snype719

imho - some of the posts here within this thread are on a very theoretical level - but have nothing to do with final resulting images.
 
Since i'm at least middle-aged - i know b&w film processing. I haven't done it very long, but i would say i know its limitations and how far you can go (and what's not possible).
 
I digged into digital imaging with the original X100 (btw. that was when i became "passionate" about fotografy). 
My first ~1000 pics i was accidentally trashing RAW, only keeping JPGs. After that, i always kept both JPG & RAW (if the pics "deserved" it).
As a X-Pro1 early adopter and former Aperture user, i could process only JPGs for quite a log time (at least it felt like).
Nowadays i use Lightroom and have a pretty good idea about the limitations of RAW processing (and i have an X-Pro2).
 
So far about the intro :-)
 
My point is: If you're not failing in the exposure - even a JPG already provides very useful reserves.
Sure: There are cases were you missed proper exposure and want to rescue - and with Lightroom on a RAW you can rescue A LOT.
And there are light situations which are so dynamic that your tempted to screw extensively. However - 8 of 10 guys usually fail and end up with something that looks so artifical which lets me suddenly think about the self-help group for pseudo-HDR-freaks. (scnr)
 
I love the Acros film simulation! For me it is a clear  unique selling proposition (UPS) - actually this is generally true for Fujifilms JPG engine.
Acros doesn't fit always perfectly for what i want - but it *is* really easy to add some "extra bits" (for instance with RNI presets).
Just to make sure: i also use different approaches - besides Acros - i'm open to use many different tools.
But: If i like the result of the Acros JPG engine - why should i try to reproduce the same with a RAW? What's the point? Would it make me feel better to know that i would have much more "buffer" with a RAW development? The answer is: No, not at all.
One of *the* awesome things about the Acros film simulation is the ISO dependent grain - and the grain looks really nice (no comparison to any other "digital grain" i have seen before ... if we want to pixel-peep). I haven't printed Acros simulations based pics yet, but i will do it soon, and what i've heard and read about yet is very promising.
 
My recommendation to the thread opener: Just enjoy the Acros results, combine it with appropriate DR usage, forget about what you've done with RAWs, try out what's possible with the JPG.
For me, Acros especially shines on high ISO on nightly shots on the street!
 
To the physicist and math genius (which has turned into a guest): Rather go taking pictures and use less time on the software - and do not mix up processing tools knowledge with fotografic skills.
 
 
 
 
 

Didn't know whether to put this in general or the X-T1/X-T10 board. Move as you wish.

Anyway, as I alluded to in the comments a few days back, I have been able to get my hands on a pre-production X-T2... for about 60 seconds. There is nothing new I can report which hasn't already been talked about on the FR front page; Patrick's got everything covered and evidently his sources are in a better position to give you close-up photos and videos and whatever. If you want new information, there's little I can say.
What I can do is confirm some of the things people weren't sure about, and give you my impressions from having held it for about the time it took for my friend to eat his muffin, and chatting about it for a few minutes. Which isn't much, but hey; rumours are the best we've got, usually, so hands-on is a small step up, at least.
 
First, a few questions which I know will come up, and I'm just going to shoot down right away:

Q: Do you have any raw files to share, did you shoot any 4k video, etc?
A: No. It's not my camera. It's not a camera I'm supposed to have seen. It's not a camera I got to go out shooting with. I just got to hold it for literally a minute, look through the viewfinder, turn a few dials, glance at the menu, etc.

Q: How did you get it?
A: Several of my friends work in the industry; a couple are Fuji X photographers. I met one for coffee, he happened to have the camera with him. He let me hold it while he ate a muffin. That's literally all. There's no exciting super secret 007 spy story. 
 
Q: Can you give us [things which would give away your friend's identity]? Can they come and post here about their experience with the X-T2?
A: No. I've not signed an NDA or made any embargo agreement with Fuji, so I can say whatever the hell I like. He can't. Every X photographer and member of the press who has been granted use of an X-T2 has signed an NDA. Giving away anything which could lead Fuji to work out who talks to who could mean very real, very serious legal trouble for those photographers. So I won't say anything which could be used to identify any of my friends or info sources, and none of them post here or on any other Fuji-specific forum. They know I talk, but they also trust me to keep their identities completely safe and secret.

Q: Why should we believe you?
A: Common sense dictates that you shouldn't. Like all rumours, it would be smart for you to take everything with a big pinch of salt. All I can say is that most people who follow the front page probably have a good idea of my track record with talking about design aspects of bodies, which are later confirmed by Patrick's own sources. But if you don't wish to believe me, that's fine. I wouldn't believe me, either. That's the nature of rumours and talking about products which haven't been officially released yet.

Q: Did you also see a 23mm f/2 lens?
A: No.
 
 
Okay, obvious questions out the way, here's what I can elaborate on:

The photos Patrick's sources have been sharing with him are, undoubtably, legitimate. (As if there was any doubt at this point.)  The unit I saw is identical to those. 
All the things which I've mentioned before in the front page comments and Patrick's had as more reliably-rumoured specs, are right there. All the obvious stuff: dual SD slots, function button instead of dedicated video button, 1/250th sync speed, etc. Again, as if there was any doubt left, I can confirm that everything which has been repeatedly reported on the front page is accurate. This is why I say there's nothing new to talk about. Patrick's coverage has been incredibly accurate.

In terms of feel, it does seem a tiny bit bigger and heavier than the X-T1, but having not held an X-T1 for over a year—I sold my pair to 'trade down' to a couple of X-T10s—I could simply be misremembering the X-T1's size and weight. I couldn't exactly whip out a measuring tape and a set of scales to weigh it. In any case, it's not a problem. Still a small body, still a light body. Balanced perfectly with the 23mm f/1.4 which was on it. No need to worry about the size increase. I only noticed it because I was specifically thinking about it.
The textured parts of the surface—the fake leather texture—feels a little less rubbery and has a more pronounced texture than I remember the X-T1 having. (Certainly much nicer than the T10 has.) The smooth metal areas feel the same, no change there.

The concentric control dials are much nicer than before. I'd been told months ago (and mentioned it on the front page) that the lock buttons had been revised, and it does seem that way. They sit very slightly higher than the dial than they did before and pressing them required a bit more force, with a more definite click as they locked/unlocked. Not so much of a change that it will slow you down, but I can now see how this will definitely be enough to stop any accidental turning of the top dials. The dials are very slightly taller, as you've all seen; they also had a slightly colder feel, which I can only assume means they're being cut from a denser metal than before. Each dial felt very slightly stiffer to turn than before, too; though this could just be because it's obviously a newer body, since those things tend to get looser with age.
 
Viewfinder is bigger than before. How much bigger, I couldn't say; I've no way of meauring it and my friend didn't know a specific figure, either. But he'd told me before that it felt bigger to him, and looking through it myself, it did seem bigger, to me. Again, though, it's been a while since I looked through an X-T1's viewfinder—even when I had the X-T1, I alway use the rear screen—so I could be misremembering, but the T2's is at least as big as the Sony α7II's, a camera I've used more recently and can compare more clearly.
 
Refresh rate seemed flawless. Way above what the T1, Pro2, or α7II give. Again, I've no way of counting a specific number. I know that thing came out recently about it being 100fps. I don't know how I'd count 100fps. All I can say is we were sat in the back of an average-dimly lit high street coffee shop, and I didn't notice any lag or stuttering or anything. By far the most faultless EVF I've seen. The only way I could tell it wasn't an OVF is because of the brightness and the applied colour profile. (Film simulation.) Otherwise it may as well be an OVF. Hell, it's better than an OVF. Much brighter, under those conditions. If Pro2 owners get to look through this, they're going to question why they spent so much money on having an optical viewfinder. Like I said, no way of giving you specific figures, but I can say that the T2's EVF is by far the best SLR-style viewfinder I've ever looked through.
 
Rear screen, other than the new hinging—yes, it hinges just like Patrick's photos show—seems the same as the Pro2's. It's fine; great, even. It's what I typically use 99.99% of the time. But yeah, nothing special to say here, 'cause Patrick's photos have already shown you all of the hinging. Yes, it tilts up, down, and left and right. Or up and down in landscape and up and down in portrait, if you prefer thinking of it that way. Didn't seem any weaker or tougher than the T1's style of tilting. It's fine, it works, don't worry about it.
 
Yes, it's got 4K. He doesn't shoot video at all, and I don't shoot video with SLR or mirrorless, so this isn't an area either of us care about. I just saw that 4K was mentioned in the menu, and he told me that Fuji had told him it has a 10-minute limit on 4K files. So, kinda the same situation as Nikon's in. (They have a 3-minute limit, right?) But yeah, it's not something either of us uses, so I don't know what else I could tell you about this. But it does it, there. Another thing to tick off on the back of the box for marketing. Other video options remain unchanged from the Pro2, as far as I could see/tell with my limited interest in mirrorless video.
 
Focus on a still subject—my coffee cup—under slightly-dim lighting seemed the same as the Pro2. Used the 23mm f/1.4. Same focus point arrangement as the Pro2. Same joystick for AF point control on the back a the Pro2 has. We already knew it had it, of course, but I've seen some people wish for it to be larger, have more positive movement, etc. It felt exactly the same, to me. So no change there.
Can't say anything on focus tracking. Didn't test it. Not many high-speed subjects in the back of a Starbucks.

Burst rate is faster than the Pro2's. Apparently, Fuji told him it could max out at 9fps. He told me he's experienced some slowdown for focusing, etc, which is normal for any camera. So he reckons 8.5fps is what you actually get. I gave it a quick go just pointing at the table, to see where the buffer would kick in. It didn't seem to last any longer than the Pro2's, but it did get 32 frames of uncompressed raw in the same time span. (About 3 seconds, felt like.) That's about 5 or 6 more than the Pro2 manages, and for the same stretch of time, that does work out to be around 9fps. So I expect Fuji are being honest when they told him 9fps is the max. A dark table in a dim room is a pretty easy and quick scene to capture, so pretty ideal for maxing out the FPS and buffer. Who knows if they'll try to market it as 9fps or 8.5, or even just 8, so people aren't disappointed when it comes to bursting more complex shots. In any case, it got more shots in the same time as the Pro2 does, so we've got a faster burst and a deeper buffer, but ultimately covering the same 3-and-a-bit seconds.
Like I said, just pointed at the table, so I can't speak for how well that keeps up when combined with continuous focus tracking.
I don't know about the boost mode with the grip. Didn't have it on the camera. If they split the burst so it's 8fps without grip, for consistency, and 11fps with the grip for speed, that'd make sense. Having the camera without the grip be capable of 9fps but only shoot at 8fps is a sensible thing to do for the sake of the shutter's lifespan, write speeds, being able to market a deeper buffer, etc. But right there this afternoon, with no grip, it shot above 8fps.
The only thing about the grip I can say is that, having seen the basic body in person, it definitely will be a new grip. There's no way the old grip would be compatible with this body. Different door shapes, different grip depth. Fuji did send the new grip to him with the body, but he's just not a grip user so he's not bothered with it. I am a grip user, so I asked more about it, but yeah, he doesn't use it so not much to say. It's new, it's got that boost mode, and the old grip won't work. Everything we already knew, basically.
 
As far as focusing, burst, and write speeds go, the camera was in the high performance mode. Didn't try putting it in power saving. I can only assume everything slows down in power saving, just like with every other Fuji camera.

Write speed for a single frame felt to be about the same speed as the Pro2, with an SDXC card in the UHS-II slot. This wasn't a technical test, no other cards to try in different slots.

Start up time seems the same as the Pro2 and wake up time felt a tiny bit faster than the Pro2. Couldn't time it, obviously. But it seemed a fraction quicker.

Battery he had in it was the same old NP-W126. I expressed some disappointment on this, because I'm always hoping for larger-capacity batteries. But I remain hopeful, because the battery is one of the things which most commonly changes between pre-production and final release models. I really hope this is changed and we get a bigger capacity for the release. But for what it's worth, this pre-production unit was using the NP-W126, just like the Pro2, Pro1, T1, T10, E2, E1...
 
Nothing new in terms of colour profiles (film simulations), .jpg settings, etc. All the same as the Pro2. No idea on raw handling because, of course, no software supports T2 raws, yet. But my friend said the .jpgs he's been shooting have been identical to the ones out of his Pro2, so yeah. Everything's the same there, as we all expect.

Micro USB port, unlabelled, but it looked to me like a micro B, and he told me Fuji said it's USB 3.0, though he's had no use for it. (Of course, no software right now supports the T2.) That should help for tethering, I suppose? Not that Fuji's tethering is worth a damn. In any case, hey, looks like a micro USB 3.0 port is on the cards. (Though wasn't the Pro2 meant to have micro USB 3.0, too? But that ended up having micro USB 2.0. So I won't be surprised if Fuji decides to be cheap and downgrades the T2 to USB 2.0. But hey, pre-production has 3.0.)
 
Mini HDMI port is still there. I'm guessing that it's a D-type, like the Pro2 has; he didn't know which particular version and I don't know enough about the different types of mini HDMI to identify it. It's unlabelled. In any case, hey, it's there, looks just like it is with the Pro2. Ditto for the audio ports.
 
Doors for battery/port/card access all have the same double action hinge and latch as the Pro2's battery door has. It's just less flimsy than the T1 had. Nothing about them suggested to me that it is any better weather-sealed, though. Feels very much like this is still a 'weather resistant' body and not a 'weather sealed' body.
 
All the stuff people have bizarrely asked for, even though it's obvious it would never have, were indeed not there: no IBIS, no pop-up flash, no CF cards, no APS-H or 35mm sensor, no bayer sensor.

 
 
So, there you have it. Everything I could glean from ~60 seconds with a pre-production X-T2 body. I don't think there's anything else to say, didn't get to give it a proper test or mount my own lenses or memory cards or shoot with it. I'll happily answer questions if I can, but I don't know what else I could say; if you're curious about something which I've not already written about, then chances are it's something I didn't look at or think to ask about. Obviously I'm asking about the camera as much as I can without being annoying, and I hope I'll be able to beg for a little more time with it at some point. But for now, that's about the extent of all I know and saw.
 
This might be interesting to you, it might be boring, I don't know. Just thought I may as well share 'cause I can.

Remember that you can set the camera up to take a photo even if lens has not achieved focus. I think there is a focus priority setting for taking pics, and an opposite setting (shutter priority of something like that).
 
I have my menu focus setting so that the camera will not take a picture unless the camera has focus lock.  This helps to prevent most (but not all) out of focus pic's (due to my errors).   Maybe the camera was set to allow pic's to be taken when focus had not yet been achieved?

To each their own.  I'm with your dad, FujiGlitch, and would be giving you a slap on the head (even though I'm only a few years older than you).    I don't necessarily baby my equipment, but I do like keeping it look as new as possible.
 
To a non-Fuji owner - and someone who doesn't know what the camera really is - the beaten up looking X70 will look vintage and well used as per the intent of FujiGlitch.  So while we wouldn't be fooled, more than 99% of the public will be.  And this is a photography forum.  We take pictures that are either seen as good or not good based on a bunch of subjective factors.  Like HDR, this camera may not be to everyones taste, but what WE do isn't to everyone's taste either.

I just switched from Nikon to Fuji about two months ago! I sold my Nikon D750, D5200 and lenses and bought the X-T1, X-E1 (backup body) and the X-100 as a travel camera. I also got the 56mm 1.2 R, the 23mm 1.4 and the Rokinon 10mm 2.8. I've done one wedding so far and several real estate jobs and I am in love with Fuji! Their lens selection is superb and their primes are to drool over. Knowing what I could get from their lenses was the deciding factor in my decision to switch. I'm in love with the X-T1. It has spoiled me for DSLR's. I never want to go back. There is something about shooting with Fuji's that inspires and is enjoyable. Fuji camera's also have some much class and style. In my opinion, the graphite silver X-T1 is the best looking digital camera on the market, followed very closely by the X100 series. 
 
I love photography and Fuji's enhance that love. They inspire creativity. I'm so happy to have the Fuji community to be able to connect with! 
 
Attached is a shot I got of my wife in a hotel room several weeks back. Taken with the X-100. 
 
 

"But I dislike the inherent 1.5x multiplier on effective focal length or the fewer photosites for lower-light photography."
 
Apart from bragging rights, this has no impact whatsoever on the ability to create a stunning image. In the old days of medium format, 80mm was normal, 50mm was wide. So what? It's just a number. The math really is not that hard if you want to know equivalents. Canon and Nikon have had flagship APS-C cameras for years, and still refuse to make proper APS-C lenses just so they can tell people that they "need" to upgrade to FF just to make proper use of those lenses. Had Canon made a proper APS-C lens, I might have never switched.
 
"Fuji reportedly has some good lenses. So does Sony."
 
Fuji has hardly any lenses that are not at least "moderately good", most of them are class leading in rendering and sharpness. With Sony, everything except the high end is moderate to poor at best, for usually similar prices as the equivalent and much better Fujinon.
 
Fuji kicks Sony out of the park when it comes to having a proper lens catalogue. Sony is working on it, yes, but have you seen the size and cost of those new lenses?
 
"Sony will out-resolve the X-Trans, but the Fuji punches well above its weight"
 
Resolving power is all well and nice, but what size prints are you making anyway? Let's be honest, most people talking about all those 42 shiny megapixels will probably never make a print larger than A4 anyway. Is your job making billboards? Sure, then get the Sony. It's a no brainer. Or do you have pixelpeep-itis?
 
"How many of you, if any, have really missed that wider-angle lens range"
 
I don't get it, Fuji has a 15mm to 35mm equivalent lens. How much wider do you need? Yes, Canon and Nikon have 14mm lenses. And 1mm difference is a lot in wide angle terms. But seriously, less wide angle options? How about 10-24, 14, 16 and 18 all covered, and all of those apart from the 18 are brilliant optics. And the 18 is still good too. And then there's the Rokinon 8mm if needed.
 
 
People should really go out more and take actual pictures, instead of staring at camera figures and charts. My favourite camera is still my old Nikon FM2. Why? Because it doesn't get in the way of taking a nice picture. Fuji's have that same effect on me. If and when Canon, Nikon and Sony stop this arms race to beat each other in terms of charts and actually make a camera that prosumers can enjoy using as much as a Fuji, I'll consider them again.

I was shooting a 5D MKII and a 5D classic with a fairly large collection of L glass when I bought my first Fuji camera, the X-E1. The AF was horrible, the EVF had lag, and Lightroom couldn't even read the RAW files for quite some time so I had to shoot mostly jpeg. Needless to say, at that time the Fuji was more of a toy to me and I used the camera once in a while for fun. When the X-T1 was announced, I preordered it. Before I received it, I sold the 5D classic and ordered a 6D to replace it as a backup to my 5D MKII. Once the X-T1 arrived, I started using it a lot. It didn't feel quite ready to replace a DSLR, but it was so much closer than the X-E1. The firmware updates made the X-T1 into an entirely different camera. The way they transformed the camera is difficult to explain. Think of it like having a 5D MKII downloading the firmware (for free) and having a 5D MKIII. The AF performance difference was an incredible step up. 
 
From my Canon setup, I was sold on FF sensors. I had a Rebel and a 50D and the sensors in them were fairly bad, and the focal lengths of the lenses just seemed off. Everything was better when I stepped up to the 5D. I was hoping Fuji would release their FF model too. The X-T1 began to change my thinking on this. I bought some of the Fuji prime lenses and was blown away by the quality. The images looked better than what my Canon L lenses produced. Last July I took the X-T1 and 56mm F/1.2 along with my 6D and 50mm F/1.2L on a portrait session and shot them side by side (shortly after firmware V4). This was the first time I ever used the Fuji to shoot any sort of portraits and I don't remember why I didn't at least test this before on a friend. I shot the Canon at F/2 and the Fuji at F/1.4 for many of the shots. I think the Fuji photos looked better overall. 
 
Needless to say, I had sold the 5D MKII and some L lenses. I also have a 6D with less than 2000 shutter actuations on it. I was holding onto the 50mm F/1.2, the 135mm F/2, and and the 70-200mm F/2.8 because those were may favorite lenses. My X-Pro2 arrived late last week and I started to photograph the rest of the Canon gear for Craigslist. I do not see any loss of image quality or usability at this point with the Fuji; at least for me. I don't shoot with flashes often so the lack of a flash system hasn't bothered me. As Jackalized said above, the lens selection from Fuji helps with the equivalent factor. They created lenses with the APS-C sensor in mind for all the popular focal lengths. I never thought I'd say this, but FF no longer matters to me. If Fuji were to release one, I'd at least evaluate it. I'd probably be more interested in the MF camera that is rumored though. Overall, the Fuji cameras make shooting fun. You want to use the camera. This has been my experience over the last few years. 

There is no penalitly regarding the focal length, as the whole lineup of lenses is focused on the aps-c crop factor. Fuji put up a prime lens lineup equivalent to 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm (propably soon x2), 40mm, 50mm (x2), 85mm, 90mm and 135mm.
 
No need to think in ways of "oh, my 50mm is now equivalent to a 85mm".
 
Also the x-trans sensors put out a hell lot less chroma noise then every bayer sensor I've ever seen (FF or not), regardless of raw converter. Normally a small amount of chroma noise reduction (around 1 to 15 in LR or CaptureOne) gets rid of it completly. I don't care much for the luminance noise as the noise pattern looks pleasant to me (before Fuji I've shot only film, I absolutly detest chroma noise and I like grain). High isos are still very detailed and sharp, there's no banding at all.

I own both a Sony A7r and a Fuji X-T10, so maybe I can shed some light.
 
 
HIGH ISOs AND LONG EXPOSURES
In low light the Sony, once resized to 16Mp, it has a tad less noise, but Sony sensors (or at least every Sony camera I've ever had) put out A TON ( = hundreds) of hot pixels both at high iso and doing long exposures, even with the "long exposure noise reduction" engaged. So for anything over 800 iso and for long exposures Fuji it is.
 
HIGH CONTRAST BORDERS
The original A7 series (A7 and A7r) has compressed raw. This is not a major thing most of the time, EXCEPT when you have sharp transitions from dark to light. Think a window in near silhouette and an outside scene, or a tree trunk against a sunlit background. Then as soon as you start pushing the contrast (and you will have to, because the vast dynamic range of Sony sensors means that the images will be pretty flat straight out of camera) you're left with horrible halos like you normally get on over-sharpened images. You can cure this with careful brushing in Photoshop (or up to a certain point negative clarity in Lightroom), but it is a gigantic pain in the you-know-what. Fuji does not have this problem.
 
LENSES
I don't personally have any Sony lens, because most of them are simply too expensive for what they give you, even terrific piece of glass like the 55/1.8. Besides, from what I've read it looks like Sony has a bit of a problem with sample variation (again, no personal experience in this field). But I use Contax Zeiss and Minolta MD adapted lenses (Contax for general use, Minolta for pastel like colors and low contrast), and with the camera strapped to a stable tripod the results are terrific. That said, from 180mm and above, tripod or no tripod, you better use fast shutter speeds otherwise the horrific shutter shock of the A7r will blurry the image (should not be a problem with the A7 though).* Fuji has the advantage of having a way better lens line-up, IMO, both in terms of focal lengths covered and in terms of sheer quality. Even the cheap 16-50 that came with the X-T10 is a surprisingly good performer! And with the OIS I've been able to shoot up to 1s (yes, one full second!!!) @ 50mm with sharp results (keep in mind, I've been shooting since I was maybe 5 years old, YMMV).
 
*I use a pretty heavy tripod with an Arca Swiss B-1 ball that was more than strong enough to support my 5x7" large format camera, and I still get shutter shock, so yeah, it's a thing
 
FF Vs APS-C
My approach to this is pretty simple.
If you shoot portraits FF has the advantage of shallow depth of field (but you can get similar or better results with a faster lens on Fuji like the 55/1.2).
If you shoot landscapes or street FF has the disadvantage of the shallow depth of field. Especially with the high resolution sensor of the A7r I have quite often to focus stack images even with short lenses, because there is no way that I can get all in focus even stopping down the aperture (and besides, very few lenses will let you stop down to f/16 without robbing you of the sharpness you're searching because of diffraction; there is not a fast rule, it will depend by the optical scheme).
 
MENUS
I don't see where the big deal is anymore. The original X100 menu was horrible, as have been the menus of a couple of Nikon's cameras, but nowadays I find that whatever you're shooting you will get the hang of it pretty quickly, assuming you're actually using the camera instead of letting it sit on a shelf.
 
X-TRANS vs SONY: SHARPNESS
Fuji files will take A TON more sharpening to realize their potential, especially if you're using an Adobe raw converter. Not a problem, but it is something you should be aware of. And IMO at 100% Fuji files, for this reason, might look often a tad "unnatural". It is a moot point, though, because once printed they look fantastic, as the Sony's. The only real difference here is the one in megapixels, and with the new 24Mp sensor coming even that is becoming academic at best. Besides, even 16Mp files print beautifully, as long as you know how to properly sharpen in multiple passes (import, creative, printing), up to 1m generally, and up to 1.5 meters with some subjects, even on glossy paper (the most demanding one). And on matte or canvas probably the sky is the limit
 
X-TRANS vs SONY: DYNAMIC RANGE
Sony dynamic range, from my own test (shooting a grey step card and measuring the white point 0-255 value within Photoshop), it is around 11 2/3 stops.
Fuji X-T10 dynamic range is, again from my own test, around 7 1/3 stops.
This might look huge, and it is, but in real use unless you like the HDR look with no shadows you will have to compress the dynamic range quite a bit. Besides, a print on paper can withstand generally 5 1/2 stops of dynamic range anyway. And should you want to extend it anyway, I find way easier to shoot multiple images with the Fuji and combine them as an HDR 32 bit file to work on in Lightroom than to having to do the same to extend sharpness with the A7r (focus stacking is way more prone to errors that will not let you combine the images properly).
 
X-TRANS vs SONY: COLORS
This might be the last point, but in reality is where the real difference boils down. Please, keep in mind that some of the difference will be due to the characteristic of the lens used (for example Contax glass has a particularly contrasty and saturated signature), but most of it will depend by the sensor itself.
This is a matter of taste. They are both capable of delivering great colors.
But Sony colors are IMO more on the warm-greenish side of the spectrum (think like the 17th century Flemish school of painters, or Turner), while Fuji in my admittedly for now limited experience (compared to Sony) tends to favor cooler blues and redder, bolder reds (think Giotto) (obviously using the same white balance).

No Fluff-Fluff sensor from Fujifilm. MF sensor might come.
 
I changed to Fujifilm for the fun of manual aperture and shutter. Hate menys shooting from Canon.
 
Oh the look of my brothers face with his Sony A7rii when he saw the lowlight shoot from my X-Pro1 at iso 6400.
 
FF-equv? Couldnt care less, its just a number.
 
If you need the highest mumbojumbo techspec, buy a Sony. If you want to have fun, buy a Fujifilm.
 
I cant see any lack of wideangle.
 
Good luck.
You soon will get a toon of more input in this thread.
 
Sent from my Nexus 6 mobile

I own both the Sony a7II and the X-Pro2. I did a side by side comparison shooting with the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 on the Sony and with the XF 35mm f/1.4 on the Fuji. The difference between the two are actually negligible, although I suspect that the Zeiss lens has more contrast, as you might expect from a lens that costs twice as much. That means Fuji is getting full frame performance out of a cropped format. I think that is an accomplishment in itself. Focus Numerique came to similar conclusions in their comparison of the X-Pro2 with the a7II.
 
As for the claim that the X-trans configuration of the X-Pro2 sensor can make it match a D810, a 5Ds or an a7RII, that certainly is hype. I can tell you that because I also shoot with a 5DsR. I think the myth that the only reason to have a higher resolution sensor is for printing has been thoroughly debunked:
 

 
I agree with this view entirely. This confirms my own experience with the Canon 5DsR.
 
That said, I think that 24MP is still plenty of resolution. It also makes postproduction faster and image storage easier. There are fewer buffering issues in camera. Image review on the a7RII is notoriously slow, as the processor is clearly stretched to its limits. 
 
There are other reasons why I am particular inclined to recommend the Fuji over rival systems:
 
1. Colour 
This is seldom spoken about in camera reviews. The reality is that when the industry largely moved from CCD to Bayer configuration CMOS sensors, a lot of colour richness and depth was lost. If you go to the Pentax forum and look at images from the 645D (CCD) beside those from the 645Z (CMOS) it is striking just how grey the colour output from the Sony 44x33mm sensor is. The only system that gives you colour output from a CMOS sensor that compares well with CCD sensors is the Fuji X-trans RGB filter. I am sorry to say that we live in an age in which there are lots of grey, desaturated and colourless Sony Bayer sensor images. Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Sony cameras all have this problem, although if you like B&W or heavily desaturated images this may well suit your shooting style. Photographers who love Sony have portfolios full of B&W or desaturated images. Only Nikon manage to get more colour depth out of a Sony Bayer sensor, but even there, although I do like Nikon colours, I find that there is an inky-shadowy background on top of which float these slightly fluorescent bright colours. On a Fuji the darker colours blend seamlessly into the brighter tones. I also do like Canon colours, which are more subtly graduated than Nikon colours. Also Fuji is even better than Canon when it comes to rendering skin tones, and is probably the industry gold standard in this regard. When you push the colours from an X-trans sensor in post, you get these beautiful, subtle colours. On my Sony all I seem to get is plain red/green/blue plus black/white/grey. From my Fujis I get infinitely subtle shades of turquoise, jade green, burnt orange etc etc. It's so beautiful it makes your eyes water.
 
2. Film Simulation
This partly connects to point 1. The colours you can pull out using the simulations will make your jaw drop. It makes photography a joy. The Acros B&W simulation too is breathtaking. Sometimes I find that the Fuji in camera RAW converter plus the simulation is so good nothing you do with the RAW file ever seems to be able to match it. The joy this adds to your photography is simply incalculable. It can't be expressed in simplistic univariate parameters that gives you some stupid number representing resolution or stops of dynamic range, where fools think that the bigger that number the better a photographer it will make of them. 
 
3. Lenses
The most important thing you can learn about photography is to pick your lenses first and then pick the body to go with it. This review of the Fuji 90mm f/2.0 says it all:
 
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-90mm-f2-r-lm-wr/review/
 
It is sharper than an Otus, for a fraction of the price. OK...if I shoot with my Otus on my 5DsR the results may be a bit sharper, but there isn't much in it. In terms of cost effectiveness, the Fuji system wins by a mile, especially if you consider the greater compactness and the autofocus. In terms of colour depth, the Fuji beats the 5DsR-Otus combination easily. The Fuji 35mm f/1.4 is at least as good overall (if you consider the greater speed and the smoother bokeh) as the Sony 55mm f/1.8 despite being half the price. You choose a system for the lens habitat it gives you access to, and in this regard Fuji lenses reveals an embarrassment of richer far greater than we ever deserve at this price point. Forget the body and look at your lenses first and foremost. In any case, if you are patient enough Fuji will eventually release a body with a 36MP organic sensor. 
 
4. Ability to Shoot with Multiple Primes
The whole beauty of the X-system is that it encourages you to shoot with primes. For the price of an a7RII you could get a couple of X-Pro2s and shoot with two prime lenses. I appreciate that two X-Pro2s are more expensive than one a7RII, but once the lens price is factored in it works out in favour of the Fuji. The Sony encourages you to shoot with zooms because once the lens size is taken into account, it becomes too cumbersome and expensive to shoot with multiple bodies. If you have two bodies with two lenses, the one shoot turns into two shoots. It's like the two bodies/lenses see a totally different world. 
 
I do appreciate that Sony FF mirrorless is the talk of the town at the moment. But it is a pure fad. Don't get on that bandwagon. I speak from the perspective of someone who has seen the grass on the other side of the fence. As for the IBIS, that too is a problem. It doesn't stop action when the subject is moving. You are better off with the faster lenses from Fuji if speed is of concern. Sony now make faster E mount lenses but these are elephantine (totally negating any size advantage from a smaller body), expensive, and so far have been rather disappointing in their performance relative to cost. Also the E mount was originally an APS-C mount ("NEX mount"), and has too a narrow diameter to be able to incorporate IBIS in a FF system without causing degradation of corner IQ. This is particularly marked with shorter focal lengths when the light hits the corners at a steeper angle. I think Sony should toss their a7 series in the bin and concentrate on the A mount DSLT bodies (I do go into this on G+ for those interested). As for ergonomics, it is worthwhile paying vast sums of money not to have to suffer Sony ergonomics.
 
I always say this to people who ask me which system I favour most amongst those I use (Fuji, Sony or Canon): I like Fuji the most, very closely followed by Canon, with Sony in last place. Sony remind me of cooks who use the fanciest ingredients (the best truffles, the finest foie gras etc) and the results are good, but there is something missing. With a Fuji you may not think the individual ingredients are that remarkable, but you taste their dish and it is jaw dropping. The whole amounts to vastly more than the sum of the parts. 
 
Show me a Sony shooter and I will show you a myopic fool (I am allowed to say this because I am a Sony shooter) too obsessed with individual specs to be able to see the big picture. Show me a Fuji shooter and I will show you someone who loves photography as an art. Fuji people "get it". Try it, and you will see what I mean. 

Your forgot bragging rights down the pub

I've tried several times to warm up to Capture 1, especially given that they give you a slightly limited version for free if you shoot Sony. But I can't stand the fact that it litters the file system with its own files and other several small annoying quirks (well, annoying from the perspective of a LR and PS user). But thanks for the suggestion!
 
That said, and even if I'm a self-confessed sharpness nut (in terms of lens performance) I'm not too obsessed with the sharpest possible print. Quite the opposite actually, I think sometime a print too sharp might look unnatural or, even worse, take away the attention from your subject to the technical quality of the print itself. So I get what you say when you write that you have to move the sharpness slider the other way with some lenses, otherwise the results will look "unflatteringly sharp".
 
A proper print, IMO, (and based on what you say I guess you agree) should be transparent, for lack of a better term, and every enhancement (and I post process my files quite a bit) should be in function of the subject.

I use both a Sony A7r and a Fuji X-T10. Just answered a similar question on another post:
 
http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/2513-sony-power-vs-the-siren-song-of-kaizen/?do=findComment&comment=23293
 
so I'll just copy&paste here for your convenience. Hope this helps.
 
I'll just add though that in terms of "bang for the bucks" Fuji trashes Sony big time, especially with the crazy prices that the latter is asking for the latest models. And as for the lenses you can read what I think about below.
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
I own both a Sony A7r and a Fuji X-T10, so maybe I can shed some light. 
HIGH ISOs AND LONG EXPOSURES
In low light the Sony, once resized to 16Mp, it has a tad less noise, but Sony sensors (or at least every Sony camera I've ever had) put out A TON ( = hundreds) of hot pixels both at high iso and doing long exposures, even with the "long exposure noise reduction" engaged. So for anything over 800 iso and for long exposures Fuji it is.

HIGH CONTRAST BORDERS
The original A7 series (A7 and A7r) has compressed raw. This is not a major thing most of the time, EXCEPT when you have sharp transitions from dark to light. Think a window in near silhouette and an outside scene, or a tree trunk against a sunlit background. Then as soon as you start pushing the contrast (and you will have to, because the vast dynamic range of Sony sensors means that the images will be pretty flat straight out of camera) you're left with horrible halos like you normally get on over-sharpened images. You can cure this with careful brushing in Photoshop (or up to a certain point negative clarity in Lightroom), but it is a gigantic pain in the you-know-what. Fuji does not have this problem.

LENSES
I don't personally have any Sony lens, because most of them are simply too expensive for what they give you, even terrific piece of glass like the 55/1.8. Besides, from what I've read it looks like Sony has a bit of a problem with sample variation (again, no personal experience in this field). But I use Contax Zeiss and Minolta MD adapted lenses (Contax for general use, Minolta for pastel like colors and low contrast), and with the camera strapped to a stable tripod the results are terrific. That said, from 180mm and above, tripod or no tripod, you better use fast shutter speeds otherwise the horrific shutter shock of the A7r will blurry the image (should not be a problem with the A7 though).* Fuji has the advantage of having a way better lens line-up, IMO, both in terms of focal lengths covered and in terms of sheer quality. Even the cheap 16-50 that came with the X-T10 is a surprisingly good performer! And with the OIS I've been able to shoot up to 1s (yes, one full second!!!) @ 50mm with sharp results (keep in mind, I've been shooting since I was maybe 5 years old, YMMV).

*I use a pretty heavy tripod with an Arca Swiss B-1 ball that was more than strong enough to support my 5x7" large format camera, and I still get shutter shock, so yeah, it's a thing

FF Vs APS-C
My approach to this is pretty simple.
If you shoot portraits FF has the advantage of shallow depth of field (but you can get similar or better results with a faster lens on Fuji like the 55/1.2).
If you shoot landscapes or street FF has the disadvantage of the shallow depth of field. Especially with the high resolution sensor of the A7r I have quite often to focus stack images even with short lenses, because there is no way that I can get all in focus even stopping down the aperture (and besides, very few lenses will let you stop down to f/16 without robbing you of the sharpness you're searching because of diffraction; there is not a fast rule, it will depend by the optical scheme).

MENUS
I don't see where the big deal is anymore. The original X100 menu was horrible, as have been the menus of a couple of Nikon's cameras, but nowadays I find that whatever you're shooting you will get the hang of it pretty quickly, assuming you're actually using the camera instead of letting it sit on a shelf.

X-TRANS vs SONY: SHARPNESS
Fuji files will take A TON more sharpening to realize their potential, especially if you're using an Adobe raw converter. Not a problem, but it is something you should be aware of. And IMO at 100% Fuji files, for this reason, might look often a tad "unnatural". It is a moot point, though, because once printed they look fantastic, as the Sony's. The only real difference here is the one in megapixels, and with the new 24Mp sensor coming even that is becoming academic at best. Besides, even 16Mp files print beautifully, as long as you know how to properly sharpen in multiple passes (import, creative, printing), up to 1m generally, and up to 1.5 meters with some subjects, even on glossy paper (the most demanding one). And on matte or canvas probably the sky is the limit 

X-TRANS vs SONY: DYNAMIC RANGE
Sony dynamic range, from my own test (shooting a grey step card and measuring the white point 0-255 value within Photoshop), it is around 11 2/3 stops.
Fuji X-T10 dynamic range is, again from my own test, around 7 1/3 stops.
This might look huge, and it is, but in real use unless you like the HDR look with no shadows you will have to compress the dynamic range quite a bit. Besides, a print on paper can withstand generally 5 1/2 stops of dynamic range anyway. And should you want to extend it anyway, I find way easier to shoot multiple images with the Fuji and combine them as an HDR 32 bit file to work on in Lightroom than to having to do the same to extend sharpness with the A7r (focus stacking is way more prone to errors that will not let you combine the images properly). 

X-TRANS vs SONY: COLORS
This might be the last point, but in reality is where the real difference boils down. Please, keep in mind that some of the difference will be due to the characteristic of the lens used (for example Contax glass has a particularly contrasty and saturated signature), but most of it will depend by the sensor itself.
This is a matter of taste. They are both capable of delivering great colors.
But Sony colors are IMO more on the warm-greenish side of the spectrum (think like the 17th century Flemish school of painters, or Turner), while Fuji in my admittedly for now limited experience (compared to Sony) tends to favor cooler blues and redder, bolder reds (think Giotto) (obviously using the same white balance).