The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Best Buy--who knew it had such good deals on Fuji X Pro2


Well-known member
I should be getting a commission! ;)

Gary, great choice. With everything I have read, you should see some real benefits over the X Pro1. I love my camera and the dual-magnification optical finder is just genius. Looking forward to seeing you join us on the Fun with Fuji X thread.


New member
Congrats on your new camera, hope you show us some results here as well.

And as far as LR 6.14, you can always convert to dng with the latest Adobe dng converter and LR 6.14 will read the dng's fine.
Yay! Just downloaded an X-Pro2 RAF from Image Resource and it imports into LightRoom v6.14 just fine!

So, I don't have to abandon the workflow that I've recently spent an inordinate of time solidifying!



Well-known member
I have posted images there in the past, but it has been awhile.

Well, I will certainly look for your return. I am curious if you notice a big difference between the first and second models. I did consider an X Pro1 for my second body, but held out for a 2.


Well-known member
Just wanted to add this to why buy an old Fuji question. This is a British photographer that compared Fuji APSC, Nikon 35mm, and Fuji medium format with large prints. It really parallels my experience:

The most interesting takeaway is the lens is so much more important than pixel resolution or sensor size. It also demonstrates why viewing distance, not print resolution (DPI or PPI), is so important for the perception of quality in a print.

But it also reinforces my experience with printing large: when hanging on a wall, the image will simply look fine. I had done 40" prints when I bought the X Pro2 and while they were nice prints, they were not going to be technically better than my Pentax 645D (see below). However, if presented by themselves on a wall, the images themselves would be good. Now, I did not buy the X Pro2 to make large prints, I have the Pentax if I need to do that. I have the X Pro to do other projects that I would have smaller display sizes. As the video shows, a 24" print will be easy for an APSC camera. (And lets face it, 24" is not that small (I remember when photographic paper at 20x24 was huge).

(Where the APSC images don't match a MFD camera at 40" is in high-frequency detail, as the video discusses). But you a) need to look for it and b) have some sort of comparison. The MFD has a softer roll off at infinity than the APSC. I noticed that in things like horizon lines where the horizon looks very crisp compared to the MFD.)


Well-known member
Will, I follow Nigel Danson to learn more about landscape photography.
He switched over to Nikon Z7 though from the Fuji x series.

A good link to address some myths about printing size.



Well-known member
He switched over to Nikon Z7 though from the Fuji x series.
I think Nigel switched from Nikon full frame to Fuji before that. At the end of the video, it sounds like he might be going to Fuji medium format (although he did note the weight of the system, so he might be going back to the Fuji X system later ;) ). It looks like the eternal pursuit of the "perfect" camera. But then his goal is to make technically perfect 50" prints of landscapes that can be viewed close up (what would have his conclusion been if he was a street or documentary shooter?). It looks like the optics are the limiting factor, not the sensor size or resolution--at least that is his conclusion (and the Fuji GFX prime was just going to perform better then either of the less expensive zooms).

What would be a really interesting comparison is if each one of those 50" prints were hung at a separate location and you had the viewers at that location rate the quality of the image on a scale. Without a comparison and a broad selection of viewers would any of those prints get a higher ranking than the others based on their merits alone? And even in the video, Nigel was making very subjective determinations on things like detail and rendering that could have easily been explained because the light had changed during the exposures.

While we have sort of come the the same conclusion, but with a different result (I took up the Fuji X, but I hung on to my MFD gear, so I have the best of both worlds). I think the bottom line is, at least for me, if I had to present my work in an exhibition, could I present high-quality images to the audience? Given my experience (and I have been shooting and printing images for decades and not just for myself, but for clients such as other artists and museums), the photographer's control of the process will be a far more important factor in that than the equipment per se. I also know the equipment is not irrelevant. If I need to meet his criteria of a technically perfect print at 50", I would be shooting MFD with excellent prime lenses. But then I am solving a technical problem, not an aesthetic one. And no matter if I am working with APSC or MFD, I still need to apply my skills to create an aesthetically pleasing image. 19th century photography is technically inferior, but not aesthetically inferior--whether you like it or not. ;)

Sorry for the long post. I have been thinking about this for some time. We think of photographic quality as a single dimension pointing toward better technical quality. We seldom talk about the perception of that work. Yes, you can maximize technical quality, but will that be either perceptible or important. I think when you have to get to close views of 50" prints to detect difference with direct comparison, you are really getting to extremes. This really says to me that my equipment is not the real limitation to the quality of my work.