Fujifilm xpro 4 expectations

I don't understand this FF sensor thing. The gap in IQ between APSC and FF is basically non-existent for the majority of people. FF is at 60 mpx, APSC is at 40 mpx, so the allure of FF is based on what?

Not to mention that Fuji would have to introduce a complete line of FF lenses. With the regular discount campaigns, GFX is actually almost on par with FF regarding cost, and that is what makes sense to move up from APSC to a larger format.

biza43 wrote:

I don't understand this FF sensor thing. The gap in IQ between APSC and FF is basically non-existent for the majority of people. FF is at 60 mpx, APSC is at 40 mpx, so the allure of FF is based on what?

Not to mention that Fuji would have to introduce a complete line of FF lenses. With the regular discount campaigns, GFX is actually almost on par with FF regarding cost, and that is what makes sense to move up from APSC to a larger format.

I agree fully with the idea that Fuji is not about to go into full frame and create yet a third line of lenses.

Having said that I don't agree with the belief that the gap between APS-C and full frame is non-existent.  You did say "for the majority of people".  So I grant you that.  If I'm at full frame already the same argument could be applied to moving to GFX.  And GFX is not "almost on par" with full frame.

I would love to see a full frame rangefinder competitor to Leica.  Doesn't matter who.  Is there a market for it?  Probably not.

As it is, I'll be looking forward to see what the X-Pro4 is.  I sold my X-Pro2 a long time ago but I would be interested in getting back into the line if the X-Pro4 retains a good OVF rangefinder operation.

tissunique wrote:

With the 40mpg sensor available on 2 new Fuji cameras my wish would be that the new X-PRO 4 should be endowed with a full-frame sensor. As the only natural competitor to the Leica Q I think it would murder the Leica especially in view of Fuji lens quality. It's the one thing that stopped me acquiring the X_PRO 3...

What good is a full frame sensor without full-frame lenses; the current lenses would have heavy vignetting in the corners on full-frame. The X100, not the X-Pro, competes against the Q.

michaeladawson wrote:

biza43 wrote:

I don't understand this FF sensor thing. The gap in IQ between APSC and FF is basically non-existent for the majority of people. FF is at 60 mpx, APSC is at 40 mpx, so the allure of FF is based on what?

Not to mention that Fuji would have to introduce a complete line of FF lenses. With the regular discount campaigns, GFX is actually almost on par with FF regarding cost, and that is what makes sense to move up from APSC to a larger format.

I agree fully with the idea that Fuji is not about to go into full frame and create yet a third line of lenses.

Having said that I don't agree with the belief that the gap between APS-C and full frame is non-existent. You did say "for the majority of people". So I grant you that. If I'm at full frame already the same argument could be applied to moving to GFX. And GFX is not "almost on par" with full frame.

The big difference between FF and GFX comes from the lenses, as lenses for MF are normally better. Comparably, between APSC and FF, the difference comes from the lenses too. But to get the benefits from high res FF, one needs to buy the best lenses (Canon L, Sony GM, Zeiss Otus, etc). Fuji got it right when they introduced GFX, which, by the way, it is not "true" MF, according to purists.

I would love to see a full frame rangefinder competitor to Leica. Doesn't matter who. Is there a market for it? Probably not.

Canon, Nikon, and even Zeiss tried that pre-WWII, before the age of the SLR. It has not worked since then. There is no market reason for it today.

As it is, I'll be looking forward to see what the X-Pro4 is. I sold my X-Pro2 a long time ago but I would be interested in getting back into the line if the X-Pro4 retains a good OVF rangefinder operation.

iso3400 wrote:

Will Fuji be able to develop this extraordinary style for the X-Pro4? Why not a bold camera with a bit more development to give the series a clear identity?

I love the X-Pro’s design and I don’t understand how making it look like a big X100V gives it a “clear identity” or makes it innovative.

The X-Pro has had a very clear identity all the way through since 2012.  Even its silhouette is instantly recognisable.  There’s no other camera like it, in looks or functionality, and that includes the X100 series.  In fact so much of its design is dictated by its function, and specifically the combination of hybrid finder and interchangeable lenses - that’s what gives it the shape and size it has - dressing that up as an elongated X100 would be an ugly mistake.

All I’d want from an X-Pro4 is a better X-Pro3.  More durable, new sensor, and get the firmware peeps to embrace the hardware more and make the most of the hybrid finder and sub monitor etc.  Job done.

michaeladawson wrote:

I would love to see a full frame rangefinder competitor to Leica. Doesn't matter who. Is there a market for it? Probably not.

Currently your Leica alternative is the Pixii, but that's APSC.

athensGA wrote:

Welcome to the forum. The xpro3 is my favorite camera of all time. Although I have academic interest in what Fuji decides for the 4 there’s probably not much that would move the needle for me personally. You likely know the 3 was somewhat controversial. Not long ago Fuji partnered with a controversial Japanese street photographer and when that went over like a lead balloon Fuji quickly severed the connection. So I think they probably have rabbit ears as a company and will tack back to conventional with the 4. Be advised that the xpro3/4 have been discussed quite a bit here, sometimes contentiously, so I’m also curious to see the forum’s reaction to another xpro3/4 topic. Thanks for putting yourself out there and contributing.

Are you referring to Tatsuo Suzuki?

Extra's can be : 40 MP, IBIS, geotagging (won't happen), built-in flash or led light (won't happen), better AF (will happen), better JPEG quality in some situations (less smearing), ...

I would even prefer EVF-only but that is then more an evolution of the X-E1 / X-E2 / X-E3 line.

The size and handling of the X-Pro2 is perfect (X-E1 too).

Cheers, P.

Claes wrote:

I would personally like an XPro4 with no ovf, only high end evf.

That's the direction I would like XPro line to go.

The main reason I'm interested in XPro line is its rangefinder-like design.

The main reason I'm NOT interested in XPRo line is its size. It's quite large and heavy. A new XPro inside X100V body would be ideal. But for that to happen Fuji would need to drop OVF entirely and give us a high quality EVF. I doubt that will ever happen though - hybrid OVF/EVF is a signature feature of XPro line and has many fans.

gdanmitchell wrote:

I no longer think the XPro design has the value or utility that it had a few years ago.

Until the X-Pro4 arrives...

gdanmitchell wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

gdanmitchell wrote:

I no longer think the XPro design has the value or utility that it had a few years ago.

Until the X-Pro4 arrives...

If you read the article at the link I provided, you may understand why I'm far from sure that this will be true.

The argument for the XPro style bodies is less convincing than it was a few years back. Rather than making that entire case here, I refer you to the link.

Dan

Oh I read it. I also have been around here long enough to know that people tend to like their new camera and find a multitude of reasons why they like it and make strong cases for the new camera vs. their old one. I've also seen people change their minds when the next one comes out and do the next write up.

We will see... maybe you are not one of them.

ViMa wrote:

athensGA wrote:

Welcome to the forum. The xpro3 is my favorite camera of all time. Although I have academic interest in what Fuji decides for the 4 there’s probably not much that would move the needle for me personally. You likely know the 3 was somewhat controversial. Not long ago Fuji partnered with a controversial Japanese street photographer and when that went over like a lead balloon Fuji quickly severed the connection. So I think they probably have rabbit ears as a company and will tack back to conventional with the 4. Be advised that the xpro3/4 have been discussed quite a bit here, sometimes contentiously, so I’m also curious to see the forum’s reaction to another xpro3/4 topic. Thanks for putting yourself out there and contributing.

Are you referring to Tatsuo Suzuki?

Yes

athensGA wrote:

ViMa wrote:

athensGA wrote:

Welcome to the forum. The xpro3 is my favorite camera of all time. Although I have academic interest in what Fuji decides for the 4 there’s probably not much that would move the needle for me personally. You likely know the 3 was somewhat controversial. Not long ago Fuji partnered with a controversial Japanese street photographer and when that went over like a lead balloon Fuji quickly severed the connection. So I think they probably have rabbit ears as a company and will tack back to conventional with the 4. Be advised that the xpro3/4 have been discussed quite a bit here, sometimes contentiously, so I’m also curious to see the forum’s reaction to another xpro3/4 topic. Thanks for putting yourself out there and contributing.

Are you referring to Tatsuo Suzuki?

Yes

I wouldn't exactly call him controversial. More that some Westerners got upset with how he acts and imposed their cultural views on Japanese society, as is their wont.

It was very disappointing to see how Fujifilm dealt with him.

Whether one likes his style or his photos (I find some of them stellar), he is extremely highly regarded by many, clearly including someone at Fujifilm who had made him an Xphotographer and chosen him for the ad.

It makes sense to me.

Everything I have ever read on full frame vs. medium format is that medium format lenses are often lower in resolution capabilities than full frame simply because the larger format allows for more "imperfections" in the lens.

gdanmitchell wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

gdanmitchell wrote:

I no longer think the XPro design has the value or utility that it had a few years ago.

Until the X-Pro4 arrives...

If you read the article at the link I provided, you may understand why I'm far from sure that this will be true.

The argument for the XPro style bodies is less convincing than it was a few years back. Rather than making that entire case here, I refer you to the link.

I like the rangefinder form factor though.  The issue I have with the X-Pro line is that the OVF is not exactly the old rangefinder viewfinder.  I never really ended up liking the OVF of my X-Pro2 so I ended up using the EVF feature almost exclusively.

EVF are so much better today than they were 6-10 years ago.  I don't even take notice of the fact that I'm looking at an EVF with my Z7 and Z9 cameras.

This will never happen but I would like to see an X-Pro that is the rangefinder form factor but the rangerfinder OVF is simulated in the EVF.  It would basically be a bigger X-E4 with top quality high resolution EVF and more overall features for the price tag.

Dr_J wrote:

Claes wrote:

I would personally like an XPro4 with no ovf, only high end evf.

That's the direction I would like XPro line to go.

The...hybrid OVF/EVF is a signature feature of XPro line and has many fans.

Count me among them.  I won't buy a camera that only has an EVF.  I honestly hate them...