Finally, we have confirmed a set of information that the Fuji X-Pro 3 camera has been discontinued. Now, as a flagship model, the replacement will be arriving anytime soon. So, we have our own set of expectations with the Fuji X-Pro 4 Have a look
Fujifilm X-Pro 4 Specification [Expectations]
– 40MP APS-C X-Trans5 BSI Sensor
– 160MP Pixel Shift Multi-Shot
– 7-Stop In-Body Image Stabilization
– Image processing engine X Processor 5
– Faster than has been AF, low noise, excellent color reproduction
– Magnification automatic switching function equipped with advanced hybrid multi viewfinder
– The fastest shutter mechanical shutter 1/8000 seconds, electronic shutter 1/32000 seconds
– Synchro 1/250 sec
– Intelligent hybrid phase difference AF. AF point is 425 points
– Body of lightweight magnesium alloy. Dust and water specification
– LCD monitor three inches 1.62 million dot
– Dual SD Card slot (UHS-II compatible)
– ISO range of 125-12800
– Film Simulation mode 19
– Menu is new design. Customizable. My Menu function
– Lossless compression 14bit RAW
– Wi-Fi remote shooting
– Exposure compensation +/- 5 stage
– Interval Shooting
– 4k 60p 10-Bit Video
– FHD 240p 10-Bit Video
– The number of remaining shots is 600+ [approx]
Stay with us and we will update u soon as we get more info.
STAY WITH ON FACEBOOK | TWITTER | GOOGLE+ to get live news + Fuji rumors 24X7+
I think the 3.69m dot viewfinder is the weakest link in the Fuji camera line at the moment (x-h2 excluded). It’s just not good enough for critical and manual focus checking.
My wish for the x-pro 4 is a better viewfinder!
Thanks for your hard work.
I wish that the xpro4 body be more like the Q2. Make it a special and premium camera, and not just like xt5 with a different shape body. People are willing to pay more for a smaller body ?
Those expected or hoped for specifications are just a list of all the possible improvements in a Fujifilm X-series cropped sensor camera. They make no sense for an X-Pro camera. Jeremy is right. The EVF is the weakest link, especially for a camera that some of us wish to use like an old film camera. We look through the viewfinder. Never mind making the LCD better. And, just as Alan says, think Leica. I own a Q2. But I would prefer interchangeable lenses. And a gorgeous sensor, preferably full frame. Please, please, please, do not make an X-T5 in a rangefinder body. Customers who want all the daft little fripperies of the X-T5 could buy an X-T5. Simples. Pixel shift: not needed; tilting lcd: not needed; 4K video: not needed; better AF: not needed; increased exposure compensation range: not needed. This should NOT be a camera to put on a tripod or take videos. Just make a great stills camera that approaches Leica in quality.
Agree with Ross on all points, but willing to accept tilting screen as shooting low level is really aided by it. But, if I had to chose IBIS or tilty IBIS would win out. I strongly share the sentiments most seem to have with making this the Fuji stills camera of choice – there are plenty of other, and better suited, bodies for making your vids.
I hope they keep the knobs unlike the XH2 where knobs are disappearing. No knobs no buy
Totally agree with many comments. The X-pro 4 should not be an X-T5 in a different body.
Fuji keep saying they want to make cameras for photographers so please time they did. Remove video functionality etc and all the other stuff not needed and make a camera purely for photography. If someone wants a camera that can do video, IBIS etc etc then buy the X-T5 !
Take from the XH2s the 26MP stacked sensor/AF system + the EVF and I’m sold!
I do not want the 40MP sensor. The extra bit of speed of the stacked sensor is worthwhile and 40MP means unnecessarily big files because you can rarely resolve 40MP anyway.
“Nice to have” would be to bring back the dual-magnification OVF, but I’m not holding my breath for that.
Why is the extra bit of speed of the stacked sensor important in a Rangefinder-styled photocentric camera for you? Do you do a lot of video with a X-Pro?
And the increase to 40 MP is the right way to go. We are constantly having that exact discussion for 20 years, whenever a new sensor is introduced: “physical limits” and the file size. But experience told us, that more pixels lead to finer image details and a better high ISO result, no matter if you think one “can rarely resolve 40MP anyway”. Also, larger files are barely problematic, our device storage capabilities grew way faster than the file size of our cameras, at least I don’t find it to be problematic.