X-Pro2
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Here you go, gearqueers. It's out.
http://www.fujirumors.com/leaked-first-official-images-of-the-fujifilm-x-pro2-see-it-with-xf35mmf2-attached/
That square LED light is all I've ever dreamed of.
>never ever gonna get full frame
no thanks
>>2731214
Medium Format's coming, dag.
FF is just a useless midpoint between APS-C and MF
>>2731211
The front dial looks pretty cool. But i don't belive this is the actual X-Pro 2 design
>>2731211
Just insert it directly into me. My penis is ready.
beautiful. This will probably be my first digital camera.
>>2731216
It is. A photo of the back of a real one was leaked last week, and a sketch that matches this was leaked prior to that. This looks like your standard Fuji product render.
it has an ISO dial integrated into the shutter speed dial, like most film SLRs.
>>2731222
Leaked image of a real one
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 900 Image Height 900
>>2731215
aps-c is just a useless midpoint between m4/3 and full frame.
checkmate, atheists.
>>2731211
>slanted top plate for slanted eyes
>>2731269
APS-C can benefit from a much broader range of vintage and adapted lenses than M4/3 due to both its smaller crop factor (needing less sharp lenses for the same result) and its generally thinner sensor stack.
Checkmate, deists.
>>2731280
who cares about adapting lenses?
>>2731288
More people than care about your thoughts on the matter. :^)
>>2731297
There's no huge different from m4/3 to aps-c.
>>2731308
But why would Fuji go to fullframe if they have superior APS-C?
>>2731314
Because full frame is superior.
>>2731288
All my lenses are adapted to Fuji.
You are not the world.
>>2731319
>superior
You spelled, expensive, large, and NEGLIGIBLE wrong
>>2731323
spotted the sour grapes.
>>2731211
It's a good looking camera to be sure. Are the specs confirmed at this point? I'd imagine it'd be APS-C in order to use the existing lens catalog, but surely the sensor has to be 20mp+, right?
>>2731347
how large are you expecting to print that you need more than 20mp?
>2016
>still APS-C
wew what a technologic leap. fuji confirmed for milking their pleb users to the ground once more.
>>2731350
24mp are minimum for my facebook posts.
>>2731354
just get a good lens without terrible CA and you can upscale your 16mp to a passable 42mp :^)
sendspace.com/file/ihrr7q
>>2731322
Neither are poorfags. ;)
>>2731357
in what application is this passable
What's the little window in the middle?
>>2731367
AF light in rangefinder optic.
>>2731211
Nifty. I like it.
>>2731359
are you saying APS-C is indistinguishable from full frame?
>>2731375
I'm saying you're shitposting in order to get a discussion going that is absolutely irrelevant here.
>>2731375
I will take two photos from the same place, with equivalent lenses, and process both, five times. I will post the results. If you can tell which is full frame and which is crop, three out of five times, I will send you $10. If you can't, you have to send me $50. You in?
>>2731375
in normal lighting conditions with equivalent lenses, yeah
>>2731379
>you're shitposting in order to get a discussion going that is absolutely irrelevant here.
are you saying gearfag threads are desired here?
>>2731399
do it. however dont process both. upload untreated photos. thats a fair comparison.
>>2731404
you say a way bigger sensor coverage render the same colors and image quality in the same frame? im pretty sure you wouldnt say a cellphone sensor gives you the same as APS-C in similar conditions.
>>2731425
>do it. however dont process both. upload untreated photos. thats a fair comparison.
Why would that be a fair comparison? Do you frequently present photos that are unprocessed? Final result is literally all that maters in photography.
>>2731425
almost cute how you're trying to trigger.
I'm saying you can post your FF/APS-C discussion evoking posts wherever you want, but I see no sense in discussing it here. Also, I'm saying you're posting these deliberately in order to derail the thread into some stupid and never ending discussion which is not worth it.
However, some obviously think it's worth it, so go and do your thing.
>>2731439
>Why would that be a fair comparison?
because the guy said he wants to prove they look the same. of course you can get a generic p&s and a 5DMKiii photo and run them with the same shitty filter and claim "they are the same lol". hes already biased.
untouched file or nothing.
>>2731443
>cute
retard.
so this tripfag comes and posts about the new fuji marvel and its the same small sensor technology in fucking 2016, and am i not allowed to call that out? i think it fits the thread right away. unless your sense of "on topic" is equal to circlejerk hugbox.
>>2731463
>retard
Petulant whelp
>>2731463
only one is APS-C, go for it kid.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:29 02:08:58 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 1331
>>2731269
m4/3 is just a useless midpoint between 1 inch and APS-C
checkmate, muslims
>>2731479
Top is OOC jpeg, bottom unaltered raw export from LR (Adobe Standard Profile as to no changes at all).
>>2731220
ugh that placement of the on/off button. I always turn my xpro1 on by accident.
>>2731463
>of course you can get a generic p&s and a 5DMKiii photo and run them with the same shitty filter and claim "they are the same lol".
If you can get them to look the same, then how are they not the same? If you can't tell which is which after processing, then why complain about APS-C?
>>2731564
so you cannot tell the difference at posting size?
How large do you usually print and what's the resolution of your monitor?
>>2731564
>making them equally shitty is not a desired outcome. what a retard.
So you made up a dumb argument, and then shot it down... straw men don't hit back. Where did anyone but you say something about making an image shitty?
>>2731564
>hey faggot, as i said, untouched file without resize or pp, or nothing. fag ass.
So what you're saying is, you can't tell.
So you really upload photos in full resolution or hand them to clients or whatever you do with your shots?
3000px on the long side.. sufficient for printing those at 90x60cm and enough to fill any HD monitor.
Which one is APS-C and why?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:29 03:41:26 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3000 Image Height 3993
>>2731577
bottom is FF because bokeh you tard
>>2731468
So, J.
Is the the camera for me?
>>2731579
both shot with zoom lenses, which might explain the bokeh... bad CA in bottom photo.
maybe this help a little..
top and bottom according to >>2731479
>>2731375
No, APS-C is better because the pixel size is smaller. That is why anyone professional who actually has to shoot anything demanding use DX bodies with their massive superteles. "Muh non-crop factor"... NEGLIGIBLE
>>2731579
lol what is not shooting wide open or at a wider angle?
you tard
>>2731215
You know that's not true. Medium Format is prohibitively expensive and really bad bang for the buck.
Fujifilm really ought to join Sony and Leica in the FF mirrorless groups. Leica is sort of irrelevant due to their pricing, so another real and affordable competitor would be a good thing.
>>2731479
Bottom! Bottom is APS-C.
That's what I choose.
>>2731323
>large
Be careful with that. There are 3 Full Frame cameras that are smaller than even the X100S and the X-pro1 and other APS-C cameras.
>>2731632
Don't forget lenses
>>2731632
More than that...
A7
A7II
A7R
A7RII
A7S
A7SII
Non-interchangeable
RX7
RX7II
>>2731668
Those are all bigger than an x100/s/t.
>>2731670
He is wrong, but the RX1, RX1R, and RX1Rii are smaller.
>>2731674
That's for the most part. But in the case the lenses are smaller than the body, so it wouldn't matter.
>>2731670
The A7 Mk1 bodies are actually equally wide, and a fair bit thinner. The frame height is actually lower, it's just that the viewfinder prism hump is much higher (the rest of the top plate is lower). Regardless,
>even the X100S and the X-pro1
all versions are noticably smaller than the X-Pro1. All Leica M models are also smaller than X-Pro1, if only be a little bit.
If you're comparring non-interchangable with non-interchangable, the RX1/etc is indeed smaller than the x100 (although the lens extends a tad further).
>>2731676
What?
Look at photos. The RX1 is a little narrower side to side, and dramatically fatter and longer in the lens.
>>2731680
>a tad further
I think you mean almost double.
>>2731681
You're at the point where you're arguing about volume.
The RX1 series would still be smaller on that metric.
>>2731685
I'm arguing about which is smaller to hold. Losing a quarter inch side to side doesn't make up for gaining that enormous lens, which is about three times the size of the one on the X100. I've owned both. The X100 feels much smaller.
>>2731683
17mm / 32%, not really double.
Regardless, this whole thing is retarded, if 17mm makes or breaks it for you, or is enough of a difference that you want to keep using the "FF = bigger" argument, you're just retarded.
>>2731687
x100 is 9mm taller, and 13mm wider. The lens is only 17mm longer. The RX1 is significantly smaller overall.
>>2731690
No Anon. The larger body on the X100 is too much deficit for the lens to make up for it.
>>2731693
see pic related 1/2
>>2731690
>comparing ILC with FLC
>>2731693
Don't forget lens girth.
>arguing size against RX1
Are you guys insane? That thing was engineered to be small. That's its entire reason to exist.
For fuck's sake, there are micro 4/3 cameras that are larger than that thing.
Fucking classic /p/. We move away from a camera rumor and into which two arbitrarily similar cameras are smaller in the hand. And even if that metric mattered at all, no one will win or lose or change their mind.
>>2731703
I didn't meant to have it end this way, I just wanted to point out that APS-C doesn't always mean smaller ;_;
>>2731215
Because half frame and smaller than 645 medium format really took off before, right?
Such pleb.
Also, ricohbros thread is a testament to how awful 1600 iso is on aps-c, whereas its actually usable on full frame.
You really hate hearing how much everything you own is shit don't you.
>>2731721
>Also, ricohbros thread is a testament to how awful 1600 iso is on aps-c, whereas its actually usable on full frame.
6400 on the xpro1 seems fine to me
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2731729
wrong file, that was 12800ish pushed from 6400
>>2731730
native ISO is 200. what isn't pushed?
>>2731350
can we stop perpetuating the falsehood that pixel count is only for print size? smaller pixels in greater numbers offers finer detail and sharper edges.
exercise: draw a straight line using a 4x4 grid of pixels, now draw a straight line using a 32x32 pixels, which of those things actually looks like a line?
>>2731766
That's a false analogy. A better one would be: draw a line at 100x100 pixels and one at 150x150. Resize both to 25x25 pixels. Which one looks better?
>>2731769
even with the resize i think your 25x25 approximation Could still be better when you have the more resolved base image.
>>2731479
Bottom is APS-C. Top is NEGLIGIBLE.
>>2731766
apart from the fact that I did not only focus on printing size, but also asked for the monitor resolution, what do you take photos for - pixelpeeping? Photos are taken to be looked at either printed on on some monitor/screen.
>>2731786
so, what exactly is "NEGLIGIBLE" about the top one?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D90 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 738 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:29 11:50:13 Exposure Time 1/1250 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 300.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2731700
The smart car was engineered to be small. The whole point of the car is that it's so small, so it's smaller than the RX1.
>>2731721
>Also, ricohbros thread is a testament to how awful 1600 iso is on aps-c, whereas its actually usable on full frame.
Hahaha could you know less about what you're talking about? I'm not sure!
>>2731762
Please describe in even MINOR detail how a base ISO of 200 is something to even mention, when it's a perfectly clean image, even without noise reduction of any kind? Especially on a camera that offers shutter speeds of 1/32000?
>>2731820
https://youtu.be/PHYidejT3KY
FF vs crop is NEGLIGIBLE
>>2731872
Angry Photographer pls go.
Alternatively: Angry Photographer fan pls go.
>>2731877
>I don't like what you're saying, because of some strange internal bias and my own inability to be self aware, however, I can't seem to find any convincing or factual way to refute it... I'll merely downplay your comment, or simply dismiss it without support, hoping nobody will notice, and someone will still think I'm intelligent maybe...
-Translated by Bing!
>>2731886
>>I don't like what you're saying, because of some strange internal bias and my own inability to be self aware, however, I can't seem to find any convincing or factual way to refute it... I'll merely downplay your comment, or simply dismiss it without support, hoping nobody will notice, and someone will still think I'm intelligent maybe...
>-Translated by Bing!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2015-12-29T16:37:30 Flash No Flash Function Image Width 1277 Image Height 985
>>2731889
So anyone who uses fuji, or doesn't shill for full frame is Zach Arias? Much like anyone who doesn't like Moopco is isi?
So what do we actually know about the camera?
Are we getting a new sensor or same old?
I assume it will feature wifi as the rest of the modern fujis.
Most importantly though, what do we know about the looksie-looksie? The good old peep-window?
>>2731897
oh also, how will it handle manual focus? because i can't stand autofocus.
>>2731899
Pretty much every mirrorless camera handles manual focus excellently, but Fujis at least offer focus peaking, split image, and zoom, which are all great. Can only assume that the XPro2 will be at least as good as what is offered with the X-T1/0, and X100t
>>2731897
It's essentially the X100t viewfinder
if it's "weather resistant" i'll get 2 on the launch day.
>>2731952
but only 6 out of the 60 X-mount lenses are WR
and only 2 out of those 6 would be doable on the xpro style camera
you presumably are aware of this, right?
>>2732011
Can't you adapt WR lenses to the X-mount?
![XF35mm-F2-3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uRMFn6S.jpg "XF35mm-F2-3[1].jpg")
>>2732011
All i want is pick related on a wr xpro2.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D800 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Photographer DAVE KAI PIPER Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 904 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 105 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:21 00:15:08 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/3.3 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/3.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 105.00 mm Comment www.ideasandimages.co.uk Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2732011
>and only 2 out of those 6 would be doable on the xpro style camera
YOU are aware of the EVF feature, presumably, yes?
>>2732013
no
>>2732015
this is one of the two
it's sweet
have it glued to the x-t1 for all but nighttime usage
>>2732018
yes i know of the evf
but you don't buy an xpro/rangefinder style camera to use a massive fucking zoom on it like the 50-140mmWR
you buy it for the primes and so far that limits you to the 16mm and the new 35mm like >>2732015 wants
And even then the 16mm may be too fat and obscure the ovf.
if you want more than these two WR primes, then hold out for the x-t2 and pass on the xpro2, at least for the moment until fuji hopefully comes out with some more smaller WR primes.
>>2732023
Or you buy one camera, and all the lenses you need, since your camera can happily use all of them... ?? Someone who shoots street and fashioin portraits would be perfectly happy with a 35 or 23 on it in OVF, and then switching to EVF for more serious studio style shooting.
Just because YOU have a specific way of buying things doesn't mean you are everyone.
>>2732029
>Just because YOU have a specific way of buying things doesn't mean you are everyone.
it was just, like, my opinion man
no need to stress your ass over it
>>2732035
It isn't presented like an opinion. Notice how it doesn't say "When I do it" or "In my opinion" it says "you don't do X. You do Y" as if someone else is wrong, and you are doing it the established correct way.
oh, hey.. just for those who thought the upper one might be FF: It's actually a 4/3 sensor from 2007.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-410 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 300 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:29 04:08:52 Exposure Time 1/13 sec F-Number f/14.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/14.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 150.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2732201
It's just a matter of time before smartphones kill m4/3.
>>2732201
The clipped highlights were a dead giveaway. ;)
>>2731276
it is a japanese camela
>>2732201
wow you sure tricked us all looooooooool
>>2732054
holy shit this autism
anymore pics of the cam?
>>2731214
NEGLIGIBLE
>>2732463
I'd rather see photos made BY the cam.
>>2732612
sure is reddit in here.
>>2732622
No, it's a photography board in here... go to /g/ to look at equipment.
>>2731730
looks like shit tho
Looks decent enough
>>2733079
does it?
can someone explain me why there's a new 35mm lens with f2 when the f1,4 allready exists ?
>>2731497
same here...whenever i pull it out my bag it's on sometimes lol
>>2733111
no he's autistic
>>2734650
F2 is smaller and weather resistant. Just another flavor to take your money.
>>2734662
also, better image quality, better AF, quieter, etc.
is it maybe that fuji hopes to spam more n more apsc which is getting on a pro level and then bring out a full frame just to mess up with the prices or what could be the reason not to have a FF x-pro or x-t ???
>leica does it
>leica is overpriced
>sony does it
>sony sells good
fuji....fuck fuji
>>2736308
You want to try that again with maybe, like, a shift key, or some punctuation, or proof reading? Or something?
Fuji has no interest in a full frame camera. Their lenses don't support it, their style would be harmed by it, and most of their customers realize they don't need it. If they did release it, their current customer base would be pissed.
>sony sells good
You might want to check those sales figures again.
>>2736313
u sound like trump.... why would it be bad ? why would a fuji dick riding as iam myself community not want a FullFrame after they pay max prices for a apsc possibly get ?
buy bigger better lenses for FF and bring out "little cousin apsc x100 abcdefg" out
they can obviously make x-pans, lenses for 6x9 cameras and their own medium formats
but 10 years later the hippster community would be pissed off if they went back to normal sensor size ?
but you're right on the lenses....they do a good job...24mm 35mm etc
>>2736317
I can't even figure out what you're trying to say, man I'm sorry.
Fuji full frame ILC would be bad right now because their loyal customers have spent upwards of many thousands of dollars on their "pro line" APS-C offerings, such as their 16-55 and 50-140, 90mm, and 56mm lenses, that wouldn't work on a full frame body.
To get into full frame, they would have to sell that equipment, which would be worth a lot less once the full frame camera was announced. After years of fuji saying "you can buy into our APS-C line, we see no reason to make full frame, and have no plans to change that" it would be a punch in the gut to the loyal customer base they've built.
>>2736321
yeah i know, that's the biggest problem...not that iam unhappy with my xpro, matterfact i own the 35mm lens only lol but but but but i'd love to own a digi FF too in the style of a RF fuji maybe ? anyways....the lenses are top i love them !
>>2731730
>hey guys I masked my ISO 6400 noise in a predominantly blue scene where you won't see how atrocious it actually is
>>2731211
looks to shitty digital when they should have gone more analog like the x pro 1 unless it's a 24mp with 3mp EVF no buy
>>2737321
dafuq?
more analog like xp1? its nearly the same external controls and viewfinder..??
>>2737745
there are distinct differences like the angled chassis around the shutter speed dial and the generally edgier shape of the camera.
>>2738638
ah yes, the age-old dichotomy
angles = digital
hard corners = analog
>>2738638
The xpro1 is equally slanted...
