I enjoy using my X-E3 but it's not the same experience as my X-Pro2 that I miss dearly. It's too small. I've decided to try and buy another one. I've shot with a number of Fuji bodies including the X100 line and the only camera that ever seemed to have a soul was the X-Pro2. Time to turn on buy and sell and create a "want to buy" post.
Nielk Mike wrote:
OVF is perfectly matched to the 35mm lens. But still, it seems that not many users are using the OVF on the X100 either. So the question Fuji needs to ask themselves is: Does it make sense to cut into my profits with an expensive part such as the HVF if there os only a small group actually using it (and missing it when it is gone).
HVF is OVF perhaps? (EDIT: I'm slow, but I just realized that you were using "HVF" to mean hybrid viewfinder.)
I agree with your assessment of Fujifilm’s conundrum here. (As I’ve written oh so many times.)
Today, with a bunch of other successful Fujifilm cameras in the price range in which a prospective XPro update would have to go and the fact that almost the entire photography world (brands, designs, users) has moved to mirrorless, I don’t think that it makes marketing/financial sense for Fujifilm to bring out another camera using the hybrid viewfinder that defined the previous XPro models.
Where would it fit in the lineup? The costs of producing the hybrid viewfinder are not trivial. I don’t know what they are, but because they involve optical/mechanical elements that would be used in only one camera model, they must be significant. So it can’t be an inexpensive, low end model.
My guess is is that it would have to cost more than the next version of the XT5. Take the XT model, add the hybrid viewfinder, and you end up increasing the production and sales costs. So perhaps in the range of the XH2 but without its higher burst rates and high end video features?
After years of various iterations of the X100, I sold all of them. I think that the magnificent EVF in the Sony A7Rv convinced me that the EVF was finally enjoyable to use. I’m ignoring the shortcoming of the Sony. What I never expected was for the industry to mostly ignore this level of performance and go back to EVFs that were available ten years ago, but with a better refresh rate…maybe.. So, maybe everyone has moved on and what an X-Pro brings to the market in 2026 might need to be more than an iteration from the past.
If Fuji reignites the X-Pro line, it will not likely have a HVF. As such, it will have to have the best --and possibly even larger-- EVF it can procure, along with IBIS. Then ideally it will also have an improved LCD that can be flipped and hidden or at the very least, least turned off. In fact these comments apply equally to any new XT or XH body they offer too. The current Fuji "small body" options are left seriously lacking in these regards, especially for more serious users.
Jack Flesher wrote:
If Fuji reignites the X-Pro line, it will not likely have a HVF. As such, it will have to have the best --and possibly even larger-- EVF it can procure, along with IBIS. Then ideally it will also have an improved LCD that can be flipped and hidden or at the very least, least turned off. In fact these comments apply equally to any new XT or XH body they offer too. The current Fuji "small body" options are left seriously lacking in these regards, especially for more serious users.
Perhaps inadvertently, your post reveals the problem with the XPro concept at this point. Let's say that Fujifilm equips it with the best EVF, with IBIS, the current higher-capacity battery, an optimized LCD... then, as you say, these things will also appear in the versions of the XT and XH2 (and others?) that come at the same time.
So we're left with a XPro that differs from the XT/XH2 models by...
gdanmitchell wrote:
Perhaps inadvertently, your post reveals the problem with the XPro concept at this point. Let's say that Fujifilm equips it with the best EVF, with IBIS, the current higher-capacity battery, an optimized LCD... then, as you say, these things will also appear in the versions of the XT and XH2 (and others?) that come at the same time.
So we're left with a XPro that differs from the XT/XH2 models by...
... the position of the viewfinder eyepiece?
Rangefinder style or SLR style make a huge difference in how a camera handles and "works". So even if the X-Pro was an X-T5 or X-H2 from the inside, it would have it is customer base. The question would be more with regard to the X-E line. Two rangefinder models, and with the X-E just being elevated, it would be difficult to justify the existence of both at the same time. Which is why I think that the X-E line will evolve into the X-EPro line.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Perhaps inadvertently, your post reveals the problem with the XPro concept at this point. Let's say that Fujifilm equips it with the best EVF, with IBIS, the current higher-capacity battery, an optimized LCD... then, as you say, these things will also appear in the versions of the XT and XH2 (and others?) that come at the same time.
So we're left with a XPro that differs from the XT/XH2 models by...
... the position of the viewfinder eyepiece?
The position of the eyepiece engenders a specific use style or ethic that the SLR copy body’s cannot replicate. So there is first that. Second, the outward appearance is simpler, more casual and less obtrusive. This can —and historically has— lead to being less noticeable and less concerning to potential subjects.
If Fuji makes it, and it has all these features plus the simpler PSAM + command-wheel interface, I will buy it.
The recent PetaPixel podcast (2025 mfg. score card), they mention the X-Pro is waiting for a new sensor to be relevant. I hope that is true, not because I have an issue with the 40mp but because the only way I would be interested in the X-Pro is if it is state of the art - sensor, EVF, AF, and small. If it simply matches the tech in the X-T5/X-H2, I'm staying with X-T5 and happy. I think Fuji is in a tough spot with that line, considering the slowing of new sensor tech.
Jack Flesher wrote:
The position of the eyepiece engenders a specific use style or ethic that the SLR copy body’s cannot replicate. So there is first that. Second, the outward appearance is simpler, more casual and less obtrusive. This can —and historically has— lead to being less noticeable and less concerning to potential subjects.
If Fuji makes it, and it has all these features plus the simpler PSAM + command-wheel interface, I will buy it.
I don't think that's true as a general principle although it might be for you personally.
I spent more than 50 years using Leica Ms and various SLRs, mainly Nikon, alongside each other. Which one I took out depended on what I was going to do. If it was technical or sport etc it had to be the SLR, as there's no macro and nothing longer longer than 135 for the M, let alone shift lenses etc. Even so there is considerable overlap and I did travel etc with both and even sport with the 135/2.8 on the M. The position of the eyepiece was dictated by the engineering and it didn't affect my 'style' or 'ethic' one bit. That was dictated by what work I was doing.
There's a lot more overlap with Fujis, I can use every lens I have on both Xpro2 and the Xts. The OVF mechanism dictates a corner viewfinder eyepiece but there is really no other reason why the viewfinder shouldn't be above the optical axis, a perfectly logical place for it, where it can be used with either eye equally conveniently. All the corner viewfinder EVF cameras from Fuji and Sony have poorer EVFs, possibly because of space limitations?
Will Fuji make an Xpro 4, or 5? Only their marketing dept knows. As long as they have a popular OVF camera in the X100 series the basic simplified OVF exists so the engineering is not a unique item to the Xpro, it's not as good as the dual mag one so I doubt I will buy another as long as my Xpro2 is still working, a better EVF won't compensate for the compromised OVF evident in the Xpro3.
Reading thru this and also seeing the new X-E5 and comparing it to the X-T5, XT50, and X-H2 which all have IBIS and 40 Mpixels my take away is hybrid viewfinder alone is not enough to justify a new X-Pro4. Of course I personally would love a new X-Pro body with a 5.76 Million dot EVF, a 3” Rear LCD that is greater than 2.32 Million dots with the tilt capability of the Sony A7RV. This so all its interfaces are the best for that size camera.
The problem is the APSC sensor which at 40 Mpixels is reaching its limits. You need to step up and go attack Leica and Sony’s 61 Mpixel full frame sensor or just tell people they should move on to the GFX100RF with lens interchangeable and live with its body size increase.
swldstn wrote:
Reading thru this and also seeing the new X-E5 and comparing it to the X-T5, XT50, and X-H2 which all have IBIS and 40 Mpixels my take away is hybrid viewfinder alone is not enough to justify a new X-Pro4. Of course I personally would love a new X-Pro body with a 5.76 Million dot EVF, a 3” Rear LCD that is greater than 2.32 Million dots with the tilt capability of the Sony A7RV. This so all its interfaces are the best for that size camera.
The problem is the APSC sensor which at 40 Mpixels is reaching its limits. You need to step up and go attack Leica and Sony’s 61 Mpixel full frame sensor or just tell people they should move on to the GFX100RF with lens interchangeable and live with its body size increase....Show more →
The next XPro may indeed be an interchangeable lens GFX100RFPro. This actually makes more sense than overpopulating the X line. 👍
Jack Flesher wrote:
If Fuji reignites the X-Pro line, it will not likely have a HVF. As such, it will have to have the best --and possibly even larger-- EVF it can procure, along with IBIS. Then ideally it will also have an improved LCD that can be flipped and hidden or at the very least, least turned off. In fact these comments apply equally to any new XT or XH body they offer too. The current Fuji "small body" options are left seriously lacking in these regards, especially for more serious users.
Yes, that reasoning would apply to other models too, and then, what's the point of a new X-Pro?
My thinking is the opposite – the HVF is the X-Pro lines entire raison d'être. If the 4 released today without one, and with technology and parts that exist today, I'd be an X-E5 with a screen that mutes, one way or another. Not much point to it.
I think Fujifilm are sincere when they say the Pro line isn't over. But it's clear that the Pro line is also in a unique position, and it's possible that the way forward isn't clear to them yet. Because there are a lot of ways they could go with it.
But the Pro also need to find its (perhaps niche) market, and if you move it into new territories, let's say with an OVF only, it also would have to attract people currently using other formats and brands to make sense. Also, I'm not sure they are willing to further diversify (in reality, diffuse) the entire X line of cameras that way.
I think with the 3, they made an X-Pro they always wanted, and were passionate about. I don't think the user feedback about the (polarizing) screen would have mattered much to them - the X-Pro isn't meant to be for everyone; it needs to stay true to its own DNA rather than serve the larger X line user base - but the technical issues likely have.
I can absolutely see why an X-Pro4 with just IBIS and the 40mp sensor isn't enough to bring to market. The X-Pro is almost like an outlier in the lineup that also need to make sense within the X line of cameras.
I think waiting for a radically new sensor tech, to debut in an X-Pro, makes sense for now.
twelveish wrote:
Yes, that reasoning would apply to other models too, and then, what's the point of a new X-Pro?
My thinking is the opposite – the HVF is the X-Pro lines entire raison d'être. If the 4 released today without one, and with technology and parts that exist today, I'd be an X-E5 with a screen that mutes, one way or another. Not much point to it.
I think Fujifilm are sincere when they say the Pro line isn't over. But it's clear that the Pro line is also in a unique position, and it's possible that the way forward isn't clear to them yet. Because there are a lot of ways they could go with it.
But the Pro also need to find its (perhaps niche) market, and if you move it into new territories, let's say with an OVF only, it also would have to attract people currently using other formats and brands to make sense. Also, I'm not sure they are willing to further diversify (in reality, diffuse) the entire X line of cameras that way.
I think with the 3, they made an X-Pro they always wanted, and were passionate about. I don't think the user feedback about the (polarizing) screen would have mattered much to them - the X-Pro isn't meant to be for everyone; it needs to stay true to its own DNA rather than serve the larger X line user base - but the technical issues likely have.
I can absolutely see why an X-Pro4 with just IBIS and the 40mp sensor isn't enough to bring to market. The X-Pro is almost like an outlier in the lineup that also need to make sense within the X line of cameras.
I think waiting for a radically new sensor tech, to debut in an X-Pro, makes sense for now. ...Show more →
"Radical new sensor tech" would find it is way pronto into the X-T and other Fuji cameras. So, again, the only difference would be the HVF. That is an expensive part and for Fuji to make enough profit, the MSP would need to be higher than in the past. I'd say at least 30% more than the X-E5. Which inches APS-C ever so close to FF prices. Who's gonna pay that?
Nielk Mike wrote:
So, again, the only difference would be the HVF.
True, but also true for X-Pro 1, 2 and 3 (you can mute the screen on X-S, X-H, X-T4 too, so not a unique feature in X-Pro3).
Nielk Mike wrote:
inches APS-C ever so close to FF prices. Who's gonna pay that?
True, but already true for the X-E5 and will be for X-T6 and others. The X-Pro was always more pricy than other X'es, right? But yeah, a new X-Pro would be very pricy, for sure.
I used a grey import vendor for my X-Pro3, or it would have been more than I was willing to pay for any APS-C. Still is.
The hybrid viewfinder is the point of the Xpro line, without that it's an Xe. Overlapping spec otherwise is 'usual' in Fuji, Xpro2, Xe2, Xt2 and Xh1 all had pretty much the same capabilities technically. Currently the Xh2 and Xt5 differ only in control layout and style. Logically a new Xpro (4 or 5?) would be an Xt5 with hybrid viewfinder, although he they would make the OVF work with IBIS would be interesting!
gyoung143 wrote:
The hybrid viewfinder is the point of the Xpro line, without that it's an Xe. Overlapping spec otherwise is 'usual' in Fuji, Xpro2, Xe2, Xt2 and Xh1 all had pretty much the same capabilities technically. Currently the Xh2 and Xt5 differ only in control layout and style. Logically a new Xpro (4 or 5?) would be an Xt5 with hybrid viewfinder, although he they would make the OVF work with IBIS would be interesting!
Gerry
The X-Pro w/o the OVF would still be an X-Pro. The way it handles, the built, the features. The X-E line is perfectly suited to develop into such a thing. Most people who post online say that they hardly use the OVF. Very few people seem to be as rigid as I am and use only selected lenses with the X-Pro because of the OVF.
I still wonder if the way forward for the XPro “successor,” rather than being the hybrid viewfinder camera that we are familiar with, is that “XE-Pro” concept that I’ve mentioned before.
If you are totally invested in the idea that a X-Pro successor must have the hybrid viewfinder, I get it — and there is a good chance that you’ll disagree with me.
But there is a marketable appeal from a rangefinder-style camera body — smaller, squared-off shape, w/o the large grip, with the viewfinder located near the edge of the body rather in the center over the lens, full manual controls, and so forth. And while the features of the rangefinder-style body appeal stylistically to a market that places great importance on such things, they also have practical appeal to photographers who prefer working with a smaller camera body, the viewfinder position that places the camera away from their other eye, the manual controls.
So, what if… both the “traditional” XE and X-Pro are going to merge? There’s an argument that, as much as we liked it, the old sub-$1000 XE appeals to the majority of buyers mainly (though not entirely) because of its low price and small size… and that Fujifilm can meet most of that demand with other models. So perhaps moving the XE price upwards and starting to market it as a sort of interchangeable lens X100(x) body starts to move the XE toward the X-Pro concept? Perhaps we might end up with a single camera where there used to be two, that thing I’ll call the XE-Pro for convenience.
Perhaps it is a bit larger than the XE, hopefully with the newer, higher capacity battery. Perhaps it even gets two SD card slots? (This isn’t a camera camera primarily designed for sports, wildlife, or movies, after all, so SD would be sufficient.) It gets the integrated ISO/shutter speed dial. It is equipped with plenty of assignable controls. It gets the joystick and d-pad. It gets the current state-of-the-art viewfinder and LCD displays. (It lets you turn off the LCD if you want no rear display, or it even offers partial use of the full LCD to mimic the little screen on the XPro3) It has the same AF performance and frame rates as the XT at least.
Unfortunately, I’m not an employee of the Fujifilm design department. Or maybe it is fortunate? ;-)
So to take a X-E5 and make it a XE-Pro or X-Pro4 for me besides the hybrid view finder it would have to be:
1. A EVF or what ever viewfinder with at least 5.67 Million dots
2. A Rear LCD screen with at least 2.3 Million dots
3. A four way rear screen like an A7RV
4. 40-60 Mpixel sensor with DR of a full frame sensor
5. Weather Resistant build
So all the features of the a Leica 11 or Q with interchangeable lens mount
If it’s not APSC and not Fuji GFX sensor size then lenses become a real problem
The Sony A7CR is missing 1, 2, and 3. The A7RV has all of these except #2.
gyoung143 wrote:
I don't think that's true as a general principle although it might be for you personally.
I spent more than 50 years using Leica Ms and various SLRs, mainly Nikon, alongside each other. Which one I took out depended on what I was going to do. If it was technical or sport etc it had to be the SLR, as there's no macro and nothing longer longer than 135 for the M, let alone shift lenses etc. Even so there is considerable overlap and I did travel etc with both and even sport with the 135/2.8 on the M. The position of the eyepiece was dictated by the engineering and it didn't affect my 'style' or 'ethic' one bit. That was dictated by what work I was doing.
There's a lot more overlap with Fujis, I can use every lens I have on both Xpro2 and the Xts. The OVF mechanism dictates a corner viewfinder eyepiece but there is really no other reason why the viewfinder shouldn't be above the optical axis, a perfectly logical place for it, where it can be used with either eye equally conveniently. All the corner viewfinder EVF cameras from Fuji and Sony have poorer EVFs, possibly because of space limitations?
Will Fuji make an Xpro 4, or 5? Only their marketing dept knows. As long as they have a popular OVF camera in the X100 series the basic simplified OVF exists so the engineering is not a unique item to the Xpro, it's not as good as the dual mag one so I doubt I will buy another as long as my Xpro2 is still working, a better EVF won't compensate for the compromised OVF evident in the Xpro3.
I spent 20 years with Canon and Nikon SLRs and DSLRs alongside Leica film and digital cameras, and I found it true for me. I am also 6-6 and 240 pounds, so I don’t often go unnoticed very easily; and it could have been some of that.
Re lens cross compatibility within Fuji X, absolutely a significant plus 👍
