Fujifilm X-PRO2 rumors

[EyesUnclouded]

This may very well have to do with the lens(es) used with each camera. For instance, the APS-C Nikons use the 50mm f/1.4G in DPreview tests, while the D750 is shot with the 85mm f/1.8G. It may be that the 50mm resolves more lines at f/5.6 than the 85mm.

 

As far as detail goes, let's also keep in mind that the 56mm f/1.2 is NOT the sharpest lens in the X-System, but this also holds true for the other camera/lens combinations too.

 

(I'm absolutely mystified about why the APS-C Nikons slightly outresolve their full-frame cousins, but they do, repeatedly, at least on DPreview's samples - and I can substitute similar models (D5500 for D7200; D610 for D750 with similar results).

[arcaswissi]

There definitely is an A7rii in the dynamic range database, I own one and was directly comparing it to the X-Pro 2 as its my current familiar reference.

 

While the X-Pro 2 seems excellent, if not class leading, for APS-C, it didn't really come near to touching the A7rii in that particular test. With the Fuji pushed 4 stops and the Sony 5 (why does DPR set that as default for DR comparisons when one camera's base ISO is 200?) the Sony had a clear advantage - very significantly less noise and finer grain, and that's at both camera's native resolution. If you resize them to match, or print, the A7rii advantage is, frankly as big as it should be for a sensor nearly twice the size and resolution. If you then equalise the test so both are pushed by an equal number of stops, the difference is even bigger.

 

This is not knocking the X-Pro 2, just saying I'm not going to be able to sell on my Sony if/when I get one.

You are right but only if everything works together perfectly - great lens (there aren't many), sturdy tripod or short enough shutter speed and great knowledge in Photoshop because of not appealing colors ooc compared to Fuji. I sold my A7r2 because the really sharp pics (on pixel level) with great colors were outnumbered. I don't say A7r2 is a bad cam but probably I am not good enough to get the most out of it.

[Ektachrome]

I found the A7rII (no idea why it didn't show up in the dynamic range database this morning, or maybe I missed it), and, as Ektachrome said, it is a SPECTACULAR performer (as it should be - it's a much larger sensor of the same generation). Like the X-Pro 2, it has the high microcontrast and detail preservation - but it's 42 MP and full-frame on top of that.

 

I am convinced, however, that the X-Pro 2 IS the class leader for APS-C (for $1700, it had better be), and is beating 24 MP full-frame in some areas of the image. The gray box they start you out on is a little deceiving - you get X-Pro2 and D7200 side by side, and the Fuji's grain stands out a little more, while its color looks quite a bit better. than the Nikon's (which has a slight magenta cast). Now move around the test chart, and in areas with more detail, the Fuji begins to pull away.

 

Substitute a D750 for the D7200 and it's very, VERY close, with the Fuji giving a slightly more color neutral, detailed and microcontrasty rendering at the cost of a bit of noise.  Even a D810 doesn't have the microcontrast or neutrality, although it does certainly have more detail (as it should). Only once you put in the A7rII is it a CLEAR win for the Sony in every area.  There is absolutely NO question once the A7rII is in there - nothing can touch it. (which every review has said - that is one spectacular sensor)!!!

 

I'd rather shoot the Fuji, with its huge selection of great lenses, best around controls and experience, BUT if you're at a focal length where the right lens exists for FE-mount, are willing to carry the lens, and use the kind of technique necessary to take full advantage of 42 MP, yet again, NOTHING short of a Phase beats an A7rII used right.

 

What an interesting race it's become in mirrorless! Fuji's building great cameras and lenses that are photographer-friendly and a joy to use, and their image quality has just reached very close to the top. Sony is building cameras with a few more annoyances (mostly related to lens selection and build quality) with unbelievable image quality at the VERY top (and some beginner cameras with, in my mind, odd design choices). Olympus and Panasonic are clearly hobbled by their sensor, but they are innovating in video, build and image stabilization.  Welcome, Canon (if the stories are true)!

 

 

I agree with this - the weakness of the A7rii right now is lens selection at a certain size/availability. The 55 f/1.8 is stunning, and the right size and price. 35mm is a difficult area - the 35 f/2.8 is a little slow to justify a prime, but very small, the 35 1.4 is a monster size-wise, but wonderful optically. The Batis 25 and 85 are lovely, but very difficult to get hold of, and very pricey. What I will say is that all the above lenses (and I believe most of the range) have super fast and dead quiet AF and are weather sealed, whereas Fuji are a bit of a mixed bag in that regard.

 

A couple of people mentioned having to use tripods/careful technique to extract the maximum from the A7rii. While this is true of any camera, I have been surprised to find the A7rii to require less technique to get pin sharp shots in real usage than any other camera I've owned. Despite the 42mp, I have pixel sharp shots at very low shutter speeds handheld (as long as nothing in the frame is moving, like any camera) with the truly excellent IBIS. Also because ISO is pretty painless, I can bump it up a little without affecting image quality much. I rarely now reach for a tripod except for long-exposures, or ones made after sunset. Amazing thing. The Eye-AF, which really works and works fast, also makes it trivial to get pin-sharp casual portraits.

 

I recently made a chart with A7Rii and X-Pro 2 with comparable prime lenses, in terms of weight I was shocked how close they got. The Sony lenses, depending on choice, can be a little larger. I greatly prefer Fuji cameras looks-wise and some (not all) of the ergonomics. FWIW, I also believe the Fuji lenses and images have a little more 'character' - the Sony system is huge on technical IQ, but Fuji reminds me more of a Leica with Kodachrome - it has a certain something about it which is very hard to define on specs or test charts, but can be very appealing under the right conditions (but sometimes limiting under others). This is only my personal experience between the two systems based on ownership and a lot of use of an X-T1 and A7rii.

[Ektachrome]

You are right but only if everything works together perfectly - great lens (there aren't many), sturdy tripod or short enough shutter speed and great knowledge in Photoshop because of not appealing colors ooc compared to Fuji. I sold my A7r2 because the really sharp pics (on pixel level) with great colors were outnumbered. I don't say A7r2 is a bad cam but probably I am not good enough to get the most out of it.

Funny, I find the RAW out-of-the-box (in other words, Lightroom's profile) for the A7rii much more appealing than their canned profiles for Fuji. I always ended up applying VSCO or Replichrome to Fuji's RAW files in Lightroom to get appealing colours, or playing with curves and hue/colour. I found Capture One to be much more appealing in terms of aesthetics and to have much less smearing of fine detail than LR for raf files. Again, I find the Fuji files spectacular when you get them right, but personally I've always found myself working more to get that look.

[danwells]

That's Adobe for you - I switched from Lightroom to C1 as it became clear that Fuji was where I was going... Adobe loves Canon, likes Sony and Nikon, then falls off quickly after that. I've never heard anyone say that C1 favors one camera over another (with the possible exception of Phase One backs, which they make). Fuji's Achilles' heel is raw converter compatibility - it's "sort of" Adobe compatible, and DxO won't even open the files.

[withfilm]

That's Adobe for you - I switched from Lightroom to C1 as it became clear that Fuji was where I was going... Adobe loves Canon, likes Sony and Nikon, then falls off quickly after that. I've never heard anyone say that C1 favors one camera over another (with the possible exception of Phase One backs, which they make). Fuji's Achilles' heel is raw converter compatibility - it's "sort of" Adobe compatible, and DxO won't even open the files.

 

 

Dan, I'm happy with C1 processing but still can't find a good workflow. Currently cataloging with Lightroom and quick exports. Capture One for finals and prints. 

 

Any tips here? 

[umad?]

Any tips here? 

Watch some webinars, take your time and force yourself to use it (and not only for some light exposure compensation and white balance work, but for nearly everything.

 

And after a few weeks (a few thousand pictures) it will have grown on you.

And you will think back at the times you were using Lightroom and will ask your self: how was I able to work with such a limited software?! 

[withfilm]

Watch some webinars, take your time and force yourself to use it (and not only for some light exposure compensation and white balance work, but for nearly everything.

 

And after a few weeks (a few thousand pictures) it will have grown on you.

And you will think back at the times you were using Lightroom and will ask your self: how was I able to work with such a limited software?! 

 

Thanks umad?  - I'll admit after many years with Lightroom I've been a bit hesitant to put in the time for true in-depth learning for C1. 

 

I'll give it a shot this year. 

[danwells]

Still working on it, considering going to a C1 workshop. I'm getting pretty good just by playing with it extensively, but I see Capture Integration's various classes and I wonder (they have an office 45 minutes from where my folks live, so it would be an easy weekend)...

 

Dan

[Ektachrome]

The more I use it, the more I like it. I think LR is more immediately intuitive, but C1 is potentially more powerful and just produces nicer looking results in the end.

 

I'm reaching the end of my subscriptions for C1 and LR+PS, so I have to choose between the two shortly. At this point I'm actually leaning towards C1 even for my Sony.

[danwells]

Sony and C1 work closely together... If you were looking at Sony+Fuji, and didn't need the PS features (Or the power of LR's Catalog - C1 9 is a huge improvement, but it's not yet LR), I'd certainly go C1. Interestingly, Phase One owns Media Pro, a very powerful cataloging application. I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of Media Pro make its way into C1.

[umad?]

That's a hard decision. 

C1 is more powerful than LR, but still, there are somethings I do in Photoshop, that are just not possible in C1 (or LR).

 

But I am thinking about Affinity Photo (+C1 and going Adobe free). 

[wildcart]

Fuji can learn something from this promo video 

and 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnEsBK8YIe4

 

The Fuji promo is .....

[quincy]

Three different approaches, and while I like none of them, I think Fuji's is still best.

Canon's camera floating out of this animated space-thingy is just ridiculous.

Nikon's version is a bit better (the opening scene is quite nice, though rather shot with a drone and not the D5) but those buzzwords like "outstanding", "strong", "uncompromised" should not impress anyone, and their annoying "I AM" campaign... uargh.

Fujifilm at least forgoes stupid animations and buzzwords, bringing the focus to what is important to them: people. I agree that their choice of photographer and model might be a bit "artsy", but I think their approach is better than the others. Just the implementation lacks a bit.

[gdanmitchell]

Funny, I find the RAW out-of-the-box (in other words, Lightroom's profile) for the A7rii much more appealing than their canned profiles for Fuji. I always ended up applying VSCO or Replichrome to Fuji's RAW files in Lightroom to get appealing colours, or playing with curves and hue/colour. I found Capture One to be much more appealing in terms of aesthetics and to have much less smearing of fine detail than LR for raf files. Again, I find the Fuji files spectacular when you get them right, but personally I've always found myself working more to get that look.

 I can't comment on the Sony or its files, but I've been using ACR to convert Fujifilm RAW files for about three years, and producing good size prints from the resultant images, and it works really well for me. 

 

The whole "colors thing" among aficionados of one or another camera brand always baffles me. If you understand the post-processing software, and know how to expose well, you can get great color from any current brand of digital camera. Sometimes I think that folks who are accustomed to the work-flow for one brand/model simply are more comfortable with that, and they regard a departure from their familiar settings to mean the other gear produces weaker files. I currently use two digital camera systems and I've arrived at post-processing approaches that allow me to produce excellent quality from each. (In most cases, people viewing my prints cannot tell which came from which camera.)

[Ektachrome]

I can't comment on the Sony or its files, but I've been using ACR to convert Fujifilm RAW files for about three years, and producing good size prints from the resultant images, and it works really well for me. 

 

The whole "colors thing" among aficionados of one or another camera brand always baffles me. If you understand the post-processing software, and know how to expose well, you can get great color from any current brand of digital camera. Sometimes I think that folks who are accustomed to the work-flow for one brand/model simply are more comfortable with that, and they regard a departure from their familiar settings to mean the other gear produces weaker files. I currently use two digital camera systems and I've arrived at post-processing approaches that allow me to produce excellent quality from each. (In most cases, people viewing my prints cannot tell which came from which camera.)

There's definitely truth in this. I had got used to the way files from Canon and Nikon behaved in LR when I first went Fuji, and for one thing, that taught me much more about colour adjustment in post than I knew before - I don't think I'd ever touched the hue/sat/lightness colour sliders in LR before that, but having gone through the learning curve with Fuji, which I wasn't happy with out of the box, it's rare I don't touch these sliders and some curves for a little tweak on almost any file regardless of camera.

 

As far as detail goes, I still personally find LR isn't optimal for Fuji raw files. However, there is a big caveat, and I believe this is why some photographers notice the 'smearing/watercolour' effect more than others - it depends on subject matter. I've never once had cause not to use LR/raf for urban, people, or seascape work. But where I live, a lot of the landscapes contain a good proportion of fine, green grasses and foliage, which I've found to be a kind of worst case scenario for LR/raf, and it's these shots I tend to only find pleasing after using C1. Ymmv.

[arcaswissi]

I can't comment on the Sony or its files, but I've been using ACR to convert Fujifilm RAW files for about three years, and producing good size prints from the resultant images, and it works really well for me.

 

The whole "colors thing" among aficionados of one or another camera brand always baffles me. If you understand the post-processing software, and know how to expose well, you can get great color from any current brand of digital camera. Sometimes I think that folks who are accustomed to the work-flow for one brand/model simply are more comfortable with that, and they regard a departure from their familiar settings to mean the other gear produces weaker files. I currently use two digital camera systems and I've arrived at post-processing approaches that allow me to produce excellent quality from each. (In most cases, people viewing my prints cannot tell which came from which camera.)

Hi Dan, I agree and I don't agree . Of course it is possible but it depends how much time I am willing to invest. For me my files from D810 or X-pro1 afford much less time to get a satisfying result than files of the a7r2 irrespective if converted in LR, C1 or Iridient. And I know some really good photographers who are much fitter in computer adjustments than me who assert the same.

Anyway for me the best file would be the one I don't have to work on a lot because I prefer being in nature than on my computer but this is only my oppinion

[wildcart]

Three different approaches, and while I like none of them, I think Fuji's is still best.

Canon's camera floating out of this animated space-thingy is just ridiculous.

Nikon's version is a bit better (the opening scene is quite nice, though rather shot with a drone and not the D5) but those buzzwords like "outstanding", "strong", "uncompromised" should not impress anyone, and their annoying "I AM" campaign... uargh.

Fujifilm at least forgoes stupid animations and buzzwords, bringing the focus to what is important to them: people. I agree that their choice of photographer and model might be a bit "artsy", but I think their approach is better than the others. Just the implementation lacks a bit.

 

Fuji is not showing anything interesting in there promo that makes me want to buy it. It is that i already know al the new features/specs that I know I want one

[danwells]

Sony just introduced their new a6300 - basically an a6000 with a brand-new sensor... Is it a 36 Mp sensor? No - that mythical beast still doesn't exist in APS-C (or if it does, Sony withheld it at the last minute because the performance wasn't good enough). It's a "brand-new 24 MP sensor with copper wiring" - where have we seen one of those (with a better color filter) before? It does have 4K video, which confirms that the sensor can do it. Otherwise, the body is ho-hum - it's an A6000 with an X-Pro 2 sensor minus the X-Trans. It has an even more enormous number of AF points than the already huge collection in the X-Pro 2, perhaps by dividing the points up differently?

 

Sony also released three big, heavy FE-mount lenses (including a 2 lb 24-70 f2.8 and a 3 lb 70-200 f2.8), but NO new lenses for APS-C

 

If you don't already have Fuji lenses, it's an interesting price proposition - they want $1000 for it, but it loses a bunch of important features compared to the X-Pro 2.

 

1.)No X-Mount (not that I'd have expected one from Sony, but a non full-frame E-mount REALLY raises questions about what lens you're meant to use with it). Sony's kit lens for it is the execrable little 16-50 powerzoom - a sub $200 (when bought with a camera) consumer lens. Anyone want a nice 16-50 XC to go with your X-Pro 2? This ridiculous pairing is actually BETTER than the horrible little powerzoom!. If you want a reasonable zoom, there's always the 16-70 f4 Zeiss - $1000 for image quality about equal to the 18-55 Fujinon (NOT the $1200 16-55, the 18-55 kit lens). There's the brand new 24-70 f 2.8, which may very well be a beautiful lens (it probably is), but it's HEAVIER THAN THE 50-140 FUJINON and it costs $2200, not to mention that it's the wrong focal length range for APS-C. If you want a standard prime, there's a $400 35mm f1.8 of decidedly modest reputation, or there's (and this is actually a full-frame lens), an absolutely gorgeous 35mm f1.4 Zeiss Distagon, which costs $1600 and weighs as much as the 16-55 Fujinon.

 

2.)No real weathersealing - it's got the typical Sony language about "not splashproof, but designed to resist dust and water entry" - this means "decently built with some concern for dust, but no seals".

 

3.)No hybrid viewfinder - pretty ordinary EVF (I have no reason to think it's better or worse than what's on an X-E2).

 

4.)Classic Sony controls - push a button and turn a dial for just about anything (and not even the better a7 version with dedicated exposure compensation and an extra dial)... Probably classic Sony menus, too.Not that Fuji menus are great, but we never use them!

 

5.) No dual card slots

 

 

The question it begs, since it's almost certainly the same sensor, is "is $700 extra worth it for an X-Mount, X-Trans and a great body"?  If you want good lenses for the Sony, you'll probably be paying for FE lenses (and putting up with extra weight and odd focal lengths). An expensive FE lens or two could make up the difference. If Sony were serious about APS-C glass, they could have a real competitor - the X-Pro 2 body may not be worth $700 to everybody without the lens mount difference, but the mount should make the difference for a lot of people. If you only want a lens or two, and Sony has what you want, it could very well be compelling...

 

Of course, this makes for a potentially very interesting lower-end Fuji - nice controls and an X-mount in a body around the same price as the a6300?

 

[umad?]

Sony just introduced their new a6300 - basically an a6000 with a brand-new sensor... Is it a 36 Mp sensor? No - that mythical beast still doesn't exist in APS-C (or if it does, Sony withheld it at the last minute because the performance wasn't good enough). It's a "brand-new 24 MP sensor with copper wiring" - where have we seen one of those (with a better color filter) before? It does have 4K video, which confirms that the sensor can do it. Otherwise, the body is ho-hum - it's an A6000 with an X-Pro 2 sensor minus the X-Trans.

 

Told you it wasn't the IMX 271

 

 

 It has an even more enormous number of AF points than the already huge collection in the X-Pro 2, perhaps by dividing the points up differently?

No. Sony (devices/semiconductor solutions) builds this to customer specs. The shielding isn't happening on a deep sensor level, so like the CFA or black light shielding this depends on the customer. (The mistake many make is to think of sony as a whole. It's Sony imaging that builds cameras and that is only a customer to Sony devices/ss) 

 

The question it begs, since it's almost certainly the same sensor, is "is $700 extra worth it for an X-Mount, X-Trans and a great body"? 

If we take away the 3-400$ premium for the hybrid viewfinder there isn't much left. Fuji also offers many other things that many overlook. Just to name two:

1. they integrate UHS-II. Not only the specification but this is on hardware level and this is why Fuji can really achieve 300MB/s while others (A7!!!!) limit it to 60-100MB/s

2. the screen. The X-Pro1 had an RGBW panel higher visibility in sunny situations and the X-Pro2 goes even further. 

Those are just two selected differences. There are much more.

As a european customer support and warranty come to mind. 

[EyesUnclouded]

Dan, the 16-70 f/4 is hardly comparable to the 18-55mm Fuji, in image quality terms. Most people I know having used that lens, were left underwhelmed. Probably not deserving the Zeiss badge (same goes for the 24-70mm f/4 FE).

 

An EVF-only, slightly smaller body, single SD slot derivative of the X-Pro2 would make much sense (it could also make-do without the integrated shutter/ISO dial and a couple more bells and whistles of the X-Pro.

 

Now what that reminds me.... yeah, a future X-E3? C'mon Fuji.

[Ektachrome]

It's highly likely, now Sony have truly shown they aren't going to consider size/weight of lenses at all in FE (not to mention price) that I shall be selling my A7rii to fund an X-Pro 2 and some more Fuji primes.

 

When I come to do my next lot of filming, I will pick up an A6300 (which looks to have excellent video specs) for cheaper than its launch price and use with my MF C/Y glass which I already own, and a speedbooster.

[danwells]

I haven't used the 16-70 Sony Zeiss myself (I HAVE used the 24-70 Zeiss and agree that it's underwhelming, especially for the price). Although I have read the less than great reviews, I was afraid I was being too HARD on the Sony, by comparing it to a kit lens (admittedly a VERY nice kit lens that sells for $500+ on its own).. I have used the 18-55 extensively, and it's a GREAT little lens - not as sharp as my 50-140, but what other zoom is? I'd really love to see Fuji put out a WR version of the 18-55, because it is so compact for its image quality, and not especially slow.It could be optically and mechanically unchanged, just weathersealed..

 

Ektachrome, there might be something else coming down the pike with excellent video specs (it DOES look like the a6300 has very good video) that uses glass you already own. How about an X-T2? Your Fujinons (especially with the great new ones you will be able to get from the A7rII kit) are great lenses, and they're probably better than most C/Y glass from the 90s (some of the better Carl Zeiss lenses may give Fuji a run for its money).

 

If Sony made an effort in lenses for APS-C, the a6300 could be a lot more interesting than it is for many people. I'd probably STILL go with the X-Pro 2 even if I didn't own lenses (I need weathersealing, and Fuji bodies just handle better than pretty much anything else). Given how much Fuji glass I own, I'd CERTAINLY go with the X-Pro 2 (my preorder is in, a big deposit is down, and the a6300 wasn't going to change anything even if it HAD lenses). The use of the little 16-50 powerzoom as the kit lens for a camera with the X-Pro 2 sensor is just pathetic, though. That little powerzoom was made for extreme compactness on cheap consumer cameras, not for performance. It's one of the worst-performing interchangeable lenses on the market- beaten easily by even such modest lenses as the 16-50 XC, the Canon and Nikon 18-55 kit lenses, and Sony's own non-retractable 18-55.

There are almost no performance lens options in APS-C E-mount (arguably the 10-18, the Touits and the new Sony Zeiss 24). Other than that, it's a mess of cheap consumer lenses and a bunch of video lenses...

 

Even in FE, Sony seems determined to give up their body size advantage by making lenses that are as large as, or larger than DSLR lenses. The half pound difference between an A7rII and a D810 quickly gets eaten up by lenses! Nikon has some lighter options, while Sony's are comparable to the heavier Nikkors with few options.

 

  I completely agree with EyesUnclouded about an X-E3... That sensor in a nice Fuji body with a great lens line for $1100-$1200 or less? That will knock Sony out of the higher end of the APS-C market (not that they're really trying there, anyway! I wonder if we'll see it, because they may be determined to keep the new sensor and processor in higher end cameras. I'm confident we WILL see an X-T2, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a price (and spec) jump over the X-T1, with superb video and a very fast still frame rate?

[danwells]

This is pure sensor semantics and speculation, but if "The sensor the X-Pro 2 and a6300 share" and "the IMX271" are not the same thing, then what is/was an IMX271? I'm absolutely convinced that the X-Pro 2 sensor is also the a6300 sensor (what umad? said about phase detection pixels being easily reconfigurable surface stuff like the color filter made me more certain).I'm also convinced that we've never seen this particular (very fast, with a nice little boost in dynamic range and noise handling) sensor in a camera before.

 

How many generations of the Sony 24 MP sensor have their been? There are clearly at LEAST three primary variants, and maybe more.

 

1.) NEX-7 sensor - seen in the NEX-7 and some Sony SLT cameras, including the original A77. Ever used by anyone except Sony?

1a.) Was there another generation of this sensor in here? If so, it would have turned up in some Nikon and/or Pentax DSLRs - the D7100 and D7200 use Toshiba sensors, but what about some of the D5xxx or D3xxx models? Or various Pentaxes?

2.) A6000 sensor - in the A6000, A77II and probably other places

2a.) IMX271 (appeared on a Sony spec sheet around April 2015 - very fast). If the X-Pro 2/A6300 sensor is NOT the sensor referenced on that spec sheet (it was not seen in a camera for ten months after that reference if it IS the same sensor on the spec sheet), the only cameras the IMX271 could possibly have appeared in are the Pentax K3II (which could also be the A6000 sensor or even a Toshiba sensor) or Sony's own A68 (possibly our old friend the A6000 sensor).

3.) X-Pro 2/a6300 sensor. First with copper wiring, current state of the art in APS-C image sensors, very fast with exceptional dynamic range and noise characteristics .

 

If there wasn't a generation between the NEX-7 and A6000 sensors, AND the X-Pro 2/ A6300 sensor is in fact the IMX271 that appeared (perhaps prematurely) on a spec sheet nearly a year ago (I don't think the spec sheet said anything either way about copper wiring), it could be the third generation Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor. If there WAS a generation in between the original NEX-7 sensor and the A6000 sensor, AND the X-Pro 2/A6300 sensor is NOT the IMX271 from that spec sheet (which was either never bought in quantity, or was featured in only one or two relatively obscure cameras), it could be as much as a fifth generation sensor.

 

If Sony's on a (roughly) 2 year cycle, the NEX-7 sensor appeared in late 2011 (although they were more or less impossible to get until 2012 - review samples, then months of silence), its successor arrived in the A6000 in early 2014, and this sensor is the third generation, leaked on a spec sheet under the name IMX271 10 months ago, but not making an appearance until it showed up in the X-Pro 2.

 

If they're on closer to a one year cycle, some DSLRs had a sensor in between the NEX-7 and A6000 generations (which seems likely - there were DSLRs about with better performance than the NEX-7 sensor could explain, yet introduced before the A6000). In this case, the IMX271 never found a buyer except possibly Pentax or Sony themselves for a relatively obscure camera.

[Ektachrome]

Ektachrome, there might be something else coming down the pike with excellent video specs (it DOES look like the a6300 has very good video) that uses glass you already own. How about an X-T2? Your Fujinons (especially with the great new ones you will be able to get from the A7rII kit) are great lenses, and they're probably better than most C/Y glass from the 90s (some of the better Carl Zeiss lenses may give Fuji a run for its money).

 

danwells - yes, I consider most of the Fujinons optically superior to the 90s C/Y lenses, although the 85 1.4 is pretty nice and I neglected to mention my 28mm f/2 (the 'Hollywood' Distagon) is a modern ZF.2. Both are extremely heavy, though. However, there's an issue with X-Mount Fujinon lenses in terms of serious video work - focus is by wire, and the focus motors on most lenses are noisy, as is aperture 'chatter'. This is irritating in stills, but crucial in single camera drama work.

 

That said, if the X-T2 had stellar video, etc., I would just buy that instead of the A6300, as my Zeiss MF primes would adapt just as well, I think, and then I wouldn't have to buy a camera body just for video. I'd probably move to an X-Pro 2 first though, so I'm selling on the A7rii while it still has a good amount of it's value - Sony's bodies do appear to depreciate quite fast once the next body appears, and they have a very fast product cycle.