Xpro3 observations
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #1
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
Xpro3 observations

I went to the store and tried out the Xpro3. First off I was surprised how light the camera is - guess that's from building it out of titanium. Interestingly my Fuji TX2 (Xpan) is also made from Ti but is much heavier.
I have to be honest, I found the mf using the optical finder very disappointing. Nothing happens to the main view when you focus, not even the focus patch square (which you can move around). All focus tools are in the little evf box in the bottom right corner, so you are staring at that instead of looking at the scene.
If I'm going to use evf to manual focus, then actually I would use this camera in the EVF mode for manual focus where it is great. Just like any other EVF camera really. I would only use the optical vf with an AF lens, where you are not concentrating on a little patch in the bottom right corner.
However the optical vf is disappointing in the fact the frame lines are so small. There is so much open unused space around it, not sure why they can't be (much) bigger?
So, for my use, this is a nice EVF camera. And in no way an RF camera like a Leica M. Unless I missed something which maybe I did as I played with it for about 15 mins..
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #2
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,379
The way to focus in erf mode without watching the patch is to turn on focus peaking and set it to red. Shoot raw and put the camera in monochrome mode. Zoom in the erf patch by pressing the rear command dial. Now when you are manually focusing watch the ovf and use peripheral vision to look for red in the bottom corner. When that happens you are in focus.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #3
ranger9
Registered User
 
ranger9 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 57
Manual focusing with the optical viewfinder is a bit odd, although conceptually it's not much different from using a Leica II through IIIg with the separate rangefinder and viewfinder windows. Personally (on the X-Pro 2) I find it easier to switch briefly to the EVF for focusing -- it takes only a quick push on the front lever -- and then back to the OVF.

In my opinion the frameline issue is a bigger one, and it's directly caused by the fact that Fujifilm chose to dumb down the finder's optical system. On the X-Pro 1 and 2, the finder has dual magnifications (0.2x and 0.6x, if I remember correctly) and switches automatically between them based on the lens mounted (although you can also override this if you want.) The 0.2x magnification makes it possible to show a finder frame for the 16mm lenses, and the 0.6x magnification gives a (barely) large enough image size to use the 56mm and 90mm lenses somewhat confidently.

On the X-Pro 3, Fuji has taken the retrograde step of switching to a single viewfinder magnification (0.52x.) This gives the worst of both worlds: lenses wider than the 23mm can't be used with the optical finder at all, and the 56 and 90 get a dinkier, harder-to-compose image.

Thom Hogan has speculated that Fuji believes most X-Pro users like having the optical finder, but actually use the electronic finder almost all the time; if that's your profile, it makes sense to compromise the optical finder to help hold down costs, while amping up the electronic finder. However, I use my optical finder a lot, and that's the main reason I'm going to be sticking with the X-Pro 2 instead of up/downgrading to the X-Pro 3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #4
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
The way to focus in erf mode without watching the patch is to turn on focus peaking and set it to red. Shoot raw and put the camera in monochrome mode. Zoom in the erf patch by pressing the rear command dial. Now when you are manually focusing watch the ovf and use peripheral vision to look for red in the bottom corner. When that happens you are in focus.

Shawn
Wow, that's even worse than I thought!

Yep, people are definitely kidding themselves if they think this is a substitute to a real RF kamera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #5
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
I think the optical finder is ok when using AF, but let down by the tiny frame lines.
This camera is a hard pass for me as it could be so much better, and it is strange that it isn't.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #6
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Wow, that's even worse than I thought!

Yep, people are definitely kidding themselves if they think this is a substitute to a real RF kamera.
Not much different than looking for a focus confirm light on a DSLR except that you are also seeing a zoomed in focus point too. Try it, you might be surprised how well it works. I used to shoot my Nikon 105mm 2.5 with the OVF that way.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #7
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
Not much different than looking for a focus confirm light on a DSLR except that you are also seeing a zoomed in focus point too. Try it, you might be surprised how well it works. I used to shoot my Nikon 105mm 2.5 with the OVF that way.

Shawn

Not really. With a DSLR you can use the entire focus screen to get focus, and use the focus confirm light to pin point. With my D850, the manual focus screen was really accurate so I often did not even need to use the confirm dot.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #8
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
 
Canyongazer's Avatar
 
Canyongazer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 534
A few years ago I decided to give the X Pro 2 a try.
Now I own two of 'em.
Happy and done.
__________________

Bunch of Nikon and Fuji X digital stuff
introspection.zenfolio.com

  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #9
Ccoppola82
Registered User
 
Ccoppola82 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 403
When they announced the Frameline disaster I knew I wouldn’t even think about this camera. The Xpro2 is nice and fun to shoot. I can shoot down to 16mm with the ovf with minor guesswork and the 18mm works very well on it. I cannot understand why you would want to kill the OVF in a camera who’s main feature is in fact....the OVF. Just some very bizarre choices made on this one. Perhaps a result of the xpro2 being so nearly perfect that they needed to really reach, so ended up being different for the sake of difference rather than common sense.
__________________
Leica M2/M6
Hasselblad 500CM

Instagram
Coppola_Art
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #10
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,982
I handled it as well. Little bit big camera for its small sensor and no IBIS. OVF has economy glass feel in it, just like in x100 series.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #11
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Wow, that's even worse than I thought!

Yep, people are definitely kidding themselves if they think this is a substitute to a real RF kamera.
They definitely are, but they would have been misinformed to get to that idea.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #12
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
However the optical vf is disappointing in the fact the frame lines are so small. There is so much open unused space around it, not sure why they can't be (much) bigger?
Which lens did you try it with? With a 23mm or 35mm lens the framelines should be big (in the case of 23 it should fill the finder). The removal of the dual magnification setup is somewhat counteracted by the fact that they made the actual optical viewfinder quite a bit bigger than the X-pro2 - so with 23 and 35mm lenses it's noticeably bigger.

I'm pretty much exclusively a 35mm equivalent shooter, so for me it's an ideal OVF setup, however I'm a bit mad I can't use OVF with wider lenses. The x-pro line has never been an MF specific camera OR a leica replacement. I kind of see it as a modernised Contax G and if you use it like that it's superb.

Manual focus on non-leica digital bodies sucks in general. I've gone through several cameras trying to adapt them to be MF friendly and they've all been awful. The EVF with fuji's split screen or peaking assist is the best I've found but it still sucks compared to an optical rangefinder.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #13
jjcha
Registered User
 
jjcha is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger9 View Post
Thom Hogan has speculated that Fuji believes most X-Pro users like having the optical finder, but actually use the electronic finder almost all the time
Everyone I know who has a X-Pro or X100 tells me they really mainly use the EVF. So there is something to this theory. Which sucks for guys like us who actually use the OVF a lot.

I think if you shoot 28mm equivalent (i.e., 18mm in crop terms), you could go ahead and fudge the whole viewfinder thing with 35mm framelines.

But with 24mm equivalent (i.e., the 16mm crop lenses, which is the focal length that Fujifilm seems to advance over 18mm in its X-series lenses) trying to use the whole viewfinder as a proxy on a X-Pro 3 seems a bit of a stretch.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #14
jjcha
Registered User
 
jjcha is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
Manual focus on non-leica digital bodies sucks in general. I've gone through several cameras trying to adapt them to be MF friendly and they've all been awful. The EVF with fuji's split screen or peaking assist is the best I've found but it still sucks compared to an optical rangefinder.
Totally agree. To Fuji's credit, the digital distance scale they provide, as well as manual clutch lenses, are better than nothing. But man, they don't make the experience actually good, for a street shooter.

For zone focusing street shooters like me, I just don't understand why they don't allow you to map the manual focus ring to one of the gazillion dials they have on their X cameras.

Having precise clicks I can have confidence in (e.g., each click equals, I dunno, moving focus by 0.5 meters) instead of that mushy ring on my X100F would be so much better. I get it, there's an issue due to the need to accommodate macro focusing, but that can also be solved in the software!
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #15
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjcha View Post
Everyone I know who has a X-Pro or X100 tells me they really mainly use the EVF. So there is something to this theory. Which sucks for guys like us who actually use the OVF a lot.
Count me as one of the predominantly OVF users, almost strictly, even for paid work if possible. Strongly prefer optical finder with framelines over EVF.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #16
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
Which lens did you try it with? With a 23mm or 35mm lens the framelines should be big (in the case of 23 it should fill the finder). The removal of the dual magnification setup is somewhat counteracted by the fact that they made the actual optical viewfinder quite a bit bigger than the X-pro2 - so with 23 and 35mm lenses it's noticeably bigger.
35 and it is not big. Surprisingly small actually.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #17
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavinlg View Post
Manual focus on non-leica digital bodies sucks in general. ...
I have same experience adapting MF lenses on Sony mirrorless bodies. sometimes focusing aid wont pick up obvious contrast borders in scene, leaving me focusing back and forth and unsure do I have focus or not. this is time consuming and frustrating, so decided not to fiddle with them anymore.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #18
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
35 and it is not big. Surprisingly small actually.
ahh true, just the 23mm frame that's bigger -

23mm frame comparison

35mm frame comparison
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #19
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyongazer View Post
A few years ago I decided to give the X Pro 2 a try.
Now I own two of 'em.
Happy and done.
I have three.

And three XPro1's as well.

The new XP3 does not appeal to me at all.

The previous models were great cameras and the Fujinon lenses are so good I see no reason to adapt and try to use anything else. I cannot imagine fiddling with a manual focus lens on those cameras. The ERF is useless to me. They're not rangefinders although some people call them that because of the design.

And I almost always use the OVF. EVFs kinda suck, really. Try shooting in bright high contrast daylight.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #20
JohnBeeching
Registered User
 
JohnBeeching's Avatar
 
JohnBeeching is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 75
Hi,
Some interesting comments. I came to Fuji from having used Leica film Ms for many years and now have an X-Pro2 and X100T. While there were a few things that I initially found frustrating, like not being able to glance down at the lens and see what distance the camera was focussed on, I am now very happy with them and use them intuitively. I use the OVF most of the time and only resort to the EVF when necessary. The cameras are set to manual and I use back-button focusing exclusively if I want precision, or zone focusing with wide lenses on the street. I am happy with the cameras that I have and would not consider the X-Pro3 because I could no longer use the lovely 28mm with its OVF.

A couple of examples:
X100T
Touchingly blue by John Beeching, on Flickr

X-Pro with 18mm
Tired eyes? by John Beeching, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #21
helenhill
mod chasing light
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 5,677
When the Xpro 3 came out I tried it
In the hand , it felt rather cheap , plasticky and light... I am not into flip out lcd screens
The VF bright but not my cup of tea

I much prefer the X100F ... man oh man Beautiful B&W files , rich , vibrant and Acros is Stellar. If You can be happy with just 35 it’s a Winner !!
I would probably love the Xpro2, never tried it
__________________
Flickr.

________________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #22
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,175
Stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole Huss. You keep trying to find a camera that is better for manual focus lenses than a manual focus body. Stick to manual focus bodies and you won’t keep getting disappointed. I love how people think a company’s use of light metals equals plastic. Also, do you really expect a Leica level OVF in a sub $2000 camera in which the viewfinder houses 2 viewfinders? Stop expecting Leica build quality in cheaper cameras... it’s never going to happen.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #23
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,348
I anticipate the arrival of the X-E5.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #24
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole Huss. You keep trying to find a camera that is better for manual focus lenses than a manual focus body. Stick to manual focus bodies and you won’t keep getting disappointed. I love how people think a company’s use of light metals equals plastic. Also, do you really expect a Leica level OVF in a sub $2000 camera in which the viewfinder houses 2 viewfinders? Stop expecting Leica build quality in cheaper cameras... it’s never going to happen.
I just mentioned it as that is how it felt - and just in the weight. I did not say anything about plasticky etc. Helen mentioned that..
My concern was the use of the OVF and manual focusing. It is horrible, as well as the frame lines being tiny. It is an EVF camera for manual focusing. This camera works fine in OVF using AF, but you still are dealing with the tiny frame lines which is a step backwards by Fuji from the Xpro2.

I went to the store, tried out the camera, and gave my opinion instead of parroting what someone else heard on the web.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #25
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlich View Post
I anticipate the arrival of the X-E5.
I think the XE4 will come first...

That will make the most sense if you are into MF lenses, as the EVF is where it is at. The OVF on the Xpro3 is very kludgy for MF lenses, it needs to be in EVF mode so might as well get a camera that doesn't have an OVF.
Most probably will be 1/2 the price too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #26
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,784
It's a drag that Fuji customers prefer the EVF over the OVF on the X-Pro3. It's like they're picking the X-Pro instead of the X-T for the sake of style, and they don't really care for the benefits of reverse Galilean viewfinders at all.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #27
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
It's a drag that Fuji customers prefer the EVF over the OVF on the X-Pro3. It's like they're picking the X-Pro instead of the X-T for the sake of style, and they don't really care for the benefits of reverse Galilean viewfinders at all.
Fuji doesn't help matters by making the OVF worse than the previous model.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #28
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
It's a drag that Fuji customers prefer the EVF over the OVF on the X-Pro3. It's like they're picking the X-Pro instead of the X-T for the sake of style, and they don't really care for the benefits of reverse Galilean viewfinders at all.
I used my X-pro1 for a whole afternoon with the EVF and didn't notice...

As a dyed in the wool OVF kind of person I was kind of shocked. It definitely got me thinking I may look more closely at the X-T series...

Happily, the X-pro3 is a no-go due to the back screen and, now ironically, the reduced capabilities of the OVF.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #29
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
I just mentioned it as that is how it felt - and just in the weight. I did not say anything about plasticky etc. Helen mentioned that..
My concern was the use of the OVF and manual focusing. It is horrible, as well as the frame lines being tiny. It is an EVF camera for manual focusing. This camera works fine in OVF using AF, but you still are dealing with the tiny frame lines which is a step backwards by Fuji from the Xpro2.

I went to the store, tried out the camera, and gave my opinion instead of parroting what someone else heard on the web.
I know man. I know you always try... but i wonder why? They are all AF cameras with manual focus as a secondary concern. And to me, light is good...

I never said you were parroting anything...
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #30
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenhill View Post
Yes
I mentioned the Xpro3 felt light, plasticky, cheap in the hands
I never felt that way about the X100F...

holding the Xpro2, (never shot photos with the Xoro2)
That camera felt substantial, Good in the Hand, Pleasant to the Eye

I love Fuji cameras , more so the b&w. Acods simulation, and enjoy the pop in color
The X-Pro2 and X-pro3 black versions should feel the same. The titanium won’t for obvious reasons. That said, there is no plastic. The X100 does feel different due to the lens being partly inside the body.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #31
Philip Whiteman
Registered User
 
Philip Whiteman's Avatar
 
Philip Whiteman is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 192
The X-Pro2 is a delight, even more so at the run-out sale price it's now going for. I love my old film Leicas - and still use them - but for the digital stuff, including illustrations for the magazine I edit, the Fuji is first choice. I have long felt the X-Pro was the digital 'rangefinder' (yep; I know it's not) that Leica should have made. All credit to Fuji for producing such a brave and original design - in some ways the M3 of the digital era.

But I can only agree that doing away with the clever and useful dual-magnification viewfinder of the X-Pro1 and 2 seems to be a misstep on Fuji's part. Maybe they will come up with a '3W' or something, with a fixed low-magnification (i.e. wide angle) finder...
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #32
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I know man. I know you always try... but i wonder why? They are all AF cameras with manual focus as a secondary concern. And to me, light is good...

I never said you were parroting anything...
See the thing is a camera like a D850 actually works really really well if you use it as a MF DSLR. W/O even having to look at the in focus confirmation dots. Beautiful OVF. It also has excellent AF. I loved using mine with my Zeiss ZF or Nikon AIS lenses. I honestly regret trading it for a Z7 - I thought I'd be using that with a bunch of adapted lenses, but didn't bother as the Leica glass still works better on Leica bodies, but it is great (better than the D850) with Sigma Art lenses that I already have.
The D750 also was pretty good, but not as good as the D850.

Why check out the Fuji? Curiosity. Why not? I went in with an open mind and I think it is a neat camera IF you use it as an EVF camera. No issue with tiny frame lines. No issue with focussing with either MF or AF lenses.
But the OVF implementation is so poor - worse than the preceding Xpro2 - it makes me wonder why they did this. It is an EVF camera so what are you paying all the extra bux for? To pretend you have a Leica?
This really is Fuji's poseur camera. The XT30 has the same sensor and image quality for $800! You are paying almost $1000 more to play fake RF camera with the Xpro3.

Can someone explain to me why the Xpro2 has a better OVF than the new, more expensive, more 'advanced' Xpro3?
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #33
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss;
But the OVF implementation is so poor - worse than the preceding Xpro2 - it makes me wonder why they did this.
Now that the specs for the X100V are out, we see why. It is speculated that they are using the same VF as the X100V and that’s why it is optimized for 23mm. No doubt it is a disappointment for people who only like OVFs.

Quote:
It is an EVF camera so what are you paying all the extra bux for? To pretend you have a Leica?
This really is Fuji's poseur camera.
I guess I’m a poser then... because to me, it is still great and I prefer it to a Leica. It’s always been more of a Contax G than a Leica anyway.

Quote:
The XT30 has the same sensor and image quality for $800! You are paying almost $1000 more to play fake RF camera with the Xpro3.
Well, yeah... I will pay the extra for the RF shaped body with weather sealing and the ability to switch to OVF when I need it. It also focuses down to -6ev which the X-T30 can’t. Now, the X-T30 feels like plastic (it isn’t though) and it’s VF is tiny. Using the same logic you can say why bother with the X-T3 too.

Quote:
Can someone explain to me why the Xpro2 has a better OVF than the new, more expensive, more 'advanced' Xpro3?
Better in some ways and worse in others.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #34
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 606
Here’s my tuppence-worth….

In early January I traded in my 2016 X-Pro2 for the X-Pro3, and have been using it almost every day.

As a healthy sceptic about the ‘3’ when it was released, I had loan of one for day to appraise myself, and really enjoyed using it. So what sold me the camera?

A number of things:
As a wearer of varifocals, the EVF is easier to see than the ‘2’ (I rarely use the OVF so I’m not bothered by the loss of the dual magnification - but yes, I agree, a bad decision on Fuji’s part).
The AF is much faster.
The AF is usable at lower light levels.
The ‘3’ is more responsive than the ‘2’.
The viewfinder diopter adjustment is harder to move (the bane of my life on the ‘2’, I resorted to taping over it, mostly unsuccessfully).
The divisive, hidden LCD is neither here-nor-there with me as I rarely chimp, but I do like the fact that the screen is protected when closed, and unfolded I have the option of taking shots with touch focus. Also it is easier with the screen unfolded to 90 degrees to view a day’s shooting with the camera on a table.
Not a real biggie but battery life is better by about an hour in a day.

Downsides/criticisms?
Major one with me is the lack of an included battery charger. Done for penny-pinching, it means unless I shell out £45 for a separate charger, I can’t charge a battery and use the camera at the same time - and Fuji should supply a longer USB/C cable.
Titanium top and bottom covers. A gimmick in my opinion, making the camera more expensive - but there is a cheaper black paint version - still titanium though, I understand.
The charger port cover is pathetic, it should be hinged and lockable. I can see this being a weak link as it gets a lot of use.

So, I guess some are wondering why I didn’t just go with the X-T3? Simple: I don’t like centre viewfinders as found on SLRs, I love the viewfinder on the lefthand rear edge. For me, the weather-protected X-Pro3 just handles better and suits my needs better.
__________________
Brian

"Maintenant, mon ami !"
http://www.asingulareye.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #35
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjcha View Post
Everyone I know who has a X-Pro or X100 tells me they really mainly use the EVF. So there is something to this theory. Which sucks for guys like us who actually use the OVF a lot.
XP2 was almost always OVF except for macro work or using the 100-400. X100F is OVF unless I am using the digital teleconverter or Ricoh GW-4 on it. My full spectrum x100 I shoot with the EVF a bit more due to wanting to see what the lighting looks like through IR filters.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #36
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip Whiteman View Post
T
But I can only agree that doing away with the clever and useful dual-magnification viewfinder of the X-Pro1 and 2 seems to be a misstep on Fuji's part. Maybe they will come up with a '3W' or something, with a fixed low-magnification (i.e. wide angle) finder...
Would have been great if they went the other direction and added more magnification options. Wider and/or 1:1 for 50mm FOV would have been awesome.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #37
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,565
Huss asked, "Can someone explain to me why the Xpro2 has a better OVF than the new, more expensive, more 'advanced' Xpro3?"

I'll try but I haven't used an XP3 so I'm only going by what others have said about its OVF. As reported online the XP3 doesn't have two magnification ranges for the OVF, unlike the previous models. The magnification used seems to work okay for 23mm and longer lenses, maybe down to 18mm for some. The XP2 (and XP1) OVF could be used with the 16mm lenses and even for the 14mm if you don't mind not being able to see a large chunk of the image area due to lens blocking the finder. I'm not sure if the XP3 has frame lines for the 18mm lens or not. The XP1 and XP2 do.

Prior to the XPro models coming along I was frustrated with the lack of a viable AF alternative to the Leica M6's I had used when I was still shooting film. Digital Leicas were too damn expensive for me plus my eyesight was getting worse as I aged and the rangefinder patch was difficult to see well. I've since been diagnosed with age related macular degeneration so my vision is never going to be good again. I tried several EVF cameras, including other Fujis, but I never fell in love with them. I like OVFs. The Fuji models were the alternative for me to return to using a smaller, quieter and less in-your-face camera when needed. The lenses were excellent and the XPros handled close enough to the Leica for my use. I fell in love with them.

Instead of improving on a superbly designed and built camera, Fuji appears to me to have loaded it with a flippin' gimmick screen and removed a necessary feature. Anyone who doesn't want to use the rear screen could always turn it off--I always keep mine off except to review shots. But those who prefer the OVF for wider lenses no longer have that available. I don't consider this as being a more advanced camera at all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #38
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Atherton View Post
Here’s my tuppence-worth….

In early January I traded in my 2016 X-Pro2 for the X-Pro3, and have been using it almost every day.

As a healthy sceptic about the ‘3’ when it was released, I had loan of one for day to appraise myself, and really enjoyed using it. So what sold me the camera?

A number of things:
As a wearer of varifocals, the EVF is easier to see than the ‘2’ (I rarely use the OVF so I’m not bothered by the loss of the dual magnification - but yes, I agree, a bad decision on Fuji’s part).
The AF is much faster.
The AF is usable at lower light levels.
The ‘3’ is more responsive than the ‘2’.
The viewfinder diopter adjustment is harder to move (the bane of my life on the ‘2’, I resorted to taping over it, mostly unsuccessfully).
The divisive, hidden LCD is neither here-nor-there with me as I rarely chimp, but I do like the fact that the screen is protected when closed, and unfolded I have the option of taking shots with touch focus. Also it is easier with the screen unfolded to 90 degrees to view a day’s shooting with the camera on a table.
Not a real biggie but battery life is better by about an hour in a day.

Downsides/criticisms?
Major one with me is the lack of an included battery charger. Done for penny-pinching, it means unless I shell out £45 for a separate charger, I can’t charge a battery and use the camera at the same time - and Fuji should supply a longer USB/C cable.
Titanium top and bottom covers. A gimmick in my opinion, making the camera more expensive - but there is a cheaper black paint version - still titanium though, I understand.
The charger port cover is pathetic, it should be hinged and lockable. I can see this being a weak link as it gets a lot of use.

So, I guess some are wondering why I didn’t just go with the X-T3? Simple: I don’t like centre viewfinders as found on SLRs, I love the viewfinder on the lefthand rear edge. For me, the weather-protected X-Pro3 just handles better and suits my needs better.

So as you say you use it as an EVF camera. You like it because the VF is on the left side not the middle.
Completely fair points.
Then again an XE3 would have served those purposes too, and the upcoming XE4 should be better. I get liking one camera over an other purely because of design.

Looping back, my issue is with the OVF. EVF is fine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #39
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
Would have been great if they went the other direction and added more magnification options. Wider and/or 1:1 for 50mm FOV would have been awesome.

Shawn

This exactly. Maximize the OVF frame lines to the lens being used. That would have been so sweet and worth the premium.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #40
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Then again an XE3 would have served those purposes too, and the upcoming XE4 should be better.
They are great as well... but then the X-Pro has the weather sealing, build quality, EVF size, OVF (even if you hate it), higher shutter speed, higher flash sync, etc. I use both. I just prefer a viewfinder on the left.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:43.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.