things just don't add up in price per gigabyte. I've never lost a byte of data off any but an off-brand memory card! I'd certainly consider duplicating in camera (especially with really large cards) if I had two slots...

What I am saddened by about the Harrod's deal (and, much more so about similar things that Leica and Hasselblad have done - Fuji's one deal with Harrod's hasn't harmed the cameras being sold to people who actually use them for photography, while Hasselblad's relabeled Sonys HAVE distracted them from their real work in medium format). My preferred use of my X-T1 is landscape at various scales (below), and I'd love to see some more pixels in a camera that is just as nice to use (I have higher resolution cameras, but the X-T1 often finds itself with me on a hike, simply because it is such a great camera to shoot with. What's important, though, isn't WHAT you photograph, but that a very high percentage of X cameras are used all the time to make photographs, because they are wonderful to use. I'd hate to see Fuji lose that to a collector market...