The XPro is dead! Long live the XPro! That’s not the main subject of this essay, but based on tea-leaf reading and my own experience with the XT5 I think that’s where we are headed. I’ll get to why I think so near the end of this article.

This article is primarily aimed at Fujifilm users (and potential users) considering the retro XPro design versus the recently released DSLR-style XT5. It is partly about techie camera stuff, but it is also a story about letting go of preconceptions and adapting to something new.

Since some readers may be unfamiliar with the cameras, here’s a quick summary.

XPro2 — The XPro2 is one of three Fujifilm “XPro” bodies — originally the XPro1 , the subsequent XPro2, and the most recent XPro3. These are rangefinder-style cameras with “retro” appeal due to their similarity to classic rangefinder film cameras and the inclusion of full manual controls. A key feature is the hybrid viewfinder system combining an old-school optical viewfinder (OVF) and a modern electronic viewfinder (EVF). The XPro2 has a 24MP APS-C sensor, while the newer XPro3 has a 26MP sensor.

XT5 — The XT5 is the most recent (as of this writing) in Fujifilm’s series of XT cameras that combine a small DSLR-like mirrorless body with a full set of manual controls, similar to what is found on the XPro bodies. This new camera uses an updated 40MP sensor — previous models (XT1-4) used 16MP, 24MP, and most recently 26MP sensors.

Because virtually all models in a generation of Fujifilm cameras use the same sensor, Fujfilm owners are more attentive to other functional differences between them. That is why I’ll focus on those things and say little about the sensor.

I started using small Fujifilm cameras about a decade ago when I picked up the low-end XE1, the first of the inexpensive and compact XE models. After using it for a few years and deciding that the system was useful for my travel and street photography, I purchased the XPro2 in 2016 and used it for half of my photography since then. It is excellent for street and travel photography, and I’ve also used it for occasional event and landscape photography.

Why the XPro?

When the X-Pro line was introduced, its hybrid viewfinder appealed to many who were used to optical viewfinders in rangefinder and SLR cameras. There were valid concerns about the capabilities of early EVFs — they suffered from latency (delay), slow refresh rates (jerkiness), and low resolution. The OVF option gave XPro photographers the best of both worlds — the immediacy of the OVF plus the low-light abilities, precise framing, and display advantages of EVFs.

In short, the OVF/EVF hybrid design directly addressed concerns about mirrorless cameras. Fujifilm devised a system allowing photographers to switch instantly between the two views. I think it was one of the most impressive bits of camera design in the past few decades.

The OVF had some other upsides, and it had a few downsides, too.

One plus is that you can see “outside the frame lines” with the OVF. The viewfinder shows approximate frame lines around the area that will be in the photograph, and it moves and changes the size of the frame lines for lenses with different focal lengths. (That’s impressive technology, by the way.) When using a “normal” range focal length — neither very wide nor very long — this leaves empty space around the image capture area, and photographers can use this to see subjects before they enter the frame.

Another plus is that there is no delay or latency in the optical display. You are essentially looking at the real world through the viewfinder, not at a video display of it. Also, those who are right-eye-dominant may like the position of the viewfinder near the left edge of the camera’s back.

(Recently, in a comment posted here, reader Johan reminded me that the position of the viewfinder eyepiece in the upper left corner of the camera’s backplane also has some advantages for right-eye dominant photographers.)

However, there are some trade-offs.

While the OVF works well with prime lenses in the not-too-wide-to-not-too-long range, it works less well or not at all with very wide lenses, very long lenses, large lenses, macro lenses, and zoom lenses.

Very wide lenses have a larger field of view than the OVF can display, so you cannot see the entire frame. I’m okay with the 14mm lens on my XPro2, though technically it doesn’t quite show the entire frame. The XPro3 further restricts the angle-of-view covered by the OVF, and my understanding is that 18mm is about as wide as it goes with full coverage.

Long lenses present two issues. The first is that the OVF’s superimposed frame guide area becomes very small with long lenses, such as my 90mm f/2 prime. The XPro2 accommodates this to some extent by offering two OVF magnification settings, but not the XPro3, which offers only one.

Large lenses create an additional problem. Because of the position of the lens that provides the optical view — you are not looking through the main camera lens — larger lenses partially obscure the OVF image. This situation comes up with very long lenses, lenses with large maximum apertures (including most f/1.4 and larger lenses) and with zoom lenses… and is worse if you use lens hoods.

With macro lenses, there is a rather large difference between the area that the OVF shows and what the camera actually captures.

However, the hybrid viewfinder’s EVF is available when the OVF is problematic. Regardless of the size of the lens, switching to the EVF view will show the entire scene, with the edges of the display corresponding exactly to the edges of the recorded image.

To generalize, the OVF was intended mainly for use with smaller lenses in the roughly 18mm to 50+mm range that are not too bulky and don’t have particularly large maximum apertures. Fujifilm makes an excellent selection of small f/2 or f/2.8 lenses in this range. (Some of them are so suggestive of old-school film rangefinder gear that they have been dubbed “Fujicrons.”)

And this brings us back to the EVF.

EVF or OVF?

When I got my XPro2 in 2016 I was convinced of the advantages of the OVF/EVF hybrid viewfinder. I had used cameras with electronic viewfinders since just before 2000, and I wasn’t satisfied with their performance. While I liked my EVF-only XE1, the viewfinder (and the auto-focus) couldn’t always keep up. So one advantage that I saw in the OVF was that it avoided the problems of cthen-ontemporary EVFs.

I also felt that the photographic advantages of the OVF were worthwhile — the ability to see beyond the frame lines, the “real world” display, and so forth. In fact, my default was to rely on the OVF on my XPro2, only switching to the EVF on rare occasions.

However, eventually doubts about the superiority of the OVF began to arise.

Some years back I began to make night street photographs with my XPro2. The camera’s high ISO performance was sufficient to shoot at night in urban environments without tripod or electronic flash, and this was liberating. But the more I did this, the more I found myself gravitating to the EVF and away from the OVF. When it is dark the OVF is… dark. But EVF displays uses exposure simulation to produce a brighter view of the nighttime world. They also superimpose useful exposure information on the scene in the viewfinder. In addition, the EVF view is also available on the rear screen — and that’s impossible with the OVF.

I also increasingly leveraged another strength of the XPro2 and its EVF — its ability to use a wide range of lenses, not limited to the lenses typically used on rangefinder cameras. This included large aperture f/1.4 lenses, the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, a variable aperture 100-400mm lens, and even the excellent (but large!) 80mm f/2.8 Fujifilm macro. These lenses do not play well (if at all!) with the OVF, but they work great with the EVF, and extend the versatility of this camera.

The experience of doing night street photography and of using these larger lenses led me to rely more on the EVF and to greater comfort with it, along with the recognition that it was more useful than the OVF in many situations — particularly because the EVF displays more useful information, shows a usable image in very low light, and because the display corresponds precisely to image boundaries.

More and more I found myself switching out of OVF and using the EVF instead. Eventually, almost without being aware of the change, I made the EVF my default and the OVF my secondary choice… and I was only using the OVF rarely.

The XT 5 Arrives

Fujifilm recently introduced cameras using a new 40MP APS-C sensor. (It is likely that this sensor will soon come to virtually all of their x-trans models.) I’m not the sort to buy every new camera, and I had skipped the 26MP sensor generation and had not used any of the XT models. (I looked at the 26MP XPro3 when it was introduced and decided it was not a worthwhile upgrade.) The new sensor was intriguing and I began to think that it would be in my next Fujifilm camera.

The first camera with the new sensor was the XH2. (There is also a XH2s with a specialized, high-performance 26MP sensor.) It looks like a fine camera, but its feature set did not appeal to me. One reason that I use Fujifilm cameras is that they provide a second, smaller and lighter option for my travel and street photography — but the XH2 models increase the camera size. The XH2 also does away with the “old-school” knobs-and-dials interface, replacing it with a “PASM” (Program, Aperture priority, Shutter priority, Manual) switch and menu-driven system commonly found on other brands. From my perspective, this is a step backwards.

With the XH2’s introduction, a new XT5 was also expected. When it arrived with the same sensor and most of the capabilities of the XH2, I was intrigued. By this time, it was clear that the OVF was no longer a big deal for me. I still wanted the manual controls and a relatively small camera. I thought the new sensor would be an improvement. The camera also adds IBIS (in-body image stabilization) which turns any lens into a stabilized lens.

There were only two questions.

• Would I prefer an upgraded “XPro4?” when and if one became available?
• What about the handling of the XT5 for travel and street photography?

My first instinct was to consider the familiar XPro concept and wait to see a replacement for the XPro3. However, it wasn’t clear when or even IF there would be a XPro4. I think that the XPro3 may be the end of the XPro line. (The explanation is a bit complicated, but the short story is that the market for the camera has shrunk, photographers have become comfortable with EVF displays, and there are too many Fujifilm cameras competing in this price range. I’ll expand on this a bit later in this article.)

Even if I knew that a XPro4 was coming, I’d be concerned about what Fujifilm will do to its feature set. In my view, the XPro3 was a functional downgrade from the XPro2 in several ways, and that trend seems unlikely to change as Fujifilm targets the so-called “luxury” buyer with this model line, claiming that removing useful features makes for more “pure” photography — a bit of marketing nonsense that I reject.

There are several aspects to camera handling. One is how it feels in use — is it ergonomically constructed, with a logical control layout, and is it comfortable to carry/handle the camera over hours of use? The second (related) issue is its size and weight. This is important to me both because I travel with the gear and because the kind of photography I do with it is best done without drawing attention to myself as “Guy With Big Expensive Camera And Lens.”

Let’s look at the size issue first. Here’s a photograph of the two cameras together, with the XT5 on top and the XPro2 on the bottom. (The comparison isn’t perfect since this image shows some wide angle distortion.)

The cameras are pretty similar in size. The XPro2 is wider, but the XT5’s viewfinder “hump” makes it very slightly taller, even though that upper part of the XPro2 that accommodates the hybrid viewfinder is bulkier. (Take a look at the photo near the start of this article to get a better side-by-side view of the cameras’ heights.)

---

The XT5 body is slightly thicker, likely due to the articulating rear screen. (The newer XPro3 has an articulating screen, too, but the XPro2 does not.) The “grip” on the right front of the XT5 is larger, but that feels like a plus to me – more on that in a moment. The thing that does the most to make the XT5 look thicker is the large rubber eyecup on the pseudo-pentaprism “bump” — fortunately it can be replaced with a smaller Fujifilm eyecup.

The XT5 feels smaller in hand to me than the XPro2, probably due to the narrower width. When I handle the two cameras side-by-side, the XPro2 now feels a bit more bulky and awkward by comparison.

In addition to the size differences there are some other ergonomic advantages to the XT5. For example, note the position of the exposure compensation (EC) knobs on the tops of the two cameras near the lower right. The knob on the XPro2 extends from the back of the camera a bit… which may be a reason why users tend to accidentally change it while shooting. On the XT5 it is moved away from the body edge.

Note also that there are separate ISO and shutter speed knobs. I adapted to the dual-purpose single knob on the XPro2, though many users did not like it. But the separate knobs provide quick and efficient access to both settings.

Also note the larger “grip” on the front of the XT5 near its right side. I always found the flat shape of the Xpro2 a bit uncomfortable for extended hand-carrying. (I tend to hold the camera in my hand at my side with a wrist strap attached.) That enhanced grip on the XT5 makes the camera a bit more comfortable and easy to handle. (The larger XT5 grip accommodates a larger battery with significantly more capacity.)

There are other subtle, useful design improvements. If you look closely at the lower right “corner” on the overhead view of the XT5 you can see a small “tab” sticking out just below and to the right of the EC knob. This provides just enough of an extra thumb rest to make handling and operating the camera a bit more secure. (It also negates any attraction of the add-on faux film-advance-lever products.)

The XPro has its pluses, too. For example, many of use who are right-eye-dominant like the position of the XPro eyepiece at the left edge of the camera’s back panel. I think I may be a bit more likely to accidentally hit the “joystick” or the “Q” quick menu button on the XT5 when I switch to vertical orientation, and sometimes I find that I have inadvertently moved the focus square or trigged some menu display.

What about the addition of IBIS (in-body image stabilization)? Some photographers will scoff that “you don’t need it.” To some extent, I see their point. We photographed for years without it, and we still can. However, experience has convinced me that it is a real plus. Image-stabilization is a benefit with no functional downsides. There are real-world photography situations where it is useful. It is the only way to add image-stabilization to old-school prime lenses. (Fujifilm’s IBIS is excellent, and I’ve managed to get decently sharp handheld shots at 1/2 second!)

All in all, the XT5 has evolved into a very nicely designed body — quite small and solid-feeling and comfortable to hold and operate, with generally good control placements. And it fits in the same bags that my XPro2 fits for traveling.

XT5 as a street photography camera?

Common wisdom among some photographers holds that rangefinder cameras are street photography cameras, and therefore the DSLR-like mirrorless XT5 is not a “true” street photography camera. (Some of Fujifilm’s own marketing and design reinforces this.) I don’t buy that, especially after using the camera extensively to shoot “street.’ With a compact lens, like the 27mm f/2.8 pancake, the XT5 is a great street photography camera. Some users might regard the white FUJIFILM lettering on the front of the camera as a negative — but a bit of black tape quickly resolves that concern.

What about the future of the XPro line?

Let me start by saying — again — that I think the XPro concept was brilliant. The hybrid viewfinder is a design tour de force. Back when the camera was Fujifilm’s “flagship” model, I regarded it as the best, most flexible, sophisticated, and most advanced camera in the line-up — and as one of the most innovative cameras from any manufacturer. I think that it will be regarded retrospectively as one of the best and most interesting camera designs of the era. In other words, it has the potential to be seen as a “classic” camera.

I liked my XPro2 a lot. I made tens of thousands of photographs with it. It still is a fine camera that can make excellent photographs. When I parted with it I felt a twinge of regret. (But my son is going to like it!)

However, I suspect that the XPro line may not be with us much longer. I don’t have any insider information, and I could well be wrong. If and when a XPro4 arrives — and especially if it turns out to be a big success for Fujifilm — I‘ll own my error. However…

I suspect that we may be at the end of the XPro line. Why?

Think back to some of the reasons that the XPro was initially so important:

• It was the flagship Fujifilm x-trans camera, alone at the top of the model line-up.
• It was, no-holds-barred, the most powerful and flexible camera in the Fujifilm line-up.
• Its OVF option was widely seen to be important back when we had concerns about EVF display quality.

None of those things are true any more.

It is no longer the flagship. That role is now held by the XH2 and XH2s, and arguably also the XT5. Because of its complex design, the XPro has to be a more expensive model, so its pricing necessarily competes with the newer high-end Fujifilm cameras. There are already three of them — I’m not convinced there’s enough of a market remaining for the XPro as the fourth. (Right now the older 26MP XPro3 is priced the same as the new 40MP XT5, and a new XPro4 could not cost less without further limiting its features or rendering it unprofitable for Fujifilm.)

With the XPro3, Fujifilm stopped marketing the XPro as the most powerful, flexible body. Instead they positioned it as a niche camera that is a bit of an oddball — one of the very few digital cameras without a rear-facing LCD — and Fujifilm has characterized it as a supposed “luxury” model, aligned with a nonsensical marketing concept described as “pure photography,” to attempt to differentiate it from the high performance “pro” models with more useful features. (To my mind, there’s a problematic dissonance between “pure photography” and acquiring cameras for their “luxury” cachet.)

Concerns about EVF displays are barely an issue now that all major camera brands have whole-heartedly embraced mirrorless cameras and are doing away with their DSLR models. EVF display technology has advanced, too, and the old problmes of delay, jerkiness, and resolution are much less of an issue. Today, the EVF isn’t regarded as a questionable new thing — it is the high-end norm. So the appeal of the OVF alternative found in the hybrid viewfinder is no longer as great as it was.

My advice to street photographers looking for the most flexible Fujifilm camera that accommodates interchangeable lenses? Take a good look at the XT5. Let go of your preconceptions about what such a camera should look like. I think you’ll find that the XT5 is nearly ideal.

(Not: Tthis article has been slightly revised for clarity and to correct typos.)

Comments? Questions? Scroll down to the comment area to let me know..

NOTES: Various minor edits and small additions and altered the into paragraphs on 2/18/2024.

---

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, Amazon, and directly from G Dan Mitchell.

Blog | About | Twitter | 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. (Click this post’s title first if you are viewing on the home page.)

---

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