Jump to content

Would you buy an X-Pro2 without OVF ?

Anthelix
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anthelix Rookie

Anthelix

Posted
Posted

That's crazy, I know. :D  But imagine Fuji release the X-Pro2 with an EVF only, no OVF. Would you buy it ?

 

If so, what would in your opinion make the EVF-only X-Pro2 a "pro" camera, in particular compared to an X-T2 or an X-E3 ?

Else, would you buy an X-Pro2 with the same viewfinder as the X-Pro1 or do you think an improved OVF is compulsory ? How should it be improved ?

 

As we know, the current X-Pro1 viewfinder has some limitations (which can be part of its appeal). For example it doesn't cover the whole range of Fuji lenses. It is obstructed by many recently released bigger lenses. It has no continuous zoom mechanism. It doesn't have the highest magnification.

So let's consider these possible solutions : either Fuji completely drops the OVF, or they keep it as it is, or they improve it. How would you feel if they chose each of these options ? ;)

 

A reminder of the latest rumors : http://www.fujirumors.com/x-pro2-magnum-photos-confirms-15-janaury-announcement-1250-flash-sync-speed-more-specs-leaking-as/

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted

I always thought that the mirrorless concept was especially suited to produce cameras without the “ hump” which makes them look like they have a pentaprism and a mirror box since thy don’t have any such thing.

 

I don’t even know if it is necessary for the X-T1 and the X-T10 to have the hump and certainly it does them no favors in terms of looks.

 

So, yes, If I could have a mirrorless body with everything inside that the X-T1  or T10 has I would.

 

Mind you, this might very well have ben the X-E2 if and when they would update the software and bring it at par with X-T1 and 10.

 

But I suppose that the X-E3, if and when there will be one, would be indeed the OVF-less version of the X pro 2.

 

The question is when will Fuji release such a camera?

 

We’ve seen that timing of such releases has proven particularly tricky.

 

So Not so long after the X-E2 was released the X-T10 hits the market with better characteristics and being way cheaper than the introduction price of the X-E2 and to this day the X-E2 is sold at the same body price of the X-T10.

 

Also the release of any software update that would have brought the X-E2 and the X-T10 in direct competition was halted in order to give an advantage to the new model.

 

But this has made some dissatisfied customers among the people who had bought the X-E2 who, and probably not without any reason, felt slightly left out from the distribution of freebies which almost anyone else got.

 

So, if and when the X-E3 will be an the market it will be a X pro 2 light version but will come out quite a long time after, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
cug Community Regular

cug

Posted
Posted

I don’t even know if it is necessary for the X-T1 and the X-T10 to have the hump and certainly it does them no favors in terms of looks.

 

I'd say that's a matter of taste. I like the X-T1 a hell of a lot better in terms of looks than either the X-Pro or X-E series or even the X-T10. 

 

And you need some space for a large EVF. Would probably work fine in the X-Pro size, don't know about the X-E. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthelix Rookie

Anthelix

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I would buy an X-Pro2 without OVF. But it should be for the X-E3 what the X-T1 is for the X-T10 : something like an enhanced X-E3, with for example more physical dials, a larger EVF (the Panasonic GX8 shows that the hump is not necessary to achieve high magnification), a sturdier build with weatherproofing, a better designed hand-holding... While I understand the advantages of the OVF, removing it would lower the cost and allow making the camera smaller.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

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...