Recent launches and future of the X-Pro series

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

Threaded wrote:

It’s not ridiculous, I see uniball’s point. 40mp is enough that you can crop in aggressively and still end up with a high resolution image that would be acceptable for most uses. Fuji are likely to promote the in camera “digital teleconverter” in the next 40mp X100 quite heavily as an alternative to using an ILC at all.

Perhaps they’ll even fit a wider lens and crop in slightly for 23mm? There are some interesting possibilities..

There are two blind spots to this approach, of course: wide angle and shallow depth of field. (Also long tele, but I suspect the X-Pro circle of the Venn diagram doesn’t intersect much with that.)

You could peg the optics at 16-18mm, but that’s a whole redesign of the camera and compromises the reach of a viable crop.

Now, I’ll be honest: I think if there was an X100 style (or smaller) camera with a 16mm lens and a sensor that could be cropped to even just over half its original dimensions (to cover equivalents of 24, 28, 35, 40 and 50mm) then I’d be very happy with it. I’d even be tempted by one based around the 18/2.8 lens from the X70/XF10. But I don’t know that demand for that would be sufficient to migrate the majority of X-Pro users.

That said, the Q2M is the one camera that realistically could tempt me away from Fuji, and I suspect I’m not the only amateur Fuji user in that boat.

I agree there would obviously be compromises involved in this, but then that’s the case with any camera design. What you’d get in return, obviously, is a smaller camera than the X-Pro line, with some similar abilities in terms of focal lengths, and the advantage that all your “lenses” are built into the same small package and available any time. I can imagine them adding some physical control (or perhaps just a new twist on the viewfinder selector) to enable fast switching of the focal length.

I’m absolutely not saying this is going to happen or that it would be the end of the X-Pro line… but it’s a theory. A possibility. I think it would probably sell to enough devotees of the X100 line (of which there are now many thanks to TikTok) and curious X-Pro converts to make it worth Fuji’s while, at least as a stop gap product until they release whatever they deem the true X-Pro successor.

Souciantmag wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

Souciantmag wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

There is no way they aren’t rethinking the X-Pro3 screen. It’s been failing too often for them not to. It will also certainly have IBIS. It will be 2023 and Fuji is not Leica. They cannot get away with it again.

Fujirumors is claiming the X-Pro3 is discontinued

True...

and that the X-Pro line is likely dead.

Where did they say it was dead?

It's been edited since first published on 21 December, but FR originally said in a post that it was leaning towards the conclusion that the line has been canned since the X-Pro3 has been cancelled and there is no X-Pro4 on the way. The thread that followed debated this possibility furiously, speculating that the X-Pro3 had too many problems and that the XT5 is the actual replacement.

Did anyone else see this?  I didn’t.

Threaded wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

uniball wrote:

Frankly, with the 40 mp sensor and OIS on an X100, the X-Pro line is superfluous. Discontinue it.

How so? That’s ridiculous.

It’s not ridiculous, I see uniball’s point. 40mp is enough that you can crop in aggressively and still end up with a high resolution image that would be acceptable for most uses. Fuji are likely to promote the in camera “digital teleconverter” in the next 40mp X100 quite heavily as an alternative to using an ILC at all.

Perhaps they’ll even fit a wider lens and crop in slightly for 23mm? There are some interesting possibilities..

Awww, he’s back again to tell me I’m wrong.  It warms my heart.

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

...

The only thing that concerns me about the X-Pro’s direction of travel is the viewfinder. The fact that they used the X100V finder at the expense of the earlier OVF functionality means they compromised on the X-Pro’s key feature, which was an odd decision given that they redesigned the screen to send everyone to that viewfinder.

I agree. The flip screen gets most of the attention, but abandoning the dual-magnification OVF seemed to be chucking in the towel with regards to the X-Pro's main USP. The view through the OVF at 35mm on the X-Pro3 is not something you'd write home about. With 50mm and longer, the 3's OVF just seems pointless. It's become a bit of a curate's egg.

Whether for reasons of cost, availability or even engineering challenges, Fujifilm may have had little choice with the OVF, we don't know. But regardless, the result is a camera that has compromised its stand out feature and (seemingly) replaced it with the dubious aesthetic and practical value of titanium top and bottom plates.

EDIT: The X-Pro3's OVF doesn't display framelines for 18mm either, so it's not only 35mm and longer that's been compromised.

notchy wrote:

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

...

The only thing that concerns me about the X-Pro’s direction of travel is the viewfinder. The fact that they used the X100V finder at the expense of the earlier OVF functionality means they compromised on the X-Pro’s key feature, which was an odd decision given that they redesigned the screen to send everyone to that viewfinder.

I agree. The flip screen gets most of the attention, but abandoning the dual-magnification OVF seemed to chucking in the towel with regards to the X-Pro's main USP. The view through the OVF at 35mm on the X-Pro3 is not something you'd write home about. With 50mm and longer, the 3's OVF just seems pointless. It's become a bit of curate's egg.

Whether for reasons of cost, availability or even engineering challenges, Fujifilm may have had little choice with the OVF, we don't know. But regardless, the result is a camera that has compromised its stand out feature and (seemingly) replaced it with the dubious aesthetic and practical value of titanium top and bottom plates.

I don’t suppose we’ll ever know how much the viewfinder changes were driven by genuine design choices for the X-Pro, or by the economic advantages of sharing with the X100V.  It’s possible it was both.  They clearly do have challenges in pleasing customers who on the one hand like the idea of the OVF, but also want and expect a better EVF.  As a big OVF user I’m always surprised by how many X-Pro users actually favour the latter almost exclusively.

I suspect it wasn’t possible to retain the dual magnification *and* improve the eye point, so something had to give.  In the XP3’s defence though, its optical finder is bigger and brighter to look through, and personally I think the 35mm works well with it (partly because the overall image is bigger than on the XP2) - its only at the more extreme ends of what you’d typically mount on one of these cameras that things suffer.

In reading through the posts, it would seem that any rumors or ideas that Fuji would kill the XPro Line are highly unlikely. The XPro line, analog like approach and retro styling is what you think of with Fuji (at least I do), and therefore why would they kill the ring-bearer of their identity, it makes no sense.

John Gellings wrote:

Threaded wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

uniball wrote:

Frankly, with the 40 mp sensor and OIS on an X100, the X-Pro line is superfluous. Discontinue it.

How so? That’s ridiculous.

It’s not ridiculous, I see uniball’s point. 40mp is enough that you can crop in aggressively and still end up with a high resolution image that would be acceptable for most uses. Fuji are likely to promote the in camera “digital teleconverter” in the next 40mp X100 quite heavily as an alternative to using an ILC at all.

Perhaps they’ll even fit a wider lens and crop in slightly for 23mm? There are some interesting possibilities..

Awww, he’s back again to tell me I’m wrong. It warms my heart.

For some reason, my heart remains completely unwarmed.  How about just accepting the difference of opinion, move on and bag the snarky remarks, OK?

Threaded wrote:

notchy wrote:

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

...

The only thing that concerns me about the X-Pro’s direction of travel is the viewfinder. The fact that they used the X100V finder at the expense of the earlier OVF functionality means they compromised on the X-Pro’s key feature, which was an odd decision given that they redesigned the screen to send everyone to that viewfinder.

I agree. The flip screen gets most of the attention, but abandoning the dual-magnification OVF seemed to chucking in the towel with regards to the X-Pro's main USP. The view through the OVF at 35mm on the X-Pro3 is not something you'd write home about. With 50mm and longer, the 3's OVF just seems pointless. It's become a bit of curate's egg.

Whether for reasons of cost, availability or even engineering challenges, Fujifilm may have had little choice with the OVF, we don't know. But regardless, the result is a camera that has compromised its stand out feature and (seemingly) replaced it with the dubious aesthetic and practical value of titanium top and bottom plates.

I don’t suppose we’ll ever know how much the viewfinder changes were driven by genuine design choices for the X-Pro, or by the economic advantages of sharing with the X100V. It’s possible it was both. They clearly do have challenges in pleasing customers who on the one hand like the idea of the OVF, but also want and expect a better EVF. As a big OVF user I’m always surprised by how many X-Pro users actually favour the latter almost exclusively.

I suspect it wasn’t possible to retain the dual magnification *and* improve the eye point, so something had to give. In the XP3’s defence though, its optical finder is bigger and brighter to look through, and personally I think the 35mm works well with it (partly because the overall image is bigger than on the XP2) - its only at the more extreme ends of what you’d typically mount on one of these cameras that things suffer.

Interesting point re the eyepoint, and you're of course right about the OVF view itself being larger, which to some extent offsets the fact that the 35mm brightlines now occupy a reduced portion of the viewfinder frame. It still doesn't really work for me though. I'm aware of the often touted "you can see when someone is about to walk in to the frame" advantage of brightline OVFs, but for me, having that much space around the 35mm frame too often presents a confusing, distracting view in dynamic situations. It overly compromises the scene isolating benefits of a viewfinder and I find myself struggling to concentrate on the view within the brightlines. Oh well, I guess this qualifies as a "First World Problem"

RodandEva wrote:

In reading through the posts, it would seem that any rumors or ideas that Fuji would kill the XPro Line are highly unlikely. The XPro line, analog like approach and retro styling is what you think of with Fuji (at least I do), and therefore why would they kill the ring-bearer of their identity, it makes no sense.

I suspect this is right and more or less argued as much somewhere else in this forum recently. Changes and challenges notwithstanding, I'll be very surprised if the X-Pro line is axed.