If Fujifilm wanted to, they could do something really cool, that would be a massive sales success. The perfect time for them to do this is now, or really beginning two or three years ago and continuing at least a little while into the future; however, the ideal opportunity won’t last forever. Trends change, paradigms shift. Right now, though, is really good. What is this thing that Fujifilm should do? Alternative focal-length versions of the X100-series camera.
Most famously, both Leica and Ricoh have made a second focal-length versions of their fixed-lens camera. For Leica, it’s the Q3 43, a 43mm version of the Q3 (which normally has a 28mm lens). For Ricoh, it’s the GR IIIx, a 26mm (39mm full-frame equivalent) version of the GR III, which normally has an 18.3mm (28mm equivalent) lens. The Sigma DP series has had two, three, or even four focal-length variants, depending on the iteration. For instance, the DP Quattro series had a 14mm f/4 (21mm equivalent), 19mm f/2.8 (28.5mm equivalent), 30mm f/2.8 (45mm equivalent), and 50mm f/2.8 (75mm equivalent) versions, with everything identical except the lens. Fujifilm could and should do something similar.
Fujifilm’s solution has been the WCL-X100 and TCL-X100 conversion lenses. Simply screw a lens onto the end of the fixed-lens, and the camera becomes either 18mm (28mm equivalent) or a 32mm (48mm equivalent) respectively. That works well in a pinch, but if you want a nifty-fifty focal length all of the time, the extra weight and size of the TCL-X100 defeats the purpose of the camera. In other words, the wide and tele conversion lenses work well for a lightweight travel kit when used occasionally, but they are much less practical when needed frequently. I have walked around all day with the TCL-X100 attached to the camera many times, and it become a bit annoying after awhile.
Something that I’ve come to realize over the last couple of years is that my favorite focal length is the 40mm-60mm (full-frame equivalent) range. I like going wide sometimes, and I like going telephoto sometimes, but most often, I prefer a “standard” focal length. This is probably because when I first learned photography—and for nearly the first decade of my photography—I used a 50mm lens. It’s very natural to me, and I oftentimes find my compositions stronger and my appreciation for the images higher when I use a focal length in that 40mm-60mm range. I don’t want to strictly use nifty-fifty lenses. I think it’s good to stretch outside of my comfort zone—just within the last handful of months, I have gone as wide as 12mm and as long as 600mm. Having experience across a broad range of focal lengths is good. But if there was a 50mm (equivalent) X100-series camera, I would much prefer it over the 23mm (35mm equivalent) version that Fujifilm makes. For you, maybe it would be something wider than the current 23mm lens, or maybe the 23mm lens is perfect.
What I propose to Fujifilm (assuming that they read this—sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t), is to make alternative focal-length versions of the X100. The X100VI is probably more than halfway through its lifecycle. I assume that the next version will arrive in about a year-and-a-half or so, maybe two years tops. That’s probably enough time that Fujifilm could do this with the X100VI near the end of its lifecycle. More likely, though, it would not be the X100VI, but the X100VII. When the next iteration comes, Fujifilm could make alternative focal-length versions of the camera.
What would make the most sense is 18mm (28mm equivalent) and 33mm (50mm equivalent) versions, in addition to the regular 23mm (35mm equivalent). Literally have three different X100VII cameras. Maybe call the 18mm version X100VII-Wide (X100VII-W), the regular version X100VII-Classic (X100VII), and the 33mm version X100VII-Standard (X100VII-S). People who have hesitated to buy the X100-series because the focal length isn’t ideal for them (it’s either too wide or not wide enough) would purchase the version that is more ideal. And you’d have people buy two of them, or maybe even all three (I knew someone who owned all four Sigma DP Quattro cameras). If Fujifilm were to do this, all three versions would be sales successes. I don’t think they’d have any trouble selling as many as they manufactured.
The great thing about this is that the WCL-X100 and TCL-X100 lenses would still work. If you purchased the X100VII-Wide camera, the WCL-X100 lens would gave it a 14.5mm (22mm equivalent) focal length. I know it would work because the wide conversion lens works well on the X70. The TCL-X100 would give the X100VII-Standard a 46mm (70mm equivalent) focal length. The conversion lenses would still serve a purpose, and won’t become any less relevant just because there are three versions of the camera.
For a lot of people, the X100-series is their gateway into the Fujifilm world. You can try out the X-series without investing into a whole system. Once they’ve decided that they really like it, a camera like the X-T5, X-T50, X-E5, etc., often follows, along with some lens purchases. Not everyone who owns an X100-series camera travels this same path. For me, the X-E1 was my gateway, and an X100F came later. I purchased an X100V when it was new, followed by the X100VI when it was released. I own a number of interchangeable-lens cameras, as well. The X100-series is great for travel, street, or everyday snapshots where it’s more about being in the moment than fumbling with lenses and accessories. For me, the most ideal X100-series camera would have a nifty-fifty focal length lens. A wide version would be nice, too, sometimes—I really like the GFX100RF and X70; however, the GFX is much larger and heavier (although super small and lightweight for medium-format), and the X70 is old and doesn’t have many of the Film Sims and JPEG options of the latest models (can’t do nearly as many Recipes). I would buy more than one version, but the X100VII-Standard would get the most use by far. It would be really cool if Fujifilm did this.
Or, they could commit fully to the X-pro line. I already have a bunch of lenses. I’m not going to replace my X-pro2 with several X100s.
In the best of all worlds, they do both: several available X100 focal lengths for those who want a fixed-lens camera AND an X-pro4 that satisfies the system users.
Fujifilm is working on the next X-Pro right now, and I can say for certain that it has been in development (at least to some degree) for at least two years now. I don’t know when it will come, but I know it will come at some point, probably next year (however, I thought it would come in 2026, but I was wrong with that prediction).
My favorite X-Pro iteration is the X-Pro2. It’s a very special camera. Some people really love the X-Pro3, but it just didn’t do it for me, personally. It will be interesting to see what Fujifilm does with the upcoming X-Pro.
It’s my understanding that the X-Pro3 was discontinued earlier than Fujifilm had wanted due to the faulty rear screen cable. Then, there was disagreements within the company as to how to proceed forward, which stalled the successor to a point where Fujifilm decided it best to wait until the sixth-generation to release it. That’s just from rumblings I’ve heard hear-and-there, so it probably should be taken with a little salt. But for certain, Fujifilm is committed to making a new X-Pro, and it is under development right now.
Both would be good.
The point is well made but for me, a pancake 40mm. would do it nicely.
I have a pancake F fitting Voigtlander. I love it, on either my Zfc, my social choice, or my T5.
I own top notch shorter glass, a 35mm. and a 28mm. Never really use either.
Best part about my Voigtlanders, they are both MF. The 35mm is an AF Canon EOS. A Rockwell favourite, worthy and supremely capable but I just don’t love it. The 28mm. is just too short.
Each to their own.
For the curious, “Fringer” rules OK.
Best Rgds.
A 40mm pancake would be amazing. If they made it in X-mount, I would buy instantly. With an adapter can be ok, but it becomes non-pancake at that point. I might still look into it. I appreciate the tip!
I find the idea intriguing, however do not think, that doing a “me too” thing would be the right thing to do.
Why? For one thing Leica did the Q3 43 in addition to the 28mm version because the entire Q series is a fixed lens system, and there are no other versions, that would be like the X-E or X-pro series at Leica.
So, for myself, I’d hope, they do something more innovative.
To be fair, I’ve been advocating this concept for a long time, well before the Q3 and GR III were ever made. I believe the earliest I mentioned it on this website was 2018. But, from a practical point of view, it would certainly seem as “me too”. And honestly, I would take an X80 over an X100VII-Wide, if Fujifilm was choosing between the two. I would be interested in a “more innovative” idea, whatever that might be, I’m definitely not against that. Thanks for the input!
Really for me, I need an 18-55 or 18-50. 18 for landscapes, cityscapes, 35 for street and 55 for portraits. For real landscapes I use 10-24 and 50-140 or 100-400, usually only one of the long zoom makes it on a trip for lack of airplane carry on room. Fixed lens, only if I could carry 3 cameras which would be silly, 2 is silly enough already. I have x-t4 and x-hs2, like both. May buy x-t6 when it comes out if ‘pro’ enough. If If I just carried an x100 either focal length I’d feel like I’m compromising too much taking the picture I can take rather than the one I want. I suspect 23mm does not do good portraits (weird faces)
My initial reaction is queasiness, just because I don’t particularly care for zooms personally. The idea of a zoom-lens X100-series camera makes me nearly lose my lunch, and is quite antithetical to the camera itself. I truly hope (with the deepest hope that a person can have) that Fujifilm never does that. With that said, I understand that there are two schools of thought, and just as many (if not more) use zoom lenses than those who don’t. So there is merit to your suggestion. My opinion is no more important than anyone else’s opinion, and I’m sure that Fujifilm listens to a variety of input from a diverse pool of people.
I think an X30 successor with a 1″ sensor and zoom lens would be a good idea for Fujifilm to produce… there was a rumor last year that they are working on one, hopefully that turns into an actual camera that is announced soon.
As far as the focal-length not being good for portraits, I do know of some pro photographers who use it for fashion, weddings, concerts/musicians, and things like that. It’s probably not the best tool for headshots (maybe it’s ok when paired with the TCL), but otherwise is good for pictures of people.
I think an X80 or a 28mm X100 iteration would be a very good camera for street photographer types. I adore my X100Vi for what it is. I wonder want to lose that by trying to expand it to accommodate multiple fixed lens options. It’s hard enough for Fujifilm to keep up with demand for the one variant. Adding more would just add complexity to an already strained supply chain.
People wanting a small “nifty fifty”ish rangefinder option already have the XE5 with the 27mm pancake lens. Or even the 35mm Fujicron.
I have an X-E5 with the 27mm pancake and 35mm f/2. Both are great lenses. I have the 23mm f/2.8 pancake, too. It’s great, but it is divergent from the X100VI. No leaf shutter. No built-in fill-flash. No built-in ND filter. No weather-sealing.
If it was planned well in advance (such as with the future someday X100VII), Fujifilm could iron out the supply chain and manufacturing wrinkles ahead of time. Considering that the X100VI is the most viral camera of all-time, and the most pre-ordered camera of all-time (by a large margin), Fujifilm has done a pretty darn decent job of producing it and getting copies into the hands of their customers. If you want one right now, you can get one with a minimal wait.
Personally, I like the idea, but don’t think 18 and 33 would present enough of a difference.
On the wide end, I’d go to 16 (24eq). Some of that is just personal, and I don’t like the 28mm as much as 24mm,* but also because 24mm cropped to 65:24 is the field of view of the standard 45mm on TX-1/XPan. Plus, why bother going for a wide variant, unless going WIDE. 28mm is maybe the wide to use if you’re only going to make one variant (Leica Q, GFX100RF, Ricoh GR). Once you already have a 35mm equivalent, 28mm doesn’t go far enough.
On the telephoto end, I’d go a step further. 38-40mm, for a tight fifty. There are a lot of classic 58mm lenses out in the film world, from the Nikon Noct to the Helios 44. The 23mm is still around for folks who want more atmospheric shots, but this could be a premier portrait compact. I think it’d be better to lean into it, rather than go for a half-measure like a 33mm. And on this one in particular, I’d be willing to compromise on sharpness (particularly corner sharpness) to gain a wider maximum aperture. If it could be a 40/1.7 or even 40/1.4, so long as the center is sharp, I think that’d be a lot more fun that a 33/2.
But that’s just, like, my opinion, man.
*I find 28mm to be such an awkward middle. Too wide to edit a scene, but not wide enough to be truly dramatic. 24 is truly wide, really feeling it. 35 is still wide, but you’re able to exclude the parts of the scene you want to exclude. There’s a reason the premium standard zooms are 24-70 rather than 28-75.
I don’t disagree. I said 18mm because I know that the WCL would work with it. I would go wider (say 16mm) if the WCL still works. Whatever the widest Fujifilm can go and still have the WCL work, that’s what I recommend for them. It could be that 18mm is the widest, or maybe 17.3 (26mm equivalent), or maybe it’s 16mm, who knows.
I also don’t disagree with going a little longer than 33mm, but I would not go any longer than 40mm (60mm equivalent). Anywhere between 33mm and 40mm I’d be happy with. Either way, I think and hope that the TCL would still work, I think that needs to be a requirement. It might maybe mean a maximum aperture of f/2.8 would be necessary, and I’d be ok with that, too.