Fujifilm makes a variety of interesting APS-C (cropped sensor) cameras with different body designs, including from the DSLR-like XT series, the minimalist fixed-lens X100v and similar models, the tiny XE series, and the XPro designs. Unlike most companies making digital cameras, Fujifilm tends to put the same sensors in cameras of a particular vintage (which today means a 26MP APS-C “x-trans” sensor) and differentiate among the cameras in functional ways — size, types of viewfinders, physical controls, IBIS, price, etc.

After engaging in some discussions about some of these cameras recently, it occurred to me that despite doing about half of my photography with one of these Fujifilm cameras I haven’t written a lot about them here recently. So this post takes on some of the key features of the XPro line and some of my thoughts about the current state of this type of camera. (I mostly will not address general topics here, such as the cropped-sensor versus full-frame comparison, or the pluses/minuses of the Fujifilm x-trans filter array, etc.)

The XPro cameras

Fujifilm has now introduced three cameras in this series, the XPro-1, XPro-2, and XPro3. All of them share the rangefinder-style body design. They are not true rangefinder cameras since they use a non-rangefinder system for focusing, but the experience is fundamentally similar to using old-school interchangeable lens rangefinder cameras. This similarity isn’t just about looking or feeling like a rangefinder camera — it is also about including dedicated physical controls knobs (and buttons and switches) for a lot of camera settings such as shutter speed, aperture, ISO, exposure compensation, and more. While most modern cameras use a modal digital interface, where a single button or wheel may do many different things, on the XPro bodies you can, for example, go straight to a physical aperture ring to change the aperture. If you used those older cameras — or just happen to like them — these cameras are likely to appeal to you.

The other main feature of the XPro models is a hybrid viewfinder that provides both an optical viewfinder (OVF) mode like those old rangefinder cameras and a very modern electronic viewfinder (EVF) like that found on typical contemporary mirrorless cameras. (And, yes, this is a mirrorless camera.) You can switch readily between the two modes using a lever on the front fo the camera.

I did not own the XPro1, though I heard about it and knew others who were using it. The concept was very attractive and Fujifilm actually promoted that camera as their most “professional” and versatile model. I got the XPro2 a few years back. As is typical in model updates to mirrorless cameras, it tidied up a few loose ends, improved the hybrid viewfinder, moved from 16MP to 24MP, updated AF performance, and otherwise generally improved upon the original XPro1.

The current model is the XPro3. I decided not to upgrade to the newer model, and the reasons for my decision are the subject of a section of this post a bit later on.

Hybrid viewfinder

Since the hybrid viewfinder is arguably the most characteristic feature of the XPro cameras, let’s take a look at it, what it does, and why you may (or may not) be interested in it. (I will only describe this in text. For visuals, you might go to the Fujifilm website and search on XPro-2 hybrid viewfinder to find some illustrations.)

The EVF mode on the XPro cameras is pretty straightforward. It works much like the EVFs in their other systems including the XT models, though it may have a lower viewfinder resolution. In practice that is unlikely to make much of a difference, as the XPro EVF has plenty of resolution for seeing your subject. With the EVF you see a small “live” video display of exactly the image that will go to the sensor when you make your exposure, though the camera superimposes on and surrounds the image area with additional information about things like autofocus, aperture, battery power, and more.

By flipping a lever on the front of the camera you switch to the OVF view, where you are looking directly at an essentially unobstructed “real world” view of what is in front of the camera. This is not a projection or a video image, but the actual subject as seen through the viewfinder lens. Fujifilm manages to superimpose shot information on the optical view, however, including frame lines, the focus area, and more.

Given the two options, why and in what circumstances might you choose one or the other?

• The OVF view has no “latency,” or delay. Unlike video EVF displays, which necessarily always have at least some latency, the OVF provides a true real time display.
• The OVF is not a video display, so folks who prefer old-school “real” displays may prefer it. (In some cases an EVF display can be “jerky.”)
• The OVF shows the field of view (on the XPro2) of an approximately 16mm lens (about 23mm on the XPro3), superimposing projected frame lines in the display that correspond with the smaller image area of the lens you are using. Thus, you can see beyond the edges of the frame, which can be useful for things like street photography, where you may want to anticipate subjects entering the frame.
• Unlike the OVF, which cannot show completely accurate frame edges, the EVF shows precisely the boundaries of the captured image.
• The EVF works will with zoom lenses and with very wide and very long focal lengths, which can have some problems when using the OVF.
• Large lenses can block the OVF view, while this does not affect the EVF though-the-lens view.
• The EVF can use exposure simulation to make very dark scenes lighter in the viewfinder, making it easier to see your subject in near darkness.

Explaining how you might use the two modes in actual photography can get a bit involved, but here is an overview of my practices.

• Most of the time I use prime lenses of moderate focal lengths (APS-C 14mm to 60mm) for things like street and travel photography. These lenses display well in the OVF, and I am usually fine with close-but-not perfect frame edge indications, so I tend to make the OVF my default.
• When shooting in very low light, such as my night urban street photography, I switch to the EVF since it lets me see the scene with more clarity. (Sometimes the OVF view is extremely dark.)
• When using bulkier (such as the 23mm f/1.4) or longer (such as the 90mm f/2) primes, while I may use the OVF and tolerate the partial blockage of the view, I also will frequently switch to the EVF mode to avoid this.
• The EVF is the obvious choice with zoom lenses. While the OVF will try to display variable framing lines for zooms, it is cumbersome, often results in a tiny image area, and simply doesn’t work with longer lenses.

In some cases, especially with low-light street photography, I frequently switch back and forth between the two modes.

All of this makes the XPro is an extremely versatile and flexible camera. It can work like an old-school rangefinder when I use the OVF, but it can also do almost anything that a DSLR or equivalent mirrorlesss camera would do (long lenses, etc.) when in the EVF mode.

Is the XPro right for you?

For me it is a nearly ideal camera for a portion of my photography, largely because it is so adaptable. I can stick a pancake lens (27mm f/2.8) on it and it becomes my “always with me” camera that fits into a small bag. With a few other primes it makes a versatile street/travel camera. But I can also stick zooms on the thing (my 16-55 f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8), and it works for subjects as varied as events and landscapes. I even use it with a 80mm f/2.8 macro.

However, I think that most photographers choosing a mirrorless camera would be just fine with the XT models or equivalent. This is especially true if you like to use zoom lenses — those don’t “play well” with the OVF system, and you might just as well go to an all-EVF system. If you like the rangefinder-style hybrid design but you don’t need interchangeable lenses you could get the less expensive, slightly smaller, and excellent X100v body.

I think the XPro concept is an excellent and very flexible one, but it is not necessarily for everyone. One way I put it is that if ten people are considering the XT versus the XPro design, the XT design is probably right for nine of them… but the XPro design is exactly right for one of them.

Which XPro?

My viewpoint on this is somewhat controversial, and I’ve run into disagreement (occasionally “passionate”) from those with a different point of view. Let me go through the three models and say a bit more about this.

XPro1

While the XPro1 was arguably a ground-breaking camera when it was first introduced, today I would generally not recommend it. By comparison to the newer models it was significantly slower (especially true of its autofocus system), which is a bit of a handicap if you would use the camera for typical things like street photography. It also used a 16MP sensor, while the newer cameras use either a 24MP or 26MP sensor. In addition, being an older camera it is likely to run up against the end-of-life issues that make things like firmware updates less likely.

Who might consider the XPro1? Certainly a photographer who is cash-limited but certain that she/he wants such a camera could consider it, while recognizing the camera’s limitations. Likewise someone who just wants to try out the concept of the XPro hybrid design could get one to test that out. And, while 24MP or 26MP is better than 16MP, that 16MP sensor is quite good and is likely enough for many users.

XPro 2

The XPro2 marked a significant upgrade over the XPro1. It is almost as if Fujifilm put that XPro1 out there as a laudable first attempt, and then learned a lot from the experience. The sensor resolution is increased by 50% from 16MP to 24MP. The hybrid viewfinder system is improved – some might say it has the best implementation of the three cameras. The camera’s speed was improved a great deal, especially regarding auto-focus. Low-light performance is very good — I use mine for night street photography. It is a solid, mature product that is now available on the used market at quite good prices.

XPro 3

More recently Fujifilm introduced the XPro3 update to the line-up. In some ways it is just the sort incremental model update that we might expect. It moves to a new 26MP sensor with an improved AF system. It adds some of Fujifilm’s “film simulation” settings and it improves video capabilities. The design of the rear screen has been updated to provide a small “normal” rear display and the ability to “flip” the screen out and view at various angles.

Usually, I would regard such a model-to-model update as marking a sort of ongoing, incremental improvement — the sort of thing that should happen every few years as technologies improve. In these cases, my tendency is to consider an every-other-model upgrade policy rather than upgrading each time a new thing comes out… while recognizing that the new and updated features will be welcomed by those in line to get their first such camera or perhaps upgrade from the XPro1. In general terms, I do not think that it is worth it for XPro2 owners to upgrade, in this case for more reasons than I might usually cite.

Here we come to the part of my view that ends up being, well, “controversial.” While the XPro3 does improve some things, in my view Fujifilm missed on several points with this camera. I write that as someone who was looking forward to the Xpro3 and someone who relies on these cameras a lot in my own photography. In other words, I’m a big XPro fan who is less than thrilled with where Fujifilm went with the XPro3.

What are my issues? They come down to a combination of upgrades that aren’t earthshaking (which is OK) combined with some poor design choices and some actual negatives.

The new 26MP sensor is a small improvement over the older 24MP sensor. However, the resolution difference is essentially negligible, and you would likely be unable to tell the difference between a pair of 20″ x 30″ prints. So, there’s nothing wrong with the new sensor, but it also doesn’t warrant buying a new camera if you have the XPro2.

Fujifilm removed the OVF magnification adjustment of the XPro2 on the XPro3. The XPro2 OVF will display a wider range of focal lengths, and will go as wide at 16mm (though I use 14mm successfully) while the XPro3 no longer offers two magnification settings and will not display lenses wider than 23mm in the OVF. Given that this is a camera that tends to appeal to prime lens shooters plus the fact that Fujifilm makes interesting primes at 14mm, 16mm, and 18mm, this seems like a step backwards.

The biggest issue for me is the strange design decisions that Fujifilm made with the rear display, which they market as being better because, to paraphrase, “real photographers don’t want to be distracted by a rear display.” As a “real photographer” who relies on the XPro system, I beg to differ. I don’t always use the XPro2 rear display, but it is invaluable when I do need it. Rather than seeing the XPro as a camera that limits its users, I regard it (as Fujifilm did originally) as their most versatile and flexible camera system. The XPro 3 undoes that virtue.

The normal rear display is a very small square that is more or less the digital equivalent of sticking the end of your film box in the little holder on the back of your old film camera. This seems to be a too cute by half attempt to be retro, it is pretty useless in real photography, and even if you like it they could have done it in a way that did not remove the normal rear-facing display.

What were they thinking? As best as I can tell Fujifilm bought into the notion that it is better to not see anything on the camera’s back plane — if that’s how it had to be in the film era, it must be good in the digital era! But this seems slightly nuts to me. First, on the existing models you can leave the rear monitors off and have a completely blank rear panel already. Second, when looking through the viewfinder you don’t see the rear of the camera anyway! Third, if it is better to have a blank back panel… why is the little square monitor there at all — why is there no truly blank back panel option?

As a plus, the rear screen unit now folds out, unlike the XPro2 screen which is fixed, and thus can be viewed from a greater range of positions. However, using the normal rear-facing mode now requires the user to flip the screen out to the side, with its own set of attendant disadvantages.

Disappointingly, a more intelligent design could have accomplished all of what Fujifilm ostensibly wanted from this new screen without giving up anything. Imagine that the screen in its normal position faced to the rear, duplicating the function of the XPro2 screen. Then imagine that Fujifilm had added a display option the use only a small square in the center of that display for those who want the little box of the XPro3. Then imagine that the screen would flip around backwards (like many other cameras do) to provide a completely screen-free rear panel. All in all, this impresses me as a particular poor set of design choices by Fujifilm.

There’s one more little negative. I have not been able to personally verify this, but several XPro3 users report that they need to use a different diopter setting for the EVF and OVF modes – in other words, if you set the diopter correction for the EVF and switch to OVF (or vice versa) you’ll need to readjust the diopter setting!

So, my bottom line is that I suggest that new XPro buyers take a close look at the XPro2 rather than getting the XPro3. The XPro3 is a fine camera in many ways, and I’m not saying that you should not get it, but my feeling is that the pluses are outweighed by the questionable design decisions. As they say, “your mileage may vary.”

Finally…

Rather than ending on a somewhat negative note about the XPro3, I want to loop back around to how much I like the concept of the XPro line. In my view this is the most versatile and powerful model within the x-trans APS-C camera system, and it is perhaps the most true to the Fujifilm “DNA” of small, high quality cameras with a plethora of manual controls.

(Originally published in draft from on November 2, 2020.)

---

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.

Blog | About | Flickr | Facebook | Email

Links to Articles, Sales and Licensing, my Sierra Nevada Fall Color book, Contact Information.

Scroll down to leave a comment or question.

---

All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.