Kevin B

I'm not sure that the XPro2 is ideal for the kind of photography that involves shooting in high-speed burst mode at the same time as zooming in and out. It's more a 'considered photography' sort of camera than a 'spray and pray' one: you see the picture, you frame it, you capture it. The optical viewfinder in particular makes it most suitable for prime lenses between 18mm and 56mm
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Are you missing something? I don’t know. Probably not.
 
Fuji and Canon are different cameras they suit different people and different shooting styles.
 
If you feel that dissatisfied and you wonder whether you have missed something... there is a good chance that you are missing something.
 
Perhaps the classified section?
 
http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/classifieds/
 
I am sure someone would be able to put you out of your misery and relieve you from this burden leaving you to your Canon pleasures.
 
As they say, to each his own. Having been there and done that ( although mostly in the studio) cannot see myself, again, burdened with the weight and size of a Canon in real life.
 
But maybe you don’t mind that.
 
As for sharpness, I really don’t miss any in most lenses ( some of which are non Fuji native ones which don’t even have the benefits of software correction). The extremely humble 18-55 is one of the sharpest lenses that I’ve ever used in my whole life.
 
I am reminded every day of its qualities.
 
But again, to each his own.
 
If one system would be the only one capable to fit all the so many needs there wouldn’t be so many camera, so, maybe, indeed, this system might not be for you.
 
Good luck!

Fuji X is great for landscape. Don't let all the megapixels guys fool you. I get very acceptable 20x30 prints from my XT-1 - such as this... with 18-55mm @ ISO 200.

Pro Rugby is launching a league here in the U.S. I was hired to shoot some initial shots and decided to give my Xpro2 a go. Overall I was happy with the performance and especially the quality of the images. I mainly used the 56 and it worked like a charm. Focus was fast and accurate. Dumped all my Canon camera gear and have never looked back. 

But... but that's impossible, the X-Pro2 isn't capable of taking pictures... how did you? It's not even Full Frame! And everyone knows the 56 can't focus!

Very well done!

@Jano
 
I'm not an expert, but of the 3 above I like your last shot best, the (so-called waxy) OOC one 2nd, and your Iridient thing least. I guess this proves your point that the jpegs could be better, but I really don't think it's as bad as you make out.

For me adapting (old) lenses makes totally sense!!! I'm no portrait, model etc. shooter so about 1000 € for the XF56 or the XF90 is too much for me (because I use that focal length too rarely). I shoot everything like many others here. If I want good quality shots I use the XF35 or the XF18-55 which are great! And if I ever take a portrait of a person (and SOMEtimes I actually do) then I use a cheap old lens that gives the pictures a very special character especially cause of a nice bokeh. The old Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 is very sharp I think even wide open. Like Casa mentioned before sharpness isn't everything!!! I take pictures cause of the picture itself. I will never say: "Look at this totally ugly photo it is sooooo incredible sharp! Sharper than in real! Wow!" It's the same like the megapixel war! But that's a different kettle of fish.
Here are three pictures (click to enlarge) taken with different lenses and I think they are all very sharp (enough sharp). The first one was taken with a 135mm at 1/80s. Look at the micro (focus point) it's sharp (and it isn't even the full resolution)! And that with a 40€ lens!

Up by KwyjiboVanDeKamp, auf Flickr

Bright-eyed contentment by KwyjiboVanDeKamp, auf Flickr

Whistle by KwyjiboVanDeKamp, auf Flickr

You're making some valid points, and adapting lenses - especially the cheaper non-Leica ones - isn't for everyone. My usual always-on lens was the Fuji 35 1.4, until someone stole my camera and I had no money to buy all my stuff back.
Of course you have a super-sharp autofocus glas of much better optical quality. One should never assume to be able to outsmart the market and get something as great as a new Fuji lens for almost nothing. 
However, first off it's of course a matter of taste. If you're looking for technical perfection, tack sharpness, optimal lens correction, just don't. 
 
However, if you want to do some artsy stuff, play around, look for a vintage look, there's not much keeping you. I did it for fun first until my Fuji glass got stolen, then I also used adapted lenses more and more for everyday stuff (the only Fuji lens I still have is the XC 16-55 which is just not much fun to use). But after a while I started asking myself if, for my kind of photography, I should really buy the Fuji lenses back because I got so used to the old glass and it's more fun. 
 
Some more personal points: I'm perfectly used to manual film cameras and was never happy with speedy DSLRs, the X100 was the first digital camera I loved shooting with - because it was like my old film cameras and I understood it immediately. So manual lenses are also very natural to me. Not to mention that even the Fuji lenses were more reliable in manual focus during low light/concert photography. 
 
Another thing - I personally think the trend goes too much towards over-sharpness. Everyone with their DSLR want their photos to look like medium format with Contax lenses used to be, unnaturally detailed and super professional. I'm not looking for that really, I always liked photos that are a little more "down to earth", natural, not really perfect. As for sharpness, I guess the photo I posted above is pretty much the max I need, it's of course shot wide open so I could maybe get a little more out of the Helios, but to me it's just fine especially for a portrait. If I was into architecture I'd never touch this stuff.
 
Anyway, I'm rambling. I'd always recommend a good Fuji lens first, but if you have a few coppers left - go to ebay, have some fun, just don't spend and expect too much.