Mbaris: Although xpro1 is really a magnificent camera, something with a soul, i have to admit focusing is a mess. Manual focus is slow and unintiutive, autofocus is slow and unreliable, it requires much convincing to make it take a shot really. Still, it is so much fun to use it.
Does the new zoom lens have a faster autofocus motor?
If I had a wish from Fuji for this platform, it would not be a full frame sensor (the sensor is really magnificent already, compared to my 5Dm2) or a zoom lens
It would be a lens with "USM" "FTM" equivalent features I really admire in practicality in my canon L lenses.
The reason why the 35 and 60mm are slow is they are moving heavier elements for the optical superiority. If faster focus was the goal, the optical performance would have been degraded.
Fuji X 35mm is the BEST autofocus 35mm lens ever made.
MJJSevilla: I´ve never understood all the pointless negativity. Rangefinder style viewing with framelines offers certain advantages over TTL viewing - seeing more of the context can help with composition, seeing whats about to come into the frame can help with certain types of scenes, some people like seeing the world directly rather than projected or on an LCD or whatever. Rangefinder viewing also has drawbacks and finally someone has thought outside of the box and given us a camera which allows you to use two different viewfinder technologies, best of both worlds, and what do people do? Instead of being happy to have more choice and competition, something benefitting ALL consumers, they moan. They moan about a camera they´ve never used, have no intention of using, and don´t really understand how to use, because the idea of someone else using a different camera to them is somehow intolerable. The very idea that some people want different things is like some sort of existential threat.
Those people are busy to protect their DSLR Investment.
ProfHankD: As long as you're willing to bend over backwards to support an optical finder, would it have been that much harder to have a zoom finder? Don't do that....
I think my NEX-7's EVF is better in nearly every way, but there is a potentially significant advantage in using long lenses with an optical finder: you can see things outside the lens view angle. That makes it MUCH easier to find your subject when working with a long lens. Thus, I think I'd rather see the optical finder stay wide and simply switch to a 100% EVF mode when I've got the subject in frame... perhaps a setting to switch to 100% EVF with a half press of the shutter?
I like your idea. Automatic OVF EVF switch.
Imagefoundry: seeing how people here are requesting FF Xpro2, I feel like I need to stand up and be counted:
please do NOT introduce a new full-frame system.
it will dilute the brand recognition that Fuji achieved with X-pro / X-e1 series, push up prices, slow down R&D and introduction of further XF-mount lenses and X-trans sensor derivatives, etc. etc. Not to mention all the disenfranchised Xpro1/Xe1 owners.
In my humble opinion APS-C is in a sweet spot (ie. quality/performance/price) right now and is likely to stay there for many years to come. I understand the lure of brand extension but historically it hadn't worked all that well for most companies that tried.
If you're happy with APSc, you would be more happy with FF in terms of the size. You carry 18mm and 35mm, and you can shoot 18, 24, 35, 50 with those 2 lenses. Could be cost effective, too.
Zero positive comments. LOL.
SheikYerbouti: A zoom lens on a rangefinder type of camera seems to be going against everything that rangefinders were originally designed for. But, as Fuji have demonstrated with their X-Pro1 and X-E1 cameras, it can be done quite elegantly. Still, I'm wondering how useful and how intuitive a zoom will be on these cameras? To me a zoom makes much more sense on an SLR because its through-the-lens view is more suitable for framing and composing an image with a zoom. I think rangefinder photographers are better off with 2, 3 or 4 excellent prime lenses in the bag ...
... which gives me an idea: Wouldn't it be nice if at some point in the future Fuji introduced a high quality, compact, K-5-style SLR that made use of their amazing X-Trans sensor? Maybe Photokina 2014 would be the right time to announce such a camera?
DSLR is a dated technology.
This is super.
jeep: The negative response is because it looks pig ugly, dressing it up with designer panels won't fool the discerning. Now if it looked great that would be another story.
Ugly. Yes, it is.
Mr Fartleberry: Think I'll go look in the dumpsters for the old $24,000.00 model.
This must be a great camera, but recouping $24000 in a few years is not easy for most independent photographers. Digital technology is still immature.
MrPetkus: Beautiful piece of hardware.
Only the case. Internally, it's full of dated technologies.
FTW: We will have at least the satisfaction that in any test we will not read anymore that the D600 or A99 make a better shot, it is the same sensor. Remains the absence of mirror, this can give it a serious advantage, the lenses can be used on the other brand with adapters too, so all plays on the mirror absence. But, I will not pay a surplus of 5000$ for that only. Bet all you want that NEX-7 with same lens makes the same good or even better shot. I have seen A99 and D600 shots. Up to 3200 Iso, A99 is cleaner and better than D600. Also the A99 body offers much more working comfort and the price difference is justified, it is an amazing piece of technology and D600 looks a bit poor compared to it. I do not compare this Leica to it, that would be waste of time. Starting by the price, all comment is useless. The day Leica sells it's cameras at a real value price, one can consider doing it.
If not Sony, bad high ISO. Sony sensor can produce rich color, which has been proven by Fuji X.
Peiasdf: In 5 years, even Hasselblad will have SONY sensors.
I think wildbild is talking about Fuji Organic three layered sensor.
mick232: 24MP CMOS sensor... sounds like it could be a Sony sensor.
It's not sony, so don't expect noisless high ISO image.
JacquesBalthazar: I just wish they had been able to retain the dimensions of the M3,2,4, 6 or MP. They already added some fat on the M7, back when. Then much more fat on M8-9. I had the M8 and M9, and still have a M6. It is only millimeters and grams here and there, but there is a world between the handling of a M6 and the handling of the M9. I grew to hate the M9, partly for that reason: it tried to look like my lean and mean M6, but handled like a brik. The new M is even thicker and even heavier than the M9. Still disguised as a Leica M, but is a whole different beast. Bloated. I wish them well but this one makes me sad.
I wished CLE sized camera. It's digital and shouldnt have to be fat as this.
Zvonimir Tosic: The price is incredibly low .. considering this camera is handled more and worked on manually in and during the manufacture than most other cameras are being handled after the manufacture.I like the fact that the price puts people off; it changes the perspective about what some cameras deserve to be, but what we tediously want to kill — to be a real value, not a cost.
Even Canon Compact is hand made with metal case and it's $200. No conveyor is used to produce the camera.
Why the body is thicker than M9? Fat and ugly.
abi170845: This is great, battle among Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji but I am still waiting for an interchangeable FF mirrorless the size of X-1pro. I am just tired of carrying "pro" looking dslr, I am not a pro but some places that I'd like to take photos coudn't care less when I use my S100 and suddenly get hot and bothered when I use my 7D. I am really looking forward "point and shoot" looking camera that something that stands out like a sore thumb. For example, in concerts "pro" cameras, whatever that means, aren't allowed, but you are welcome to use something like the NEX, Fuji X1 because it's small and thus aren't "pro" camera,sheesh, come on Sony, Canon, Nikon please come up with a FF mirrorless interchangeable body!
Leica makes small FF lenses.
Fave Photog: Is the purpose of these images to showcase the 24-120/4 or to showcase the abilities of the D600? The answer is obviously the 24-120, or else Nikon's best lenses would have been used: The 14-24, 24G, 35G, 85G, 200G, 70-200VRII, etc.
Another basically useless 'review'/'preview' by DPR.
I don't think those images are "useless", but it is true that the lens performance is poor.
Any reason to choose D600 over D800, other than slight price difference?
Edmond Leung: It seems full frame is already the trend...Yesterday was Sony...Today is Nikon...Where is the low-priced "full frame" for Canon and Pentax?I'm doubt how long can 4/3 stay in the market.4/3 and APSC may be faded out very quickly.
Both use Sony Sensor.