Rod McD: If these developments are borne out in the production model and the field, it looks like Fuji are really nailing the best design elements for mirrorless cameras. What else is there to ask for (apart from better weather sealing!)? I'm with the poster who said that he's waiting for the same features to appear in a future XE2 model - I just find it difficult to live with one fixed lens. Give me an XE2 and a small range of high grade lenses and I'll be very happy.
But that camera already exists, only MUCH more ergonomic: Sony's NEX series. Of course, I understand it's cooler to like retro-niche Fuji and dislike Sony simply because the latter's big and accessible.
JacquesBalthazar: These Fuji X offers, this one in particular, are so tempting for old but increasingly broke leicaphiles such as me. So familiar and re-assuring. At the same time, they annoy me by playing this much on the retro/pseudo vintage chords in terms of design cues. This is 2013. Why are we trying to pretend to be in 1956?
The feature list and tech innards are fantastic. But the design references....am I the only one to be bothered?
@photobeans: You're imposing a false dichotomy here, suggesting the only alternative to these Fuji designs are the likes of DSLRs. And yet a camera like Nikon's P7700 is similarly compact yet not bound by retro-aims (i.e., it uses more modern materials and a slightly larger grip); ditto Sony's NEX series and many of the 4/3 offerings of Olympus and Panasonic.
kongqueror: I honestly like the design! The black one especially - I think the seeming imperfections on it give it character - the Pentax K-01 is just plain boring (and ugly in its plainness). Best of all, it addresses nearly everything I had against the Nikon 1 series (lack of direct user control). But it still has one major flaw - the price. At $900, I could get a Sony A57 kit + prime or a refurbished OMD kit. Just like my comment before on the V1 when it was launched, the V2 only makes sense at $499.
I agree, although I think what others refer to as imperfections are merely instances where form follows function. For me, the plainer the camera, the better. I want a camera to work well, not look good; like a Jeep. It's when cameras (or cars) sport features solely for aesthetic purposes that I become bothered. I guess that puts me in the minority -- a more logical minority. To be blunt, those craving cute designs can go play with their Mac products. The price is indeed high, but I imagine it'll soon sell for $750-800.
Rupert Bottomsworth: Wasn't the main selling point of m43 the small size? After looking at this camera, you might as well buy a DSLR like a Nikon D3200 or Canon 650D.
And, HELLO!, do none of you shoot in imperfect conditions? THIS one is WEATHERIZED!
vvk: Wow, I can't believe they completely f*cked up the ergonomics on this one. Idiots.
Completely? Care to give an example?
Looks OK to me, although the thumb ridge may bring the FN2 button into accidental contact.
Edymagno: It is an ugly camera indeed. Its all rounded contours almost all finishing in pointy profiles remind me so much of the GM Corvette prototypes of the 60's. This "socking" look is unnerving. Maybe one needs to acquire the taste. The 70's muscle car look with the high waistline is coming back.
But the A99 IS rounded! As for "pointy finishes", I can find but one -- the front of the prism housing (and even that is pretty muted). I suspect this criticism is really just a lot of reflexive bashing from the Canikon fanboys.
Nublover: It is UGLY. Sooner a 36MP will come out. The name will be a99+.
Says you. Whereas I like its looks. (I bet we could trim these tedious DPR comments by 75% if fully subjective statements were prohibited.)
jake werner: I can't take cameras without viewfinders seriously.... even Nikon. Just not practical on bright days. When are the manufactures going to learn.
@ VLampa - Never did I suggest that "demanding for (sic) a viewfinder denotes sophistication". Instead, I said "more sophisticated" (not merely "sophisticated") photographers are, rather naturally, demanding viewfinders. (And...they're doing so NOT on P&Ses, per se, but on HIGHER-END P&Ses -- BIG difference.) To illustrate your misunderstanding, you're taking a valid statement like, "astronauts demand precise equipment", and pretending to challenge it by saying "wanting precise equipment doesn't make one an astronaut".
@ T3, the millions of cameras sold w/o viewfinders, and the fact that a generation of photographers are learning photography w/o them, are precisely the reasons more sophisticated photographers are demanding viewfinders on cameras like the P7700. (And your argument that because people can take good pictures without viewfinders means that viewfinders aren't valuable turns on such poor logic that it doesn't deserve a counterargument.)