1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Fuji X-Pro2 FF rumor thoughts

Discussion in 'Fuji X Forum' started by pniev, Apr 4, 2014.

  1. pniev

    pniev Student for life

    Jun 10, 2013
    I saw the rumor about the FF xpro2 at Fujirumors and wasn't sure what to think about it. In a way, it was a disappointment. Probably because I was hoping for an organic sensor based camera that could work with the current Fuji lens lineup.
    Another thoughts that crossed my mind:

    1. Should I wait with buying more Fuji APS-C lenses at this time (I had plans to buy the Zeiss 50mm or the Fuji 56mm as well as the to-be-expected supertelezoom)?
    2. Should I sell the 35mm lens (which I do not use often anymore)
    3. Should I sell the xpro1?

    That would leave me with the X-T1 and 14,23, 27 and 55-200 lenses and a to-be-expected Zeiss 135mm, awaiting the full-frame. But then again, why do I think a FF will be "better"?

    What are your thoughts?

    Peter
     
  2. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    I think it's just too much speculation. Even IF Fuji were to bring out another entire system (which seems ludicrous to me), surely they wouldn't make f1.2 and f1.4 ginormous prime lenses for it. So if the lenses are all a stop slower to keep the size down, you will lose the DOF benefits of the large sensor.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Lightmancer

    Lightmancer Super Moderator

    Aug 13, 2011
    Sunny Frimley
    Bill Palmer
    Luke, I agree.

    Do I think it is going to happen? No. It doesn't make business sense unless they intend to "orphan" the X system.

    Would I buy it? No. A big part of the benefit of the current system to me is high quality allied with low weight & bulk

    Most of my photography is polarised between "opportunist" (which means Ricoh GR or Fuji X-F1, my "belt" and "briefcase" cameras respectively) and "event and travel" where I take a bag of kit out for a day or three. My Chiropractor is very happy that I no longer try to lug my Nikon DSLRs around. I first moved to Leica M as a film-user for the same reasons I use Fuji today. Today's Leica M solutions have almost reached DSLR bulk and are certainly bigger and heavier than my Fuji system.

    What do I trade off? Full-frame for APS-C. Now a good big 'un will always trump a good little 'un, but if the big 'un is in the bag under the stairs at home it is no more use to you than a box-brownie. In real-world use I can look at the output from an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor and see real little difference to the naked eye. The X-T1 and the Nikon Df both have 16mp sensors and I know which I would rather use. I had a D700 and it saw little use for six months before I traded it for my first Fuji X.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. KillRamsey

    KillRamsey SC Hall of Famer

    Jun 20, 2012
    Cambridge, MA
    Kyle
    I honestly don't want anything bigger / heavier than this X-T1, and the damned thing produces stunning files already. The glass is incredible. It's 1-handable, it doesn't frighten people, the entire lens roadmap is So Good... this makes little to no sense. Not only do I not want one, I hope they don't make it, as it can only diffuse corporate resources and engineering effort away from the X line.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Yeah, the DOF benefit and more or less all of the low light benefit as well. I won't carry huge lenses, so with that as a given, APS seems the right set of tradeoffs for me.

    If and when sensor and lens development gets to the point where they can build smaller fast glass, I may be a full frame candidate again. But I've just been around the block with full frame and am back to APS as a better set of tradeoffs. Would be the same if Fuji does it, barring some real big advances in lens design and whatever role sensor design may play in that...

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. krugorg

    krugorg SC All-Pro

    Sep 26, 2011
    Minnesota USA
    Kyle Krug
    Sure doesn't seem like a credible rumor to me.

    But... what if the Fuji FF body could also handle the existing Fuji lenses in crop mode? That could be a cool option given all the nice Fuji APS-C lenses. The body size and price could be roughly the same and you wouldn't strand APS-C Fuji owners. You would just give them the flexibility to also use FF glass. Sure, those lenses may be bigger, but the Sony 55/1.8, as an example, isn't huge by any means. Maybe the FF sweet spot is UWA to normal primes?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    I like that idea Kyle.
     
  9. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Jack
    I don't like the idea of Fuji going FF. APS-C is a nice sweet spot of sensor size and camera/lens size.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Jul 12, 2010
    Philly, Pa
    If the lenses have to be larger to work FF and still maintain AF, what happens to the finder being blocked? The M's have smaller lenses so FF was never an issue with finder blockage. A slight amount but not an intrusion.

    If a FF XP2 gets borne, the lenses will be the hardest part of the design. I don't think they can do it in the size if the XP1..........
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Nic
    If it makes business sense they'll do it. Give the users one more step so they may feel compelled to climb it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    I'd rather they made a digital GW690.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    820
    May 14, 2013
    NY Mtns
    if the argument is size, i dont see any difference between the A7 and the Xp1/Xt1, do you guys? its no longer 'i dont wanna carry a dslr', because mirrorless FF is the same size or smaller than some apsc! and i dont think the zeiss/sony 55/1.8 is appreciably larger than the what-i-consider large fuji 35. so i dont get this as an issue.

    if the argument is IQ, then i continue to be confused at how this devolves to solely a discussion of DOF, which i personally do not even consider an aspect of IQ. sure, if we focus on this very narrow criterion, maybe we come out here, maybe there. but IQ as i understand it is about resolution, clarity, microcontrast and most importantly, overall 'look'. while these may ultimately be subjective criteria, i would really enjoy if they were discuseed at all, and not ignored as if DOF is the only platform differentiation.

    from my personal comparison, there is simply no contest between the 'look' of FF and any other platform. in addition to the clear resolution superiority, there is a richness and depth to FF that no one seems to want to even allude to in these discussions that leaves me constantly confounded. hey folks, theres more to this than fstops!

    to be clear, none of this dictates what one should like or buy. i just hope it leads to more complete discussions.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    The basic 50 (or 55) has always been the exception to that rule. Yeah, you can build reasonable size 50s that are also fast and good. That's why every cheap SLR in the '70's came with a cheap 50 f1.8 or even 1.4. Digital is harder than film (perpendicular light and all that), but it's still not tough to build a good fast 50 at a reasonable size. So if you like that focal length, you're golden - I'm personally blind in that focal length. That Sony is larger than most, actually, probably because its REAL good.

    But take that down to 24 or 28 or even 35 and up to 85 or beyond and it doesn't work, except for rangefinder glass that doesn't seem to work all that well on most digital cameras and doesn't have fancy stuff like AF anyway. My recent experience was with Nikon glass and the RX1. The "D" lenses (like the RX1, which is a different beast because much of the lens is buried in the body) are similar in size to the Fuji APS stuff, even a bit smaller in some cases. But it's a stop slower, so most of what you gain with the sensor you give back with the lens, both in terms of DOF and low light, if not in terms of DR. Lens quality too - a couple of those D lenses are close to as good as the Fuji stuff, most isn't, but it is also somewhat cheaper. To move up to a 24 or 28 or 35 at similar apertures like f1.4, the lenses are much larger, heavier, and pricier. If you're willing to deal with all of that, there's a clear benefit. If you're not, it's a limited and arguable benefit - stuff like "richness and depth" which I'm not arguing but I can't spend much time worrying about either because when I do my photographs sure are purty but my images tend to suffer because my vision shifts from the images to the richness and depth. My problem, not anyone else's necessarily. But unless I can get that extra stop or so that the FF sensor gives, I don't benefit. Other's might and do, but I don't.

    Someday maybe they'll make digital sensors that work more like film and will work with light that hits them at an angle and lenses can shrink some at all sensor sizes and maybe then I'll take another look at full frame. But until then most of the lenses I like to shoot with are either too big or a stop slower, so APS is a better set of tradeoffs. And anyway, by then APS and m43 sensors will also be a lot better than today, so maybe the differences will matter even less then than they do now. Which is arguable already...

    But as Nic says, if it makes business sense, they'll do it - I'm sure all of those numbers have been crunched and recrunched. For me personally, they don't currently add up. But for many they might and that would mean that for Fuji they might.

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    820
    May 14, 2013
    NY Mtns
    i understand what youre saying and i know that was your experience. however, without in any way negating that, i believe that experience was not entirely complete. nikon specifically presents a limited mount ability. and within those limits, you limited yourself to a specific subset. mirrorless presents many added mount/quality opportunities. many dont mind at all a stable of AF and manual focus lenses. ive had many slr 24s that are not cumbersome at all. tbh, because of their great DOF (that everyones so fond of discussing in other contexts) manually focusing wide lenses are as fast or faster than AF. the focus speed issue comes into play with portrait lenses or lowlight photography. and practically speaking, the fuji 56 is huge imo, not any smaller than many great slr 85s.

    i also understand different folks want different things from their photography experience. i traded my 5d/L 17-40 for an X100! i didnt wanna lug that thing around, i liked the look of fuji and it actually gave me nicer overall photos from iso16-3200. but i knew i was sacrificing IQ at regular iso's. it was a concious choice that i debated with myself. my contribution here is not to direct peoples choices, but to expand the criteria for concious decisionmaking. and all im saying is its not solely about fstops. its about the ultimate quality of your images and the concious tradeoffs you want to make. you know newbies and other info seekers view these discussions, and i think the total absence of the apparent IQ differences between FF and other platforms is a disservice to those seeking the complete debate. there are clinical aspects to photography, but at the end of the day it is an art not a science, and platform differences are not just sterile objective numbers.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    I agree. I've got nothing against options. I was just laying out the tradeoffs as I saw them and the decisions I've made along the way. I'm not trying to direct others decisions either. When I look at the images I came back from Italy with last summer from the RX1, there is something a little more special than with the other cameras I took, but I only see it in a few of them. And, frankly, the images I came back from San Francisco with a few weeks ago that were all done with the Fuji XT1 leave me wanting for nothing. I see the differences when I spend time comparing them, but I never feel anything lacking in good APS images, or m43 for that matter.

    It's not all about f-stops I agree, but it's also not all about the outer edges of image quality, which is where the difference between full frame and APS / m43 comes into play. There are plenty of great alternatives today for each of us to choose from based on our own priorities.

    I'm sitting here looking at a half dozen prints on the wall near my desk - all 12x18 and 12x12. Taken with everything from a 35mm film SLR, an RX1, a Nikon A, Nex 5, a GRD3, and an LX5. I have prints from my Fuji and m43 gear in the other room. They're all images I liked enough to print and hang. And the differences in the image quality from the cameras involved are the least important part of what made me want to hang them and live with them... Your mileage obviously may vary - that's just my experience...

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    820
    May 14, 2013
    NY Mtns
    fully believing what you just said, can i just say i loved loved loved the results i saw from your time with the Df? frankly, for the first time in 30 yrs of photography your results had me seriously contemplating spending what i consider an obscene amount of money on this hobby. i still look at that super high iso shot of the blanket and yearn...and then i think there must be something to it, 'cause i dont get that from the fujis ive used.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Yeah, I get that. And I GOT that big time. But that shot actually IS where it's largely about f-stops. That was done at ISO 12,800 and I was looking for something to test ISO 12,800 and that was in a very very dark hallway where it needed every bit of it. I could have just as easily turned the light on! :biggrin: But when I had the RX1 last summer in Italy and it was my go-to low light camera, I shot a few shots that required 10,000 or 12,800, but very VERY few. Most I could shoot comfortably at ISO 3200 or 6400. With the Fuji with the 23mm lens, I'd have been able to shoot those at one stop lower ISO because of the one stop faster lens and the results wouldn't have been much different. The Fuji is about as good at 6400 as the RX1 is at 10-12K and not far behind the Nikon at the same high ISO. No, the Fuji doesn't resolve at 24mp but neither does the DF. But in low light, it really is about f stops vs ISO capability. For the intangible things your talking about like richness and depth, it's not. But to me full frame isn't enough better in those areas to really worry about. I took some shots in San Francisco with the XT1 using the Velvia jpeg setting that I like every bit as much as some of the best I did with the RX1. And have done in the past with other Fujis as well. When I look really closely, there's definitely a difference in detail, but there's an even bigger difference in detail with the Sigma DP series. Many of my favorite shots from Italy last summer were done with the XE1 and the 14mm lens...

    I'm not denying that there's a difference. It's just a matter of how much it matters to a given shooter. To ME, the appeal of full frame IS in extending the high ISO capability and extending what's possible in low light. But for that I would have to carry the faster lenses. Maybe Nikon doesn't offer the best set of options, but if I'd gone Canon, so far they aren't using the great high ISO sensors that Nikon is. My niece is a wedding shooter who uses Canon and wishes she could switch to Nikon for the better low light capability but can't afford it. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs, tradeoffs.

    And, finally, with those Nikon D or AIS lenses that I'd be comfortable with based on size and weight, most of them aren't as good as the Fuji lenses. The RX1 lens was for sure, in spades! But of the "D" lenses, I'd say the 28mm is definitely better than the Fuji 18, but the Nikon 20 doesn't compare to the Fuji 14, the Nikon 35 didn't compare to the Fuji 23, the 50's probably compared well enough with the Fuji 35, but that's not something I use so I can't say for sure. And the Nikon 85 f1.8 wasn't as nice as the Fuji 56. The Nikon 24 had no Fuji counterpart, unfortunately - Fuji still has one more fast wide angle prime on their roadmap and I'm hoping it's something in that 24-28mm range with great optics and a clutch MF ring like on the 23 and 14. I compared the Nikon 35 to the RX1 when I was trying to make up my mind on that stuff and it was good enough for me when stopped down, although not as sharp as the RX1. But anywhere close to wide open the RX1 was still excellent, the Fuji glass is still excellent (18mm excepted), but the Nikon D glass wasn't. I'd imagine the higher end Nikon glass would have been, but for reasons already mentioned, I wasn't gonna go there.

    So, there is no right answer for everyone. But I've been all the way around the block now - over the last year I really scratched the full frame itch and I was seduced by it. But at the end of the day after I experienced and internalized all of the tradeoffs, I just found that for me, APS represented a better set of tradeoffs, with m43 at the longer end and with zooms. So, selfishly perhaps, I hope Fuji keeps putting at least as much energy as they have been into their APS lineup, whether they go full frame or not...

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. rbelyell

    rbelyell SC Top Veteran

    820
    May 14, 2013
    NY Mtns
    i hope they do too ray. so many like them, amd i root for them as a company. and i really think their 'user experience' is second to none. for my subjective taste, i would be more enticed by their improving their old x100 sensor, as just subjectively, the xtrans doesnt do it for me.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. pniev

    pniev Student for life

    Jun 10, 2013
    A very interesting exchange of arguments! thank you. It is too bad that Fast + Full-frame = Big lenses.

    Ray: if I interpret Fuji's lens map correctly they may launch a 16mm (it's positioned between the 14mm and 18mm). So that would be a 24mm lens.