« How To Use a Standing (or Sit-Stand) Desk | Main | Happy Fourth »

Monday, 02 July 2018

Comments

That was my first thought too. While I think it’s a chunk of a camera for a street camera, it sure looks dang nice.

... I dunno... I should not complain, but I still think we lack the street camera I *really* want. Bearing in mind I like them smaller and lighter than you do Mike.

Mike: . . . if you ask me, this is about the coolest-looking camera in the history of history.

But certainly not designed for left-eyed shooters.

Talking of canines; have you seen this site?
http://dogbreathphoto.com/
(the blog blows dust in your eyes.)

Never mind "K-900". Here in Portugal the Hyundai Kona had to have its model name changed to "Kauai" in order to avoid obscene puns.
(That's why I once recommended you never to ask for "Kona" coffee if you should visit a portuguese-speaking country.)

The best looking camera is STILL the Zeiss Zm
silver with a Zeiss Silver lens on it.

Yes, the XPro 2 Graphite is is beautiful camera. But I prefer something a little more utilitarian. Make mine basic black, thank you.

....And the XPro 2 looks damn good in black, anyway....

Sure, the camera itself is quite attractive, but I for one would love to hear from folks who love it for how it functions as a camera. What I am I missing if I don't own an X-Pro 2?

Couldn’t agree more Mike. I care how cameras look and this one looks goood.

They prolly meant it to be K900 - or is that too obvious?

Hmmm, your 'Graphite XPro2' link to B&H is not showing a sale price on this camera.

I wonder whether about the 'pretty camera' thing. In particular, as a user of the camera, you probably look at it from behind considerably more often than from in front. And although the X-Pro2 is not ugly from behind It's a lot less pretty than it is from in front. I haven't looked at enough digital camera rear-control-layouts, but some of them just put me off immediately: too many digital cameras look like masks of a pretty camera placed over a tangle of poorly designed knobs, screens and buttons (the original X100 is very much like that). Although strangely, I rather like the Sigma SD quattro's rear layout (although I am sure it is not a camera I want).

Sorry, but I think many would agree that a Werra 1 looks a bit cooler https://filmphotographyproject.com/content/reviews/2014/08/werra-film-camera/

KIA makes a Canine car? Why the surprise from a company naming its brand Killed In Action?

And furthermore, maybe I should have bought that Pontiac Aztec and put it away as an investment.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Simmon-Bros-Omega-120-Camera-w-90mm-Wollensak-Omicron-Works-Great/232817004906?hash=item3634f9916a:g:XwcAAOSwwNRa6RFJ:sc:USPSPriority!68131!US!-1

The Fuji is a handsome camera, to be sure. But (dare I say it) its design is just a variation on the Leica M theme; for the exemplar of that theme see the black M4. Of course that camera has been out of production for as long as I've been photographing, so perhaps it doesn't count.

Mike, I agree with your assessment of the XPro 99%. But I suggest a minor wording change: "this is about the coolest-looking DIGITAL camera in the history of DIGITAL." For film, I think this has some of the smooth contours and morphology of the Leica M5 - the big Leica that so many traditionalists did not like. And going back a few more years, the original 1961 Canonet (or Bell & Howell in USA) with its smooth contours. Oh, wait, the M5 looks like the Canonet - that's where it got its inspiration....

Bit unfair to compare the X-Pro2 against a camera that's obviously been run over, twice.

If a camera (or anything) does not look good it must be great, otherwise there is no reason it exists.
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/alpa-lenses-on-the-hasselblad-x1d-and-it-looks-gorgeous/

http://senzo.co/post/2016/7/30/fujifilm-x-pro2-design-story-decisive-usability

how "pretty" came about: the link is to a 2016 article on senzo.co "Senzo is written and produced by Aage Granaas, an industrial designer, entrepreneur and photographer."

Hi Mike,
Have you held one in your hands?
They look gorgeous in pictures, but when I actually held one, i found its a bit taller (and larger) than it should be. And a bit too thin also.
Just my subjective take.
Anurag

[You know I don't think I ever have. --Mike]

That Fuji might have started out looking OK, but someone sat on one end of it.

That said, a lot of my friends have and like Fujis. I tried some when the first digital ILC Fujis came out, but walked away quickly. Different strokes.

The Fuji looks nice and I'm sure produces amazing images in the right hands, but for that money you can buy a Lumix GX85 with two bundled zoom lenses and a couple or three nice primes and still have money left over.

As for the dog, I think that's actually a chupacabra.

I would post a comment, but I can't because I died of a heart attack when I saw the price. A bit steep for that sort of camera nowadays even if it does have a magical Fuji paint job. It is purdy though. And fun to use, I bet. Plus it has that mysterious quality that only Fuji and Leica have of making one want to use them even if they aren't he best camera for the job.

I’ve taken two tries with the X-Pro, the first model and then years later the second. It’s definitely not for me. I don’t care if they paint it in candy apple red with pin stripes. It’s a needlessly large clunky hollow slow gadget to use. (And has no real relationship to a Leica M.).

Count me as the crowd who couldn’t care less about how photogenic a camera is.

A short-wheelbased X-Pan wannabe........ :)

The design of the Simmons Brothers Omega 120 definitely puts function ahead of form! They were pretty advanced cameras though - big rangefinder patches and sharp lenses, and if I recall correctly, the bodies were magnesium. They had also this wonderful revolving flash doohickey that hung off the side.

Hi Mike,
I have a working Omega 120 with the Flash.
As the shot is taken and film wound on a new flash bulb is moved to the correct position for the next shot.
Great for wedding photographers.
It makes it uglier but very simple to use.
Cheers Philip

The X-Pro2 reminds me of a marriage between a Leica-M (lens) and an Olympus (body).

It is purdy, but I have to give best looking camera to the Contax G2. That one hit just the right spot for me.

"Congratulations on your decision to purchase the Simmons Brothers Omega 120"

I think X100t/f and XE series are their coolest looking cameras.

No real insight other than to say I agree very much about the X-Pro2 in that graphite finish. Dang! I'd love to see the X-T3 in the same suit.

Have to second Mark O on how utterly pretty the Contax Gs are. Certainly the nicest looking cameras I own, still have a G2 in each color plus all the lenses. The Fuji is rather reminiscent and I'm guessing lacks a titanium skin.

My only attractive digicam is a Panny GM5, which is both lovely and pleasant to hold due to its solid metal chassis, smooth lines and conspicuous lack of buttons and dials. Mount the equally lovely Oly 75/1.8 and it's a handsome rig. At the other end of the range is my first digicam, the Kodak P880. Beautiful Kodak color and Schneider lens and an utter mutt of a design. Function over form, turbocharged.

The Simmon Omega camera turned into the Koni-Omega, and later the Rapid-Omega. Those were very capable cameras for shooting weddings and school groups- several photographers at the portrait studio where I worked (at the end of the '70s) preferred them. I only shot with a Rapid-Omega for a week- it made beautiful big negatives, but the studio never issued me one. An underrated machine, (slightly) more handsome than the original.

[And I love how the listings on eBay are sprinkled with listings for fish oil (with omega-3). --Mike]

You're asking if we remember a blog post from twelve years back...? In dog years that may already be long ago, but in internet time that's before dinosaurs roamed the planet and we were on bleep bleep brr dial-up.

I'm waiting for the diamond-bezeled GFX50, thankyouverymuch. Meanwhile I'm playing with a Pentax 67 100mm that got a good review from ctein on your blog about 2006-ish.

This X-Pro2 would look better if there was a Velvia-box-green circle on the front that had "Fujifilm" inscribed through the diameter.

Agree re the Pro2's looks, except ..... and this follows on from the "have you held one in your hands" comment ... except for the grip. Doesn't look good and adds very little to one's ability to hold the camera. If you add a grip, it detects further from the look and makes the camera even more larger than it needs to be. It may detract somewhat from the look, but given its size it needs a decent grip. Form over function can only go so far.

Having handled the X-Pro2 in Graphite, I think it looks even better than it does in pictures, and particularly so with the matching lens.

As for the comments about its size and build, I owned and shot with the X-Pro1 for well over a year and while it is not a brass-bodied Leica, I found the camera to be very well-built and easy to handle, even for "light action" photography...so horses for courses on that count; this is why we have lots of choices in the market.

In the two weeks I rented one, the biggest issue I had with the X-Pro2 was the eye relief for the viewfinder optic was troublesome for me, and has been for others. Interestingly, I don't experience eye relief problems with the X-Pro1 or my much-loved X100F. Potential X-Pro2 buyers should definitely rent before purchasing.

Fuji seem to have a rare instinct for style in the modern camera world. I am sure it is more than half of their appeal.

I agree that the X-Pro2 is handsome, but for me it is also beautifully functional. But, I am an old (relatively) fogey, and I am very much attached to bright-line optical finders and traditional controls.

For me, the X-Pro2 is becoming a digital replacement for my Mamiya 7, though you might not expect to see those two cameras mentioned in the same sentence. I am primarily a landscape photographer, and I do most of my shooting while hiking. The Mamiya represented the most compact and light-weight way (with film) to attain the image detail that I want, and it features a bright-line finder. Over the years, I settled on the 150 mm (75 mm-e) and 65 mm (32 mm-e) lenses for the Mamiya. The X-Pro2, with the 23 mm and 50 mm Fujicrons, offers me the advantages of a smaller package, roughly the same image quality and the advantages of digital, especially in lower light.

In thinking about this reply to the original post, it occurred to me that the Mamiya 7 can be thought of as the final evolution of the dog-ugly Simmons Omega 120. In fact, the last of the Koni-Omegas are said to have been manufactured by Mamiya, and the Koni-Omega probably inspired the Mamiya Press cameras. I wouldn't call the Mamiya 7 beautiful, but, again, I find it functional beautiful.

As for physical beauty, I still give the all-time trophy to the Leica M3.

David

For functional ugliness, making in my opinion a fine machine, (I've had two) you can't beat an MZ TS 250/1, AKA the Supa 5. Made of thick steel and aluminium with little plastic, by clever design it weighed less than most Japanese 250s of the time. Easy maintenance and repair too.

It's the middle one at the link.
http://www.sweller.co.uk/sob/mz-mayhem.html

The comments to this entry are closed.