Hi all,
I have 2 good news for you today. The first one is that it’s finally Friday 😉 , and the second one comes from an anonymous source with nick-name, who was right in the past – SRP (thanks!). According to this source Fujifilm will update its roadmap next week.
I don’t want you to wait for the official announcement, so here are the lenses that will join the new roadmap according to this source:
-
120mmF2.8 1:1 Macro
-
35mmF2
-
New 1.4x Teleconverter.
-
100-400mm
If you decide to spread this rumor on other websites, just go ahead… but, if possible, don’t “forget” to quote the original source (with this working link) 😉 .
stay tuned,
facebook, google+, RSS-feed and twitter
NEW X-DEALS
X-SERIES CAMERAS
X-T1 + 18-135 WR (save $200 – price $1699): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
X-T1 + 18-55 (save $100 – price $1599): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
X-T1 Black Body (save $100 – price $1199): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
X-T1 Graphite Body (save $100 – price $1399): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
X-E2 Body (save $100 –Â price $699): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
X-E2 + 18-55 (save $100 – price $999): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
X30 (save $100 – price $499): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XQ1 (save $100 – price $299): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama
XF LENSES
XF 18-135mm (save $200 –Â price $699): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XF 18mm (save $200 – price $399):Â BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XF 60mm (save $200 – price $449): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XF 23mm (save $150 –Â price $749): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XF 56mm (save $150 – price $849): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XF 14mm (save $150 – price $749): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XF 10-24mm (save $150 – price $849):Â BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XF 27mm (save $150 – price $299): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XF 35mm (save $100 – price $499):Â BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XF 18-55mm (save $100 – price $599):Â BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
XF 55-200mm (save $100 – price $599): BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama /
183 Responses
Fuji certainly shows its commitment to the system in short a short span of time. Keep it up
Too much good stuff…not enough money!
Indeed. This is just sticking the knife into the big GAS wound!
Any info on the 35/2… Is is the rumoured update for 35/1.4 with a faster AF? But it indeed looks like another pancake lense!!!
Nothing for me, but many have been asking for (or predicting) the macro, so that’s good! Of course the line-up was already loaded with awesome things for me to buy. 😉 Now just really curious about the 90/2 still. (and its final size!)
The 35/2 might be interesting on a budget. But the 35/1.4 is too good to pass on, though i hope this doesn’t rule out a Mark II in the near future.
good question (the OIS one). since the source is anonymous (although with nick name), I can’t contact it. I just hope it will read these comments and drop me an update using the rumor box
easy one. If the macro doesn’t get OIS we are going to get IBIS soon. Stabilization on Macro is a huge achievement. There is a good point not doing it in a standard zoom (16-55) but non on such a long lens.
Fuji hasn’t put OIS in any of it’s primes yet, including the 90 f/2, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t for the 120mm either, even though it’d be disappointing.
Prime’s got nothing to do with it. OIS for Macro is essential. And as has been explained numerous times, for a completely different purpose 90/2 the disadvantages outnumber the advantage of OIS.
Stabilization is only useful for a macro if you’re not using it anywhere near close to 1:1.
I absolutely agree that it should have OIS… I’m just not getting my hopes up considering how they’ve approached primes, and more recently the 16-55.
Its not “Essential” my favorite macro lenses never had IS and it never effected my shooting… Its a nice feature but far from a deal breaker for macro shooting
Now that macro lens looks frickin sweet spec-wise. Going straight for the guys wanting a longer macro option. Awesome. Don’t know what the 35 2.0 is for though. Compactness?
My lens lineup is far from complete so I can’t quite understand why I’ve seen a great deal of obsession with 35mm and 50 mm equivalent focal ranges.
My guess is a higher quality 50mm equivalent.
35/50s are the sweetspot of compactness & quality all in one. thats probably why. my lens lineup is now complete, thanks to the 2 2.8 zooms
Following on from the introduction of the 50-140mm and 16-55mm zooms, the change of the 140-400mm to a 100-400mm, and the planned introduction of a 120mm f2.8 macro lens, has made me more convinced then ever that Fuji are aiming at producing a camera that will offer a head on challenge to Canikon.
The X-T2, or whatever it will be called, is going to be a physically bigger camera than the X-T1. I feel sure that it will have much greater battery capacity, high speed PDAF focusing over at least 90% of the image area and, relating it to being a Nikon owner, will be a 21st century version of the D300.
I don’t think it will be bigger at all. A bigger range of add-on grips maybe (possibly with added battery power). But there is no reason to increase size, that would be its main selling point down the drain. As we’ve seen in the early leaks it even fits a dual-card slot at its current size, remember? 🙂
If there’s going to be an even more ‘pro’ model it would just be something else under a different name, some day. But i think the X-Pro2 is all we’re getting ‘above’ the T in the near future.
I see it as simply filling out a range, and giving users the options to make whatever camera system they desire. If you want to go big, you can. If you want to stick with small primes, they have a handful of those too. Gotta love having choices.
100-400 and ~100mm 1:1 Macro? a Dream coming true!!!!
Yeah!
Awesome. A pancake 50mm equiv?! That would be my hope!
The 1.4X needs to be down by the telephoto zoom’s I would think?
A 35 f 2 R would be nice. One thing a bit slower lens gives you is smaller elements= that move faster when driving them with AF motor. Thats what slows the F1.4 down is all the glass that moves.
Good Fuji move with 35/2 lens that will be smaller and probably AF faster, so greatly suited for RF styled cams like X-E2/X-Pro1. RF styled cameras really need smaller lenses, e.g. wonderful 18/2, for fast, action, street and dynamic photography, so I look forward for these: 55/2, 23/2 and 16/2 to shine RF mirrorless idea.
The 120mm 1:1 macro lens should be very nice. Looking forward to seeing what they do with the next generation bodies. If they introduce some cameras with better dynamic range and resolution, they will have one of the best systems by next year – the lens lineup is nearly complete, and most of them are high-quality lenses.
Just need a better sensor to match the lenses…
A 120mm 2.8 1:1 macro would be great. Now I’m only hoping that it won’t be too big and heavy.
Not sure about size… but since this lens is equivalent to a 180mm FF, it may well be similar to the well known Sigma 180mm Macro, maybe just a tad smaller.
1.4x + 56mm f/1.2 would be pretty awesome, for portraits as long as the TC is of good quality 🙂 (~80mm f/1.8)
Dream on.
Dream on in what sense? You don’t think the TC is coming? Or you don’t think the quality will match the lenses?
TCs are always aimed at 70-200/2.8 (FF equivalent) zooms and primes that are 200mm or longer. Always. And in most cases they are physically incompatible with other glass.
Yeah they probably have the 50-140mm in mind. 🙂
Nothing to make me change my dream team (10-24mm, 35mm f1.4 and 56mm).
For 35mm f2 style, I have my X100s with TCL! 🙂
Not too sure what the teleconverter is for, though…
Keepers. I see keepers!
Need to get ‘m first!
Fire up the time machine, we’re going for a ride!
I need that macro lense but I guess it will be expensive and big. Please make manual focusing easy and autofocus good enough for portrait !
Manual focusing is very easy with any real macro lens: just move yourself )
Focusing ring controls magnification.
Interesting way to see it but I guess it can be applied to any lenses then (except labels on the lense are differents -distance scale instead of magnification ratio- and you need to move yourself more).
Yes that’s right, people have been doing it wrong since the invention of AF! 😉 No wait, that’s zoom.
But ‘move yourself’ is a matter of milli- or micrometers! of course at Macro working distances.
Poor schmucks probably have no idea that glorious AF renders this thing obsolete… http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Shop/Closeup-Macro/B150-B-Macro-focusing-rail.html
Usefull piece of gear when tripod is needed !
At 1:1 you’ll definitely need a tripod – or a great deal of luck. Just a pulse in your fingers will shift your focal plane when handholding.
Fun summer project: try photographing a live ladybug. Not a frozen one (they’re usually photographed early in the morning, immobilized by cold and covered with dew), but hungry and hunting. Try doing it at 1:1 or close to it.
Photographing F1 races gonna feel like a piece of cake afterwards.
I don’t care about living ladybirds, I scratch them with my Kiron 105mm. Still life is better than out-of-focus life. And I’m a morning guy anyway 😉
To be honest, 1:1 without tripod (or a bean bag) is hard but this lens can also be usefull for lower magnification and I’d like the focusing ring labeled and precise (not to lose/stiff, not too many/little turns). I’ve no idea how the 60mm performs. Is it good ?
the 60mm ist a nice lens. but not for “real” macro work.
Very sharp, but not a real macro. It also suffers from the most severe case of “noodling bokeh” I’ve ever seen.
Not a real macro ? May you explain ?
It will not go to 1:1 even with full set of extension tubes.
Hmm, I thought you were talking about the Kiron, sorry 😉
It’s been about a decade since the last time I’ve shot with Kiron, but I remember this lens to be very sharp and seriously macro, especially when reversed. No idea how it works on X-Trans though.
Make a new 27mm pancake with f/1.8 or f/2 and with a f-stop ring and I’ll buy one.
This is going to be a difficult decision for me:
Buy the 90mm f2.0 or buy the 1.4 converter and put it in front of the 56 to get appr. 80mm f1.8 vs 90mm f2.0.
Though the optical quality of the 90mm will probably be better overall and faster to focus. On the other hand the converter will be lighter and can be put on the 100-400mm. Therewith the extender could be a a perfect intermediate solution before I’ll buy the 90 then.
The teleconverter might not pair well with all lenses, we’ll have to wait and see which lenses it’s compatible with.
They will do anything not to produce a 23mm pancake
…or a fisheye.
We don’t really need an XF fish-eye. 🙂 The Samyang 8mm works just great.
Maybe I’ve got a lemon, but I’ll be selling mine. Not happy with optical quality.
I had a Samyang 8mm fish-eye in the past and I was pleased. In my quest for ultra-wide photography I really abused it and I just need to take a break from all fish-eyes. Thinking about that 12mm F2.0 X mount.
The Sam 12f2 xmount is great, really great optically. Being picky, has a worse touch feeling than a XF lens, but also halve the price, or even less, of an hypothetical AF equivalent one with fuji’s body construction.
The 12mm is great. The manual focus is smooth, and my copy is sharp edge to edge. I wish the focus ring stopped at infinity though.
Which version is it ?
No idea. Tell me how to differentiate them )
3.5 vs 2.8 (umc II vs I don’t know)
Mine is 2.8.
So does mine. And I expected it to be sharper with the different reviews on the web. But it’s not bad for a fisheye and the price…
I had the Samyang and optically it’s was very good, it does sound like you got a lemon if it’s not sharp across the frame.
It’s relatively sharp, especially considering that it’s an adapted lens. It’s just… blah. Meh. Nothing to write home about.
The core of that issue, it is labeled Fuji
Sorry was that supposed to be intelligible?
But it is not made by Fuji. The IQ must be worse.
Or a T/S…:)
Or maybe it’ll be out later. A smaller 23 is not really a priority right now when you look at all the other lenses that need to be rolled out. Consider the market share Fuji has and you see why it makes sense for them not to put everything out at once.
They are protecting their x100 line sales.
Good news. This young Fuji X system keeps getting better and more refined. The teleconverter sounds really good. Xf 35mm F2.0 sounds also good, as long as it’s cheaper, lighter, faster in AF than the old XF 35mm F1.4. What is this 100-400m??? What about the “old rumored” 140-400mm with that huge filter size diameter?
Probably a work in progress and a lot more refinement to come.
I remember my experience using a TC 1.4x on my Nikon 70-200. It really affected focus speed
The 2 questions:
1. on which lenses will the TC work and
2. how will it affect performance and image quality.
Only time will tell
It’s probably designed for use only on the 50-140 similar to when I owned the Nikon version for the 70-200 and other Pro zooms. It’s not designed for all fuji lenses. TCs help you get some reach but there is a price to pay of course so expect a loss of aperture (F4 max on 50-140) and a negligible loss of IQ. You can’t win them all.
My guess is the 50-140 and the 100(140?)-400 telephoto. Perhaps the rumored 120mm macro for >1:1 reproduction ratio.
Hi,
I´ll get the macrolens, if it will come with a tripod collar foot.
The lenshoods of all future lenses should be of metal, usable with a polarizer, without taking off, on, off, on and so on or a filterwindow with a locker. Better would be a filterthread. Much better would be a movable lenshood, a real RETRO one. Sometimes I think, they don`t use their equipment by their own. But they are still learning. As long they listen to us, the better ones and the Pro, we have a chance we will get what we really need.
So I hope, we will see the 4/ 100- 400 in early summer otherwise I`ve to change.
Metal lens hoods dent. Plastic provides more cushioning and bounces back. Having the lens hood cooperate with polarizer is a nice thing, though.
Ideal lens hoods should be made of metal with easily breakable plastic mounts. They shouldn’t bounce, they should work as shock absorbers.
That applies only to the long lens hoods, of course.
I would think the ideal would be carbon fiber. Strong and resilient but also lightweight.
Carbon fiber is just a filler. Depending on particular resin it could be resilient and provide for an excellent hood material… but the mount still should be breakable (read – not reinforced with any fibers).
The Nikon 200-400 f4 uses a carbon fiber hood and I think one or two other of their long telephotos do. I had the 200-400 for 4 years and I found it to be very good. Not so sure personally about the breakable mount unless it’s a user-replaceable part that isn’t priced ridiculously high.
I still own Nikon’s 300/2.8 VRII. It came with carbon fiber lens hood, and the mounting point is pretty easily breakable upon impact. And no, it’s not user replaceable. But nor is the front element, which is one huge protective filter.
Like an airbag in your car, it’s there to save what’s important (and/or really expensive) from the worst case scenario.
Yes. Just copying what Canon did on the 100-400 Mark II would be great.
Make it a Fresnel type lens and that would be great. Lighter and smaller but support sharp.
DO is not a Frensel 🙂
I’m more familiar with the Nikon side but figured the Canon DO was somewhat similar. But whatever the technology, I hope Fuji uses it to make the long telephoto smaller and lighter. I’m not concerned with contre-jour point light flare.
Fresnel lenses are refractive, while DO elements are, well, diffractive 🙂 Completely different principles. You can think of both Nikon and Canon DO elements as holograms. That would be correct, while thinking of them as fresnel lenses would be totally wrong.
But thanks for reminding me of this widespread misconception, I finally found its source (Ken Rockwell, of course). Maybe I’ll even write a blog post about it tomorrow.
Well, Nikon does like calling it Phase Fresnel…
Which is similar to calling a motorcycle “pedalless bicycle”: for many people that’ll be good enough, but bikers and cyclists alike would probably object.
Here, I did it already: http://trentontalbot.me/demystifying-diffractive-optics/
Hahaha you’re right, Ken Rockwell writes: “Fresnel elements have been used for hundreds of years in lighthouse condensers.” Phase Fresnel is not the Fresnel lens that was used in light houses. 🙂 He’s spreading uneducated nonsense.
I’m also curious about the compatibility question.
Does this mean that the rumored 35mm 1.4 MK2 wont happen?
A Fuji Manager said that they indeed tested a new 35mmF1.4… but with APD. At the end they decided to go for teh 56 APD and dropped the 35.
So, as of now, I think we won’t see a 35mm 1.4 MK2.
But we will (probably) see as soon as next week what’s coming 🙂
120 Macro sounds interesting……
Halleluja.
I remember you from G+, great stuff about lighting and Godox flashes. You could post something about how flash works for you with Fuji here, I’m sure a lot of people would be interested 🙂
Me?? I don’t know the first thing about photography. I just meddle. 😀
Suuure 🙂
hopefully this means they will eventually put out a 23mm f/2
They have one already, but it comes with a camera attached 🙂
No you won’t
The 35mm f2 and teleconverter sound interesting! I hope the new 35mm has an aperture ring and isn’t another XC type lens though.
The R at the end of the model name suggests that it will.
Patrick has put an ‘R’ with it on the roadmap but not in the text of the rumour so we don’t know which one is accurate.
If it is an R then it will probably come down to size. I’ve gotten used to the 27 not having a ring, but it would still be my preference.
Just get one and enjoy it, using the rear dial for aperture is a minor inconvenience and optically it’s superb.
Samyang 135mm f2.0 against Fuji xf120mm f2.8 macro. Samyang likely overall and weight but lighter and without macro) It all depends on the implementation.
AF is a big plus for portrait use at that focal length.
agree
AF in long macro lenses is extremely irritating without a focus limiter.
Sometimes. I’ve used quite a few macro lenses and the autofocus never bothered me. We all have different thresholds of annoyance.
120mm 1:1 Macro….. $%^$%^&$#%&^$%^$*^ YESSSSSSSS!!! I’ve so been waiting for this!!! I’m hoping for no OIS, though.
Finally something to upset my regard for the Nikon 105mm VR Micro Lens.
I would still like to see a 16-80mm f/4 weather-sealed lens in the near future.
35F2 WR would be sweet. Was out in the rain with my 23F1.4 and I don’t think it did it too much good.
What makes you think that?
I think some water might’ve let dust or fine dirt in (was shooting near a rock quarry during a heavy rainfall). For a few days afterwards, the focus ring has a slight grittiness to the barrel that wasn’t there before — it’s mostly worn off since then, but still… X-T1 didn’t skip a beat. Might just settle on the new WR zooms if the primes don’t get the WR treatment.
Before “weather resistance” has been invented, that was a normal modus operandi for autofocus lenses. For decades. Slight grittiness? It will go away in a few days. If it won’t – just send the lens in for CLA (which is required periodically anyway).
Wow, this is like my dream come true!!! I have been waiting for a 1:1 macro and the super tele since the day I joined the Fuji world. Have to admit I have been tempted over the past year many many times to get a Canon just for their macro and super tele lenses. Canon puts IS on both (100mm macro and 100-400mm), because it is critical for these types of lenses.
Seeing how many people are disappointed by the lack of OIS in 16-55mm (not me, I am not buying because I already got that range covered), the lack of OIS will be a deal breaker to me. If that happens, I may actually have to get Canon (or heck, an Olympus M43) as a second system, which I really don’t want to do.
People have legit reasons for not “liking” or “needing” OIS, but they can turn it off if they don’t like it! Just like purists scoff at the idea of a flip screen, many many more like it, and some ex-purists even learned to appreciate it after they have actually tried it. If we all cling to the “old way” of doing things, we will still be living in the stone age!
120mm sounds like a good choice for a macro lens : much better working distance than a 90mm, but not as bulky as a 150mm.
The f/2.8 annoys me a bit more : won’t it be a bit disproportionately sized dor a mirrorless camera ? Probably not more than most recent Fuji lenses, but still…
35mm f/2 : why not, but the f/1.4 is not the biggest lens in the lineup. What about a 23mm f/2 ? Most people buy the X100T for its OVF anyway. Or a 90mm f/2.8 ?
Very excited about the 35 f2, particularly if it is pancake. Will probably keep my 1.4 though.
35mm F2 R sounds promising… not that I need another 35mm – but some cheaper prime-lenses could mean we also may get an 23mm F2 R soon 😉
and 55/2 too 🙂
120mm macro – fantastic!!! Is it WR?
The 35mm f/1.4 is already “only” 499$. It’s not that expansive for a pretty good lens.
What’s the need for a another 35mm f/2? How low could it cost?
If it is a pancake for a giveaway price why not 🙂
They have also been innovating with new coatings and lens design. It’s kinda sad that it won’t be a 1.4 but if the lens is optically superior with some of that superb micro-contrast in the more recent lens then I’ll be all over it.
A 1.4 will always be a bigger lens with a bigger price tag. I love my 23mm 1.4 for the quality. It is on my X-T1 most of the times. But I do love my 27mm 2.8 pancake also in combination with my much smaller X-M1. So a 35mm F2 would be welcome. I would not pay a premium price for it but if it would go for $200-300 I would probably grab it..
It may not be about cost. It could be size. Who knows?
Sounds logical; if true
It may be for full frame also
I’d buy it if the autofocus is faster and quieter than the current 35 f/1.4
The converter is warmly welcomed.
I am not really interested in any of these, but I am really excited to see that Fuji is still as serious about it’s X system as they have been over the last few years. The more options there are the more likely people will buy into the system and in turn will ensure a bright future for this line of products
I really hope the 120 mm f/2.8 will have OIS. In this case I will buy it for sure.
I thought the super-telephoto was to be 140-400 4.5-5.6, isn’t that what Fuji showed at 2014 Photokina? Patrick, you always had 100-400 as your rumor on your lens roadmap. Why the difference?
my original rumor (back in FEB 2014) was 120-400. Fuji then showed a 140-400. This source now said 100-400… I don’t know. Maybe Fuji changed plans, maybe the source didn’t read the roadmap correctly and mixed up things or it’s a typo. I can’t contact the source, since it uses the rumor box to drop me emails.
Thanks I think I would rather have a 140-440 than a 100-400
Also, maybe add the 1.4 converter like the Canon 200-400 f/4. where it is integrated into the lens, now that would be very cool.
The 120 would be my kind of lens… I just hope, they don’t trade image quality for OIS…and the rumor is right at all lol
Fuji is not used to compromise IQ, that’s from my limited set of Fuji lens (10-24,35,56 and stock 18-55)
Yeah, i know. I got the 14, 23 and 18-55. 56 soon.
A flip screen does not degrade image quality, OIS does. And potentially also when it is turned off. I am not a serious macro shooter but for all I know you can hardly take good macro shots without a tripod and/or flash. Both make OIS obsolete.
Furthermore I think OIS helps against rotational camera shake for macro shots just as any other. But stabilizing camera shift for macro shots is very difficult, not to say impossible.
If somebody needs a lens at that focal range for portraits, there are three zoom lenses with OIS that cover it. One even hast the same aperture.
The nikon 105 VR macro is a superb lens … Not at all diminished by VR.
I would love to see a fast 27mm (40mm) but guess that it is not on the cards. And more than anything I wish Fuji would fix the HDMI ports so they would do live view out.
Exactly! The Zeiss Makro-Planar 100 is a good example of the very best macro lens available today, without image stabilization.
Fuji needs a roadmap for camera bodies with details on sensor size and quality. If I were to know that they won’t be releasing a full frame X Series camera, and that they will be introducing an X-Pro 2 with a much improved sensor (hopefully not X-Trans, as there is no benefit to it) by the end of the year, I would continue buying lenses for the system. However, since I am unsure what their plans are, I am hesitant to buy new lenses, as I don’t want to spend anymore money on the APS-C X Series if they are going to introduce a full frame version or if they stick with the X-Trans sensor.
If they stick with APS-C, they should make Bayer sensor options without AA filters. The strength of the X-Trans sensor is Fuji colours, but the quality is hindered by false details and artifacts (luckily only really noticeable when pixel peeping) – more so than Bayer sensors. However, I am sure Fuji can apply the same, if not better, Fuji colours on a Bayer sensor without an AA filter.
The rumour that the organic sensor may be ready by the end of 2015 is promising. If they introduce that in the X-Pro 2 and use a Bayer colour filter, and the organic sensor is as great as they have claimed (significant boost in dynamic range), the X-Pro 2 and future X-Series cameras will be one of the best, if not the best, options, as the lenses are exceptional, and the lens selection will be nearly complete by that time.
Fuji has a great selection of high-quality lenses, which is continuing to grow. They just need to improve the output with a newer sensor, and possibly use Bayer sensors instead of X-Trans sensors – unless they can improve the X-Trans sensor significantly and provide proper support for it (a Fuji-designed raw converter, like Sigma does for the Fovean sensor).
1. There won’t be an interchangeable lens full frame camera. Get over it.
2. They’re unlikely to switch to Bayer sensors without a AA filter because Bayer sensors without an AA filter lead to excessive moire.
If you don’t like it, get a Sony.
Yes, you are likely right ~ there likely will not be a full frame X-Series camera in the near future.
However, with higher resolution, I don’t believe moire is as much of an issue with Bayer sensors anymore. The D7100 doesn’t have one, and the image quality is apparently very good. I would like to see the X-Pro 2 with a 24mp Bayer sensor without an AA filter.
Sadly, I don’t like the design or the size of the Sony cameras. And, the A7r, which is the only A7 series camera I would be interested in (as it doesn’t have an AA filter), is crippled by shutter shock issues and limited to compressed RAW files, which means it is a waste of money. Also, Sony doesn’t have the native lens selection that Fuji has, so I won’t be jumping ship anytime soon.
I think Fuji has done a fantastic job with their X-Series cameras and lenses. I just want to know where there going with it, and I want an improvement in dynamic range and resolution in the X-Pro 2, or whatever X-Series camera I buy next. The lenses are exceptional, and the lens selection, as mentioned, is nearly complete. After the 120mm macro and the 100-400mm, they will just need some fast prime telephoto lenses and a tilt-shift lens, and nearly everything will be covered with high-quality native glass ~ no need for adapting lenses.
That will never happen. It would kill sales. See the Osborne Effect.
I don’t think there will ever be a body roadmap. And not because of a fear of loosing sales. Designing cameras is very different from designing lenses. There is much more development involved. You can basically take a lens design from 1930, put in an AF-Motor, the electronics to control it and you have your lens. Even if you design a lens from scratch, the time you need to finish it involves much less risk than with a body.
Just imagine Fuji promises an organic sensor camera for the end of 2015, but in the end they run into problems and have to scratch the whole thing and make something completely different.
Or they promise a camera with wifi live view with x ms lag, blazing fast af and their software engineers just can’t do it, for whatever technical or design issue. What good would such a roadmap be?
Yeah, you are probably right. I just want to know what direction they are going with the system. If they were to introduce a larger sensor X-Series camera, I would definitely be interested in it. So, at this point, I am hesitant to buy more lenses.
That said, last month, I tried the XF56mm f/1.2R at B&H, in NYC, and I was very impressed with it. And, I have considered buying it as well. Fuji is definitely designing a fantastic set of lenses. And, I am looking forward to the XF120mm f/2.8R macro lens. I have to admit, since switching from Canon to Fuji, the only things that I have been missing is macro and telephoto shots, though I do adapt my EF 100mm f/2.8L macro to my Fuji sometimes.
I understand. One more thought though: if Fuji decides (and I am quite sure they are contemplating) to build a larger sensor camera, I suspect it will either be fixed lens or considerably larger than full frame.
I am not an expert in the field but I would estimate the R&D cost that went into the system, ESPECIALLY lenses to be in a region of tens or even hundreds of millions of $$$. So if you like, they invested into the system just like many X-Photogs and probably don’t want to switch systems either. 😉
So my guess is, if there will be a larger sensor Fuji system, they will not bother with a scale factor of 1.5 and the lenses for such a system will be so much more expensive that anything you invest now will not be a really big investment compared to what you are looking at with the larger sensor system.
Yes, that is likely true. If the organic sensor will be ready by early 2016, and the X-Pro 2 will come with it, and it turns out to be as great as they have suggested with respect to dynamic range, the boost in image quality will likely render the difference between full frame and APS-C even less. If they can improve on the resolution, and introduce some more f/1.2 or f/0.95 lenses, the difference in depth of field control will be marginal as well. So, perhaps APS-C will be the sweet spot.
I am definitely looking forward to the X-Pro 2. It should be an interesting year.
You name it: “…only really noticeable when pixel peeping”.
So, who cares (among people taking real pictures, not pixel peepers) ???
And I don’t get that religion about FF (I’m in 35mm since decades, and have a D800 beside my X-T1, but still don’t get this ideology). It’s just one format among many, with it’s own pros an cons (and considered insanely small when introduced some 100 years ago, hehe). Economically, FF is a tiny niche.
Everyone bashes “pixel peeping”, but there’s nothing wrong with looking at photos at 100% enlargement and seeing what kind of resolution, detail (or lack thereof), or artifacts are visible. It would be odd not to do so, from a photographer’s standpoint. All photos look better when downsized and viewed on the web, but it’s important to know what your sensor is capable of and what it’s not.
To a large extent, it comes from the fact that for many people, having started with film (I am one of them) the ultimate goal is a printed image which you never look at too closely, because it just does not make sense.
How many images where developped and enlarged on paper in that time that, today, would be rejected because “not good enough” at “pixel peeping” level whilst still being perfectly nice once hanged on the wall ?
And don’t forget that you are not judging the sensor but the combination of sensor / lens / ISO / Demosaicing algorithm / your screen …. This to me makes pixel peeping a tad useless. But this is just my opinion.
I see this argument over and over again… Let me call it what it really is: bullshit.
Everything you print gets interpolated, one way or the other. The only way to avoid interpolation is to print at the exact pixel size… in which case you won’t notice any artifacts even with the loupe.
Now, once you introduce an interpolation (by RIP or, in consumer cases, by the printer driver), things gonna change tremendously. How each particular algorithm behaves with each particular rendering (which includes the way the RAW file has been developed, capture sharpening and the output sharpening) is a matter of rather expensive experimentation; pixel peeping is completely irrelevant here. Oftentimes what people see as artifacts during 200% pixel peeping, actually vastly improves the printed photo. When combined with the right algorithm, of course.
But guess what? People just like pixel peeping. No one seems to be making any large prints nowadays. I have nothing against a little measurebation now and then, I even allow my teammates to pixel peep at their workplaces. But don’t even hint at the off-screen usefulness of pixel peeping if you can’t follow through.
No need for an attitude, we’re just talking about camera sensors on the internet here.
I get what you’re saying about the many factors involved in rendering an image. In this case I was more talking about what I sometimes perceive as a lack of detail in X-Trans files when viewed on screen at 100% (and again, as you said, this does depend a lot on RAW processing choices). If zooming in to 100% to see how details hold up is “pixel peeping” then yeah, I’m guilty of pixel peeping.
I own a couple Fuji bodies and several lenses; I enjoy and am committed to the Fuji system (as an addition to my Nikon gear which I use professionally). I’m not dying for Fuji to go full frame. I do make large prints from X-Trans files, and they look fine – but I sometimes wonder what they could look like from something other than a 3-year-old, 16MP CMOS sensor.
They’re never going to release a body roadmap, but personally I do hope they are working hard on a new sensor.
Thing is, contrary to what the marketing tells us, there’s very little difference in the sensor of 3 years ago and today. Most of the marginal improvements have been in the image pipeline and advanced noise reduction algorithms in the processing of the sensor file to raw. And like it or not, there’s a lot of manipulation from the sensor to raw file – it’s just that people aren’t aware of it.
It just *sounds* bad that the sensor is 3 years old but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The fact that it does means marketing has done its job.
Of course, 3 years old doesn’t mean it’s bad. There are plenty of fantastic 3 year old sensors which are nowhere close to being obsolete (Nikon D4 for example, released around the same time as X-Pro 1).
But in those 3 years, there has been no indication of any newer generation sensor from Fuji (aside from rumors of the mythical organic thing).
Technology evolves, and innovations and improvements in camera sensor technology are not just marketing hype (agreed, there is a fair amount of that). Fuji puts a lot of work into their excellent lenses, but how much longer can they get by with this one X-Trans sensor?
Quality checking your work at 100% before submitting it to Stock & Advertising agencies keeps you in a job. No point spending hours on a shoot and post for it to be binned by the client.
That said, there are a lot of people who obsess about it when they have no need to!
Yes, I agree with you to an extent. I don’t think I need full frame, but would like more dynamic range and resolution. I am not much of a pixel peeper. But, when viewing my X-Pro 1 and DP Merrills side by side, there is a noticeable difference (the DP Merrills at lower ISO settings are better than D800/D810 images too) ~ the DP Merrills have exceptional image quality, despite being APS-C, due to the 1:1 sensor.
Personally, I just want an X-Pro 2 with better dynamic range and resolution, base ISO 100, 1/8000 sec shutter speed, and a brighter, larger OVF/EVF (like the one in the X100T). It really doesn’t matter to me whether it is full frame or APS-C ~ I just want those improvements.
Don’t get me wrong, I still like the images I am getting from the X-Pro 1. However, I also have to be honest about the weaknesses that I see. I am sure the next generation of X-Series cameras will see an improvement in image quality ~ at least I am hoping, as the lenses and the design of the bodies are excellent,
I do find it funny though that whenever someone is a little critical on any of these rumor sites, people get offended or assume that person has no experience or sucks at photography. I just want to have an X-Pro 2 that has better output than my X-Pro 1 ~ otherwise it will be a waste of money.
1:1 Macro would be a very welcomed addition, and I hope it would go even further with Fuji extension tubes.
35mm F2? a pancake maybe? hmm…
100 or 140 or 120 to 400 doesn’t really matter, it is the 400mm that does and sharpness through out the zoom range.
But all of this is pointless without knowing if next Fuji Xpro body is coming…
I think it is safe to say that it is coming
Of course some version of Fuji professional camera will arrive sooner or later, but will it have the charm of XPro1 that I still love today? With popularity of XT1 I would not blame Fuji for going with SLR style body, and with new huge lenses that block good portion of the OVF I would not be surprised if they get rid of it all together to make room for bigger, faster, brighter EVF.
Sure .. pointless without the Xpro2.
How big will the 400mm frame be in a OVF .. ? 😉
Might as well use the Olympus dot sight !
That is why it is a Hybrid VF, and at anything above 60mm you have to use EVF, considering the huge lenses block part of the OVF anyway.
I love my Fuji XPro1, all I want is a nice update to it or to be specific, X100t features with weather sealing and X mount. Would update in a heartbeat.
Btw, with X100t corner focus display, 400mm OVF might be actually very useful, you would be able to see everything walking in and our of the frame line and still have focus peaking.. think about it.
Yeah, could be fun.
Unlikely this has been repeated and nauseam by Fuji
35mm f/2 = Why??
cheap
Yes, Fuj is about (high) quality. So Fuji, bring on that faster focussing, nice bokeh and beautifull smooth rendering 35 f1.4 mark II.
Could be typo, perhaps 35mm F1.2 ? Make more sence.
Yeah, I really really hope so! I would buy a 35mm 1.2! Unless the 35mm F2 is a pancake.
I really hope the 120 Macro is Weather Resistant and is very sharp at smaller apertures F8-F12 and has decent autofocus. I don’t care about OIS. Edge to edge Sharpness and image quality are much more important in a macro lens. 120 is longer than I was hoping for in a 1:1 Fuji macro but if it is WR I will buy it.
I hope the 100-400 comes before next winter also.
This WR thing, I think it’s overrated. My xm1 and two kit lenses is usually swimming in snow in my pocket. I lost it severely times in snow. I don’t care with humidity when I come inside, just wrote it off. It’s been almost a year with this abuse. The camera and lenses shows no signs/problems from humidity. Yes, wr is nice, but is it just marketing?
I’d love it if Fuji could also, at one point, update all the past lenses to give the same user experience: graded aperture ring, MF clutch. Although for that second one, I don’t have an opinion…
It’s really strange that they hesitated so much on this.
WR is for more than just moisture. I spend a lot of time in the desert and preventing blowing sand from getting in my camera and lens is every bit as important as preventing moisture. It may be overrated but there are some manufacturers who won’t even say their lenses are weather resistant just that they are professional grade. They will market their bodies as weather resistant but no lenses (ie Nikon). Wheras I believe Pentax, Olympus and Fuji mean it when they say WR and they can tell you how many seals a lens or body has. I’m sure some cameras are fairly weather resistant to begin with and if you live in a dry climate the chance of fungus is probably small but between the wet and dusty conditions I shoot in I’d prefer my equipment last as long as possible so I’m all for WR lenses and bodies in Fuji’s future offerings. I think it was a big mistake for fuji to not make the X100T weather resistant. I know I would have bought one if it was. I hope the fuji lenses I buy into now will last me many fuji bodies into the future.