Join Now
Fuji X Forum
So the price is out.
The X-T10 will cost $799 in USA ($899 in Canada). The kit with XC 16-50 lens will come for $899 (in Canada $999), while with the XF 18-55 it will cost $1099 in USA ($ 1,249 in Canada).
The XF90mm lens instead will cost $949 (in Canada $1099)
[UDPATE: UK PRICE] According to a new source, the price in UK should be the following: X-T10 body £499 / 16-50 kit £599 / 18-55 kit £799 / 90mm £699
What do you think is it a fair price for the X-T10 and 90mm?
Everything will be released on May 18th, so stay tuned and don’t miss anything. There will be a live blogging session here on FujiRumors. Follow us via facebook, google+, RSS-feed and twitter
via digicame-info via Photorumors
100% Fair Trade Chartiy X– Shirt here
84 Responses
I don’t get the 90 price and size, given the excellent quality and compact size of the 85 1.8 FF from Nikon and Canon at less than half the price.
it’s technically a 135 f2 (f3 dof wise) in ff terms so 85 f1.8 is not comparable, although I agree x mount lenses are on the pricy side in general compare to apsc lenses from other brands.
? What does the fuji 90/2 give you that the nikon 85/1.8 wouldnt give you on a apsc format camera that justifies the difference?
2 things. One is the small body. The other one is longer focal length. But yes, Fuji is expensive. However, if you look at Sigma, almost all manufacturer’s lens are expensive.
Are you sure about the small body?
Besides having a larger filter (67 angst 62) the Nikon’s diameter has only 5mm more but is shorter, weights much less and is a full frame lens.
You can talk about the optical design, number of elements and a better construction as well as a probable (because it is not out yet) better IQ as aspects to justify the price difference, but size doesn’t seem to be a big feature of this lens.
“Technically” is irrelevant for manufacturing. It’s a 90mm f2 lens for crop sensors that cost twice than equivalent options that cover full frame sensors.
Technically, if I could mount the canonikon on the Fuji with full AF, it would get better value.
This really isn’t that hard to understand. Different glass elements and body construction. Nikon will ship tons of those 85mm lenses. Fuji, not as many, has to make up the money on smaller amount of shipments.
The Nikon is a nice lens, I own it (waiting to leave as I’m selling all my Nikon gear.) I’ll bet anything this lens will be a lot, LOT better. More on par, visual wise, with the 105mm DC or the 135mm DC. Those are the lenses this should be compared with…quality wise.
The most comparable lens in design is the batis 85/1.8. Comparable focal length, aperture AND flange back distance. And it is about 30% more expensive (1200 + 55 for the hood). So compared to that the price seems reasonable.
Batis comes with hood and IS.
Current Amazon prices for some similar cameras:
Olympus E-M5 ii with 14-42mm kit – $1149
Sony A6000 with 16-50mm kit – $698
Panasonic GX7 with 14-42mm kit – $798
Sony A7 with 28-70mm kit – $1298
Nikon D3200 twin lens kit – $599
Canon SL1 with 18-55mm kit – $499
The X-T10 is a better camera than most of this list, based on at least one of these factors: image quality, autofocus, lens selection, camera controls.
Considering Fujifilm’s image quality and build quality, plus the fact that the X-T10 sports a new autofocus system comparable to an A6000 or E-M1, I’d say that $899 is a fair deal. Whether it will sell or not, who knows.
I own mark 1 of the Fuji 16-50mm lens. It’s build quality isn’t great, but the image quality is very nice. Its a steal at $100 for people who are considering this kit.
How donyou know x-t10 will sport a AF system comparable to a6000 or e-m1? It’s not out yet, it could be better, could be worse, right?
If rumours are correct its the same 16mp sensor so phase detect AF is only in central area whereas A6000 has them all over. That means AF will be OK in centre but slower towards edges. Announced firmware promises to improve things even with the old sensor.
X-T10 can not compete with A6000 regarding AF, MP and price. A6000 significant better.
Sony A7 has a FULLFRAME sensor woth 24MP. How shall X-T10 be better in IQ? Are you deaming? Have you ever used one of the cameras you have mentioned?
Nikon D3200 has a Prism Viewfinder. Significant more expensive to produce than an ELV. The kit price of 599.- you mentioned is for a TWO lens kit. And do not forget all the other D3300 (24MP), D5200 and D5300 promotions which are all mature models with good AF, high MP, OVF and less expensive than the X-t10.
X-E is Died? X-T10 is same price!
Fuji is getting rather expensive now 🙁
compared to what? beer?
nope, cat food!
It seems that every nice fujilens costs about 1000 bucks…
seems priced fairly….if the build quality is there!
I think Fuji missed an opportunity, the 90mm f/2 LM WR should have been a 90mm f/1.8 OIS LM WR.
On the discussions concerning size / weight:
A 90mm lens for APS-C should NOT be compared to a 135mm lens for FF! Any 85mm FF lens can be mounted on a Fuji (with adapter) and will be almost like the 90mm lens in what image it produces. So the new lens should definitely be compared to other 85mm lenses. So why is the Fuji so big?
Now there are three differences to consider:
– Fuji is made for APS-C = could theoretically be slightly smaller than a lens covering FF. But from what I know (I’m not an optical engineer) the advantage of smaller sensors is lost the longer the focal length. So a wide angle can be made much smaller for an APS-C sensor, but a telephoto (like our 90) loses some of that advantage. How much? Don’t know, ask an engineer.
– Fuji has a much shorter flange distance. As far as I know (again – not an engineer) the easiest focal length to build is basically one where the focal length roughly equals the flange distance. That means Fuji has the edge on wide angles (can be small and simple) but needs more complex and probably longer lenses when it comes to telephoto. Good for the street shooters, not good for the head-shot folks.
– An APS-C lens needs to have better quality (= more complex glass) to yield results of similar quality. The 24MP sensor coming in the X-Pro2 will have the same pixel size as a ~56MP FF monster. Many lenses already had trouble being sharp enough for the 36MP D800 and especially wide open, lots of lenses don’t hold up very well. The Nikon 85 f1.8 is pretty sharp even wide open on a D800 but testing it on a 56MP camera could give you different results. I’m pretty sure the Fuji is built to be tack sharp wide open on a 24MP APS-C sensor, so the optical quality should be quite a lot better than the Nikon one. Additionally, the Nikon 85mm can give quite some longitudinal chromatic aberration, which can not easily be corrected in post and is amplified with an APS-C sensor compared to a FF one. The Fuji lens will probably be very good in this regard and give hardly any CA (judging by Fuji’s other recent lenses). Sadly, this needs more complex optical designs.
The size benefit of mirrorless cameras really has a lot to do with flange distance. Since smaller sensors need better glass for similar output many lenses won’t actually be much smaller. You could also compare the new Fuji lens to a Hasselblad 100mm f2.2 HC AF (slightly longer FL but slightly slower aperture) which is a lot more expensive and at 780g also heavier, but the size is almost the same (slightly wider but quite a bit shorter).
How is that possible if the Hasselblad covers a much larger sensor area?
a) the flange distance is different
b) even a 60MP Hasselblad camera has a much larger pixel size (~6 μm)than the coming 24MP sensor from Fuji will (~4 μm). That means the absolute sharpness of the lens can be quite a bit lower.
The best way to compare lenses is to compare similar focal lengths with similar aperture. If one lens has a larger flange distance its length needs to be compared WITH adapter. And finally you always need to compare the image quality as well. Of course the Otus 55 1.4 is MUCH larger than the Nikkor 50 1.4 but it also gives you much higher quality.
Would I prefer it if Fuji put a little more emphasis on size/weight/price and lost a little bit of sharpness along the way? Yes, but from a business viewpoint I can understand their current strategy. Smaller lenses will come (like the 35 f2) but that’s the second step.
I take it from the price of the X-T10 that Fujifilm has killed the X-E2 line?
I would have preferred the shorter, but fatter 90mm. Also, with regards to the X-T10, $600 would have been the price I would have aimed for, if it was up to me. That said, perhaps an entry-level mirrorless camera costs more to make than an entry-level DSLR.
I am waiting for the X-Pro 2 , so it doesn’t matter to me. However, that has to sell for no more than $1350/$1400 (not $1700) to sell well, in my opinion. With the X-Pro 2, hopefully they provide the option to convert the files to 16-bit TIFF in-camera, as the in-camera raw converter (with minor tweaks in Capture One/Photoshop) produces the best results from my experience.
“That said, perhaps an entry-level mirrorless camera costs more to make than an entry-level DSLR.”
Why should it? Quite the opposite I would suppose. A mirrorless camera needs a few less parts (needs EVF but omits mirror, AF module & its mirror, light meter module and pentamirror).
I agree with you, although a dslr will cost less due to economies of scale
Yeah, at least for CaNikon.
Yeah, you may be right. They are likely expensive because of economies of scale, as nzwedespeed said.
Sony’s A7 series is getting cheaper because they put out beta cameras with the first versions and are cannibalizing the older models with replacements. But, Sony has never made a camera that felt good in my hands, and they limit their cameras to lossy files.
If Fuji can release the X-Pro 2 at a price point around $1300/1400, and the new sensor is a considerable step-up from the one in my X-Pro 1, I will likely get it. That said, my X-Pro 1 is still a fantastic camera…
DSLR = sold in mass numbers. Bulk of R&D paid up long ago and, the small changes in advancements are more than covered by the vol of sales. It’s a mature product design. Stays the same, bung in a new processor, sensor etc and off you go.
Mirrorless = Sold in small/er numbers. New product with a lot of R&D costs past, present an future and fighting to get a foothold on the consumer ladder. As the product matures, fewer changes will take place and R&D costs will fall, Sales volumes go up as user demand increases. At this point we should see the costs come down. We are at the dawn of the development of the Fuji X system, give it time.
I remember buying and using an Mp3 player in 1999 (2 years after the 1st). Cost £300 for something that could only hold 12-24 tracks. Now, I could pay £30 and it would hold 2000 tracks, have a built in battery, radio and connect to the internet to down load them.
The initial post to me implies we’re only talking about production, not development costs. I was talking about the production costs in general since we can’t actually assess how much the economics of scale lower the costs for CaNikon. Obviously, when we compare the specific production costs of a Nikon D5500 with that of a Fuji X-T10, Fuji will probably pay more (but the Fuji will probably have much better build quality and is made in Japan).
I do think that mirrorless cameras are cheaper to build than the makers have us believe. The major rebates on Fuji cameras shows us that the initial selling price is quite a bit too high.
The R&D costs always depend on the engineers. I always wonder how for example a one-man-show like Iridient can get so many things right and a company like Adobe with hundreds of engineers can’t ship the same quality algorithms for Fuji X-Trans. Talk about ineffective cost management.
I would say the Fuji price is a bit high, quite a bit?!!? Well, for the first month or so but when the price drops afterwards, then it isn’t so bad.
When I was with Canon, their L glass felt good but to be honest, I think Fuji have the better of them in terms of build quality and, for many of the lenses, optically. I don’t mind paying a premium if it is bloody good stuff.
But they need to keep that high quality up and, get a grip of sensor QC. To many sensors had dust trapped under them. Big no no that. It’s a PITA sorting that out when you’re processing 100’s of shots.
Iridient is a good example of someone who loves what they do. Attention to detail is very good. Personally, I use Capture one though as I need a way of organising Raw files as well as processing them. You can get real good detail with C1 and but they are a lot bigger outfit. It speaks volumes when Iridient can match the quality of C1 processing of raw files given the resource differences!!
Adobe…. they’re the reason I moved to C1, so I have to thank them really. I do like their system. Especially layers and exporting. But adobe…. they make it hard work and you still can’t get the details out of them when compared to others. Slack work.
I agree, once the rebates kick in the prices are okay.
One of the major price problems I see with Fuji is the lack of a budget portrait prime. With Nikon or Canon you can get a (very good) 50 1.8 lens that takes great portraits on a crop camera for less than 200 bucks. Many photo-parents or hobby-photographers want a budget portrait prime but neither the 60 macro nor the 56 fulfil that need. I think that keeps many people from entering the system.
I think they’ll come soon enough. I think the 35mm f/2 could be the beginning of the Pro/Serious Amateur range that need fast focusing high quality lenses. But, after that there could be a range of cheaper primes, similar to the 27mm.
To begin with though, they are concentrating on the high end stuff to pull in as many Pro’s / Serious photographers as possible. Then flesh out the range with cheaper/basic but good quality lenses.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they released a revised Lens Roadmap before the end of the year.
If this new FW improves the AF massively, my main requirement is extra pixels. Not to big but 24mp would give me a little more headroom for cropping while keeping the images large enough for large prints.
For 600 € body price it would have been a no-brainer for me, but so it’s a bit more difficult. Maybe I’ll buy a used one after some months.
According to the UK price, in Euro it should amount to 680€ not too far off.
If the new 90 mm is £700 in the UK I am happy with that. Given that the 56 mm f1.2 is £730 at present, I consider the 90 mm to be fairly priced for the optical and build quality, assuming that it’s the same as the 16 mm f1.4.
Before everyone starts complaining that it it is too expensive, or what appears to be a similar lens from another manufacturer is cheaper, please consider this, which I have expressed in UK terms.
I can buy a reasonable Ford Mondeo for £22,500, a Jaguar XF of approximately the same specification will cost me £36,500, but the build quality is superior. If all I can afford is the Ford Mondeo at £22,500, why should I complain that I don’t have the money to buy the Jaguar XF and therefore Jaguar should reduce the price of their car to that of the Ford so that I can.
Exactly… perfectly said (although I don’t like the Mondeo too much)
+ one point for having chosen the Jaguar XF which is a discrete reminder of the high quality Fuji XF line ! Well done Sir.
Honest question: I was under the impression that Jaguars are horrible when it comes to reliability, and are often in the shop. So, I’d think the Mondeo preferable, regardless of the fancier appointments of the Jaguar. Has their reliability actually improved, then?
That was Jaguar a few years ago. In the JD Power survey last year Jaguar and Lexus tied for first place in driver satisfaction.
Up vote, but I observe that “driver satisfaction” and “reliability” are two different things. I’d be satisfied with a German luxury car, but I hear that the “routine maintenance” needed to avoid repairs costs more than repairs to my eight year-old Mazda. If I still subscribed to Consumer Reports, they might be more helpful on this matter.
What do those cars have to do with anything? Jaguars aren’t reliable. Neither can be put in a camera bag.
I used what is generally called an analogy.
Which has better tires? Hows the transmission? Did your camera include a key fob?
Damn, I really want new Fuji, but im struggling with decision. IF, yes, if X-Pro2 comes this year, that is the camera that I want. But X-T10 is here and now. Don’t want to buy X-T10 and then sell it after few months, and lose ~100-200€ euros to get X-Pro2 🙁
If you have enough money not to bother about the price difference between the T10 and the Pro 2, then losing 200 euros shouldn’t be a big concern, no?
Reason that I have money for X-Pro2 is becouse I’m cheap and don’t spend money (my price limit is 1500€, not becouse I don’t have money, It’s becouse I dont think X-Pro2 is woth over that) If I buy X-T10 and then sell it, In my mind I’ll pay extra 200€ for X-Pro2. So lets say X-Pro2 would be 1499€, but for me it would be 1699€
the Xpro2 seems to be nearly guaranteed, now the question is if your current Fuji body desperately needs an upgrade because it prevents you from make the images you want or need, then the sooner you upgrade, the better. If not then you can wait.
On the other hand, €200 for a six months usage amounts to a bit over €30/months, not that much.
If you have an X-series camera already, why buy another one until there is one with a new sensor? I would wait for whichever camera you really want.
But I want to buy something for myself now, it’s hard to wait, I know I’m childish 🙂
Operationally very different cameras. Why not wait and see which you like best. If you plan to use either camera for at least 2 years what does a couple of months matter?
$300 for 18-55/2.8-4 in a kit seems reasonable. The only bad thing about it is that 18 on the wide end.
Admin do u know whther xt10 will feature the updated af system similar to xt1 fm4.0 right off the bat ?
I would be surprised if they were to release a body and bit over a month later announce a software upgrade. Since it is already being manufactured it either has the fm4.0 features or won’t get it before a long while.
Ah, that sweet sting of the early adopter penalty!…
Thanks, I’ll wait =)
I think we can better avaluate wheather the price is fair or not, when sony is announcing the new A6xxx next week.
I’m sure Sony will undercut the price because that’s what they do best. Crappy lenses (w/some exceptions) and lossy compression – they can have it. $799 (the current price of the X-E2 in NYC) is reasonably competitive. It will drive the price of new and used X-E2s down. Which is good. And it’s probably the beginning of the end for the X-E line, which is less good, but not a problem if/when they deliver an X-Pro2.
I have seen some comments comparing the 90 mm f2 with 85mm f 1.8 on nik/canon and their respective prices and 90mm should have price of full frame 85mm f1.8 … if that is the case why a 35 mm DX lens cost 200$ and 35mm FX lens cost 1600 $.. a recently launched olympus pro lens 7-14 f2.8 costs 1299$…can you imagine the price for full frame 7-14 f2.8..and its filter size..
I wont go deep into technicalities..but 90mm F2 for APSC is equal to 135mm F2.8[ aperture is disputable though] and its period…if one want to compare compare it with 135mm F2 canon……
90 mm for its construction and WR, [OIS would have been icing on the cake].. to me it is fairly priced…in fact priced perfectly….if one cant afford now .we can see rebate of 100$ after six months…
Thanks
Why not compare it to a 135mm f2.8 then? Or perhaps compare it with the Samsung 85mm f1.4 (both crop lenses)
hmm 135 mm f 2.8 I dont know if there is such lens in market…nikon used to have it..
haa..Samsung 85mm f1.4…you reminded: me a video of camerastore TV..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eplN_wI0AbA
.who is Samsung…???
Sorry, Ravi, but that’s completely wrong. You can’t compare two lenses if you don’t compare ALL the specs. The 35mm DX cost 200$ because it’s a very cheaply built lens but with pretty good sharpness and decent bokeh (in most cases). It’s plasticy and has a terrible focus ring and it ain’t weather sealed. The 35mm FX you are talking about is f1.4 (compared to f1.8 for the DX) with much better build quality, weather sealing and great optics. The price difference has nothing to do with DX vs. FX. And btw: there’s now a FF 35 f1.8 at 600$.
Focal length is focal length and it doesn’t change. Comparing to a 135mm lens is technically BS. The only time this might be interesting is if you’re comparing an APS-C system (like Fuji) vs. a FF system (like Nikon FX) and you’re interested in total weight and size for a certain set of lenses with equivalent FOV and DOF. But that’s not what people here are doing. They’re asking why a Fuji 90 f2 is bigger than a Nikon 85 f1.8. That’s a different aspect and a very valid question. Please see my post below on that.
Well I dont know there is 35 f1.8 lens for FX..must have quoted that example.instead of 35 1.4…
Thank you for educating me ….with that comment below..I would take most of my comment back..except “who is samsung”
I expected it to be 799$ with XC lens and 1099$ with XF…[$300 for 18-55 is a steal one can buy with XF kit option]
Disappointed with pricing of body/XC kit…its definitely not a fair price..I can foresee a rebate within 45 days just like X30 which was priced 599 but within 2 months started selling for $499..
going by price of XT10 with XC kit — 799$
for those who are saying its end of XE line based on price of XT10.. let me say now..
XE 1 body currently available at 499$
XE 2 body currently available at 699$
X pro 1 currently available at 799$… courtesy b&h..
all these cameras are dead…and their future is dead going by pricing logic…I can say with confidence that XE line is not dead…unless XPro is dead..and we all know XPro is not dead…
Well…the x30 was kinda DOA. Same lens for 3 generations…too many limitations…no real IQ advantage at all. A year earlier it would have done well.
Have you actually used one? It’s a pretty fun camera with good IQ if you’re willing to look past spec sheets.
And it is in my opinion the best at its price point. RX100III is more expensive. Older versions of the RX100 have no EVF and the LX100 doesn’t either. No EVF, no buy for me and many others.
X100 also had the same lens for 3 generations. If it’s great, why change it?
I could not agree more; many have declared the X30 DOA on spec sheets and never actrually had one in their hands. Had one, had toe send it back because of unforeseen circumstances, but not because of its IQ or handling. in many ways it was even better to use than the X-T1
What are these “Many Ways” that you speak of? Please explain….
AF lock is often times faster, Size : fits in a large coat pocket, Honestly after using it for a month including a once-in-a-lifetime concert (at least my lifetime 🙂 ) I honestly could not see the “many limitations” Ryan is alluding to. When in a hurry or knowing that I would not have the time to use the X-T1 I had no qualms in grabbing the X30. I felt sorry I had to send it back.
Granted there was a severe case of “waxy effect” as soon as an image was underexposed – but up to 1600 ISOs and provided I shot in raw I had no problems whatsoever in getting good to pretty decent (at worse) images. 3200 ISOs is more challenging and one needed a really clean shot to start with, but still usable.
As an aside, in this form factor, it beats hands down e.g. the Nikon V1 & V2 (despite its bigger sensor) partly due to it’s excellent lens.
The LX100 DOES have an EVF. So, you have NO excuse not to buy the LX100.
Okay, I stand corrected. I was pretty sure it didn’t. It still is a lot more expensive though.
I wasn’t looking for an excuse not to buy one, why should I?I was simply wrong about one feature of a camera I don’t care about much and first thing you do is suspect a fanboy. Get a life please. None of those are the right camera for me anyway since I shoot too much in low light.
More expensive than What? It’s $750. It also has a larger sensor, so it’s better in low light than the X30.
And nobody called you a fanboy, YOU said that!
Busted.
Your comment is so obviously stupid that I won’t even answer your question. Mr. CapsLock, you should use your life instead of spending it bashing Fuji and other people…
The LX100 has an EVF.
See below.
Why does everyone think fuji releasing the xt10 means the xe series is going away?? It doesn’t make any sense! They are different cameras! Ones a dslr look a like and ones a RF.
I wouldn’t consider the xt10 entry level either. The xa1 is entry level.
Because it doesn’t make sense to have 2 nearly identical mid level cameras with a hump as the differentiating feature. I’m a little surprised the X-T10 was created considering the specs (old), but not really. They are looking for profits like they did with the X-M and X-A series.
They’ve sold nearly every variation and the market voted with their wallets, consumers prefer the SLR style.
Well I dont buy the argument that market voted with their wallets..had XE2 has same auto focus of XT1…weather sealed it would make XE2 premium camera than XPro1..and I bet it would sell same like XT1…[ one must remember XE2/ T1 are released in a gap of 3 months]
but fuji wants Xpro to be their premium camera[ even though it did not sell well].. hence came XT1 with a different form factor;; but fuji could have launched XPro2 with all features of XT1.[like WR, faster AF etc..] instead of XT1..may be it must have thought those features are too small to launch a upgrade for their premium camera
I agree. I think the xe2 would have sold better had fuji not swept it under the rug with the xt1. Also if fuji is looking for profit right now. They may want to consider releasing the V4 firmware for the xe2.
Fuji is now their own worst enemy when it comes to kaizen. Release a fw update for one camera. Alienate the users with the same camera different body(xe2, x100s x100t). Fuji, doesn’t realize people bought the xt1 for weather sealing, big beautiful vf and controls. Not because of its fw.
Blah blah….doesn’t matter. I’m not heavily invested into fuji because I wanted to see how their kaizen turned out. I’ll give them a couple of months to update the still current model xe2.
People really need to stop using “kaizen” in ways which make absolutely no grammatical sense.
Updating the E2’s firmware won’t help out Fuji. Most physical stores don’t keep the E2 on shelves and even online it is becoming increasingly scarce and discounted. Having some insight into how much a shop actually makes off of each body sale, only the X100 and T line are worth keeping up with. Even then, they need to shift lenses rather than bodies. The E2 has a lot of value to stores which resell second hand units, but as a first sale item, it’s as good as dead. Fuji aren’t going to make any more money from it, so any time they spend on firmware is money lost. Leaving the E2 as it is and releasing an E2-in-disguise with the T10 is very smart and just about the only way they’re going to make substantial profit off of all the old parts they would otherwise be wasting on E2 that nobody is buying.
It’s also worth noting that the xe2 costs considerable less than the xt1 (50%-60% the price of an xt1 in my country), so you could consider that they paid for their firmware upgrades At purchase.
The big picture is they are essentially the same camera. It’s not about the would of or could of. The SLR form has more appeal. I own only X-Pro1, have had X-E backups, I don’t even like the the SLR style X-T1 but I rent occasionally to get through events, but that doesn’t matter. They will create more of what people will buy.
I’m not sure of what the premium body will be. At this point it barely matters they all produce nearly the same output. They have obviously shifted from the mimic Leica beginnings to the state they are at now. One thing is for sure, the next X-Pro will be the last.
If £500 is the street price for the T10 body, it’s a tough sell. £500 for the body is just at the top of what I had pitched as acceptable. Given the X-E2 can be had for £550 with the 18-55 lens, or £410 body only, you’re basically looking at a £90-£150 premium for faster AF and a tilty screen. That, of course, is not taking into account the drastically cheaper price of a second hand E2. A used X-T1 is only £150-£200 more, and while that does not get you better image quality, it is a tougher body with more physical controls and a larger grip, plus you know it’s going to keep its value for longer so when it comes to upgrade, you’ll end up getting enough money back for the initial price difference to not matter.
if £500 is the RRP and the street price is more like £400-£450, okay, that softens the blow and definitely makes it more of a contender. The same or just £50 more than the price as the E2 but with the tilt screen and better AF, that makes sense. It would also be suitably less than a used X-T1 to make the jump to the T1 less attractive. £400 for the body, I’ll buy one as a backup. £450, I’d probably keep it in mind but I’d have an eye out for a used E2 at the same time. £500 for the body, I’d either save money and definitely get the E2 or I’d spend just a little more to get a second T1. £100 may not be a whole lot in camera terms, but when it’s the exact same image quality, any increase in price, no matter how small, becomes a big deal.
I want the Hello Kitty version!
But seriously, is the 18-55 lens that much better than the 16-50?
In build and controls, yes. Optically, the 16-50 is very good.
Both lenses are very good optically. Both have reviewed well.
The IS and focusing may actually be better on the 16-50 v2 vs the 18-55.
Don’t know why so many think X-T10 is the demise of the X-E2 form. Though the majority may like SLR form, still a large number prefer RF form and will move to a manufacturer that builds what they like. I would, and actually would like the Pro2 be the equivalent of the X-T1, in features and price. More like a Premium X-E?, even leave the Hybrid finder to the X100T line.
Would like to see a Poll on two features…SLR vs RF form and tilt screen vs articulated vs fixed? Me? RF cause I have a nose, and tilt for stills….