Recent launches and future of the X-Pro series

Truman Prevatt wrote:

yayatosorus wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Iuvenis wrote:

I think it's a given there will always be an X-Pro line. The hybrid OVF is unique and can command a price premium. Also, every X-Pro model they sell helps them amortise the cost of the hybrid OVF, which they need for the (extremely successful) X100 line.

However, with the X-T5 pitched as a photographer's camera, that does make positioning the X-Pro line a tricky business.

In my view, Fuji should move the X-Pro to a smaller size category, losing the X-E line in the process. For me, the X-Pro line has always been a tiny bit too large for its style, more like the doomed Leica M5 than the successful M6. While I loved the X-E2 I used to have, I wouldn't have minded something slightly larger if it gave me weather resistance and a more premium feel. A smaller X-Pro gives Fuji the chance to upsell to people who want a compact rangefinder option.

Funny you say that about the M5. Because of that screw up I got a sweet heart deal on an M4 as Leica offer students and faculty in major art colleges a M4 and 50 cron at a sweetheart price to make way for the M5. The M5 was a disaster - like you say the Leicaites did not like the growth in size. Leica was force to bring back the M4 until they could design the M6. I would love to see Fujifilm concentrate on bringing the XPro4 size down. The Pro is most likely going to be second in line in price (only behind the XH2S ) simply because of the OVF. Yes the XPro is the equivalent to the sports roadster in the car industry. It should look and perform like it.

A smaller X-Pro can't have a larger battery, but the X-T5 example suggests that ibis may still be an option. The X100vi really needs ibis in my opinion, so they need to find a way to fit it into smaller bodies. Add the X100v style screen, and they could have a decent seller on their hands, that uses a lot of the X100 line's parts and simplifies their line-up.

Yep fitting the larger XT5 battery would be an issue. I sure don't want a grotesque large grip on the Pro4 to support it. Shirk it, shrink it, shrink it.

Interestingly enough, compared to the X-T line, the X-Pro has not significantly grown in size and weight. (approx. 1mm in height and width, approx 50g in weight).

The XPro3 is over 9% thicker than the XPro1 and the Pro3 is almost 50 grams heavier than the Pro1. Most of this came between the Pro1 and Pro2 as the Pro2 and Pro3 are almost identical in size.

The OVF requires a min length and width to provide adequate distance between the OVF and lens axis. It is little accident that the XPro is about the same length/width as the Leica M.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#258,836

There is little reason that the XPro need to be larger than the Leica M11.

We'll see what direction Fuji decides to go and how they cope with the many possible engineering challenges. DPR TV reported Leica thought about putting IBIS into the M11, but simply couldn't find the space for it without making the body bigger.

Either way it would be neat if Fuji tried to get closer to the dimensions somewhat closer to the X-Pro1, which took inspiration from Leica M and Contax G cameras.