Fuji Announces X-Pro3 w/Improved Optical Viewfinder

[VidThreeNorth]

There are a full array of preview videos and articles about this new camera, so I will just post one as a start point:

"Fuji X-Pro3 arrives with X-T3 image pipeline, hybrid viewfinder improvements + hidden touch-screen LCD"
by Mike Tomkins, published by Imaging Resource, Oct 23, 2019

"Fuji X-Pro3 arrives with X-T3 image pipeline, hybrid viewfinder improvements + hidden touch-screen LCD"

Price for body along $1,800 US, available "late fall of 2019".

 

[cgw]

Fuji drove the 3 even deeper into the X-Pro niche with this model. The two-sided LCD is something you get immediately or dislike strongly. Saw that a few weeks back from a statistically insignificant sample of people who got to play with one at a local camera store that's a 5 minute drive from Fujifilm Canada's HQ in Mississauga, Ontario. Reps do impromptu show-and-tell sessions there despite lock-ups on new merch. The optical viewfinder is improved with better frame lines but the missing d-pad wasn't a hit with me or a few others. Better, faster AF. Beautiful fit and finish typical of all Japanese-made Fuji gear. It's pricey here at C$2399 for the black and +C$300 for the Dura Black and Silver version when the X-T3 is promo priced at C$1699. Not anticipated under the tree for me this Xmas but do hope there's a strong downdraft on X-Pro 2 demo and open box prices!

Fuji appears to sharpening the separations among its top-shelf APS-C product lines: X-Pro, X-T and X-Txx.

 

[jcdeboever]

Really a camera that gets me excited. I like everything about it. The improved viewfinder is huge for me, as is the enhanced in camera editing option. Having a "s curve" edit is very desirable for me. I prefer to not edit my images, I really work to get the images as I see fit in the camera. That back window is something great for me as I switch simulations a lot while I shoot. The new simulation pro neg looks super nice and I like that you can control the chrome effect blue channel, just what the doctor ordered in my book. I could care less about the flip screen, I just don't use them. I rarely preview the image after making it. If I do, its via the evf because my XT2 lcd is always off. Most of my stuff is in the Q menu and adjust via evf. The focal length optical view finder is super, I used the optical a lot when I had a XP2. The focus range limiter is fantastic as I love to shoot that way when using AF. So many, well thought out improvements. Fujifilm really listen to the photographers. At the end of the day, I see this as the perfect street camera, and probably the most technically robust still cameras. Another Fujifilm homerun IMO. They are going to sell the crap out of it.

I'm getting it in April unless there is a super sale.

 

[cgw]

I wonder if Fujifilm has sorted out what sunk X-H1 sales: Sony or the camera’s design? Not sure there won’t be some long backorder queues if they limit initial production.Those bargain-priced X-H1+grip+ batteries packages must have been a bit of an embarrassment. The X-Pro is a superb design but it is expensive and won’t sell much beyond the Fuji faithful.

 

[jcdeboever]

I have wondered about that myself. IMO...The XH1 didn't really have any ground breaking technology. The XT2 was such a major improvement over the XT1, XH1 had some big shoes to fill. They were and probably still are a stills company at large. I could care less about video, I think I was in that majority. Here the thing, its a great camera. I almost bought one because of the price but at the end of the day it offered no advantage over my XT2. The XT3 is no serious upgrade to the XT2 either but it is still a fine camera. So I wait and then thw XP3 hits with some major upgrade for how I use a camera, it gets my attention. I want a camera that works with and for me. XP3 is it based on what I have seen. I am looking for solutions when I make an image.

 

[cgw]

Funny but I noticed the prices on the X-Pro 2 demos
I’ve been stalking dropped a few hundred bucks overnight. Coincidence?

Trailing edge is good enough pour moi.

BTW, this is a solid review from a pro Fuji X shooter:

 

[pocketshaver]

Im not so wowed by some of the features. BUT the Fuji software to emulate there FILM stock actually IS a great thing that I wish others would attempt.

Going by Fuji website photos, the black and white emulation ACTUALLY PASSES as black and white photography.

 

[jcdeboever]

Yes and no. The acros simulation is clise to Acros but that is it.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Are there topics for film simulations in general? I'd be interested in finding out what others have found. I can't say that I'm really that interested in them. For me, when I'm working on a picture, I'm usually looking at individual aspects like "I think this is one has too much contrast" or "I'd like brighter green here". I don't really approach them from a general film simulation point of view. Actually, if I think about it, I don't have that wide a range of film experience. In order, I think I shot Tri-X, Ilford B&W (cannot remember the name of the stocks) Fujicolor, Kodacolor, FujiChrome, Ektachrome, Ektacolor Pro, Agfacolor, Kodachrome, and a bit of some others. Really, that's not so much, and the only ones I feel that I "know" are the group from Kodacolor to Ektacolor Pro.

As far as I know Kodak is still a company. They should look into working with various companies to develop and licence simulations. I think a lot of people would like to have a Kodachrome simulation in a Sony body.

 

[jcdeboever]

There are tons of 3rd party simulations and most of them don't duplicate or translate well in my experiments. They have similarities but I still shoot a lot of film and IMO, I don't see it. I think fujifilm does a good job but for me, its more of a look your trying to give an image. It only works if you convert it in camera to jpeg or you shoot jpeg. I guess there is one fujifilm raw supporter that converts it but its just another flippin piece of software to add in your workflow, not for me.

Remember Kodachrome was legendary and dramatically different in its day. Todays colors coming out of most digital cameras are lush and beautiful so imo, its not needed. What do I know? It's subjective.

 

[cgw]

Are there topics for film simulations in general? I'd be interested in finding out what others have found. I can't say that I'm really that interested in them. For me, when I'm working on a picture, I'm usually looking at individual aspects like "I think this is one has too much contrast" or "I'd like brighter green here". I don't really approach them from a general film simulation point of view. Actually, if I think about it, I don't have that wide a range of film experience. In order, I think I shot Tri-X, Ilford B&W (cannot remember the name of the stocks) Fujicolor, Kodacolor, FujiChrome, Ektachrome, Ektacolor Pro, Agfacolor, Kodachrome, and a bit of some others. Really, that's not so much, and the only ones I feel that I "know" are the group from Kodacolor to Ektacolor Pro.

As far as I know Kodak is still a company. They should look into working with various companies to develop and licence simulations. I think a lot of people would like to have a Kodachrome simulation in a Sony body.

Look into the film simulations included with the still-free Nik Collection plug-ins:

 

[SquarePeg]

From discussion on another page. Can someone explain this to me? TIFF vs JPEG

“New Image Processing options
The X-Pro3 brings a couple of additions to its processing arsenal and a couple of refinements to its existing functions and gains the ability to output TIFFs if you want a highly editable file with the camera's color already applied."

 

[RVT1K]

From discussion on another page. Can someone explain this to me? TIFF vs JPEG

“New Image Processing options
The X-Pro3 brings a couple of additions to its processing arsenal and a couple of refinements to its existing functions and gains the ability to output TIFFs if you want a highly editable file with the camera's color already applied."

I'm not 100% sure but I believe that the difference is a JPEG file has been compressed and a TIFF is not.
Compressing a file allows it to take up less space but it can loose fidelity during the compression/decompression process.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

WARNING: Boredom ahead!

TIFF: "Tagged Image File Format", currently owned by Adobe. On the one hand, it is one of the oldest file formats, but it has been updated and extended to the point of near meaninglessness. For example, a JPEG/JFIF file can be turned into a TIFF file by adding a correct file header. The minimum support is at most RLE compression which is loss-less but very large. The best loss-less compression is LZW compressed. The biggest advantage is that it can support colors beyond 8-bit/colour.
"TIFF - Wikipedia"

JPEG: " Joint Photographic Experts Group", image format based on patented work of the members (IBM, Mitsubishi, AT&T and Canon). All versions of JPEG are "lossy". The currently commonly used definition is actually JPEG/JFIF. A superior format JPEG 2000 exists, but has not been commonly adopted. The MPO standard is an extension of JPEG that is used by 3D photography companies such as Panasonic.
"JPEG - Wikipedia"

 

[VidThreeNorth]

For the record, I have generally promoted the idea of adding PNG support to still cameras. In theory, TIFF can be better than PNG, but you get into the problem of "exactly what format are you supporting" when you say you are supporting TIFF?