9.V.III

For Fuji to have a "complete" professional package, I think they should make something with a 150mm front element. 300f2.0 sounds the best to me, since that would translate to something close enough to the 400f2.8 designs that seem to be standard for the highest level of sports photography.

Wow. Now THAT is a serious lens! In terms of FOV and light gathering this will equate to the 300f2.8 configuration, probably the most highly praised and multi-purpose telephoto lens ever. It's fantastic to see this on Fuji's radar, they really are building a well rounded top class system.

I think the retro argument is the strongest reason to leave the X-T series in its current form. The body I'm looking for is really quite unlike anything that has come before.

I said we can accomplish these goals by changing the ratio of the X and Y dimensions of the camera. Thus far your strategy has been to ignore the facts and slander the counter argument. I guess basic math is still "sorcery" to some people.

Milandro, it's all about surface area. Adding a battery grip means you have two magnesuim alloy exterior surfaces meshed together, that's going to be as much surface area as most of the grip itself. Adding a second battery would only increase the weight of the body by just 10%. http://aboutphotography-tomgrill.blogspot.ca/2014/03/fujifilm-vg-xt1-vertical-battery-grip.html Secondly, it is possible to make a square with the same surface area as a rectangle! Make the body square, keep the same surface area, add a second shutter button and put the battery compartment on the bottom with room for two batteries.

I don't see why people would want the joystick removed, but if we can change AF points with a touchscreen then it's mostly moot.

And integrated grip doesn't have to change the size overall. I'm confident 90% of people would love to have a second shutter button on a compact camera, but this thread wasn't specifically about that concept. It's good to see the user base here is united on the subject of body size,

I had a 5D Mark II with the grip, functionally it was a joy to use, but strap it to your body and go hiking for a day and it's incredibly annoying to carry around. I stopped using it in favour of my old Rebel, and got rid of it for the prospect of something smaller. Maybe the correct answer is a 760D, but I've always dreamed of having a camera with full manual controls and a tiny body. Fuji has all their ducks in a row, they just need to march a few inches to the left and it'll be perfect.

Ok, no one wants a large X series body, which is easy to understand, I don't want that either. What about a mini version? What if we had something the width of the X-A1, except square, with two batteries and the viewfinder off the X-T1, and duplicated controls for shooting in either orientation? Ideally I want something as small as possible, with no compromise in controls or functionality. A square sensor that can switch orientations internally would probably work just as well, but that sounds even more unrealistic than the idea of a miniaturised sports body with integrated battery grip.

Edit: Well the response has been unanimous, no-one wants an X-T2 with an extra lump on the bottom. That's good to hear. The real question is whether you can get the same functionality without adding bulk. Maybe Fuji will start thinking along the same lines someday. ________ I know we're well past the point of anything like this actually materialising this year, but I wanted to see some general reaction. With all the "Flagship SLR" talk right now, it got me thinking about neat ideas for Fuji X bodies. But then I read about the implementation of the battery grip for the X-T1, how it doesn't actually replace the battery compartment and needs to be taken off to change both batteries, and the grip alone increases the body weight by almost 50%. Fuji doesn't seem to actually have anything resembling a proper battery grip right now. It sounds to me like the best way to implement this idea would be a body with a fully integrated battery grip. It would weigh less than the standard body with add on grip, plus it would give you acres of space for controls on the back. And in my ideal world, the body with an integrated grip would be a little smaller in width than a regular X-T1, which would actually help make the device as a whole easier to pack around when you're using a large lens (I'm thinking the 100-400). So what do people think? Should Fuji just go all in and make a sports body with duplicated controls and extra large battery compartment?

Pretty much this. I absolutely adore the X-Pro2, but half the reason I got rid of my full size SLR (Canon 5D2) was that I was still doing all my shooting with a Rebel even though I had this big beautiful body sitting there. Even with a 400mm lens, having a compact body is important because the camera is constantly rubbing against your body when you go hiking, and I can fit a compact body in my lens case, and the lens with body can be packed together, and even if you have a smaller lens, running around every day with an obviously high end camera paints you as a target for thugs and junkies. Not to mention I can be as hazardous to my own equipment as anyone. I don't actually want an OVF either. I mean, I "want" one, but I all the functionality I need is on the EVF (manual focusing wide aperture lenses, intuitive awareness of exposure, etc...), the way I want to shoot a Fuji is with the EVF. So that would make the X-T2 a prime candidate, but I still want the rangefinder layout. Having room for my nose sounds nice, and again, I don't want the hump so that my camera packs better. The X-E3 is the body I want, both the price and the layout. The only thing I "need" from Fuji in the X-E3 is the new sensor and new menus, that's why I don't have an X-E2 right now, by the time I knew I wanted one it seemed like the system was ripe for an upgrade. Priority List. 1. New Sensor and Processor (Lots of Pixels and good High ISO) 2. UI improvements (Menu and Button Layout). 3. Tilt Screen 4. Make sure it still has an ISO dial. 5. More battery is always nice (400 shots would be good)

With this addition I think they've got a first class portrait lens lineup. With an f1.0 lens they're really nipping at the heels of the full frame systems. For my purposes I just need to see that 100-400 zoom lens. If that lens passes the test with flying colors (sharp across the frame, low CA, fast focusing) then this system will have everything I could want.

Now that we have a 33mm f1.0 on the way, everything Sigma is "meh".

He has a good argument up to the point where he says that an f1.4 lens on APS-C will use a faster shutter speed than Full Frame at f2.0. That is not the case when you account for the Full Frame camera being able to use a higher ISO with equivalent image quality. That does not negate the fact that most f1.4 lenses look horrendous wide open. I love hearing that Fuji is trying to leverage their sensor size by giving people excellent IQ at fast apertures, which is a legitimate strategy. I can't wait to see some more sharp f1.2 lenses, and hopefully they get in on the f2.0 zoom lens game. Speaking of wide apertures and the recent advent of Sony BSI sensors... Current architecture loses significant amounts of light at extreme wide apertures (www.dxomark.com/Reviews/F-stop-blues), but the lack of circuitry in front of the light collecting pixels on a BSI sensor should greatly reduce the effect. We may even be able to make use of f1.0 lenses again. Theoretically even the current f1.2 and f1.4 lenses should see big gains from the use of a BSI sensor.

Here here. Dials and buttons are my reason for being here (and Fuji glass). I hope they never lose focus on giving people an extreme level of manual control.

If you look at the low light performance of the 5Ds you can see how higher megapixels does not mean bad low light performance. Individual pixels are noisier, but the image has more potential for data manipulation so you can downsize and/or use noise reduction to get basically the same performance. Both Brian at TDP and one unmentionable youtube reviewer have come to that conclusion. It's been interesting watching people talk about it in theory for all these years and now see it in practice. The only issue is, it introduces extra steps. I almost think that Sony's strategy with the A7 is best. Give people both a 12MP model and an extreem resolution model. As someone who likes landscape, wildlife and macro, there is no such thing as too much resolution. I'll take a 30MP sensor on my Fuji. For journalistic, event and sports photography, it sounds like lower resolution is better (if only for the ability to fit more pictures on a card). And no, I've never heard of a RAW compression scheme that doesn't ruin the data, your only option to make full use of the sensor and keep the file size small is to use a lower resolution sensor.

Excellent, just in time for the 400mm zoom lens!

I totally agree about the square sensor. It would be awesome if Fuji would implement that right now (square APS-C), and a 60-80mm Square Medium Format would be super awesome.

A 35f1.0 makes sense to me. This is the 50mm equivalent focal length. They already have their long (56f1.2) supreme portraits and now it's time for the ultimate classic "standard" portrait lens. The shorter focal length means they need more aperture for the same bokeh. I know that f1.0 generally doesn't provide more light (too steep an angle for the silicon to catch), but Bokeh is the same on digital and that huge aperture should make the lens perform amazingly well at f1.4, and ideally we would have an image free of vignetting at f2. If they make it both incredibly sharp and with the best bokeh ever I'm up for getting one.

Nothing about dogs on NCN (http://newcameranews.com/), it's looking bad.

If that Nikon thing is real, and I shot Nikon, I would avoid the internet for a few days.

I absolutely want a medium format body, but It should also cost less than $5,000. I know that's asking too much right now, but the first model should aim for $8,000 and work down. Remember that a sub $2,000 full frame body was inconceivable not very long ago. And here's hoping they give us at least an IMAX size sensor, these puny imposter "medium format" bodeis floating around aren't giving Medium Format a proper image.

I'm not sure how much I really want stabilization. I mean, I want it, it makes a bunch of things a lot easier, but it's also something else to go wrong. IBIS in particular is very new, and complicated, it's hard to say how long that sort of thing will last. For that matter everything other than full manual lenses is guaranteed to die eventually, I've read articles about how NASA is having a hard time finding places to manufacture circuit boards that will last more than a few decades since the new "eco friendly" tin solder being used grows spikes and over time will short circuit (basically any electronic device made today is likely to self destruct after enough time).

I choose the X-Pro 2. I've never had a camera with an off center viewfinder before and it is their premium body, I like the general idea and aesthetic, and hopefilly it has the most dials (I want all the Dials, and Wheels and Buttons and Switches). I would have the X-T 2 as well just because I like to shoot BIF sometimes too.

I'm just happy to be reading a forum where people aren't all butthurt about everything anyone ever said about anything. I do wonder if some people are specifically relaxed about forum moderation because of generating view counts though.