X100 Pro

The Lamentable Lens wrote:

GSharp87 wrote:

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

GSharp87 wrote:

It would be awesome if Fuji would start developing a Pro version of the X100 series with the following features

• 18mm f1.4 lens
• New high MP sensor rumoured for the X-H2
• X-Pro body ergonomics and build quality
• NP-W235 battery
• IBIS
• Priced around $2.5k

Would anybody else be interested in such camera? I’d take that over something like a Leica Q2 every time.

What advantage would it have over the Q2? It would be half a stop behind the Q2 in terms of light gathering and depth of field, ”X-Pro build quality” is behind the IP-rated Q2, the rumoured new sensor is (as I recall) still of lower resolution than the Q2…

OK, there’s the price… but if price is the sole reason to take something over a Q2 every time, then you might as well argue in favour of a Canon P&S 😉

As someone else noted, if as a camera manufacturer you’re going to make something that’s like a Q2 but not quite as good as a Q2, yet still more expensive than pretty much any other fixed lens camera, then you’re looking at a vanishingly small market—especially when much of that market is served by one or two of your own cameras.

Image quality between the XF 18mm f1.4 and the 28mm “Summilux” is indiscernible. Check out the comparison done by Samuel Streetlife on YouTube. He did a blind comparison of the same scene and the majority actually preferred the Fuji.

And yes, half the price would be a huge advantage and a big reason for me buying one, especially if it performs on par with the Q2 in IQ. I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable daily carrying a $5k camera.

Whether you're right or wrong, the Leica crowd won't agree that there is parity between those two lenses, and their belief is what drives their purchasing decision. And of course there is more to that camera than the lens -- the sensor and the ergonomics play a large role, too.

My point isn't that the Q2 is a "better" camera -- there's no such thing from an objective standpoint. My point is simply that there aren't likely many people who like, want, and can afford the Q2 who would be lured away by an X100 Pro. Instead, an X100 Pro would most likely be competing with the X100, which really doesn't make sense for Fuji.

I agree completely. The Q and Q2 are great cameras. Why they sell so well is that you get a Leica body (typically $8000 if you get an M instead) and a fast Leica 28mm lens (Typically $3000+) for half the price of a typical digital M with lens. The original Q was $4200 when released, so it was even more true then. Now, the Q is not an M, but to those who are new to Leica or go to the brand due to its status, that does not matter. They just want a Leica. Fujis are great, but they are not status symbols. I like that about them though.

And I suspect it would mostly lose that competition, too. Once you get to that size, weight, and cost, I think most people would just go with one of the ILC versions (the very unscientific anecdotal evidence from this thread certainly suggest as much). I suspect the X100 would still be the camera of choice for most people wanting to add a fixed-lens camera to their kit.

It is true. I see it on this forum a lot... "$1400 is crazy for a camera in which you cannot change the lens!" If we already see that, then at $2500-3000 it certainly will be a much harder sell. I think we have more of a chance of seeing a fixed lens GFX camera that competes for photographers who otherwise might go for the Q series, then an even higher end fixed lens APSC camera.