Oh wow, another Sony NEX E-mount body for almost double the price of the A6000, the same atrociously bad kit lens and perhaps the least inspiring lens lineup ever produced.
shigzeo: This looks nothing like a 1960's rangefinder. It looks like a re-thought Pen F, which was an SLR.
@shigzeo The overwhelming majority of SLRs are Nikon F style, not Pen F style. They have more pronounced grips and prism housings in the center of the body. "Rangefinder style" refers to the flatter, brick-like shape of the camera body, it has zero to do with the viewfinder other than its placement on the side vs in the center behind the pentaprism. A modern "Rangefinder style" camera like an LX100 or X100 differs on body design from an SLR style like a Canon 5D or Olympus EM5. That the meaning of the phrase "rangefinder style" is obvious to the rest of the world and not you is your issue. The rest of the world understand what vendors mean when they say "rangefinder style body". "Rangefinder style body" describes the physical shape of the camera body, it has zero to do with the viewfinder mechanism and zero to do with a short run, mostly unsuccessful Olympus half frame SLR from the 60s.
These images are quite interesting, the bakery image is quite nice. But who knew that Steve Huff grew a beard?
@shigzeo The fact that the Pen F was an SLR doesn't change the fact that the body style of the new Pen is "rangefinder style" in its design. You know exactly what they mean by the phrase "rangefinder style" but you are being pedantic.
Holy semantics. "Rangefinder style body" which is what it is. Forget about the fact that there is no actual rangefinder, the style and shape of the body is similar to a 70s rangefinder like the Contax G2 in that the body takes a more rectangular form than a typical Canikon style SLR, and the VF is off to the side instead of in the center behind the prism housing like a Canon, Nikon, Pentax 70s style SLR.
LF Photography: Wow! 4K video from a $2000 camera in 2016. Cutting edge stuff...
You do realize that it's a pro grade still camera that happens to shoot video and along with the D5 the second Nikon, and with the Canon 1DC the third DSLR to shoot 4K period? Pentax is still in 2001.
Raist3d: dpreview staff - the reason "all cameras are great now" is a statement that matters is that a lot of people are way too focused on the technology and even switching from perfectly capable cameras to another for no reason than being new.
i agree that differences matter for an individual purchase- to match ergonomics. to match particular preferences. But not to pretend to be a better photographer.
The statement of Ansel could use an iphone to shoot well is also valid- A reminder that its the photograpger that will create the photo- not the camera.
all equipment does is convenience or the ability to express using ones skill in a photographic domain. nothing more. so yes- if you are shooting a lot at night you will need a faster lens/and or better iso performance from a camera to be able to express in that domain. It will NOT make gou a better photographer.
you need a piano to play piano compositions. it will not make yiu by itself a better pianist
@cm71td The point is most cameras today are closer to the Stradivarius than to the junky student violin. Most enthusiast cameras in 2016 are can produce results unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago. So it makes zero sense to sit around all day on forums arguing about subtle differences camera bodies, calculating DOF equivalencies between the various sensors, etc. All the great photographers in history didn't become accomplished via the gear they used. That is a fact.
Totally agree with Raist3d. I play saxophone, I didn't start on a professional Selmer Paris alto saxophone, as a kid I had a student horn. Only long hours of practice improves skill, not the instrument you use. You can give an inexperienced grade schooler an expensive pro instrument they will sound just as bad as they do on their school rental student model. A student violinist with little skill will sound just as bad on a Stradivarius as they do on a student violin. This has been proven over and over again. Switching from my D7100 to my D800 doesn't magically improve my images. Only practice, good technique, careful thought about composition, good lighting and interesting subjects can do that.
Camera choice is irrelevant provided that the brand in question offers good lenses in the focal lengths you need, and accessories like flashes. With endless lens and body talk, discussions about flashes, monolights, reflectors, scrims, stands, softboxes, etc are almost non-existent on the majority of these forums. With good light, camera choice becomes almost irrelevant.
Re: DPR recommendations, the idea that small cameras are inherently better is a major flaw with this website. Handling in the field is WAY more important than convenience of transport, but in review after review we keep reading the word "bulky", even in reference to pro-sumer DSLRs. Fast zooms and telephotos are large, it's physics. So a small NEX or D5500 camera body with a large lens hanging off the front makes handling in the field significantly worse.
Far too much attention is paid to bodies and way too little to lighting. For proof here is an iPhone 6s shoot.
The GoPro CEO admitted that he priced the GoPro 4 Session too high at $399. So why didn't he fire himself?
nerd2: 1699? Priced crazy high for aps camera.
Dramatically improved VF and sensor, price is the same as the X-Pro1. All metal body, Made In Japan, these things costs money.
carlnor: I'm a Nikon/Fuji user, and I'm quite satisfied with both systems.In Norway the X-PRO2 will cost only around US$ 60 less than the Nikon D750.That does not make much sense to me. I think Fuji's gonna struggle getting this one off the shelves.
@carlnor Because the entire premise of your post is that it's an APS-C camera priced too close to a FF camera. But the D750 is almost two years old, it's been reduced from it's original price, and in most markets it's still $400 more expensive than the X-Pro2. And the X-Pro2 is an all metal, made in Japan camera with some expensive technology like the hybrid VF versus the made in Malaysia, more plastic D750. In some ways it's a question of do photographers want globalization's cheap labor to make made in china products with rock bottom prices the norm. Or are there still photographers who don't mind paying for true German or Japanese workmanship? And clearly a camera like this is a bit of a luxury item, but Fuji should be applauded for at least for keeping the price the same as the original X-Pro1. With the rising prices of lenses across brands, a dramatically improved camera priced the same as an older X-Pro1 is a win.
@carlnor And? So what, you can always find a two year old camera that is less expensive than the brand new release. Heck you can buy a Canon 5D for $300. Should all mirrorless vendors make certain to stay below that $300 mark even for their top of the line cameras? Of course not. Fuji managed to improve an already great camera and they didn't raise the price one penny. That is a win for photographers. If it's not in your budget, wait a year.
Raist3d: I am beginning to think the whole OVF thing is a mistake. It raises the price of the camera and EVF's particular Fuji's own have come a long way.
Makes me wonder how big is the niche of photographers that really want an OVF... considering more so all the lenses that won't quite fit/be usable here...
What? If you are trying to capture the "decisive moment" the last thing you want is a VF that blacks out between shots. Thought that was obvious. And because rangefinder style OVF gives a much wider view than a typical EVF or DSLR OVF, you are able to anticipate action at the edges of the frame before you trip the shutter. That's where it at.
Here a little post from Eric Kim if you don't believe me:
marike6: Good eye and superb IQ for a well done gallery. The "Provia" sim is near and dear to my heart, beautifully subtle colors without cartoonish over-saturation.
Like I said "without cartoonish over-saturation". That is a good thing in my book, you'd probably prefer Velvia, also quite an awesome slide film.
R Thornton: Fuji must have seen the huge success of Nikon Coolpix A and Ricoh GR and Leica Q and their massive sales numbers, and they decided to go the same way. I am so thrilled. Way to go Fuji, iPhone developers must be rolling on the floor...
@BobsHere I understood what he meant (that's the sad part), but this is a website for enthusiast photographers not my kid sister and her Instagram friends.
scott_mcleod: Why would Fuji do this?
- no viewfinder (so you have to hold it at arms' length) - 1-stop slower lens than the X100 - same generic 28mm FOV as a phone - no IS...
If it was a couple of hundred $ cheaper and used a standard Bayer sensor then I could almost see the sense in it. Almost.
If you like shooting with a normal lens, it's perfectly understandable. But for the market that Fuji is going for with this camera, a wider lens makes more sense. Wider lenses are much easier to focus, DOF is deeper, they usually focus very close, can be shot at slower shutter speeds, and are better for interacting with subjects up close. In the narrow streets of many European cities or in Manhattan, for example, a wide is where it's at because you are not backing up all of the time. Cheers.
ijustloveshooting: only thing fancy is the uber super overkill price .. other features have just arrived to the competition.no 4K, no ibis, no fast video,,,no true iso100/80 .No ibis is a big missing point, XF56 and XF90 definitely requires stabilisation.Eve n XF1655 needs stabilisation in so so lightning conditions.i hope it has true iso ratings and dont cheat with this one.and i hope it has 1 full stop better DR and noise performance than previous sensor.Otherwise, it's just a 24mp camera.
All of Fujifilm lenses above 90mm have OIS, why on earth would you need IBIS??? For shorter focal lengths, in most common situations, IBIS is not needed. It just isn't. To argue that two large aperture portrait lenses need OIS as the OP states above is totally ludicrous. In most portrait session you'll be shooting with strobes with shutter speeds in the X-sync range where IBIS is not needed at all. In low light, if a photo enthusiast can't be bothered with a tripod or is not comfortable using the great high ISO abilities of the Fuji X system, I wonder if some less expensive P&S or m43 type walk around camera wouldn't be more appropriate.
You can buy a D7100 for $700 or less. That info is essentially meaningless to someone already shooting Fuji or to mirrorless fans. In the US the D750 was released in 2014 for a price of $2399 and has since dropped down to $1995, still $300 more than the X-Pro2. That and the D750 is almost a full 400 grams heavier, it doesn't mount Fuji glass and it's not a rangefinder style mirrorless camera. The X-Pro1 released at $1,699, the exact same price as the X-Pro2. With the X-Pro2 you are on paper getting a MUCH better camera and Fujifilm managed to keep prices competitive. I'm a huge X-Pro1 fan and a Nikon DSLR shooter, I don't see anything at all to complain about here.