Fuji X-Pro 2 Reviews and Analysis

X-Pro 2

Ian Mac Donald is in the middle of a five review series that is pretty comprehensive. His latest, about how the X-Pro 2 operates for street photography, only lightly touches on street shooting; but has some excellent pictures. He also has his low light shooting impressions up that include some high ISO results and an unboxing page. I’m looking forward to his Portraiture and Conclusion, but I am sure his conclusion will be quite positive. There seem to be a lot of photographers out there with X-Pro 2 bodies and I am glad that Fuji is allowing them to share their experiences with us. So far, the only less than stellar written impressions I have come across are from Eric Kim, but I think his issue comes from an inability to separate himself from his Leica.

In the area of Video reviews, Camera Store TV just released their review. They seem less than excited about the new camera, which I find odd because their previous video was more positive.

When Camera Store TV covered the X-Pro 2 with Nathan Elson, they were more upbeat about the camera so I wonder if Fuji’s messaging is wearing off. The delay might start to affect sales if early reviews get negative. I’m curious what Digitalrev and others will be saying in the coming days/weeks. I know people that complain about Camera Store TV reviews and non technical reviews, but they are entertaining, and the photos they share can help people see the results a camera can achieve.

Most of the photos I have seen are making me excited about the possibilities, and I wonder how the X-Pro 2 will fit with my Leica Q and Leica M240. Stay tuned to find out.

This entry was posted in Fuji X-Pro2 and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Francisco Santos

    i dont get why they compared it to the d7200 .. the d7200 have a similar sensor (24MP from sony without AA filter) .. if course they get similar specs. The sharpness is given by the lens .. so to compare a similar sensor with different lenses to sharpness, won’t give you a result for the sensor. put a better lens on the Fuji, like the 90mm and it will give you more detail, put a zeiss on the nikon, and the nikon gets more detail.
    the ISO and Dynamic Range are astonishing good.. I know the results from the XTransII and this is slightly better.. great.. i didnt see the d7200 on the same level.
    The AF speed is said by 50 sources to be great and so much better. I doubt that it is compareable to the sony a6000 or 6300, but the FW4 AF is (for my work) ideal.. i do not shoot sport or wildlife that much. if i did, i would get the d7200.

    • Hardcore_Fanboy

      why vs d7200 ? because it is best IQ high megapixel crop sensor out there right now (except for Samsung, but you do not compare anything to a defacto dead system)… it is honor for fuji that it it can keep up whit d7200. although that “iso – reciprocity – exposure value” cheat – that is something that needs to be tested, cleared and mentioned more – so manufacturers drop that cheap cheat idea. or else we soon see “my new gen camera iso 25 000 is so clean as iso 400 from 5 years ago… but exposure values also are like iso 400 from 5 years ago”

  • Ian MacDonald states 77 PDAF points for X-Pro2. No. Wrong. It’s either 49 or 169, depending on which mode you have set (11×7 or 21×13 selecting AF points.)

    Now, to be fair, Fuji has been somewhat confusing about this. For example, on their page about autofocus on the X-Pro2 they say:

    “The number of selectable focusing points has been expanded from 49 on previous models to 77. Approximately 40% of the imaging area is now covered by fast, precise phase detection AF pixels, which means focusing speeds when photographing moving subjects have improved dramatically.”

    Not only is this a little confusing in the way they word it (it’s not wrong, it’s just, they don’t point out that 77 is the total selectable points in just one mode and 49 of them are PDAF points, instead they talk about 40% of the imaging area without indicating that 77 points cover more than 40%) but, it’s displayed right next to a view of what things look like when you have the finer-grain grid of 273 AF points, 169 of which are in the PDAF zone. It’s obviously at least ’77’ so people are likely just not bothering to count and see it’s 13×13.

    It’s pretty bad messaging, if you ask me. But this is the kind of erroneous detail that makes it hard to believe anything communicated by bloggers. This isn’t even delving into the myriad issues with “tests” and “comparisons” that lack anything resembling scientific rigor.