FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18928962
I like the idea!
I do think though that they could do the screen that flips out to the left and can rotate completely around like on the new XA7. I would like that better. They could still incorporate the little screen on the opposite side.
Personally I don't like the way the flip out works on my Xt2. Just seems like a very clunky solution.
I've always hated that screen style, and I'm super glad Fuji hasn't gone that route yet. That style of screen takes considerably longer to pull out, so much so that I don't find it useful, it's also far more bulky. I like with the X-T style that I can just flip it down quickly, take a couple of shots, and flip it back up, basically instantly.
kirkt wrote in post #18928986Thanks for your comments.
What makes the LCD arrangement hipster garbage (actually, what is hipster garbage? LOL)? The detractors in the thread to which I linked appear to be concerned that composition or image review will be affected in a negative way. My impression is that the X-Pro camera emphasizes the OVF/EVF for shooting, primarily because it is supposed to be a "rangefinder" style camera. Hopefully the new OVF/EVF will be superior to the present version and will alleviate some of the concern over the LCD.
What makes it hipster garbage is that it limits the usefulness of the camera basically entirely for nostalgic film camera call backs. The X-Pro line is absolutely emphasized for viewfinder shooting, but you also have the option to use the screen for composition at a moments notice. Taking away that ability just for the fun of it is pointless to me. If I want to shoot without the LCD as a distraction (as I sometimes do), then turning it off is a button press away... if it ain't broke don't fix it. Even if it is a superior LCD/OVF, I still want the ability to use the screen without having to completely stop what I'm doing and flip the thing out to compose dual lens reflex style.
kirkt wrote in post #18928986In terms of a stills-only camera - to me it is not a weird obsession, I think it is a practical choice. Obviously, when I described a stills-only camera, I was not simply implying that the video portion be dropped, I meant that the hybrid capability be reworked to remove video and replace the available space, power and processing with more stills-oriented capability and tools. I would rather have no video capability and remove all of the components in the camera that video requires (especially processing and heat dissipation elements that add bulk and weight) and have faster stills acquisition and processing, and better exposure, composition and focus tools that give the user access to raw sensor data (like a raw histogram as I mentioned previously). And, imagine if Fujifilm developed a few more film simulations and tone/color controls that were only available for the stills-only camera.... There is no need to go full crazy like the Leica with no LCD, but tweaking the current concept to emphasize stills would be a nice option and the X-Pro series seems like the logical platform, given its ostensible design intent. Maybe an X-Pro 3"P" for photo only.
With all do respect, this just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how video works in a modern camera. If a camera has an EVF built in, it already has the vast majority of the hardware required for video capture. Designing it to not shoot video from the onset is nonsensical. Again, all they'd be doing is narrowing their customer base, thus raising costs essentially for no reason... no thanks.
kirkt wrote in post #18928986One reason I hung on to my Canon 5D series cameras for so long was the Magic Lantern firmware (ironically initiated to enhance video shooting on the 5D) that gave me all of these stills tools and more. I have no idea how it would affect the cost of the camera, but I can see your point in terms of units sold and unit cost; however, if I were ever to consider purchasing an X-Pro camera that was designed and configured with the stills-only build and firmware/tools, I would consider paying the same or slightly more than the "base" X-Pro for the stills model, if the camera fit my needs. It will be interesting to see the specs on this new X-Pro (especially things like frame rate, focus capability, and all of the newer X-T3 and GFX 100 type of enhancements).
kirk
The very first sentence of this paragraph exemplifies exactly why removing video is a pointless endeavor.
Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18929009That rumoured design for the X-PRO3... I not a fan of the screen so far. If I don't want to see the screen I can just turn it off with the view button (EVF only), having a hinge is handy but I have other cameras that have hinges, I do sometimes miss that option though, like when I'm shooting over head or down low.
This.
Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18929009Removing the D Pad is fine, the GFX is missing one and I didn't mind that at all, same on the X-T30 with the touch screen taking over some of the shortcuts with a quick swipe, how do we do that with the screen all folded up put of the way as if proposed by Fuji Rumours? The X-PRO2 rear screen is the best of the bunch as far as resolution goes it's nice to use for that too.
I would agree with you here if it weren't for the rumor that they'll also be essentially removing the rear screen... no rear screen, no swipe functions + lack of D-pad buttons = gimped layout. Again, no thanks.
Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18929009As for Video I like having the option of it on a camera, either the iPhone, the Fuji or the big Sonys we use all can work out depending on the needs. You never know when it's come in handy and if you don't need it don't use it. Not like Fuji puts a lot of controls in the way but if they did put in a 3 stop ND a-la X-100F I'd also be happy (don't think that's going to happen even in the X-H2).
X-PRO2 covering a bit of video duty recently
This. I recently shot a dance recital for my gym and they were all blown away by the video quality (as was I). It's literally the first time I've shot a video on my X-Pro2, but it's amazing that the ability is there when I need it. In fact, because I knew the video would be better on the X-Pro2 I actually did all the stills on my X-T1, so I essentially used my B-camera as my A-camera just so I could do the better video... it would suck if neither camera offered video all together.
Scottboarding wrote in post #18929012I've only had my X-Pro2 for about a week now, so I don't know how worthwhile my opinion is, but I think the X-Pro3 looks great. I never saw the X-Pro line as a serious workhorse camera (not that it can't be used for that) but as more of a niche thing. Since the first was announced, I viewed it as a more modern take on Lecia rangefinders, so it's not crazy to do something creative with the back screen. Whenever I use an EVF, whether it be my X-pro2 or the Olympus I used to own, I never chimped because I already know how the image turned out. This screen design definitely isn't for everyone, but I think a decent amount of people will like it.
The main allure of the X-Pro2 for me is the OVF, not the EVF... thus chimping is still handy. 80+% of the time I use my X-Pro2 I'm using the OVF.
