Fujifilm xpro 4 expectations

Foskito wrote:

sniper5 wrote:

gdanmitchell wrote:

iso3400 wrote:

Nobody really talks about 'innovators' anymore. Especially in rangefinder type cameras. But the X-Pro series has always debuted as a classic innovative camera. A digital camera that also has real appeal for traditional photographers.

[snip]...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 want to paraphrase the old cry: "The XPro is dead! Long live the XPro!"

I used the XPro2 for years and loved the camera. But I recently replaced mine with the XT5. I mainly use the system for street and travel photography (and occasionally a few other things) and my attitude toward these cameras has shifted, and I no longer think the XPro design has the value or utility that it had a few years ago.

I've left out a ton of details explaining my thinking here... but I recently wrote up a quick article on it: Moving On: Fujifilm XPro2 to XT5.

I could well end up being wrong, but I think there are some reasons to ask whether there actually will be a XPro4.

I read your article. I understand your perspective and your motivation to exchange your XPro2 with a XT5.

But I think that most XPro buyers and holders in the past and in the future have a totally different motivation why they bought and will buy XPro cameras.

No matter how good a future EVF in a future Xpro will be, I still want to have this old school OVF.

No matter how performant future XT models will be, I want to have a rangefinder style model. And the XE line does not give me the same pleasure, no matter how many MP the EVF has..

If Fuji would stop with the classic EVF/OVF VF in future XPro models or would stop to offer a XPro 4, I would not switch to the XE line, I would stick with my Panasonic Lumix GX9 MFT system and sell my Fuji system.

The XPro was the only reason why I started with Fuji X and why I am still with Fuji X. Taking this away will delete the reason for me to use Fuji X.

The differences between MFT, APS-C and FF are not that big. For my use case not important at all. I have a Nikon Z, Lumix LMount, Fuji X and MFT system. Why should I stick with Fuji, if they do only the same stuff with their bodies like everyone else?

There is no unique selling point anymore with Fuji X without a real XPro.

Fuji lenses become only bigger and heavier. My Sigma LMount FF lenses are often smaller and lighter.

A purely EVF rangefinder style I can also have with MFT. MFT is smaller and lighter. So what's the selling point of an XE line vs.

If Fuji does not make an X-Pro4 why do you need to sell your current Fuji gear?

The GX9 is not so different than an X-E4.

I’d be in the same boat, for me the attractiveness of Fuji as a system is tied into the X-Pro line.  If that finished (officially) then there’d be no reason for me to stay, none of Fuji’s other cameras are any more attractive to me than those of various other systems.  I’d sell up and probably go full frame personally, but sticking with M43 if you have that gear also and like it for other reasons makes sense too.

MFiftysomething wrote:

Most people just want an X1000v with an x mount

I have not seen that coming from most people (X100V with lenses)... some people sure.  However, I do see people saying that about the Leica Q a lot i.e. with an M mount.

I'm still adamant that as a user of all three X-Pro models over the years, the X-Pro4 is closer to those models than to something entirely new.  It is my favorite camera.

John Gellings wrote:

MFiftysomething wrote:

Most people just want an X1000v with an x mount

I have not seen that coming from most people (X100V with lenses)... some people sure. However, I do see people saying that about the Leica Q a lot i.e. with an M mount.

Nope. I have a Q2M - if I wanted an M mount I would have bought the M10M.

I'm still adamant that as a user of all three X-Pro models over the years, the X-Pro4 is closer to those models than to something entirely new. It is my favorite camera.

Read the comments of FR. Fuji management never considered the XPro as anything but a "special"l camera. The quote on FR was "However, we only release new products when necessary and useful. We don’t release new bodies just because we can. Especially for the X-Pro which is a very special device. For his successor, it has to make sense and really benefit users. Once these conditions are met, we will be able to launch a new X-Pro device.”

It is pretty clear that Fuji managements considers the XPro to sit in a "special" place in the lineup.  It normally has a 4 year cycle.  The XPro is not a do everything for everybody type of camera.  Fuji has the XH2 with PSAM and XT5 a step back to the interface of the XT3 as their main line cameras.

The XPro is not for everybody, but I will tell you quite frankly if not for the XPro I would not have taken a second look at Fuji.

As far as I am concerned, a sensor/processor update, a more robust design for the current display and figure out how to integrate the two levels of magnification for the OVF into the current XPro3 hybrid VF and I would be happy with the Pro4.  The unique thing about the XPro is you still get to view the world through a clear piece of glass - not off a video screen.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

John Gellings wrote:

MFiftysomething wrote:

Most people just want an X1000v with an x mount

I have not seen that coming from most people (X100V with lenses)... some people sure. However, I do see people saying that about the Leica Q a lot i.e. with an M mount.

Nope. I have a Q2M - if I wanted an M mount I would have bought the M10M.

Truman, you are only one person.  Also, not everyone wants a mechanical rangefinder.  I own one or two. I’m just stating what I see on other forums.

I'm still adamant that as a user of all three X-Pro models over the years, the X-Pro4 is closer to those models than to something entirely new. It is my favorite camera.

Read the comments of FR. Fuji management never considered the XPro as anything but a "special"l camera. The quote on FR was "However, we only release new products when necessary and useful. We don’t release new bodies just because we can. Especially for the X-Pro which is a very special device. For his successor, it has to make sense and really benefit users. Once these conditions are met, we will be able to launch a new X-Pro device.”

It is pretty clear that Fuji managements considers the XPro to sit in a "special" place in the lineup. It normally has a 4 year cycle. The XPro is not a do everything for everybody type of camera. Fuji has the XH2 with PSAM and XT5 a step back to the interface of the XT3 as their main line cameras.

The XPro is not for everybody, but I will tell you quite frankly if not for the XPro I would not have taken a second look at Fuji.

As far as I am concerned, a sensor/processor update, a more robust design for the current display and figure out how to integrate the two levels of magnification for the OVF into the current XPro3 hybrid VF and I would be happy with the Pro4. The unique thing about the XPro is you still get to view the world through a clear piece of glass - not off a video screen.

Im ok with that!

-- hide signature --

"The winds of heaven is that which blows between a horse's ears," Bedouin Proverb
__
Truman
www.tprevattimages.com

michaeladawson wrote:

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.

Sure it is.  It is an offset optical viewfinder.  The range finder camera demanded this as some place to house the prisms and mirrors to implement the range finder.  There is not a range finder in the XPro. However, all the same issues apply.  There is parallax - which Fuji addresses.  In the Pro3 with the Voigt X lenses there is electronic coupling for accurate focus distant and DOF.  The frame lines on my XPro3 particularly with the Voigt X lenses are actually better on my Leica M4 which is a true range finder.  That gives a much more feel for a range finder than the "fly by wire" trying to use an AF lens for MF.

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.

Once you take the image off the sensor to display it - it is no longer optically viewing the image - it is viewing it on a video display, now isn't it?  That is not an OVF, now is it?

Sounds like the what makes the XPro different and unique is not something you want.  Maybe the XPro is not for you.  Fuji has a lot of other options.

Foskito wrote:

xtm wrote:

Fuji shocks the world and makes the XPro4 full frame. New 35 1.2, 58 f1 and 105 1.2 are released alongside it. The XPro line becomes Fuji's full frame lineup going forward. In anticipation to a very long wait list, Fujifilm is reserving thousands of units for current XPro owners so they will not have to wait in line.

Worst business decision ever.

“We own the APSC segment AND the medium format one, let's kill them trying to compete with Sony and Canon with full frame...”

Yeah, that would be wise.

mmmm there's a LOT of Nikon, Canon, and Sony shooters thinking about switching to Fuji. The only thing stopping them is that it's a cropper. This is not a zero sum game - they can still dominate APS-C while also offering FF and MF options. In fact, they might just dominate the entire camera market if they go this way. Cheaper than Leica, just as fun to use, full frame, with autofocus, AND film simulations? Fuji would stomp all over the industry if this happens!

xtm wrote:

Foskito wrote:

xtm wrote:

Fuji shocks the world and makes the XPro4 full frame. New 35 1.2, 58 f1 and 105 1.2 are released alongside it. The XPro line becomes Fuji's full frame lineup going forward. In anticipation to a very long wait list, Fujifilm is reserving thousands of units for current XPro owners so they will not have to wait in line.

Worst business decision ever.

“We own the APSC segment AND the medium format one, let's kill them trying to compete with Sony and Canon with full frame...”

Yeah, that would be wise.

mmmm there's a LOT of Nikon, Canon, and Sony shooters thinking about switching to Fuji. The only thing stopping them is that it's a cropper. This is not a zero sum game - they can still dominate APS-C while also offering FF and MF options. In fact, they might just dominate the entire camera market if they go this way. Cheaper than Leica, just as fun to use, full frame, with autofocus, AND film simulations? Fuji would stomp all over the industry if this happens!

Sorry, but the investment required to develop a whole new set of lenses and accessories along with yet another line of cameras strikes me as a REALLY bad idea. Fujifilm has established a very nice niche for itself, with a product line that’s attractive and nicely differentiated from competition. If you really really want FF, then change brands and make the move or invest in another set of gear. Fujifilm has done a nice job of bracketing FF with MF and crop format. Further diluting their development and R&D resources with yet another line of cameras and a different format makes absolutely zero sense IMHO. If you really want FF bad enough… you know where to go.

And to your comment… I suspect there might be a lot more than Fujifilm being a “cropper” that is driving people’s choice of brands. Those other brands have their own advantages and capabilities that people desire. Suggesting that a large number would “fly the coop,” sell their gear, and move to Fujifilm if they offered a FF line of cameras strikes me as a case of seriously wishful thinking. Success in this (or any) market is based on differentiation, not following in competitors’ footsteps.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

sprouty115 wrote:

gdanmitchell wrote:

I used the XPro2 for years and loved the camera. But I recently replaced mine with the XT5....

I've left out a ton of details explaining my thinking here... but I recently wrote up a quick article on it: Moving On: Fujifilm XPro2 to XT5.

I was with you until this:

"The only negative for some users might be the big while FUJIFILM lettering on the front of the camera. (I’ll put some black tape over mine eventually.)"

Please tell me this was a bit of a humor...

I can sure see that the large white lettering on the black body could grab someone's attention.

My advice to anyone who thinks tape will make them less conspicuous while shooting on the street is to take the tape off the camera and put it over their mouth...

More seriously, I can tell by your portfolio, (which has some lovely images, btw...), that you're not comfortable getting in tight on the street. So that's fine, but honestly, some of the advice you're offering is really just Internet nonsense.

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Some people want it to be that small, but it can’t be that small. I suspect the XP4 will the X100V’s rear screen I just hope it’s flush like the X100V instead of sticking out like the XT5...

I haven’t had an X-Pro for a couple of years, but for those who have both do you prefer the viewfinder lever which points up like the X100 or down like the XP?

And yet Ricoh sells an APSC camera with IBIS and a retractable lens that's between a 1/2" and 3/4" smaller in all dimensions.  If Ricoh wanted to add a moderate viewfinder it would still likely be smaller than an x100.

sprouty115 wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Some people want it to be that small, but it can’t be that small. I suspect the XP4 will the X100V’s rear screen I just hope it’s flush like the X100V instead of sticking out like the XT5...

I haven’t had an X-Pro for a couple of years, but for those who have both do you prefer the viewfinder lever which points up like the X100 or down like the XP?

And yet Ricoh sells an APSC camera with IBIS and a retractable lens that's between a 1/2" and 3/4" smaller in all dimensions. If Ricoh wanted to add a moderate viewfinder it would still likely be smaller than an x100.

That’s nice for Ricoh, but their camera has neither an interchangeable lens mount nor an OVF.  If it did, then they too would need to find a way to stop their OVF being completely blocked by the inherently bigger lenses, and physics suggests they’d come to the same solution as Fuji - by adding some distance between the two.

sprouty115 wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Some people want it to be that small, but it can’t be that small. I suspect the XP4 will the X100V’s rear screen I just hope it’s flush like the X100V instead of sticking out like the XT5...

I haven’t had an X-Pro for a couple of years, but for those who have both do you prefer the viewfinder lever which points up like the X100 or down like the XP?

And yet Ricoh sells an APSC camera with IBIS and a retractable lens that's between a 1/2" and 3/4" smaller in all dimensions. If Ricoh wanted to add a moderate viewfinder it would still likely be smaller than an x100.

However…the XF10 is basically the same size and thickness as the GR3

The GR is thinner than the X100V because it only has an f2.8 lens, and it’s smaller because it doesn’t have a hybrid viewfinder. Unless the GR4 has both an f2 lens and a hybrid viewfinder its small size is irrelevant to the X100V’s size.

My point isn't that you can shrink the X100V, just that it doesn't need to get bigger to add IBIS or ICLs.

Yes, and it still wouldn't need to be bigger than the current X100V.

sprouty115 wrote:

My point isn't that you can shrink the X100V, just that it doesn't need to get bigger to add IBIS or ICLs.

Yes it does need to be larger. Unless you move the OVF further away from the lens mount its view will be blocked. The 23/1.4 already obscures some of the OVF and that’s without the lens hood. Heck, put a square hood on the X100V and its OVF starts getting blocked.

gdanmitchell wrote:

iso3400 wrote:

Nobody really talks about 'innovators' anymore. Especially in rangefinder type cameras. But the X-Pro series has always debuted as a classic innovative camera. A digital camera that also has real appeal for traditional photographers.

[snip]...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 want to paraphrase the old cry: "The XPro is dead! Long live the XPro!"

I used the XPro2 for years and loved the camera. But I recently replaced mine with the XT5. I mainly use the system for street and travel photography (and occasionally a few other things) and my attitude toward these cameras has shifted, and I no longer think the XPro design has the value or utility that it had a few years ago.

I've left out a ton of details explaining my thinking here... but I recently wrote up a quick article on it: Moving On: Fujifilm XPro2 to XT5.

I could well end up being wrong, but I think there are some reasons to ask whether there actually will be a XPro4.

I read this as well. As a professional in the field, an honest tip for you other than minding your typos is to post shorter articles.

Anyway, your opinions are your own and you're welcome to them. I think John hit the nail on the head about the excitement of getting a new camera.

Your statements regarding the viewfinder are not categorical imperatives. They are personal and based on your use.

I'd prefer an OVF with no digital overlay or info at all to an EVF. If I get the moving frameline as I focus and the exposure settings that makes it perfect. I'd pick the X-Pro2 or X100F OVF over any of today's top EVFs in any brand.

Not everyone shoots the way you do.

gdanmitchell wrote:

biza43 wrote:

gdanmitchell wrote:

biza43 wrote:

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...

That''s not quite the case. It isn't that the lenses are better. It is that a larger format has higher system resolution.

To explain, let's look at a theoretical case. Let's imagine a "perfect" lens on which the resolution is the same across the entire field of the lens. Let's say that (to use a familiar shorthand) it can resolve "y lines per millimeter."

If we put that lens on a full frame camera an image may resolve up to 36 times y line pairs across its width.

However, if we put that same exact lens on a miniMF 33x44 sensor camera it can resolve 44 times y line pairs across its width.

The second case — from the larger sensor alone, regardless of lens performance — shows how a larger format has the potential to produce higher system resolution with the same — or even lower! — lens performance.

It so happens that in addition to using a Fujifilm x-trans system I also use a 50MP full frame system for half of my photography. And I sometimes us a highly regarded medium format lens on that system. The resolution performance of that lens is definitely not better than the performance of my roughly equivalent FF lenses.

Make sense?

Not quite. The MF lenses are better, because it is easier to design, say, a f/4 lens for MF compared to a f/1.4 lens for APSC or FF. Off axis performance will be better. Some good reading here:

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/format-size-and-image-quality/

Kasson’s point in the outdated article you reference is a theoretical one that isn’t particularly relevant here. First the medium format he is referring to is not the miniMF 33x44 format used by manufacturers such as Fujifilm, a format the is as close to 35mm as it is to the smallest of the traditional medium formats, 645.

He uses GXF and he says the same.

in addition, while he correctly states that there are fewer challenges in designing a f4 lens than a f1.4 lens, that doesn’t address the actual resolving power of well-designed larger aperture lenses, which turns out to be extraordinarily high. (As a thought experiment, consider that the best f2.8 zooms generally equal or exceed the resolution performance of the best equivalent f4 zooms.)

The resolving power of a f/4 MF lens is also extraordinarily high. And such a lens is actually often cheaper than a Canon L or Sony GM f/1.4 FF lens.

Read the comments of FR. Fuji management never considered the XPro as anything but a "special"l camera. The quote on FR was "However, we only release new products when necessary and useful. We don’t release new bodies just because we can. Especially for the X-Pro which is a very special device. For his successor, it has to make sense and really benefit users. Once these conditions are met, we will be able to launch a new X-Pro device.”

Quite a horrible statement to make by Fujifilm management. I was a relatively early adopter buying an X-10 in 2011, an X-E1 in 2013 and an X-Pro2 in 2016. I didn't buy them for reasons which are different than those of most other camera users. I didn't want to own a 'special device'. I just want a camera with ergonomics I like and relatively state-of-the-art technology, for both stills and occasional video shooting. The X-10 has a dust spot on the sensor but I still use the X-E1 and X-Pro2 on a regular basis. I would easily be tempted to buy an updated version with IBIS and improved video, keeping the ergonomics. The technology is there. I deplore the fact that Fujifilm altered the X-E line ergonomics and pushed the X-Pro line into a niche market. The problem is that this is then a self-fulfilling prophecy. You target niche users and you end up with niche users. Whats wrong with keeping these fantastic lines enjoyable for a wider public ? Kr, P.