Thinking about switching to Fuji

tlinn wrote:

There is some good advice in this thread.

In regard to your choice of body, I would echo what others have said. Wait for the X-T2 to decide. Do NOT choose the X-Pro2 without trying it. Aesthetics aside, the hybrid viewfinder is the real reason to choose that body. If you don't need it or like it, then the choice is between the X-T1 and X-T2. The X-T1 should be pretty inexpensive at the point that the X-T2 is released, if budget is a concern. Otherwise, the increased resolution, the larger AF point coverage, the superior control (joystick) and other little tweaks (like the ability to get rid of hot pixels w/o sending the body in for service) would argue for the X-T2.

I spent a lot of years with a Leica.  Bottom line I like an optical viewfinder.  However, the hybrid VF is a step forward.  You can project interesting data on it, histograms, settings, even the focus point.  The one thing I loved about the Leica was the view finder showed area outside the composition area so the composition could be put into context.  Enter the Pro 2. It is a quick fast camera for the street with signal quality for landscape.

I do not like an EVF - I would not buy a camera with only an EVF. However the Pro2 seems to be a wonderful compromise.  Except for fingers getting used to the layout (that will come) I have not complaints about the Pro2.  Since I was able to capture good spots shots with my old Nikon FM and my Leica M6 (heaven forbid) - I expect my Pro2 will work fine on galloping race horses with the right lens.

The X-T series is going to be better with the 100-400 for sure. There is better grip to begin with and options for supplemental hand grips and a battery grip that holds two additional batteries make the ergonomics of the X-T models the better choice with this lens.

You mention the 27 and "a macro". A couple FYI's. The 27 is more liked for its size than its IQ. I'm not saying it's bad; I'm saying it is not a 14, 16, 23, 35, 56, or 90. As for the macro, the existing 60 is highly regarded for its IQ but it is a little slow and doesn't do true 1:1 macro. A newer 1:1 macro with a longer focal length is in the works. As for the two 35's, the choice to me comes down to focus speed more than size. They're not that different in terms of size (though there is no question that the F2 works better with an X-Pro2 than its older sibling). They are definitely different in terms of AF speed.

A couple final comments in regard to Sony. I have great respect for Sony sensors and Sony tech in general. The A7r II, in particular, looks like a fantastic body. The glass, on the other hand...size vs quality. Choose one. Fuji has an advantage here if size matters at all. To be clear, I'm NOT saying that there isn't some amazing glass available for Sony; only that it tends to be large and expensive.

The other issue I have with Sony is service and QC. It is not great. Fuji isn't perfect but, in general, Fuji has your back.