What the XproIV needs.
p.2 #1What the XproIV needs.
gyoung143 wrote:
40MP sensor
IBIS
Upgraded processor
The LCD
Those seem kinda’ significant… ;-)
(Any individual may legitimately say, “Those don’t matter to me!,” but they do matter for the marketability of a new camera and to comparisons among various camera options.)
I still can't see how they coukd make IBIS work with an optical frame finder.
Gerry
I thnk they could, though it poses some obvious challenges. If I’m right, IBIS doesn’t actually move the image (by displacing the sensor) all that much and the optical display frame lines were already only a rough estimate based on focus distance and the attached lens.
Clearly you could not use IBIS to stabilize the optical view — that would require using a stabilized lens. But you could still use IBIS on the image itself.
And, obiously, IBIS would work as it does on any camera when using the EFF.
(My position, based on experience and market trends, is that the OVF is far less interesting to photographers in general than it was back in the early XPro days when EVF displays were not widespread and their performance was arguably pretty deficient.)
gdanmitchell wrote
Hardware changes:40MP sensor
IBIS
Upgraded processor
The LCD
Those seem kinda’ significant… ;-)
(Any individual may legitimately say, “Those don’t matter to me!,” but they do matter for the marketability of a new camera and to comparisons among various camera options.)
JadedWriter wrote
There are some upgrades on the software side yes. Hardware side is something completely different though. Honestly the only thing saving the X-E5 from a complete trouncing is it having IBIS.gdanmitchell wrote
I suppose you could reasonably argue that since the most recent XPro was introduced more than seven years ago, any significantly newer camera with more advanced features (AF, resolution, speed, etc0 is an upgrade.JadedWriter wrote
How is an X-E5 an upgraded X-pro when they gimped the EVF and mechanical shutter speed?Gerry
I thnk they could, though it poses some obvious challenges. If I’m right, IBIS doesn’t actually move the image (by displacing the sensor) all that much and the optical display frame lines were already only a rough estimate based on focus distance and the attached lens.
Clearly you could not use IBIS to stabilize the optical view — that would require using a stabilized lens. But you could still use IBIS on the image itself.
And, obiously, IBIS would work as it does on any camera when using the EFF.
(My position, based on experience and market trends, is that the OVF is far less interesting to photographers in general than it was back in the early XPro days when EVF displays were not widespread and their performance was arguably pretty deficient.)
Sep 18, 2026 at 10:11 AM
p.2 #2What the XproIV needs.
The movement of IBIS, even at the current industry-leading 8 stops or so, is so miniscule that it is absolutely irrelevant to the scale of any optical viewfinder. In the case of Fuji's latest 40mp sensor, we're talking about a maximum shift in any direction of 6.08µm (two pixels); in common units that's 0.00608mm, or 0.000239". Do you really think you need your viewfinder—optical or electronic—to accommodate a shift of literally six thousandths of a millimetre?
Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone is banking on using an X-Pro with the 400mm f/4.5 OIS.
Anyway, the idea that the Pro line will never be seen again is totally unfounded and bizarre, though you've got to be completely detached from the industry and society in general to think the answer to a successful product is to make it more exclusive. We already saw the X100 and X-E spike in popularity... until the prices went up and 'coincidentally' the trend largely died down. People who want to show off their Leica at the country club aren't going to suddenly be happy with an X-Pro just because the price tag went up a bit. 'Luxury' items are precisely what are selling worse and worse now as people have less and less money to spare and much more important things to buy, and the 1%ers who do want and can buy the flashiest stuff will continue to buy the actual luxury goods, and not an imitation.
What the next X-Pro5/6 (I think they'll jump straight to 5 or 6, as 4 is unlucky and would look outdated) needs, to be successful, is to pick a lane. The 3 tried to be 'quirky' but they half-assed it. Either the next camera needs to step back from the experimental 3 and be a more fully-featured camera, so you're essentially getting an X-T5 with a small premium for the OVF and styling so it stands a chance of selling big numbers, or it needs to lean into the 3's niche even further and be made in smaller quantities so it doesn't have to sell a million units to be considered a success. Personally, I'd prefer the latter; clean up the 3's angles akin to the E5, ditch the secondary mini screen on the back, and put in something like the E5's film sim dial but use an e-ink display so it can be fully customised or reassigned to other functions. The E5 has received some criticism for adopting a grip, so let the Pro be the one with the grip bump to support larger-aperture primes, and the next E can go back to being totally flat.
And finally make it in bright, shining silver. None of this 'dura' or 'graphite' rubbish. Just slap on the same silver paint the other bodies get, it's fine.
Not every product has to break sales records to be successful, and niche products don't have to be only for the unusually wealthy. In fact that's kinda been the X series' whole deal since the very start.
Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone is banking on using an X-Pro with the 400mm f/4.5 OIS.
Anyway, the idea that the Pro line will never be seen again is totally unfounded and bizarre, though you've got to be completely detached from the industry and society in general to think the answer to a successful product is to make it more exclusive. We already saw the X100 and X-E spike in popularity... until the prices went up and 'coincidentally' the trend largely died down. People who want to show off their Leica at the country club aren't going to suddenly be happy with an X-Pro just because the price tag went up a bit. 'Luxury' items are precisely what are selling worse and worse now as people have less and less money to spare and much more important things to buy, and the 1%ers who do want and can buy the flashiest stuff will continue to buy the actual luxury goods, and not an imitation.
What the next X-Pro5/6 (I think they'll jump straight to 5 or 6, as 4 is unlucky and would look outdated) needs, to be successful, is to pick a lane. The 3 tried to be 'quirky' but they half-assed it. Either the next camera needs to step back from the experimental 3 and be a more fully-featured camera, so you're essentially getting an X-T5 with a small premium for the OVF and styling so it stands a chance of selling big numbers, or it needs to lean into the 3's niche even further and be made in smaller quantities so it doesn't have to sell a million units to be considered a success. Personally, I'd prefer the latter; clean up the 3's angles akin to the E5, ditch the secondary mini screen on the back, and put in something like the E5's film sim dial but use an e-ink display so it can be fully customised or reassigned to other functions. The E5 has received some criticism for adopting a grip, so let the Pro be the one with the grip bump to support larger-aperture primes, and the next E can go back to being totally flat.
And finally make it in bright, shining silver. None of this 'dura' or 'graphite' rubbish. Just slap on the same silver paint the other bodies get, it's fine.
Not every product has to break sales records to be successful, and niche products don't have to be only for the unusually wealthy. In fact that's kinda been the X series' whole deal since the very start.
Sep 18, 2026 at 10:46 AM
p.2 #3What the XproIV needs.
pressedbunny wrote:
The movement of IBIS, even at the current industry-leading 8 stops or so, is so miniscule that it is absolutely irrelevant to the scale of any optical viewfinder. In the case of Fuji's latest 40mp sensor, we're talking about a maximum shift in any direction of 6.08µm (two pixels); in common units that's 0.00608mm, or 0.000239". Do you really think you need your viewfinder—optical or electronic—to accommodate a shift of literally six thousandths of a millimetre?
Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone...Show more →
The OVF is a thing of the past. The hybrid VF is more costly and takes room. Many users admit that the use ratio between EVF and OVF is 10:1, some don't us it all. Same for X100. 23/27 and 35mm FL are usable with the OVF. The 1.4 are already too big and intrude in to the OVF field of view. So trying to chase nostalgic Boomers with an OVF is not going to cut it.
An X-E on the other hand with top of the line EVF would be something.
The movement of IBIS, even at the current industry-leading 8 stops or so, is so miniscule that it is absolutely irrelevant to the scale of any optical viewfinder. In the case of Fuji's latest 40mp sensor, we're talking about a maximum shift in any direction of 6.08µm (two pixels); in common units that's 0.00608mm, or 0.000239". Do you really think you need your viewfinder—optical or electronic—to accommodate a shift of literally six thousandths of a millimetre?
Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone...Show more →
The OVF is a thing of the past. The hybrid VF is more costly and takes room. Many users admit that the use ratio between EVF and OVF is 10:1, some don't us it all. Same for X100. 23/27 and 35mm FL are usable with the OVF. The 1.4 are already too big and intrude in to the OVF field of view. So trying to chase nostalgic Boomers with an OVF is not going to cut it.
An X-E on the other hand with top of the line EVF would be something.
Sep 18, 2026 at 11:14 AM
p.2 #4What the XproIV needs.
I'm not a 'boomer' (more than a generation too young for that, thanks), and I literally just bought a Canon DSLR again a couple of months ago specifically to have an OVF for the days I don't want to be staring into my R5's screen. Ditto, I use the X-Pro3's OVF nearly exclusively, as I did when I last had an X100. And just ask any Leica user what they use... and the popularity of film cameras of all kinds, which is still increasing and has been doing so steadily for the last decade. In fact go check out what the younger generations are buying these days, because it's a lot of film SLRs (OVFs), DSLRs (OVFs), instant cameras (OVFs) and 2000s point-and-shoots (no viewfinder of any kind at all).
You wouldn't say that prime lenses are "a thing of the past" and "[chasing] nostalgic Boomers" just because zoom lenses got sharp and there are a few f/2s and f/1.8s around. You wouldn't say that a camera manufacture should stop supporting manual focus because AF tracking is so quick. You wouldn't say that cameras shouldn't take still files any more because 60fps raw video now exists and we can all just save a clip and pull out a frame later. The vast majority of images are only seen on social media platforms displaying less than 2mp, so I guess all these cameras boasting 24, 32, 40, 60 megapixels are pointless and should be scrapped?
Point is, it is ridiculous to throw away a spec, feature, or selling point, because of a horribly incorrect assumption that some other method is somehow objectively, categorically, always superior or overwhelmingly popular and everybody must use only that one thing. The whole reason Fuji—and all other companies—have multiple bodies, at multiple price points and with different combinations of, and sometimes unique, features, is because there's no such thing as one design which suits everybody.
If you've got 20 minutes spare I suggest you go watch the famous TED talk "Choice, happiness, and spaghetti sauce" which explains the absolute futility of trying to narrow down product design to one 'perfect' or 'optimal' choice. (edit: I removed the direct link because for some reason it auto-embedded and I can't see how to disable that, so you'll just have to enter the title into YouTube yourself if you want to see it.)
You don't want to use an OVF? Okay, cool. You don't have to. Nobody is making you use the OVF on an X-Pro or X100, and if for some reason the idea of there being an OVF in your camera makes you feel so completely repelled, you can just buy the X-E5 instead. It already exists, right there and waiting for you. That doesn't mean nobody else values OVFs and they should never be made again. Fuji haven't stopped making the X100VI just because you prefer the X-E5.
You wouldn't say that prime lenses are "a thing of the past" and "[chasing] nostalgic Boomers" just because zoom lenses got sharp and there are a few f/2s and f/1.8s around. You wouldn't say that a camera manufacture should stop supporting manual focus because AF tracking is so quick. You wouldn't say that cameras shouldn't take still files any more because 60fps raw video now exists and we can all just save a clip and pull out a frame later. The vast majority of images are only seen on social media platforms displaying less than 2mp, so I guess all these cameras boasting 24, 32, 40, 60 megapixels are pointless and should be scrapped?
Point is, it is ridiculous to throw away a spec, feature, or selling point, because of a horribly incorrect assumption that some other method is somehow objectively, categorically, always superior or overwhelmingly popular and everybody must use only that one thing. The whole reason Fuji—and all other companies—have multiple bodies, at multiple price points and with different combinations of, and sometimes unique, features, is because there's no such thing as one design which suits everybody.
If you've got 20 minutes spare I suggest you go watch the famous TED talk "Choice, happiness, and spaghetti sauce" which explains the absolute futility of trying to narrow down product design to one 'perfect' or 'optimal' choice. (edit: I removed the direct link because for some reason it auto-embedded and I can't see how to disable that, so you'll just have to enter the title into YouTube yourself if you want to see it.)
You don't want to use an OVF? Okay, cool. You don't have to. Nobody is making you use the OVF on an X-Pro or X100, and if for some reason the idea of there being an OVF in your camera makes you feel so completely repelled, you can just buy the X-E5 instead. It already exists, right there and waiting for you. That doesn't mean nobody else values OVFs and they should never be made again. Fuji haven't stopped making the X100VI just because you prefer the X-E5.
Sep 18, 2026 at 11:39 AM
p.2 #5What the XproIV needs.
pressedbunny wrote:
I'm not a 'boomer' (more than a generation too young for that, thanks), and I literally just bought a Canon DSLR again a couple of months ago specifically to have an OVF for the days I don't want to be staring into my R5's screen. Ditto, I use the X-Pro3's OVF nearly exclusively, as I did when I last had an X100. And just ask any Leica user what they use... and the popularity of film cameras of all kinds, which is still increasing and has been doing so steadily for the last decade. In fact go check out what...Show more →
Nostalgia -or just simply not knowing what a good EVF can do. Folks buy Instax like hell cause it is (expensive) fun. In the old days, a bad EVF could be tiresome - but only after a long, long time behind it.
Yes, I agree. With today's technology, zooms rival primes, MF on AF cameras is never fun (unless one uses vintage glass), the Pixel 11Pro does just that (takes a clip and selects the best still image), more than 12MP is pointless for the vast majority of users, indeed.
Just read the fora and camera reviews. And see how little use folks make of the OVF. It is a gimmick that makes the camera more expensive with little to no benefit. And as I said: The use of the OVF is really limited to 23/27 and 50mm Fujicrons. Wider or longer requires use of the VF. Certainly not good for use with a zoom lens.
I'm not a 'boomer' (more than a generation too young for that, thanks), and I literally just bought a Canon DSLR again a couple of months ago specifically to have an OVF for the days I don't want to be staring into my R5's screen. Ditto, I use the X-Pro3's OVF nearly exclusively, as I did when I last had an X100. And just ask any Leica user what they use... and the popularity of film cameras of all kinds, which is still increasing and has been doing so steadily for the last decade. In fact go check out what...Show more →
Nostalgia -or just simply not knowing what a good EVF can do. Folks buy Instax like hell cause it is (expensive) fun. In the old days, a bad EVF could be tiresome - but only after a long, long time behind it.
Yes, I agree. With today's technology, zooms rival primes, MF on AF cameras is never fun (unless one uses vintage glass), the Pixel 11Pro does just that (takes a clip and selects the best still image), more than 12MP is pointless for the vast majority of users, indeed.
Just read the fora and camera reviews. And see how little use folks make of the OVF. It is a gimmick that makes the camera more expensive with little to no benefit. And as I said: The use of the OVF is really limited to 23/27 and 50mm Fujicrons. Wider or longer requires use of the VF. Certainly not good for use with a zoom lens.
Sep 18, 2026 at 12:05 PM
p.2 #6What the XproIV needs.
I never used an XPro but I thoroughly agree on choice of form factor to suit varied wants. But I suspect that the XPro was never a sales success and that is why we haven't seen a new generation. Just because its revered among a small group of people who loved it, doesn't make it a winner for Fuji. Sure, some cameras, like flagships, need to be built as statement products that have a marketing value to sell the main line. But hard to see a new XPro being that, I would love to be proven wrong.
Sep 18, 2026 at 12:38 PM
p.2 #7What the XproIV needs.
I've mentioned on our other threads that the killer feature of a new XPro could be fully leaning into Manual focus. If they could make it MF with the current lenses as well as a MF only lens, that would be pretty desirable by quite a few people I believe. I think its absolutely do-able and I look to automotive drive by wire examples of how the initial application sucked but improved to be hardly distinguishable today. Of course improving the current AF on all lines has to be a bigger priority, let's not go there.
Sep 18, 2026 at 12:49 PM
p.2 #8What the XproIV needs.
I gave it the IBIS win. I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the X-Pro3 since it was a camera that I said, "I'm never buying this" when it got announced. I own it. It's my fun camera. 95/100 times if I need something for professional usage I'm bringing the X-H2 unless it's something that I can't squeeze into my bag. As I said, there are things about the X-E5 that I don't like. One of the big things I don't like about the X-E5 is how it feels in my hand. You can squeeze all the improvements you want into a camera, but if I don't like holding the thing it's not getting bought or used by me. I don't like the X-E5 in a lot of ways just due to the 1/4000 mechanical shutter short coming, which was one of the reasons that I bought the X-Pro3 over it. It having a better EVF over the X-E5 is also icing on the cake.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Hardware changes:
40MP sensor
IBIS
Upgraded processor
The LCD
Those seem kinda’ significant… ;-)
(Any individual may legitimately say, “Those don’t matter to me!,” but they do matter for the marketability of a new camera and to comparisons among various camera options.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
Hardware changes:
40MP sensor
IBIS
Upgraded processor
The LCD
Those seem kinda’ significant… ;-)
(Any individual may legitimately say, “Those don’t matter to me!,” but they do matter for the marketability of a new camera and to comparisons among various camera options.)
JadedWriter wrote
There are some upgrades on the software side yes. Hardware side is something completely different though. Honestly the only thing saving the X-E5 from a complete trouncing is it having IBIS.gdanmitchell wrote
I suppose you could reasonably argue that since the most recent XPro was introduced more than seven years ago, any significantly newer camera with more advanced features (AF, resolution, speed, etc0 is an upgrade.JadedWriter wrote
How is an X-E5 an upgraded X-pro when they gimped the EVF and mechanical shutter speed?Sep 18, 2026 at 01:47 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #9What the XproIV needs.
I have never used a focus by wire Fuji lens that delivered a satisfying MF experience. Some of the lenses in fact have larger focus "steps" in MF than they do in AF and it can be literally impossible to get something in focus on a fast lens as the steps miss the desired plane of focus.
I've long said (and given Fuji my feedback to this end) that they need a manual focus only set of crons.
I've long said (and given Fuji my feedback to this end) that they need a manual focus only set of crons.
Sep 18, 2026 at 02:01 PM
p.2 #10What the XproIV needs.
RoamingScott wrote:
I have never used a focus by wire Fuji lens that delivered a satisfying MF experience. Some of the lenses in fact have larger focus "steps" in MF than they do in AF and it can be literally impossible to get something in focus on a fast lens as the steps miss the desired plane of focus.
I've long said (and given Fuji my feedback to this end) that they need a manual focus only set of crons.
Me either Scott, that's my point. But a question for you, since you "play the field" and I don't. Have you used a focus by wire by anyone that had the same tactile feel of an excellent MF lens? That should be the bar to aim to achieve. If that was the case with user selectable modern focus aids, that would make for excellent user experience. Which is what I thought was the point of an XPro.
I have never used a focus by wire Fuji lens that delivered a satisfying MF experience. Some of the lenses in fact have larger focus "steps" in MF than they do in AF and it can be literally impossible to get something in focus on a fast lens as the steps miss the desired plane of focus.
I've long said (and given Fuji my feedback to this end) that they need a manual focus only set of crons.
Me either Scott, that's my point. But a question for you, since you "play the field" and I don't. Have you used a focus by wire by anyone that had the same tactile feel of an excellent MF lens? That should be the bar to aim to achieve. If that was the case with user selectable modern focus aids, that would make for excellent user experience. Which is what I thought was the point of an XPro.
Sep 18, 2026 at 02:12 PM
|
p.2 #11What the XproIV needs.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone is banking on using an X-Pro with the 400mm f/4.5 OIS.
Anyway, the idea that the Pro line will never be seen again is totally unfounded and bizarre, though you've got to be completely detached from the industry and society in general to think the answer to a successful product is to make it more exclusive. We already saw the X100 and X-E spike in popularity... until the prices went up and 'coincidentally' the trend largely died down. People who want to show off their Leica at the country club aren't going to suddenly be happy with an X-Pro just because the price tag went up a bit. 'Luxury' items are precisely what are selling worse and worse now as people have less and less money to spare and much more important things to buy, and the 1%ers who do want and can buy the flashiest stuff will continue to buy the actual luxury goods, and not an imitation.
What the next X-Pro5/6 (I think they'll jump straight to 5 or 6, as 4 is unlucky and would look outdated) needs, to be successful, is to pick a lane. The 3 tried to be 'quirky' but they half-assed it. Either the next camera needs to step back from the experimental 3 and be a more fully-featured camera, so you're essentially getting an X-T5 with a small premium for the OVF and styling so it stands a chance of selling big numbers, or it needs to lean into the 3's niche even further and be made in smaller quantities so it doesn't have to sell a million units to be considered a success. Personally, I'd prefer the latter; clean up the 3's angles akin to the E5, ditch the secondary mini screen on the back, and put in something like the E5's film sim dial but use an e-ink display so it can be fully customised or reassigned to other functions. The E5 has received some criticism for adopting a grip, so let the Pro be the one with the grip bump to support larger-aperture primes, and the next E can go back to being totally flat.
And finally make it in bright, shining silver. None of this 'dura' or 'graphite' rubbish. Just slap on the same silver paint the other bodies get, it's fine.
Not every product has to break sales records to be successful, and niche products don't have to be only for the unusually wealthy. In fact that's kinda been the X series' whole deal since the very start.The OVF is a thing of the past. The hybrid VF is more costly and takes room. Many users admit that the use ratio between EVF and OVF is 10:1, some don't us it all. Same for X100. 23/27 and 35mm FL are usable with the OVF. The 1.4 are already too big and intrude in to the OVF field of view. So trying to chase nostalgic Boomers with an OVF is not going to cut it.
An X-E on the other hand with top of the line EVF would be something.
You could probably find that first paragraph in a magazine about 1960, when SLRs got good, Nikon F and Pentax, rather than the clumsy and dim ones we had before that. It's your opinion, not a'fact'.
Yet people still use OVF on Leicas with 35mm up to 90mm, and the old M3 finder does well with the special lenses from 35mm to 135mm, I've had one for 58 years and tge lenses to go with it.
The dual mag Xpro2 finder is good from 18mm to the 50mm, and my Voigtlander 75mm is ok, I have even used 90mm with it, both Fuji and Leica.
The Xpro3 finder is a compromise, and only does 23 and up, but again to 50 should be ok, but I haven't tried it.
And remember there are separate external finders for wider than built in, I have one for the 15mm Voigtlander on full frame film and others up to 200mm to use with the Leica III I inherited . But that was necessity on Leica, the evf on the Xpro will do for the 14mm and the 9mm. And beyond 50mm usually.
Gerry
pressedbunny wrote
The movement of IBIS, even at the current industry-leading 8 stops or so, is so miniscule that it is absolutely irrelevant to the scale of any optical viewfinder. In the case of Fuji's latest 40mp sensor, we're talking about a maximum shift in any direction of 6.08µm (two pixels); in common units that's 0.00608mm, or 0.000239". Do you really think you need your viewfinder—optical or electronic—to accommodate a shift of literally six thousandths of a millimetre?Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone is banking on using an X-Pro with the 400mm f/4.5 OIS.
Anyway, the idea that the Pro line will never be seen again is totally unfounded and bizarre, though you've got to be completely detached from the industry and society in general to think the answer to a successful product is to make it more exclusive. We already saw the X100 and X-E spike in popularity... until the prices went up and 'coincidentally' the trend largely died down. People who want to show off their Leica at the country club aren't going to suddenly be happy with an X-Pro just because the price tag went up a bit. 'Luxury' items are precisely what are selling worse and worse now as people have less and less money to spare and much more important things to buy, and the 1%ers who do want and can buy the flashiest stuff will continue to buy the actual luxury goods, and not an imitation.
What the next X-Pro5/6 (I think they'll jump straight to 5 or 6, as 4 is unlucky and would look outdated) needs, to be successful, is to pick a lane. The 3 tried to be 'quirky' but they half-assed it. Either the next camera needs to step back from the experimental 3 and be a more fully-featured camera, so you're essentially getting an X-T5 with a small premium for the OVF and styling so it stands a chance of selling big numbers, or it needs to lean into the 3's niche even further and be made in smaller quantities so it doesn't have to sell a million units to be considered a success. Personally, I'd prefer the latter; clean up the 3's angles akin to the E5, ditch the secondary mini screen on the back, and put in something like the E5's film sim dial but use an e-ink display so it can be fully customised or reassigned to other functions. The E5 has received some criticism for adopting a grip, so let the Pro be the one with the grip bump to support larger-aperture primes, and the next E can go back to being totally flat.
And finally make it in bright, shining silver. None of this 'dura' or 'graphite' rubbish. Just slap on the same silver paint the other bodies get, it's fine.
Not every product has to break sales records to be successful, and niche products don't have to be only for the unusually wealthy. In fact that's kinda been the X series' whole deal since the very start.
An X-E on the other hand with top of the line EVF would be something.
You could probably find that first paragraph in a magazine about 1960, when SLRs got good, Nikon F and Pentax, rather than the clumsy and dim ones we had before that. It's your opinion, not a'fact'.
Yet people still use OVF on Leicas with 35mm up to 90mm, and the old M3 finder does well with the special lenses from 35mm to 135mm, I've had one for 58 years and tge lenses to go with it.
The dual mag Xpro2 finder is good from 18mm to the 50mm, and my Voigtlander 75mm is ok, I have even used 90mm with it, both Fuji and Leica.
The Xpro3 finder is a compromise, and only does 23 and up, but again to 50 should be ok, but I haven't tried it.
And remember there are separate external finders for wider than built in, I have one for the 15mm Voigtlander on full frame film and others up to 200mm to use with the Leica III I inherited . But that was necessity on Leica, the evf on the Xpro will do for the 14mm and the 9mm. And beyond 50mm usually.
Gerry
Sep 18, 2026 at 02:15 PM
p.2 #12What the XproIV needs.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone is banking on using an X-Pro with the 400mm f/4.5 OIS.
Anyway, the idea that the Pro line will never be seen again is totally unfounded and bizarre, though you've got to be completely detached from the industry and society in general to think the answer to a successful product is to make it more exclusive. We already saw the X100 and X-E spike in popularity... until the prices went up and 'coincidentally' the trend largely died down. People who want to show off their Leica at the country club aren't going to suddenly be happy with an X-Pro just because the price tag went up a bit. 'Luxury' items are precisely what are selling worse and worse now as people have less and less money to spare and much more important things to buy, and the 1%ers who do want and can buy the flashiest stuff will continue to buy the actual luxury goods, and not an imitation.
What the next X-Pro5/6 (I think they'll jump straight to 5 or 6, as 4 is unlucky and would look outdated) needs, to be successful, is to pick a lane. The 3 tried to be 'quirky' but they half-assed it. Either the next camera needs to step back from the experimental 3 and be a more fully-featured camera, so you're essentially getting an X-T5 with a small premium for the OVF and styling so it stands a chance of selling big numbers, or it needs to lean into the 3's niche even further and be made in smaller quantities so it doesn't have to sell a million units to be considered a success. Personally, I'd prefer the latter; clean up the 3's angles akin to the E5, ditch the secondary mini screen on the back, and put in something like the E5's film sim dial but use an e-ink display so it can be fully customised or reassigned to other functions. The E5 has received some criticism for adopting a grip, so let the Pro be the one with the grip bump to support larger-aperture primes, and the next E can go back to being totally flat.
And finally make it in bright, shining silver. None of this 'dura' or 'graphite' rubbish. Just slap on the same silver paint the other bodies get, it's fine.
Not every product has to break sales records to be successful, and niche products don't have to be only for the unusually wealthy. In fact that's kinda been the X series' whole deal since the very start.The OVF is a thing of the past. The hybrid VF is more costly and takes room. Many users admit that the use ratio between EVF and OVF is 10:1, some don't us it all. Same for X100. 23/27 and 35mm FL are usable with the OVF. The 1.4 are already too big and intrude in to the OVF field of view. So trying to chase nostalgic Boomers with an OVF is not going to cut it.
An X-E on the other hand with top of the line EVF would be something.
You could probably find that first paragraph in a magazine about 1960, when SLRs got good, Nikon F and Pentax, rather than the clumsy and dim ones we had before that. It's your opinion, not a'fact'.
Yet people still use OVF on Leicas with 35mm up to 90mm, and the old M3 finder does well with the special lenses from 35mm to 135mm, I've had one for 58 years and the lenses to go with it.
The dual mag Xpro2 finder is good from 18mm to the 50mm, and my Voigtlander 75mm is ok, I have even used 90mm with it, both Fuji and Leica.
The Xpro3 finder is a compromise, and only does 23 and up, but again to 50 should be ok, but I haven't tried it.
And remember there are separate external finders for wider than built in, I have one for the 15mm Voigtlander on full frame film and others up to 200mm to use with the Leica III I inherited . But that was necessity on Leica, the evf on the Xpro will do for the 14mm and the 9mm. And beyond 50mm usually.
Gerry
pressedbunny wrote
The movement of IBIS, even at the current industry-leading 8 stops or so, is so miniscule that it is absolutely irrelevant to the scale of any optical viewfinder. In the case of Fuji's latest 40mp sensor, we're talking about a maximum shift in any direction of 6.08µm (two pixels); in common units that's 0.00608mm, or 0.000239". Do you really think you need your viewfinder—optical or electronic—to accommodate a shift of literally six thousandths of a millimetre?Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone is banking on using an X-Pro with the 400mm f/4.5 OIS.
Anyway, the idea that the Pro line will never be seen again is totally unfounded and bizarre, though you've got to be completely detached from the industry and society in general to think the answer to a successful product is to make it more exclusive. We already saw the X100 and X-E spike in popularity... until the prices went up and 'coincidentally' the trend largely died down. People who want to show off their Leica at the country club aren't going to suddenly be happy with an X-Pro just because the price tag went up a bit. 'Luxury' items are precisely what are selling worse and worse now as people have less and less money to spare and much more important things to buy, and the 1%ers who do want and can buy the flashiest stuff will continue to buy the actual luxury goods, and not an imitation.
What the next X-Pro5/6 (I think they'll jump straight to 5 or 6, as 4 is unlucky and would look outdated) needs, to be successful, is to pick a lane. The 3 tried to be 'quirky' but they half-assed it. Either the next camera needs to step back from the experimental 3 and be a more fully-featured camera, so you're essentially getting an X-T5 with a small premium for the OVF and styling so it stands a chance of selling big numbers, or it needs to lean into the 3's niche even further and be made in smaller quantities so it doesn't have to sell a million units to be considered a success. Personally, I'd prefer the latter; clean up the 3's angles akin to the E5, ditch the secondary mini screen on the back, and put in something like the E5's film sim dial but use an e-ink display so it can be fully customised or reassigned to other functions. The E5 has received some criticism for adopting a grip, so let the Pro be the one with the grip bump to support larger-aperture primes, and the next E can go back to being totally flat.
And finally make it in bright, shining silver. None of this 'dura' or 'graphite' rubbish. Just slap on the same silver paint the other bodies get, it's fine.
Not every product has to break sales records to be successful, and niche products don't have to be only for the unusually wealthy. In fact that's kinda been the X series' whole deal since the very start.
An X-E on the other hand with top of the line EVF would be something.
You could probably find that first paragraph in a magazine about 1960, when SLRs got good, Nikon F and Pentax, rather than the clumsy and dim ones we had before that. It's your opinion, not a'fact'.
Yet people still use OVF on Leicas with 35mm up to 90mm, and the old M3 finder does well with the special lenses from 35mm to 135mm, I've had one for 58 years and the lenses to go with it.
The dual mag Xpro2 finder is good from 18mm to the 50mm, and my Voigtlander 75mm is ok, I have even used 90mm with it, both Fuji and Leica.
The Xpro3 finder is a compromise, and only does 23 and up, but again to 50 should be ok, but I haven't tried it.
And remember there are separate external finders for wider than built in, I have one for the 15mm Voigtlander on full frame film and others up to 200mm to use with the Leica III I inherited . But that was necessity on Leica, the evf on the Xpro will do for the 14mm and the 9mm. And beyond 50mm usually.
Gerry
Sep 18, 2026 at 02:16 PM
p.2 #13What the XproIV needs.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I've mentioned on our other threads that the killer feature of a new XPro could be fully leaning into Manual focus. If they could make it MF with the current lenses as well as a MF only lens, that would be pretty desirable by quite a few people I believe. I think its absolutely do-able and I look to automotive drive by wire examples of how the initial application sucked but improved to be hardly distinguishable today. Of course improving the current AF on all lines has to be a bigger priority, let's not go there.
MF is slow but sure on an EVF, just as it was on a focussing screen, all sorts of 'aids' were introduced to speed it up on SLRs, the split image screen being the best. And you can't beat the speed of MF with a really good rangefinder,such as the Leica one, not the fuzzy things in cheap fixed lens rangefinder cameras. But they all are at the mercy of adjustment and register.
A digital split image would be great, but the one in myvXt5 is not that good.
Gerry
Edited on Sep 19, 2026 at 12:10 AM · View previous versions
I've mentioned on our other threads that the killer feature of a new XPro could be fully leaning into Manual focus. If they could make it MF with the current lenses as well as a MF only lens, that would be pretty desirable by quite a few people I believe. I think its absolutely do-able and I look to automotive drive by wire examples of how the initial application sucked but improved to be hardly distinguishable today. Of course improving the current AF on all lines has to be a bigger priority, let's not go there.
MF is slow but sure on an EVF, just as it was on a focussing screen, all sorts of 'aids' were introduced to speed it up on SLRs, the split image screen being the best. And you can't beat the speed of MF with a really good rangefinder,such as the Leica one, not the fuzzy things in cheap fixed lens rangefinder cameras. But they all are at the mercy of adjustment and register.
A digital split image would be great, but the one in myvXt5 is not that good.
Gerry
Edited on Sep 19, 2026 at 12:10 AM · View previous versions
Sep 18, 2026 at 02:28 PM
p.2 #14What the XproIV needs.
pressedbunny wrote:
The movement of IBIS, even at the current industry-leading 8 stops or so, is so miniscule that it is absolutely irrelevant to the scale of any optical viewfinder. In the case of Fuji's latest 40mp sensor, we're talking about a maximum shift in any direction of 6.08µm (two pixels); in common units that's 0.00608mm, or 0.000239". Do you really think you need your viewfinder—optical or electronic—to accommodate a shift of literally six thousandths of a millimetre?
Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone...Show more →
I mostly agree (in some cases strongly) with your comments on the question of a next XPro. I’m in the same camp as you regarding the XPro3. I know that some small segment thinks that crippling the XPro cameras was “innovative” but, as a heavy XPro2 user and a person who was all set to buy the next version of the XPro, the design completely turned me off and the camera impressed me as a cheapened version of its excellent predecessor.
I still see no evidence that we’re going to see another hybrid viewfinder XPro model at this point. There’s no more than the slimmest of hopeful “evidence” that it isn’t completely off the table. The “XE-Pro” idea that I’ve written about for a year or more is a possibility, though there would have to be some interesting marketing gyrations to figure out where it would fit with the existing models.
(Also, while I understand your point about the number 4, Fujifilm did have a… XT4 and a XE4.)
- - -
About a different post and regarding the supposed popularity of film cameras… Well, among those who use film cameras, film cameras are very popular, if you get my drift… ;-)
But if you watch the cameras around you when you are out in the real world, as I often do, you are simply not going to see very many film cameras at all. There are so few, actually, that it is a bit of a novelty to see them. (I suppose that Instax is a kind of film cameras, kinda, sorta… but I see more of them than I see film SLRs and rangefinders.)
I used film cameras for a L O N G time — they are what I learned on, and I’ve used a huge range of them, from literal Brownies (as a kid) through foldable cameras, a Speed Graphic at one point, TLRs from Rollei and Yashica, a Rollei 35, and a bunch of 5mm film cameras. So I’m pretty aware of what they can do… and I left them behind because digital lets me do all of those things better.
(I know a lot of photographers, some fairly well known, who came up in the film era. One (and sort of a second) still do film — though they also do digital. But all of the others, each of whom was highly skilled with film and whose work is and was highly regarded, now work entirely with digital.
That’s not to say that folks who like film shouldn’t do so… but it is to say that the supposed “popularity” of film gear is far more limited than film folks sometimes think.
- - -
To add to the mix about the X-Pro EVF/OVF question: The main reason that I got my XPro2 when it first came out, rather than getting an EVF-only camera, was that EVF displays were pretty poor back then. They had slow refresh rates, too much latency, pretty low resolution, garish colors, they often glitched, and they ate battery power. So when I started using the camera — with small primes — I used the OVF almost 100% of the time.
Then I started slipping. Sometimes it made more sense to use the rear screen to see my subject than to raise the camera to my eyes and look through the viewfinder. The data displayed on the rear screen or EVF can be useful, even critical in some situations. The OVF isn’t that great in poor light. Sometimes extremely accurate framing is critical.
In fact, the big shift came during a visit to NYC when I spent days doing street photography. I recall one evening as the light faded… and I realized that camera performance was good enough to do handheld night street photography and that I could see my subjects way better in the EVF than in the dim OVF. I almost completely shifted to using the OVF for night street photography from then on.
Before long I got completely used to the EVF and found myself using in virtually all the time. And after the XPro3 debacle and waiting in vain for a few more years for Fujifim to update the XPro line… I gave up and moved to the XT5. I don’t miss the XPro at all at this point…
- - -
On manually focusing Fujifilm handheld cameras… I don’t get it. I manually focused for years on cameras that di don’t have AF, and I still manually focus my digital cameras when I work from the tripod. But for street and similar shooting AF is faster and more accurate. As to the “pleasure” of manually focusing in these situations, all I can say — again — is that I don’t get it. ;-)
As to “focus by wire, it seems to work pretty well on Fujifilm lenses, when you come right down to it. If there is an issue — and I don’t really feel that there is — it is not focus-by-wire generically, but more about implementations of FBW.
Fujifilm did put a “clutch” mechanism on some of the early primes (maybe the 23mm f/1.4?).
And “manual focus only” lenses from Fujifilm? Those would sell like hotcakes! Week old hotcakes. Stale. Left out in the sun…
Edited on Sep 18, 2026 at 03:07 PM · View previous versions
The movement of IBIS, even at the current industry-leading 8 stops or so, is so miniscule that it is absolutely irrelevant to the scale of any optical viewfinder. In the case of Fuji's latest 40mp sensor, we're talking about a maximum shift in any direction of 6.08µm (two pixels); in common units that's 0.00608mm, or 0.000239". Do you really think you need your viewfinder—optical or electronic—to accommodate a shift of literally six thousandths of a millimetre?
Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone...Show more →
I mostly agree (in some cases strongly) with your comments on the question of a next XPro. I’m in the same camp as you regarding the XPro3. I know that some small segment thinks that crippling the XPro cameras was “innovative” but, as a heavy XPro2 user and a person who was all set to buy the next version of the XPro, the design completely turned me off and the camera impressed me as a cheapened version of its excellent predecessor.
I still see no evidence that we’re going to see another hybrid viewfinder XPro model at this point. There’s no more than the slimmest of hopeful “evidence” that it isn’t completely off the table. The “XE-Pro” idea that I’ve written about for a year or more is a possibility, though there would have to be some interesting marketing gyrations to figure out where it would fit with the existing models.
(Also, while I understand your point about the number 4, Fujifilm did have a… XT4 and a XE4.)
- - -
About a different post and regarding the supposed popularity of film cameras… Well, among those who use film cameras, film cameras are very popular, if you get my drift… ;-)
But if you watch the cameras around you when you are out in the real world, as I often do, you are simply not going to see very many film cameras at all. There are so few, actually, that it is a bit of a novelty to see them. (I suppose that Instax is a kind of film cameras, kinda, sorta… but I see more of them than I see film SLRs and rangefinders.)
I used film cameras for a L O N G time — they are what I learned on, and I’ve used a huge range of them, from literal Brownies (as a kid) through foldable cameras, a Speed Graphic at one point, TLRs from Rollei and Yashica, a Rollei 35, and a bunch of 5mm film cameras. So I’m pretty aware of what they can do… and I left them behind because digital lets me do all of those things better.
(I know a lot of photographers, some fairly well known, who came up in the film era. One (and sort of a second) still do film — though they also do digital. But all of the others, each of whom was highly skilled with film and whose work is and was highly regarded, now work entirely with digital.
That’s not to say that folks who like film shouldn’t do so… but it is to say that the supposed “popularity” of film gear is far more limited than film folks sometimes think.
- - -
To add to the mix about the X-Pro EVF/OVF question: The main reason that I got my XPro2 when it first came out, rather than getting an EVF-only camera, was that EVF displays were pretty poor back then. They had slow refresh rates, too much latency, pretty low resolution, garish colors, they often glitched, and they ate battery power. So when I started using the camera — with small primes — I used the OVF almost 100% of the time.
Then I started slipping. Sometimes it made more sense to use the rear screen to see my subject than to raise the camera to my eyes and look through the viewfinder. The data displayed on the rear screen or EVF can be useful, even critical in some situations. The OVF isn’t that great in poor light. Sometimes extremely accurate framing is critical.
In fact, the big shift came during a visit to NYC when I spent days doing street photography. I recall one evening as the light faded… and I realized that camera performance was good enough to do handheld night street photography and that I could see my subjects way better in the EVF than in the dim OVF. I almost completely shifted to using the OVF for night street photography from then on.
Before long I got completely used to the EVF and found myself using in virtually all the time. And after the XPro3 debacle and waiting in vain for a few more years for Fujifim to update the XPro line… I gave up and moved to the XT5. I don’t miss the XPro at all at this point…
- - -
On manually focusing Fujifilm handheld cameras… I don’t get it. I manually focused for years on cameras that di don’t have AF, and I still manually focus my digital cameras when I work from the tripod. But for street and similar shooting AF is faster and more accurate. As to the “pleasure” of manually focusing in these situations, all I can say — again — is that I don’t get it. ;-)
As to “focus by wire, it seems to work pretty well on Fujifilm lenses, when you come right down to it. If there is an issue — and I don’t really feel that there is — it is not focus-by-wire generically, but more about implementations of FBW.
Fujifilm did put a “clutch” mechanism on some of the early primes (maybe the 23mm f/1.4?).
And “manual focus only” lenses from Fujifilm? Those would sell like hotcakes! Week old hotcakes. Stale. Left out in the sun…
Edited on Sep 18, 2026 at 03:07 PM · View previous versions
Sep 18, 2026 at 02:37 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #15What the XproIV needs.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I've long said (and given Fuji my feedback to this end) that they need a manual focus only set of crons.Me either Scott, that's my point. But a question for you, since you "play the field" and I don't. Have you used a focus by wire by anyone that had the same tactile feel of an excellent MF lens? That should be the bar to aim to achieve. If that was the case with user selectable modern focus aids, that would make for excellent user experience. Which is what I thought was the point of an XPro.
The Hasselblad V lenses with the MF clutch are excellent, but nothing will match the M/A experience of the late-gen F mount lenses like the AF-S 35/1.4 G. Those were so good I swore up and down they weren't by wire until someone here corrected me.
Nothing beats hard stops on a real MF though.
RoamingScott wrote
I have never used a focus by wire Fuji lens that delivered a satisfying MF experience. Some of the lenses in fact have larger focus "steps" in MF than they do in AF and it can be literally impossible to get something in focus on a fast lens as the steps miss the desired plane of focus.I've long said (and given Fuji my feedback to this end) that they need a manual focus only set of crons.
The Hasselblad V lenses with the MF clutch are excellent, but nothing will match the M/A experience of the late-gen F mount lenses like the AF-S 35/1.4 G. Those were so good I swore up and down they weren't by wire until someone here corrected me.
Nothing beats hard stops on a real MF though.
Sep 18, 2026 at 02:55 PM
p.2 #16What the XproIV needs.
RoamingScott wrote:
I've long said (and given Fuji my feedback to this end) that they need a manual focus only set of crons.Me either Scott, that's my point. But a question for you, since you "play the field" and I don't. Have you used a focus by wire by anyone that had the same tactile feel of an excellent MF lens? That should be the bar to aim to achieve. If that was the case with user selectable modern focus aids, that would make for excellent user experience. Which is what I thought was the point of an XPro.The Hasselblad V lenses with the MF clutch are excellent, but nothing will match the M/A experience of the late-gen F mount lenses like the AF-S 35/1.4 G. Those were so good I swore up and down they weren't by wire until someone here corrected me.
Nothing beats hard stops on a real MF though.
That's what I thought and that needs to be the design goal. On Gfx, I use the Contax 645 120 macro and love the feel of its old school MF. Replicate that electronically and what a winner that would be.
SGinNorcal wrote
RoamingScott wrote
I have never used a focus by wire Fuji lens that delivered a satisfying MF experience. Some of the lenses in fact have larger focus "steps" in MF than they do in AF and it can be literally impossible to get something in focus on a fast lens as the steps miss the desired plane of focus.I've long said (and given Fuji my feedback to this end) that they need a manual focus only set of crons.
Nothing beats hard stops on a real MF though.
That's what I thought and that needs to be the design goal. On Gfx, I use the Contax 645 120 macro and love the feel of its old school MF. Replicate that electronically and what a winner that would be.
Sep 18, 2026 at 03:12 PM
p.2 #17What the XproIV needs.
RoamingScott wrote:
SGinNorcal wrote
RoamingScott wrote
I have never used a focus by wire Fuji lens that delivered a satisfying MF experience. Some of the lenses in fact have larger focus "steps" in MF than they do in AF and it can be literally impossible to get something in focus on a fast lens as the steps miss the desired plane of focus.I've long said (and given Fuji my feedback to this end) that they need a manual focus only set of crons.
Nothing beats hard stops on a real MF though.
Yes, agreed, and decent focus and DoF scales. Nikon pretty well abandoned it on the otherwise excellent DSLR lenses, nice feel but no scales.
Unfortunately the Voigtlander MF Fuji lenses don't have much in tge way of them that is useable either.
Gerry
Sep 19, 2026 at 12:19 AM
p.2 #18What the XproIV needs.
gyoung143 wrote:
Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone is banking on using an X-Pro with the 400mm f/4.5 OIS.
Anyway, the idea that the Pro line will never be seen again is totally unfounded and bizarre, though you've got to be completely detached from the industry and society in general to think the answer to a successful product is to make it more exclusive. We already saw the X100 and X-E spike in popularity... until the prices went up and 'coincidentally' the trend largely died down. People who want to show off their Leica at the country club aren't going to suddenly be happy with an X-Pro just because the price tag went up a bit. 'Luxury' items are precisely what are selling worse and worse now as people have less and less money to spare and much more important things to buy, and the 1%ers who do want and can buy the flashiest stuff will continue to buy the actual luxury goods, and not an imitation.
What the next X-Pro5/6 (I think they'll jump straight to 5 or 6, as 4 is unlucky and would look outdated) needs, to be successful, is to pick a lane. The 3 tried to be 'quirky' but they half-assed it. Either the next camera needs to step back from the experimental 3 and be a more fully-featured camera, so you're essentially getting an X-T5 with a small premium for the OVF and styling so it stands a chance of selling big numbers, or it needs to lean into the 3's niche even further and be made in smaller quantities so it doesn't have to sell a million units to be considered a success. Personally, I'd prefer the latter; clean up the 3's angles akin to the E5, ditch the secondary mini screen on the back, and put in something like the E5's film sim dial but use an e-ink display so it can be fully customised or reassigned to other functions. The E5 has received some criticism for adopting a grip, so let the Pro be the one with the grip bump to support larger-aperture primes, and the next E can go back to being totally flat.
And finally make it in bright, shining silver. None of this 'dura' or 'graphite' rubbish. Just slap on the same silver paint the other bodies get, it's fine.
Not every product has to break sales records to be successful, and niche products don't have to be only for the unusually wealthy. In fact that's kinda been the X series' whole deal since the very start.The OVF is a thing of the past. The hybrid VF is more costly and takes room. Many users admit that the use ratio between EVF and OVF is 10:1, some don't us it all. Same for X100. 23/27 and 35mm FL are usable with the OVF. The 1.4 are already too big and intrude in to the OVF field of view. So trying to chase nostalgic Boomers with an OVF is not going to cut it.
An X-E on the other hand with top of the line EVF would be something.You could probably find that first paragraph in a magazine about 1960, when SLRs got good, Nikon F and Pentax, rather than the clumsy and dim ones we had before that. It's your opinion, not a'fact'.
Yet people still use OVF on Leicas with 35mm up to 90mm, and the old M3 finder does well with the special lenses from 35mm to 135mm, I've had one for 58 years and the lenses to go with it.
The dual mag Xpro2 finder is good from 18mm to the 50mm, and my Voigtlander 75mm is ok, I have even used 90mm with it, both...Show more →
Gerry, what I post here is always my opinion, sometimes backed by data :- Leica is a different thing. It is a real rangefinder and then there is the "Leica" feeling (much like there is a Fuji feeling, only much less expensive). One can make the OVF work, and work well, with certain lenses. My favorite for the X-Pro 3is the 27mm lens. And one can of course use the EVF for wider and longer. But that still doesn't get to the point of what the real MSP of an OVF is. There was one back when EVFs were really bad. But today? Even the "I can see the surroundings and know what's coming" argument is kind of mute. I can do that with the X-E5. Even Leica slowly tests the water with the EVF version of the M.
Still like to use my X-Pro3 because of the OVF. It makes taking photos different and thus helps me go out and shoot. But even X100 users admit that they use the EVF much more than the OVF. And I understand why. Firstly, there is the AF accuracy and reliability. As you may know, I don't trust Fuji's AF, so I use the X-Pro mostly in MF, or at least use focus peaking in the little window to confirm. And secondly: With the EVF, what you see is what you get.
Michael
Nielk Mike wrote
pressedbunny wrote
The movement of IBIS, even at the current industry-leading 8 stops or so, is so miniscule that it is absolutely irrelevant to the scale of any optical viewfinder. In the case of Fuji's latest 40mp sensor, we're talking about a maximum shift in any direction of 6.08µm (two pixels); in common units that's 0.00608mm, or 0.000239". Do you really think you need your viewfinder—optical or electronic—to accommodate a shift of literally six thousandths of a millimetre?Lens IS for telephotos can be a more drastic and noticeable shift, which an offset OVF (not TTL) can't represent, though I don't think anyone is banking on using an X-Pro with the 400mm f/4.5 OIS.
Anyway, the idea that the Pro line will never be seen again is totally unfounded and bizarre, though you've got to be completely detached from the industry and society in general to think the answer to a successful product is to make it more exclusive. We already saw the X100 and X-E spike in popularity... until the prices went up and 'coincidentally' the trend largely died down. People who want to show off their Leica at the country club aren't going to suddenly be happy with an X-Pro just because the price tag went up a bit. 'Luxury' items are precisely what are selling worse and worse now as people have less and less money to spare and much more important things to buy, and the 1%ers who do want and can buy the flashiest stuff will continue to buy the actual luxury goods, and not an imitation.
What the next X-Pro5/6 (I think they'll jump straight to 5 or 6, as 4 is unlucky and would look outdated) needs, to be successful, is to pick a lane. The 3 tried to be 'quirky' but they half-assed it. Either the next camera needs to step back from the experimental 3 and be a more fully-featured camera, so you're essentially getting an X-T5 with a small premium for the OVF and styling so it stands a chance of selling big numbers, or it needs to lean into the 3's niche even further and be made in smaller quantities so it doesn't have to sell a million units to be considered a success. Personally, I'd prefer the latter; clean up the 3's angles akin to the E5, ditch the secondary mini screen on the back, and put in something like the E5's film sim dial but use an e-ink display so it can be fully customised or reassigned to other functions. The E5 has received some criticism for adopting a grip, so let the Pro be the one with the grip bump to support larger-aperture primes, and the next E can go back to being totally flat.
And finally make it in bright, shining silver. None of this 'dura' or 'graphite' rubbish. Just slap on the same silver paint the other bodies get, it's fine.
Not every product has to break sales records to be successful, and niche products don't have to be only for the unusually wealthy. In fact that's kinda been the X series' whole deal since the very start.
An X-E on the other hand with top of the line EVF would be something.
Yet people still use OVF on Leicas with 35mm up to 90mm, and the old M3 finder does well with the special lenses from 35mm to 135mm, I've had one for 58 years and the lenses to go with it.
The dual mag Xpro2 finder is good from 18mm to the 50mm, and my Voigtlander 75mm is ok, I have even used 90mm with it, both...Show more →
Gerry, what I post here is always my opinion, sometimes backed by data :- Leica is a different thing. It is a real rangefinder and then there is the "Leica" feeling (much like there is a Fuji feeling, only much less expensive). One can make the OVF work, and work well, with certain lenses. My favorite for the X-Pro 3is the 27mm lens. And one can of course use the EVF for wider and longer. But that still doesn't get to the point of what the real MSP of an OVF is. There was one back when EVFs were really bad. But today? Even the "I can see the surroundings and know what's coming" argument is kind of mute. I can do that with the X-E5. Even Leica slowly tests the water with the EVF version of the M.
Still like to use my X-Pro3 because of the OVF. It makes taking photos different and thus helps me go out and shoot. But even X100 users admit that they use the EVF much more than the OVF. And I understand why. Firstly, there is the AF accuracy and reliability. As you may know, I don't trust Fuji's AF, so I use the X-Pro mostly in MF, or at least use focus peaking in the little window to confirm. And secondly: With the EVF, what you see is what you get.
Michael
Sep 19, 2026 at 01:43 AM
p.2 #19What the XproIV needs.
As a long time X100 photographer I should be interested in what X-Pro4 can offer. But somehow I am not interested anymore... Ok, latest tech could be implemented to X-Pro but I do not believe it would change fundamentals. X-Pro4 will be compared against other Fuji APS-C offerings, and not in very good way. If X-Pro4 ever comes out it will be larger and more expensive than other equally capable Fuji cameras. And those who really want the hybrid viewfinder (for some not rational reason) are perfectly happy with X100VI.
X-Pro series has been important for Fujifilm as a brand. Personally I was very close to buy X-Pro1. X-Pro1 was also the stepping stone to the wildly successful X100 series. But sorry to say the magic is not there anymore. Maybe I would think differently if there was a GFX-Pro
X-Pro series has been important for Fujifilm as a brand. Personally I was very close to buy X-Pro1. X-Pro1 was also the stepping stone to the wildly successful X100 series. But sorry to say the magic is not there anymore. Maybe I would think differently if there was a GFX-Pro
Sep 19, 2026 at 01:48 AM
p.2 #20What the XproIV needs.
gdanmitchell wrote:
But if you watch the cameras around you when you are out in the real world, as I often do, you are simply not going to see very many film cameras at all. There are so few, actually, that it is a bit of a novelty to see them. (I suppose that Instax is a kind of film cameras, kinda, sorta… but I see more of them than I see film SLRs and rangefinders.)I live in a tourist city, and prior to this I lived in two other tourist cities. I take note of every camera I walk past; I can't help it, I've always done it, and I can price up someone's rig in a second. Most of what I see around is digital SLRs, followed by Instax, then film rangefinders; we have a couple of shops here which specialise in film cameras, in fact. Mirrorless cameras are very noticeably a rarity, and when I do see them it's typically lower-end models. You're much more likely to see a Nikon D5xxx than a Sony α7 or R5.
This shouldn't be surprising to Fuji users, as in Fuji's case, Instax is the breadwinner which keeps the other lines afloat, and the X-T10/20/etc line is, and has always been, the top-seller outside of asia (where the X-M and X-A reign).
The idea that everyone is buying the latest mirrorless body every year is a fabrication of manufacturers' marketing and YouTube headline baiting. Ask any shop what they actually sell; they'll tell you they shift a couple of used DSLRs and/or their lenses for every mirrorless equivalent they sell.
gdanmitchell wrote:
And “manual focus only” lenses from Fujifilm? Those would sell like hotcakes! Week old hocakes. Stale. Left out in the sun… According to the Cosina rep I last asked, their Voigtlander 27mm f/2 for Fuji is their best-selling lens by far.
Again, something doesn't have to make topping sales charts to be successful. It's a gross mentality around camera gear that if something isn't breaking records it's useless or a failure; there has always been plenty of room for niche and limited-production products. If there wasn't, we'd all be using an α6400s with a Tamron zoom. Or, more likely, we'd all be using our phones and dedicated cameras wouldn't exist at all, because that's the actual answer to only making what's the most popular.
But if you watch the cameras around you when you are out in the real world, as I often do, you are simply not going to see very many film cameras at all. There are so few, actually, that it is a bit of a novelty to see them. (I suppose that Instax is a kind of film cameras, kinda, sorta… but I see more of them than I see film SLRs and rangefinders.)I live in a tourist city, and prior to this I lived in two other tourist cities. I take note of every camera I walk past; I can't help it, I've always done it, and I can price up someone's rig in a second. Most of what I see around is digital SLRs, followed by Instax, then film rangefinders; we have a couple of shops here which specialise in film cameras, in fact. Mirrorless cameras are very noticeably a rarity, and when I do see them it's typically lower-end models. You're much more likely to see a Nikon D5xxx than a Sony α7 or R5.
This shouldn't be surprising to Fuji users, as in Fuji's case, Instax is the breadwinner which keeps the other lines afloat, and the X-T10/20/etc line is, and has always been, the top-seller outside of asia (where the X-M and X-A reign).
The idea that everyone is buying the latest mirrorless body every year is a fabrication of manufacturers' marketing and YouTube headline baiting. Ask any shop what they actually sell; they'll tell you they shift a couple of used DSLRs and/or their lenses for every mirrorless equivalent they sell.
gdanmitchell wrote:
And “manual focus only” lenses from Fujifilm? Those would sell like hotcakes! Week old hocakes. Stale. Left out in the sun… According to the Cosina rep I last asked, their Voigtlander 27mm f/2 for Fuji is their best-selling lens by far.
Again, something doesn't have to make topping sales charts to be successful. It's a gross mentality around camera gear that if something isn't breaking records it's useless or a failure; there has always been plenty of room for niche and limited-production products. If there wasn't, we'd all be using an α6400s with a Tamron zoom. Or, more likely, we'd all be using our phones and dedicated cameras wouldn't exist at all, because that's the actual answer to only making what's the most popular.
Sep 19, 2026 at 12:27 PM