Hybrid viewfinder in the X-Pro2, 3-way flippy rear screen along with an optional performance enhancing battery grip for the X-T2.

I am thinking that you are still a little confused. It is not "deceptive" at all. It is simply a way to describe the RESULT of using a lense on a smaller camera than the lense was originally designed for. Consider a pair of prints of the same subject photographed with the same lens from the same location - one image from a 24Mpx (megapixel) "full frame" and another from a 24Mpx 1.5 "crop" camera. Now, since both cameras' sensors have the same number of pixels in the same 3:2 aspect ratio, you can print both resulting images at 250 dpi and get two same-sized 24" x 16" prints. And guess what? The subject in the print from the "crop" camera will be 1.5 times the size of the subject in the print from the ""full-frame" camera. In other words, the "full-frame" camera would need a lens with a focal length 1.5x times that of the lens on the "crop" camera to print the subject as large as it printed from the "crop" camera. That is why a lot of birders really like crop cameras - it is a lot easier to haul around a 400mm lens than the 600mm full-frame "equivalent"!

Free Processing Software from Nikon:

http://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/sw/101.html

About Capture NX-D:

"Capture NX-D photo processing software lets you realize the full potential of your Nikon digital camera and lens, producing images with the unsurpassable quality envisioned by our designers. It offers features specifically designed for post-processing of RAW images and provides them in an intuitive, easy-to-use form. In addition to processing RAW images, it can be used to enhance JPEG and TIFF images taken with Nikon digital cameras through adjustments to brightness, contrast, tone curves, and more."

Vuescan, without a doubt.

To answer your first question, the EVF is showing exactly what the sensor is seeing.

Now for some reasons to love an eye-level finder, especially if it is an EVF: The EVFs in higher quality cameras these days have much higher resolution than the rear display, making for better critical focus and reviewing, and, as others have pointed out, you can plainly SEE what you are shooting before and after the fact in the EVF when the rear LCD is completely washed out by bright sunlight. And another advantage of an EVF comes into play if you do a lot of performance video in dark venues such as I do - you can turn the rear display completely off, so you aren't annoying spectators with the LCD glare like so many do with their cell phones.

Another advantage of any eye level finder, whether you are in a dark venue or not, is that you can avoid motion blur with much longer shutter speeds for a lot longer time if you grip the camera with both hands with your eye tight into the eyecup and your elbows pressed into your ribs. It is nearly impossible for most people to keep from shaking when holding a camera out at arms length, especially when they are doing a lot of shooting. ANY eye-level viewfinder, even a poor one, is better than relying on a rear LCD screen, and you will not see many serious photographers without some kind of eye-level finder on their cameras!

DSLRs do not have focusing screens - that is a problem for a lot of people with impaired vision, and it is the main reason I started using mirrorless cameras almost exclusively years ago. And now, with the excellent EVFs and accompanying superb image quality in the high-end mirrorless cameras, I don't understand why anyone who is serious about their photography still insists that DSLRs are the only way to go.

HarryB

You would be needing a 23mm pancake to have an "X100 wannabe". The 27 is equivalent to a 50mm in "full frame". The X100's 23mm lens is equivalent to a 35mm - major difference.

My major issues with the portrait would be the absence of catchlights in the eyes, and the hot spots on her forehead and cheek/nose.

Who cares? A great portrait of a lovely model.

Good one - cracked me up!

HarryB

However, once the film is developed, it is a major dust magnet! On the other hand, I can go for years without cleaning sensors because I am careful when changing/removing lenses.

HarryB

The "Resolution" of the two sensors (if both are 16 Megapixels) will produce the same size images on your monitor and in prints. The physical size of the sensor doesn't have anything to do with the pixel resolution that determines the output print size. Theoretically, if you are talking about 2 high quality cameras with quality lenses, you will have a hard time knowing which image came from which camera when viewing images at the same size on either a print or on a monitor if "equivalent" f-stops were chosen. The difference, if there is any, will be due to the "quality" of the respective pixels in terms of color accuracy, ISO "noise", etc. rather than the size of the individual pixels.

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood what you were saying above. It sounded to me that you were making the common mistake when comparing sensor sizes and equating them to film in that a negative film frame from a small format camera has to be magnified to produce an equivalent size print as a larger format camera, thus automatically degrading the resolution of the print from the smaller negative.
That doesn't happen in the digital world.

HarryB

I used to think that auto ISO was a silly feature - after all, manual mode means you want to control everything, right? Well, I changed my tune when I moved to New Orleans where we know a bunch of musicians, and I started doing a lot of event photography in places with poor/variable lighting and was trying to track performers all over the stage or trying to deal with constantly changing light. And before you say it, having the camera in one of the usual Auto modes (A,S,P) doesn't work for me - all of my older cameras with no Auto ISO would be constantly choosing Apertures and/or shutter speeds that I didn't like under the conditions I have to shoot in.

Enter the Fuji XT2 and a huge firmware update that was not the usual bug fix, but mostly adding a bunch of free new features - one of which was Auto ISO in Manual Mode. Wow! I would have paid full price for another of the same body if that was required to get the Auto ISO feature. Now, I can set my Aperture, usually close to wide open, and pick a shutter speed that will be fast enough to avoid most motion blur, and with those two critical settings locked in, let the ISO be wherever it wants to be, all the way up to ISO 6400. And the stills and movies are great even at 6400 - I love this camera!!

I can see Auto ISO to be a huge advantage in wildlife/bird or any kind of action photography too, when you are following a moving subject that is going through variable light as you are tracking (alligators, birds, etc). I can't wait for our next foray into the swamp!

Just my 2 cents -

HarryB

There is if you have a Fuji XT2 - and it is a wonderful thing to have when shooting events in dark and/or variable lighting when you are tracking performers all over the stage!

HarryB

Things based on mostly baseless rumor can go viral very quickly on the internet. If you would bother doing a little research from trustworthy sources you would find that the Nikon camera division is doing OK - the "problems" are mostly within another of Nikon's businesses (obsolete lithography steppers) that has nothing to do with photography. Here's an opinion piece that you can trust, if you're interested:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-isnt-being-bought-by.html

If you would just prefer to continue propagating Internet BS, please go be a troll somewhere else.

HarryB