Hi all
Some people asked me via personal message on facebook, twitter and email, if they should go for the X-T1 or if the X-PRO2 will be available anytime soon.
I’ve already told you that it won’t come before late 2014, but more likely in 2015 here.
Also Mr.Kawahara and other Fuji Managers said that “there are no plans for an X-PRO1 replacement for now”, because they are waiting to achieve a “major breakthrough”. So it will be radically different to what it is now (organic sensor? Full Frame?).
That said, I’d like to share a rumor from an anonymous source who already told us some X-T1 specs that I think will be correct (price $1,300, 1 card slot, X-T1 + 18-135 in April/May for $1,800…). (Thanks a lot for sharing!)
This source said:
- X-Pro2
- Announcement in 2014
- Available in 2015
- Design & sensor not finalized as of yet.
So, it’s still a pretty long wait for the X-PRO2. But I’ll try to entertain you with some rumors in the meantime 
.
The anonymous source contacted me via rumor box and gave itself a fake name, which allows me to recognize it in future. You can do the same if you want, or also create a fake email account and contact me.
cheers
facebook, google+ and twitter
115 Responses
so announced at photokina 2014!
Very curious to see what kind of sensor X-Pro2 is gonna use, and how they are to improve the viewfinder.
I can only imagine how struggling it would be to choose between FF or APSC, 24mp or 16mp, Hybrid VF or EVF only, weather proof or not, all these questions and big decisions Fuji needs to make…
Because X-Pro can not afford a 2nd failure.
“a 2nd failure”?
Here is why the X-Pro2 will definitely fail.
Fuji will do some major inventions:
– First camera for left-handed people. Grip on the left side.
– First camera made for color-blind people. The color name of every 10th pixel is pronounced in 4 different Vietnamese dialects. But you can select male vs. female voice!
– First camera with frame content control. The camera will delete any nude or questionable frames by itself, sometimes even shots we think are fairly OK!
– Because of overwhelming request, it will include 12 SSD card slots. But due to a funny random function it’s never sure on which one of the 12 cards your shot has been saved to.
– And it’s rumor that the new X-Pro2 has a WiFi lock that has to be activated via Facebook. So, basically, you must be online, and enter a password before you can make pictures with the X-Pro2.
I hope Fuji has the balls to go all out on the X-Pro2
The longer we wait, the more awesome/groundbreaking it might be! Hoping my X-pro1 does not fail me in the mean time…
If Fuji will go FF ill sell all my canon-hassy gear if not, not
If fuji goes ff I sell all my fuji gear and go micro four thirds. Because I know they are steady.
+100
Why go FF? The X system is great as it is!
So sick of the FF chatter, if you want FF then stop prattling and go buy one. If you need FF to get a decent shot, then you don’t know what you’re doing.
Fuji is correct in that it is not necessary. If you really want a big frame, buy a 4×5 and you will really learn about photography on a fundamental level.
Fuji needs to design and sell a camera that is sooo offensive to the FF fan-boys that they all run off to other corners of the photo world, never to return.
yeah bradley we all now you are sick so dont read, FF is not for you
My guesses are:
1)Fujifilm files patent for color filter array with different-sized pixels (source dpreview)
2)It won’t be FF because there are no lenses on the roadmap for FF camera (i hope i’m not saying something stupid right now)
3)Most likely 24 Mp sensor APS-C X-Trans sensor III AND EXR III
4)Probably 1/8000
5) UHS-II SD
6)WI-FI AC specifications
7) Probably the best image quality at 25600 iso 😀
8) More art filters
9) weather sealed
10)Best in its class OVF, EVF
…
I agree, we don’t need a XPro 1 s version.
Right on! Most accurate guesses I’ve seen.
+1 Would only add better battery life to this list… well done 🙂
Xpro2 needs to be a classic in the way a M9 is a classic digital camera. Not perfect, I’m sure of that, but not easily replaced for another gadget the next 6 months. And for that reason it needs to be quite small, hybrid VF, real fast autofocus and real usable manual focus. that’s all.
XPRO2 can be classic with the specifications that o wrote above, it’s all about design retro…but if u want xpro2 to evolve from xpro 1 than it needs to keep up with the ;ltest technology, an 24 Mp sensor APS-C X-Trans sensor III AND EXR III, that means next generetion should have faster AF and MF
Thanks Patrick.
in my opinion Fuji has to Options:
X-Pro1s (End of 2013)
24 Mp (New Sony NEX7/A7000 sensor )
and
X-Pro 2 (2015+????)
organic sensor
I see two possible scenarios concerning the sensor:
1) “16 Mp are enough”
Phenomenal high iso and dynamic range performance, better than the todays Sony fullframe sensors
2) higher resolution for those professional clients who demand more.
How ever Fuji will demonstrate that there is no need for fullframe, as Sony is trumped by lens speed.
Just compare the road maps:
Sony FF/ Fuji APS-C
35mm f2.8 / 23mm f1.4
(55mm f1.8 / 56mm f1.2)
24-70mm f4 / 16-55mm f2.8
70-200mm f4 / 55-200mm f2.8
Fullframe was necessary for only two reasons:
1) big pixel size/low pixel density: Back some years ago when sensors werent that good in high iso department
2) shallow depth of field:
Here Fuji delivers fast primes, that are tack sharp and fully usuable wide open. Just have a look at the 23mm f1.4 and 56mm f1.2
We only need shorter minimum exposure times and lower min iso! I dont like being dependant on nd filters :/
here are the “fast prime” hipe… while you have a 23 1.4 i have a 35 1.4… while you have a 35 1.4 i have a 50 1.4… now i can continue and i ‘ll arrive: i have a 200 f2 … where is your equivalent my dear?
You can have your 200/2. I have no desire to ever again carry gear that big and heavy. I shot Canon full frame for several years and it brought my joy of photography down, which was rekindled by the small and light mirror less gear…first with m4/3, now with Fuji.
Sure you have them on dslr systems, but i limit the discussion on mirrorless systems.
Dslr systems are competing in a different size and weight class.
A7
Yep, but the problem is that most of the people interested in X APS-C don’t want to lug around a FF 200mm F2.8 which doesn’t gain any size advantages because of small flange distance.
Also I bet you are either using a LA-E4/3 with an A mount lens or a legacy lens on your A7. That adds more bilk again.
See, no problem with that at all and in fact if I would need all those lenses I woulg go for A7(r) alone because of the LA-E4!!!
It’s not am matter of childish “I have this and you haven’t”!!
It’s a matter of having the right system for your needs!!
You need your (big and heavy) 200mm F2? You’re in the wrong rumors site, mate!
Go somewhere else to let everybody know how big you have it…we’re not interested.
Exactly – Say no more!
Thanks Flavio 🙂
Lol. His name is mega, no surprise he likes mega sensor and mega lens.
I will be pretty upset if they start going full frame to be honest. It means all new lenses, bigger lenses and a focus away from the excellent X mount. The whole point of mirrorless, at lest why I went mirrorless is size. fF negates that once you go beyond about 85mm, and frankly DOF is a little too shallow for many uses. I found I hated having to stop down SO much when I reviewed the A7…it was a pain, frankly. DOF is plenty shallow with the fast X mount primes, and the glass is so good…I want Fuji to continue to focus on improving this line rather than be distracted by full frame.
I wouldnt worry about Fuji loosing its track – they will fully develop their X line on APS-C.
They are the company who care the most about their customers. 🙂
They dont just make you buy new stuff by making your previous product look old.
Yeah, but they will still make the APS-C stuff … so no need to get upset!
Why is everybody insisting that full frame lenses are larger? I don’t understand that…. For example the Nikon 85mm 1.8 G is still lighter than the fuji 56mm though delivering slightly shallower DOF (the 56mm 1.2 is equivalent to an 85mm f2). The RX1’s 35mm f2 lens is smaller than the 23mm 1.4 and nevertheless offers shallower DOF. Lens price gets actually down in FF since slower lenses are easier to construct, just look at the prices of Fuji and M43 lenses.
Full frame has the benefit that in a mirrorless world it can be small if used with ”slow” lenses like 50mm f2, 24mm f2.8, 135mm 2.8, 18mm f4, 28-80 f4 etc. But if needed it can deliver extreme shallow DOF with lenses like 50mm 1.2 but at the cost of heavy weight.
I love the current Fuji products, but still I think that FF is the feature and just offers much larger potential especially when using specialist lenses like Shift lenses etc.
FF lenses are larger with same aperture value: shallow depth of field is NOT everything!! Want to take a picture of your child in the house? Having a very fast lens with a little more than a few millimetres DOF can make the difference between lots of in focus shots or lots of out of focus ones!!
FF is a tool if needed, not the Holy Grail!!
I don’t want FF because it makes the FAST lenses huge, whereas the Fuji X ones are still within very acceptable limits sizewise, being stellar in image quality. And you can have hat little deeper DOF ADVANTAGE as well when needed! Yes, I said ADVANTAGE!!
I totallay agree with you!
It is like on m43rumors albeit all the APS-C flamers are not here to hate. The people don’t get it that a smaller sensor gives you more DOF at larger apertures so that you can still use fast shutter speeds.
Actually, I still believe that m43 is a better option for me DOF and aperture wise, but I got interested in the Fuji line up because of the good lenses (all of them are very good in their classes, even the 16-50), Fuji’s support and most importantly because of my interest in astro/night photography.
If you shoot FF with a 50mm at f2 and ISO 1600 you will get almost the same image as shooting aps-c with a 35mm 1.4 at ISO 800. Same DOF, same shutter speed, aprox same ISO noise. So the only advantage you have is when shooting at min aperture like f16. There you would have an advantage with a smaller sensor, but nothing that wouldn’t be easier possible with a FF Tilt lens.
And I wasn’t talking only about DOF. There are people who also shoot other things then their children indoors, like in Architecture photography which requires specialist lenses which are generally only usable in FF. Not to speak of all the legacy glas which is available like M-mount lenses.
If you want to shoot legacy glass, go for the Sony A7/r. Fuji’s makes a lot of it’s income from selling their lenses, not so much on selling camera bodies. Why would they make something at a near lose just so they can buy/use someone else’s lenses?
I sold my FF system for the Fuji X to get lens size/weight down. Now, while the 55-200 doesn’t quite cover the focal length of the 100-400L on a FF, it is also 1/3 of the weight. No matter what you say, the L lenses I had for the Canon 5dmkii where all a lot heavier than the Fuji counterparts. What’s more, the quality of Fuji’s lenses is often better!
I understand that there will be a need for some for FF but Fuji have stated they have no plans to introduce a FF at this time so why do people keep banging on about it. Rather than wishing for something that doesn’t exist, go and buy something that does!?!
When is this FF term for 35mm going to dry up.
Fuji APSC is ‘FF’ – Medium format is ‘FF’ – M43 is ‘FF’ – Large format etc etc . . .
35mm is not the be all and bloody end all. It’s just a size that became common for various very good reasons – but it’s not the biggest, or the smallest – or the best – it’s just a choice.
If people are concerned with others taunting them about FF then they need to grow up and stop fueling this nonsense.
I am not saying that smaller is worse. I am saying that there is no free meal: if a Lens is smaller it just means it lets less light in. Your Canon 100-400L isn’t heavier because it is a Full Frame Lens, but because it let’s more light in and is built better. Look at the Nikon 70-300 it is almost the size as the fuji 50-200.
And i want a fuji ff camera because fuji makes excelent cameras and lenses and i totally enjoy my x pro 1.
Of course it lets in more light, because it has to expose twice the area! But that is not important, as long as the exposure per unit area is the same……
The current X system is about small size that delivers awesome pictures. We don’t want heavy FF lenses. Just look at the 24-70 F4 FE lens. That is a mosnter or that 28-70 kit lens, normal kit lens aperture values and not even very useful range (18-55 is 27-83!) and is still very bulky.
@TJM – you could be right if most people could think of focal distances without any kind of other references to evaluate the images produced (in terms of human perception).
What is a normal lens?
Besides we know that it should be something shorter (42/43mm) people relate that to 35mm in APS-C, 50mm FF; 85mm MF (6×6).
But APS-C has more than one crop factor (1.5 and 1.6), while MF can usually go from 6×4.5 to 6×9, including 6×6 and 6×7.
So 35mm (format 135) ends up being the one mostly used during film period and having just one considered value.
Otherwise, how would you think about lenses for 1″ sensors, that have a 2.7 crop factor, for instance?
Would you immediately think that 18,5mm was a “normal” lens?And that a 7.78mm lens would do the same as a 14mm in APS-C or a 21mm in FF?
@rearranged – are you sure about those DOF equivalences?
DOF is mainly determined by focal distance of the lens and used aperture, besides the size of the sensor also plays a role due to the CoCs of the printed images.
That has nothing to do with crop factor equivalences and will one aperture value be enough to make both DOF be the same?
Antonio they’re very good points. There is definately a need for a standardising context. I guess it’s the terminology and the implied advantage of the ‘Full Frame’ distinction is what results in so much nonsense cluttering up places like this.
If everyone understood the purpose of the distinction then there would be no problem. The term ‘Full’ is just misleading that’s all.
The marketing teams of 35mm sensor cameras will understand, if not acknowledge.
@antonio
The equivalences I wrote are right with a tolerance of about 0.1 f-stop. All else equal, the larger the sensor size, the longer the lens has to be for the same FOV. And the longer the lens you use, the shallower DOF you get.
When comparing the same generation sensors with the same design and pixel size you always get around 1 Stop Iso advantage between 35mm and Aps-C.
That means that you can build a full frame system that is just as compact as an aps-c system with lenses that are the same size as their faster aps-c counterparts, are around 1 stop slower but effectively deliver exactly the same image quality. Still you would have the possibility to attach a faster/bigger lens like a 50mm 1.4 or 135mm f2 which would give you shallower DOF and more low light capabilities if needed.
What I am trying to say is that just as in the old days, camera manufacturers could just build slower lenses with professional build that would also be smaller and be effective the same size as faster Aps-C lenses. There would be no difference in image quality and size, the lenses would just be cheaper since slow lenses are easier to design. I am thinking of lenses like 20mm f4, 24mm 2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f2, 85mm 1.8, 135 2.8, 200mm f4, etc etc…
Hi Patrick, is it possible to support you with a purchase via a European website as well?
Hi.where are you located? UK?
Holland
mh, no affiliation with Holland. So support a small local reseller in your area 😉
Will do!
And keep up the good work 🙂
btw, by using any link you see on the website you will support for FR. If there is one you can use, I’m greatful for your support
By the way fuji is developing their cameras i think they r trying to say that the photographers should try and work more!!!, if everybody has technology anyone can call themselves professional photographers…maybe we become too lazy to create, imagine and develop great pictures…that is why i think we should look at their cameras as if has its own personality and u have to adjust to it…i’ve heard that Nikon d4s will cost around 7000 euro when it will be launched…i don’t think just because cost a lot i’ll be happier, already fuji cameras have great image quality!!!…if u check reviews of A7 u will be very dissapointed :
JPEG quality disappointing compared to peers – crude sharpening, over-aggressive processing and occasional posterization
Autofocus can be hesitant, especially in low light; AF improves when assist lamp is turned off
Auto ISO tends to keep shutter speed at 1/60 sec, often resulting in blurry photos
Limited selection of FE lenses, which are expensive compared to competition
Tools for shooting with third party lenses need improvement
Longer-than-average startup times
Camera ‘locks up’ while buffer is clearing after continuous shooting
Overly sensitive eye sensor (also stays active when screen is tilted)
Lacks a built-in flash
Limited battery life
Exposure compensation and rear scroll wheel too easy to accidentally bumped
Menu arrangement poor and navigation a bit clunky (requires a lot of button-pressing)
No in-camera Raw conversion
No external charger included for rapid charging or keeping a spare battery topped-up
Included remote capture software lacks live preview
so why FF? MLC IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME, I have the same joy fore less money and better image quality!!!!
Don’t check reviews check the actual camera. Those cons on that review are very exaggerated. I actually own a A7 and yes the jpeg on all fuji x cameras are better but mostly better at higher iso but I shoot raw and no fuji for sale right now has better image quality than the A7/r. I sold my fuji because the grip sucked and although the AF was accurate I found that my nex-6 and A7 was actually better in low light and I shoot low very often. This new X-T1 looks very promising to me. They fixed the grip without me having to buy a ugly grip and if the AF is better then I will probably get this and use it side by side with the A7 at events.Full frame is a lot of marketing hype and a lot of people buying full frame don’t need it for what they do and can just afford it or maybe they just like to waste money.
i’ve checked more than 10 sites that had made a review of a7, 70% of them were saying the same thing, yes its true i dont have an A7
“Full frame is a lot of marketing hype”
I tend to disagree,
FF-camera has it’s own advantages (better DR, details, ISO performance, DOF control), and disadvantages (shallow DOF is not for every situation, big and heavy lenses), but it’s far from marketing hype.
Yes, Fuji has good ISO performance, but for concert\macro\landscape I would prefer my FF-Canon any day – better high-ISO, details, low-light AF.
Travel and street photography is another story though, here I prefer MILC (m4/3 or APS-C) over FF-DSLR due to size, weight, and they are more discreet.
I have X-E1, and my wife has Panasonic GX7 – also wonderful camera, and I’m looking for an upgrade to X-T1.
But I agree, that Sony’s A7/A7r is mostly a marketing hype.
Owning a APS-C Sony NEX prior to Fuji, I prefer to stay away from Sony cameras (awful usability and menus, crappy unreliable AF, expensive and not that great lenses).
A professional photographer makes all their income from making photographs for paying customers. If you take snaps of your kids with a Nikon D4 and the f/2.8 zoom trio that’s not being a pro photographer, even if you bought equipment designed fro pro photographers
Patrick,
It seems to make sense for Fuji to release an X-Pro 1s in the meantime – No?
Can’t see how X-Pro 1 is supposed to sit at the top of the tree until 2015. X-Pro1s could be pretty awesome camera in it’s own right.
I’ll investigate if there will be an “S” update or not, you can be sure of it ;-)!
I think Fuji wants to keep the camera product frequency low. They make us users happy with the kai zen philosphy and its continuous firmware support.
The reasons could be simple as that:
They earn their money not by the camera body but the lenses. Despite other manufactors
…despite other manufactures whose clients stick to the plasticky kit lens.
Fuji has for sure high productions costs on their beatifully finished Bodys. Just consider that they develop on manufacture their special sensors themselves, while Sony makes 100 thousands and sells them even to Nikon.
Fuji wants not to force us spending money on shortlived bodys, but for longtime investments in their beautiful glas.
I love their business philosophy.
Fair enough for sure. Both excellent points. Just seems strange to have products with better sensors and performance than your top line.
Not so much my beef, more the fact that to stay competitive they may need to do such things. Just can’t see many people buying X-Pro1’s at profitable prices for Fuji now.
Maybe they’re not worried about that. I agree about the investment and the Kai Zen – great approach.
Also they don’t want people waiting for the X-Pro2, while they have a great new camera coming out soon, so they don’t want sales of that to decline.
I’d imagine that as they perfect the hardware and the firmware, they’ll release new bodies more slowly, unless they have a major breakthrough in tech. I’m totally happy with this approach, why waste time on small hardware upgrades? Lenses are the most important thing to keep small and perfect.
Personally I don’t even want them going full-frame, the lenses will really suffer. Also full frame isn’t really for the masses, It can show up deficits in your photography if you are not careful.
Keep up the good work Patrick, it’s kept me drooling!
The problem with this news is that we dont know if the x pro 2 will be full frame or not. Its impossible to commit to the x series if we dont know the future of the x pro line regarding sensor size and lenses. If there is a new divide between the pro range and the other x cameras with different sensor and lenses then I will have to wait. I wish Fuji will clear this issue as many will not buy until the x pro 2 is confirmed in sensor size.
” I wish Fuji will clear this issue as many will not buy until the x pro 2 is confirmed in sensor size.”
+100
Didn’t the Fuji representative say in an interview that they are not thinking of FF right now?
What are you waiting for? Go ahead and take a Fuji X, you’ll enjoy it mightily!!
I am pretty sure it wont be FF. Fuji does not need to go FF. Maybe a few years from now but why go full frame when the cameras they have now are so close to ff quality? They will continue to fix issues and improve apsc and develop there awesome lenses. The most you will get is more MP.
For sure Fujifilm has many consideration to take into account with the X-Pro1.
– sensor size. Trend is larger sensors, but FF requires a new series of lenses = expensive development.
– sensor resolution: 24 mpix a logical step as I see it. Bring better resolution/detail. Minimizes weaknesses with X-trans?
– sensor technology: There is a new generation around the corner, but will it be available to Fuji? Different size pixels? Is X-trans needed anymor with such solution? Organic sensor? Too early is my guess.
Hybrid VF. The jewel in the X-Pro. Fuji needs to combine state of the art EVF with an improved OVF, something that is complex and expensive. RF style OVF on interchangable lens cameras are a bit complex to use as well – requires knowledge and training as we users of Leicas know very well. Are there enough buyers of expensive hybrid OVF out there to motivate development? My guess is no. Hybrid VF is perfect for fixed lens cameras, not for ILC.
For me a 24mpix APS-C with super EVF would be very attractive, but isnt that an X-E3? Or X-T2?
it won’t be FF. it will be a new and better sensor. if you want FF, buy elsewhere.
X Pro2 should be different and bettter in key aspects compared to X T1. So, this 28th let`s see a little about X Pro2 throuhg the new Fuji.
But, no doubt X Pro2 should reach 20 or 24 MP. Some pros (I repeat “some”) urge those extra MP, and fast and accurate AF (and in low light).
Right now, the homework in the Fui labs is increase quality in ISO 6400 with those 20 or 24 MP. Other features and specifications (ergonomics for example) are easier to get. Good luck, Fuji !!!
I’ll wait for the X-Pro2…I agree with those who do not want full frame…it just means bigger and heavier…and lots more money…until then I’ll keep shooting my E-M1…I like both systems…they both serve a different purpose
+1
I agree im not really sure i want full frame either due to size increases but i worry that fuji will push the majority of there R&D on the full frame lineup if they go that way.
Personally I think full-frame on a small camera is a gimmick. Why would you use FF lenses on a small camera anyway which defeats the object of said camera? In fact you want a heavy body to balance out that longer heavier lens. Sony did it because that’s what Sony does. It likes to think it corners parts of the market, and now it’s got the mirrorless community shouting “we want full-frame!”. They announced the A7/A7R when it was not ready, and it had no lenses, because the X-E2 and the D610 were imminent – they wanted a slice of that market, to prevent people who were thinking of buying to wait for a full-frame mirrorless. Just like it said it “revolutionised” the camera phone market with the Qx10 or whatever they’re called – lenses with sensors to attach to a phone. Totally gimmicky and totally poorly implemented. Has anyone bought one?
With full-frame, Fuji will end up going down a different road and a different reason for having these cameras. I sincerely hope they don’t !!
I like using mf lenses and some of those lenses are not that big at all. I like having the option to use big lenses if I need to and carry my camera with me with a small light lens depending on what I am doing. I love shallow dof . You can make a small camera bigger but you can’t make a bigger camera smaller. I think the ff hype is a bit gimmicky because most people don’t need it. Some of the crappy ass pictures being shot with these ff cameras is mind boggling. Why buy a FF then use it like a camera phone? Some people actually get the camera to only use the kit, now if the kit was like the fuji 18-55mm then that would make much more sense. There is a place for small FF cameras but most of these people just think they need one.
I’m on the fence about going 24mp on an APS-C. There’s a correlation between pixel density and the ability to maximize sharpness. As it is now, I find that even with the 35 1.4, I have to crank up the shutter speed to 125 to prevent the most minor of camera shake. I believe people have found that problem with the D800 and A7R. If the X-Pro is targeting street shooters partly, higher pixel count may counter that market segment. I do like higher pixel count to allow me latitude to crop if I’m not able to be frame perfectly due the the dynamic nature of street shooting. For now, 16mp allows me that cropping ability with little penalty.
I think additionally they are making a mistake with not releasing the constant 2.8 zooms sooner. Its so hard for pros to switch without a pro grade set of zoom lenses. This should have been their first release or in the situation we are in now their no1 priority.
its all very well having 18mm 23 27 35 mmm primes. I was starting to think we would see 25, 26 and 29 mmm primes as well.
It depends on the “pro”. Personally, a good set of prime lenses is much more likely to move me to any system. Give me a nice telephoto lens and I will be entirely happy with the X system. The 56mm is a start but for portraits I need something longer. The only time I use a zoom lens is for shooting rodeos, and for that the Fujis are too slow.
What would be more useful for me would be faster autofocus including focus tracking, and the ability to tether, but different people have different requirements.
No such problem with the D800: weight and size and ergonomy makes it stable. The smaller and lighter camera, the more, at least I, need OIS 🙂
For street shooting a D800 can be percieved as intimidating, that is where mirrorless has a great advantage.
I used APS-C both 16 and 24 mpix: No problem with more camera shake fuzziness even for an old man like me.
Thanks Patrick for the great work!
Combining the launch of many new lenses, remarks of Fuji executives and the anticipated quality of organic sensors, I believe Fuji wants to include an organic sensor in the x-pro2, assuming they will overcome all development/production issues. If the organic sensor is indeed as promising as it sounds, there is no need for a fullframe sensor. Since they have the FF-technology, FF might be backup when the organic sensor project fails.
I also believe they use the X-T1 to test how the design is received in the market.
Let’s see if I’m righ
Please…please…can we please stop debating about full frame? Even the dead horse is looking up and saying ‘enough already’.
If Fuji puts out a full frame, I’ll buy it. If not, I’ll still buy Fuji. It’s their philosophy, design, quality, respect for customers, and the images that keeps me buying their products.
There are full frame cameras available now. It’s not a mythical ghost product. Go buy one. I sold all of mine when I bought into Fuji.
+1
XT1 is defenetly a very beautifull camera – my favorite so far. But if spec are true – it’s still not in PRO league with slow AF, no 2 card slots, only 16 MP sensor..
hope xPRO2/xPRO-s sort this out.
and yes- if Fuji will make bigger sensor like 20 MP at least and improve high iso – we do not need full frame. Better invest in a new low light XF lenses!
and where is the 135 mm equivalent prime! please fuji make one!
+100
+ 100, too.
Don’t you mean x100 😉
The X-T1 is beautiful, but the X-Pro series is a rangefinder style, my shooting style preference, thus it is a no-brainier for me to stick with my dual X-Pro1’s, and wait for the X-Pro2. Maybe the style of shooting you prefer, can also help you to decide.
It seems like there is plenty of tech savvy people in here. Could someone of you please answer me if there would be a possibility to create a square shaped, yet cropped sized sensor for the X-mount? I mean, so that you could use the whole lens projection. It doesn’t have to be FF, but it would still be a little bigger then a normal crop sensor. The result would be an image with a “6×6” style crop, but with a little more pixels. I think that would be really cool and also very useful.
I absolutely agree with this. I twittered them a few times but was ignored and have mentioned it here before. I think square would be great as it would mean ergonomics could be changed as there would be no need to rotate the camera for portrait images.
a FN button could be assigned to do port/landscape or just shoot square and crop later…
The problem is that fuji buys its sensors…if they made their own sensors, they could do whatever they wanted – they are restricted to whatever is on the market. So, it is highly doubtful.
Good Point DTB. That makes sense. presumably, a square sensor (with the same long-edge dimension) would bush the corners further from the centre of the lens up into the corners – probably leading to distortion.
I do know a couple of photographers here in Bristol (UK) show shoot square all the time on micro4/3 but I just hate the idea of ‘wasting’ the unused pixels by cropping down at the point of capture.
Regarding the (now pretty boring) FF debate from above, yes, the DOF and FOV differ and there are drawbacks – for which the lenses are built to overcome or at least narrow the gap. But surely pixel quality is the key and 16MP is enough for most uses. 24 would be nice but not at the detriment of low light capabilities.
Just look at this guy’s print, 18×80 feet…. yes, printed for an orchestra at 18×80 feet!!! http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3601736
Low light capability is sensor size dependent NOT depending on pixel size/ density.
Only if it were that simple… I won’t get into details and just throw in the question: why the 36MP D800 and the 16MP D4 (or Df) don’t have the same low light capability? After all, they have same sized sensors…
Righty,
Thanks guys.
Lets see what happens.
It’ seems that the window for an XP-1 release is closing. I foresee a slow leak of rumors, this summer, followed by an announcement or big teaser leak at Photokina 2014.
It makes sense ~ they should only bring the X-Pro 2 out with new tech. An X-Pro 1s would not sell well for $1600 or $1700.
As for the X-T1, I am a little surprised that they didn’t give it 1/8000 sec or improve its flash performance, to target higher-end users. There is always going to be a cost – benefit compromise. However, even though the X-T1 will undoubtedly be a great camera (the X-Pro 1 is still a great camera), I think Fuji needs to have more killer instinct with their development of camera bodies, like they have with their lenses. If they included 1/8000 sec, better flash performance, and dual card slots, it would be the best camera below full frame, in my opinion, and they would likely attract a lot of enthusiasts and pros (they may still), as it would have everything you need in a camera.
That said, the X-T1 looks like it may be a beauty and, if so, I may get it too.
X-Pro 2 *WILL NOT* be full frame. But it will most likely debut the organic sensor.
I don’t get the full frame obsession honestly. I know it has its advantages, but what kind of phenomenal demanding photography is the average taking that they want FF?
The problem is there is market pressure for it. I’d rather it be small sensor, small kit. Anyway I prefer that. But the market may dictate they go full frame. Look at it like this. If some other manufacturer brings out a small ff camera and there are tons of sales fuji then miss out on making money. Money talks. Money really talks.
So it may make sense to have the x-e rang and so on have small sensors and the x pro range be full frame. I hope this isn’t going to be the case. But I can’t help feel it would make them the most money as a business choice. Then we will see the r&d budget split and I can only think the smaller sensor range will take the hit.
Think that it makes sense to make the small sensor range first then develop a full frame range ASAP then you corner the entire mirror less market. For sure then though we will see all the best features on the full frame models. So until this is certain I hesitate to buy, as will many others
+100 if anyone agrees so hopefully fuji say something more official.
Where exactly is this market pressure from? I would not count dpreview forums and the like as evidence of such pressure.
” If some other manufacturer brings out a small ff camera and there are tons of sales fuji then miss out on making money. Money talks. Money really talks.”
You mean like the Sony RX1? That’s not that small and it’s quite much pricier.
Bingo.
Well I was making love to my X Pro 1 the other day and I could just imagine what it might be like to violate an X Pro 2. If I could, I’d be juggling some flesh over at Fuji headquarters right this very second.
Fuji needs to address these issues in my mind long before they go FF.
Faster flash sync speed, from 1/180 to 1/500
Add 1/8000 to shutter speed
Add dual card slots
Proper video functions
200-400 f/4 lens with built in 1.4 extender (yeah just like Canon, but it would be 1/3 the length and 1/2 the weight.
Proper weather seals in bodies and lenses.
Don’t forget they should also take nespresso capsules and brew warm coffee for those cold nights playing with long exposures or while waiting for that amazing wildlife-photo moment…
Sorry. Getting bitter with those people bitching about 35mm sensors… Your list is not bad at all… But how awesome would it be if the camera could brew some warm coffee eh? Maybe a X-Pro1c. 😉
Well said, TJM. FF is just a choice.
promising camera, but if the video sucks as it does in the previous cameras, ill go a7.
On the FF debate, as demonstrated so many times dof is not an argument. However color depth and dynamic range are consistently better on larger sensors (check out dxo mark). I had full frame nikon cameras before going to fuji with an x-e1, a choice I don’t regret because the lenses are great and my bag is smaller. However, the color depth and dynamic range were so much better on my d700/800.
By the wat Patrick, any affiliates in France? I’m thinking about preordering an x-t1.
Not France directly. The closest to your country is this store.
ok, I skip t1 for x-pro2
x-pro1 best “hits” on 500px:
http://500px.com/search?q=x-pro1
I think the big step forward has to come from a new image processor engine and new internal buses. All the limits we know of the existent X-series cameras is related to signal processing: both the autofocus and the EVF limits are related to the way and the speed the signals from the sensor are processed and interact with the other camera sub-systems. Of course people say that DSLR autofocus is faster: its job is done by another system, not by the sensor itself. And the viewing job is done by a mirror and pentaprism, not by the sensor. In mirrorless cameras the sensor-processor-autofocus work is overloaded, so it needs a power not available in present cameras (personally, not being a sports photographer, I am glad to exchange focus speed for reliability; I still remember the periodical autofocus check with different lenses of the last DSLR I owned). So I think a X-Pro2 will be completely redesigned, from the sensor up, to achieve the necessary processing speed. There may be more MPs, or marginal better high ISO, but I cant’t imagine the need for huge advances in those areas. There are not so many black cats to photograph in a moonless night.
Good explanation. With the advancements in electronics and capabilities of small sensors – ie use in phones; Do you think a camera could employ a small sensor + lens just for focus? Perhaps above the main lens perhaps?
Probably has been tried already and rejected but just wondering.
Cheers
If the X-Pro 2 comes with the organic sensor, and it is actually made by Fuji and Panasonic, they can choose whichever size they like. If so, perhaps they should make it a 1.2 or 1.3 crop sensor, assuming the image circle in the current lenses would cover that. Then, they could satisfy both groups – those wanting a larger sensor; and those wanting them to stick with the current lenses.
That said, if it comes with the organic sensor, and it turns out to be as good as they are claiming, APS-C may be sufficient. In that case, just increase the lens lineup to include some super-fast, high quality lenses, such as a 35mm and 23mm f/0.95.
Perhaps they should consider being the first to include the rumoured new Jpeg standard (14 bit and lossless), which would be much better than the current jpegs and would possibly be a great alternative to raw. I shoot RAW, but if jpegs were 14 bit and lossless, I may shoot jpeg instead – could be more efficient, especially for those that shoot weddings and other events.
All things considered, the x-pro1 is a AF camera with OVF.
Thusly, main improvements will be:
1: bigger-better OVF
2: faster-smoother AF.
End of point.
The last thing Fuji is going to do is to dump the X system for FF. Too much time and cost in designing the lens they have now. I feel as if the X-Pro 2 and X-T2 will come out about the same time. They will have 18-20MP, they may go to a APS-H sensor or not. It will be different in some way. The X-T2 will become the flagship camera. That will be the big change. Fuji will go for more of the event/sport/photojoural camera, rather then the high MP camera. The X-PRO2 may never be, just a X200.
If they have not decided on “Design & sensor not finalized as of yet.” this is a good explanation why Fuji produces buggy products.