A couple of months ago the Fujiguys promised that there will be some exciting news in September 2011. Now Photorumors got a rumor from an unknown source saying that there will be probably “some kind of a mirrorless solution with a sensor probably smaller than APS-C, something in the m4/3 range.” I don’t know how reliable the source is, what I know for certain is that Fuji wants to make a mirrorless camera that takes interchangeable system. One of my sources also told me months ago that there was a meeting between Olympus and Fuji. I hope that source will know come back to me and tell me if that rumor is true or not 😉
Meanwhile Fuji released the new firmware for the X100 you can download here: http://www.fujifilm.com/support. And click those links if you want to check price and availability of the X100: [shopcountry 19929].
116 Responses
Give me the form factor and hybrid VF of the X100 in a rangefinder brick where I can plug in my m43 lense and I’LL SELL MY MOM.
“Just a reminder that Fujifilm is part of the Micro Four Thirds System Standard Group”
-photorumors.com
Not impossible at all. 🙂
I know Fuji are part of the Four Thirds group but I am not sure they are officially part of Micro Four Thirds. Anyone know for sure?
By the way did they ever do anything in Four Thirds?
say bye to your mom!
I guess you watch too much George Lopez
“SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY, FUJI!” perhaps?
make that 2 moms sold instantly 🙂
Not likely the way you envision it. You need some decision on the optical finder focal length. If you make it 7mm (to cover the 7-14mm Panasonic) you end up with frame lines at 300mm that are a teeny box in the middle of the screen. If you make it 14mm, you still are going to have problems with anything but the kit lens and the primes in that range. Plus, it took Fujifilm this long to just get the lines to move for focus parallax on a fixed lens ;~). So, it seems a little doubtful to me that you’d get what you want. Fujifilm’s EVF is okay, but not earth-shattering. I would bet they’d just drop the hybrid and leave an EVF.
I think it can be done, Thom.
The optical finder can be used with the 14 (full coverage), the 17 (wide bright lines), the 20 & 25, any 30-35ish, and maybe the 45. Just like most rangefinders do now for 28-90mm focal lenghts. Beyond that wider, or longer FLs you only get EVF. (Same for zooms, but the lines can move with a zoom if they really try.)
The great thing is that with digital brightlines in the OVF you can have exact lines for the 20 & 25, or any non-standard focal lenghts.
Having said that, for the sake of simplicity and cost reduction, your right. It’ll probably never happen.
what i dont know understand about optical viewfinders is how can they be better in low light? evf are bright and amplify the scene youre looking at.
can you use ovf in parties, at night, other low light situations, or are they for bright light times only?
as long as you can see with your eye, you can use the ovf,
but its true, the amplification of the efv is sometimes brighter, also it has a magnification option that comes handy for manual focus, which you will use at dark scenes anyway because of the x100’s af.
i personally like an ovf more than an evf. also i wouldnt care and rather use a clip on ovf instead of the hybrid fuji version. it IS kind of nice, escpecially with the x100’s macro option.
my perfect camera would be a leica 1f style body with all controls on the top plate, a “tiny” 2″ or smaller monitor on the back and an even smaller color status display on the top like on the leica s2.
ah, and it should be made out of one block of brass, like the brickdesign of recent macbooks. milled from the bottom hehe
i think i will start right now and make a 3d mockup for sending to leica hehe
If you make the viewfinder 14mm, at 30mm you’re using less than one-quarter of it with adjusting framing lines. I personally never liked the smaller framing lines on the Leica and other rangefinders. And by the way, those lines are far from exact on the X100. Moreover, now you’ve added a visual jarring as you move between OVF and EVF. There’s enough jarring going on just switching between the same view optically and electronically, IMHO, without adding angle of view. To me, this seems like pursuit of the wrong goal. Why not just use the EVF as an EVF and skip all the extra stuff that gets added because of OVF?
Thom I think you’ll agree that most of the x100 target market “rangefinder” are very stubborn&old fashioned photographers that hate (or believe they hate) not having an optical hole to look thru,
I’m positive that the hybrid-vf brought any skeptical onto the evf wagon, and when x200 would hit the street it might be EVF only, and people will buy it because they used it more on their x100
You’d think wrong, then, I believe. There IS a difference between optical and EVF, and it has to do with where the eyes are focusing and whether they’re looking at a flat (2D) rendering or still seeing some depth cues. Those stubborn old guys want the latter, not the former.
OVF’s are useless for white balance, exposure compensation, aspect ratios, seeing what is about to walk into the frame, colour/film modes, metering…
Shame on you!
There’ll be no hybrid viewfinder on an interchangeable body :/
Sounds good! I hope the rumor can be confirmed.
Looking at the developments now, maybe it isn’t a bad idea to wait just a little longer for buying a new camera. I hope we’ll see some brick cameras with built-in EVF by September
I’d sell more than that. Show us the goods fujifilm!
Interesting news indeed. If Fuji would join Micro 4/3 that would be fantastic. They dont have quite as much strength in lens design compared to sensors and bodies so I think it would make sense to join Micro 4/3 with a body and their own zoom kit lens and then take advantage of the lens range from Oly and Panasonic.
It would be fantastic having another manufacturer in micro 4/3 especially with some of Fuji’s strengths.
The Fujinon lens from the X100 isn’t too shabby.
Fuji is already part of the Micro 4/3 group 🙂
Sorry I wasnt saying that Fuji cant make quality lenses. The lens in the X100 is very high quality. I was just thinking about their previous dSLRs which used a Nikon mount:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/
I tended to think they had more strength in bodies and sensors, and if they dont have the resources to make a large range of lenses then Micro4/3 would make sense for them.
Yeah, it’s actually a good thing to have Fujifilm concentrated at the bodies as you said. There are already some good lenses and the bodies are a bit lacking currently imo. Maybe Fujifilm is seeing opportunities there.
It’s a good thing to have more (sensible) body competition in this segment.
Fuji has a great deal of lens strength actually. They are the #1 producer of HDTV camera lenses, and they supply the lenses for the current Hasselblad autofocus cameras. They also have a history of lens design in every format from 35mm to large format. Plus they themselves make every lens in even their point and shoot cameras. On top of that, the lens in the X100 stands up to the best from Leica.
If anything, I think a Fuji line of M4/3rds lenses, and bodies designed for the enthusiast or pro will really elevate the entire system beyond what Oly or Panasonic have been doing.
I’ve already got a M43 Fujinon lens 🙂
Actually, it’s a C-mount Fujinon-TV 12.5mm f1.4 modified by ekoehler7, a C-mount lenses specialist. He made several modification in order to obtain a very fast 25mm FF eq. with slight vignetting (while the original lens has a lot of vignetting).
This lens is gorgeous! very well made, and the colors are… simply great!
If Fuji makes a brick M43 camera I will sell my mom too… I hope in september we will see a brick camera release triplet! (Oly Pana Fuji).
I suspect that Fuji doesn’t have the resources to develop their own system, so joining MFT would make sense. Also, using the smaller 4/3 sensor in their mirrorless camera is clever since a Fuji MFT body won’t compete directly with their high end, APS-C X100, and its successors. I hope the rumor turns out to be true.
How about the X200, move the shutter into the body, interchangeable lens, same lens mount as Oly-pana. Most important, don’t change the look, and don’t change the APS-C sensor.
Good idea. I like the sound of that. Having the larger sensor means they could have different aspect ratios like the GH1/2.
The only thing is the optical part of their VF system could be a bit difficult with interchangeable lenses. They could just keep it there and let people use it if they want – knowing the problems with focus etc. I would like that.
Let’s see, 12mp with a 1.4x crop = how many megapixels? Not likely, they’d be back in their old “not enough pixels” problem, which eventually killed their DSLRs.
Hi Thom
Do you think its likely that Fuji would join Micro 4/3? Would it be a good move for them?
As I wrote some time ago, it’s likely their only choice if they want to get back into the interchangeable lens game. Short of buying Nikon cameras again and changing the digital guts, they don’t have access to any other mounts that I know of. Starting their own would be an unwise decision, they simply couldn’t catch up in lenses.
Thom, Do you believe oly/pana would welcome Fuji to join&support the system? or perhaps they will see them as another in-home competitor? (as i believe Panasonic and Olympus have behaved, otherwise, why so many duplicate lens’s?)
Hard to say these days. Early on, I think they would have welcomed anyone. It would have made for a strong launch statement. These days, I’m a little less sure, but frankly, there’s still safety in numbers when you’re competing against Sony and Samsung. Personally, if I were running Panny or Oly I would be happy to have another competitor in my mount. It makes for an easier cross sell. So if I think that my engineers are better than yours (which, of course, I do ;~), I think that I’ll pull people over eventually even if they choose a competitor first. But once someone has bought outside my mount, it’s more difficult to get them to abandon what they bought and buy something else.
Why can’t they make cameras with the Sony E mount? Didn’t Sony open that up?
They opened it up to lenses, not cameras, is my understanding. But maybe. Still, the problem is “not enough lenses.” Being late to the mirrorless game, you don’t want to be lens constrained. m4/3 is more logical for Fujifilm, I think.
hopefully not using panasonic sensors…using their own sensors….
+1!
Panasonic is so silly..
back when they only started with digital cameras they hade hits like FZ-20…but afterwards their sensors were extremly noise and for years great cameras would get awfull reviews because of their sensors….that’s until the LX3 came along and changed all that….
consequently it sold like hot-dogs, but now, after lagging so much behind sony…i’m suspecting that Panasonic quickly forgot the Reason behind LX3 success
I think Panasonic has done well with compacts, look at the TZ series e.g. well built, relatively good IQ. they introduced the category and continue to lead
I hope there is an x100 type camera in mft mount.
I think that would be a bad move for Fuji. I love my EP1, and am looking forward to the 50/1.8 and EP3, but I think Fuji’s got something special in their X series (if you write, say, the E620 series as Exxx, do you write the Fuji X100 series as Xxxx?).
I think they should release another fixed focal length, and concentrate on a possible fixed lens zoom.
Yes Fuji x200 should be made with a different classic lens something like 50 mm. seems more logical for me but maybe it’s just a dream
Fuji, like Oly has a great tradition in photography. If they enter m4/3 it will be a major chance to beat Sony, and to be at the forefront of camera making.
The other important piece of news if Leica planning a cropped format. Things are really heating up, and enthusiasts will really start noticing mirrorless, and that O&P are those with the richest choice of lenses.
I seem to remember that there was a meeting between Oly and Fuji managers recently and that OLy was interested in getting Fuji onboard.
I seriously doubt. Fuji wouldn’t compete with Oly and Panny in m43 bodies. Oly’s supposedly super fast AF and IBIS. Panny’s awesome video feature. Where does Fuji fit into? They will have to degrade DR if switching from APS-C to M43 sensor size. Don’t sell your mom.
Hmmmmmm….About 4 years ago Fuji made the S5 Digital SLR camera (which I think was way ahead of its time) that took Nikon lenses. I don’t believe Fuji even made a lens for the camera…
So wouldn’t it be sweet if they produced a camera body that trumped ALL of the Panasonic and Olympus offerings to date. I don’t know about you guys…but I have 5 MFT lenses..and I would buy THAT camera in a heartbeat. Make it pro and make it expensive and I will still definitely buy it!!!!!!!!!
I am still looking for the Poor-Man’s-Digital-Leica with auto focus.
(Like a digital Contax G2!)
Let’s be clear. The Fujifilm S5 Pro was a Nikon D200 body modified to use a Fujifilm 6mp sensor. That 6mp sensor had double photosites (SR) which increased dynamic range in the highlights (shadows were not better than a D200). But effectively, it was still a 6mp camera competing against 10-12mp cameras.
Since that time, Fujifilm has actually been going a bit backwards on sensors, AFAIC. If you’ve tried one of the 5xxEXR models you’d see that their image quality has actually gone downhill from even the 300EXR, which I thought was a step back from previous efforts (F30, etc.).
What always was attractive about the Fujifilm cameras was their JPEG rendering, which used a double hue shift to make for some very film-like characteristics in skin tone and foliage colors. Personally, I’d rather have accurate color, because taking double hue shifts out of an image after the fact is difficult. My personal impression is that Olympus is doing a better job with their ASIC JPEG rendering than most (better than Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, or Fujifilm, not quite as good as Nikon or Canon yet).
So, short of Fujifilm pulling another great sensor out of their hat–and again they haven’t had one for awhile–and having it have enough pixels to be competitive, I don’t think a Fujifilm m4/3 camera would give us a lot. Be nice to have another choice, sure, but the biggest issue with m4/3 is at the sensor. All we need is for Olympus and Panasonic to address that.
Agreed.
(Is the new Sigma DSLR camera similar tech to the Fuji S5…but on steroids?).
if micro four thirds had the worlds best sensor do you really really think it would increase their sales by much???
sensors don’t come anywhere near top of the list for real world people as current sensors are good enough and most people buy cameras for other reasons…
what will take micro four third forward in the world market place is price point, marketing, attractive design, usability, apps, connectivity eg blue tooth and wireless along with gps,easy to use live view,fun/excitement,video,camera fits into their lifestyle, integration with api’s eg direct upload from cameras to album making websites, other minor things will be toughness, waterproof, panorama function
Getting a better sensor would remove one concern about MFT for some advanced users, but I agree that the vast majority are more interested in other features (than less noise/better dynamic range).
I think a sensor with better DR would remove a bit of worry about blown highlights and whether they should retake the photo with a different exposure. I don’t think m43 sensors are *that* far from making sensor format immaterial for most practical situations, but they still get in the way of fun too often for my liking, at least if you have the highlight blinkies turned on.
you have to put a lot of effort into getting blown highlights using live view on a four thirds/micro four thirds camera…
“one persons blown highlights is another person’s deliberate composition”
I’ve deliberately blown highlights for compositional reasons before, but think it’s generally not preferable to have them.
I think blown highlights are my fault, rather than the camera’s; but also that part of the point of technology is to be progressively more forgiving of human error!
I presume you’re talking about the histogram, but I quite often find that no clipping is shown on live view before I take the shot, but plenty of blinkies on the screen afterwards; then when I import into Aperture the blown highlights often vanish. Perhaps it’s just the in-camera preview of the Raw file that’s to blame? In which case, a more accurate review would help a great deal.
A little of clipping is okay. Digital is positive sensor (not negative), that means overblown highlight is more of a problem than shadow clipping (shadow clipping is salvageable, highlight overblown is not…, once it’s lost, it’s lost forever). That is totally the opposite if you’re used to shoot negative film (remember people tell you to over expose a little bit? That’s for negatives).
Knowing that, use it to your advantage. Professionals will simply come back at another time so you don’t get either, but if absolutely necessary (like you’re on a schedule, or you’re taking tourist shots), you’d rather underexpose so you have more shadow to prevent highlight overblown, and worry about saving shadow later with software.
Blown highlights and detail clipping in the shadows is the only criticism I have of my Panasonic MFT cameras. Everything else is good, or good enough, and as I now own 7 MFT lenses I’m a future customer for any and all in the MFT camp. Onward Fuji, onward Olympus. And damn those lyin’ Sony basterds.
It’s easier than you think. But the problem is one of overall USABLE dynamic range. In many scenes, if you push highlights into a usable value you’ve pushed a lot of shadow detail into noise on current m4/3 cameras. You can do the Velvia thing and just drop to black really, really fast below middle gray, but that just makes a contrasty image.
Thom, I know you understand the degree to which that is an issue with current 4/3 sensors. However, I suspect most people who go around repeating that Micro 4/3 cameras have a DR problem don’t. Here’s a “real world” demonstration: http://www.mu-43.com/f102/dynamic-range-whats-all-about-panasonic-gh2-vs-pentax-k5-comparison-11793/
I didn’t say m4/3 has a DR problem, I said it had a DR deficiency against APS (and obviously FX and very obviously MF). And it will continue to be a deficiency until we get a true usable nine stops, at which point only the most meticulous shooters are going to complain.
Be careful with your “real world” demonstrations. Channel balance and spectral differences are the real killers to usable DR much of the time. Green is not a good place to truly analyze useful DR, as it’s generally well recorded by any Bayer system. I run three tests, only one of which is in balanced daylight without channel/spectral issues. It’s in the those other two tests that the smaller sensors show up differences against the bigger ones, even DX versus FX.
I can’t think of one single photo I’ve taken in the last 4 years out of 200,000+ that I wished I had more dynamic range…
“if micro four thirds had the worlds best sensor do you really really think it would increase their sales by much???”
Mmost of the early NEX adopters were unhappy with the DR and high ISO noise of m43. Many have also come BACK to m43 for the lenses, but a better sensor would move their sales noticeably, though many of your other items would also help.
Well, let’s define “world’s best sensor” first. ;~)
Dynamic range: a usable nine stops
Pixel count: at least 12mp, but preferably something in the 16-18mp range
ISO performance: highly linear so gain isn’t destroying information at ISO 1600
Tonality: 14-bit storage
Given that, yes, I think it would help m4/3 sales. The serious shooters have been looking for small, highly competent cameras for some time now. m4/3 is currently at the margins of what many, maybe most, want and need.
micro four thirds is already in the 10-11 range
micro four thirds already has 12mp +
ISO 1600 in micro four thirds in the next 9 months will be pretty much perfect by anyone’s standards (even blah blahs)
Tonality: 14-bit storage – for who?
How much do you think it would help m3/4 sales in the real world market(especially at the expense of what they could really do with micro four thirds cameras)?
Anyways many canon/nikon users are too conservative to look at anything else (so would be expensive in time, effort and cost to capture).
YouDidntDidYou…
It is true, my GH1 is abit early production model so it has banding issues…
but still, sometimes i think its RAW files have less latitude and DR then my 2003 canon EOS-300D…thats a 10 year old sensor.
So yes, we need worlds better sensor and we (raw shooters) absolutly need 14-bit raw files, (my 40D hade one, and it was excellent at graduation tones)
1. You’ve got to stop reading DxOmark numbers ;~). Most certainly m4/3 is not at 10 stops of usable DR. The numbers that DxOMark measure between saturation and a signal to noise ratio of 1. That means noise=data in the shadows. If you’ve ever looked at something with a SN of 1, you know it isn’t usable. I don’t disclose what my “usable DR” measurement entails, but I’ve been consistent about it for almost eight years now. The best m4/3 camera is about two stops behind the current APS ones, and does not reach my 9 stop requirement.
2. Yes, m4/3 has a very usable 12mp. Good integration of antialiasing, too. I could live with it if I had to. Be better with a bit more, though.
3. I’ll go out on a limb here. Based upon the first tests I’ve seen off the new sensor, Olympus is smudging detail at higher ISO values to get better NR in JPEGs. Don’t have any raw images yet, so can’t say about them. But the JPEGs don’t look promising for a clean ISO 1600 raw.
4. With 14-bit I’m asking for very clean and very linear tonal ramps. We don’t have that yet in m4/3 AFAIC. If we’re going to stay with 12-bit we need far better linearity of the ADC than we’ve got.
Hmm..DXO mark show 2 stop difference between GH2&D5100 as well…
Not surprising. But again, DxOmark tests down to a SN of 1. You can’t use 1. Or 2. Or 4. Or even 8. And as I note up higher, channel differences are very important too, especially as you move indoors and shoot under unbalanced light.
I totally agree with you Thom! My GF1 is always set to 1/3 to 2/3 under for most situations though. Still love the camera..but it IS limiting.
IMHO, the sensor is a key missing link. I do agree that beyond a certain point of ISO performance (and general quality), the sensor is not crucial. However, the small sensor size and mediochre ISO performance of existing MFT bodies has not reached that point yet. That’s one reason why my focus is on the sensor.
Of course, as ISO performance continues to improve (a la MegaPixels), we may find new applications for crazy ISO, so who really knows how desirable crazy high ISO performance will be? I do know that indoor candid photography is key… not just for professionals but for family and friends taking snapshots of friends on social occasions. So that’s the target ISO performance (IMO) for any line of cameras. Make social shooters happy, and the rest will follow. 🙂
you can get round low light ISO performance by using fast primes,family and friends would use flash…
Yes, I guess. But flash is not friendly and so is less than ideal even (and especially) for friends and family. Fast primes are expensive, less versatile, and in some cases do not exist at desired focal lengths. So, IMHO the sensor high ISO performance is still key to balance the rest of the system for social shooting.
True. This is what provoked the design of f/1.4 and faster lenses back in the film days, where ISO 400 was considered high.
Problem is that you increase the cost of the lens in doing so. There are no free lunches. But this is why I was arguing for more primes from day one. We’re not going to get f/1.4 zooms, but f/1.4 primes are well within a doable, affordable range. My launch list would have been two zooms, four fast primes.
What are you launching?
Thom. I think JPEG rendering, if you mean color, is highly subjective. Canon’s color are known for being blue and artificially looking, and Nikon is fine to my eyes, but I prefer Olympus color (which has a National Geographic look to them). Olympus’s noise structure is also very film like, which I think I am okay with it (though I am one of those base ISO type, so I really don’t like noise at all, but then I also don’t like to apply too much NR either, so basically it’s just good lighting and lenses for me).
That said, if you mean Fuji’s JPEG rendering is like their film, then it’s fine. Not everyone likes Fuji film look, some just prefer Kodak and others Ilford, but in term of film grains, I actually like Fuji’s better. Kodak’s T-grain begins to look too much like digital, which I might as well shoot digital…. That said, Kodak’s color rendition is usually more accurate (depends on which film you’re using obviously).
I actually think that Olympus gets color and contrast very nice in JPEGs. But I tend to find other issues in them. Nikon tends to be fairly neutral in color and can be tuned flat in contrast fairly easily, which is my preference for a starting point. There are virtually no sub-issues in Nikon JPEGs. I can barely make them mosquito and only rarely make them block, for instance. Both Nikon and Olympus (with some exceptions, notably the XZ-1) tend to get NR right, too, the Nikon nails it and Olympus is just close. Olympus still has a bit too much color remnant left in the noise. Nikon manages to get all noise into luminance only until they get to the false ISO values at the top. Olympus edges are stronger due to sharpening than Nikon’s, but Nikon’s hold up better to post sharpening changes.
Canon uses a hue shift. Blue is not correct, though their blues tend to be slightly less accurate than some others I’ve tested. They shift red highly towards amber. They also have very, very clean JPEGs, but their NR seems a little heavy and generates that plastic look too often. Like Olympus, they put out strong edges, though like Nikon, those edges can withstand more movement than Olympus’.
Panasonic just fumbles on almost every aspect, IMHO. The GF1’s JPEGs seemed about five years behind the times, and I’m still waiting for a Panasonic camera to get close to what others are doing. Ditto Samsung.
I think Panny colours are more true to real life which is a better starting point to then adjust colours to taste in post processing (if you must)…
I had Panny before and I know Panny’s color reproduction is far from accurate….
@Thom Yes, neutral color and contrast is better as a starting point for post processing. I think we agree on that as well as most seasoned people. I am not entirely sure about Olympus’s color noise. I usually would go to Lightroom and get rid of them. I mostly shoot RAW though. Lightroom auto applies a default level of NR on RAWs…, which I actually tune it down…. Same thing for sharpening, you don’t need it. That’s how you get best looking photo with an Olympus. ACR are too aggressive on default settings that you don’t get to see your lens’s capability anymore….
Yes, Canon’s NR is my main problem with their default processing. Too aggressive. I am one of those who prefer to tone down NR a little bit in favor of detail and sharpness. Once NR is down, you don’t need sharpening…. But with Canon, without NR, your photo looks very noisy….
I guess once you’ve used Olympus for a long time, you’d start to develop your own techniques for best photos. I think your biased toward Nikon could be due to you know your Nikon better, while I know my Olympus better.
Holy fantastic, I would LOVE for Fuji to join the M43 party! With their string of ingenious designs over the last year, I’m sure they would bring something amazing to the table.
Fuji… if you’re listening, please give us a 3:2 ratio, please?
I don’t know how others feel, but as somebody coming from SLRs, I don’t like how most of the M43 sensors are 4:3 (the P&S ratio). Thank goodness the GH2 gives you 3:2 without it simply being a crop.
To me the 4:3 ratio is one of the biggest selling points of the system.
4:3 is a much more ‘natural’ picture frame (go into an art gallery and compare the numbers of 3:2 frames to those in 4:3).
A 4:3 ratio also means much less is cropped off when printing at common sizes.
And finally 4:3 is much more flexible than 3:2 (with SLRs, ‘portrait’ orientation is aptly named as it’s about all you can use 2:3 for.)
The 3:2 ratio was adopted for economic rather than aesthetic reasons – it was cheap cinema film. There’s nothing wrong with cinema film in itself, but it’s not necessarily particularly suitable for photography – when have you seen a cinema screen in ‘portrait’ orientation?
They’re my reasons, anyway. I don’t think I’ll ever buy a 3:2 camera if a 4:3 alternative is available, so, for me, long live m43!
Wow, I’m amazed at your response. I don’t think you’re going to sell too many Canon/Nikon shooters with your arguments, but I respect your preference for the 4:3 ratio. But I can honestly tell you that out of all of the working photographers that I associate with, I couldn’t name one who would prefer a 4:3 ratio to the 3:2 ratio of SLRs. They don’t crop their images to 4:3 to fit them into a prefab Kmart frame either.
I totally dig the Panasonic GH1/GH2 model though. Give both an optimized 4:3 and 3:2 ratio so each user can choose their preference. Fuji has plenty of high-end cameras including the X100 that are 3:2. If M43 wants to expand its niche and suck in SLR shooters, giving a non-crop 3:2 option is a major selling point.
I think you’re right about how very many pros prefer 3:2. I think that’s partly due to having shot with it for years; partly due to having invested thousands in a 3:2 system; and partly because despite my personal dislike of shooting 4:3, I think you can do wonders with a 3:2 frame, best demonstrated by Cartier-Bresson.
I think some pro photographers also like 4:3 even if they don’t shoot it: Michael Freeman uses 3:2, for example, but praises 4:3 over 3:2 in The Photographer’s Eye. Perhaps another reason pros in particular use 3:2 might be that their clients have come to expect the best photos to be in 3:2 – as you said, 4:3 is associated with being the ‘P&S ratio.’ Before digital, though, almost all consumer cameras used 3:2 35mm film; there’s a reason why those cameras that weren’t lumbered with backwards compatibility with lens systems changed to 4:3, I think!
Anyway, I’d be happy with a more widespread option of a non-cropped 3:2 ratio in m43 too. For panoramic landscape shots it has its advantages, even to me!
alot of european magazines are 4:3, so most pro’s work gets cropped for printing in them (unless of course it’s a 2 page spread)
4:3 is no more “standard” than 3:2 or anything else any more. We’re long gone from the days of being locked to paper print sizes (and even then, 4:3 isn’t exactly right, either ;~). If there’s any “standard” for output in the future it is likely to be 16:9. Even the computer manufacturers started to figure that one out (though most still haven’t really figured it out).
4:3 is slightly more efficient at using the imaging circle than 3:2.
Agreed on all points, though I have hopes that, despite lots of pressure in favour of 16:9, that an aspect ratio suited to cinema screens won’t once again dominate photography. I think the iPad’s use of 4:3 is a hopeful sign. I guess it comes down to how people will prefer to view photos in the future.
4:3 is perfect for vertical portrait shot. I always had to crop shot when I still used a 3:2 camera. And for landscapes – well, 16:9 most times looks much better than 3:2. So I support the GH2 approach and wish all cameras had a multi aspect sensor AND a physical button to change between the ratios (like LX3/5 – why only p&s cameras get such a comfort?)
That aspect ratio dial is my favorite feature in my (now sold) LX3. It’s fairly annoying to suddenly shoot with a camera without it. For landscapes, longish format is usually better, but longish frame means you need an extra large lens for image circle or suffer from vignette… (and most of that extra size are to gather light that doesn’t hit sensor…). Very annoying. You can’t have everything.
aspect ratios should be part of your in camera composition and should be done individually for each shot…
You realise you can assign the Aspect Ratio to one of the GH2’s Fn buttons?
and that’s where I have my top FN button set 🙂 / but as tom mentioned gh2s and panasonic in common jpgs are plain crap (and I did try all the wb adjust tricks)
16×9 is for movies, not for stills. Photography is still dominated by old standards of 8×10, 11×14, 16×20 etc.. All of which are more squarish than longish like 2×3 which 35mm uses….
Yes, 4×3 is not perfect, but it is the closest to the perfect format, which is 6×7 for the same reason…. When it comes to print, you want to be as close to 8×10 as possible. I personally prefer my landscape in longish format, but I find it hard to print with standard crops. 12×18 would be it, but 4/3 isn’t built for that without massive cropping, so I personally don’t think 4/3 is the right format for landscape (though I am still shooting it for the detail and lack of vignette of squarish 4/3 lenses can provide).
It’s hard to find a good format for every application. :-p
String? Other than the X100 what else exactly was ingenious?
whatever it is… make it BLACK!!!
Hey….I love my White GF1 with red Japanese shutter release….people go nutz over my camera!!!!….have a little fun!!! 🙂
Actually if I can get the camera I want from Fuji..I will take it in paisley!!!!!
Is Nikon a more likely partner for Fuji? They previously made cameras for Nikon lenses. Nikon are rumoured to be going with a 2/3inch sensor. Fuji may prefer to be a team of two rather than three.
The only reason this seems less likely is that Nikon hasn’t any mirrorless lenses and there is little point putting any of their existing glass on a 2/3 sensor. Place your bets!
You say that Nikon could be a partner. I hadnt thought of that. They have worked together before. But as you say Nikon doesnt have any mirrorless lenses so I dont know if thats likely.
As for Fuji preferring a team of two rather than three. I dont know if it was just Nikon and them – I dont think they would be noticed that much in comparison to Nikon. At least with Micro 43 its a standard system and there are two other companies involved and a big selection of existing lenses.
Nikon and Fujifilm haven’t partnered since the E2 in the mid-90’s. The relationship for the S1/S2/S3/S5 was Fujifilm buying Nikon bodies (mostly film), stripping them, adding their own digital stuff. Nikon seems more willing than others to sell bodies to someone that wants them, but it seems doubtful that Fujifilm would want to do that again.
If this rumor were true that will make a very good competition to both Pana/Oly ,.. And will force them to produce high quality lens and camera body -take it more seriously,.. Coz they understand if Fuji joined M-4/3 it will not easy for them just to sell a slopy product -consider how Fuji already listened and aimed the market of serious photographer with their X100 ,.. It will heat up A very high standar in m-4/3 system ,.. Thats definitly a Good News for Us
Choice is good… but choice of WHAT? 😉
Well, if Fujifilm were smart, they’d take the X100, strip out the OVF (but leave the EVF), downsize it to m4/3 from APS, put a great sensor in it and sell it as a truly retro (in controls), high-end Pen competitor. Which just goes to show that the only real reason for Fujifilm to build it is the sensor. So the question is simple: do they have a sensor, that, when sized at 4/3, can outperform what Panasonic, Kodak, and Olympus have done? Maybe yes, maybe no. But the EXR series doesn’t leave a good taste in my mouth about that.
Thom, what would be the benefit of smaller sensor in a fixed-lens camera? even in aps-c sized sensor the lens is small enough to compete with M43,
besides, why would FUJI want to beat m43 while getting its ass whopped by NEX/NX/PENTAX/LEICA CSC systems?
lets face it, sony is putting in billions into their sensor factories..there is no way(that i can see) that m43 sensors can keep up + they are 30% smaller which hinders them even further…if i were fuji i would go aps-c…
No. What I’m saying is that they should just keep doing APS fixed lens cameras UNLESS they have a sensor that would beat the current ones at m4/3 size. If they did have that, they could do well with an interchangeable lens m4/3 body based on downsizing the X100. Without it, they should just do what they’re doing.
Re: But the EXR series doesn’t leave a good taste in my mouth about that.
The X100 seems to be great though (at least combined with the Fuji jpg engine) – ISO1600 looks nearly identical to ISO200, and highlight retention is great. From what I have seen, Fuji’s jpgs outperform the K5’s and the D7000’s by nearly a stop (see e.g. the dpreview comparison widget). O.k., the pixel count of the Fuji is lower, but that should only make a difference in noise of about 1/3 stop.
But the X100 isn’t a Fujifilm sensor ;~) According to rumors it’s a Sony with offset microlenses. Sony isn’t going to make a m4/3 sensor for Fujifilm ;~). So the question is whether Fujifilm themselves have a sensor that can outperform the current Panny and Oly ones. My guess is no.
It’s not a rumor, it’s on Fuji x100’s website…. It is a customized Sony sensor.
… oh, I see, didn`t know that. It`s a pity that Oly doesn’t get this sensor.
@Thom: I’ve got a question concerning DR: Does a sensor with a better high ISO performance always offer a better DR as well, at least if the well capacity of the sensor is the same?
@Anonymous: Not necessarily. Some of you may be too young to remember the issues with compact discs at launch. Basically, two things were discovered very quickly: the use of a block filter at the Nyquist frequency and the non-linearity of the ADC. Believe it or not, we’re fighting the exact same things for exactly the same reason today in digital photography.
So let me explain: Nyquist says that you can’t “resolve” data above a certain point when you sample it (e.g. digital to analog conversion). The music industry believed they should block everything above Nyquist. First of all, human hearing didn’t go that far, and second, if false data were to be recorded there it might look wrong. They were wrong. Audiophiles could clearly hear the blunting because harmonics, even out of their hearing range, were being blocked. Today we have the exact same problem with anti-aliasing filters in digital cameras. The camera makers are blocking frequencies, often BELOW Nyquist, to keep false data from appearing, most notably moire. The assumption is that this blockage is better than the false data production. I believe the camera makers to be wrong on this one. Indeed, it’s been the cameras without AA filters that seem to have the best high-frequency detail, and mostly because there isn’t an artificial block wall in the way.
ADC linearity is where the answer to your question comes into play. Early compact disc ADC circuits were pretty bad in linearity. If you expected perfect steps between 00, 01, 10, and 11, you were wrong: they were often off by 10% or more from where they should be. Digital cameras are no different. One reason the Nikon D3s is so good is that Nikon spends about US$60 just to buy state-of-the-art linear ADC components. Why is that important? Because high ISO values are created by multiplying the original data by a gain factor (usually). We have two places where that can be a problem. First, the ADC could be producing non-linear data. When we multiply it the non-linearity produces bigger and more visible differences in the data. Instead of multiplying 1, 2, and 3 by 10 to get 10, 20, and 30, we discover that we’re actually multiplying what would have been .9, 2.1, and 2.9 to get 9, 21, and 29. The other place where we can have problems is the multiplier. If IT isn’t perfectly repeatable and linear, we may multiple 1, 2, and 3 and get 9, 21, and 29 because the multiplier isn’t being consistent. Worse still, but the two together and you might 8, 23, and 26.
So, no, better DR at base isn’t a perfect indicator of better high ISO performance. It’s usually a fairly good predictor, as a lot of the companies are all using the same parts and techniques, but it isn’t a perfect predictor.
Thanks a lot for the instructive answer, Thom!
(sorry, forgot to give my name the last time)
@Thom
Though I don’t remember what you’re talking about entirely (too technical), but I believe you! I am not THAT young. I bet you’re not that older than I am (probably 10 years older, but no more). I still remember when CDs were first mass produced. LOL!
I remember when MP3’s were recorded in 96-bit sampling rate only because anything above people aren’t going to hear the differences…. BS I say! Even my untrained ears can tell…. Now I rip my CDs to MP3s in 256-bit no less….
Yes, I also turn off anti-aliasing in my Olympus E-620. It makes photos MUCH sharper. I don’t know why they apply strong AA on photos to cripple cameras…. If I need less NR, I use low AA. Always record photos in 300 DPI resolution or more (I now record them in 600 DPI to over sample, though I think E-620 can go much higher than that).
The auto-focus of the X100 is pretty lame. If they have that same lame auto-focus performance on a new system camera, they will start where Olympus has been up until the end of this month. So, let’s hope for Fuji that they’ll maybe use the sensors of Panasonic or Olympus to deliver fast auto-focus.
Also, the usability of the X100 suffers from really, really bad firmware. I haven’t seen the new firmware yet, but if what I’ve seen is their standard of quality… no thank you, I’ll stay with Olympus.
Other than that it’ll get really interesting when Leica introduces their mirrorless camera system to the market in about two years.
IF it was micro four thirds, I’d buy it. If it wasn’t, I’d want at least 3 fast primes, in 28mm equiv, 50mm equiv, and 80mm equiv, all f2 or faster.
If they built THAT, and it was reasonably priced like micro four thirds is, I’d buy it with no reservations. Fuji, like Olympus, understands good lens design, and I trust them to not foist silly crap on the pro and enthusiast market.
Their P&S cameras aren’t crap, but many don’t even have +/- buttons, and that’s just not a camera. I would hope that the engineering staff that comes up with that crap would be uninvolved or admonished to not repeat that kind of mistake when dealing with people interested in actual photography.
APS-C offers very few advantages over 4/3. The difference in sensor size is not large, and most of the additional area of APS-C is cropped in printing anyway. In other words, it’s not worth the corresponding increase in image circle diameter and the bulk that imparts to lenses.
If I take one photo with an APS-C camera and another with 4/3, and print them both to 8X10, I doubt many people could spot which was taken with which. Sensor scores don’t necessarily translate to great photos.
I couldn’t agree more with your assessment.
Let’s see what Fuji comes up with.
I think what Thom forgets is that camera companies try to build what SELLS, not what dominates the industry technically. There’s quite an opening in micro four thirds. Currently, the hobbling point of micro four thirds is not some insurmountable limitation of the standard, but rather the difference is the engineering that Sony and Canon have done in sensor design over the last few years, that Panasonic has not done.
The Canon 7D has the same size photosites as a 12MP micro 4/3, yet it delivers better signal to noise and dynamic range.
The Pentax K5 is in a similar position.
What 4/3 needs is good, modern and high-quality sensor design, without straying over 12MP. If done properly, it will produce very good image quality and light weight. 4:3 is a good use of a small image circle.
It’s possible that Fuji could produce a CCD for 4/3, but they’d probably go with CMOS. We’ll see what they do. I just hope they don’t go it alone with a proprietary mount.
4×3 is the proper ratio for smaller sensors. It uses the image circle very efficiently. They did their homework when they choose 4×3 instead of going for a conventional path and do a small 3×2.
Problem with CCD is energy use and overheating problem, so it’s not used for feasibility reason. Honestly to my eyes, images produced by CCD look better. Much better color.
Yes, 4/3 sensors need better design, but we shall see if the new sensor for new PENs will do just that.
About Canon 7D’s performance. I am not sure about s/n ratio, but DR is better, since APS-C is larger sensor…. Easier to make that happen. Canon’s noise pattern is terrible though. Color noise is very difficult to work with than luminance noise, so I am not sure why you said Canon’s noise performance is better…. I didn’t even think about using a Canon when I chose my DSLR because I am very unsatisfied with its noise performance. That and cheap plastic parts…. Major turn off.
No, I don’t forget that. But I’d modify your statement to “they build what they THINK will sell.” They get that wrong a lot of the time, more than I think they should. None has figured a way to outsell the Nikon/Canon duopoly in interchangeable lens cameras yet. As much as some trumpet their successes, we’ve got unprofitable camera divisions at quite a few of the rest of the bunch, and where there is profit, it’s lower than Nikon/Canon are producing. As much as we’d like to say that m4/3 is a success (and I think it has been a modest success), the actual number of m4/3 bodies being sold is still dwarfed by D3100/Rebel sales.
To win the wars you have to do something disruptive, or you have to do something that is driven by bottom up or top down word of mouth. Hasn’t happened yet, despite one heck of a lot of trying. Moreover, we still don’t actually a response from the big boys. That means the more that the various mirrorless players fish around for success, the more information they’re giving their competitors about where and how to enter the market.
Thom, you’re spot on- but I think Fuji would build something to satisfy the complaint that the X100 is a superb piece of engineering, but isn’t very useful as a digicam with only one focal length.
I shot for weeks once with just a Canonet with a 40mm F1.7 lens. It was fun, but boy, was I excited to get back home where my SLR and zoom lenses were waiting. Too many shots passed me by for not having an 80mm or a 200mm. Or, for that matter, a 28mm.
Having a single focal length turned out to be a good practice for making do, but it was too limiting to work for me long-term. I suspect that’s a common complaint, and I would hope Fuji would work on that.
Even a 50mm equiv with a screw-on wideangle converter and a “teleconverter” of about 2x would be better than a single focal length, provided that they’re all antireflective-coated and of high quality. But I don’t think that solution will impress the enthusiast market. 1100 dollar price points probably won’t either, since we can go snag a 60D for that kind of money.
I agree with you. My rangefinder cameras are my trainer for single focal length, but I wish they were in 35mm like x100 is though. 35mm is much more versatile than your Canonet’s 40mm or my Olympus 35 SP’s 42mm. So give Fuji a little more credit than that. Though from what I’ve read, Fuji’s firmware is a nightmare.
@Thom.
That can be remedied easily. You need something with BOLD BOLD design. PEN did just that, but we can go one extra mile with that. On top of that, we need an iconic marketing launch. Something 50 years from now, people will still remember. Only if Olympus would let me take care of it….