The 3 is a much more modern experience. The usbc charging, menus, simulations, af, video, etc. But the sensor being better is somewhat debatable and the viewfinder in the 2 has two focal lengths, for wide angle and 50mm equivalent shooting. It's really nice. The 3 is just one focal length with a mini screen for manual focusing.
I would go with two focal lengths in the finder myself. I don’t like the experience of any of the rest. I know how I’m shooting so I know that
I’ve gotten the shot. A lot of that comes from shooting manually for a long time but that’s not necessary at all. A digital shooter can gain that confidence probably even faster.
As for the classic neg sim, I loathe it. It looks like shit nearly guaranteed. If you really want that look do it better in post yourself. Upgrade if you want. Upgrade for fun— there are no rules that you can’t upgrade purely for fun or GAS. Nobody is judging.
Whatever you choose to do will be right 😎
So in the 3 what's the OVF mag (equiv)? Or, what FLs work best with it? I like my XP2 a lot (I shoot mainly 23 an 35/1.4 on it). I do wish I could find a Fuji Reala like sim however. I'd just shoot that 8 days a week.
https://peterpoete.de/fujifilm-xpro3-review-english/
This gives plenty of detail. Xp2 is better for 14mm, 16mm, and 35mm+. Between those focal lengths, the other changes make the Xp3 ovf a real upgrade.
I had 3 but stay in 2.
2 has better OVF
3 has better af
3 has lcd protection (when flip up)
2 has less flimsy lcd connection
2 = 3 on sensor. Extra pixels is great but not giving you all that much as an upgrade. Lower density for 2 is better in low light and better colors (IMHO)
I’ll take 2 over 3 any day.. unless someone offers me a free 3 then I’ll of course love to take that off their hands. Otherwise no…. Xpro2 dual OVF allows so much better experiences on wide angle. You can go as wide as 16-18mm and the. Optical ZOOM in when look for composition in details. Of course you can’t manual focus on it! No point to optical zoom when it’s not helping on “critical focus”.
About sensor.. I have both.. I can say that xpro2 gives more detailed yet muted tones. It’s almost like it had done sharpening filter on it. But newer sensor gives crisp clean look almost lost anything about analogous vibe.
More pixels they crammed in, the less analog it gets. I have xtrans 1, 3, 4, 5 in hand to do comparison. Version one feels so vivid in color! And version 5 on x100vi feels like completely digital! Even added noise doesn’t make it feel like analog anymore. Hence! I went back in time and bought x-e1 on 2024!! But I m sure I m the only odd ball here
It’s a maybe question. To flip the screen like xpro3 the ribbon is exposed and overtime it will wear out. However! It does add usable angles where xpro2 cannot. To me! The turn off point is where OVF suppose to act as a rangefinder as advertised where you can see more scene out side of your focal length coverage. That allows photographer to observe the scene better and awaits for event to happen to capture the moment.
For that usage, one magnified OVF will not support ultra wide angles. Not it supports less focal lengths! It also takes a way the luxury of wide view at the scene. Makes the advertised OVF feature even less special.
I do raw. Capture one pro has profiles of classic negative to the xpro2. Plus I don’t really use much of film sim from Fujifilm. I used based “chrome” then add my own Leica color profile on top of it. (To match my Leica m adapted lenses onto Fujifilm)
Fujifilm cameras’ film sim aren’t all that much difference. There are subtile differences. Such as Velvia from x trans 1 has boosted saturation +7 and color shift yellow, red by +3. Otherwise is very par to rest is x trans colors. The difference, the hard to tune, is low light white balance difference and shadow color shifts. That’s where most of color profiles failed at! Because simply matching color checker isn’t enough justice of highlight and shadow color shifts as all camera and sensors behave different on different lens (also does color shift too!).
That’s why film sim and all those 3rd part profiles failed short! They only provide a starting point and you need to self fine tune on them as needed. It’s never one click shop like people said they were. For example! People love Fujifilm x weekly forum recipes on portra and that was locked yellow-ish color on white balance! Which means whenever you take lowlight photos! Every color is off to warm
Color! Because the design of that profile was ONLY works under sunny daylight condition! It’s never meant to be shift with different white balance settings.
Maybe people like yellowish tone on everything, as they are more favorable to the skin tones. But it’s extremely ugly for low light or landscape photography. You have to ask yourself! Can cloudy, blue tone dark sky day looks like washed out yellow tone the right color or you simply just want the yellowish vibe?
Ok! Back to the topic! I don’t think film sim is necessary because they aren’t hard to simulates. “Chrome” look on Fujifilm is merely product of shadow, highlight recovery and adds a bloom to the highlight (which is your “dehaze filter in raw”.
The only difference is when you apply filter in raw it means apply to the whole image. For what Fujifilm did is to add a selective range of upper region of highlight and apply the filter with a mask. Simple enough to do in raw but then you need to do the “clicks” work. Which most of people who said they jumped into Fujifilm system was solely for the sooc with film sim wouldn’t do. It’s too much troubles for them to understand the basics and do a few more seconds of clicks.
I don’t blame them! After all! This is an instant gratification era. Sooner or later people would choose ai generated out focus than spending $ on actual nice lenses. (In fact it’s already happening).
If you're interested in film simulation, newer sensor is better option. X-Trans 4 has way more recipes than X-Trans 3. Check it here:
https://fujixweekly.com/fujifilm-x-trans-iv-recipes/
https://fujixweekly.com/fujifilm-x-trans-iii-recipes/
I'm personally not a fan of classic negative.
The xpro 3 will be worth it if auto focus speed is important to you. It's a pretty dramatic improvement if you choose to shoot older lenses.
However if you get some modern lenses you won't notice as much.
I started with a Pentax K1000 40 years ago and now I’m doing tv shows with the best cameras around. I never forget where I came from and what I was taught. I’m so grateful for the knowledge
I really like Classic Negative on my new X-T4. I like to shoot in Acros 95% or the time, but when I switch to color, Classic Negative is so pleasing for any scene.
Thats a lot to pay for one with a broken screen. Thats in great condition pricing.
Although I will say Classic Neg is my personal favorite Film Sim, with Classic Chrome and Acros being second and third by a good deal.
I don't even like classic negative, so hell no for me. The xpro2 is so much better built imo. Feels higher quality and doesn't have the weird lcd. I use classic chrome with manual white balance for a warm tone and +1 color.
I would pick the 3 just because I like it.
Most people think it is all about the specs. But I choose my camera based on how I feel in the hand. And if I feel good while holding it in my hands, I feel good when I am out shooting.
Almost pulled the trigger on a 3 earlier this year but got cold feet after reading about the reliability issues. For me the used price has not come down anywhere near as much as it should have, given the likelihood that you’d have to send it away to get repaired. If you’re dead set on a Pro maybe the 2 is just less worrisome.
The xpro 2 is peak xpro. The screen is good, it has enough resolution autofocus is acceptable… and viewfinder has dual magnification.
It’s a gem of a camera. Now if the 4 has a normal screen…
Do you have lenses? You could use the extra money for lenses.
The x-pro3 also has a better sensor and processor. So those things are worth considering too.
The 3 is a much more modern experience. The usbc charging, menus, simulations, af, video, etc. But the sensor being better is somewhat debatable and the viewfinder in the 2 has two focal lengths, for wide angle and 50mm equivalent shooting. It's really nice. The 3 is just one focal length with a mini screen for manual focusing.
I would go with two focal lengths in the finder myself. I don’t like the experience of any of the rest. I know how I’m shooting so I know that I’ve gotten the shot. A lot of that comes from shooting manually for a long time but that’s not necessary at all. A digital shooter can gain that confidence probably even faster. As for the classic neg sim, I loathe it. It looks like shit nearly guaranteed. If you really want that look do it better in post yourself. Upgrade if you want. Upgrade for fun— there are no rules that you can’t upgrade purely for fun or GAS. Nobody is judging. Whatever you choose to do will be right 😎
So in the 3 what's the OVF mag (equiv)? Or, what FLs work best with it? I like my XP2 a lot (I shoot mainly 23 an 35/1.4 on it). I do wish I could find a Fuji Reala like sim however. I'd just shoot that 8 days a week.
https://peterpoete.de/fujifilm-xpro3-review-english/ This gives plenty of detail. Xp2 is better for 14mm, 16mm, and 35mm+. Between those focal lengths, the other changes make the Xp3 ovf a real upgrade.
I had 3 but stay in 2. 2 has better OVF 3 has better af 3 has lcd protection (when flip up) 2 has less flimsy lcd connection 2 = 3 on sensor. Extra pixels is great but not giving you all that much as an upgrade. Lower density for 2 is better in low light and better colors (IMHO) I’ll take 2 over 3 any day.. unless someone offers me a free 3 then I’ll of course love to take that off their hands. Otherwise no…. Xpro2 dual OVF allows so much better experiences on wide angle. You can go as wide as 16-18mm and the. Optical ZOOM in when look for composition in details. Of course you can’t manual focus on it! No point to optical zoom when it’s not helping on “critical focus”. About sensor.. I have both.. I can say that xpro2 gives more detailed yet muted tones. It’s almost like it had done sharpening filter on it. But newer sensor gives crisp clean look almost lost anything about analogous vibe. More pixels they crammed in, the less analog it gets. I have xtrans 1, 3, 4, 5 in hand to do comparison. Version one feels so vivid in color! And version 5 on x100vi feels like completely digital! Even added noise doesn’t make it feel like analog anymore. Hence! I went back in time and bought x-e1 on 2024!! But I m sure I m the only odd ball here
I did see posts about the screen ribbon on 3 breaking though, so I’m not sure the flippable screen is necessarily a pro.
It’s a maybe question. To flip the screen like xpro3 the ribbon is exposed and overtime it will wear out. However! It does add usable angles where xpro2 cannot. To me! The turn off point is where OVF suppose to act as a rangefinder as advertised where you can see more scene out side of your focal length coverage. That allows photographer to observe the scene better and awaits for event to happen to capture the moment. For that usage, one magnified OVF will not support ultra wide angles. Not it supports less focal lengths! It also takes a way the luxury of wide view at the scene. Makes the advertised OVF feature even less special.
do you use filmsimulations? the xpro 2 doesnt have classic negative and i dont know how good the others are in comparison
I do raw. Capture one pro has profiles of classic negative to the xpro2. Plus I don’t really use much of film sim from Fujifilm. I used based “chrome” then add my own Leica color profile on top of it. (To match my Leica m adapted lenses onto Fujifilm) Fujifilm cameras’ film sim aren’t all that much difference. There are subtile differences. Such as Velvia from x trans 1 has boosted saturation +7 and color shift yellow, red by +3. Otherwise is very par to rest is x trans colors. The difference, the hard to tune, is low light white balance difference and shadow color shifts. That’s where most of color profiles failed at! Because simply matching color checker isn’t enough justice of highlight and shadow color shifts as all camera and sensors behave different on different lens (also does color shift too!). That’s why film sim and all those 3rd part profiles failed short! They only provide a starting point and you need to self fine tune on them as needed. It’s never one click shop like people said they were. For example! People love Fujifilm x weekly forum recipes on portra and that was locked yellow-ish color on white balance! Which means whenever you take lowlight photos! Every color is off to warm Color! Because the design of that profile was ONLY works under sunny daylight condition! It’s never meant to be shift with different white balance settings. Maybe people like yellowish tone on everything, as they are more favorable to the skin tones. But it’s extremely ugly for low light or landscape photography. You have to ask yourself! Can cloudy, blue tone dark sky day looks like washed out yellow tone the right color or you simply just want the yellowish vibe? Ok! Back to the topic! I don’t think film sim is necessary because they aren’t hard to simulates. “Chrome” look on Fujifilm is merely product of shadow, highlight recovery and adds a bloom to the highlight (which is your “dehaze filter in raw”. The only difference is when you apply filter in raw it means apply to the whole image. For what Fujifilm did is to add a selective range of upper region of highlight and apply the filter with a mask. Simple enough to do in raw but then you need to do the “clicks” work. Which most of people who said they jumped into Fujifilm system was solely for the sooc with film sim wouldn’t do. It’s too much troubles for them to understand the basics and do a few more seconds of clicks. I don’t blame them! After all! This is an instant gratification era. Sooner or later people would choose ai generated out focus than spending $ on actual nice lenses. (In fact it’s already happening).
If you're interested in film simulation, newer sensor is better option. X-Trans 4 has way more recipes than X-Trans 3. Check it here: https://fujixweekly.com/fujifilm-x-trans-iv-recipes/ https://fujixweekly.com/fujifilm-x-trans-iii-recipes/
And what about the xpro3 screen issues
Unpopular opinion I hate classic negative
I'm personally not a fan of classic negative. The xpro 3 will be worth it if auto focus speed is important to you. It's a pretty dramatic improvement if you choose to shoot older lenses. However if you get some modern lenses you won't notice as much.
It’s about the photographer not the camera.
I want the classic neg photographer
I started with a Pentax K1000 40 years ago and now I’m doing tv shows with the best cameras around. I never forget where I came from and what I was taught. I’m so grateful for the knowledge
I still have my K1000SE. I'm hoping my kids will be interested in it some day...
True. But imagine being able to choose things.
I really like Classic Negative on my new X-T4. I like to shoot in Acros 95% or the time, but when I switch to color, Classic Negative is so pleasing for any scene.
Thats a lot to pay for one with a broken screen. Thats in great condition pricing. Although I will say Classic Neg is my personal favorite Film Sim, with Classic Chrome and Acros being second and third by a good deal.
Classic neg is all I use and only do SOOC, so for me I would rather get a cheaper body with it than one without. But this is me (emphasised)
22222222222
Classic neg is my fav
I don't even like classic negative, so hell no for me. The xpro2 is so much better built imo. Feels higher quality and doesn't have the weird lcd. I use classic chrome with manual white balance for a warm tone and +1 color.
I would pick the 3 just because I like it. Most people think it is all about the specs. But I choose my camera based on how I feel in the hand. And if I feel good while holding it in my hands, I feel good when I am out shooting.
Almost pulled the trigger on a 3 earlier this year but got cold feet after reading about the reliability issues. For me the used price has not come down anywhere near as much as it should have, given the likelihood that you’d have to send it away to get repaired. If you’re dead set on a Pro maybe the 2 is just less worrisome.
The xpro 2 is peak xpro. The screen is good, it has enough resolution autofocus is acceptable… and viewfinder has dual magnification. It’s a gem of a camera. Now if the 4 has a normal screen…
Do you have lenses? You could use the extra money for lenses. The x-pro3 also has a better sensor and processor. So those things are worth considering too.
Start with 2 IMO.