Do you remember the interview with Fuji Manager Mr. Kawahara of December 2013 (see video above)? At the question if Fujifilm will go Full Frame, he answered: “We have no plan to provide full frame body… just now.”
It’s the same answer over and over again. So, also at this years’ photokina, when amateurphotographer asked for a Full Frame Fuji, the answer was that the company is focussing on the APS-C line. A Full Frame Fuji would not be compatible with the existing lenses.
Fujifilm manager Oishi said that “Fuji plans to launch further X-series cameras, and there is no current plan for a full-frame model. But […] Fuji is a camera developer, so it may be a possibility at some future date.”
Ok, I can live with that Fuji… it’s better to go directly the Medium Format way ;-).
via mirrorlessrumors via digicame-info
101 Responses
Why are so many obsessed with “full-frame”?
Because some want a Leica but can’t pay for it? Honestly, I used FX and yes it’s wonderful WHEN I WAS PRINTING my images large. On a laptop, any perceived advantage is just too small for 99% of people to tell.
The biggest advantage of FF to me is the viewfinder.
X-T1 viewfinder is huge though.
but it doesnt affect mirrorless cameras. totally understandable with SLRs though.
Yup, it’s so large that I actually use split screen mode when using it so I can focus finely using manual.
totally. Still curious why people are addicted to FF.
the x100 series is perfect. IQ and size. goes everywhere i go.
a 35mm chip might just make things slow and huge and extra expensive.
I think the main problem, it’s the crop factor, not the quality of the picture . There are 50 years of very good lenses that mirror-less cameras could use but they cannot due to the crop factor or they use in a way that they are not meant to be
Did you try a Metabones Speed Booster for legacy lenses? No crop factor, same DOF, same exposure as mounted on a 35mm camera. It’s quite expensive, but not nearly as much as a Fuji FF body would be 😉
They can be used. They just get cropped. That isn’t always a terrible thing or something that can’t be worked around. People used to say you zoom with your feet with primes. Well, with a cropped 35mm lens on APSC you’re also zooming with your feet. DOF changes in both situations.
Frankly, only the cult of out of focus shots really is overly concerned with razor thin DOF. A person partially in focus isn’t usually interesting to me.
Armchair photographers obsessed with numbers mostly. More broadly, consumers and consumerism. This is the way of the world. In a nutshell:
When I post pictures on FB people often ask me what camera I use (not how I took it) – because in most people’s mind it’s the camera that takes the photos, not the photographer. I do use full frame for most of my work (d800) but 90% of all my work could be done easily with pretty much any camera*. So I usually tell them that instead of advertising Nikon. So starting with the assumption that “a better, bigger, more expensive camera will improve my photography” we end up with this full frame obsession.
*Edit – well, to be honest, by any camera I mean any DSLR produced in the last 5 years, and a selection of lenses. Might be more fiddly, would have to be more careful with certain shots, and probably my low-light event work would take up that 10% loss, but I stand by that number 😉
Why are so many obsessed with small girly cameras???
You are boring, troll.
Cause our penis is big enough, no need for extention lol
FF produces more shallow DOF with same aperture. But also, and you cannot replace this by just “open wider”, the transition from focus point to the out-of-focus zone is smooth. With APS-C the transition is more brutal, even with very wide lenses.
This “transition” has just as much to do with the lens design as the sensor size. FF isn’t THAT much larger than APS-C. If you really cared that much about shallow DOF and OOF areas, you should be shooting MF or LF anyway. There are plenty of Fuji, Pentax, and Mamiya used cameras that can be had for less than $1,000 that will blow any “FF” out of the water with regards to shallow DOF and “smooth transitions.” If you think a D810 is a nice compromise of size and performance, then that’s fine, but it’s still a compromise.
Fact is, there’s very little perceptible difference in real world usage for FF and APS-C sensors in most kinds of photography. It’s like arguing how much better “huge” m43 sensors are than “tiny” 1″ sensors because of their smooth transitions and more shallow DOF.
All this equivalency BS is just something for people to argue about in forums. It’s not something anybody would or could even notice except in side by side comparisons, certainly not your customers.
Yes, this is a brilliant direction, with the existing performance of X series, FF will not give much advantage to Fuji over his competitor (in term of weight/size/price)! Keep it up!
I like the goal to reach as closely to full frame without being full frame more. 🙂 As I’ve said before, I’m a big fan of that you can choose between a 85/1.8 equivalent lens and added bulk, or go light pancake (beyond the lens alone) with the 27/2.8 in a way full frame users can only dream of. The flexibility in size and weight depending on needs is a very nice “feature” of this camera system and I’m all for Fuijifilm making this their “thing”.
Also, with the antialiasing filter gone and the excellent performance of their lenses, I no longer long for a full frame body before I moved to this system, with my Nikon D90. I now realize that all I longed for was a major step up in optics and a 1-1.5 f-stop better high ISO performance.
Looking at the size of 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8……these lens are big and bulky although they are designed just for APS-C.
If Fuji launch FF bodies, these lens will be bulkier, bigger, and heavier..
Don’t forget the 90mm f2 😀 compared to the Canikon 85 1.8 which can be used for full-frame. I don’t know if the final product will be smaller though. But I guess not XD
Shouldn’t they be comparing it to the Canon 135mm f2 though?
Well not necessarily. If you think it this way you could put that Canon 85 onto your Fuji and have (almost) the same field of view and aperture. It would reflekt the same equivalence too but is designed to cover an even larger sensor area than the fuji which would (presumably) only cover an APS-C sensor.
True good point! Is the fuji smaller than than the Canon 135mm though? Often the lenses are compared to their ff counterparts to see the size difference
It’s about optical technology, just as he said in the video. For example, Leica can make surprisingly small and compact lens for FF with superb optical quality.
the original poster is talking about constant aperture f2.8 zoom lenses. Leica doesn’t have those because they can’t make them any smaller.
But even prime lens F1.0, F1.8… Leica is relatively smaller.
Not even, but only prime lenses. And leica lenses are without autofocus, that makes a big difference in size how many times do you need to hear that?
Leica lens have NO auto focus. This is the reason why these lens are so small.
There Contax G lenses are small and auto focus
Maybe they will fit for the future FF bodies?!
buuuu
“Ok, I can live with that Fuji… it’s better to go directly the Medium Format way ;-)”
Can someone explain to me why this is a good idea? Full frame is already somewhat of a niche market, though Nikon and Sony are trying to expand it both downwards and upwards. And the medium format market is tiny compared to full frame, with many well established players, covering a broad range of price options. If it goes for the high end ($20000+) it’s up against PhaseOne and Hassy, if it goes for the low-end it’s up against Pentax, and the price point of their current offer is difficult to match (and it’s already probably low margin in the context of medium format).
you’re missing one important point – nobody is offering mirrorless medium format camera (technically, there are tech/view cameras that are mirrorless but that’s different category altogether)
But would that niche provide enough revenue? We can only speculate but the overall market is shrinking, not growing.
my guess would be that yes, have mamiya6/7 or other medium format RF cameras provided revenue? i could see it as an addition to existing MF cameras out there that get used mostly in studios and if price is right it might attract also serious amateurs, possibly even landscape photographers (depends on lenses) – surely, it won’t sell in volumes like aps-c cameras 😉
How much would you pay for a Fuji MF body and a few lenses, say a 28/35, 55 and 80 prime?
A bit less than for 645Z which retails here in the UK for £6700 and that’s SLR weatherproofed and built like a tank, with articulated LCD, so if Fuji/Sony/whoever would release mirrorless MF camera I’d pay ~£5000-6000 for it, there’s no mirror so whole mirror box can be removed and therefore huge savings can be made.
Lenses, it would depend on aperture of course but if Pentax can be taken as example, standard 55/2.8 weather sealed and AF lens is £1000 – that gives you FoV similar to 43mm lens on 135 format.
and since it would be mirrorless you have plenty of lenses in contax, mamiya, hasselblad.. mounts – just adapter and problem solved
You can bet it will sooner or later, but right now there is probably no advantage, and I’m sure there are several kinks to be worked out. On sensor phase detection, for instance, works best on small sensors, and it was only very recently (X-T1, A6xxx series) that the problem became somewhat mitigated for APS-C (still not as fast or reliable as a well calibrated PDAF system). Nikon seems to have solved the problem years ago on 1” sensors (their 1 series still beats pretty much every mirrorless in focus speed, and it’s close in performance to PDAF systems). For FF, just look at Sony’s A7x series ;~)
It may take a few more years of R&D to launch a mirrorless system, and Fuji would start from scratch, probably taking away resources from the X system. If Fuji starts development right now, you can’t realistically expect a launch sooner than the 2017-18 timeframe. And for what? To compete against well established players in a miniscule and very competitive market.
I’d prefer if Fuji continued on the path it set out, completing the X system (usable flash system, more AF improvements, filling in remaining gaps in the lens line). That path includes watching market trends and finding new niches. Who knows, there might be some potential in investigating something between FF and MF, like the APS-H format (smaller lenses than MF, bigger photosites than FF, that would be something unique, especially considering price). But suggesting Fuji should enter the MF market now or short term is not viable.
Absolutely agree on medium format route. It doesn’t make sense to develop a new range of optics without differentiating from competition. A nice square sensor 6000 x 6000 would be awesome and create a whole new product category.
Oh yeah, because the medium format market lacks competition :~) Fuji only has to go up against Hassy, PhaseOne and Mamiya there to compete for a shrinking market. On the bottom we have Pentax, working and a lower margin (but probably slightly higher then full frame cameras, but not by much).
Add to this the fact that both Nikon and Sony are licking at the bottom end with their high mpx cameras, and we are looking at a tiny, fiercely competitive market. Investing in R&D for bodies for the MF market will be a bigger undertaking than Fuji’s entire X line (which hasn’t reached break even point yet after 3 years). Selling lenses for MF systems is a far better ideas, and Fuji already does that.
“Oh yeah, because the medium format market lacks competition” – yes it does, there’s only Pentax in sub £10k range – and that territory is unexplored and could offer a lot of opportunities.
Even in film days, you’d have a beast glued to tripod and in studio and you’d have portable system like Mamiya6/7 – there was market and customers for them.
In the same way as Fuji developed an affordable Leica alternative, it could develop an affordable medium format alternative that would target a much wider segment than Hasselblad etc. are reaching.
Top of the range medium format sensors reach 140-180 megapixels, Fuji could position themselves below that.
Also, note that I referred to square sensors – the current medium format offer is typically in 4:3 dimensions (I miss square format!).
What would be the point? You’re talking about a tiny market, even compared to FF, which is itself niche compared to APS-C. The 8k 645z has a 8256×6192 resolution,, so you get 6192×6192 if you crop it, and you’re talking about 6000×6000 that would further restrict the usability of the camera in a tiny and fiercely competitive market. The 645Z is 8-9K, doubtful Fuji could or would want to go much below that. We’ll never know how much Ricoh makes on it, but it’s probably much closer to FF margins than MF margins (Hasselblad, PhaseOne, Mamiya). To go below that price would be instant suicide in a market that can’t rely on economies of scale.
Unless you’re rooting for a suicide move for Fuji, I don’t get your point. How much exactly would you be willing to pay for your 6000×6000 square format sensor by the way? And how much would you be willing to pay for MF lenses?
Keep in mind this was the same response to the original x100. My friends just couldn’t fathom why I went ahead to buy and very expensive fixed lens camera. At launch for the x100 , the targeted buyers were as niche as niche gets, look where fuji is now. I understand there’s no need financially to full frame as the advantages are so minimal but if fuji could find a way to do MF, im sure that would open up alot of possibilities.
I think this whole discussion is only interesting for people who like to discuss instead of taking pictures. A good picture that matters will not improve with a full frame or medium format camera. I’m not talking about my own pictures by the way, just in general ;). I just had a photo printed 100x150cm, taken a few years back with the Nikon D300 and a kit lens. Perfect! I’m not saying that a medium format camera would not have been better, but look back at pictures taken years and years ago that you love. Would you really want that same picture taken with a 6000×6000 camera?
As a former Nikon man it is interesting to see Fuji stick to APSC for a while which is what Nikon did. I would probably still be with Nikon if they had developed a range of quality DX primes but instead they expected their customers to go FF. How lucky we are to have such a stunning set of lenses with more to come from Fuji.
There’s nothing special about Fuji lenses that you can’t get with a FF camera. Nothing.
how many lenses does Canon or Nikon offer that are fully metal? how many lenses does Canon or Nikon have that perform as well as the fuji’s at the size of the xf lenses?
how many Canon/Nikon lenses have manual aperture rings?
Numbers and Specs aren’t everything. Granted, I love my D800 and it has it’s place in my bag. But my D800 with 24-70 f2.8 can’t touch the colors my X-T1 produces or the sharpness with my xf lenses.
100% with you on the XT1, since I left Nikon I have had a ball with my Fuji gear
Sorry, but our D810 and D610 produce better results than those of our Fuji Xt1 (I use primes mostly). But I like the Fuji and use it whenever I travel around. Today at Photokina I used the new 50-150/2.8. I found it very well made, focusing fast and not heavy at all (contrary to people complaining). A lens definitely on my list!
I’ve been anxious to hear about the 50-140, I’m so glad to hear your experience with it has been positive!
Indeed. Had the Zeiss 135/2 APO before on my D810 and went from there to Fuji’s stand. Of course there was a difference, but the Fuji was really surprisingly well made in my opinion. Even my wife liked the feel and the pictures we made with it (she is very critical about bokeh). That’s of course subjective. Fuji had a really large area occupied showing very nice large prints, too, to show that you can print very large with excellent quality. Initially I was very eager to try the NX1 but was underwhelmed (wheels were flimsy and could be moved vertically, 4-way controller seemed to be very cheaply made and haptics were cheap, too. I had the impression that the build was not up to the price point (esp. if you are used to a XT1 and D810). Focusing (15fps) sounded impressive, but wasn’t very accurate (could be due to early firmware, as the camera died regularly).
It baffles me why you bother posting here. A look at your posting history shows an overwhelmingly negative tone.
So as A Fuji customer who loves fuji cameras and lenses and who has made a very positive comment about them above in regard to one of their competitors, how on earth in your world is that negative. In regard to my posting history, my only negative comment has been the frustration of how slow the XPRO 2 is in development, a view that is shared widely on this Forum.
He’s referring to Ratty Mouse who has to be some kind of paid troll. He only trashes Fuji items. Either that or he’s got a chip on his shoulder because they didn’t hire him or something.
as nwcs said below (or above, I guess), I was replying to Ratty Mouse’s (now-moderated) comment, not yours. Sorry for any confusion.
Sorry for creating confusion
My apologies
Can’t the moderator just ban ratty mouse? It’s great having an open space to discuss fuji. But he’s just s troll who bags everything with out any facts
It’s what I did.
I’d be in the same situation. After several years of the D700 and D800 I was ready to move back to DX. I had a lot of fun with the D200/D300 in years prior. But I saw the same thing, no quality DX lenses in development and scatterbrained focus. Fuji isn’t perfect, and I wish there was a longer lens available and better PDAF focus support, but at this point it would feel like going backwards to go back to Nikon.
no full frame does not mean < 24 MP
Full Frame is just another format, and certainly not the holy grail of photography.
I am happy Fuji sticks to APS-C for now. Fuji already have a good lens line-up that gets even better in the coming month and years. I don’t see the need for heavier camera’s that need heavier glass, due to the nature of 36x24mm sensors and then to only get a marginal up. grade in Image Quality and DOF.
Glad I dumped my D800 and went the Fuji way. The X-series make photography fun again.
Fujifilm loses more than they gain by not having full frame. Remember, Fujifilm’s market share is 2%. That’s it. 2%. Sony has 10%. Canon and Nikon, even more.
Fujifilm is a bottom feeder and always will be as long as they stick to consumer sized sensors.
agreed! but you’ll never get the DR of D800
Never say never – The organic sensor if true according to the current whitepapers might actually be better then wat a FF sensor has to offer at this moment.
I don’t care that much. Nikon never gets the beautiful colours like Fuji has and I like it the way it is. A bit more contrasty.
But you’ll probably never get some of the shot opportunities that you can with a mirrorless like the Fuji. It’s light enough to carry all day, small enough to not look like you’re a paparazzi, and ergonomic enough to let you get the shot when the moment happens. There are a lot of areas where mirrorless need to catch up to top DSLRs like the D8XX series, but IQ isn’t one of them.
i think the only reason to go for a 35mm chip is to get the “proper” lens focal length.
but that doesnt exist with fuji since they started and designed the X-mount with apsc in mind.
for a canikon system, its kind of a biggie, wide-angle primes etc.
but for fuji i think it shouldnt be an issue… or am i missing something?
What is the “proper” focal length? On my field camera, 90mm is a wide angle lens.
Proper focal length is the one lens was designed for. With CaNikon the lens range is indeed pushing towards FF body. I completely agree with the OP, as personally, I think that choosing to use on regular basis lenses that cover larger format is plain stupid.
Ditto. I might still use some exotic adapted FF (35mm FF, mind ya) lenses on my Fuji, such as Trioplans or Helios 40, or maybe even a Lensbaby… but Fujinons that were designed for APS-C really shine on APS-C, there’s absolutely no need to create an FF line.
MF is another story. For now, I am seriously considering a new Leica S (holy cow, what a camera!), but if Fuji introduces at least plans to go MF, I’d happily hold my breath.
Happy with APS-C for now. Only problem : using old 35mm lenses. I’d like a full frame camera with IBIS for using my old Minolta lenses… 200mm without image stabilization on APS-C sensor is hard to handheld !
Enough already with the FF on X-cameras. Fujifilm, you’re like a good lookin’ girl, we’ll forgive you for anything!
Missed opportunity. For Fuji, the question about sensors should have been about the “organic,” not full frame.
Pentax can do medium format, but not Fujifilm. Ridiculous.
If you’re going to troll a Fuji blog, at least learn to do it the Fuji way:
1. Create a roadmap of your comments…
to be fair, Pentax was building on existing user base (Pentax 645) and it took them few years to put first digital version on the market which was 645D, 645Z was probably a bit easier after D
Clever of Pentax to fill an opening in the market: entry level medium format. And amazing that they put the same sensor as Hasselblad and PhaseOne into a camera costing a fraction of the price. Massive, heavy, medium format cameras are going to be a small niche. But small niches can sometimes float a business. I hope it works for Pentax/Ricoh. That camera looks great. A Fuji rangefinder MF would look better. But would still be a small niche, I think.
Their problem, or why they can’t really penetrate studios is:
– no LS lenses
– no tethering
if they had both of those, they surely would gain more customers form Hassy/P1 camps, not from Leica though, Leica with their S body have brilliant MF package and very smart one.
I might be wrong, but didn’t they used to have a smaller sensor than the rest of the bunch as well? I have also heard that the lenses are no match for Hasselblad/PhaseOne.
I have heard really good things about Leica S as well, both the lenses and the cameras. Didn’t have time to actually do a shoot with it, but especially the menu system and ergonomics of the camera seemed wonderful. But for some reason, everybody I met so far seemed to instantly dismiss the S system before even considering it.
I think Fuji, in medium term, need go multi-format. The market develops and manufacturers need to be profitable.
What is the “right” sensor format really depends on the intentions, ambitions you have with your photography. Fuji do one thing better than the rest: They listen to customers. The day they hear a request for other format they will do those format(s).
Finally on truth (law of physics): All else equal larger sensor area = better image quality.
Personally I print large and my Sony A6000 files prints better than my Fuji X E1 files – And files from my Sony A7R are significantly better than any APS-C. A bit simplified: m43 prints great on A4, APS-C on A3 and 35mm (FF) on A2. If you accept decent quality, it is A3, A2 and A1.
The Sony 55/1.8 beats anything Fuji has. Leica Elmar 90/4 is great, much better on the A7 and 6000 than on X E1.
But of course Fuji has more lenses and the right lenses as they understand photography. Fuji has better image stabilization. Fuji is a bit expensive and a bit heavy. It is, to me “too good to be the second system”. Sony wins as they also have FF – for me at least. This is why I think Fuji will go FF. They will not tell us until they have the products, but they will!
support fuji going full frame. maybe a full frame camera with fixed 40mm f1.8 lens to test the market response first. In tat way, Fuji need not invest too much into a whole new system/ lens.
Yes, they should go mutliformat at a moment in time.
However that better not be Full Frame. It will be overcrowded and is only a very small improvement over APS-C. If they are going multiformat then go Medium Format, that makes a lot of improvement over even FF.
I certainly know the various implications of different formats (having used quite a few, in film days and now D800, X-T1, and compacts) but, I’ve never quite understood the hype around the just historically defined full frame as being THE standard one has to go for. “Full frame” is also crop. In Germany, it has even been called “Kleinbildformat” when it had been introduced some 100 years ago = “small picture format”.
It’s just another format. As Per K says, it depends on the intentions. And relatively few people can take advantage of it. From an economic point of view, FF is a tiny market after all. Fujifilm has still to recoup its investments in the current X-system.
Nobody force anyone to use this or that format,but “Historically” “Full Frame” is the “Standard” (so it was in the past 100 years),which is why a lens with a focal length of 35mm is actually a 35mm,not a 52mm, in this “Crop” format.
The hype lies in the existence of thousands of lenses designed for this format,better dynamic range and high ISO and the ability to crop the image to the size of an APS-C or 4/3 with respective advantages and so on.
“The hype lies in the existence of thousands of lenses designed for this format,”
If that were the case, Nikon would not have to bother creating an entirely new FX lens line. Reality is that most digital cameras today resolve at much better than those legacy lenses can handle. The old lenses have been shown time and time again to hold back IQ out of the new cameras.
Those FF size advantages are great if you’re going to print out to a billboard, but since 90% of everything today is going to be a picture of a sunset, Little bobby Son-of-a-Bitch playing soccer, or of the neighbor’s sleeping cat of which will end up on Facebook or Instaspam the need isn’t there for the overwhelming majority of photographer.
As for the wedding photographers go, hold up an 8×10 taken from a D800 and then one from a D7100 and see if the client can tell them apart. In the past 15 years I’ve been digital, I can’t recall a single client being able to discern what came out of my D3 or my D300s.
But, I digress, and I really don’t feel like getting in to these idiotic pissing matches. FF vs APS-C, RAW vs JPEG, Nikon vs Canon, Coke vs Pepsi, Fork vs Spoon, Democrats vs Republicans, Beastie Boys vs Kathy Ireland, Santa Claus vs Captain Caveman, or any the internet my dick is bigger than yours waving that seems to prevalent anymore.
As I previously stated “Nobody force anyone to use this or that format…”,i have to specify that I didn’t express preference for one or the other?
It’s your money,do whatever the …k you want and to be clear,the camera that I always have with me are the Ricoh GR (III and IV before) or the Lomo LC-A, i.e. APS-C (crap x2) and crap.
Good.
The only rational answer I’d expect.
there are a few companies that manufacture full frame but many do APSC. Which is the reason to compete in such a saturated segment? It’s a bad strategy
I’m guessing the logic behind this is that Fuji has significantly fewer resources at the do not have the ability to develop two product lines. Looking at how the camera market is at the moment, and Fuji being a traditional Japanese company, it is unlikely, they are going to leap at the trying to explode their own growth and take a gamble of taking a hard financial loss if they can’t compete or can’t take a huge market share.
Lots of APS-C cameras, but not many are as committed to professional-quality APS-C as Fuji. Look how far Fuji has come in the past 2 years with APS-C and look how much market share they’ve gained. CanoNikon still want you to step up to FF. Their APS bodies are great, but there’s very little worthwhile APS glass out there to go with them.
See the NX1, 15fps, 28Mpx, 4K, amazing IQ, good ergonomics, good glass…
I’m not sure I understand why people are dying for a full frame Fuji. I think Fuji is known for making some of the best if not the best aps-c cameras on the market and that’s their thing. Are people begging Olympus to make full frame mirrorless cameras as well? I think people just assume that the m43 market is Oly’s niche and they rock at it. I think if you need or want a full frame camera Fuji isn’t for you. I’m happy that they keep bringing out new lenses and continued development to their existing cameras, but I wouldn’t want that to be stunted by full frame development. These guys aren’t one of the big camera manufacturers but yet they are able to create cameras that have made so many fall in love with photography again! I am impressed with what they are able to crank out of their R&D dept given their resources. Take notice Canon and Nikon. Fuji, I say if you are going to develop for a new format it should be MF.
About a year ago, I bought an XE-2 with the 18-55 kit lens to take with me hiking and traveling as a small light-weight alternative to my D7000. Today I’m selling off my Nikon kit and looking to buy an XT-1. Why? Because Fuji has been rocking the APS-C world, releasing some fabulous lenses and continues to commit to the format. Nikon has shown no interest in the format – except as a gateway drug to their FF line. I could buy an XT-1 today with 23, 35 and 56 primes, an 18-55 and 50-140 zoom for under US$6000. The equivalent Nikon lenses alone (FF) will set me back US$8000 .. plus $2500-$3300 for a FF body. So the extra $5000 gets me what … better bokeh balls? No thanks!
Keep doing what you’re doing Fuji!! Delivering best-in-class APS-C cameras and lenses and fuggedabout FF (at least for now)
BTW, probably been shared before, but everyone should check out Zack Arias’ hilarious takedown of the FF vs APS-C wars at http://dedpxl.com/crop-or-crap-math-or-moment/
… and when Canon will finally come up with a mirrorless full frame that can put Sony efforts to shivers, guess who will be left regretting they didn’t break the ground on full frame… yeah, you’re right, it’s going to be FUJI… narrow visions can often cause lost opportunity to expand sales… but if FUJI believes lens sales is good enough in the camera world as driven by 16mp iterations, I guess they’re still satisfied with NOT being a serious player in the mirrorless sales standing in Japan.
You are funny…if there is somebody with narrow vision, it’s CaNikon.
The future isn’t FF but organic sensors. And if Fuji is coming out with one, CaNikon better have something to compete…I have a strong feeling we have to wait for the X-Pro 2 a bit longer because of that sensor….
Why not jump straight to medium format and crap all over Canon and the rest? I’d stick with todays system anyways, but just for the fun of it 😉
What sense does a lightweight mirrorless camera make when you need heavy glass for Full Frame? None, in that case you can better stick to DSLR’s as they will be faster to focus for a long time to come.
Anyway I think you don’t see the benefit of APS-C and why its a better choice. Full Frame is just another one century old film format. If you want to go ‘big’ do it the proper way and go Medium Format.
With f2.0 lenses on a MF camera you can achieve the same bokeh and DOF and then you could with the f1.2 lens of your FF, but still be smaller due to the fact that you don’t need a lot of glass for the faster aperture.
That’s why it would be better if Fuji skips the 36x24mm altogether. FF doesn’t make sense as the difference between FF and APS-C is just so small.
No FF for the X? That is fine with me. The X produces excellent images as is. I’ve got 6 X-E1’s. They are cheap, disposable and produce outstanding results. I can understand Fuji does not want to remake all its lenses for FF. Just keep perfecting the X line.
****BUT**** Fuji could easily make a FF 28mp Leica knockoff and take over the rangefinder biz from Leica. I’ve got 4 Leica’s. While they are nice cams, they are way overpriced and Leica uses second rate sensors in their sickly overpriced cams. Fuji would not need to make one lens for the ‘Fleica’ cam. Just pump out bodies for $2500 a pop. Enuf lenses out there for tons of Fleica’s
Getting back to the X line. Just drop a 24mp organic sensor in the X someday and it will be truly superb.
I’m working on a project now that is shipping to the Center for Creative Photography. Lots of it was shot with a Fuji X. No one told me I could not use the Fuji for producing museum quality work.
Full Frame APSC micro 4/3 who really cares. The photo not the gear is what matters. The older I get the less I care about all the specs. God lenses are nice though.