danwells

I wonder if the release date is January 16 (the week after CES). That is the (solidly rumored) release date for the X-Pro 2, perhaps at an event for the 5th anniversary of the X System, and a couple of lenses would make sense there as well.

I suspect those were a tiny fraction of total sales - they go to two different groups of people - wealthy photographers who don't care what it costs, but they want it FAST and CONVENIENT (and they like the suitcase for storage). How wealty? Hasselblad once made a custom telephoto (for well over $100,000) for a Saudi prince who wanted to photograph birds using medium format. The prince actually used it, and he was a darned good wildlife photographer, too. The second group are camera COLLECTORS who will never take it out of the box. A colleague who shoots a lot of Leica once joked to me that Leica could omit the sensor on half the cameras they sold, and the new owners would never know the difference - the problem is that they don't know which ones they could build without the sensor. Leica releases a whole bunch of collectors editions every year (and some of them are the only way to get a specific lens for a year or more). At least Fuji doesn't do that to us (how would any of us feel if the 100-400 came out tomorrow, but only in a $5000 box with an X-Pro 1 body in a special finish and another lens that many people already own) - no other way to get it until next summer? Leica's been known to do that.

I'd be very hard pressed to imagine Sony putting out a medium format camera, and especially to see them adequately supporting it with lenses (unless it was a "Texas RX1" equipped with a fixed slightly wide prime). Of their four present body lines, two are missing critical lenses (APS-C E-mount and APS-C A-mount), one is only usable at all because of old Minolta lenses, some of which Sony has reissued, others of which people find used (full-frame A-mount), and the last one is finally developing a lens lineup, plus it has flexibility with adapters (FE-mount). Sony has no medium format lens experience at all, and their partners at Zeiss have never done a medium format AF lens - they do have 40 years of Hasselblad V-series lenses, ending in the early 2000s. A medium format Sony, unless it was fixed lens, would have a VERY few (one or two) really nice Zeiss lenses, and, if it was a runaway hit, might eventually get a few more. Fuji, on the other hand, would be well placed for such a project - they have only one lens line to support right now, instead of four primary lines (plus video variants of both FE and APS-C E-mount). They've made quite a few medium format lenses before, including a large role in the present Hasselblad lenses. They'd probably release a medium format camera with three primes and perhaps a zoom at introduction, and they'd have a plan to get to 6-8 lenses in a couple of years.

In deciding when to release the X-Pro 2, Fuji needs to figure out when they'd have the best coverage. Assuming the camera wasn't ready for PhotoPlus (if it was, they would almost certainly have released it), and is going to be ready too soon to hold back for Photokina next fall, the only other options they have are CES or a random day, trying to attract the press to a launch event. There are four types of press they're concerned about. 1.) Big, mainstream non-tech publications. They probably won't get a ton of coverage either way, but they might get someone like Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal to write a quick piece ONLY if it WASN'T CES - he'd be far too busy at CES, but send him a camera a few weeks later, and he just might play with it and do a column on a relatively slow news day. 2.) Big tech press (Wired, Engadget, Ars Technica). They are going to more or less ignore a camera unless it's revolutionary (medium format won't do it, organic or three layer sensor might, what they really want to see is a camera with direct social media links, which Sony or Samsung might do but Fuji won't). The best chance for a little bit of coverage is at CES - they'll be there and they might include Fuji in an "all the rest of the booths" writeup, although they won't review the camera either way unless it has features of interest to their core readership of non-photographers. 3.) Big photography press (Pop Photo, dpreview, etc.). They'll cover it, and eventually review it, either way. If it has some huge feature, whether it's medium format, organic sensor, three layer sensor or whatever, it doesn't matter whether it's CES or not - the multiple articles on release day will keep it well-covered until the reviews come out. If it's a beautiful 24-30 MP APS-C camera primarily of interest to Fuji shooters and people contemplating switching from DSLRs (to a lesser extent, switchers from Micro 4/3 and Sony APS-C), there is a big advantage to MISSING CES. A moderately big announcement during CES will be knocked off the front page of dpreview almost immediately by the flood of announcements (only a REALLY big announcement will have enough articles to stay on the front page). Remember, all of these guys cover phone photography, so Samsung Galaxy announcements take up space here. If Fuji misses CES, the X-Pro 2 could live on the front page of dpreview for a week in late January/early February. 4.) Specialist photography press (Luminous Landscape, PhoBlographer, Steve Huff, Thom Hogan, etc.). These guys are going to cover the announcement and review the camera. If it has important features for their audience (and an X-Pro2 almost certainly does unless it's really boring - a lot of their readership shoots Fuji, and several of them do personally as well), it will get a lot of coverage. If it has a huge feature, it'll be one of the events of the year for them. They'd rather NOT have it at CES - many of them don't travel to CES, since they don't care about phones, TVs, etc. They will certainly travel to a Fuji intro event, and they'd rather NOT have to get hotel rooms in Vegas during CES, when there might be only one or two other announcements they care about. They'd much rather go to an unveiling where they have a chance to shoot with the camera that evening or the next day (several of them regularly go to Europe for Leica or Phase One events, so a couple of days anywhere in the US is easy). Overall, Fuji trades off the chance to get a brief mention in Wired, Engadget or Ars Technica (who won't go to a Fuji-only release event) by releasing at CES for much more exposure in the photography-specific press (who will, and who either won't be AT CES, or will be busy covering cameraphones) by releasing a week or two later. If I were them, I'd only release at CES if there was something about the X-Pro2 that would really cut through the clutter and both keep them on the front page of the photo press and intrigue the tech press. The two kinds of companies who love CES are either those who sell hundreds of millions of products per year (Samsung, Sony) or those who have extraordinarily high wow! factors (Tesla). The only company that has both (Apple) has gotten so big that they can make most of the press that attends CES come to their own events. They've even been known to compete directly with CES, by skipping it, but holding a release event in San Francisco DURING CES in Vegas - presumably causing a blip in the price of flights between the two cities on release day. Even Samsung and Sony will probably barely mention their camera lineups during CES UNLESS one of them has a camera that integrates extra-well into the phone world (let's say one with a built in 4G radio and super-easy sharing!)

They seem to always do a September release (occasionally pushed into August or October), and a January release. I don't know when CES has been (I know it's in January, but not its history of which weeks), but the January dates look like they might often be after CES. That could actually make good sense for Fuji, as X-series cameras sell in the tens or (at most) hundreds of thousands, not in the millions like phones do (a really successful phone model can sell a hundred million - an iPhone can be a couple hundred million, but Apple avoids CES to get the press all to themselves). I suspect that Fuji doesn't want to be buried under much more mainstream announcements from Samsung and others, when they can get the photography press together the next week. Fuji wants Pop Photo and dpreview (and, even more importantly, smaller, more sophisticated photography publications), not Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal, but even the photo press is swamped with smartphone announcements at CES. Luminous Landscape won't bother with the latest Samsung Galaxy, but may not even ATTEND CES, while dpreview will spend most of their CES energy on phones, pausing for a few mass-market cameras. A specialty camera like an X-Pro2 will get more notice the nerxt week.

A $3-4k body would revolutionize the medium format world, and might be hard to do. The only time medium format digital has been priced that low is the first generation Pentax 645D AFTER the new 645z was out. That was a special situation for two reasons. First, it was distinctly inferior to the new camera (and doesn't have interchangeable backs, so no upgrades were possible). Second, it is inferior in image quality to a few high-end full-frame bodies - not only does it have the lowest image quality of any presently sold medium format camera, it is inferior to a D810 or an A7rII by most measures, even (arguably) at base ISO. If Fuji could get a body out even at $5k, using the current (or a new-generation) Sony CMOS, it would be a huge step. Pentax is at $7k for the 645z body with the Sony 50 mp sensor, and Phase One and Hasselblad are selling (presumably very few) backs in the $25k range with the same sensor! A mirrorless body should be cheaper than an oversized SLR, and, due to the different shape (medium format SLRs are nearly cubical to accomodate the mirror), there's room for a huge rear display on a "Texas Leica" - it won't cost Fuji anything, either - just use an off the shelf phone display, and it'll be close to a 4x5 ground glass! A small, light (by medium format standards - I'd expect the weight of a smallish fullframe DSLR) mirrorless camera with a 50-70 mp CMOS sensor with XTrans, either a hybrid finder or a top-end EVF coupled with a 4"+ display cribbed from a cell phone and, most importantly, a line of Fujinon lenses made for the sensor format would not only intrigue many photographers who had been using traditional medium format, but also users of fullframe DSLRs and even 4x5 field cameras (70 mp XTrans will beat any scan from 4x5). PLEASE make tilt/shift lenses for this camera (or even include SENSOR tilt - it's not impossible!)

I'd love to see Fuji release the longer glass, rather than more lenses in the "slightly wide to portrait" range. As far as I can tell, the worst duplication is right around 35mm, where we have 2 Fujinon primes, the Touit (which Fuji seems to have had a hand in the design of) and no less than four zooms that get there (not even separating the two versions of the consumer 16-50 or counting the 27, which is notably wider). We also have a lot of portrait lenses stacked up around 50 to 60, but that's partially because the zooms transition there so both the wide and long zooms reach that range, and partially because some of the primes are very fast (one is the unique APD lens) and others are much slower macro lenses (which makes sense). The lenses I'm most excited to see are: 100-400 - right now, we have no great option over 140 (about 200 in 35mm terms) and no lens at all over 230 (and that's a cheap consumer lens with a f6.7 maximum aperture). The 100-400 will get us out to 600mm equivalent, and the recent Nikon and Canon zooms in this range are VERY sharp, although their predecessors were only OK+. I'd expect the Fujinon to be really sharp. If it autofocuses with the 1.4x at the far end of the range (probably only on some bodies), it could concievably cover all the way out to 800+ mm equivalent (although slow at the far end). 200mm f2.8 (why, oh why, didn't they give the 50-140 more reach - 70-200s are standard, and maybe even more useful on APS-C than they are on FF) - Equivalent to a 300 f2.8 on FF (and much lighter and cheaper). Will certainly take the converter, and go out to the equivalent of a 420 f4. The nice thing about APS-C is that a 200 f2.8 is the longest of the reasonably sized and priced fast telephotos, while a 300 f2.8 is the first of the $5000+ white whales! 120 Macro. I actually wish this were a 90 to keep size and weight down, but a longer than average macro with OIS is a hole in the lineup, especially because the two current macros (Fujinon and Touit) are both from the very early days - tack sharp, but slow to focus and no OIS (which is useless at 1:1, but VERY useful around 1:2 or 1:3). . Once these three lenses are out, the Fujinon lineup will be VERY complete - only Nikon and Canon will have moer complete lineups (with the hole at the long end filled, Fujinon will be better than Micro 4/3, Pentax or Leica (even the SL with all the Leica to Leica adapters), and MUCH better than any of Sony's four variants). The only real advantage to the two big DSLR lineups would be tilt-shift lenses. Everything else that Fuji won't have an answer to is ultra-exotic glass made only in the hundreds annually (VERY long, fast telephotos above 300 f2.8 and arguably fisheyes). Most photographers who have a fisheye have a Samyang/Rokinon, perhaps a Sigma or a lower-end manufacturer lens in the $1000 or under range, NOT a $20,000 6mm Nikkor). There are X-mount options in lower-end fisheyes. If you need a "white whale" telephoto, I suspect you can find a camera shop willing to throw in a nice D7200 as a back to sell a 600 f4 Nikkor for over $10,000 (if you prefer Canon, they'd probably love to include a free 7DII). The "whales" are SO heavy that nobody would ever notice it was on its own camera, and a different system from everything else.

I'm assuming that there has to be something special about the X-Pro2. The A6000 is almost two years old at this point, so that sensor has been out at least that long (and an "X-Pro1 with the X-T1's processor and the A6000 sensor" could have hit the market a year ago, if not more). The A6000 sensor itself is a derivative of the significanty older Nex-7 sensor, which was a breakthrough, but it was more than four years ago. Fuji's either waiting for something (because of X-Trans, Fuji makes a longer-term commitment to a sensor than most companies - they have to make a run of custom filters, which go with a specific sensor, while everyone else just uses standard Bayer filters, and Sony's are probably just like Nikon's), OR they have a non-sensor idea they're working on. If I were Fuji, I wouldn't release a FIRST camera with the A6000 sensor now (if X-Trans for it already existed, more models would be fine). If it is the sensor holding it up, and Fuji's smart (which they've generally shown that they are), they are waiting for their sensor of the next four or five years, probably something innovative. Maybe it's organic, maybe it's multilayer (Foveon style), maybe it's beyond 24 MP, or maybe it's a 24 MP Sony, but related to the sensor in the new RX series (with memory directly attached to the sensor). Whichever of these it is (or something else), I'm hoping it's a step beyond the A6000 sensor (and resolution would be the least exciting, since 24 MP is ALREADY good for 24x36" prints), since it'll be with us for a long time. In addition to the sensor, what's on the wishlist for the body? I'd actually be willing to give up the hybrid finder for a really good EVF (X-T1 or even better). If the hybrid finder does return, would it be possible for it to be even more of a hybrid than it already was? An earlier poster mentioned focus indication... To me as a landscape photographer, weathersealing is essential - the X-T1 is pretty good, although even better would be more than welcome. If it is a new-generation sensor, it might have non-pathetic video (although that's never been a Fuji strength). I wonder about in-body image stabilization... Until Sony added IBIS in the latest A7 round, the conventional wisdom was that it appeared in the beginning of a camera line or not at all (Pentax DSLRs had always had it, it was THE distinguishing feature of Olympus' OM-D line, but Canon or Nikon never would). The A7 line did it as a mkII upgrade, though. The most compelling reason to do in-body stabilization is for lenses that don't have internal stabilizers (all the primes, the 16-55 and adapted lenses), but it could also have advantages for long lenses (100-400) with their own stabilizer (Olympus and perhaps Sony use the two stabilizers in concert at certain focal lengths). Of course, all of this assumes that the X-Pro 2 is the next generation APS-C Fuji mirrorless. I see no reason to think it's not mirrorless - that would be a HUGE change for Fuji, and the X system has been getting a lot more notice than any of their (Nikon-derived) DSLRs ever did. There is some (maybe slight) possibility that it's not APS-C. If it's not, I'd almost think (the smaller side of) medium format is at least as likely as full frame. Partially, this is because of the MF Fuji rumors floating around, but it's also because of Fuji's medium format heritage, AND what Sony is willing to release sensor-wise. Sony themselves aren't interested in building an MF camera (what, Sony, that would be lens line number FIVE - not counting the video lenses, when none of their lines have enough lenses, anyway), but they do make MF sensors (right now, a 50 MP CMOS measuring 33x44 mm, but a 71 mp version would have the A7rII's pixel density). I actually suspect Sony would be more willing to sell that sensor (Pentax has by far the cheapest implementation of it, although Phase One and Hasselblad also use it), or even a new high-res version of it, than their crown jewel - the A7rII sensor. Sony doesn't want a camera out there with that sensor that handles a lot better than the A7rII, from a manufacturer that actually makes more (extremely well-respected) lenses than bodies. Any other Sony FF sensor shouldn't interest Fuji (they'd love the A7rII sensor, but probably can't get it) - they're either older versions of the A7rII sensor with lesser quality(various closely related 36mp sensors), or they're primarily low-light/video sensors, which hasn't been where Fuji wants to be. A 33x44 mm sensor offers Fuji a really interesting space - if they built the lenses for 33x44, they wouldn't be much bigger than full frame lenses (and could even be smaller than the notoriously large Sony FE lenses). The size of a lens (other than telephotos, which inherently cover large areas and are almost strictly sensitive to maximum aperture - at least one 4/3 telephoto is actually larger than 645 telephotos of the same focal length and aperture) is determined by its maximum aperture and its diagonal coverage. 35mm full frame has a diagonal of 43mm, 33x44 mm has a diagonal of 55 mm, and 645 has a diagonal of 70 mm or a bit more - different manufacturers interpreted "645" slightly differently - (so the lenses will be closer in size to full frame lenses than to 645 lenses), yet the sensor area is 1.7x the size of 35mm full frame. The opportunity is open for Fuji to do exactly the same thing at 33x44 that they did at APS-C - design a lens line to fit the sensor. Until Fuji came along, the vast majority of APS-C cameras were using mostly lenses built for full frame, other than entry-level zooms that were compact, but didn't offer especially high image quality. Fuji developed the first (and still only) full line of APS-C dedicated lenses, and built a very successful system that way. All existing medium format systems use lenses made for 645, both suboptimal and oversized for the digital sensor sizes (especially 33x44 mm - medium format sensor sizes are a complete mess, ranging from 33x44 up to "almost 645" at 40x54).

Agreed, but most TC users I know of are already a step longer than the 50-140 before dropping the TC in. 300 f2.8s are popular TC hosts (and anybody who owns an even more exotic telephoto like a 400 f2.8 or a 600 f4 also has the matching converters, and uses them regularly). The other places TCs see service are on ultra-long zooms (Canon's 200-400 f4 actually has a 1.4x built in, activated by a switch, a feature borrowed from long video lenses) and occasionaly on odd lenses like tilt/shifts. I once heard of someone using a TC on a FISHEYE - they wanted the distortion, but with a slightly narrower field of view...

Is there any news of whether the firmware brings anything more significant than TC compatibility? It sounded from today's posts that there might be a surprise - whether it was new firmware that brought actual new features, or even a pre-announcement on the X-Pro 2. What I've seen so far is just the lens and TC (with no surprise in the specs of either one), and a firmware upgrade that seems to alert the bodies of the possibility of the TC, but do nothing else. At least to me, this was a disappointing set of announcements. I don't especially like 35 primes (this is a function of the type of photography I do - landscape, and I'm always either a bit wider or longer than normal), and the TC doesn't seem to have the lenses it needs to be intriguing just yet. Very few photographers use a TC on a 70-200 f2.8 on full-frame (it's easier and better quality just to use a longer lens, which is a much more anticipated announcement than a workaround by converting a moderate telephoto). The 120 macro will be an intriguing host for the converter, especially for insect photographers and others who like close focusing at long focal lengths. Assuming that at least the newer bodies can focus with a lens that slow (f8), the combination of the 100-400 and the TC will provide extreme telephoto capability. Fuji has done something simply amazing in building the most complete set of APS-C lenses out there, all in about four years from scratch. We have more options than even Nikon or Canon shooters in dedicated APS-C glass (although those two mounts add versatility through the use of full-frame lenses, at the cost of size, weight and occasionally odd focal lengths). Almost all of the Fuji glass is also of high quality. About the only weakness in our choices (apart from REAL oddities like tilt/shift lenses) is longer telephotos and macros, and I'd rather have seen one of those two today than a third 35mm prime option (plus four zooms that cover 35mm) and a teleconverter that feels like it's waiting for the lenses to use it with...

I have to admit that I am quite disappointed in the 82mm filter size. The theoretical minimum filter size for this lens is actually 72mm (but that is SO tight that it would be surprising to actually see one). The aperture size is ~71.5mm (400/5.6), but front elements are generally larger than the aperture, and the filter size needs to be slightly larger than the front element. Canon and Nikon's modern ~100-400 lenses both have 77mm filter diameters on thoroughly modern designs (stabilized, weather resistant, multiple low-dispersion elements). Sigma had some older lenses that claimed to get "400mm f5.6" into a 72mm filter diameter, but I'm suspicious that the 400mm was more like 350, the f5.6 was closer to f6, or both (especially since newer Sigmas are 77mm for the same specs). I don't know why Fuji needs an extra 5mm over every other modern lens in the same focal length and aperture range? The size and weight of a telephoto (which filter diameter is a proxy for) - if this lens were 82mm, but smaller and lighter than the CaNikon equivalents, I wouldn't worry about it - are almost completely independent of format, within reason. At least one 300mm f2.8 lens made for full frame was revealed to actually cover not only medium format, but 4x5 as well, once internal baffles are removed. The Olympus 300mm f2.8 for 4/3 (pre Micro 4/3) is not only larger and heavier than Canon and Nikon full frame 300 f2.8 lenses (which cover 4 times the area), but also heavier than Mamiya's 300 mm f2.8 for 645 medium format, and not much lighter than the Zeiss 300mm 2.8 fot the old square Hasselblads, which covered something like 10 times the area! On a wide-angle lens, format size matters in terms of size, weight and practicality, but it really doesn't for a long lens (other than that a 400 mm on APS-C will have the angle of view of a (much heavier) 600 mm on full frame, which is why many wildlife photographers carry a crop body). I used 300 f2.8s as an example, because they've been made for a ton of formats over the years. As such, I'd expect the Fuji 100-400 to be compatible with any future full-frame Fuji body , unless they change the mount (it might even work with a medium format body - it would be about the only lens that might, and probably not worth a special-purpose mount adapter)- but, conversely, it shouldn't be any smaller or lighter than a modern 100-400 f4.5-5.6 for full frame. As for the constant-aperture wishes for this type of lens (other than constant f5.6, which WOULD be possible), that lens would be twice the weight and three times the price of what we're getting. The MINIMUM possible filter diameter is 100mm, and a real lens will be between 105 and 112mm (it would actually use rear drop-in filters). The Nikon version of a 200-400 mm f4 is 7.5 lbs and $7000, while the Canon is 8 lbs and $11,000 (but it has a built-in teleconverter). They start at 200mm, but once you're carrying THAT much weight and cost, you won't even notice the 50-140 coming along! Accept f5.6 on the long end, and the lenses are ~3.5 lbs and $2000 (the new Nikon is unusually expensive, at $2700). What I'd personally love to see (but Fuji may be too small to give us) is a diffractive or fresnel version of this lens. The front diameter wouldn't change, but the lens would get much shorter and lighter. Judging by what's happened to Canon and Nikon lenses that have adopted this technology, the savings could be something like 30% in length and as much as 50% in weight. Nikon has a 1.7 lb 300 mm f4 fresnel (its predecessor was 3.2 lbs).

I really hope it's not a fixed lens! The reason they could get away with it in film is that most of the cost of the "Texas Leicas" was the lens - film transport and basic metering was relatively cheap (and not terribly heavy) - owning more than one was a reasonable way to get multiple focal lengths, and you could even carry a couple of them for the weight of a medium format SLR and 2-3 lenses. The sensor cost alone for a digital medium format camera is WELL into the thousands of dollars. The only digital MF body we've ever seen under $5000 is the outdated Pentax 645D after the 645Z came out, and that's a relatively low performance 40 MP CCD - many full-frame cameras outperform it (it's questionable even against a 4 year old D800). Assuming the Fuji will use the Sony 50 MP CMOS or a newer version of it (scaling up the A7rII sensor gives 72 MP), we're probably looking at closer to $10,000 than $5000. How many of us want to own more than one $8000 camera to get several focal lengths? The good news is that the Sony sensor is not THAT big - a camera not a lot bigger than an X-Pro 1 could contain a minimum-size mount to handle it. The lenses may be the size and weight problem... Most of Sony's lenses for the A7 system are huge compared to the bodies (they tend to be fast primes and fixed-aperture zooms, or else basically SLR lenses with built-in mount adapters). I wouldn't mind seeing Fuji do some slow primes and variable-aperture zooms to keep it portable - as far as I know, the only reasonably sized medium format zoom ever made was a Fuji - one of the Texas Leicas had a zoom (actually, an almost-zoom which had discrete steps)! One reason I'd be especially disappointed with a fixed lens is that I find the two most likely primes (~35mm and ~50mm equivalent) boring, and they're only about my fifth or sixth mosr used focal lengths. My most used length is a modest telephoto (~70mm equivalent), then a wider lens (~28), something longer (~105), then a tie between quite wide (15-24) and longer still (150+), all before you get me into the "normal" range. I realize that the edges of this range won't happen in medium format without considerable cost and weight, but much of it should be accessible, and my favorites won't be likely fixed primes (on a 33x44 sensor, the first lenses I'd want are a 90 or so (70mm equivalent), then a 30 or 35 (24-28mm equivalent)), or better yet a relatively compact 30-90 or 35-105 zoom (f4-5.6 is fine to keep it small).

I was thinking any ONE of the above, not ALL of the above... Any of them could make sense - I don't think Fuji is simultaneously sitting on four breakthroughs, but one of them could be what's going on

The excellent Sony 24 mp sensor has been out for several years, and is in a number of non-Sony cameras from Nikon, Pentax and maybe others(?). Some of them seem to use a sensor a (relatively minor) generation newer than the one in the A6000. This sensor would be a significant step up from what Fuji is using now, but I can think of a few things Fuji might be waiting for (remember that changing sensors is a bigger deal for Fuji, because they need new X-Trans filters, while everyone else just uses a Bayer filter that is probably introduced by Sony along with the sensor): 1.) There is a new generation of this sensor "almost there" (Fuji already has samples), maybe with even more pixels, maybe with improved DR, maybe with more on-chip PDAF points, and the dimensions or pixel count are not exactly the same (so the filter would be different). Fuji doesn't want to make up a bunch of X-Trans filters for the current sensor, release a model or two (which they could have done a year ago), and then get hit with a new sensor. 2.) They're waiting for a sensor that is not the Sony at all, and has some interesting new technology in it - Fuji has NEVER been content with conventional Bayer sensors, having used hexagonal pixels, multiple pixel sizes and now X-Trans. This might be a three-layer Foveon type sensor, an organic sensor, or whatever else. For all I know, they're about to use some version of the RED Dragon sensor (I'm assuming that what makes the RED cameras tremendously expensive is not the sensor itself, but the support hardware they need to read it off at incredible speeds and store the data), which is the only sensor presently on the market with dynamic range competitive with the Sonys - the pixel counts don't quite seem to fit, but Fuji always uses surprising sensors. 3.) They are playing with something else at the filter stage, probably an improved version of X-Trans, maybe coupled with a variable low-pass or variable ND, and it's taking a while. 4.) The X-Pro 2 isn't what we think it is at all - they are close on an X-T2, which is APS-C with a better sensor, while the X-Pro 2 is some version of medium format (anything between Leica S format a little beyond full frame and the "Double full frame" format of some of the highest resolution backs). The most likely option might be a new version of the Sony 50 MP CMOS sensor that Pentax was first to use. The new version may well be 72 MP (scale up the A7rII sensor to the 44x33 mm size of the existing MF sensor). An easy sensor for Sony to produce, and they'd be happy with Fuji as a launch partner, having shown no inclination to build medium format cameras themselves. I can't imagine Fuji jumping into the crowded full-frame market, especially if they really do have medium format ambitions - THREE ranges of lenses for a relatively low-volume camera line? I could see a FF X-Pro 2 (XTrans version of the A7rII sensor) IF they either weren't going to mess with medium format OR had decided it would be fixed-lens only.

Either body type is fine with me - it does need weatherization (which the hybrid VF may make trickier than an EVF-only design) . 24ish MP with Fuji's IQ improvements over base versions of similar sensors should mean significantly higher IQ than any other APS-C camera, and rivaling all but the very top FF bodies. It should also mean uncompromised 24x36" prints (and who actually owns a 44" printer to go bigger than that)?

Remember the size of the Sony lenses, too. The primes are big, and the zooms are huge! Many of the lenses are actually LARGER than comparable full frame DSLR lenses once you take aperture into account. As examples, the Sony FE 55 f1.8 is 1.5 times as heavy as the Nikkor 50 f1.8 and just about the same weight as the Nikkor 50 f1.4(the Sony IS a higher end lens, and the Sony is much lighter than the faster Sigma ART 50 f1.4, which is more comparable in price and quality). The Sony 24-70 f4 is almost exactly the same weight as the Nikkor24-85 f 3.5-4.5, which has a useful bit of extra focal length on the long end, allowing it to serve as a portrait lens. The Fuji lenses are much more compact, and include several pancakes as well as the highest quality compact zoom on the market (with the possible exception of the Leica T 18-56mm zoom). For the weight of the Sony 24-70 or Nikkor 24-85, Fuji's response is a weathersealed 18-135 with twice the range (slower at the long end). A large part of that is that Fuji has the only full line of high-end APS-C lenses out there. Most Canon/Nikon/Sony APS-C lenses are entry-level zooms that are meant to go with $400 bodies. There are exceptions, but nobody has a full line of exceptions - Pentax may be closer than the bigger players.The Leica T lenses are nice, but the line is limited (and they make the Fujinons look cheap by comparison) High-end FF lenses are, of course, an option, but at a significant sacrifice in size and weight.