Make the move to digital. Their cameras and lenses are nothing short of amazing, and the sensors are tuned to replicate all of their film variants.
One of the reasons I love the series so much is that they're so unassuming, almost looking like fashion accessories because compared to other ranges they just look so good. So people don't shy away from them like they do if you walk around with some giant DSLR like a tourist or some wannabe vlogger. And yet they are capable of just gorgeous pictures, so there's this wonderful nexus between aesthetic form and function that I don't see from any other major manufacturer.
And the pictures they take... one of the little joys I get as a casual photographer is when I take a photo of someone, and they love it so much that they immediately post it as their profile picture. This happened more often with the x100 than any other camera, by some combination of having the thing present in the first place, people not being scared of it, and the charming pictures it takes. Good feelings.
I've been pretty tempted by the X100F and if there's an update this year I may not be able to resist. No-one ever complimented my Sony...
The small size almost positions the X series as a modern day Leica rangefinder. It's perfect for vacation and street photography, even for more intimate things like weddings... but Nikon and Canon have the autofocus thing locked up (probably with a mountain of patents). Unfortunately if you're shooting weddings you'll want that extra low light capability of a full-frame sensor and mature phase detection AF. If you're doing studio stuff, you probably don't care too much but you would miss the ubiquitous Canikon accessories.
Me? I shoot concerts (which is probably why I don't wax nostalgic about film too much). I'd love something inconspicuous like an X series, but I'm almost always shooting at high ISO. If I'm using a manual focus lens I'd miss the instant feedback of an optical viewfinder. If I'm using an AF lens I'd miss the performance of the current crop of full frame DSLRs. In general I'd miss the selection of native lenses available to the dominant DSLR lens mounts.
If there's any worry about the longevity of Fujifilm it would be interesting to contemplate a Fuji/Sigma or Fuji/Cosina merger IMO. Sigma's got some crazy sensor technology, and Cosina's got a recent history of making some amazing lenses. Or Fuji/Ricoh/Pentax.
Despite the name ("X-Pro2") I don't think Fujifilm are actually targeting "real" pros with this range. They're not workhorse cameras and even the X-Pro makes obvious concessions to functionality in favour of aesthetics. But they are not toys! I'm having trouble thinking of who their market actually is off the top of my head. A certain kind of enthusiast. People who seriously care about both form and function. The kind of person who would never use a factory camera strap (i'm thinking Artist & Artisan). I don't know, maybe I'm projecting :P
I know exactly what you mean about high ISO (i have an a7sii) and you're right that any of the X-series would be a poor choice - that's not really their bag. It's the camera you'd take backstage, though, and that wouldn't be confiscated by security...
But my Fujifilm XE-3 is what I take with me the vast majority of the time if I'm not shooting action or long tele/very wide angle. And, yes, it's in part because it feels like a rangefinder in a lot of ways. (Never had a Leica but used a Kodak Retina for many years along with various other cameras like Olympus XAs.)
And, yeah, there were plenty of rangefinders (even Nikon and Canon made them)... but I referenced Leica because Fuji is targeting an enthusiast market with the X series that Canikon are largely ignoring (counterpoint: the Nikon Df).
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/fuji-x100f-vs-xpro2...
If I wasn't so heavily invested in Nikon glass I'd have an X-T2.
X100F fixes almost all the flaws in the X100 plus gives you a digital converter and more film simulations.
With the two physical converters that I already had for the old X100 I can now cover a range of 28mm-100mm eqv. which is perfect for travel.
I'm sure you already know the sorts of tricks the leaf shutter will let you do. Well on the X100F you can use the on board flash in manual mode now too.
Oh and as an added bonus you can stick an EF-X20 on the bottom and slave it off the on board flash for a tiny twin flash camera in a tiny package. It works perfectly in full sunlight (manual only though).
(In case anyone is wondering the twin flash thing is for flat on-axis fill similar to a ring light in bright sunlight. So flat light but with no shadows as you'd get from a single fill flash).
Lovely stuff.
Well .. true, but mostly because that is a HUGE size for a digital sensor. The only "medium" format digital I'm familiar with is the pentax 645, it is smaller than that old film and yet still 50MP (!). The tech will only improve.
I wouldn't hold your breath for any sensor of the size of the old film you're talking about. There's a certain threshold above which there are diminishing returns. I suppose there are some cinema sensors being made at 70mm but they are very niche and ruinously expensive. My money might be on the 645 size becoming standard, and it's a reasonable one.
> not even real medium format
To be fair there is no "real" medium format. It basically means "bigger than 35mm".
as i mentioned there is a clear market for actual digital medium format using digital backs you can plug on old hasselblad or equivalent twin lenses models. So this is not fiction or something. And sensor size is not about pixels, you get a very different depth of field with medium and large format. thats is why we still use them.
The 645z and x1d are delivering the medium format DoF right now. Things can be improved upon, sure, but insisting on a certain sensor size is misguided. That size was necessary simply because of the limitations of film chemistry. Remove this limitation and the sensor size becomes less relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#Relationship_of...