cug

The viewfinder is a bigger difference than what you'd think at first. It's a lot bigger in the X-T1, it also has a much longer eye point, meaning it is a lot easier to use with glasses. And you can actually see the whole viewfinder without smashing your eye against it. 
 
It also make for different ergonomics with the center placement and the controls on both sides. 
 
4k video will likely come, but really the Fuji cameras aren't that great for video anyways and 4k is more hype than anything else. Most people couldn't even play or edit the files on their computers or would have the storage to keep the recordings. 
 
It's also likely that the X-T2 will be slightly bigger than the X-T1 for better ergonomics and heat management (new hardware and 4k), so ergonomic comparisons between X-T1 and X-Pro2 might not be fully valid for the X-T2. 

The kind of photography that seems to live off angry videos with foul language and claims repeated something like 20 times in a single video, spending 70% of a video repeating unrelated bullshit before getting to the actual topic of the video. So, yeah. He certainly got an opinion. Do I care? Not one single bit.

The Zeiss Touit line, to me, is a big fraud. The 12 and 32 aren't optically corrected, as the XF14 and XF35 1.4 are, originally cost WAY more, are not built as good as the Fujinons and are not as good optically. The blue Zeiss logo on the side just triples the price tag, unrightfully so. Besides, the Touits are assembled by Fuji btw... The XF 35 1.4 is better at 5.6 than the Touit.
 
 
Yep, good summary. I would never buy a Touit.
 
Good decision. I'd use the original lens hood. It is of excellent quality and serves the purpose very well!

The kind of photography that seems to live off angry videos with foul language and claims repeated something like 20 times in a single video, spending 70% of a video repeating unrelated bullshit before getting to the actual topic of the video. So, yeah. He certainly got an opinion. Do I care? Not one single bit.

I have the 14mm f/2.8 and the 56 f/1.2.
I want an XF 28 f/2.0 WR. Optically like the 14 (no distortion, sharp over the frame stopped down) with an aperture ring. A true normal FL (FL = image circle). I find 23 too wide or night wide enough and 35 too tight much of the time.

What do you want to shoot with it? It's not the best lens for landscape where perfect corner to corner sharpness matters (it relies heavily on software distortion correction*). 
Otherwise it's a fast and small lens perfectly suited to documentary, street, photojournalism style.
Nice rendering, smooth bokeh, sharpness-wise it's perfectly fine from wide open.
It has some problems with chromatic aberrations, it may be not well suited if your favourite photosubjects are tree branches against bright sky
It focuses fast (although it's a little bit noisy compared to other and especially newer X-lenses) and it's very flare proof (you can leave the hood at home, the only flare it cuts down are rare situations where a strong light source shines directly in something like a 80° angle on the front element).
 
This lens' biggest problem are pixelpeeping armchair-testchart-brickwall-photographers
 
 
*if you're using a raw converter which lets you control the applied correction, you can even use this as an advantage to counter the stretched-head-wide-angle look in the corners
 
 
some snapshots with my 18mm:
 
f2 near distance in seriously low light
f2 near-medium disctance in slightly better but still low light
f4 medium-far distance in low light
f4 near distance in ok light
f5.6 far distance in ok light

As said in other places: 
 
The lenses are close in end results, but they are different enough that it should be fairly easy to pick one over the other depending on your needs/wants. 
 
If your goal is optical performance, creative options, and purity of optical lens design, there is no question, it has to be the 1.4. It offers one stop bigger max aperture, which means better low light, more creative options, better blur, it also recovers better in sharpness across the frame from f/2.8 on up which means you get better balanced sharpness and contrast across the frame from it.
 
The new f/2 lens is mechanically the clear winner, although I find the aperture ring actually a bit too tight, maybe that will losen over time though. The WR is welcome to keep dust out of lens and body, the AF performance is marginally better, hunting is more of a body than a lens problem anyways (the body tells the lens where to go) and people often compare old firmware experience with current firmware experience instead of comparing actual apples to apples. 
 
A lot of the reviewers make money when people use their "Buy now" links. Therefore, they often don't offer a clear opinion, but try to make those who don't own either lens buy at least one, and get those who own one already to buy the other as well. It's not that they are paid for the reviews or for a specific opinion, it's that they get money if any of the reviewed products are bought. 
 
I own both lenses because we go out as a pair (my wife and I) and we both like the XF35 field of view. Therefore having two of them makes sense for us and therefore we have the opportunity to compare the lenses themselves as well as the results later on. 
 
My personal recommendation: the XF35 f/1.4 is the better allrounder due to the qualities mentioned above, the XF35 f/2 is a very worthy contender if you have a tighter budget and benefit from WR. The new XF35 f/2 is great lens for everything where consistent across the frame contrast/sharpness/look from f/4 to f/11 isn't as critical.
 
The tiny problem I have with the f/2 is that even without pixel-peeping, the print results in the extreme corners I get from it, are sometimes (very rarely) not satisfactory from f/4 to f/8 – a range I use a lot for my photography. It doesn't affect many photos in a way that I notice it but it happened a few time to me now so that my first choice between the two is the f/1.4 if that isn't already taken by my wife (she has first pick of course).

If you want to use the standard for landscapes, just go get the 35 1.4 and use it at 5.6 for a very even and extreme sharpness. Forget the Touit, not worth even its current price. The 35 f/2 is not really made for landscape. The digital distortion correction takes its toll for images where you need even sharpness out to the corners.

Forgot to answer before, but because this thread has found some new life I wanted to do it now.
 
The X-E2 supposedly has 0.62x, the A6000 0.7x and the X-T1 0.77x. That's A6000 being 13% larger than X-E2, not 20%. It basically sits pretty much in the middle between the two. But you are probably right in that an increased magnification should be possible without size increase.  Well according to my measurements it surely wouldn't be possible to fit an X-T1 EVF above a 3" LCD with 3:2. So it would need new optics or a smaller LCD. I never had a problem with it but now I tried it with my X-E2 and imagined what it would be like with the buttons to the right of the LCD. Feels awesome! You're right, it is much better for usability. Yeah, consolidating the lineup really should be a priority because I feel Fuji hasn't been too good at that TBH.  
I don't like big handgrips because they automatically lead to me holding more of the weight with my right hand which is not ergonomic (that's my expertise as a physiotherapist). Of course I can't definitely say that this is the case with everybody but anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that. People frequently shooting with one hand should add a larger grip and in that case I agree that it should include its own shutter release. Alternatively Fuji could offer two different versions of the handgrip that are user replaceable. Not likely going to happen though.
 
Thanks for your interesting input, I've reconsidered my concept and would now likely advocate a smaller or 16:9 screen if that is needed for the larger EVF. If the EVF can be made larger without increasing body size or decreasing LCD size that would of course be even better.

I did a few months with only the 35/1.4 on an X-E1 and I loved it.
 
There are some limitations due to the focal length, especially indoors when trying to capture larger subjects like cars in a museum or so, but similar issues exist for a 23 or 27 as well. 
 
If I were to go for a one lens system for a longer period of time it would be either the 23/1.4 or the 35/1.4. I would not go for f2 versions for the simple reason that the larger aperture give additional artistic as well as exposure leverage which is important if you have only a single lens. I can live with f/2, like on the X100T, but I like the additional options I have with a faster lens. 
 
The 27 would not be my choice because of the slow speed and missing aperture ring. The image quality is more than good enough, but f/2.8 just isn't cutting it for a single lens system.
 
For deciding between 23 and 35, do yourself a favor and ignore all the "the 23 is more versatile" or "the 35 is better for this" comments. They are just opinions from people who don't know you so how can they give you a good recommendation?
 
Look at your own photo library, figure out which focal length you used most and which gave you the best photos (that doesn't have to be the same). Pick the one where you like the results best and that will work for what you like to photograph over that "one camera one lens" period. You might want to go for a compromise if you can't decide. Or go for a two lens system. Whatever works for you. 

What makes you think that? One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

I think this is kind of backwards. Without seeing comparisons of what you need recommending either an X-Pro1 or X-Pro2 or a Leica M for that matter is totally useless. If you are having a G.A.S. attack so be it and I think that's what's actually going on. 
 
Regarding the results: post pictures of what you like and comparisons from your X-T1 and it might be possible to give some hints. If you run into waxy skin, shoot raw, done. If you don't like some of the color/sharpness/noise reduction – shoot raw, define a personal preset of the setting as you want them to be and you're done. All without having to invest hundreds of dollars in new camera gear.
 
Sorry to say, but everybody who really thinks that going from one camera generation to the next will improve their images is day dreaming. To improve your images there are much simpler and much harder things to do: take better photos, learn to use your gear right, do proper post. That applies to all of us I believe, not a rant towards you.
 
Now, if this is just an excuse to get more Fuji gear: go for it. Everything that sells gear for Fuji is good for all of us ...

Looks too big for my personal taste. I use a standard daypack, non-photographic backpack and put a hydration bladder inside. Yeah, I know, some people are worried about flooding their equipment, I've never heard of that happening though, but of course, there is always a first time.
 
The problem is, no matter what I do, my wife looks like a tourist even when we are just walking to the local shopping center, while I look out of place in many places as well, just not as a tourist. 
 
Overall, people tend to over-complicate things a lot and then come up with "solutions" that are just as dorky and obvious as running around like a photo journalist on assignment. You'll likely have a camera out. To a petty thief that means that every pocket on you has the potential for high value camera gear and your wallet will be full of cash to buy artisan water and Starbucks soy lattes. The more you fight that, the more the impression that you have something to hide is there. 
 
Live with the fact that people will recognize you as a tourist but make it in a way that they consider you a target that isn't worth bothering with. Be aware of your surroundings, be alert, don't behave like a stoned out druggy on seeing that "once in a lifetime photo opportunity" that is, just that moment, also photographed by a thousand other people.
 
As bad as it sounds, but when it comes to surviving, you don't have to outrun the lion, you only have to outrun a single other person around you ... and there are enough out there to make that one easy in the "urban jungle".

As said in other places: 
 
The lenses are close in end results, but they are different enough that it should be fairly easy to pick one over the other depending on your needs/wants. 
 
If your goal is optical performance, creative options, and purity of optical lens design, there is no question, it has to be the 1.4. It offers one stop bigger max aperture, which means better low light, more creative options, better blur, it also recovers better in sharpness across the frame from f/2.8 on up which means you get better balanced sharpness and contrast across the frame from it.
 
The new f/2 lens is mechanically the clear winner, although I find the aperture ring actually a bit too tight, maybe that will losen over time though. The WR is welcome to keep dust out of lens and body, the AF performance is marginally better, hunting is more of a body than a lens problem anyways (the body tells the lens where to go) and people often compare old firmware experience with current firmware experience instead of comparing actual apples to apples. 
 
A lot of the reviewers make money when people use their "Buy now" links. Therefore, they often don't offer a clear opinion, but try to make those who don't own either lens buy at least one, and get those who own one already to buy the other as well. It's not that they are paid for the reviews or for a specific opinion, it's that they get money if any of the reviewed products are bought. 
 
I own both lenses because we go out as a pair (my wife and I) and we both like the XF35 field of view. Therefore having two of them makes sense for us and therefore we have the opportunity to compare the lenses themselves as well as the results later on. 
 
My personal recommendation: the XF35 f/1.4 is the better allrounder due to the qualities mentioned above, the XF35 f/2 is a very worthy contender if you have a tighter budget and benefit from WR. The new XF35 f/2 is great lens for everything where consistent across the frame contrast/sharpness/look from f/4 to f/11 isn't as critical.
 
The tiny problem I have with the f/2 is that even without pixel-peeping, the print results in the extreme corners I get from it, are sometimes (very rarely) not satisfactory from f/4 to f/8 – a range I use a lot for my photography. It doesn't affect many photos in a way that I notice it but it happened a few time to me now so that my first choice between the two is the f/1.4 if that isn't already taken by my wife (she has first pick of course).

Easy, stay away from the shower for about four weeks, sleep in your closes, keep the same clothes on for four weeks as well and pack your stuff in something like this and you'll be perfectly safe.
 

 
Everything else is just fooling yourself.
 
Pay attention to your surroundings, use a bag that closes with a non-simple mechanism and don't dress like a complete dork and you are about as safe as all the other tourists that will roam the same streets. 
 
Just one thing: it's not the bag that attracts attention, it's YOU. 

Easy, stay away from the shower for about four weeks, sleep in your closes, keep the same clothes on for four weeks as well and pack your stuff in something like this and you'll be perfectly safe.
 

 
Everything else is just fooling yourself.
 
Pay attention to your surroundings, use a bag that closes with a non-simple mechanism and don't dress like a complete dork and you are about as safe as all the other tourists that will roam the same streets. 
 
Just one thing: it's not the bag that attracts attention, it's YOU. 

Best advice I can give you, limit your lenses down to 2, maybe 2 lenses and add the 27 to go with you. Anything more is going to need more decent bag unless you do not mind lens stacking nor having them jiggle all in your bag.
 
As for the bag itself, you will be best served by converting a regular bag into a camera bag. Steal some padding here and there from your camera bags and make it a bit better for your camera and lens.
 
But if you want to add the bottle, the gorillapod, the umbrella along a rain coat for the bag, it's going to scream "I got stuff inside!". Plus most of the pickpocket are able to detect a tourist from a local from a glance. The thing that will make you out is the clothes. If you aren't dressing at local shops, you will stand out from the locals at lot more.
 
Rather than trying to find a bag that will make you fit in, pay more attention to your surroundings, if you look alert, keep a certain distance from the anyone unknown, no matter how nice/pretty/innocent they look should already be something.
A simple "I don't know, I can not help you" goes a very long way to keep your gear safe.
Avoid any kind of external sign of wealth, that means ANY jewelry, even your wedding ring stays at home or in a bank's safe, simple clothes, I personally like to pack clothes only for the first and last day and buy what I need locally. And pick practical stuff over design and look.
Travel light during your visit, leave most of what you don't need at the hotel rather than with you. Everything you need should fit into a single bag, no more than that.
Keep photocopies of your passport, leave the real document in the hotel and take the copies with you, make several of them if needed, it's cheap and still worth it as official document should you be in a pinch. Make copies of outside and inner page with your ID picture and if you have a VISA in there, copy it too.
 
If you are not traveling alone and setup a very simple rule of never watching in the same direction. With my wife, we always watch in opposite direction while standing next of each other, if we are being approached, I pass my stuff to her and turn around so she is clearly within my view and don't get whatever map/paper they would be holding in my face. Even better if we can find a nice wall to block anything from coming from behind us.
 
Those are my rules and they work for me as I travel to Asia around once a year.

I think it's perfectly normal to be attached to gear that you know well and are familiar with. There are memories of common history. However, it's also perfectly possible to get familiar with new gear and create new history together. 

Let me get back to cameras themselves you give you my personal opinion what I use for what and what I think the advantages or disadvantages with specific models are. You can then think about whether any of that applies to you and whether it is something you have already considered or haven't yet but shouldn't.
 
Image Quality
 
Let's get that out of the way first, unless you regularly remove 30% of the pixels through cropping, you aren't going to see an improvement with the 24MP over the 16MP sensors. 
 
There are minuscule differences between ISO performance, detail resolution and dynamic range that are completely and utterly irrelevant for day to day use. Even blowing up a 16 and a 24MP photo to 1m x 1.5m print, you'll be hard pressed to see a difference. The lens choice makes more of a difference than the pixel count.
 
The additional Acros film simulation that everybody raves about is awesome, but again irrelevant if you want to truly get the best out of your images and therefore process raws with strong local exposure adjustments like gradients or other tools in Lightroom that allow you to widely change exposure in part of your photo. The raw just has more data than the JPEG and while the JPEGs actually do have an astounding leverage, they aren't as versatile as the raws.
 
Weight
 
By and large, the weight gain of a 100g to 150g or so from one end of the spectrum (X-Pro2/X-T1) to the other (X-T10/X-E2) are again, completely irrelevant. The weight is in the number and type of lenses you are planning to carry. There are the (comparatively) huge pro zooms (16-55, 50-140, 100-400) which are very large and heavy for mirrorless camera lenses, there are the mid-sized, but very, very good and fast lenses (16, 23, 56, 90) that are really on par with any L lens I've ever tried and there are the compacts, which are also pretty much in their own weight/price/quality class (14, both 35s, 60, 18-55). 
 
Depending on your shooting style you may or may not know what focal lengths are working for you. If you do know, pick the ones you know you'll like and just consider weight and size as well when picking between close contenders (like 14 vs. 16, 18 vs. 23, 56 vs. 60). 
 
Again, you determine the weight and size more by how many lenses you pack and which line of lenses you pick. The camera body is nearly irrelevant there.
 
Camera Size
 
What a lot of people miss is that the small camera bodies of mirrorless cameras have unique challenges in terms of haptic and ergonomics. Hands and fingers and thumbs have a certain size and need a certain space to operate comfortably. Personally I find the X-T1 layout quite cramped although I get along fine with it nowadays, I wish it was a little bit bigger and had the general layout of the new X-Pro2 but with a grip even more pronounced and deeper than the X-T1 has. 
 
I use my X-T1 with a permanently attached ArcaSwiss plate from Really Right Stuff, that gives the camera the necessary height so I can grip it comfortably with my full hand and don't have fingers hanging out in the air. The X-Pro2 doesn't need that, but for me it needs a real front grip. The X-E2 is awesome with the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, the same is true for the X100T, I have not tried the X-T10 with a grip. 
 
Quick impressions:
X-T1 – very good for me with the ArcaSwiss plate permanently attached X-Pro1/2 – very good, but gets a bit large with the extra grip attached which I want as the camera's front grip isn't great X-E2 – great, but only with the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, without that, I dislike the handling of the camera X100T – great, but only with a Metrocase grip or the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, without these I dislike the handling of the camera even more than X-E2 X-T10 – too small for me, might be okay with additional handgrip, although I find the body overall to be too small So, pick your poison. Pick a small body with the potential need of adding a bulky grip, or pick a larger not quite ergonomic model that you have to make really bulky if it doesn't for you without a grip or pick a midsized model, add a grip or not. 
 
In daily use the size differences don't matter to people seeing you with the camera, don't think you are more or less conspicuous with a smaller camera, certainly as soon as you add a bulky lens like the 16mm that is completely gone.
 
Body Style
 
I find the SLR style bodies work better for me as I am left eye dominant and I keep my face slightly angled to the camera with my nose not touching the rear screen of my X-T1 at all but being in contact with my right thumb sometimes. No big deal, there is enough space there for me to work comfortably. 
 
Over time I have trained myself to be able to shoot with my right eye as well, but the rangefinder style does have some downsides for me. The EVFs are smaller, I love the huge EVF on the X-T1. And often enough I just pick up the camera put it my face and have smashed my nose against the screen because I put it to my left eye. Remember, left eye dominant here. Never a problem with the X-T1/X-T10.
 
Also, on the X100T as well as the X-Pro series, one of the big issues I have is that I get fingerprints on the front element of the viewfinder which makes the view slightly "fuzzy" or "milky". The effect is actually quite pronounced which surprised me. I don't have the problem much since I added a quite big grip to the X100T, but before that it would happen ALL the time. Very annoying. 
 
My personal expectation is that the X-T2 will get a little bigger to deal better with heat management when 4k video arrives. It will pick up most of the internal changes of the X-Pro2, except the viewfinder of course and will hopefully go to an ever better EVF panel with higher resolution. The increased body size will make a stronger distinction between X-T10 and X-T2 than there is today, which personally I find acceptable as it allows for a more ergonomically sound button and grip placement. 
 
X-T1 vs. X-T2
 
The difference between the two will not be nearly as big as the differences between X-Pro1 and X-Pro2. X-Pro1 has been around for four years, it's a first generation product. X-T1 is a second (or even 2.5 if you account for the not-quite-there X100S) generation product. Going from second generation to third generation won't be as much of a step as from first to third. Therefore, it's likely not a step that will bring lots of benefits for users of current cameras, but can be an interesting one if you can wait out the release of the X-T2 and pick the then new camera generation.
 
As mentioned above, image quality won't matter too much for still images, video will likely be a larger distinction if that matters to you. Personally I find 4k video in cameras like the ones we are discussing here, completely useless as the resolution increase brings too many downsides with it: long processing times in post, lots of storage needed, heat management in camera, not many places where you can actually watch 4k video. 
 
Personally I think if you want a camera for video, there are better choices in non-Fuji land.
 
AF performance and general speed will be increased, but overall it won't be a revelation compared to what people have been used to on DSLRs for nearly a decade now. It's great to get, but not worth the upgrade from X-T1 to X-T2, again, just my personal opinion.
 
X-Pro2 vs. other X
 
Given it has the latest tech if the body style suits you and you actually like the OVF (I don't), there is no question, the X-Pro2 is a great camera. But it is kind of a geek camera with the OVF that isn't really great with a lens wider than 18mm or longer than 35mm. The captured frame is either bigger than what you see in the OVF or the frame visible is a really small square in the middle, even with the OVF magnification. I wish Fuji had added a third magnification level to allow 60 and/or 90mm lenses to use more than a small area of the OVF. 
 
Other than that I think the X-Pro2 has the best button and control layout by far from all the X cameras. Part of this is due to available space on the larger body, another part is a good balance between physical controls for the full exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) while leaving other functions to dedicated buttons or Fn buttons. The X-T1 brings it a bit too far with suboptimal implementation on a slightly too small body for the number of controls, the X-E and X-T10 style bodies have less dedicated controls again. So overall, I'd give the nod for buttons and controls to the X-Pro2 and hope that Fuji will bring some of that to the X-T2. Although I won't hold my breath there as I believe they'll still end up with suboptimal implementation and too many controls for the body size. But okay, that's something you can get used to.
 
Regarding sensor and processor, I believe the newer processor gives a bigger gain than the new sensor. It speeds up everything the camera does and makes it more snappy and the new firmware and menu styling allows for some more intuitive handling. While the sensor is nice, it's no revelation compared to what has been around in competing cameras for a while, it merely brings Fuji up to par in terms of APS-C resolution with other manufacturers. Which, by itself, is a good thing, but I don't consider it crucial. The speed increase of the processor is much more crucial, especially to owners of the first generation X-Pro1 or X-E1 cameras than anything the sensor does.
 
Packed Space Requirements
 
One thing often overlooked is the requirement in packed space. An X-Pro2 packs actually slightly more compact than an X-T1. This might only affect people like me with a certain style/size in bags, but it's something to consider. The X-T1 "EVF hump" in addition with the ArcaSwiss base makes the X-T1 not fit in one of my preferred camera bags (Billingham Hadley Small) the way I want it, meaning sideways. Sure I can squeeze it in, bulging the bag, but I don't consider that a great solution. Therefore the Hadley Small is used for X100T and sometimes X-E2, but never for X-T1 based kits. I use a larger Hadley Pro for the X-T1 kit and like that sized bag for some other reasons as well. It really just depends on what I'm doing.
 
And a big one (for me): Eye Point
 
I frigging hate that Fuji has put such a small rear element on X100 and X-Pro series cameras. It means you have to get your eye really close to the viewfinders rear opening to see the full frame. With my Silhouette glasses that's not possible for me. With my other style glasses it works but I still have to "smash" the glasses against the rubber eye relief to see the viewfinder properly and I plain dislike that. The much longer eyepoint on X-T1 and X-E2 works a lot better for me. Especially the X-T1 with the large magnification, big rear element and long eye point combined with the long eye cup (accessory) is a joy to use even with glasses. I tend to use the rear display of the X100T much more than on any other camera with a viewfinder I have owned so far, plain because the viewfinder doesn't work well for me. 
 
Long term outlook (pure guesswork)
 
My guess is that Fuji will distinguish the bigger and more expensive bodies over time more from the smaller and less expensive bodies than they have so far. Just think about it: the difference between X-T10 and X-T1 are basically weather sealing, larger EVF and more physical controls. That's it. But the X-T1 costs nearly twice as much. 
 
It could be that Fuji sticks to 16MP sensors and other cheaper components for the time being while the X-T2 and X-Pro2 will stay ahead for some time. That could mean software features as well as hardware features. It's the difficulty for a small company to work a market with quite a wide span in terms of technical requirements, price desires and overall hype for new things. 
 
 
So, maybe the above rant helped a little bit. I had some time sitting in a hotel waiting for my flight to leave, so I was able to write this all down. Whether it applies to you or not – only you can decide.

All of the above is very true, the two lenses are really different. The 23 is sharp, optically corrected, has the focus clutch. The XF35/2 is mostly sharp, digitally corrected, no focus clutch, has very fast AF and is a WR lens. 
 
Apart from that, handling the two is a world of difference. When I put the XF23 on my X-T1 I don't want to use it without the ArcaSwiss RRS place to I get more camera height to hold on to with my right hand. The combination feels like a small DSLR, not like a compact mirrorless setup anymore. Compared to the new 35, the 23 is just huge:
 
http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.422,520.498,ha,t
 
The weight difference is very significant as well even though it doesn't look like it on paper. When I put the 35 on, I also really WANT to remove the ArcaSwiss plate, because the package is so nice and light and compact. 
 
If I could have only one, there is no question, I'd have the 35. If budget allows for more than one lens, the two could complement each other depending on the shooting you do. But I'd rather have the 16 and the new 35 instead of 23 and 35. 

I did a few months with only the 35/1.4 on an X-E1 and I loved it.
 
There are some limitations due to the focal length, especially indoors when trying to capture larger subjects like cars in a museum or so, but similar issues exist for a 23 or 27 as well. 
 
If I were to go for a one lens system for a longer period of time it would be either the 23/1.4 or the 35/1.4. I would not go for f2 versions for the simple reason that the larger aperture give additional artistic as well as exposure leverage which is important if you have only a single lens. I can live with f/2, like on the X100T, but I like the additional options I have with a faster lens. 
 
The 27 would not be my choice because of the slow speed and missing aperture ring. The image quality is more than good enough, but f/2.8 just isn't cutting it for a single lens system.
 
For deciding between 23 and 35, do yourself a favor and ignore all the "the 23 is more versatile" or "the 35 is better for this" comments. They are just opinions from people who don't know you so how can they give you a good recommendation?
 
Look at your own photo library, figure out which focal length you used most and which gave you the best photos (that doesn't have to be the same). Pick the one where you like the results best and that will work for what you like to photograph over that "one camera one lens" period. You might want to go for a compromise if you can't decide. Or go for a two lens system. Whatever works for you. 

Hmpf. Let's take a look at that as I can't agree with much of what is in this post.
 
 
XF27 f/2.8
 
It is very sharp across the frame. It used to be my second sharpest lens after the Zeiss Touit 50mm f/2.8. Mine is about as good across the frame as the XF23 f/1.4, only beaten clearly by the XF90 and the Zeiss. Other lenses might be better at a certain aperture or certain characteristic but as an average of apertures from f/2.8 to f/8 the 27 is one of the best lenses I have tested from the Fuji line up. It does drop of significantly from f/11 on though.
 
It has a light barrel distortion which is well corrected in software, either in camera or Lightroom and also some coma but both aren't really problematic. 
 
There seems to be some significant spread between various XF27 lenses, I tested two of them and both were very close together, but there are other results on the net to be found which show weak edge performance which I can't reproduce with the lens I have here. So be aware and test the one you receive.
 
XF35 f/1.4 and f/2
 
Between these two lenses there are reviews that show one or the other being stronger optically, I own both and can say that without a doubt the old f/1.4 beats the new f/2 lens easily in optical performance from f/4 on. Contrast, micro-contrast, center resolution, resolution across the frame, distortion are better on my f/1.4 than they are on my f/2. I have seen tests stating otherwise even though when looking closely at their examples, it shows that they actually get same results as myself. 
 
The f/2 is clearly a newer lens from Fuji, more solid barrel design, faster AF motor, nearly completely silent operation, tight aperture ring and the WR badge show this fairly clearly. Optically, the XF35 f/2 beats the old f/1.4 only at it's own wide open aperture and only in the wide corner area (not really close to the corner where the f/2 falls off pretty badly), which is kind of surprising – at f/2 the new lens shows more contrast in all parts of the except the center. 
 
The new XF35 f/2 is unfortunately absolutely terrible in terms of optical distortion correction. The barrel distortion is extreme. 
 
For landscapes between my two copies of the XF35 lenses the f/1.4 is better as it recovers much better over the whole frame from f/2.8 on where the two are comparable but from f/4 on the old lens shows clearly more details and more micro-contrast across the frame.
 
Regarding AF performance, the new lens IS slightly better, but only slightly. The old lens makes a lot more "fuss" about focussing with a noisy motor and some squeaks here and there though making it "sound" slower. 
 
You also have to be REALLY careful when looking at reviews of the lenses as all Fuji lenses seem to have variations between individual samples. So, you might get a really good XF35 f/2 or a really bad XF27 and your results can vary.
 
Also, one more word of caution with regard to reviews: some reviews use dcraw to develop the raw which used to be absolutely terrible in de-mosaicing x-trans files which means the resulting resolution graphs were really bad for the simple reason that the software was crap and not the lens.
 
Conclusion from above
 
If you are looking for best optical performance, the surprise here is that if you get a good copy of the XF27 it is optically better on average over the respective full range of apertures of each lens than either of the XF35 lenses. 
 
Now, that needs to be qualified though because if you take all three lenses and compare them from f/2.8 to f/8 only, the optically best I have here (and have tested personally) is the XF35 f/1.4. 
 
No matter though, if it is really the only lens used for a while then I would HIGHLY recommend the XF35 f/1.4 for the following reasons:
​It recovers optically better from f/2.8 on than the newer f/2 lens. It delivers one stop more light which results in more creative options shooting wide open as well as more exposure options shooting in dark areas AND it lets in twice (compared to f/2) or even four times (compared to f/2.8) as much light onto an auto focus system so can be more precise. It is optically better corrected than the two other lenses. The XF27 does not have an aperture ring which I personally find a downside but others might disagree here. While f/2.8 is not really slow, it is two stops slower than f/1.4 with all the creative disadvantages and exposure downsides. The field of few is actually quite a bit different between the 27 and the 35s. 
 
If the only viable financial option is between XF35 f/2 and the XF27 I'd go with the one that is closer to the preferred focal length. 
 
Waiting for 23 f/2?
 
Why on earth would someone wait for a lens that isn't even on the Fujifilm lens roadmap yet? The rumors stem from an interview where a Fuji executive said that "people have asked for more compact slightly slower lenses" and that they'll likely develop some of them. Really, you're going to wait because of a rumor? 
 
XF27 vs. any of the XF35s
 
I have not used the XF27 much in the last year since I bought the XF23. I basically pack it in my bag when I take the X-T1 on a longer trip to have an option to remove the ArcaSwiss plate from the camera, mount the XF27 and have a very compact system. But mostly I just take a bag with me and pack the 14, maybe the 23, definitely a 35 and maybe if I'm after portraits the 56 or 90. 
 
The XF27 is an okay "only lens" for me, but the XF23 and either of the XF35s are better "only lenses". I'm more a 35 than a 23 fan, but that's personal. 

Let me get back to cameras themselves you give you my personal opinion what I use for what and what I think the advantages or disadvantages with specific models are. You can then think about whether any of that applies to you and whether it is something you have already considered or haven't yet but shouldn't.
 
Image Quality
 
Let's get that out of the way first, unless you regularly remove 30% of the pixels through cropping, you aren't going to see an improvement with the 24MP over the 16MP sensors. 
 
There are minuscule differences between ISO performance, detail resolution and dynamic range that are completely and utterly irrelevant for day to day use. Even blowing up a 16 and a 24MP photo to 1m x 1.5m print, you'll be hard pressed to see a difference. The lens choice makes more of a difference than the pixel count.
 
The additional Acros film simulation that everybody raves about is awesome, but again irrelevant if you want to truly get the best out of your images and therefore process raws with strong local exposure adjustments like gradients or other tools in Lightroom that allow you to widely change exposure in part of your photo. The raw just has more data than the JPEG and while the JPEGs actually do have an astounding leverage, they aren't as versatile as the raws.
 
Weight
 
By and large, the weight gain of a 100g to 150g or so from one end of the spectrum (X-Pro2/X-T1) to the other (X-T10/X-E2) are again, completely irrelevant. The weight is in the number and type of lenses you are planning to carry. There are the (comparatively) huge pro zooms (16-55, 50-140, 100-400) which are very large and heavy for mirrorless camera lenses, there are the mid-sized, but very, very good and fast lenses (16, 23, 56, 90) that are really on par with any L lens I've ever tried and there are the compacts, which are also pretty much in their own weight/price/quality class (14, both 35s, 60, 18-55). 
 
Depending on your shooting style you may or may not know what focal lengths are working for you. If you do know, pick the ones you know you'll like and just consider weight and size as well when picking between close contenders (like 14 vs. 16, 18 vs. 23, 56 vs. 60). 
 
Again, you determine the weight and size more by how many lenses you pack and which line of lenses you pick. The camera body is nearly irrelevant there.
 
Camera Size
 
What a lot of people miss is that the small camera bodies of mirrorless cameras have unique challenges in terms of haptic and ergonomics. Hands and fingers and thumbs have a certain size and need a certain space to operate comfortably. Personally I find the X-T1 layout quite cramped although I get along fine with it nowadays, I wish it was a little bit bigger and had the general layout of the new X-Pro2 but with a grip even more pronounced and deeper than the X-T1 has. 
 
I use my X-T1 with a permanently attached ArcaSwiss plate from Really Right Stuff, that gives the camera the necessary height so I can grip it comfortably with my full hand and don't have fingers hanging out in the air. The X-Pro2 doesn't need that, but for me it needs a real front grip. The X-E2 is awesome with the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, the same is true for the X100T, I have not tried the X-T10 with a grip. 
 
Quick impressions:
X-T1 – very good for me with the ArcaSwiss plate permanently attached X-Pro1/2 – very good, but gets a bit large with the extra grip attached which I want as the camera's front grip isn't great X-E2 – great, but only with the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, without that, I dislike the handling of the camera X100T – great, but only with a Metrocase grip or the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, without these I dislike the handling of the camera even more than X-E2 X-T10 – too small for me, might be okay with additional handgrip, although I find the body overall to be too small So, pick your poison. Pick a small body with the potential need of adding a bulky grip, or pick a larger not quite ergonomic model that you have to make really bulky if it doesn't for you without a grip or pick a midsized model, add a grip or not. 
 
In daily use the size differences don't matter to people seeing you with the camera, don't think you are more or less conspicuous with a smaller camera, certainly as soon as you add a bulky lens like the 16mm that is completely gone.
 
Body Style
 
I find the SLR style bodies work better for me as I am left eye dominant and I keep my face slightly angled to the camera with my nose not touching the rear screen of my X-T1 at all but being in contact with my right thumb sometimes. No big deal, there is enough space there for me to work comfortably. 
 
Over time I have trained myself to be able to shoot with my right eye as well, but the rangefinder style does have some downsides for me. The EVFs are smaller, I love the huge EVF on the X-T1. And often enough I just pick up the camera put it my face and have smashed my nose against the screen because I put it to my left eye. Remember, left eye dominant here. Never a problem with the X-T1/X-T10.
 
Also, on the X100T as well as the X-Pro series, one of the big issues I have is that I get fingerprints on the front element of the viewfinder which makes the view slightly "fuzzy" or "milky". The effect is actually quite pronounced which surprised me. I don't have the problem much since I added a quite big grip to the X100T, but before that it would happen ALL the time. Very annoying. 
 
My personal expectation is that the X-T2 will get a little bigger to deal better with heat management when 4k video arrives. It will pick up most of the internal changes of the X-Pro2, except the viewfinder of course and will hopefully go to an ever better EVF panel with higher resolution. The increased body size will make a stronger distinction between X-T10 and X-T2 than there is today, which personally I find acceptable as it allows for a more ergonomically sound button and grip placement. 
 
X-T1 vs. X-T2
 
The difference between the two will not be nearly as big as the differences between X-Pro1 and X-Pro2. X-Pro1 has been around for four years, it's a first generation product. X-T1 is a second (or even 2.5 if you account for the not-quite-there X100S) generation product. Going from second generation to third generation won't be as much of a step as from first to third. Therefore, it's likely not a step that will bring lots of benefits for users of current cameras, but can be an interesting one if you can wait out the release of the X-T2 and pick the then new camera generation.
 
As mentioned above, image quality won't matter too much for still images, video will likely be a larger distinction if that matters to you. Personally I find 4k video in cameras like the ones we are discussing here, completely useless as the resolution increase brings too many downsides with it: long processing times in post, lots of storage needed, heat management in camera, not many places where you can actually watch 4k video. 
 
Personally I think if you want a camera for video, there are better choices in non-Fuji land.
 
AF performance and general speed will be increased, but overall it won't be a revelation compared to what people have been used to on DSLRs for nearly a decade now. It's great to get, but not worth the upgrade from X-T1 to X-T2, again, just my personal opinion.
 
X-Pro2 vs. other X
 
Given it has the latest tech if the body style suits you and you actually like the OVF (I don't), there is no question, the X-Pro2 is a great camera. But it is kind of a geek camera with the OVF that isn't really great with a lens wider than 18mm or longer than 35mm. The captured frame is either bigger than what you see in the OVF or the frame visible is a really small square in the middle, even with the OVF magnification. I wish Fuji had added a third magnification level to allow 60 and/or 90mm lenses to use more than a small area of the OVF. 
 
Other than that I think the X-Pro2 has the best button and control layout by far from all the X cameras. Part of this is due to available space on the larger body, another part is a good balance between physical controls for the full exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) while leaving other functions to dedicated buttons or Fn buttons. The X-T1 brings it a bit too far with suboptimal implementation on a slightly too small body for the number of controls, the X-E and X-T10 style bodies have less dedicated controls again. So overall, I'd give the nod for buttons and controls to the X-Pro2 and hope that Fuji will bring some of that to the X-T2. Although I won't hold my breath there as I believe they'll still end up with suboptimal implementation and too many controls for the body size. But okay, that's something you can get used to.
 
Regarding sensor and processor, I believe the newer processor gives a bigger gain than the new sensor. It speeds up everything the camera does and makes it more snappy and the new firmware and menu styling allows for some more intuitive handling. While the sensor is nice, it's no revelation compared to what has been around in competing cameras for a while, it merely brings Fuji up to par in terms of APS-C resolution with other manufacturers. Which, by itself, is a good thing, but I don't consider it crucial. The speed increase of the processor is much more crucial, especially to owners of the first generation X-Pro1 or X-E1 cameras than anything the sensor does.
 
Packed Space Requirements
 
One thing often overlooked is the requirement in packed space. An X-Pro2 packs actually slightly more compact than an X-T1. This might only affect people like me with a certain style/size in bags, but it's something to consider. The X-T1 "EVF hump" in addition with the ArcaSwiss base makes the X-T1 not fit in one of my preferred camera bags (Billingham Hadley Small) the way I want it, meaning sideways. Sure I can squeeze it in, bulging the bag, but I don't consider that a great solution. Therefore the Hadley Small is used for X100T and sometimes X-E2, but never for X-T1 based kits. I use a larger Hadley Pro for the X-T1 kit and like that sized bag for some other reasons as well. It really just depends on what I'm doing.
 
And a big one (for me): Eye Point
 
I frigging hate that Fuji has put such a small rear element on X100 and X-Pro series cameras. It means you have to get your eye really close to the viewfinders rear opening to see the full frame. With my Silhouette glasses that's not possible for me. With my other style glasses it works but I still have to "smash" the glasses against the rubber eye relief to see the viewfinder properly and I plain dislike that. The much longer eyepoint on X-T1 and X-E2 works a lot better for me. Especially the X-T1 with the large magnification, big rear element and long eye point combined with the long eye cup (accessory) is a joy to use even with glasses. I tend to use the rear display of the X100T much more than on any other camera with a viewfinder I have owned so far, plain because the viewfinder doesn't work well for me. 
 
Long term outlook (pure guesswork)
 
My guess is that Fuji will distinguish the bigger and more expensive bodies over time more from the smaller and less expensive bodies than they have so far. Just think about it: the difference between X-T10 and X-T1 are basically weather sealing, larger EVF and more physical controls. That's it. But the X-T1 costs nearly twice as much. 
 
It could be that Fuji sticks to 16MP sensors and other cheaper components for the time being while the X-T2 and X-Pro2 will stay ahead for some time. That could mean software features as well as hardware features. It's the difficulty for a small company to work a market with quite a wide span in terms of technical requirements, price desires and overall hype for new things. 
 
 
So, maybe the above rant helped a little bit. I had some time sitting in a hotel waiting for my flight to leave, so I was able to write this all down. Whether it applies to you or not – only you can decide.

Well, we can always hope...

Let me get back to cameras themselves you give you my personal opinion what I use for what and what I think the advantages or disadvantages with specific models are. You can then think about whether any of that applies to you and whether it is something you have already considered or haven't yet but shouldn't.
 
Image Quality
 
Let's get that out of the way first, unless you regularly remove 30% of the pixels through cropping, you aren't going to see an improvement with the 24MP over the 16MP sensors. 
 
There are minuscule differences between ISO performance, detail resolution and dynamic range that are completely and utterly irrelevant for day to day use. Even blowing up a 16 and a 24MP photo to 1m x 1.5m print, you'll be hard pressed to see a difference. The lens choice makes more of a difference than the pixel count.
 
The additional Acros film simulation that everybody raves about is awesome, but again irrelevant if you want to truly get the best out of your images and therefore process raws with strong local exposure adjustments like gradients or other tools in Lightroom that allow you to widely change exposure in part of your photo. The raw just has more data than the JPEG and while the JPEGs actually do have an astounding leverage, they aren't as versatile as the raws.
 
Weight
 
By and large, the weight gain of a 100g to 150g or so from one end of the spectrum (X-Pro2/X-T1) to the other (X-T10/X-E2) are again, completely irrelevant. The weight is in the number and type of lenses you are planning to carry. There are the (comparatively) huge pro zooms (16-55, 50-140, 100-400) which are very large and heavy for mirrorless camera lenses, there are the mid-sized, but very, very good and fast lenses (16, 23, 56, 90) that are really on par with any L lens I've ever tried and there are the compacts, which are also pretty much in their own weight/price/quality class (14, both 35s, 60, 18-55). 
 
Depending on your shooting style you may or may not know what focal lengths are working for you. If you do know, pick the ones you know you'll like and just consider weight and size as well when picking between close contenders (like 14 vs. 16, 18 vs. 23, 56 vs. 60). 
 
Again, you determine the weight and size more by how many lenses you pack and which line of lenses you pick. The camera body is nearly irrelevant there.
 
Camera Size
 
What a lot of people miss is that the small camera bodies of mirrorless cameras have unique challenges in terms of haptic and ergonomics. Hands and fingers and thumbs have a certain size and need a certain space to operate comfortably. Personally I find the X-T1 layout quite cramped although I get along fine with it nowadays, I wish it was a little bit bigger and had the general layout of the new X-Pro2 but with a grip even more pronounced and deeper than the X-T1 has. 
 
I use my X-T1 with a permanently attached ArcaSwiss plate from Really Right Stuff, that gives the camera the necessary height so I can grip it comfortably with my full hand and don't have fingers hanging out in the air. The X-Pro2 doesn't need that, but for me it needs a real front grip. The X-E2 is awesome with the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, the same is true for the X100T, I have not tried the X-T10 with a grip. 
 
Quick impressions:
X-T1 – very good for me with the ArcaSwiss plate permanently attached X-Pro1/2 – very good, but gets a bit large with the extra grip attached which I want as the camera's front grip isn't great X-E2 – great, but only with the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, without that, I dislike the handling of the camera X100T – great, but only with a Metrocase grip or the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, without these I dislike the handling of the camera even more than X-E2 X-T10 – too small for me, might be okay with additional handgrip, although I find the body overall to be too small So, pick your poison. Pick a small body with the potential need of adding a bulky grip, or pick a larger not quite ergonomic model that you have to make really bulky if it doesn't for you without a grip or pick a midsized model, add a grip or not. 
 
In daily use the size differences don't matter to people seeing you with the camera, don't think you are more or less conspicuous with a smaller camera, certainly as soon as you add a bulky lens like the 16mm that is completely gone.
 
Body Style
 
I find the SLR style bodies work better for me as I am left eye dominant and I keep my face slightly angled to the camera with my nose not touching the rear screen of my X-T1 at all but being in contact with my right thumb sometimes. No big deal, there is enough space there for me to work comfortably. 
 
Over time I have trained myself to be able to shoot with my right eye as well, but the rangefinder style does have some downsides for me. The EVFs are smaller, I love the huge EVF on the X-T1. And often enough I just pick up the camera put it my face and have smashed my nose against the screen because I put it to my left eye. Remember, left eye dominant here. Never a problem with the X-T1/X-T10.
 
Also, on the X100T as well as the X-Pro series, one of the big issues I have is that I get fingerprints on the front element of the viewfinder which makes the view slightly "fuzzy" or "milky". The effect is actually quite pronounced which surprised me. I don't have the problem much since I added a quite big grip to the X100T, but before that it would happen ALL the time. Very annoying. 
 
My personal expectation is that the X-T2 will get a little bigger to deal better with heat management when 4k video arrives. It will pick up most of the internal changes of the X-Pro2, except the viewfinder of course and will hopefully go to an ever better EVF panel with higher resolution. The increased body size will make a stronger distinction between X-T10 and X-T2 than there is today, which personally I find acceptable as it allows for a more ergonomically sound button and grip placement. 
 
X-T1 vs. X-T2
 
The difference between the two will not be nearly as big as the differences between X-Pro1 and X-Pro2. X-Pro1 has been around for four years, it's a first generation product. X-T1 is a second (or even 2.5 if you account for the not-quite-there X100S) generation product. Going from second generation to third generation won't be as much of a step as from first to third. Therefore, it's likely not a step that will bring lots of benefits for users of current cameras, but can be an interesting one if you can wait out the release of the X-T2 and pick the then new camera generation.
 
As mentioned above, image quality won't matter too much for still images, video will likely be a larger distinction if that matters to you. Personally I find 4k video in cameras like the ones we are discussing here, completely useless as the resolution increase brings too many downsides with it: long processing times in post, lots of storage needed, heat management in camera, not many places where you can actually watch 4k video. 
 
Personally I think if you want a camera for video, there are better choices in non-Fuji land.
 
AF performance and general speed will be increased, but overall it won't be a revelation compared to what people have been used to on DSLRs for nearly a decade now. It's great to get, but not worth the upgrade from X-T1 to X-T2, again, just my personal opinion.
 
X-Pro2 vs. other X
 
Given it has the latest tech if the body style suits you and you actually like the OVF (I don't), there is no question, the X-Pro2 is a great camera. But it is kind of a geek camera with the OVF that isn't really great with a lens wider than 18mm or longer than 35mm. The captured frame is either bigger than what you see in the OVF or the frame visible is a really small square in the middle, even with the OVF magnification. I wish Fuji had added a third magnification level to allow 60 and/or 90mm lenses to use more than a small area of the OVF. 
 
Other than that I think the X-Pro2 has the best button and control layout by far from all the X cameras. Part of this is due to available space on the larger body, another part is a good balance between physical controls for the full exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) while leaving other functions to dedicated buttons or Fn buttons. The X-T1 brings it a bit too far with suboptimal implementation on a slightly too small body for the number of controls, the X-E and X-T10 style bodies have less dedicated controls again. So overall, I'd give the nod for buttons and controls to the X-Pro2 and hope that Fuji will bring some of that to the X-T2. Although I won't hold my breath there as I believe they'll still end up with suboptimal implementation and too many controls for the body size. But okay, that's something you can get used to.
 
Regarding sensor and processor, I believe the newer processor gives a bigger gain than the new sensor. It speeds up everything the camera does and makes it more snappy and the new firmware and menu styling allows for some more intuitive handling. While the sensor is nice, it's no revelation compared to what has been around in competing cameras for a while, it merely brings Fuji up to par in terms of APS-C resolution with other manufacturers. Which, by itself, is a good thing, but I don't consider it crucial. The speed increase of the processor is much more crucial, especially to owners of the first generation X-Pro1 or X-E1 cameras than anything the sensor does.
 
Packed Space Requirements
 
One thing often overlooked is the requirement in packed space. An X-Pro2 packs actually slightly more compact than an X-T1. This might only affect people like me with a certain style/size in bags, but it's something to consider. The X-T1 "EVF hump" in addition with the ArcaSwiss base makes the X-T1 not fit in one of my preferred camera bags (Billingham Hadley Small) the way I want it, meaning sideways. Sure I can squeeze it in, bulging the bag, but I don't consider that a great solution. Therefore the Hadley Small is used for X100T and sometimes X-E2, but never for X-T1 based kits. I use a larger Hadley Pro for the X-T1 kit and like that sized bag for some other reasons as well. It really just depends on what I'm doing.
 
And a big one (for me): Eye Point
 
I frigging hate that Fuji has put such a small rear element on X100 and X-Pro series cameras. It means you have to get your eye really close to the viewfinders rear opening to see the full frame. With my Silhouette glasses that's not possible for me. With my other style glasses it works but I still have to "smash" the glasses against the rubber eye relief to see the viewfinder properly and I plain dislike that. The much longer eyepoint on X-T1 and X-E2 works a lot better for me. Especially the X-T1 with the large magnification, big rear element and long eye point combined with the long eye cup (accessory) is a joy to use even with glasses. I tend to use the rear display of the X100T much more than on any other camera with a viewfinder I have owned so far, plain because the viewfinder doesn't work well for me. 
 
Long term outlook (pure guesswork)
 
My guess is that Fuji will distinguish the bigger and more expensive bodies over time more from the smaller and less expensive bodies than they have so far. Just think about it: the difference between X-T10 and X-T1 are basically weather sealing, larger EVF and more physical controls. That's it. But the X-T1 costs nearly twice as much. 
 
It could be that Fuji sticks to 16MP sensors and other cheaper components for the time being while the X-T2 and X-Pro2 will stay ahead for some time. That could mean software features as well as hardware features. It's the difficulty for a small company to work a market with quite a wide span in terms of technical requirements, price desires and overall hype for new things. 
 
 
So, maybe the above rant helped a little bit. I had some time sitting in a hotel waiting for my flight to leave, so I was able to write this all down. Whether it applies to you or not – only you can decide.