Fujifilm xpro 4 expectations

pidera wrote:

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.

No idea how you can read this as a “horrible” statement.  Whether you’re aware of it or not, the X-Pro has always been a special camera since the very first - it’s literally unique on the market.  There has never been another camera that does what it does, literally none.  And yes it’s always been niche as a result of that, the X-Pro1 was massively outsold by the XT1, X-Pro2 by the XT2 and so on, it’s never been or intended to be the camera for everyone.

To me the statement is wholly positive, it’s as much of a public commitment to making another X-Pro as anyone can expect prior to an actual product launch, and the wording around only doing it if it’s worthwhile and brings something new reminds me very much of similar statements just before the X-Pro2 launch.  I think it’s safe to assume something cool is on the way.

sniper5 wrote:

Therefore it is kind of difficult for Fuji to decide how to make a future XPro "enough" better, to seduce us to buy it.

They tried it with the XPro3 and that did not go really well.

Sometimes I think this forum needs to come with “fact checking” notes like social media. Always remember when you read and make statements about how “well” Fuji may have done with a certain camera, NOBODY HERE KNOWS.

A lot of assumptions have been made about the X-Pro3 since the day it was first announced, and a lot of people here have been convinced of its failure since before it ever hit the market. The simple truth is we don’t know Fujis expectations for it, how many it sold, or what profit they made.

What we do know (from serial numbers) is that it was in continuous production for at least three years and sold throughout that time, pandemic notwithstanding. It provoked lots of vocal complaints often from the same few, but how many satisfied owners? We simply don’t know. This narrative of the XP3 as a failure is just that, a narrative, largely spun by forum pundits - I haven’t seen one piece of concrete evidence or even substantiated rumour from Fujifilm or anyone in the industry to really support it.

It’s not like we don’t have recent form to compare it to either. Fujifilm has had a big failure in recent years, and that was the XH1. With that camera there were clear signs of lacklustre demand from the off, with generous discounts early on, leading to deeper price cuts, and then deeper cuts still, ending in a rapid sell off of stock (to many happy bargain hunters) and the model being discontinued entirely after barely a year. None of that has happened with the XP3, no discounts, no sell off, and a production run that’s been similar to previous X-Pro’s and much longer than most other models. Is that really what failure looks like?

Threaded wrote:

pidera wrote:

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.

No idea how you can read this as a “horrible” statement. Whether you’re aware of it or not, the X-Pro has always been a special camera since the very first - it’s literally unique on the market. There has never been another camera that does what it does, literally none. And yes it’s always been niche as a result of that, the X-Pro1 was massively outsold by the XT1, X-Pro2 by the XT2 and so on, it’s never been or intended to be the camera for everyone.

To me the statement is wholly positive, it’s as much of a public commitment to making another X-Pro as anyone can expect prior to an actual product launch, and the wording around only doing it if it’s worthwhile and brings something new reminds me very much of similar statements just before the X-Pro2 launch. I think it’s safe to assume something cool is on the way.

Yes I'm aware of it, and maybe should have written 'pushed the X-Pro line *deeper* into a niche market'. But I think that this difference in popularity had a lot to do with the familiarity of the form factor (the X-T line looks like a mini classic camera, whereas the X-E and X-Pro are rangefinder style). I would be happy to know that something cool is on the way and I hope it is something regular most people can see the benefit of (unlike the X-Pro3 LCD, for example).

pidera wrote:

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.

Those cameras have always been niche.  Any RF shaped camera with legacy controls will be niche.  The niche is big enough for Fuji to keep making them.  I do not see the issue.  They have mainstream models too.  They’ve gained market share.

sprouty115 wrote:

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

Fuji has tried to make their own GR style camera.  It hasn’t worked.  The X100V is currently one of the most popular cameras out there.  It’s working.  I’m glad we have both cameras.  I love my GR3x.

John Gellings wrote:

pidera wrote:

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.

Those cameras have always been niche. Any RF shaped camera with legacy controls will be niche. The niche is big enough for Fuji to keep making them. I do not see the issue. They have mainstream models too. They’ve gained market share.

Yes I get that and like I already wrote elsewhere should have written 'pushed the X-Pro line *deeper* into a niche market', like in deeper than necessary (such as with the X-Pro3). My impression as that they are overthinking the X-Pro line. The X line started with the rangefinder style, with Fujifilm embracing technology. Now they want it to be more special than it should. In practice the last rangefinder style bodies with X-mount with the ergonomics I truly like were released in 2016 (X-E2s, X-Pro2). So the issue is for me, not for them. But I'm not convinced they made the right choices (their market share could have been just a bit bigger I think, and more balanced over the product lines).

John Gellings wrote:

sprouty115 wrote:

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

Fuji has tried to make their own GR style camera. It hasn’t worked. The X100V is currently one of the most popular cameras out there. It’s working. I’m glad we have both cameras. I love my GR3x.

Just to be clear, I think the X100 series are brilliant cameras as well.

I only eventually sold mine due to me thinking it was small enough to carry like my GR (it's not, but that's on me), and a few other things (lens FoV, software compatability, and a weirdly stiff shutter-speed dial).

I have nothing bad to say about the concept and execution (well except that dial...).

The X100 and XPRO lines have established the reputation of the APSC X system. They were something new at the time, 10 years ago. The XPRO has always been a special product for a niche market. A camera that costs over 2,000 USD can not be main stream.

What they are saying is that they will replace the PRO3 when they think that the market is ready for it, based on their market analysis. Which is normal. I think the XPRO1 was around for 6 or 7 years before being replaced. I see the XPRO4 with image stabilization and a 40mpx sensor.

Threaded wrote:

It’s not like we don’t have recent form to compare it to either. Fujifilm has had a big failure in recent years, and that was the XH1. With that camera there were clear signs of lacklustre demand from the off, with generous discounts early on, leading to deeper price cuts, and then deeper cuts still, ending in a rapid sell off of stock (to many happy bargain hunters) and the model being discontinued entirely after barely a year. None of that has happened with the XP3, no discounts, no sell off, and a production run that’s been similar to previous X-Pro’s and much longer than most other models. Is that really what failure looks like?

The X-H1's demand is irrelevant to the X-Pro3 success/failure because it was a completely different situation.

Fuji released the X-H1 as their flagship/most-professional SLR less than half a year before the X-T3 eclipsed its performance. The deep discounts happened only after the X-T3's demand surpassed the X-H1's because the X-H1 was generally viewed, IBIS not withstanding, as obsolete**.

** Apologies to the X-H1 true-believers among us.

sniper5 wrote:

Threaded wrote:

sniper5 wrote:

Therefore it is kind of difficult for Fuji to decide how to make a future XPro "enough" better, to seduce us to buy it.

They tried it with the XPro3 and that did not go really well.

Sometimes I think this forum needs to come with “fact checking” notes like social media. Always remember when you read and make statements about how “well” Fuji may have done with a certain camera, NOBODY HERE KNOWS.

A lot of assumptions have been made about the X-Pro3 since the day it was first announced, and a lot of people here have been convinced of its failure since before it ever hit the market. The simple truth is we don’t know Fujis expectations for it, how many it sold, or what profit they made.

What we do know (from serial numbers) is that it was in continuous production for at least three years and sold throughout that time, pandemic notwithstanding. It provoked lots of vocal complaints often from the same few, but how many satisfied owners? We simply don’t know. This narrative of the XP3 as a failure is just that, a narrative, largely spun by forum pundits - I haven’t seen one piece of concrete evidence or even substantiated rumour from Fujifilm or anyone in the industry to really support it.

It’s not like we don’t have recent form to compare it to either. Fujifilm has had a big failure in recent years, and that was the XH1. With that camera there were clear signs of lacklustre demand from the off, with generous discounts early on, leading to deeper price cuts, and then deeper cuts still, ending in a rapid sell off of stock (to many happy bargain hunters) and the model being discontinued entirely after barely a year. None of that has happened with the XP3, no discounts, no sell off, and a production run that’s been similar to previous X-Pro’s and much longer than most other models. Is that really what failure looks like?

In did not say failure.

But you very much implied it.

The XT4 was no failure neither. BUT you could see while reading all those comments about the XT4 and XPro3, that Fuji could have sold even more, if they would have sticked more to the DNA of the XT3 and XPro2.

No, what you could see in all those comments (not sure which comments but I can imagine) is the opinion of a few people commenting on a forum.  What you or I have no insight into is exactly how much those comments would have translated into genuine sales if the commenters had their wish, OR what sales the changes in those respective models may have generated from other directions.

It is no accident, that the XT5 is seen more like a successor of the XT3. Fuji sees sales numbers and they act accordingly. If the XT4 would have been better in sales, the XT5 would look differently now.

Actually - and this is admittedly just another uninformed theory the same as yours - it’s quite probable that the XT4 was designed as a more video-centric stopgap in lieu of the XH2.  WIth the XH2 and 2S now out there, there was no need for the XT line to continue along that route and room for it to move more decisively back into being photo-centric.

I expect the same "return to the roots" with a future XPro model.

I think you’ll be disappointed if you’re expecting it to return to being a “normal” camera.  It’s always been an oddball with oddball features.  Before the XP3 everyone used to complain about the fixed screen, ironically.  The ISO dial was wildly controversial even on the XP2.  Some people have always found some way to be annoyed at the X-Pro for not being like every other camera…

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Threaded wrote:

It’s not like we don’t have recent form to compare it to either. Fujifilm has had a big failure in recent years, and that was the XH1. With that camera there were clear signs of lacklustre demand from the off, with generous discounts early on, leading to deeper price cuts, and then deeper cuts still, ending in a rapid sell off of stock (to many happy bargain hunters) and the model being discontinued entirely after barely a year. None of that has happened with the XP3, no discounts, no sell off, and a production run that’s been similar to previous X-Pro’s and much longer than most other models. Is that really what failure looks like?

The X-H1's demand is irrelevant to the X-Pro3 success/failure because it was a completely different situation.

Fuji released the X-H1 as their flagship/most-professional SLR less than half a year before the X-T3 eclipsed its performance. The deep discounts happened only after the X-T3's demand surpassed the X-H1's because the X-H1 was generally viewed, IBIS not withstanding, as obsolete**.

** Apologies to the X-H1 true-believers among us.

I don’t agree with that hypothesis - the XH1 failed entirely on its own terms before the successful XT3 launch - but in any case it’s immaterial to the point I’m making.

The point is the XH1 was a flagship launch from Fuji that failed, and we all saw exactly how that failure played out.  If the X-Pro3 was also a failure, as some here insist, how did it stay on the market for twice as long and never see a discount?

biza43 wrote:

The X100 and XPRO lines have established the reputation of the APSC X system. They were something new at the time, 10 years ago. The XPRO has always been a special product for a niche market. A camera that costs over 2,000 USD can not be main stream.

There used to be a choice between the X-E1 and X-Pro1, over which a lot of research was shared. For me they could have continued this way, offering a cheaper alternative to those who do not need or like the OVF or want something slightly more compact and lightweight. It's Fujifilm management who stopped this and isolated the X-Pro line.

What they are saying is that they will replace the PRO3 when they think that the market is ready for it, based on their market analysis. Which is normal. I think the XPRO1 was around for 6 or 7 years before being replaced. I see the XPRO4 with image stabilization and a 40mpx sensor.

I'm not sure what they are saying. But what they have been doing lately is approaching the X-Pro market as if (and now I'm deliberately going to exaggerate to make the point clear) the X-Pro users are a weird bunch of people (tech geeks, snobs, film era nostalgics) who didn't by an X-T line, and need something 'special' to be convinced to upgrade or enter the market. I object to this way of looking at things and think that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy to go that route.

Kr, P.

Threaded wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Threaded wrote:

It’s not like we don’t have recent form to compare it to either. Fujifilm has had a big failure in recent years, and that was the XH1. With that camera there were clear signs of lacklustre demand from the off, with generous discounts early on, leading to deeper price cuts, and then deeper cuts still, ending in a rapid sell off of stock (to many happy bargain hunters) and the model being discontinued entirely after barely a year. None of that has happened with the XP3, no discounts, no sell off, and a production run that’s been similar to previous X-Pro’s and much longer than most other models. Is that really what failure looks like?

The X-H1's demand is irrelevant to the X-Pro3 success/failure because it was a completely different situation.

Fuji released the X-H1 as their flagship/most-professional SLR less than half a year before the X-T3 eclipsed its performance. The deep discounts happened only after the X-T3's demand surpassed the X-H1's because the X-H1 was generally viewed, IBIS not withstanding, as obsolete**.

** Apologies to the X-H1 true-believers among us.

I don’t agree with that hypothesis - the XH1 failed entirely on its own terms before the successful XT3 launch - but in any case it’s immaterial to the point I’m making.

You're welcome to disagree, but do you have X-H1 sales data from launch until the X-T3 was released? Did the X-H1 have the same deep discounts, not the small discounts all Fujis occasionally get, before the X-T3's launch as it did after? Fuji was heavily discounting the X-Pro1 with a two free lenses at its EOL, but we still got the 2 and the 3 afterwards.

The point is the XH1 was a flagship launch from Fuji that failed, and we all saw exactly how that failure played out. If the X-Pro3 was also a failure, as some here insist, how did it stay on the market for twice as long and never see a discount?

I don't think the X-Pro3 was a failure. I think it has at least met Fuji's sales goals, which Fuji knows will be lower than their more accessible/mainstream cameras.

pidera wrote:

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.

They also referred to a camera as "his"; so do you think maybe "special" was a word used by someone who doesn't speak English as their primary language. Compared to mainstream, EVF only, cameras, a rangefinder-style camera with a hybrid viewfinder is more niche, unique, and ... special.

pidera wrote:

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 XPro was always a niche market. It was the only mirrorless ILC at the time that supported autofocus with the a true optical viewfinder as an option.  The hybrid VF was expensive to develop and added recurring cost the the camera.  It was not meant for every one and Fujifilm was very clear in their marketing of the camera that was the case.

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.

The wider public has plenty of options now don't they.

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Threaded wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

Threaded wrote:

It’s not like we don’t have recent form to compare it to either. Fujifilm has had a big failure in recent years, and that was the XH1. With that camera there were clear signs of lacklustre demand from the off, with generous discounts early on, leading to deeper price cuts, and then deeper cuts still, ending in a rapid sell off of stock (to many happy bargain hunters) and the model being discontinued entirely after barely a year. None of that has happened with the XP3, no discounts, no sell off, and a production run that’s been similar to previous X-Pro’s and much longer than most other models. Is that really what failure looks like?

The X-H1's demand is irrelevant to the X-Pro3 success/failure because it was a completely different situation.

Fuji released the X-H1 as their flagship/most-professional SLR less than half a year before the X-T3 eclipsed its performance. The deep discounts happened only after the X-T3's demand surpassed the X-H1's because the X-H1 was generally viewed, IBIS not withstanding, as obsolete**.

** Apologies to the X-H1 true-believers among us.

I don’t agree with that hypothesis - the XH1 failed entirely on its own terms before the successful XT3 launch - but in any case it’s immaterial to the point I’m making.

You're welcome to disagree, but do you have X-H1 sales data from launch until the X-T3 was released? Did the X-H1 have the same deep discounts, not the small discounts all Fujis occasionally get, before the X-T3's launch as it did after?

Nobody has that data, but yes the XH1 was receiving discounts early on in its cycle well before the XT3 was released, and there was surprise about that here at the time - it wasn’t normal behaviour for Fuji at that point in a product’s launch.

The problem with the whole argument that “the XH1 only underperformed because of the XT3” is that the XT3 launch was entirely expected and indeed needed to replace the XT2 and its ageing technology at that point - the XT3 was entirely in cycle and a natural upgrade.  It’s the XH1 that was out of cycle and launched using two year old technology at a previously unheard of price.  It failed entirely on its own terms.

Fuji was heavily discounting the X-Pro1 with a two free lenses at its EOL, but we still got the 2 and the 3 afterwards.

The X-Pro1 was not only four years old at that point, but an entire sensor and processor generation behind the current models at that time, let alone the X-Pro2.  Nevertheless it still proves the point, Fuji are on record saying the X-Pro1 underperformed on sales and we saw the results of that in discounts over the years, culminating as you say in it literally being given away (no kidding, I was a recipient of that deal on Black Friday 2015, where the camera was essentially a free gift along with the two lenses and a case).  None of that has happened at any point with the X-Pro3.  No sales, no discounts, no giveaways, more than three years on the market.

The point is the XH1 was a flagship launch from Fuji that failed, and we all saw exactly how that failure played out. If the X-Pro3 was also a failure, as some here insist, how did it stay on the market for twice as long and never see a discount?

I don't think the X-Pro3 was a failure. I think it has at least met Fuji's sales goals, which Fuji knows will be lower than their more accessible/mainstream cameras.

Agreed.

Threaded wrote:

I think you’ll be disappointed if you’re expecting it to return to being a “normal” camera. It’s always been an oddball with oddball features.

I truly hope you're right. It's the rare example of a corporation producing something so intentionally anachronistic, that you can't help but love it.

...Some people have always found some way to be annoyed at the X-Pro for not being like every other camera…

Oh yeah...

pidera wrote:

[Fujifilm]...is approaching the X-Pro market as if (and now I'm deliberately going to exaggerate to make the point clear) the X-Pro users are a weird bunch of people (tech geeks, snobs, film era nostalgics) who didn't by an X-T line, and need something 'special' to be convinced to upgrade or enter the market. I object to this way of looking at things and think that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy to go that route.

"tech geeks, snobs, film era nostalgics" - guilty as charged...