Fuji Let's start talking about the X-Pro 3

Kevin

Code Monkey 🐒
Nov 3, 2018
104
Pennsylvania, USA
While the idea of displaying
It is. The film sim can be shown as a small text like on the lcd screen. It’s really just for fun, to look like the old frame holding the flap of the film box.
I can see the appeal of it; not something I'd turn on but I can see some people liking it.

The concept of having the small LCD screen on the back is something I'll be surprised if we don't see other manufacturers doing the same thing. As bodies continue to get thinner with each generation of mirrorless units it kind of makes sense to move the small info' panel from the top of the body to the back of the body instead of having to make the compromise of either using smaller display areas or artificially keeping the body dimensions big enough to accommodate them.
 

TraamisVOS

Hall of Famer
Nov 29, 2010
124
Melbourne, Australia
I agree with the idea of wishing for a simplified camera
I usually use Leicas. I bought the first Sony A7 when it first came out and the complex menu and multiple buttons drove me nuts. The always-on or always-off screen at the back was also a pain.

The first thing I did was assigned basic shutter and ISO functions to a couple of buttons and then never went into the menu ever again.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
124
Lexington, Virginia
Steve
I love it. I don't chimp, so this is ideal for me. It reminds me of the Epson RD1. I dislike flippy screens with a passion and have been known to tape them down, but I can see myself just not flipping 99% of the time.

Three thoughts...

1. I wonder what (positive) impact this will have on battery consumption figures.

2. One of the little pleasures of life for a perigrinating photographer is to rest our weary feet for a moment or two in a pavement café... Watching the world go by with a fragrant doppio and taking a moment to review our "catch" up to that point.

I'm rather hoping the phone integration is improved for just that purpose.

3. By the same token, the screen must also be fit for purpose both in quality and ergonomics to facilitate in camera raw development. I'm confident they have thought of that.

I have somewhat less disposable cash these days and "frivolous" purchases are currently out of my reach but I might seriously consider selling my first born for this camera...
This is quite a coup for Fuji. They came up with a tilt screen that simultaneously makes Bill and me happy. 🤯 One of the things I liked most about the flip screen of the EM5 II was that you could have it face inward, which made it more discreet and protected.
 
Last edited:

Tilman Paulin

Top Veteran
Nov 15, 2011
69
Vancouver B.C.
Tilman
While an XPro type camera is not for me, the mini display on the back of the main display is a neat idea.

On my EM1mk2 I usually keep the screen folded inwards (unless I need it, e.g. for a macro at ground level) and the only time I have to fold it out is for checking ISO or something like that... A traditional top LCD would be best, but lacking space for that the back of the main LCD is convenient...

Or... they could just offer a simplified info panel for the main LCD (e.g. a stripped down to the basics SCP)... - just providing ISO, shutter speed, F-stop...
... and of course film simulation mode ;) (or art filter :D )
 

Lightmancer

Super Moderator
Aug 13, 2011
164
Sunny Frimley
Bill Palmer
Just as a matter of semantics, I don't perceive the term "retro" as being pejorative per se. Camera handling is a very personal thing, and I remember some of the experiments in the 80s and early 90s with whacky-shaped cameras (Canon Epoca or Yashica Samurai, anyone?) Fact is that the shape of a human hand and the positioning of the eyes has not changed for millennia. Certain shapes just work. The predominant designs for cameras are therefore viewfinder in the centre (SLR-style) and viewfinder on the left (rangefinder-style). I say "style", because mirrorless cameras are not in truth a Single Lens Reflex design any more than the X-Pro series are true rangefinders; they are re-interpretations of designs that are proven to work.

Personally I have used both designs successfully for over 30 years, but I have always preferred the rangefinder handling and style. I find it less intrusive and less threatening when shooting people; I find it less bulky when travelling and I find it simply suits me in terms of how I work.

Ditto the screen-wars that are raging in some corners of t'internet. I do not like flippy screens. Full stop. I like this idea from Fuji, but I would still prefer a fixed screen. DO NOT tell me that I don't have to flip it. That is missing the point. I do not want to pay for a flippy screen on my camera. I do not want the complexity and failure point of a flippy screen on my camera. I do not like the way that flippy screens occasionally get caught on clothing or when removing my camera from a bag or pouch. Above all it does not suit the way I work. And before anyone says how useful it is for "shooting from the hip" may I direct you to a book called "Shots from the Hip" by Johnny Stiletto; he worked with an Olympus SLR in London in the 1980s. No flippy screen there...
 

rayvonn

All-Pro
Jan 19, 2015
124
Just as a matter of semantics, I don't perceive the term "retro" as being pejorative per se. Camera handling is a very personal thing, and I remember some of the experiments in the 80s and early 90s with whacky-shaped cameras (Canon Epoca or Yashica Samurai, anyone?) Fact is that the shape of a human hand and the positioning of the eyes has not changed for millennia. Certain shapes just work. The predominant designs for cameras are therefore viewfinder in the centre (SLR-style) and viewfinder on the left (rangefinder-style). I say "style", because mirrorless cameras are not in truth a Single Lens Reflex design any more than the X-Pro series are true rangefinders; they are re-interpretations of designs that are proven to work.

Personally I have used both designs successfully for over 30 years, but I have always preferred the rangefinder handling and style. I find it less intrusive and less threatening when shooting people; I find it less bulky when travelling and I find it simply suits me in terms of how I work.

Ditto the screen-wars that are raging in some corners of t'internet. I do not like flippy screens. Full stop. I like this idea from Fuji, but I would still prefer a fixed screen. DO NOT tell me that I don't have to flip it. That is missing the point. I do not want to pay for a flippy screen on my camera. I do not want the complexity and failure point of a flippy screen on my camera. I do not like the way that flippy screens occasionally get caught on clothing or when removing my camera from a bag or pouch. Above all it does not suit the way I work. And before anyone says how useful it is for "shooting from the hip" may I direct you to a book called "Shots from the Hip" by Johnny Stiletto; he worked with an Olympus SLR in London in the 1980s. No flippy screen there...
I don't know why I found that funny, but I did. Could be the use of the phrase "failure point", might have to claim that one myself.
 

Mike G

All-Pro
Oct 7, 2016
124
West London
Mike Gorman
Just as a matter of semantics, I don't perceive the term "retro" as being pejorative per se. Camera handling is a very personal thing, and I remember some of the experiments in the 80s and early 90s with whacky-shaped cameras (Canon Epoca or Yashica Samurai, anyone?) Fact is that the shape of a human hand and the positioning of the eyes has not changed for millennia. Certain shapes just work. The predominant designs for cameras are therefore viewfinder in the centre (SLR-style) and viewfinder on the left (rangefinder-style). I say "style", because mirrorless cameras are not in truth a Single Lens Reflex design any more than the X-Pro series are true rangefinders; they are re-interpretations of designs that are proven to work.

Personally I have used both designs successfully for over 30 years, but I have always preferred the rangefinder handling and style. I find it less intrusive and less threatening when shooting people; I find it less bulky when travelling and I find it simply suits me in terms of how I work.

Ditto the screen-wars that are raging in some corners of t'internet. I do not like flippy screens. Full stop. I like this idea from Fuji, but I would still prefer a fixed screen. DO NOT tell me that I don't have to flip it. That is missing the point. I do not want to pay for a flippy screen on my camera. I do not want the complexity and failure point of a flippy screen on my camera. I do not like the way that flippy screens occasionally get caught on clothing or when removing my camera from a bag or pouch. Above all it does not suit the way I work. And before anyone says how useful it is for "shooting from the hip" may I direct you to a book called "Shots from the Hip" by Johnny Stiletto; he worked with an Olympus SLR in London in the 1980s. No flippy screen there...
Never mind the XPro3, where are the Queens Wayfarers volume 2?
 

TraamisVOS

Hall of Famer
Nov 29, 2010
124
Melbourne, Australia
Just as a matter of semantics, I don't perceive the term "retro" as being pejorative per se.
Neither do I. I thought Fujifilm did a spectacular thing by daring to be different to Canon and Nikon who have enjoyed cornering the market for decades with their miniscule, incremental, controlled releases every few years. Fujifilm gave consumers a fantastic alternative in a retro fixed lens camera that also happened to take fantastic photos. The retro design gave the cameras style and character.

The other company that stuck a fork into Canon and Nikon was Red Camera. Jim Jannard aggressively convinced the public and the industry (for better or worse) that everybody needed 4K as the standard.

And then Magic Lantern really, really stuck into Canon because they released hacks that showed that the Canon DSLRs were capable of so much more if Canon didn't intentionally limit the functionality. In the meantime, Nikon sat idly by and did absolutely nothing.

And then Sony came back on the scene ... and showed that huge advances in technology were possible today. Each camera release showed how much more Canon and Nikon could have offered to their consumers but chose not to.

Fujifilm, Sony, Sigma, Olympus - they all deserve accolades for pushing cameras and photography to the highest possible levels. The iPhones deserve some acknowledgement as well I suppose... but meh.
 
Last edited:

TraamisVOS

Hall of Famer
Nov 29, 2010
124
Melbourne, Australia
What I'm saying is - Fujifilm isn't playing a game of "let's give them less".

They're designing their cameras with style and retro-coolness. The market is ripe for innovation in style, we've had decades of the same DLSR that looks the bloody same in every iteration.

Every modern digital camera only really needs three controls - aperture, shutter, ISO. I would've said every modern digital camera also needs a back screen but Leica proved that's not always the case for a tiny minority. It doesn't matter too much what Fujifilm does as long as IQ is reasonably good. What matters to them is stylish/retro innovation and how they're able to incorporate that into the next release for the retro coolness factor.

The Sony cameras are ugly as hell, in my humble opinion. But they make up for it by being genuine powerhouse cameras that far surpass the Canons and Nikons in terms of resolution or ISO performance, while maintaining IQ.

What we need is the equivalent of a vehicular Fujifilm or a Sony to throw the automotive industry into a hot mess.

And batteries... BATTERIES, power sources. Batteries and/or power source technology has NOT significantly improved for decades.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
124
Lexington, Virginia
Steve
And batteries... BATTERIES, power sources. Batteries and/or power source technology has NOT significantly improved for decades.
They just gave the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the last real innovation, lithium ion tech. A real improvement in batteries would be worth a lot more than all dedicated camera sales combined. But I agree with your post. Looks and feel matter. A camera is just a tool in the sense that a car is just a tool, i.e., not.
 

TraamisVOS

Hall of Famer
Nov 29, 2010
124
Melbourne, Australia
They just gave the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the last real innovation, lithium ion tech. A real improvement in batteries would be worth a lot more than all dedicated camera sales combined. But I agree with your post. Looks and feel matter. A camera is just a tool in the sense that a car is just a tool, i.e., not.
oh yes, I saw that in the news re the Nobel.

And yes look and feel matters. That's what the Canon and Nikon developers have completely forgotten because no one challenged their dominance for so many years. They are basically the Gollum of the camera industry.

And there are those ridiculous phrases travelling through the internet:

"the camera is just a tool" (yes it is, and also, no it's not)​
"the best camera is the one that's with you" (sure, but tell that to a working professional whose primary camera and backup camera broke down the night before an important gig)​
"no chimping" (look up 'tethering' - the ultimate chimp of all chimps - studio professionals swear by it)​
"something something the decisive moment something something" (aka complete and utter luck, depending on the circumstances)​
There is some merit in these phrases but people take it to the cult-ish extremes while using them as a weapon to put others down.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom