new XA2: what good is a selfie screen with no touchscreen.

William Ing wrote:

Mirfak wrote:

William Ing wrote:

Mirfak wrote:

Tommy TJ wrote:

The addition of a touch screen might be of use, but even with that (and the selfie screen) I can't help but think Fuji have really been quite lazy with this update a number of areas where they could and should have improved their entry model and they have failed to address the obvious points.

Agreed. There are many operational flaws, most of which were fixed on the X30, a P&S camera with a much smaller sensor. The "despised" Canon EOS M is much better operationally.

I can understand your enthusiasm for the EOS M's touchscreen capability, but seriously--"much better operationally" than the A1?

I have both the M and the A1. I love shooting with my A1. With the addition of a relatively inexpensive Clearviewer, I have a platform that gives me the benefits of stable eye level shooting with peak focusing (certainly a huge aid for focusing and composing with MF legacy telephotos) and flip screen capability, all in a smaller, lighter body than any other interchangeable lens X camera.

The Canon EOS M, conversely, I acquired at fire sale prices in order to gain a mirrorless body that would accommodate my existing stable of EF and EF-S lenses. I consider it a tool that conveniently bridges all three of Canon's current interchangeable lens mounts, but in seriously compromised (some would say intentionally crippled) fashion. Sure, you get touchscreen capability (which, btw, doesn't allow you the option of total inactivation), but no peak focusing (without having to resort to Magic Lantern), no flip screen, and 10X focusing aid magnification that, incredibly, requires no less than FOUR separate pushes with your right thumb to activate and then cancel prior to shutter release.

OK, you've persuasively made your case for the operational superiority of the EOS M over the A1, especially as the two cameras impinge upon YOUR shooting style, above all WRT video operation. In my original remarks, I was concerning myself exclusively with stills capture. While I concede the point, I nevertheless would like to comment on some of your observations:

I too purchased the Canon EOS M at a fire-sale price. AF is slower than the X-A1, but I didn't purchase it for moving subjects. And I'll admit that the X-A1 do have a few operational advantages over the M. But there are things on the X-A1 that drive my crazy, plus there are things I prefer on the M:

1) Face detection is exclusive of other focusing modes - if it fails to detect a face -tough. The M simply defaults to standard single-mode AF if it can't detect a face. Thank you Canon. (Fixed in the X30)

Good point.

2) The touchscreen on the M is infinitely faster than the cumbersome button operation on the X-A1 for focus point selection and for quickly setting other functions.

Yes, focus point selection is certainly faster and easier on the M. Focusing operation in any form, however, whether via touchscreen, or by shutter release button, or by the * button, remains an agonizingly slow kludge. By comparison, A1 focusing under most circumstances is downright snappy and sure (although it's still slower when compared to AF of mirrorless cameras like the latest Olympus and Panny MFT models).

3) The M has a convenient AF+MF mode. (Fixed in the X30))

Not sure if we're talking about similar capabilities, but my A1 is set up for manual focus with the option to do instantaneous AF via the topside FT button.

4) The M has a My Menu option to store frequently used functions. I don't have to dig through the menu labyrinth as much as I have to do on the X-A1.

Fair enough.

5) Video on the X-A1 is a checkbox feature with next to zero control. The apathy for video is further underscored by the all of 2 pages it gets in the user manual. On the M, there are 20 pages on video shooting in the user manual. Actually, at 350 pages, the EOS M manual is far more detailed than X-A1 manual, which tops out at 130 pages.

No argument here. EOS M has been touted by many as a surprisingly capable video camera.

6) In case you weren't aware, focus peaking and magnification are important in video, but on the X-A1, there features are available only for shooting stills! What a joke.

I admit I very rarely attempt any video shooting on my X cameras. Nonetheless, focus peaking for stills, second only to that of the X-T1, is included on the A1. I know you can acquire FP for your M via Magic Lantern, but am not sure how effective that FP is when compared w/ that of the A1.

7) The macro button is useless for AF, and for manual focus, it's non-operational. In manual focus mode, Fuji could have easily set this button to Instant AF...if somebody was thinking.

8) Exposure compensation on the M is wider than on the X-A1 (+-3ev vs. +-2ev).

9) Many scene modes offers some flexibility on the M. You can shoot in RAW, RAW+JPEG, or JPEG. You can change the picture style, and apply a creative filter.

WRT #7, 8, 9 all valid points, although, as I said in point #3, I'm more than satisfied with the FT button for instant AF on the A1.

The worst part is that the X-A2 fixes none of the above-mentioned operational issues, save for re-purposing the macro button.

I had no expectations for the Canon EOS M. I knew that it was fairly slow to focus (but like the X-A1, it locks focus well). I swore that I wouldn't buy and interchangeable lens camera without a mode dial, but it hasn't been a problem. When I purchased the camera, the goal was to have some cheaply acquired lenses (18-55mm, 22mm, and 11-22mm) that I would use on the EOS M3 (if it ever appears) and quietly dump the M body. However, I can more than live with the body for now. Magic Lantern sweetens the deal by adding some additional useful operations to the M. I agree that the live view magnification on the M is poorly implemented.

All that you express in the above paragraph applies equally to me, except that I continue to shoot with my aging 10-22mm EF-S zoom via the adapter. Doubtful, however, that either of us could sell a used M, body only, for much more than loose change in the event the M3 ever debuts in North America.

Yeah, probably better to keep it as a second body.

Now to balance my view of the X-A1 vs. EOS M, the following are distinct advantages of the X-A1 over the M (again, keep in mind that I had little expectations from the M in the first place):

1) Tilt screen. Very, very useful for those low to the ground shots.

2) Wired remote control. One of my biggest disappointments with the M. It uses a damn stupid IR remote that has to be triggered from the front of the camera! With Tragic Lantern, you can get remote functionality by plugging a wired remote into the mic input, but it triggers the shutter only. You can't hold the shutter open, or use the intervalometer function on a capable remote.

3) Manual focus aids. The X-A1 provides focus peaking and LCD image magnification, both of which are useful for manual focusing. The M has no focus peaking, but instead has three levels of magnification which can be used in any focus mode. This is useful for AF+MF mode, as you AF the magnified image and fine tune the focusing with MF. If you're willing to dedicate the Fn button on the A1 to instant AF, you can achieve similar results (but there goes the only programmable button). The major problem with the M is the four button presses for magnification (including return to normal), when there should only be three. Not sure what the point is of 1x magnification. However, the M provides 5x and 10x magnification, whereas the Fuji provides a single level only (5x). In the end I prefer the 5x plus focus peaking on the A1.

4) Customization with a Fn button and a custom location on the mode dial. But Jesus, with just one button to customize and one custom function position, it's hard to decide which functions to use.

5) Better LCD image in low light. Much grainier on the M.

6) Better high ISO IQ. I set AutoISO on the A1 to 6400 and 3200 on the M.

There are other noteworthy pros and cons between these two camera, but I fear that I've already strayed beyond the original discussion.

The bottom line is this:

The X-A2 hasn't addressed any of the shortcomings of the X-A1, meaning that the mostly forgotten and never liked EOS M still has several advantages over the X-A2.

I would hope that the M3, if it ever arrives, would be a significant improvement over the M/M2, compared to the "improvements" of the A2 over the A1, but it would also most likely have a price premium over the A2.