danwells

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

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

I agree with gdanmitchell that Fuji likes to zig when the market is zagging. The reason Fuji has been successful at APS-C is that Fuji APS-C ISN'T a crop system - it's a full frame system for a different frame size! The difference is that all the lenses are optimized for the actual frame size. If you look at Nikon DX or Canon EF-S, there are two distinct types of lenses - APS-C lenses (which are generally cheap zooms - there have been a few primes and better zooms, but they aren't the majority) and FF lenses, many of which are either needlessly bulky or odd focal lengths on APS-C sensors (a 24-70mm f2.8 is a classic example of both, not going usefully wide on APS-C as well as being 50% bigger and heavier than it has to be).
 
There are a few focal lengths that serve different roles in the two formats, but happen to work in both (35mm is the best example - it's a useful slight wide on FF, a normal lens on APS-C, and a 35mm FF lens is very compact, so there's no real disadvantage to using it as a normal lens). There are others that work both ways, but the lens designs are different (a 24mm wideangle on FF is similar to a 35mm if used on APS-C, BUT a good FF 24mm is quickly becoming a big, heavy lens; while it's easy to build a very compact one if you only need to cover APS-C). Long telephotos also work both ways - they inherently cover huge formats (most 300mm f2.8s cover 4x5", or would if they didn't have baffles to prevent reflection), and they tend to be "the longer the better", rather than an optimized focal length for a particular effect.
 
By designing an entire lens lineup for APS-C, Fuji has the right focal lengths at reasonable sizes (note that their "50" is actually a 56 - a regular 50 works as a portrait lens on APS-C, but it's always just a bit short -  56 is a better length)... There are some big lenses, but they are unavoidably big lenses, not needlessly bulky ones. A 100-400, especially a scary-sharp 100-400, will never be a small lens!
 
I'd expect (and hope for) them to do the same thing in medium format. If they embrace 33x44mm and design all their lenses for it, they will have significant size and quality advantages over manufacturers trying to repurpose 645 film lenses. On the other hand, I hope they go for a newer sensor, rather than that 3 year old 50MP one. It would be very easy for Sony to make a ~70-75 MP 33x44 mm sensor that uses the same technology generation as the X-Pro 2 sensor, the A7rII sensor and the big 100 MP sensor Phase One has. Fuji and Pentax are the logical customers...

Here's the lineup I'd like to see and I also think it optimizes Fuji's use of sensors and processors:
 
The rangefinder style:
 
GX-Pro 1 (Photokina announcement, 2017 availability? $5999? 72MP, 33x44mm medium format sensor. Stills focused (does it even record video?), hybrid viewfinder, weathersealed, Texas Leica ergonomics. Uses its own lens lineup, of course - good luck getting APS-C lenses to cover 33x44 mm.
 
X-Pro 2 (already here - there's one in my camera bag) - 24 MP, stills focused, hybrid viewfinder, weathersealed, rangefinder ergonomics. It's a real joy to shoot - they've made some major ergonomic improvements over both the X-T1 and X-Pro 1 (come on, Phase One, I'd love to be able to process those raw files in Capture One!).
 
X-E3 (mid-2017 release, $999) 24 MP, stills focused, EVF, not weathersealed. Probably uses a single core variant of the X-Processor Pro, because it doesn't need the speed.
 
X-E2s (already here) 16 MP - lingers to give a low-cost introduction to the joys of the X-series.
 
The DSLR style:
 
X-T2 (June announcement, available before Photokina, $1799 or even $1999) - 24 MP, very high resolution EVF (perhaps the one from the Leica SL), still/video hybrid, weathersealed. Uses the speed of the X-Processor Pro to deliver superb 4K with Fuji lenses, but also the ideal camera for the longest lenses - if they're really introducing a 200mm f2, this is the body for it!. Chases the D500 and GH4 (but not the GH5, which may well be a 6K movie camera) simultaneously, with high frame rates in stills mode and excellent video. More expensive than the X-T1 to pay for fancy EVF, dual UHS-II slots, etc.. May be slightly larger than X-T1 (no heavier than an A7rII, and probably lighter) to accommodate the best of the X-Pro 2's control improvements, such as the joystick and the large shutter speed and exposure compensation dials.
 
X-T7 (Photokina announcement, holiday availability, $1199). 24 MP, X-T1 class EVF, 4K video (but not the level of the X-T2), possibly weathersealed. A "cut down" X-T2 with one card slot and without the luxury controls from the X-Pro 2 and X-T2 (the X-Pro 2 shutter dial is the nicest I've ever seen, but a regular one will do here), also missing the fancy video codecs and the Leica SL EVF, but it's lighter and cheaper.
 
X-T10 hangs around at $699-$799 to provide an entry level option
 
Inexpensive, very compact
 
X-A3 (not willing to guess a release date). A modest, 16 MP update to the X-A2 (which isn't X-Trans, X-A3 may not be either). Westerners almost forget the X-A2, but it sells well in Asia, where younger photographers tend to like tiny cameras.

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

They are unlikely to put all of this in an X-E, at least until the X-Pro 2 and X-T2 have had significant time to sell. It's just too close to the flagships. What we may see as the 24 MP sensor trickles down is more like:
 
24 MP sensor, same focus point pattern as X-Pro 2 and X-T2 (if there's a difference, the X-E3 will probably get the pattern from the X-Pro 2, not any extra points the X-T2 picks up).
EVF size a little bigger than X-Pro 2 (with an X-Pro 2 like refresh rate), but not in X-T territory (the huge EVF and any extra resolution the X-T2 gets are X-T differentiating features)
Probably non-tilting screen, although a touch screen is a possibility
It probably WILL get the X-Pro 2 combined shutter speed/ISO dial
No weathersealing(?)
Video specs of the X-Pro 2 (I'm guessing the X-T2 has some major improvements)
Single card slot
Probably gets the joystick (I suspect it goes with the big number of AF points) - might not if it has a touchscreen
 
Instead of an ubercamera that has every spec from the combination of the X-Pro 2 and X-T2, a more realistic X-E3 has the lesser  specs from each (viewfinder is neither hybrid nor X-T grade, for example) to keep the price down, and loses a couple of features the other two share (weathersealing). It may pick up a feature or two of its own, but they will tend to be features seen as consumer-oriented (touchscreen?).

First shots on my Pro-2 this morning, and it's a wonderfully handling camera - I immediately like it even better than my X-T1 (itself a beautiful handler), although the EVF is not quite as good. The joystick makes a big difference, and the shutter speed, exposure compensation and control dials are all improved. I even like the dial-in-dial ISO mechanism better than the locked dial on the opposite side of the X-T1. I really don't miss the drive dial, which I knock out of position  frequently on the X-T1 (I use it just enough that I can't always leave it shut off - I'd far rather have a drive mode button in X-Pro 2 style). Build quality is improved from the already very good X-T1 (the most noticeable spots for me are the dials and the SD card door).
 
Who knows if all those improvements will make it to the X-T2? I suspect a couple of them will, but others won't. I'd be surprised to get the big, beautiful shutter speed and exposure compensation dials, because there may not be room on the X-T2's smaller top plate (unless they make the body a bit thicker). Since the tilt screen takes up additional space, I'm not at all sure the joystick will fit, either. On the other hand, there will be some improvements that go only to the X-T2... X-T2 owners WILL get a tilt screen, and I have a strong suspicion it might be a touchscreen if the joystick doesn't make it. I'd be very surprised if some version of the improved card door design doesn't make the transition to the X-T2, and I suspect the front and rear control dials will either make it or even see another improvement. There is, of course, more room for an EVF in an X-T2, so it will certainly have the higher magnification from the X-T1, and possibly a higher resolution or refresh rate as well.
 
One real determinant of how advanced the X-T2 will be is where Fuji decides to position it in their line. With some of the new lenses (especially the long telephotos), it might make sense to have a body above the present position of the X-T1 ($2000?). Such a camera would have a very high frame rate, dual card slots (maybe both UHS-II), and a really high grade EVF similar to the one in the Leica SL. It would probably also have very high grade video - 4K with a high quality codec and high bit rates. It could be a true hybrid camera, similar to an A7rII in that respect, although without the full frame and very high resolution, and with the full Fujinon lens lineup (not a "mostly video" camera like an A7s or GH4).Both the sensor and processor from the X-Pro 2 can actually support a hybrid like that. It might be a slightly larger or heavier body to accommodate even better weather sealing, some of the X-Pro 2 controls and more battery capacity(although a grip might be a nice approach to the battery issue, rather than an inherently larger body). If they did this, I would hope they leave the X-T10 in the line and introduce an intermediate model with the new sensor, but without some of the bells and whistles.
 
The other option would be a camera positioned similarly to the X-T1, rather than above it. It has already been confirmed to have 4K, but I wouldn't expect a fancy codec at X-T1 positioning. Similarly, the viewfinder will probably be very, very good, but still a 2.36 megapixel unit, not the much higher resolution finder from the very expensive Leica. Body size will almost certainly be nearly identical to the X-T1, meaning that the enlarged shutter speed and exposure compensation dials from the X-Pro 2 probably don't both fit, although one or the other might. I hope they manage to include the joystick, but, looking at the back of my X-T1, I'm not completely sure where it would go?

The Fuji one isn't an L-bracket if I remember correctly... It's just a baseplate and grip set without vertical capability, no? If it IS an L-bracket, it's actually cheaper than the RRS equivalent, once you add a grip to the RRS version.  RRS hasn't announced any plans for a grip for the X-Pro 2, but their grip sets for other Fujis are around $190. The L-bracket (no grip) will be $130. Fuji wants $130 for a baseplate and grip, with no L component, and I haven't seen anything suggesting there will be an L component for it (I don't think Fuji has offered L components for other cameras). If RRS doesn't add a grip to their offerings, which they do for some Fujis, but not others, there will be an interesting dilemma for any photographer who wants both a grip and an L bracket... They had a grip for the X-Pro 1 and still offer them for the X100 and X-E lines, but they don't do grips for the X-T line (and the X-Pro 2 has a more pronounced built-in grip than the X-Pro 1 or X-E lines, but not nearly as much as the X-T line).
 
Also, an X-Pro 1 baseplate won't fit. Even if the dimensions were identical (as I recall, the X-Pro 2 is a couple of mm thicker), the X-Pro 2 tripod mount is on-axis, while the X-Pro 1 mount was off-axis..

Here's the lineup I'd like to see and I also think it optimizes Fuji's use of sensors and processors:
 
The rangefinder style:
 
GX-Pro 1 (Photokina announcement, 2017 availability? $5999? 72MP, 33x44mm medium format sensor. Stills focused (does it even record video?), hybrid viewfinder, weathersealed, Texas Leica ergonomics. Uses its own lens lineup, of course - good luck getting APS-C lenses to cover 33x44 mm.
 
X-Pro 2 (already here - there's one in my camera bag) - 24 MP, stills focused, hybrid viewfinder, weathersealed, rangefinder ergonomics. It's a real joy to shoot - they've made some major ergonomic improvements over both the X-T1 and X-Pro 1 (come on, Phase One, I'd love to be able to process those raw files in Capture One!).
 
X-E3 (mid-2017 release, $999) 24 MP, stills focused, EVF, not weathersealed. Probably uses a single core variant of the X-Processor Pro, because it doesn't need the speed.
 
X-E2s (already here) 16 MP - lingers to give a low-cost introduction to the joys of the X-series.
 
The DSLR style:
 
X-T2 (June announcement, available before Photokina, $1799 or even $1999) - 24 MP, very high resolution EVF (perhaps the one from the Leica SL), still/video hybrid, weathersealed. Uses the speed of the X-Processor Pro to deliver superb 4K with Fuji lenses, but also the ideal camera for the longest lenses - if they're really introducing a 200mm f2, this is the body for it!. Chases the D500 and GH4 (but not the GH5, which may well be a 6K movie camera) simultaneously, with high frame rates in stills mode and excellent video. More expensive than the X-T1 to pay for fancy EVF, dual UHS-II slots, etc.. May be slightly larger than X-T1 (no heavier than an A7rII, and probably lighter) to accommodate the best of the X-Pro 2's control improvements, such as the joystick and the large shutter speed and exposure compensation dials.
 
X-T7 (Photokina announcement, holiday availability, $1199). 24 MP, X-T1 class EVF, 4K video (but not the level of the X-T2), possibly weathersealed. A "cut down" X-T2 with one card slot and without the luxury controls from the X-Pro 2 and X-T2 (the X-Pro 2 shutter dial is the nicest I've ever seen, but a regular one will do here), also missing the fancy video codecs and the Leica SL EVF, but it's lighter and cheaper.
 
X-T10 hangs around at $699-$799 to provide an entry level option
 
Inexpensive, very compact
 
X-A3 (not willing to guess a release date). A modest, 16 MP update to the X-A2 (which isn't X-Trans, X-A3 may not be either). Westerners almost forget the X-A2, but it sells well in Asia, where younger photographers tend to like tiny cameras.

The Fuji one isn't an L-bracket if I remember correctly... It's just a baseplate and grip set without vertical capability, no? If it IS an L-bracket, it's actually cheaper than the RRS equivalent, once you add a grip to the RRS version.  RRS hasn't announced any plans for a grip for the X-Pro 2, but their grip sets for other Fujis are around $190. The L-bracket (no grip) will be $130. Fuji wants $130 for a baseplate and grip, with no L component, and I haven't seen anything suggesting there will be an L component for it (I don't think Fuji has offered L components for other cameras). If RRS doesn't add a grip to their offerings, which they do for some Fujis, but not others, there will be an interesting dilemma for any photographer who wants both a grip and an L bracket... They had a grip for the X-Pro 1 and still offer them for the X100 and X-E lines, but they don't do grips for the X-T line (and the X-Pro 2 has a more pronounced built-in grip than the X-Pro 1 or X-E lines, but not nearly as much as the X-T line).
 
Also, an X-Pro 1 baseplate won't fit. Even if the dimensions were identical (as I recall, the X-Pro 2 is a couple of mm thicker), the X-Pro 2 tripod mount is on-axis, while the X-Pro 1 mount was off-axis..

There are two separate questions here - 44x33mm vs. larger sensor and the 50 MP sensor vs. something new with more pixels, and more importantly, newer technology. My vote is for 44x33 (anything larger means much larger lenses and higher prices), but NOT for the 50 MP sensor.
 
The 16 MP sensor that became the X-Trans was released in the Nikon D7000 in September 2010 (with availability somewhat later - DPReview's review came out in December, and I'm not sure how findable they were that holiday season), The X-Pro 1 was released in January 2012 - sure, there were parts of three years involved, but the sensor was 14 months old (if you count from real availability of the D7000). Fuji did keep the same sensor forever, but they introduced it when it was relatively new (and even more so with the X-Trans III sensor - that's a brand-new sensor, although at a resolution that's been around). In fact, the reason why a three year old sensor is unappealing to many is that Fuji keeps sensors for years.
 
I'm speculating that switching sensors is a bigger deal in an X-Trans camera than a Bayer camera. Sony may even make a standard Bayer design that they sell with the sensor, so the camera manufacturer doesn't have to source another part at all (and MANY cameras can share that part). Since X-Trans is unique, Fuji has to make or order a fairly complex part (yes, it's a glass plate with splotches of color on it, but they're splotches of color a few microns across, and that may not be easy to do - I'm not sure how you print color on glass at over 6000 dpi, especially with edge precision much higher than that). They can only make enough for their own needs. My suspicion is that the expense is largely in setting up a run of a particular filter, not in making each individual filter (so they kept churning out 16 MP X-Trans arrays for years).
 
If they go with the 50 MP sensor, I'd suspect that sensor will still be around 5 years later, when it's 8 years old. Even now, the 50 MP sensor underperforms the A7rII sensor in some ways (and may actually underperform the 24 MP X-Trans III sensor per pixel in some measurements - overall performance will be better because it's a larger, higher resolution sensor). By five years from now, sensors that outperform that one will be commonplace, and they will include not only full-frame sensors but also APS-C sensors (imagine if the 16 MP X-Trans had fallen behind Micro 43 and 1" sensors in performance during its long run - it never did, performing slightly better than the newest 20 MP Micro 43 sensor, and much better than any 1" sensor).
 
I agree with EyesUnclouded that the GX-Pro 1 should be 44x33mm, but I'd like to see a new sensor... Call it a 44x33mm shrink of the Phase One 100MP sensor, an enlarged A7rII sensor or a huge enlargement of the X-Trans III sensor - they all produce relatively similar results. Depending on which pixel pitch you use, you wind up with somewhere between a 67 mp (shrink of the 100 MP sensor) and a 96 MP (enlargement of X-Trans III) sensor using copper wiring, possibly BSI (A7rII) and possibly with 16-bit output (100 MP). I don't care whether it's 67, 72 or 96 MP, but I'd like to see Fuji start off with a sensor that uses the newest technological generation. This should be easy for Sony to make, and would also appeal to Phase One (who are trying to move to CMOS, but only have an underpixeled 50 MP back and a VERY expensive 100MP back), Hasselblad and Pentax. Pentax's newer lenses all depend on 44x33mm, so they have no interest in the 100 MP Phase One sensor (not to mention the price). Most of Hasselblad's lenses would work with the larger sensor (all except for a couple of wide angles), but they seem to be trying to undercut Phase One, and may not like the price of the 100 MP sensor.
 
Since Sony has the technology from three other sensors, I can't see that sensor being much more expensive than the 50 MP sensor that shares technology with an older generation of smaller-format sensors. By 5 years from now, the 50 MP sensor may actually be more expensive than a newer alternative, as Sony transitions all of their sensor manufacturing to copper. Right now, Sony makes a mix of old and new sensor types (ignoring sensors smaller than APS-C) - they have three sizes of current-generation sensor (24 MP APS-C X-Trans III and A6300, 42.4 MP A7rII and 100 MP Phase One - there may also be a Super 35 version in a movie camera or two, and there are certainly 1" versions ), but ALSO make at least four or five older-generation sensors (20 MP APS-C in the A5100, 24 MP APS-C in the A6000 and other cameras, both 24 and 36 MP full-frame, and the 50 MP 44x33mm sensor). Five years from now, will any of those still be in production? If the 50 MP sensor is an "orphan", its price may go up while Fuji still wants to use it.

It's a 7.2 volt battery, while USB is only 5 volts. The only cameras I know of that charge a 7.2 volt battery from 5 volt USB are some of the Sony interchangeable lens models, which are very slow to charge that way. They have a voltage boost circuit in the camera that allows them to do that, but it's inefficient. If the power is from the wall, it's going from 110 or 220 V AC to 5 V DC, then back up to something like 9 V DC  to charge the battery. If it's from a laptop, it's even worse - 110 or 220 V AC gets converted down to 20 or so V DC to charge the laptop battery (happens in the laptop charger - mine is 19.5 V), then that gets stored in an 18 V (or so - some small notebooks and ultrabooks may be as low as 12 volts, and a few gaming notebooks may be well over 20 volts, although my HP ZBoolk workstation is just under 20, and I'd think that's likely to be on the higher end, being a quad-core with a powerful discrete graphic chip) battery, converted down to 5 V DC on the motherboard to power the USB port, then back up to 8 or 9 V DC in the camera to charge the battery! Probably due to all the voltage conversions (and the final boost converter in the camera can't be very powerful - it's in a very constrained space, and heat is also likely to be a problem), those cameras take 4 hours or so to charge a battery that charges in 2 hours using an external charger.
 
The new USB Power Delivery standard in USB 3.1 (confusingly, huge parts of 3.1 and the Type C connector standard are optional, and you can have a Type C connector that is NOT 3.1, OR a USB 3.1 signal over a non Type C connector - what was the USB Implementers' Forum smoking?) can make this work better. A properly configured USB 3.1 Type C port can ask for 12 volts, which is great for charging 7+ volt batteries. It can even ask for 20 volts, which can charge things like laptops and big DSLRs (the Canon 1D series and Nikon D1/2/3/4/5 use 13+ volt batteries that won't charge from 12 volts).
 
The X100 series also charge from 5 volt USB, but, rather than using the complex voltage regulation of the Sonys, they simply use a 3.6 volt battery which charges just fine from a 5 volt source. I was rather surprised by this, because they seemed like "big" cameras to use a low-voltage battery (same voltage as a mobile phone).Many other fixed lens, large sensor cameras turn out to use 3.6 volt batteries as well, and they may well charge over USB. Once I found this out, my suspicion is that the distinction is that you can't stick a 3 lb 100-400mm lens on an X-100t, while the interchangeable lens series need to be ready for big lenses and their high power draw for focusing and OIS. I've never seen an interchangeable lens camera other than the tiny Pentax Q that uses 3.6 volt batteries. Rather prescient of Fuji, actually - they could have gone for 3.6 volts, since none of the initial three lenses were much bigger than the X100 lens (and they had slow focus motors).
 
Dan

One advantage to the X-Pro 2 is that the Fujinons are the best quality lens system out there overall, with the possible exception of Leica. Yes, you can pick and choose Nikkors or Canons that are just as nice, but there are also a lot of duds, There are very nice Sony lenses as well at a more limited selection of focal lengths... The great thing about Fuji is that all the Fujinons are at least "very good", with many choices better than that, and more than a few in the world-class category. Add that to one of the two best control interfaces around (I'd say Olympus is the other), and you have an overall system that just works.

They are unlikely to put all of this in an X-E, at least until the X-Pro 2 and X-T2 have had significant time to sell. It's just too close to the flagships. What we may see as the 24 MP sensor trickles down is more like:
 
24 MP sensor, same focus point pattern as X-Pro 2 and X-T2 (if there's a difference, the X-E3 will probably get the pattern from the X-Pro 2, not any extra points the X-T2 picks up).
EVF size a little bigger than X-Pro 2 (with an X-Pro 2 like refresh rate), but not in X-T territory (the huge EVF and any extra resolution the X-T2 gets are X-T differentiating features)
Probably non-tilting screen, although a touch screen is a possibility
It probably WILL get the X-Pro 2 combined shutter speed/ISO dial
No weathersealing(?)
Video specs of the X-Pro 2 (I'm guessing the X-T2 has some major improvements)
Single card slot
Probably gets the joystick (I suspect it goes with the big number of AF points) - might not if it has a touchscreen
 
Instead of an ubercamera that has every spec from the combination of the X-Pro 2 and X-T2, a more realistic X-E3 has the lesser  specs from each (viewfinder is neither hybrid nor X-T grade, for example) to keep the price down, and loses a couple of features the other two share (weathersealing). It may pick up a feature or two of its own, but they will tend to be features seen as consumer-oriented (touchscreen?).

They are unlikely to put all of this in an X-E, at least until the X-Pro 2 and X-T2 have had significant time to sell. It's just too close to the flagships. What we may see as the 24 MP sensor trickles down is more like:
 
24 MP sensor, same focus point pattern as X-Pro 2 and X-T2 (if there's a difference, the X-E3 will probably get the pattern from the X-Pro 2, not any extra points the X-T2 picks up).
EVF size a little bigger than X-Pro 2 (with an X-Pro 2 like refresh rate), but not in X-T territory (the huge EVF and any extra resolution the X-T2 gets are X-T differentiating features)
Probably non-tilting screen, although a touch screen is a possibility
It probably WILL get the X-Pro 2 combined shutter speed/ISO dial
No weathersealing(?)
Video specs of the X-Pro 2 (I'm guessing the X-T2 has some major improvements)
Single card slot
Probably gets the joystick (I suspect it goes with the big number of AF points) - might not if it has a touchscreen
 
Instead of an ubercamera that has every spec from the combination of the X-Pro 2 and X-T2, a more realistic X-E3 has the lesser  specs from each (viewfinder is neither hybrid nor X-T grade, for example) to keep the price down, and loses a couple of features the other two share (weathersealing). It may pick up a feature or two of its own, but they will tend to be features seen as consumer-oriented (touchscreen?).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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