Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review

Might not be for you then
;)

Agreed on all points, but the launch price still seems 'ambitious'. I think I'd value it at around £800. A D7200, which is about as good and about as premium is £700, add in an extra few quid for the funky looks etc and the X-Nonesense we undoubtedly desire... It's nowhere remotely near twice as good as a 7200 is it but costs nearly twice as much. Still, I do see the attraction and it's very nice.

I know what you mean. I've been shooting my X-Pro1 lately while my D810 is away being repaired and I really enjoy it. I got my X-Pro1 new last year for about £300 and can therefore overlook the flaws in the system, but with the launch prices, they'd seriously nark. The X-Trans can produce some really hideous artefacts and the X-System as a whole is beset by lens-sensor reflection problems (making them a very poor choice if you like to have the sun in the frame). Although the latter problem seems to afflict all mirrorless cameras, in all fairness. I had an A7R for a while and that had its own share of deeply unattractive lens-sensor reflections, see https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexcarnes/19647926522/in/dateposted-public/

Yeah, The Roaches. With horrid lens-sensor reflections ;-)

US standard neon tube lighting conditions, which is commonly found in government buildings, hospitals, airports and other places of public life and journalistic interest.

I liked that you can clean up the viewfinder to Q specs and see nothing else - NO little disturbing icons and symbols- just plain black borders around the image ( I wished my Sonys could do that ). What I did not like was that the FUJI EVF displayes a flickering/pulsing phenomenon that the A and Q do not show.
Personally I think the Q has the best EVF viewfinder and overall handling. P.S. I shoot Leica M since 1989 not because I like Leica but because of necessity. The Q is the first camera that might make me to change.

I liked the Q as a camera but disliked the results for jpegs, the skin tones were very bad. Also not a fan of 28mm, would have adjusted in post processing of the Q was 35-45mm, it's too wide for family snap shots, people will wind up with exhagerated features if near you.
The Fuji EVF does not flicker in high performance mode but battery life is not great in that mode, the Q has better battery life when both cameras are at higher refresh rates in EVF. The best EVF I've used belongs to the SL. Sonys EVF in the A7rII is also very nice but I personally can't stand the menu or dials or autofocus point selecting.

If you can't get 300 shots on a single battery charge the camera is pretty much useless .Btw agreed, the SL beats everything else in the EVF market , I also agree on your lens preferences. I still shoot a couple of 10 year old M8s with 28 + 40 for that reason. I never warmed to the Sony A cameras although I shoot them professionally. I will keep a close eye on Fuji and Leica.

I don't know if would call a camera worthless because it does not hit 300 shots. You could easily carry 3-4 batteries in your bag and not even feel them in there. I came from an A7 and battery life seems pretty much the same.

The X-Pro1 also has a quoted 300-shot battery life, but I've managed to shoot over 600 frames in a day and still have plenty of battery left. I use the EVF, and don't switch the rear screen on very often.

I think similarly about build quality. I note the X-Pro 2 and the Leica Q got the same rating from DPR on build quality. I'm a bit suspicious of that. A bit of elaboration on that point would have been useful. Esp. so, because most of us cannot touch these cameras in the metal before purchasing.

Thank you pkcpga, its a very slow work around, i shoot 200-400 images a day as my second back up camera, so its double work. But at least it works. Question does it keep all the RAW data, once converted to DNG, as much as the Original x trans file does? Thanks my only concern.

I believe when converting any raw to dng it keeps all data in a lossless way but what I've found is its impossible to convert back from dng to raw. So I have held onto some important raw files just in case. But so far it's the best solution until capture one pro or LR adapts to the xpro2.

I've done some research, and not not converting, I'm using lightroom until C1 comes out with there RAW converter. the DNG i feel is not a good idea. its not really a lossless process, there is so much meta data that is not carried over. so I'm keeping them as uncompressed files using lightroom, ( witch i don't really like ) but the only way to see X pro 2 images from RAW at the moment.

Ditto - Iridient works best on X-Trans files....

Capture one released 9.1.1 yesterday with support for X-Pro2 non compressed RAWs so as long as you have been shooting uncompressed your now golden in C1 (compressed RAW is coming soon according to Phase)

Hm. I tried it with my 14mm lens.. and was sad to find i couldnt really use the OVF. It did not display the frame due to the wide angle. What do you two use most? OVF or EVF?

I think the intention of the manufacturer (Fujifilm) was to sell a product for those familiar with 'full manual' familiarity of operation, such as yourself. The term 'retro' was used in terms of appearance, but the internal components compete alongside 'modern' camera construction; the important consideration is observing specifications, some of which are in reference to a 35mm film type camera, which will never change..

James

Darn, that's a problem, as I prefer to keep my aperture as consistent as possible during a shoot, so I adjust the shutter speeds instead. But if it needs to fall too low, then I'd raise the ISO.

ha!

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Fuji is an evil brand or anything (I'm using an X30 myself), but I just wanted to point out that the reality of it. Outside of Japan, the EU and US/Canada, Fuji products are a luxury. If you can afford the X-Pro 2, you can afford a full frame semi-pro or a pro grade APS-C body. And a number of pro photogs here started with getting a second hand full frame as a new 5DmkIII or D810 is far too expensive and takes too long to pay off for itself.

Something like the X-Pro 2 or even the X100 would be seen as an indulgence, and unless you're big like Ming Thien, is very much in the domain of rich enthusiasts who can already afford a Leica, not something a professional needing a workhorse would consider, unless you're a wedding or portrait photog.

Thermidor, are you saying the XPro2 is even more expensive where you live? I can't tell if you are referring to an exchange rate issue, or if Fuji is just more expensive in absolute terms. Can you clarify?

It's both Jeff. Essentially a unit of our currency is worth slightly less than 25% of the US dollar, so prices are multiplied 4.5 times or so for international brand goods. Around this time last year, the exchange rate was better at about $1 to 3.3 ringgit.

Your average fresh grad may make say 2200 ringgit as a starting pay, but a Nikon D3300 for example, costs 1940 ringgit, so there's no way he/she can afford one without saving up. The X-Pro 2 costs 7800 body only. To compare, I bought my Nikon D750 with the kit lens for around 8300.

The pricing is determined partly by exchange rates, but also by the companies themselves. Nikon and Pentax is slightly cheaper, Sony somewhere in between, while Canon and Fuji are really expensive. A Canon 6D kit costs RM8700, significantly more than my D750 kit. I was a Canon 70D user, but my unit had a wonky AF, and I found it cheaper to just sell it off and move to Nikon than move up to a Canon full frame.

To make matters worse, there is no such thing as a refurbished market here in Malaysia. All the brands refuse to refurbish, so you either buy new camera equipment for the warranty, or take a gamble when you buy secondhand. That's why I only buy screw-driven lenses secondhand. No internal motor to break.

Re pricing one needs to compare like for like. The reason I bought the X-Pro2 with 23mm f1.4 lens is because it costs around £2,000. The Leica M equivalent with 35mm f1.4 is five times the price, approaching £10,000. There really isn't a lot to choose between quality of construction and optical quality so in that context the Fuji is fantastic value if you want a camera that allows you to work in a 'rangefinder' way.

Pricing varies quite a lot. For instance, we used to have 1:1 parity with US prices for quite a long time, meaning that an 1.800 USD camera would have been 1.800 EUR (plus some extra charges, for whatever reason such as the factory being in Japan and Europe farther away than US), which could have made it 2.000 EUR. That, back when the rate between EUR and USD was something close to 1.3 USD for an EUR.
To make matters worse, the Eastern block or generally where the standard of living/average wage is as far as four times, if not six times lower than in other Eu countries, often make stuff that is pretty affordable or even cheap in the US a no-go. Many Romanian people would have someone else purchase photo gear from BH for them and have it shipped to Romania as a present or simply fetch it over in the luggage, since it could have meant saving up to 50%.

I was wondering when you say "compared" to as dslr the focus is as good.
What do you mean exactly, cause my XE2 can't take a dog running in any directions, did they improved this with the X-Pro2?
Glad you like the camera, Fuji makes some nice stuff and great lenses!

If you want to impress the ladies, get the Sigma 150-600mm.
You are in the wrong camp here...

Dear me. Nowt so boring as a bitter photographer.

@Mac McCreery Nice to meet you Mr. Nikon. I'm Craig. Lang may yer lum reek. Haste Ye Back! Whit’s fur ye’ll no go past ye.

Can anyone forward me the link that shows the Xpro2 with the fuji 100-400 tracking action or BIF, if any that is. Thanks.

pkcpga: It looks promising. I really looking forward to see how the xPro2 performs with the 1-4 fuji. But more than that, I am anxiously awaiting news of the XT-2 because if they can create a AF system to rival, say the 7d2 or D500, then I think the time for hanging up my DSLRs is near ... but we shall see. The battery life issue still remains to be resolved though, unless there is a new type of battery that can double or triple (per charge) of the existing fuji ones.

Its for sure worth the wait and beats the Pen hands down.

The GX8 doesn't need PDAF because Panasonic has developed their own very effective depth through defocus.

F2 on m4/3 is equivilent f1.4 on APSC, so are you suggesting that there is a mysterious threshold on APSC where the technology wouldn't work? Depth through defocus works because the technology works, not because of an arbitrary depth of field limit.

Also keep in mind FF Leica f5.6 is micro 4/3 f2.8.

The GX8 has a database of lenses and focal lengths so it already knows how depth of field relates to DFD (depth from, defocus). Unless you can show a review stating that DFD speed is noticeably different at f1.2 and f11, your assumption that sensor size somehow makes DFD work on m4/3 but not with APSC. And if depth of field had anything to do with it then DFD would work on APSC at equivilent f-stops, which is a ~one stop difference).

The fact remains that DFD lets Panasonic's CDAF sensors focus as well as a PDAF sensor.

https://photographylife.com/sensor-size-perspective-and-depth-of-field

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/how-autofocus-often-works/

Hopefully these help. There's plenty out there.

Why do you keep bringing up full frame? We are discussing m4/3 and APSC. No review of DFD says that f8 focuses noticeably faster than f2, so the depth of field does not affect the GX8s AF speed like you think it does.

And Sony has f1.4 FE lenses for their full frame so fast lenses are AF as well.

Again with the full frame; you are the only person discussing full frame here.

But I think we're getting off-track here, my original comment about DFD was in response to Don Sata's claim that the GX8 wasn't exciting because it was just a CDAF sensor; to which Panasonic developed DFD as a way to improve the AF without needing PDAF.

I mostly agree with your last statement. I was just trying to explain why Panasonic gets away with their autofocus system. And I failed to explain it to you or you refused to listen. Since this system would not function as well on a larger sensor that has shallower depths of field to deal with. This is why my medium format camera has even a harder time with autofocus on shallow depth of field shots and requires a lot of accuracy. If you shot Fuji, just try shooting the 56 f1.2 than any f1.4 prime than any f2 prime than if you have the f2.8 zoom and you will notice the difference in speed. This takes place on any camera just micro 4/3 becomes small enough to where it's DOF is not super narrow minus it's f1.2 lens which performs slower because of this. It's a very clever system that works well with its size sensor unless they start making faster lenses. Most system start to struggle under f2.8(FF equivalent, apsc f1.9, m4/3 f1.4) that seems to be the magic cut off anything less.

First of all, this is the internet so it is not out of question for two people to misinterpret the meaning of each other's posts.

The 56 is slower to focus, but I think that ha smore to do with it having heavier and larger glass inside, as opposed to just the f-stop. A lower quality 56, with lighter weight internal components will focus faster due to it begin easier to move the glass. The 16, 23, and 35 are all f1.4 lenses, but the lens design and weight of internal components are the determining factor in AF speed. What is unaccounted in your argument is the camera and lens software. The 4.0 update noticeably increased the AF speed of the 35 f1.4 due solely to improved camera software; almost all of the lenses received a speed increase, some more than others.

True about online chat, if your interested read the articles. Another way to look at it, with any fast prime, do you get more in focus on subject shots at f1.2, f1.4 or f2.8 with autofocus. This is because there is less area and ussually less contrast in that smaller area. Remember everything with its depth range is used, the smaller the area the more accurate it needs to be and the less contrast it ussually has to work with. This will be my last attempt to explain, I'm not a English major, sorry if it's confusing, I've worked with a lot of different formats for a while now so it seems like common sense to me and I'm not a great instructor.

Cheers

Hipster image = lots of people buying Fuji for the looks, not for the excellent overall photo ability of the system itself. This translates to overpriced and mildly useless accessories instead of more useful and decently priced ones. That's what I meant by the hipster image getting in the way. Not that every Fuji owner is a hipster or something.

DSLR = what I meant is that they're really good and I'd like them to also step into SLR territory, as opposed to the old days when they had Nikon borrow their tech for the S bodies. Not expecting the lenses to work on a SLR camera.

@Jeff - You're never to old to become a hipster. For the price part, well the mirrorless thingies don't hold value very well, as it appears. So why spend 1.800 now when I can grab it later on for less than 1.000 or even really, really cheap? I can build up on lenses meanwhile.

@Andriel - why buy now when you can buy later? Simple: lots of pictures to take now.

Umm, 16MP is quite enough, it's not like I don't have a camera :) You know, in Romania, the average wage is around 420 EUR / month netto, so go figure why anyone here would rather wait for the camera to drop to around max two, not four and a half of these :P

I won't deny Fuji cameras are overpriced compared with what you can get from other brands at the same price. But it's not purely for the retro looks. I bought a Fuji X30 even though it's only slightly cheaper than the Olympus OMD-EM10. The reason is because:
1) It's got a really useful 28-112mm equivalent length. I already have a Sony a6000, so I didn't want to be drawn into starting another mirrorless system and end up splurging on lenses when I was just looking to replace my compact with something more capable while still being a one camera system.

2. Fuji X-Trans sensors render colours differently from traditional Bayer sensors. They also come with a number of film emulations, which look pretty authentic. Even in black and white, the rendering is closer to a roll of Fuji Neopan film than what most Bayer sensor camers get when shooting monochrome. The major issue I've encountered with using Fuji is skin tones look waxy in artificial light, and can be almost impossible to correct.

1. No argument, the only problem is that, for instance, in Romania, the prices are often even higher than in US (for some reason, we're comparing against US, usually, not the rest of the EU), making the Fuji stuff a tougher and costly choice.

2. It depends on the generation. The first X-Trans, as far as I know, does not exhibit this effect (X-Pro1, X-E1 etc.). The X-Trans II does, however (X-T1/T10, X-E2/s, X100S/T), noticeably so beyond ISO 800. People say the X-Pro 2 is less prone to that, and it looks like it, but I can't judge based on available samples.

You're left with two options: switch to RAW and post-process the RAW file on the PC to alleviate this to some extent (quite bothersome and not THAT effective) OR underexpose by the required number of stops (1-3) to be able to use a lower ISO value, then develop push/pull to increase the EV back and you're effectively walking around the effect, but get some digital amplification noise in return (which is often better, IMO).

1. No kidding. The price of the X-Pro 2 is hideously expensive here in Malaysia: something like 2 and 1/2 months salary for the average working class. Realistically if you really want one, you'd have to save for half a year just to afford the body alone if you're not rich.

2. Comparing my X30 with its bigger sensor cousins, the whole skin tone white balance/waxy look is much more pronounced on my X30. I generally use it for street shooting or at least, outside of artificial lighting.

I do shoot primarily in RAW, but the X30 doesn't give a lot of latitude to push, and even one stop above the original settings start showing a lot of chroma noise and purple tingeing. The colour noise on the X30 isn't pretty, so I tend to switch to shooting in monochrome if I need to push it past ISO 1600.

Hmmph, that's why I skipped X20 (and would have skipped the X30 were it launched when I had to choose) and went for a discounted X10 instead. Not the waxy look, didn't know about that, but X-Trans on a small area was a turn-off compared to EXR.

I wasn't very happy with the semi-useless but big and bright OVF, nor with some AF issues, but I could never complain about any sort of waxy look, since it uses the beloved EXR sensor and 6MP from a compact is good enough for me.

I still wish for a camera with useful zoom, 1" sensor or larger, all the current Fuji improvements, but EXR technology. Nothing quite like those colors, even when I compare what I got from the bigger X models. Maybe the first X100 comes close.
Also, plenty post latitude in the... JPEGS of X10 itself. No kidding, you can open them in ACR and see for yourself. Just make sure they're in 6MP EXR mode.

I'd even be stupid enough to buy a 24 MP/2 (12 effective) APS-C EXR camera :P

Oh, also, I'm capitalizing on the small flange by grabbing some cheapo Konica AR lenses, just for fun. So far, 50 1.4, 50 1.7, 28 3.5, 40 1.8 and two teles (Hoya 135/2.8 + Konica 135/3.2) are on their way, along with a nice Autoreflex T2, which I'm actually planning to use/recondition if needed.
It's nice that you can get M-mount lenses working, but really for those prices I'd be better of with a full frame Sony mirrorless body :)
Alas, Fuji X is what reignited my interest in photography and some beautiful captures, so far, so I owe them kudos.

Anyway, I've seen a Vivitar 55 f/2.8 Macro on an X-Pro1. The copy was pristine, but boy, the rendition, build and mechanical action were out of this world. Grab one if you can, forget its native mount, you can surely get an adapter for it.
I love the 35 f/1.4 from Fuji, but you should really check out MF with this legacy dragon. It simply blows the by-wire out of existence. I'm really curious what it would have been like on an X-Pro 2.

Haha, unless I trip upon a gold mine, the chances of me being able to afford a Fuji X system is highly unlikely. I specifically want an X-Pro system as I want the hybrid viewfinder.

The Fuji X-Trans sensor rendering lose their colours if you process them in Lightroom. You get something that looks more like your average Adobe RGB colours instead, but not quite. It's honestly a pain to process photos in Silkypix if dealing with a large workload, so I wouldn't really get a Fuji as a workhorse, but more of something for my personal projects. And at its price, the X-Pro 2 is simply too expensive to consider, as Fuji lenses cost a bomb here as well. Maybe a year or two down the road I can consider getting one with the 18mm pancake.

Well unless you really really want an X-Pro2, you might find a second hand X-Pro1, which isn't that bad at all. I didn't want to go that much up and didn't want the X-T1 (you can grab a used one for 6-700 EUR, accesorized), but did specifically avoid the OVF despite the view and battery savings, as I'm planning to use MF lenses a lot and I'd only use EVF + peaking most of the time anyway.

I hear you with Lightroom, I'm sticking to using in-camera RAW conversion for the most part and settle for the lossy processing of the jpegs on the pc afterwards. It's better, since I can only afford a small margin of error and usually the JPEGs don't require much tweaking. The only stuff I'd process are higher ISO RAWs because of that wax stuff, where I'd rather trade the color for a more realistic rendering of the skin.
As for workhorse, you really cannot do longer sessions with a camera that kills the battery before ~1K releases.

Thanks for your advice. I was seriously considering the original X-Pro, which would be quite nice indeed, but I also shoot a lot of indoor stage gigs where the ISO 6400 cap may not be enough. I went for a Nikon full frame because it's not uncommon for me to shoot at ISO 12,800.

Secondly, the original X-Pro has pretty sluggish AF speed, and it also doesn't have the digital split prism introduced in the X100S, so even if I wanted to manual focus to compensate, it's not going to be a fun experience.

As to battery life, I'd always have a spare anyway, and these days it's very rare for me to snap a lot. I rarely take over 150 shots when shooting a gig, the only major exceptions are dances and multi performance events.

Even with my X30, I mostly use it for street photography, as I don't want to process more than 20-30 photos in Silkypix at a time. As you mentioned it, the JPEGs from the in-camera RAW tend to come out good enough for some light touch-ups, while the waxy skin isn't fixable.

Yep, Nikon FF looks like the best bet for a workhorse, since even the 'lesser' models are beefy and capable beasts.
In my situation, I'm pretty confident a D5500 or a Sony A6xxx would have been much better (for chasing my relentless kid around) than Fuji, but then I also wanted to get some enjoyment out of the camera. I don't have as many majorly failed shots as I initially expected to have, especially since I learned to use the newer Wide Tracking and Area AF, stopping down a bit to increase dof and choosing a manual shutter speed to freeze the action explicitly or in Auto ISO specs.
But from my experience so far with X-Trans II at least (which is also capped at 6400), you really wouldn't even want to shoot beyond that value. For an indoor stage gig, I can imagine it's F1.4 or GTFO, sort of.

But overall I'd still rate the mirrorless PDAF to be the still the biggest disadvantage when choosing it over DSLR, aside from the naturally bright prism that shows the image TTL.

The other real problem are the pricey Fuji lenses. The X-Pro is never bundled with a kit lens here, so even if I just bought one lens, say thr 18mm f2, it would already cost more than the camera body alone. Essentially, price-wise, Fuji gear here is just a step away from Zeiss or Leica. In comparison, I can get good Nikon full frame primes for a lot less than what I'd have to pay for a Fuji. That was the reason I bought my X30 to begin with, so that I can't even consider changing lenses for it.

That's a bit less of an issue here. They are pricey, but cost nowhere near as much as Olympus MFT GOOD lenses. I was hesitant between Fuji and Oly, but after a quick calculation I figured I have more attractive options and less money to spend in Fuji's camp.
There's the occasional second hand option, or dubious dealer that might offer lenses at 60% of their normal prices, not sure how gray that is ofc.

Over here M4/3 lenses aren't cheap either, but at least the ones I would want (20mm f1.7, 14mm f2.5, 12-40 f2.8 Pro and 35-100 f2.8) are available at pretty reasonable prices, and definitely cheaper than for equivalent Fuji lenses.

By,
We all have choices. But what makes you say that the best street photographers in the world are not using Fuji.... Trust me, many of them are. (Not me -- I'm just a mediocre street photographer.)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

@InTheMist. Having read the review I get the impression it's not the fastest focusing camera. I'd recommend the RX1RII, I use it for street photography and am very pleased with it. Don't ditch the J5, it's a very good camera and its small sensor has the great advantage of greater inherent depth of field, you'll see the full-frame model you choose has a totally different approach to it.

I see what you mean about the difference in focus appreciation.
On the other hand re depth-of-field I wonder why I get so much more in focus when taking the same shot with an iPhone at f2.4 as I do with the RX1 at the same aperture?

@M3. At the same aperture, a larger sensor will give you a narrower depth of field. I looked ta t your gear list, and the same would be true with your GH1 vs the RX1.