I wish...

[petergabriel]

... that Fujifilm had kept the resolution at 16mp on the xp2 and xt2.

With the new processor, the high iso performance would (i believe) be out of this world and the AF would probably be even faster than now. Right now the increased resolution has given high iso performance on par with x trans 2 (some state worse). I would much rather have kept the already fine resolution and perhaps/most likely have had one of the best high iso camera available to man.

 

This is purely speculation, but valid at that. What are your thoughts?

[Chucktin]

When the pixel density exceeds 1000/inch, then I'll be satisfied.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[sacherjj]

I don't know if a 16.3 MP X-Trans-III would beat the D500 20 MP sensor.  But it would be good.  However, Fuji needs to work with what silicon is available.  I'm not sure they had a choice.  Is there a newer technology 16 MP sensor available?

[kimcarsons]

I agree. I was happy with the IQ and resolution of the X-Pro1. A 16MP X-Trans III sensor would have had better low light performance (perhaps 1/2 to 1 stop), less rolling shutter, faster burst rate, faster EVF, higher video frame rates, no crop in 4K video mode, etc. That extra 8MP really isn't doing anything for me. It's also annoying that there's no 16MP JPEG mode, (M is 12MP). 

Edited November 21, 2016 by kimcarsons

[johant]

I posted the same thought in another thread. At the same time, it is extremely unlikely.

 

The market demands more pixels, and they depend on a third party for their sensors.

 

I was happy with 12mp. And I don't see why I would need to double that.

[Nick05]

I'm happy with the performance of the new 24MP sensor. I haven't had my X-T2 long enough to actually compare to the X-Pro2, but based on a few shots I had taken, not side by side so not a great comparison, the X-Pro2 looked cleaner at high ISO. I have already sold the X-T1, so I won't be able to compare them side by side. Overall, I really like the amount of detail the new sensor captures and think the noise is well controlled. I was initially disappointed to hear the 24MP resolution when announced. I didn't even want over 24MP in my old FF DSLR cameras. If they came out with a lower MP sensor, I'd be curious to test it out.

[milandro]

well Johan, the reason that many “ upgraded” was ... because “ New" and “ Improved" are the key words in advertising ever since this was invented.

 

Whether “ new” and “ improved “ is also better, remains to be seen. Ive have seen mediocre photographers making mediocre work with their old camera and keep lingering in mediocrity even after “ upgrading”. 

 

The new box contained the same old chops but was way more expensive and for some brought the need about to buy new computer and new software ( because some old software doesn’t recognize the new camera, you can go around that but some simply bought new software to go with the new camera. Why not? it is all New & Improved after all!)

 

This is the fool's merry-go-round of the fool’s mulberry bush, and of course, perfectly attuned with the idea that wealth is measured with how much you spend (gdp) not in how much you know or do with the things that you already have without the need to consume things that are above your needs or capabilities.

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by milandro

[asathor]

The greatest advantage of the 24Mp over the 16Mp is that the ~20% higher linear resolution allow you to crop more. For an improved 16MP to perform better in the real world should be 1-2 stops faster so it could be used with zooms that fill the frame at all times - and of course perfect zooms. Of course it is fun to imagine a 16Mp with 2 stops lower noise that most likely spank the D500 for a few month anyway - but wait Nikon would also have chosen that sensor. It does look to me like there the is an upcoming speed-bump on the road to higher resolution - but since marketing departments does not understand anything but large numbers - they fix that with processing (brilliantly engineered, patented, mystical, galactic and of course New and Improved processing).