X100 Pro

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.

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.

forest dream wrote:

Foskito wrote:

I would be interested in an “XL100” the size of the X-Pro with a medium format sensor and a 18-35mm (full-frame eq) f2 lens.
My other wish is an X-Pro5 with IBIS and the same minimalistic back and no grip as the X-E4.

X-Pro series (MILC) should be completely irrelevant to this conversation (X100 series is fixed lens camera).

🙄

"I would be interested in an “XL100” the size of the X-Pro with a medium format sensor and an 18-35mm (full-frame eq) f2 lens."

Leave it as it is. Just add better AF and a better sensor, when both are available - and IBIS. And in a few years: Fullframe - if it then will still have advantages.

It is already an expensive camera for what it is, but the quality and design of the camera convinces people to buy it. Well done Fuji. But it should stay in its price range.

forest dream wrote:

X-Pro series (MILC) should be completely irrelevant to this conversation (X100 series is fixed lens camera).

🙄

…says the person who introduced a portable speaker to the conversation 🤪

I'd definitely be up for one except my list of requirements are different from yours.  What I want in this order is:

1. Far more extensive weather sealing around the entire body - I killed my first X100V at Niagara Falls and damn near killed my second one in Costa Rica from rain.

2. IBIS

3. Better AF especially for tracking

4. More robust build - the dials, the tiny fragile joystick, the thin metal hinges on the flip out screen all have room for improvement

5. D pad

6. More battery capacity with percentage indicator

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.

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

forest dream wrote:

X-Pro series (MILC) should be completely irrelevant to this conversation (X100 series is fixed lens camera).

🙄

…says the person who introduced a portable speaker to the conversation 🤪

Exactly. He troll me because I mention the X-Pro camera and he brought a set of speakers😂😂😂

forest dream wrote:

Foskito wrote:

I would be interested in an “XL100” the size of the X-Pro with a medium format sensor and a 18-35mm (full-frame eq) f2 lens.
My other wish is an X-Pro5 with IBIS and the same minimalistic back and no grip as the X-E4.

X-Pro series (MILC) should be completely irrelevant to this conversation (X100 series is fixed lens camera).

🙄

Uhm, no.   It is still a Fuji camera that paired with a lens would be the same price as the proposed X100 Pro.  Of course it would directly compete.

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. It’d be the ultimate street/documentary camera.

Just get the upcoming X-Pro4.

Except for the leaf shutter, and maybe IBIS, it will be the camera you described. Once you get an 18mm f1.4 lens that can resolve a 40MP sensor, the body won't be compact because the HVF has to move further away from the lens so its view isn't blocked.

forest dream wrote:

DirkPeh wrote:

It is already an expensive camera for what it is, but the quality and design of the camera convinces people to buy it. Well done Fuji. But it should stay in its price range.

100% agree. $1,399 fixed prime APS-C already consider enough "premium".

It's a camera AND lens for only $100 USD more than the X-E4 and XF 23/f2 lens. Price-wise its not any more premium than the X-E4 and f2 lens is.

The XE4's advantage is ILC, front facing LCD option, and the new AF tracking, while the X100V's advantage is the better EVF, OVF, leaf shutter, closer focusing, and built-in flash.

forest dream wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

forest dream wrote:

100% agree. $1,399 fixed prime APS-C already consider enough "premium".

It's a camera AND lens for only $100 USD more than the X-E4 and XF 23/f2 lens. Price-wise its not any more premium than the X-E4 and f2 lens is.

The XE4's advantage is ILC, front facing LCD option, and the new AF tracking, while the X100V's advantage is the better EVF, OVF, leaf shutter, closer focusing, and built-in flash.

Fujifilm X-E3 launch in three kit configurations: body-only for $900, with 18-55mm for $1300, or with 23mm F2 R WR for $1150.

The X100V is comparable to the X-E4, not the X-E3, with the XF23 f2 lens; that combo is similar in price (USD) to the X100V.

Put a 50R sensor in it and make the lens a 58mm 1.4 full frame equivalent and I'm in.

FujiShooterCY wrote:

Or are you asking Fuji to make their own breed of Leica?

Yes, he wants a Q2 but doesn’t want to pay for it.

they won't because Fuji already has their own X-Pro camera lineup (not at all bad) and their own Fujicron lens lineup, too, and their own new top-notch F1.4 LM lens lineup, too.

-- hide signature --

All I post is my own, humble, personal, subjective and highly biased opinion. It may change in time upon new facts and convincing arguments arrival.

It does not make sense. Might as well get the X-Pro and the 18 f/1.4.