On the X-Pro2 the AF field being used jumps to the equivalent focusing frame according to distance, if you reframe, the AF point jumps accordingly. A matter of a split second. I never found this to be a problem.
Steve, if there’s one thing I’d observe about the X-Pro series in general is that you either “get it” or you don’t (hint: I’m in the latter category). A lot of that comes from one’s background as a photographer and how much time you might have spent either using or admiring RF cameras in the past. I come strictly from the DSLR world and the move to mirrorless was pretty seamless to me after I got used to the quirks and differences. I never really got into rangefinders and can’t honestly say I have any desire to do so now. I’ve also never been into street photography.
The OVF axis is different than the lens axis. This produces parallax, that is the field of view of the lens is slightly offset from that in the viewfinder. In the TLR's of old, with the viewfinder lens above the actual lens, the field of view in the view finder was above that projected onto the film. In a range finder set up the FOV onto the film/sensor is to your right and down from the viewfinder. Leica introduced parallax correction that is the frame lines moved to show you what the film frame was going to record. Since a range finder focuses completely through the viewfinder, there was no issue with focal point. With on sensor AF, they where you focal point is becomes important.
I'm in the group to which Jerry refers. My first 35mm camera was a second hand Sears Tower rangefinder (I can't find the real manufacturer, I've heard Konica or Ricoh) I bought for $25.00. I still have slides I took with it on a 1966 trip to Europe when I was in Junior High. When I was 17 I got a job at a local TV station and they used Leica M3s for a copy stand camera and various other functions. I've been shooting with a Leica since.
Me!
As a fellow Sony a7R owner I would recommend keeping your R2 for the resolution and full frame "look" when needed or wanted. I have my X-Pro3 pre-ordered (Dura-Silver) and view the systems as complimentary. Sony as the V-8 muscle car for raw acceleration and Fujifilm as the sports car for the curves. ;-)
Well, even though my experience and preferences vastly differ from most of those who are the most upset about the XP3 design, I understand and respect their disappointment. I’m sure there are some Fuji design and marketing folks scratching their heads now an trying to grasp what all the furor is about, where [for some anyway] they might have missed the mark, and what to do about it over time.That would certainly be true, Jerry. That's why I said "for me" in bold. I am too old fashioned I guess (to change, that is). Great camera, but it seems like Fuji is going backwards.
Well, I doubt that anyone in Fuji-land is losing much sleep over it quite yet, but I'm betting that they have a few folks who periodically monitor forums like this as well as social media. Now, how much influence that ultimately has over their future designs might reasonably be questioned, but I wouldn't be surprised if this has a few product marketing and design folks chatting at least. It's very early in the product's life and the design is committed, so nothing will change in the short term. However, at least from my own 40+ years experience in product development prior to retirement, anyone who doesn't listen to customers will pay the price over time. That said, IMHO, a lot of what you're hearing now will fall into the category of "noise" and the actual sales of the product will be far more of an influential indicator as to whether Fuji actually hit or missed the mark. In my own case, had I acted quickly on early negative feedback on some new and controversial products, the end result would in some cases have been disastrous. Only time will tell whether Fuji's design will be successful in spite of all the angst it's generating here at the present.
Internet fora, Internet reviews, blogs, YouTube reviews, etc. are more or less noise. Before the advent of the Internet, reviews were in publications that cost money to produce and there was much better editorial and quality control. Today for a few bucks anyone can buy a domain name and start their very own web site or better yet for free, throw all sorts of noise about a product on Internet fora, social media. There is no editorial control of any sort, not even any fact checking. I other words it is the Wild West. That is not really a reliable source now is it? Even the sources that claim to be unbiased, like DPR have skin in the game since their parent makes money by selling among other things camera gear. Granted DPR is better than most but the are not free of a conflict of interest.
Yup. Bottom line is that the success of the product -- controversial or otherwise -- will be determined by how well it sells, not by the amount of hoo hah it raises in DPR's forums. It's a niche product to begin with and the measure of success will be its overall popularity as opposed to early reactions from the "faithful" here. The real question will be whether it will appeal to users "new to the fold" regardless whether it might be a bit disappointing to those already invested in the product line. That's a bit harder to ascertain simply from reading early reactions here.
