From my perspective because Fuji produce the X pro 2 and the X100 cameras in tandem with each new model features from one are picked up by the other and this leads to general maturing of both product lines. I think it’s the case after using the XPro 1 for almost three years that I would buy the X100 F but would not replace my XPro1 with the XPro2. The reason for this is purely my subject matter. While one can almost take any type of photography with any camera it helps if the features fit the usage. The XPro series is not all good for nature of landscape the essence of the camera just gets in the way, the XT2 is far superior in this regard. However when one starts to photograph near distance urban landscapes the X100F and Xpro series really come into their own. Add to this the small physical length of the X100F’s lens or the WR lenses on the Pro series and you are on to a winner.
I have done a lot of garden and plant work for magazines. I worked with Canon 5D’s and a Leica M9. The M9 gave me the freedom to move quickly from high to low from one metre to ten metres, then for macro and telework the 5D came into its own, but more often than not it needed the use of a tripod. The XPro1 changed all that because it could use a zoom that the M9 could not and it wasn’t the lump that the 5D and a (mostly)large lens was.
I see the X100F with its supplementary lenses* as replacing a Leica system and four lenses and to a lesser extent the Canon 5D as well but with image quality that is equal and possibly better than both especially as Leica have forgone the CCD sensor.
I have said this before in this blog that when one gets down to a pixel level there is so little difference in the IQ between the Leica, Canon and Fuji as to be negligible. BUT, and it’s a very big but, the Fuji pixel quality is more pleasing to the eye, the Fuji combination of sensor and lens draws linear forms more closely to the way the eye sees them. It’s been said many times before but Fuji film presets present imagery as film. However, I would go one step further and say that what Fuji has done is created image quality that has gone beyond what film ever was but it has maintained the intrinsic qualities that only FujiFilm ever had. Essentially that is a new level of photographic imagery a standard that few can match. And I really look forward to working with it on this new generation of FujiFilm cameras.**
Will I buy an X100F? Yes, I will as soon as I get my new studio is finished and my new flower garden is started but likely after the XPro1 is replaced with an XT2!
*Up until the turn of the century the quality of supplementary lenses particularly third party products was of dubious benefit in the making of quality imagery. However, in about 2003 Canon manufactured several supplementary lenses that were designed to go on top of the line point and shoots the G and S series. The IQ from then on with supplementary was almost no different to the fixed or zoom lens except for the wider or longer tele reach. This improvement was in no small part due to many developments that took place in lens coating technologies.
** Comparing sensors is now a bit like comparing films in the past I have been using M43 cameras since 2009 and my last EM1 and current PEN F is essentially the daily everywhere carry around camera. I have manipulated Sony images from a 7 mk 1 and a similar vintage Nikon. Making comparisons is never easy without upsetting someone. But the one thing I will say about all of the above is that under day light conditions the IQ is similar mostly very good but relatively neutral. I find the Sony image quality to be almost clinical at times and the M43 has so many choices of synthesised image style the eye is swamped with choice. But Fuji has a sensor sauce that is unique to it and only itself.
The best review I have read thus far is from Here at imaging-resource.com