Jump to content

Fujifilm X-PRO2 rumors

Patrick FR

By Patrick FR
in Fuji X Rumors & News

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 606
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mike K
Mike K

I joined this Forum in May, but have only started posting here this week.   I've been shooting with Leicas since the mid-1970s, starting with an M3 then M6, M7, M8, M9 and Monochrom, all of which I

danwells
danwells

The specifications of the X-Pro 2 sound exceptional - pretty much everything any of us have asked for. I'm a tiny bit disappointed in the price, even knowing it was going to be expensive, I had hoped

flysurfer
flysurfer

My First Look is finally ready: https://fujixsecrets.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/first-look-fujifilm-x-pro2/

Posted Images

zedd137 Rookie

zedd137

Posted
Posted

I don't see any mention of 273 AF points anywhere.

AF frame selection

Single point AF : EVF / LCD / OVF : 11x7/21x13(Changeable size of AF frame among 5 types),

21x13 = 273

But these are apparently CDAF. It is not clear to me how many PDAF points there are (7x7, 7x11 ?).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ridgeback

Guest Ridgeback

Posted
Posted

Who knows where this strange private video is from. Could be a nice mock up/fake just to put some grist on the rumour mill. Some folks have a really REALLY strange sense of humour.

 

Better not watch the video - it doesn't do justice to the camera, which will probably be outstanding

 

 

@Maurice: thanks for looking for those pictures!

Link to post
Share on other sites
umad? Enthusiast

umad?

Posted
Posted

21x13 = 273

But these are apparently CDAF. It is not clear to me how many PDAF points there are (7x7, 7x11 ?).

I guess it will be like this: you can select either 7x11 or 13x21 AF Points.

 

and then there are either 7x7 or 13x13  PDAF points (total of 169) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShutterNot Enthusiast

ShutterNot

Posted
Posted

I liked the video.  Thought they captured the feel of what the X-Pro series represents to photographers.  

 

I agree. It gave a sense or feel as to what this camera is about - despite certain critical comments on this forum here. Sometimes I get the sense that being overcritical and unrealistic is cool.

 

My worry is more about the quality of the images the PRO 2 produces and the focusing capability. The spec numbers mean doody to me. It's real life performance.

 

The question in my case  will come down to:

 

1. Will the images and dynamic range of the PRO 2 be as good as the E-1  and will the focusing capability be as good or better than on the T1

 

2. If images are not better, should I then consider the T1. Are it's images and dynamic range better on the T1 than the E-1. I haven't seen tests on that. Obviously focusing is better on T1.

 

3. Wait for T3. Highly doubtful that T3 images will be any better than PRO 2, so really no reason to wait forT3 unless one prefers that form camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
danwells Community Regular

danwells

Posted
Posted

While I agree with ShutterNot that specs have a hard time giving us a real sense of what kind of a tool the X-Pro 2 will be in our hands (witness any Sony, especially older models - they've improved the controls on more recent ones), I strongly suspect that the X-Pro 2, being a Fuji, will handle beautifully - the only Fujis that cause any controversy at all are the lower end models with no viewfinder (nobody else has one on entry-level mirrorless, either!). Image quality is, of course, an unknown until we see images, but indications are that it will be excellent - I think I spotted the telltale blue surround of a Sony sensor (which was widely expected) in the Aussie image looking down the lens mount, and a Sony 24 MP sensor with no AA filter and X-Trans is going to be superb .

 

Combing through the specs, I did find a few things of interest. Mostly it's just as has been reported.

 

1.) The extra depth IS the grip (and/or the viewfinder protrusion - minimum depth is exactly the same as the X-Pro 1, while maximum depth has increased a bit).

 

2.) The processor is QUITE A BIT faster than any previous X-camera (83 JPEGS continuous shooting at top speed, compared to 47 for the X-T1, both at 8 FPS) - remember that those JPEGs are bigger, too. The processor is fast enough that compressed raws are a little faster to write than uncompressed.

 

3.) What's Commander mode (flash)? The X-T1 has it, too, although the X-Pro 1 does not - looks like there should be some sort of IR (presumably) wireless flash - if it were radio, it would be a bigger deal, and there aren't any compatible flashes right now...

 

4.) Don't get too attached to any one battery - you'll need more! Only 250 shots with EVF.(X-T1 is 350). Does get 350 with OVF.

 

5.)RAW files have grown by precisely what you'd expect for a move from 16 to 24 MP (before compression)

 

6.) Weather sealing is probably X-T1 grade  -10 C spec from X-T1 made it ( the -10 spec is a little uncommon - no Nikon or Canon claims it (including, incredibly, the D5 and EOS-1 DX, either of which I'd trust in the cold!!!), although the Olympus E-M1 does, along with a Pentax or two)  , and sealing is mentioned in literature, unlike any previous X camera other than the X-T1.

 

7.) Movie mode options are essentially from the X-T1 (although the processor can handle more, so a future firmware could either improve data rate or even add 4k) - data rate is quite a bit higher than earlier X cameras. May very well NOT have the artifacts seen in X-T1 video (those could well be from the sensor, and this is a completely different sensor) - we'll have to see. MOD file format is probably a typo (it's MOV)

 

8.) SD slots (there ARE two) are asymmetric - slot 1 is faster for some obscure reason!

 

9.) Almost exactly the size of an X-Pro 1 with a better grip, a tiny bit heavier than an X-Pro 1 (although quite a bit lighter than an A7II or any DSLR except the very light D3300/Rebel variety).

 

10.) Finder resolution is the same as the X-T1 (TFT, not OLED, and the magnification is not as high), LCD resolution is quite a bit higher than any other Fuji (or any other interchangeable lens camera I can find easily, although a few high-end compacts use what appears to be the same screen) at 1.62 million dots. It's about the same pixel density as a Retina-type phone (although not the newest "beyond Retina" phones with full HD and even 4k displays).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alf Collaborator

Alf

Posted
Posted

I read the excitement of the new baby with interest ..

I feel slightly out of it as in 30 years of working as a pro I have never really gone into serious tech talk when purchasing a camera ...
I choose by how I feel about it , to be honest I doubt I ever notice half the points people are making such as how af points and how many this and that !

My xp2 is ordered and I will be one of the first to have one 

Ive pre ordered as I am a huge fan of XP1 so very happy to jump straight in

I leave for a 3 week shoot in Cuba on tues and if it arrives in time it will be with me and it will get used and probably a bit dirty !
When I'm back (if it arrived in time ) I will stick up a couple of pics and you can judge it but just don't ask me how whatevers it has :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ridgeback

Guest Ridgeback

Posted
Posted

Hahaha ... this is like The Rumble in the Jungle or the Moon Landing, where folks all over the world are waiting with baited breath til all hours of the night.

Except now of course we're sitting in front of laptops, PCs, tablets or phones instead of a gogglebox.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maurice Community Regular

Maurice

Posted
Posted

What is the point of linking back to FujiRUMORS?

 

Can't you find some facts to prove your point, which by the way is what?

 

Wow, bad day ?

 

Or did i stumble into the X-Pro2 FACTS topic by mistake. :lol:

 

No point, just handing you the information to your rhetorical query. I know, i way overstepped ..

Yes it's set to private now (strange that is not), but to everybody who watched it before, it's no rumor.

 

But you're right, for those who missed it, and can't take anyone's word for it .. it's back to being a rumor.

 

:ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...