Rented An X-PRO 2 For A Week; Here Are My Thoughts

Railroad to Nowhere (click to enlarge)
Fuji X-T2, 50-140mm f/2.8 lens @ 140mm; 1/100th sec. @ f/8; ISO 400

Recently, I rented a Fujifilm X-PRO 2 body for 7 days.  I have been patiently waiting for the Fujifilm X-T2 to be introduced.  If and when it will be introduced is still speculative at this point.  Being a bit impatient, I wanted to find out for myself how much improvement I would see in various capabilities and features found in the X-Pro 2 that I find important and would use in my particular types of photography.  I thought I would share my thoughts with you.  This is not a review of the camera, just my thoughts for my types of photography after only a week of use.  This won't be long but to the point.  Your photography may be completely different and your needs and opinion may vary widely.

Initial thoughts upon first holding the camera

Upon first opening the shipping box, I found the X-Pro 2 very nice looking, a bit larger than the X-T1 and a camera with a good substantial feel. Remember, haptics and feel are a big part of liking or disliking a camera.  This camera feels good in my hand.  Metal construction. It feels well built and well engineered. The finish is excellent with a soft sheen to the black paint.  The letters and symbols are in white and easily read.  The rubberized grip on the front right is a bit shallow for my large hands, but usable.  That is not really an issue.  The control labels are, for the most part, consistent with my X-T1, so no real re-learning needed.  I love the sound of the shutter!  It is much different and more pleasing than the sound of my X-T1 shutter.

The memory card door latch is a bit more substantial.  The battery compartment and door is essentially the same.  The exposure compensation dial is just a bit larger making it easier to turn than on my X-T1.  I am thankful for that.  I find I have to use a thumb and forefinger to change the dial on the X-T1 but am able to use only my thumb on the X-Pro 2.  Nice change.  Little things like that make a difference in the real world.

Fuji X-T2, 18-55mm f/2.8-4 lens @ 55mm; 1/500th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200

All in all, my first impression is that this is a very nice and substantial piece of gear that is well made and worth the money.

 The menu system is very different from my X-T1 as are many camera controls on the back.  But it only took a short while to find and get used to everything. Most everything is easily found.  

The electronic viewfinder (EVF) is a bit smaller than X-T1's.  But the resolution of the image inside the EVF is excellent.  The optical viewfinder (OVF) takes me back to my Leica rangefinder days.  I never rally warmed up to rangefinder–type optical viewfinders.  They aren't my preference.  There is too much loss of the viewfinder's image in the bottom right quarter due to lens barrel intrusion. Any lens larger than a small prime lens obstructs that part of the viewfinder.  Telephoto and zoom lenses can obstruct even more of your view of your subject.  There is a reason almost all Leica lenses are small primes.

I very much like the joystick for moving the focusing point(s).  How come no one had put one of these on a camera long before?

I've read lots of hubbub about the ISO dial being within the shutter speed dial, but I've owned several film cameras with the same feature.  Much ado about nothing, in my opinion.  Nitpicking, in my view.  

All that said, nothing unexpected from reading about the camera online.

Optical Viewfinder/Electronic Viewfinder

The way Fuji has implemented the combination optical/electronic viewfinder, with all the data visible in both, is very complex.  The frame lines enlarge or shrink as you zoom in or or out.  They also move on horizontal and vertical axes to compensate for parallax error that is inherent in optical viewfinders.  The focus points do the same.  Well done Fuji! I've never quite seen anything quite as complex on a camera before.  Hats off to their engineers for creating an amazing combination.  I guess that is the primary reason the body costs as much as it does.

As soon as I pressed the optical viewfinder to my eye, it took me back to my years using a Leica rangefinder.  Even though I primarily used a Leica for several years, I never really preferred a rangefinder over a single lens reflex.  Realistically today, I would have limited use for the optical viewfinder.  In my case, my main interest in the OVF was to test it using 8 fps and tracking fast moving subjects.  I did so with a couple of Amtrak trains at 79 mph.  The EVF in my X-T1 cannot keep up with 8 fps and panning with fast moving subjects.  I have to anticipate or guess where the subject is as I pan trying to follow it.  I found using the optical viewfinder in the X-Pro 2 is a good workaround.  The other use for me would be street photography.  One of the things I liked about my Leica rangefinder was the ability to see what might be moving into my frame before it does.  The OVF in this camera serves the same purpose.  Other than that, I prefer the EVF, which is smaller than on my X-T1, but not by much and very usable.  To me, Its slightly smaller size is not really a drawback.  I suspect it is smaller due to form factor and the incorporation of the OVF. 

Fuji X-T2, 18-55mm f/2.8-5 lens @ 23.3mm; 1/1000th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 800

All in all, the OVF/EVF is an amazing piece of engineering. It zooms when you zoom your lens.  It moves according to how your focus distance changes.  The focusing points reposition themselves according to how far from the camera you focus the lens, etc.  Fuji really did an excellent job with the engineering on this camera.

But I don't really need it unless the X-T2 doesn't solve my problem with the EVF being fast enough to keep up with panning on fast moving subjects.  I would rather have just a larger EVF for my purposes.

Image Qualities (plural)

In short, if you are happy with the image quality of your current Fuji camera, you will be even more pleased with the X-Trans III sensor's capabilities.  I was very pleased with resolution, color, contrast and saturation.  I ran some of the same tests on the same subjects photographing green foliage and very small details (such as small bare branches on distant trees or gravel in a roadway) and I'm happy to report that I really didn't see any of the mushy greens or outlines around the small details.  Whether it is because the 24mp sensor with its finer resolution counteracts those issues or Adobe has been quietly improving Lightroom's conversion of the X-Tran's files, the amount of detail in greens as well as lack of "outlining" of small non-green detail is heartening.  I am very pleased.

I'm not ready to proclaim mushy greens and outlines no longer exist as I only had the camera for a week and really didn't get to put it through its paces long term, but what I did see is very encouraging.

During my week with the camera, I photographed a family event that was held partly inside and partly outside, in and around an open as well as an enclosed structure.  For those of you in the U.S., you will know what I mean by a garage with a carport attached. The terminology may be different in different countries, however.

What challenge I most encountered was how to balance the bright outside background while people stood under a roof or even inside in deep shade.  After editing the images, I was able to easily bring down the brightness of the sunlit outside and balance it with the inside light so the people I was photographing looked proper.  For most of the images I made, I calculated this difference to be about 5 1/2  stops difference in basic exposure between outside and inside.  Some were even more widespread.  Couple that with highlight detail outside and shadow detail inside and you have a very wide spread of light values.  The dynamic range of the sensor and the ability to recover highlights and keep shadow detail was excellent.  Almost as good as my Nikon D810, which is still kind of the king of dynamic range, measured at 14.8 stops (DXO).

Fuji X-T2, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens @ 400mm; 1/7th sec. @ f/16; ISO 200

Now this is startling.  I found not a single instance where the RAW image was better than the accompanying JPEG in any of images I made during the week I used the camera. Even in the extreme when trying to balance outside and inside brightness from the family event I photographed, the JPEG was able to equal the RAW.  In fact, at high ISOs, the JPEG was better than the RAW due to the in-camera noise reduction the camera applied. 



Now, I only made 307 (+307 accompanying JPEGS) images, but they were made under a wide variety of conditions. Unfortunately for me, due to a week of excessive rain and a major family emergency, I wasn't able to use the camera more.  However, I suspect if I continued to use the camera for a much longer period of time, I probably would find some occasions where the RAW was superior. But, for the few hundred of images I made, I find it remarkable the JPEGS are as good as the RAW images.  We've come a long way in digital imaging.

Closely examining my image files, I came to the conclusion that even with noise reduction turned all the way down in the camera (-3), Fuji still applies quite a bit of noise reduction to the JPEGs in-camera.  But, it is implemented very well.  I'm not complaining, I'm complimenting.  At high ISOs (5000-6400), noise in the JPEG files is minimal but fine detail is still present.  Its better than I've seen it for in-camera noise reduction at high ISOs.  I was generally not able to better the noise reduction for my RAW images in Lightroom as applied in-camera to JPEGS.  If I were to own this camera, from my experience which is somewhat limited, I would probably utilize the JPEGS instead of the RAW image files for high ISOs.  Even at ISO 400, I can see better JPEGS than RAWs when it comes to detail and noise.  They are that good, in my opinion.

I also tested no sharpening versus my standard +1 sharpening to the JPEG files to see if they were better than the sharpening that is applied to the JPEGs in my X-T1.  The problem I have with the sharpening in my X-T1 is that there is that telltale white line next to the edges that I don't like to see and can't use if I send an image off to my stock agency (they want no sharpening applied).  I think the Fuji engineers turned up the Radius setting too high causing the excessive width of the white line.

In the X-Pro 2, JPEG sharpening is implemented in a much better fashion.  In fact, I could not or just barely match the in-camera sharpening (at +1) with sharpening applied later to the JPEGs in Lightroom.  With the X-T1, I keep the sharpening at -2 and sharpen in Lightroom.  That gives me a better result.  With the X-Pro 2, I think the opposite is true.

Autofocus

The autofocus seems to be faster.  How much faster?  I really don't have a feel for that but my impression is that it focuses and locks on a bit faster than my X-T1.

The continuous autofocus doesn't seem to hunt and pulsate nearly as much as it does in the X-T1.  I could detect a small amount.  The green focusing box would turn green, then turn white, then turn green, then turn white, etc.  Not as obvious in the X-Pro 2 as the X-T1.  I think Fuji is using contrast-detect autofocus at the very end of the focusing sequence when using continuous focus and that causes the pulsation—even when using the phase-detect autofocus points.  Other manufacturers, when utilizing the center phase-detect autofocus points, keep with the phase detect all the way through the process.   The lack of significant pulsation is welcome news as I never quite knew if my X-T1 was or was not in focus as it followed a moving subject.  There is no definite visual cue, however, it seemed to always be in focus when examining the resulting image.  Maybe a non-issue or only one of minor annoyance?

Extreme Test;  There is a 7 2/3 stop difference between the correct exposure (middle gray) for outside in the daylight and
inside in this garage under a couple of fluorescent lights..  I was amazed at how well the image could look considering
adding about 3 more stops for the bright highlights outside above middle gray and 3 stops darker than middle gray for the
shadows inside. It is not a great image but it shows what you can get out of a file if necessary.   (click to enlarge)

I set out to really test the continuous autofocusing.  Using a single focus point, the X-Pro 2 locked on perfectly on 4 of 6 images of an Amtrak train coming almost directly at me at about 79 mph (127 kph), which I thought was good.  It just missed the other two by a small margin.  At normal viewing magnification all 6 of the images looked sharp, but at 100% you could see the camera just missed but a little bit on 2 of them.  It is easier to lock on subjects going left or right, but coming almost directly at me at 79 mph was admirable.  I think that is an improvement.  Also, using OVF, I was able to easily pan with the train as it got closer (too close in fact!) as I recomposed the image.  No problem.  

On another test with a similar moving train, I stood about 30 degrees away from the train's direction and utilized the zone focusing.  The camera didn't do as well as with the single focus point.  The problem was that at a good distance, the camera chose a focus point (out of the six in the zone) that was on the side of the train's locomotive instead of the front.  It did that for several of the images.  Only when the locomotive took up the majority of the viewfinder, did it capture the front of the locomotive in sharp focus.  The images were in focus, but not exactly where I wanted them to be.  To be fair, I was panning with the train, zooming out as it got closer and trying to keep the zone focusing frames on the front of the engine/train as it approached.  I may have some fault in not keeping the focus point fully on the front.  At this point, I don't know.  It was quite a test. As far as the number of frames in focus, 80% of them were in sharp focus on the front of the locomotive when looking at the images at 100%.  I'll take that for that kind of test.

Menus/Controls

I liked all the controls on the right side of the LCD.  The height (relief) of the buttons above the camera body is a bit better than on the X-T1 in the fact that they protrude from the body a bit more.  That being said, I used Sugru to raise the level of several of the buttons on the X-T1 and I would do the same for this camera if I were keeping it.  The 4-way pad and buttons are so much easier to find without taking one's eye from the viewfinder when raised a significant amount.  I haven't found that I accidentally pushed them due to the extra height.

The menus are significantly different from the X-T1.  I expected they would be.  The Format function to erase my memory card is buried much too deeply into the system where you have to really try to remember where it is.  Nikon allows users to simultaneously press two buttons on the camera body to reformat your memory card. You can't do it accidentally, but you can do it quickly when you need to reformat your card.  Fuji could take a cue from that.  I used a Lexar 64gb 2000X card for all my photography with this camera and experienced no issues whatso

Acros Conversion; 4 stop light difference from sunlit outside to shade
(click to enlarge)

The rest of the menu items seem more complicated and deeper than with the X-T1.  I could get used to this menu system, and I would if I were keeping the camera, but it seems to me the X-T1's menu system is a bit more straightforward.  The Q function is pretty much the same, and that is a good thing.  The Q function is very useful.

The LCD is only about 75% of the size of the LCD on my X-T1.  The X-Pro 2's LCD is 4.5 square inches. The X-T1's 6 square inches. That is a pretty big difference.  Additionally, the X-Pro 2's LCD does not articulate in any way. These two things are problematic in two ways for me. First, all of the symbols, numbers, words, aperture designations, shutter speeds, etc. are much smaller and more difficult to read.  Second, I utilize the tilt feature (up and down) to move my X-T1 LCD quite frequently. When out photographing with the X-PRO 2, it immediately becomes inconvenient not to have the tilting LCD feature.  I guess I didn't realize how much I utilized it.  I understand why Fuji did not include it as this camera body is targeted toward street photographers and not nature and landscape photographers.  I believe I read an interview with a Fuji manager who indicated a tilting LCD was not a high priority for the target audience for this camera.  Most of all, I don't care for the smaller size as it sometimes takes more than just a glance to see shutter speed, aperture, etc..

I'm so used to using the 4-way buttons to change focusing point positions on my X-T1 that I would often reach down with my thumb to move the focusing point on the X-Pro 2. I would forget about the joystick. However, as soon as some menu item appeared instead of the focusing point moving, I would be reminded that I pressed the wrong control.  I love the joystick and found it was much easier to use than the 4-way buttons.  Also, the ability to press the joystick straight in to recenter my focus point worked very nicely for me.  I can't believe it took manufacturers this long to implement something this basic.  I think the two new Nikons, the D5 and D500, have this feature as well.

I don't care for the AF-L or Q buttons right under my right thumb.  I realize real estate on the camera back is limited, but the AF-L button is an important button for back-button focusing, my preferred method, and needs to be to the left of one's thumb so one can easily press it without moving one's grip.  That was an engineering mistake, in my opinion. The only redeeming aspect of that is that you can swap functions with the AE-L button, which is in a much better position to press without taking your eye from the viewfinder or altering your grip.  If Fuji is catering to professional or advanced enthusiast photographers, many of them use the back button focusing methodology.  They should keep that in mind.

Dislikes

I don't have any significant dislikes to report.  The only things that I would like Fuji include would be an LCD that articulated and possibly a touchscreen LCD.  But those are personal preferences and don't take away from the overall satisfaction of creating images with this camera.

Overall

As I stated earlier, if you have a need for an OVF (I'm hoping Fuji follows Sony's cue and creates an EVF without any blackout when using 8 fps so one can easily track a fast moving subject) as it adds expense, like the rangefinder form and want even better image quality than with your current Fuji camera, buy this camera.  There have been several substantial improvements to the camera, controls, etc., that I found worthwhile.  

Will I buy one?  If for some reason the X-T2 will be delayed significantly (can anyone say earthquake and destruction of Sony's sensor plant?), I would probably buy this camera. After all, what is the most important thing for which we ultimately buy a camera?  Image quality.  This camera provides excellent image quality. It feels good to use and, although having some personal drawbacks for me, is still worthy of my money.  I was very, very pleased with my time with the X-Pro 2.  Now, I can't wait for an X-T2!

Lastly, if anyone is interested, I rented the X-Pro 2 body through www.borrowlenses.com. This is the second time I rented from them and both times the experience has been excellent.  I will rent from them again when necessary.

Thanks for looking. Enjoy! 

Dennis A. Mook 

All content on this blog is © 2013-2016 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.