X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
p.2 #1X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
Hard disagree. I have the XE5 now and it doesn't even feel close to the X-Pro3, which feels nice. I like the XE5 but it's awkward to handle.
Sep 10, 2026 at 02:13 PM
p.2 #2X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
Joseph. wrote:
Hard disagree. I have the XE5 now and it doesn't even feel close to the X-Pro3, which feels nice. I like the XE5 but it's awkward to handle.
X-E5 is bigger than previous X-Es. Not yet as big as the X-Pro, but almost. Put a grip on it and you are almost there. And why such a big and heavy body anyway? In terms of control layout - almost identical. Though the play button was moved on the X-E5 to the wrong place. And that ISO/Exposure combi dial of the X-Pro? I would much prefer the film sim dial to become a dedicated ISO dial.
Hard disagree. I have the XE5 now and it doesn't even feel close to the X-Pro3, which feels nice. I like the XE5 but it's awkward to handle.
X-E5 is bigger than previous X-Es. Not yet as big as the X-Pro, but almost. Put a grip on it and you are almost there. And why such a big and heavy body anyway? In terms of control layout - almost identical. Though the play button was moved on the X-E5 to the wrong place. And that ISO/Exposure combi dial of the X-Pro? I would much prefer the film sim dial to become a dedicated ISO dial.
Sep 11, 2026 at 01:04 AM
p.2 #3X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
I find the Xpro3 more comfortable and instead of the dead space of a grip you nicely placed dual card slots......but also, that screen and no IBIS
Sep 14, 2026 at 02:15 PM
p.2 #4X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
I actually just got used to the back screen after walking around with it enough times. I do find the lack of IBIS annoying though, but the X-Pro3 was made before they were able to minimize their IBIS mech enough. Hasn't stopped it from becoming one of my favorite walk around cameras though.
ottokbre wrote:
I find the Xpro3 more comfortable and instead of the dead space of a grip you nicely placed dual card slots......but also, that screen and no IBIS
ottokbre wrote:
I find the Xpro3 more comfortable and instead of the dead space of a grip you nicely placed dual card slots......but also, that screen and no IBIS
Sep 15, 2026 at 10:45 AM
p.2 #5X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
It is not quite to the X-Pro series but damn close. I would say 90%. I think what it needs in the X-E6 is weather-sealing and a larger viewfinder then I would say that is a X-Pro killer or replacement. I feel that the X-Pro2, which I have, is the best of the 3 and I still have a place for in my street shooting. I call it my Fuji Q2 because I pair it with my 18mm f2.
Sep 15, 2026 at 08:17 PM
p.2 #6X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
I liked my XPro2 a lot, and I shot the heck out of the thing for years — mostly street and travel. But after the debacle of the XPro3 (I was, to put it mildly, unimpressed, and did not get one) and a long wait for a successor that might correct the design issues on the XPro3…
… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would attract me to a XPro successor. It was a great option in its time, but that time has passed.
… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would attract me to a XPro successor. It was a great option in its time, but that time has passed.
Sep 15, 2026 at 10:11 PM
p.2 #7X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
gdanmitchell wrote:
I liked my XPro2 a lot, and I shot the heck out of the thing for years — mostly street and travel. But after the debacle of the XPro3 (I was, to put it mildly, unimpressed, and did not get one) and a long wait for a successor that might correct the design issues on the XPro3…
… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
Big and clunky, I agree. Even with just the 27mm the camera is quiet big and heavy. My favorite has long been the X-E3 because of its size. The X-E5 is a departure from that towards the X-Pro. Just hope it will not get to the same size - unless, of course, a brilliant EVF requires that space.
I liked my XPro2 a lot, and I shot the heck out of the thing for years — mostly street and travel. But after the debacle of the XPro3 (I was, to put it mildly, unimpressed, and did not get one) and a long wait for a successor that might correct the design issues on the XPro3…
… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
Big and clunky, I agree. Even with just the 27mm the camera is quiet big and heavy. My favorite has long been the X-E3 because of its size. The X-E5 is a departure from that towards the X-Pro. Just hope it will not get to the same size - unless, of course, a brilliant EVF requires that space.
Sep 16, 2026 at 02:30 AM
p.2 #8X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
Fuji X-E6 should get the EVF from the X-T5, while the X-T6 should get the EVF from the X-H2(S).
Sep 16, 2026 at 07:02 AM
p.2 #9X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
gdanmitchell wrote:
I liked my XPro2 a lot, and I shot the heck out of the thing for years — mostly street and travel. But after the debacle of the XPro3 (I was, to put it mildly, unimpressed, and did not get one) and a long wait for a successor that might correct the design issues on the XPro3…
… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would...Show more →
What's amazing about the XT line is, unlike a lot of SLR shaped cameras, they hang off a strap remarkably well. Especially if you remove the eye cup or have the small one on. I also prefer that big ISO dial over the inset one when I am working fast. The XT control layout has always been ideal for me.
Unfortunately for me the EVF positioning and small body make it less than idea for left eye shooting. I like that the Xpro has a fair bit more width too so that the VF extends over to the left eye without having my right palm in my face.
I liked my XPro2 a lot, and I shot the heck out of the thing for years — mostly street and travel. But after the debacle of the XPro3 (I was, to put it mildly, unimpressed, and did not get one) and a long wait for a successor that might correct the design issues on the XPro3…
… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would...Show more →
What's amazing about the XT line is, unlike a lot of SLR shaped cameras, they hang off a strap remarkably well. Especially if you remove the eye cup or have the small one on. I also prefer that big ISO dial over the inset one when I am working fast. The XT control layout has always been ideal for me.
Unfortunately for me the EVF positioning and small body make it less than idea for left eye shooting. I like that the Xpro has a fair bit more width too so that the VF extends over to the left eye without having my right palm in my face.
Sep 17, 2026 at 10:33 AM
p.2 #10X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
I had the X-E5, briefly, and ditched it precisely because it wasn't the X-Pro replacement I was hoping for. (And I have an X-T30II and R50 for when I want something lighter; I would have ditched them if the X-E5 had panned out, but it didn't.)
The EVF still isn't as comfortable for long sessions as an OVF (no EVF is, even my R5's), the 40mp sensor is overkill for what I use Fuji for (and negates some of the use of IBIS), and the 'film simulation' dial is awful - and I do use colour profiles and mostly shoot .jpg on all my smaller cameras. If it changed other image settings in addition to the colour profile then that would have some use, but the fact it only changes profile while leaving saturation, colour chrome, WB, etc all the same, makes it nothing but a hinderance. I accidentally moved it a couple of times and wondered why my files looked so wonky. The fact it can't be reassigned, or even just disabled, is a ridiculous oversight.
Then there's the position of the Q button. One of the most important buttons on the camera and it's clinging to the edge of the camera? There's so much blank space on the back! Or it could have stayed where it was on the E4!
And, compared to the X-Pro3 or any camera with a fully-articulated screen, not being able to hide the rear screen entirely is a bit annoying. That of course was to be expected, but on top of all the other problems, it sealed the E5's fate for me.
Word is there certainly will be another X-Pro, and I don't see any reason to doubt that. Of course it'll be more expensive and produced in smaller quantities, and I don't claim the X-Pro has ever been totally perfect, either, but the notion that the X-E series has or will become an outright replacement for the X-Pro is baseless, and, for my use and in my experience, misguided and inadequate.
The EVF still isn't as comfortable for long sessions as an OVF (no EVF is, even my R5's), the 40mp sensor is overkill for what I use Fuji for (and negates some of the use of IBIS), and the 'film simulation' dial is awful - and I do use colour profiles and mostly shoot .jpg on all my smaller cameras. If it changed other image settings in addition to the colour profile then that would have some use, but the fact it only changes profile while leaving saturation, colour chrome, WB, etc all the same, makes it nothing but a hinderance. I accidentally moved it a couple of times and wondered why my files looked so wonky. The fact it can't be reassigned, or even just disabled, is a ridiculous oversight.
Then there's the position of the Q button. One of the most important buttons on the camera and it's clinging to the edge of the camera? There's so much blank space on the back! Or it could have stayed where it was on the E4!
And, compared to the X-Pro3 or any camera with a fully-articulated screen, not being able to hide the rear screen entirely is a bit annoying. That of course was to be expected, but on top of all the other problems, it sealed the E5's fate for me.
Word is there certainly will be another X-Pro, and I don't see any reason to doubt that. Of course it'll be more expensive and produced in smaller quantities, and I don't claim the X-Pro has ever been totally perfect, either, but the notion that the X-E series has or will become an outright replacement for the X-Pro is baseless, and, for my use and in my experience, misguided and inadequate.
Sep 17, 2026 at 11:33 AM
|
p.2 #11X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
pressedbunny wrote:
I had the X-E5, briefly, and ditched it precisely because it wasn't the X-Pro replacement I was hoping for. (And I have an X-T30II and R50 for when I want something lighter; I would have ditched them if the X-E5 had panned out, but it didn't.)
The EVF still isn't as comfortable for long sessions as an OVF (no EVF is, even my R5's), the 40mp sensor is overkill for what I use Fuji for (and negates some of the use of IBIS), and the 'film simulation' dial is awful - and I do use colour profiles and mostly shoot .jpg...Show more →
So the position of the Q button and the sim dial make it not a successor to the X-Pro? You can turn the LCD off in the menu to only use the EVF.
The EVF is by far not perfect, in particular for users with eye glasses. But that can be improved in the next version.
It then comes down to the lack of an OVF. It is funny, but if you follow the X-Pro and X100 discussions in the fora, there are many folks plainly saying that the use the OVF almost not at all. And it really only works well with the 23/35/50 Fujicrons or the 23f2.8 and 27f2.8. The less than reliable AF further limits the usefulness of the OVF. So while the X-E5 may not be a perfect successor, it seems to me that it is a step towards the X-EPro.
I had the X-E5, briefly, and ditched it precisely because it wasn't the X-Pro replacement I was hoping for. (And I have an X-T30II and R50 for when I want something lighter; I would have ditched them if the X-E5 had panned out, but it didn't.)
The EVF still isn't as comfortable for long sessions as an OVF (no EVF is, even my R5's), the 40mp sensor is overkill for what I use Fuji for (and negates some of the use of IBIS), and the 'film simulation' dial is awful - and I do use colour profiles and mostly shoot .jpg...Show more →
So the position of the Q button and the sim dial make it not a successor to the X-Pro? You can turn the LCD off in the menu to only use the EVF.
The EVF is by far not perfect, in particular for users with eye glasses. But that can be improved in the next version.
It then comes down to the lack of an OVF. It is funny, but if you follow the X-Pro and X100 discussions in the fora, there are many folks plainly saying that the use the OVF almost not at all. And it really only works well with the 23/35/50 Fujicrons or the 23f2.8 and 27f2.8. The less than reliable AF further limits the usefulness of the OVF. So while the X-E5 may not be a perfect successor, it seems to me that it is a step towards the X-EPro.
Sep 17, 2026 at 12:51 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #12X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
The X-E5 is basically an X-Pro! But you know, in the next version, where it's better!
Sep 17, 2026 at 01:06 PM
p.2 #13X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
ottokbre wrote:
… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would attract me to a XPro successor. It was a great option in its time, but that time has passed.What's amazing about the XT line is, unlike a lot of SLR shaped cameras, they hang off a strap remarkably well. Especially if you remove the eye cup or have the small one on. I also prefer that big ISO dial over the inset one when I am working fast. The XT control layout has always been ideal for me.
Unfortunately for me the EVF positioning and small body make it less than idea for left eye shooting. I like that the Xpro has a fair bit more width too so that the VF extends over to the left eye without...Show more →
I admit to liking the viewfinder position of the XPro. But I don’t think of it at all when I use the XT5 at this point.
I’m surprised to hear a left-eye-dominant photographer like thing XPro2 eyepiece position on the left side of the body.
gdanmitchell wrote
I liked my XPro2 a lot, and I shot the heck out of the thing for years — mostly street and travel. But after the debacle of the XPro3 (I was, to put it mildly, unimpressed, and did not get one) and a long wait for a successor that might correct the design issues on the XPro3…… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would attract me to a XPro successor. It was a great option in its time, but that time has passed.
Unfortunately for me the EVF positioning and small body make it less than idea for left eye shooting. I like that the Xpro has a fair bit more width too so that the VF extends over to the left eye without...Show more →
I admit to liking the viewfinder position of the XPro. But I don’t think of it at all when I use the XT5 at this point.
I’m surprised to hear a left-eye-dominant photographer like thing XPro2 eyepiece position on the left side of the body.
Sep 17, 2026 at 01:43 PM
p.2 #14X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
gdanmitchell wrote:
… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would attract me to a XPro successor. It was a great option in its time, but that time has passed.What's amazing about the XT line is, unlike a lot of SLR shaped cameras, they hang off a strap remarkably well. Especially if you remove the eye cup or have the small one on. I also prefer that big ISO dial over the inset one when I am working fast. The XT control layout has always been ideal for me.
Unfortunately for me the EVF positioning and small body make it less than idea for left eye shooting. I like that the Xpro has a fair bit more width too so that the VF extends over to the left eye without having my right palm in my face.I admit to liking the viewfinder position of the XPro. But I don’t think of it at all when I use the XT5 at this point.
I’m surprised to hear a left-eye-dominant photographer like thing XPro2 eyepiece position on the left side of the body.
I have always used left eye for viewfinder. There is a book published in the 1950s, 'The Leica Book' (also in German edition 'Das Leica Buch'), by Theo Kisselbach, basically an extended Leica instruction manual. Amongst other things it recommends using left eye for viewfinder on the Ms as the steadier, as the camera body rests on the forehead, whereas if the right eye is used the camera is largely unsupported, in thin air.
It's all academic now, right eye is useless for such things thanks to Macular Degeneration.
Gerry
ottokbre wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I liked my XPro2 a lot, and I shot the heck out of the thing for years — mostly street and travel. But after the debacle of the XPro3 (I was, to put it mildly, unimpressed, and did not get one) and a long wait for a successor that might correct the design issues on the XPro3…… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would attract me to a XPro successor. It was a great option in its time, but that time has passed.
Unfortunately for me the EVF positioning and small body make it less than idea for left eye shooting. I like that the Xpro has a fair bit more width too so that the VF extends over to the left eye without having my right palm in my face.
I’m surprised to hear a left-eye-dominant photographer like thing XPro2 eyepiece position on the left side of the body.
I have always used left eye for viewfinder. There is a book published in the 1950s, 'The Leica Book' (also in German edition 'Das Leica Buch'), by Theo Kisselbach, basically an extended Leica instruction manual. Amongst other things it recommends using left eye for viewfinder on the Ms as the steadier, as the camera body rests on the forehead, whereas if the right eye is used the camera is largely unsupported, in thin air.
It's all academic now, right eye is useless for such things thanks to Macular Degeneration.
Gerry
Sep 17, 2026 at 02:12 PM
p.2 #15X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m surprised to hear a left-eye-dominant photographer like thing XPro2 eyepiece position on the left side of the body.
It something I never really thought of until I bought a Fuji X-E2 back in the day after years of shooting small Olympus OM film SLRs and huge Nikon DSLRs. The X-E was small, carried great on a strap, but still fit my gorilla hands. To demonstrate with the small X100F:
Rangefinder style VF placement gives me good operational space with my right hand.
Approximating an SLR style VF placement as on the X-T series my right hand thumb knuckle is jammed against my nose.
This isn't as much of an issue with my Nikon Z5 with it's grip and I had a brief fling with the X-H1 too. But I don't love to carry those around on a strap because they have a protruding EVF. If they travel with me they stay in the sling.
I really should just become a millennial back-screen shooter!
I’m surprised to hear a left-eye-dominant photographer like thing XPro2 eyepiece position on the left side of the body.
It something I never really thought of until I bought a Fuji X-E2 back in the day after years of shooting small Olympus OM film SLRs and huge Nikon DSLRs. The X-E was small, carried great on a strap, but still fit my gorilla hands. To demonstrate with the small X100F:
Rangefinder style VF placement gives me good operational space with my right hand.
Approximating an SLR style VF placement as on the X-T series my right hand thumb knuckle is jammed against my nose.
This isn't as much of an issue with my Nikon Z5 with it's grip and I had a brief fling with the X-H1 too. But I don't love to carry those around on a strap because they have a protruding EVF. If they travel with me they stay in the sling.
I really should just become a millennial back-screen shooter!
Sep 17, 2026 at 05:07 PM
p.2 #16X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
gyoung143 wrote:
… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would attract me to a XPro successor. It was a great option in its time, but that time has passed.What's amazing about the XT line is, unlike a lot of SLR shaped cameras, they hang off a strap remarkably well. Especially if you remove the eye cup or have the small one on. I also prefer that big ISO dial over the inset one when I am working fast. The XT control layout has always been ideal for me.
Unfortunately for me the EVF positioning and small body make it less than idea for left eye shooting. I like that the Xpro has a fair bit more width too so that the VF extends over to the left eye without having my right palm in my face.I admit to liking the viewfinder position of the XPro. But I don’t think of it at all when I use the XT5 at this point.
I’m surprised to hear a left-eye-dominant photographer like thing XPro2 eyepiece position on the left side of the body.I have always used left eye for viewfinder. There is a book published in the 1950s, 'The Leica Book' (also in German edition 'Das Leica Buch'), by Theo Kisselbach, basically an extended Leica instruction manual. Amongst other things it recommends using left eye for viewfinder on the Ms as the steadier, as the camera body rests on the forehead, whereas if the right eye is used the camera is largely unsupported, in thin air.
It's all academic now, right eye is useless for such things thanks to Macular Degeneration.
Gerry
That sounds just a little bit like Leica trying to justify/promote the viewfinder location to skeptics. ;-)
I’m not so sure about the camera stability argument as when I shot the XPro2 (I’m right eye dominant) I didn’t have issues with that. One thing I liked about the rangefinder-style body was that the camera was not between me and my left eye view of my surroundings… and that subjects could see my face as I photographed them, which I think is useful in some cases.
Of course, I think that the human ability to adapt is quite astonishing, so I cannot be surprised that others find the pluses in the alternatives.
I hear you on the eye issues. I’ve got a few myself that I’ve learned to work with… including a “blind spot” in the central vision of my non-dominant left eye — not great for depth perception — and so on. Ah, the memory of all of those years with great (corrected) vision! Oddly, in many ways, the vision issue affects me less as a photographer than in some other aspects of my life.
Edited on Sep 18, 2026 at 10:13 AM · View previous versions
gdanmitchell wrote
ottokbre wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I liked my XPro2 a lot, and I shot the heck out of the thing for years — mostly street and travel. But after the debacle of the XPro3 (I was, to put it mildly, unimpressed, and did not get one) and a long wait for a successor that might correct the design issues on the XPro3…… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would attract me to a XPro successor. It was a great option in its time, but that time has passed.
Unfortunately for me the EVF positioning and small body make it less than idea for left eye shooting. I like that the Xpro has a fair bit more width too so that the VF extends over to the left eye without having my right palm in my face.
I’m surprised to hear a left-eye-dominant photographer like thing XPro2 eyepiece position on the left side of the body.
It's all academic now, right eye is useless for such things thanks to Macular Degeneration.
Gerry
That sounds just a little bit like Leica trying to justify/promote the viewfinder location to skeptics. ;-)
I’m not so sure about the camera stability argument as when I shot the XPro2 (I’m right eye dominant) I didn’t have issues with that. One thing I liked about the rangefinder-style body was that the camera was not between me and my left eye view of my surroundings… and that subjects could see my face as I photographed them, which I think is useful in some cases.
Of course, I think that the human ability to adapt is quite astonishing, so I cannot be surprised that others find the pluses in the alternatives.
I hear you on the eye issues. I’ve got a few myself that I’ve learned to work with… including a “blind spot” in the central vision of my non-dominant left eye — not great for depth perception — and so on. Ah, the memory of all of those years with great (corrected) vision! Oddly, in many ways, the vision issue affects me less as a photographer than in some other aspects of my life.
Edited on Sep 18, 2026 at 10:13 AM · View previous versions
Sep 18, 2026 at 08:17 AM
p.2 #17X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
RoamingScott wrote:
The X-E5 is basically an X-Pro! But you know, in the next version, where it's better!
I’m not sure what Fuji’s intentions are, but I do think the X-E5 could indeed be considered the next Generation X-Pro. It’s built better than the X-E4, for example, which shows that Fuji is moving that line up while not - yet? - releasing a new X-Pro.
In any case, I never liked the X-Pro cameras. Way too large for that sensor. I kind of like my X-E5, but don’t love it. I basically only use it with the Voigtlander 18mm lens, which makes a small 28mm MF kit. The Fuji lenses that can give me MF and AF are too large to my liking, a perpetual problem I have with APSc gear.
The X-E5 is basically an X-Pro! But you know, in the next version, where it's better!
I’m not sure what Fuji’s intentions are, but I do think the X-E5 could indeed be considered the next Generation X-Pro. It’s built better than the X-E4, for example, which shows that Fuji is moving that line up while not - yet? - releasing a new X-Pro.
In any case, I never liked the X-Pro cameras. Way too large for that sensor. I kind of like my X-E5, but don’t love it. I basically only use it with the Voigtlander 18mm lens, which makes a small 28mm MF kit. The Fuji lenses that can give me MF and AF are too large to my liking, a perpetual problem I have with APSc gear.
Sep 18, 2026 at 08:37 AM
p.2 #18X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
johnvanr wrote:
I’m not sure what Fuji’s intentions are, but I do think the X-E5 could indeed be considered the next Generation X-Pro. It’s built better than the X-E4, for example, which shows that Fuji is moving that line up while not - yet? - releasing a new X-Pro.
In any case, I never liked the X-Pro cameras. Way too large for that sensor. I kind of like my X-E5, but don’t love it. I basically only use it with the Voigtlander 18mm lens, which makes a small 28mm MF kit. The Fuji lenses that can give me MF and AF are too...Show more →
Try the 23f2.8. Slow, noisy, but sharp and small.
RoamingScott wrote
The X-E5 is basically an X-Pro! But you know, in the next version, where it's better!In any case, I never liked the X-Pro cameras. Way too large for that sensor. I kind of like my X-E5, but don’t love it. I basically only use it with the Voigtlander 18mm lens, which makes a small 28mm MF kit. The Fuji lenses that can give me MF and AF are too...Show more →
Try the 23f2.8. Slow, noisy, but sharp and small.
Sep 18, 2026 at 08:58 AM
p.2 #19X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
gdanmitchell wrote:
… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would attract me to a XPro successor. It was a great option in its time, but that time has passed.What's amazing about the XT line is, unlike a lot of SLR shaped cameras, they hang off a strap remarkably well. Especially if you remove the eye cup or have the small one on. I also prefer that big ISO dial over the inset one when I am working fast. The XT control layout has always been ideal for me.
Unfortunately for me the EVF positioning and small body make it less than idea for left eye shooting. I like that the Xpro has a fair bit more width too so that the VF extends over to the left eye without having my right palm in my face.I admit to liking the viewfinder position of the XPro. But I don’t think of it at all when I use the XT5 at this point.
I’m surprised to hear a left-eye-dominant photographer like thing XPro2 eyepiece position on the left side of the body.I have always used left eye for viewfinder. There is a book published in the 1950s, 'The Leica Book' (also in German edition 'Das Leica Buch'), by Theo Kisselbach, basically an extended Leica instruction manual. Amongst other things it recommends using left eye for viewfinder on the Ms as the steadier, as the camera body rests on the forehead, whereas if the right eye is used the camera is largely unsupported, in thin air.
It's all academic now, right eye is useless for such things thanks to Macular Degeneration.
GerryThat sounds just a little bit like Leica trying to justify/promote the viewfinder location to skeptics. ;-)
I’m not so sure about the camera stability argument as when I shot the XPro2 (I’m right eye dominant) I did n’t have issues with that. One thing I liked about the rangefinder-style body was that the camera was not between me and my left eye view… and that subjects could see me as I photographed them, which I think is useful in some cases.
Of course, I think that the human ability to adapt is quite astonishing, so I cannot be surprised that...Show more →
Not much Leica could do about viewfinder placement! Form follows function. In a mechanical film camera with as long a base rangefinder as you can fit in as well as the shutter controls and wind on mech there's no choice where to put the finder, and put up with parallax issues. Even in the Xpro without a rangefinder we still need space for the extra windows for the frames etc, it's not a design philosophy, but a necessity.
I've always used the Ms alongside reflex cameras, plus Rollei, Hasselblad and technical cameras. It doesn't bother me much where the viewfinder is.
Only with evf is there a design choice. Is it coincidence that the best evf viewfinder are central, like an slr? Cameras with offset viewfinder apeing rangefinder cameras all have inferior finders, is that lack of space? If so there's not much logical reason behind the Xe styling if it dictates an inferior EVF.
Gerry
gyoung143 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
ottokbre wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I liked my XPro2 a lot, and I shot the heck out of the thing for years — mostly street and travel. But after the debacle of the XPro3 (I was, to put it mildly, unimpressed, and did not get one) and a long wait for a successor that might correct the design issues on the XPro3…… I got the XT5. Honestly, I much prefer the form factor of the Xt5. It feels small and tight, and the XPro2 felt big and kind of clunky.
As much as I loved the XPro2, at this point I see nothing that would attract me to a XPro successor. It was a great option in its time, but that time has passed.
Unfortunately for me the EVF positioning and small body make it less than idea for left eye shooting. I like that the Xpro has a fair bit more width too so that the VF extends over to the left eye without having my right palm in my face.
I’m surprised to hear a left-eye-dominant photographer like thing XPro2 eyepiece position on the left side of the body.
It's all academic now, right eye is useless for such things thanks to Macular Degeneration.
Gerry
I’m not so sure about the camera stability argument as when I shot the XPro2 (I’m right eye dominant) I did n’t have issues with that. One thing I liked about the rangefinder-style body was that the camera was not between me and my left eye view… and that subjects could see me as I photographed them, which I think is useful in some cases.
Of course, I think that the human ability to adapt is quite astonishing, so I cannot be surprised that...Show more →
Not much Leica could do about viewfinder placement! Form follows function. In a mechanical film camera with as long a base rangefinder as you can fit in as well as the shutter controls and wind on mech there's no choice where to put the finder, and put up with parallax issues. Even in the Xpro without a rangefinder we still need space for the extra windows for the frames etc, it's not a design philosophy, but a necessity.
I've always used the Ms alongside reflex cameras, plus Rollei, Hasselblad and technical cameras. It doesn't bother me much where the viewfinder is.
Only with evf is there a design choice. Is it coincidence that the best evf viewfinder are central, like an slr? Cameras with offset viewfinder apeing rangefinder cameras all have inferior finders, is that lack of space? If so there's not much logical reason behind the Xe styling if it dictates an inferior EVF.
Gerry
Sep 18, 2026 at 09:51 AM
p.2 #20X-E5 worthy successor to X-Pro line
gyoung143 wrote:
Only with evf is there a design choice. Is it coincidence that the best evf viewfinder are central, like an slr? Cameras with offset viewfinder apeing rangefinder cameras all have inferior finders, is that lack of space? If so there's not much logical reason behind the Xe styling if it dictates an inferior EVF.
Fuji did actually used to talk about this quite a lot when discussing the Pro, E, and 100 against the Ts. (And presumably now the H and S, though those lines didn't exist back then.) Basically, the rangefinder-style layout generates more heat internally than the SLR-style one, and once it has built up that heat, the heat can't dissipate as quickly. To stop the first two generations of Pro, E, and 100 (12mp, 16mp, and 24mp) from overheating, their processors are underclocked and the cameras don't draw as much juice from the batteries. This is why, in those generations, the rangefinder-styled bodies have worse AF and EVFs in low light, and more limited video capabilities; their processing power is literally lower because the layout is inefficient. To put it the other way around, the SLR-style allows for maximum power draw and the processors can work at full clock, because the EVF is out of the way and everything else inside can be placed more optimally. That's why the E1 and E2 were cheaper (in most countries) than the T10.
It seems once the third gen hit (26mp) they figured out how to get the rangefinders on-par with the SLRs, though I don't know whether that's because they actually managed to increase the power/optimise heat in the rangefinders or if they just held back the SLRs to make them seem equal. But either way, there doesn't seem to be any reason now for the rangefinders to have worse EVFs than the SLRs. I wasn't happy with the E5, in part because the EVF is mediocre, but I didn't notice its EVF being any worse than my T30's. And the Pro3's EVF is the same as the T4's internally, and only differs in the outer cup/eyepoint, which doesn't really have anything to do with whether the viewfinder is in the middle or to one side other than adhering to tradition.
Only with evf is there a design choice. Is it coincidence that the best evf viewfinder are central, like an slr? Cameras with offset viewfinder apeing rangefinder cameras all have inferior finders, is that lack of space? If so there's not much logical reason behind the Xe styling if it dictates an inferior EVF.
Fuji did actually used to talk about this quite a lot when discussing the Pro, E, and 100 against the Ts. (And presumably now the H and S, though those lines didn't exist back then.) Basically, the rangefinder-style layout generates more heat internally than the SLR-style one, and once it has built up that heat, the heat can't dissipate as quickly. To stop the first two generations of Pro, E, and 100 (12mp, 16mp, and 24mp) from overheating, their processors are underclocked and the cameras don't draw as much juice from the batteries. This is why, in those generations, the rangefinder-styled bodies have worse AF and EVFs in low light, and more limited video capabilities; their processing power is literally lower because the layout is inefficient. To put it the other way around, the SLR-style allows for maximum power draw and the processors can work at full clock, because the EVF is out of the way and everything else inside can be placed more optimally. That's why the E1 and E2 were cheaper (in most countries) than the T10.
It seems once the third gen hit (26mp) they figured out how to get the rangefinders on-par with the SLRs, though I don't know whether that's because they actually managed to increase the power/optimise heat in the rangefinders or if they just held back the SLRs to make them seem equal. But either way, there doesn't seem to be any reason now for the rangefinders to have worse EVFs than the SLRs. I wasn't happy with the E5, in part because the EVF is mediocre, but I didn't notice its EVF being any worse than my T30's. And the Pro3's EVF is the same as the T4's internally, and only differs in the outer cup/eyepoint, which doesn't really have anything to do with whether the viewfinder is in the middle or to one side other than adhering to tradition.
Sep 18, 2026 at 10:17 AM