Battle of the X-Pros

So this is a new Fuji forum, and the perfect opportunity to settle an old argument, OR, rake over some old coals at least.

Which is the best X-Pro?

I’ve owned and used all three quite a bit, and have lost count of the times I’ve swapped from one to the other and then back again, constantly shifting opinion. Over the years I’ve come to the realisation that I’m able to believe all three of these statements simultaneously:

1. The X-Pro1 is the original and best; it’s the purest expression of the concept and has the most “film like”, “magical” (I know) sensor, with none of the unnecessary fluff and distractions added to the later models.

2. The X-Pro2 is the best; it perfects the original design with much better performance and resolution, and pro features like weather sealing and dual card slots. It has the best hybrid finder since the EVF is decent, but still has dual mag in the OVF.

3. The X-Pro3 is the best; the hidden LCD makes it the ultimate “digital film” camera with the most analogue-like shooting experience, the fastest autofocus across the frame even in low light, and the best set of jpeg options including Classic Neg and fully fledged custom settings. It has the best hybrid finder since the EVF is OLED and the OVF is bigger and brighter - who cares about the dual mag?

Genuinely, all three of the above are true, in different and competing parts of my brain. At the moment the X-Pro3 part is winning, but that can change from week to week. Is it just me?

PS - I really wanted to have a poll to choose the best X-Pro but the forum software only seems to allow two choices at the moment!

PPS - working poll on all three X-Pros here now - dprevived.com/t/best-x-pro-poll/2592/#post-24137

I have used all 3 of them. To me, it is the X-Pro3, because of the reduced number of distractions that the camera can potentially create while shooting. In this regard, the hidden LCD is a must.

I also think that "magic" and "film like" do not make sense. No digital camera can offer "film like" results; the basis of film photography is chemistry, where light produces a chemical reaction on a salt - coated pellicle. A digital sensor generates images from a very different process. So, in my humble opinion, such factors should not enter this "poll".

I was meaning to be a bit tongue in cheek with those words, I know and understand why those descriptions can be annoying (although they’re widely repeated). But it’s shorthand for something that’s not easy to describe - there is something pleasing about the jpegs from the X-Pro1 that the others don’t replicate, not that they’re not also very pleasing in other ways. It’s a bit intangible, and probably to do with technical imperfections that the later cameras improve on in various ways, but it’s there.

I agree with you on the X-Pro3 though… this week.

I have a feeling the X-Pro 4 is going to be the best! 😈
Seriously, I can't answer the question, for the simple reason that I only own the X-Pro1 🙄

Yes, I agree completely with this.

For me, it's the X-Pro2. I go back and forth between back screen shooting and viewfinder all the time, and that's simply easier with the X-Pro2. I do miss a touch screen and some screen articulation, though.

X-Pro3 all the way!

(hope my screen won’t break, that’s the only thing, but in general I don’t worry)

I tried each of the X-Pro models as soon as they were released. The only one to come home with me was the X-Pro3. Up until that model, they were lacking in something.

You do realise you can switch the LCD off on the others? so point 1 is moot for me. A digital sensor can render a more organic less clinical feel to its images, plenty of people would cite the X-Pro 1 as one such camera, I'd agree as well. Digital cameras with lower resolution sensors seem to be better in this respect, their images don't look so clinical, so I'm fine with using that expression and don't see why it shouldn't be used if plenty of people do see it, and apparently they do.

I’ve had the same thoughts in the past, and of course it’s true you can turn the LCD off on any camera, but it’s also true that it’s just not the same as having the LCD hidden by default. For one thing cycling through all five options with the little view mode button on the X-Pro2 is pretty annoying, and it’s a LOT quicker and simpler to just switch “mode” by swinging the screen down when you want it.

For another, there’s a deliberate intention in the design of the X-Pro3 that you can’t really emulate on the other X-Pros. The screen is off and closed by default, it takes a deliberate effort to deploy and use it, and it begs to be closed again once you’re done; none of that can be imitated with a on/off switch.

Xpro2 all the way
It's a significant improvement over the original and doesn't have that silly flip screen of the 3; better ovf magnification than xp3; retains the d-pad etc....
It would be nice to have classic neg though😁
Edit: it's interesting reading everyone else's responses. The xp3 is quite popular...not for me though.

Yes, of course, I know that. As I said, I have used all 3 of them. Switching off the LCD is not the same as folding it. The latter is much more expedite and easier, rather than to fiddle with LCD settings. Actually, it is one of the advantages of LCDs that flip out and can be closed; this is how I use my X-T4 for example. A digital sensor actually results in more "clinical" images compared to film; the highlights are more "metallic" (for lack of better wording); film is more "organic" because the silver halide crystals are not as uniformly distributed as pixels.

At the end of the day, people see what they want to see.

This whole argument is moot to me. Yes, you can use your focus-by-wire lens in MF mode. Yes, you can set a B&W filter on your color camera. But you’ll never know what you’re talking about until you’ve experienced a Leica M manual lens on a rangefinder camera, or a Leica M Monochrom which requires you as a photographer to think differently.

So, coming from my perspective, no, the whole point isn’t moot. It was necessary to hide the display in the X-Pro3.

The other point about the screen on the 3 is that it’s a brilliant waist level finder, of course - maybe even the best available, since it flips down so easily and gives such a great view without viewfinder humps and the like in the way.

It’s definitely allowed me to get some images that I really like, that simply wouldn’t have happened with either of the older X-Pros.

I think they all have a place…but to me, the colour from the X-Pro1 is the best. As well, the high iso noise is more film like as opposed to looking like digital noise. Despite the other failings, it’s still my favourite.

Do you have a some examples to share?

I think there are a few people fooling themselves that there's a world of difference between switching off an LCD and it being folded. The effect is the same, and the good news is that by switching it off l'm not going to cause an expensive repair over time. It's also not onerous to switch it back on again, so l don't buy that argument either.

To play devil’s advocate — not having a dog in this race — I’d point out that folding the LCD inwards protects the screen from damage and may well prevent another expensive repair.