The Fujifilm Blog published an interview with Fuji Manager Mr. Takashi Ueno. Here are some excerpts.
“Full frame body + High performance lens” can be achieved with “Small APS-C body + High performance lens”
Mr. Takashi Ueno “We gave a lot of thought to this, and reached our conclusion that APS-C is the best format for the optimum balance of body size and image quality. […] Higher image quality can be achieved with full frame sensors, but in order to maximize the use of the sensor size, the lens will be very bulky and heavy.
[…] if you attach the large and heavy high performance lens to the full frame DSLR, then you will certainly get high image quality. The combination will maximize the potential of the full frame, but if you have to carry the bulky lens everywhere to achieve the high image quality, then this is not what FUJIFILM is aiming for.
Question: “OK, Smaller and lightweight body can be achieved with APS-C but how about the “High image quality” part?”
Mr. Takashi Ueno “The technology of the FUJINON lens has a lot to do with that. With the power of FUJINON lens, we can achieve the full frame image quality with the APS-C sensor. […] We learned that the disadvantage can be recovered with the lens performance through various simulations.
Here is an example. It is generally believed that the lens performs at its best with 1 to 2 stop down from the maximum aperture. We tried to break the norm. Because if there is such belief, then the lens is very unlikely to perform at its best from corner to corner with the aperture wide open. But if we can break the norm, then we will achieve bokeh and sharpness that is equivalent to that of a full frame with 1 to 2 stop down. We can achieve the image quality that is equivalent to that of full frame.
Which is better? An f/1.4 lens on a full frame sensor and then used 1 stop down to prevent degradation in the image quality in the corner or an f/1.4 lens on an APS-C that see no degration in the image quality at its maximum aperture value?
You cannot really see the difference in bokeh between the APS-C wide open and the full frame one stop down. However, if the APS-C is wide open, then the shutter speed will be twice as fast as the full frame resulting in be less blur caused by hand shake or subject movement. If the picture becomes blurry, then the high image quality becomes meaningless.”
X-TRANS
Through various simulation, we learned that the 16M X-Trans sensor had the potential to rival the resolution of a 24M bayer sensor. [admin: confirmed by dpreview tests].
The combination of FUJIFILM color reproduction, the X-Trans sensor, and the FUJINON lens technology, allowed us to create an interchangeable lens camera that could rival the image quality of full frame D-SLR in the APS-C format.
If we make a cheap low performing lens, then the degradation in image quality is more apparent for the X-Trans sensor than a typical sensor. X-Trans sensor requires high performance lens.
Read the whole interview at the fujifilm-blog here
Good move Fujifilm… better to go directly Medium Format… we already have a pretty solid rumor about it here 😉
193 Responses
It is true. I always shot my canon 85mm 1.2 at 1.8, but I can shoot my Fuji 56mm 1.2 at 1.2 all day.
How many times do these poor guys have to state the obvious?
A few weeks ago, the announcement of the 24-35mm F/2 zoom from Sigma created quite a buzz. It’s a first. Yeah, it’s 1 kilo, but we are talking full frame here and constant aperture.
So think any X camera plus the 16mm F/1.4 and 23mm F/1.4 lenses. The FF advantage (about 1 stop better IQ in low light conditions) is gone right there. You even get the frakking DoF equivalence. At half the size and weight, and cheaper than a Canikon system would cost. You could reduce the weight difference by using F/1.8 primes , but it will still be larger (needing bigger bag, bigger tripod, bigger accessories).
Now before the SONY trolls arrive – yes, the weight story won’t work so well with SONY, price would though. And Fuji has tons of things Sony (or other manufacturers) don’t care about. Consistent lens line-up in terms of colour, contrast, sharpness, oof rendering. Film simulation modes, ergonomics, the EVF experience, some of the amazing technologies in the x100 line-up, etc. These are the things Fuji should focus on, the things that make this system unique.
Full frame doesn’t make sense for Fuji, getting in to the game right now would be suicide for the imaging division.
Indeed, companies like Sigma and Fuji are the real innovators these days. Sony seems to be tossing with bucketloads of R&D money leading to impressive products, but I see little passion and cohesion. The only ones that seem to have lost track completely are Canon and Nikon.* Interesting times.
*I’m a Nikon (DX) user for the time being.
I agree, although I do like the advancements Sony are making with Sensor design etc. But that alone would not be enough to get me to go back to them. Fuji lenses are what I love and what Sony etc don’t have. They’ll be still around in many years while todays cameras will have been and gone and the cameras of the future be benefiting from the high quality lenses you already have.
And this is why I love Fuji….finally a company that moves toward the stream and do something others doesn’t…
Just get a move on with the T2 or PRO2 so I – once again – can break the transfer record of my bank account 😛
I agree with the first part of your comment… 😉
Yeeeah…my wife tends to do the same (not agreeing on the second part) 😉
What are Fujifilm doing that is so different or against the stream, to other companies?
At the right time, when the sensor and AF support it, Fuji should skip FF and go right to MF and build out a matched set of lenses.
I have to agree with him on the first part. However, I am still interested to know if their full-frame test model has overheating issue during live view.
When I’m shooting wide open, the subject is not in the corner. The corners are background and blurred (beautifully) so I don’t care about wide open corner sharpness. No-one cares about wide open corner sharpness. I’d rather have a lens that has 1 extra stop. So everyone does care about wide open corner sharpness because thats what reviewers rave about. But really, who places their subject in the corner? The same argument holds about maximum exposure. If you can get 1 extra stop and cut down motion blur in low light, again, the corner can be sacrificed for that.
Well, for one, top wedding photographers such as Ben Chrisman do:
http://www.fearlessphotographers.com/photographers.cfm?photogID=81&ben-chrisman
Looked through that photographers 57 images in his portfolio website. I counted 1 photo with an in focus subject in the corner.
Yah, I don’t think your definition of “corner” is very accurate then. I saw roughly 13 images with the subject in the corner.
Wow. So many great pictures. I feel bad now.
Yah, don’t worry, I know how you feel. He’s on a whole different level, he won WPJA photographer of the year several times before.
“No-one cares about wide open corner sharpness.”
Nonsense.
Two things that are myths here. Last Fuji lenses 56/1.2, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 50-150/2.8, 16-55/2.8 are not bulky and large? Are you kidding? They are monsters for APS-C with equal size as FF equivalent lenses. Second myth is X-Trans sensor, especially X-Trans2 – jpgs files are washy details lack even when you set NR to -2, Fuji also manupulaited in RAW files. more details has sensor from X-A1, and for sure 24MP sensor from A6000. It seems Mr. Takashi Ueno never seen files from A6000.
same bollocks as usual… the Sony fanboi has spoken.
Have you ever used a Canon with a 85mm f1.2, 50 f1.2, 24-70mm f2.8 70-200mm f2.8? The XT-1 with accompanying lenses is tiny in comparisons.
They are big but still a bit smaller than their FF equivalent.
I found this image comparing the 50-140 vs Canon’s 70-200.
http://s4.postimg.org/c7c074ut9/50_140vs_Canon.jpg
The optimistic will say the Fuji is much smaller and the pessimistic will say they are just as big. I’m in the middle 😉
There is a label for that: realistic
🙂
I own the 50-140 and I love it. Yes it ain’t small but how much smaller can it be for a constant f2.8 zoom telephoto?
Yeah. It seems a lot of people don’t understand the word ‘relatively’ and insist on doing a comparison with just their eyes (which they can’t even get right).
Maybe the 50-140 could be made smaller, but I would think that would let in less light.
Hi,
Yes, I took the picture 😉
Realistically the lens is about one third smaller compared to the Canon Counterpart, as one would expect according to physics. So its not particulary small but small enough to make a big difference in your bag.
Meanwhile I’ve sold my whole Canon gear and I am not looking back a second. I am not saying everything is perfect, but neither was it with Canon.
Daniel
Spot on!
Why are you even here then? Sony Alpha Rumors is that way ——>
Copied and pasted from an old post I made:
A X-T1 body weighs 440g, while a D750 body weighs 840g. The Fuji 16mm f/1.4 weighs 375g while the Nikon 24mm f/1.4 weighs 618g.
So you’re looking at 815g for the X-T1 combo vs 1458g for the D750 one. Equal size? Not even close.
“Why are you even here then?”
Bravo for the cheap shot. Ask yourself why you are so defensive when all that George is complaining is the marketing talk.
Not really. He’s spreading misinformation:
“Are you kidding? They are monsters for APS-C with equal size as FF equivalent lenses.”
That’s not remotely true.
Well, depends. I wouldn’t say “monsters”, but your comparison also isn’t flawless.
I never claimed it was flawless, it just shows raw numbers. Please create a comparison showing how George’s claim that Fuji’s lenses for “APS-C with equal size as FF equivalent lenses” is accurate instead of complaining without any evidence.
There’s only one definition for equal, it means to be the same, which as I’ve shown, they are not even close to being. If 55% of the weight for a comparable combo is still “monstrous”, I don’t even know what to say.
Well, here’s one (also not flawless)
X-T1 with 10-24 (440+410=850)
a7r with 16-35 (474+518=992)
So, 85% of the weight. And also not that far in price either.
I still don’t see how they’re equal or monstrous. Like I said, he was spreading misinformation. And like you said, it’s not fair in price either as it’s nearly $1000 more.
Oh, my bad, I wrote a7r when I was thinking about the a7. Then they are not far in price.
Most of this is marketing (which I don’t really care about), but at least it should put an end to the “will the X-Pro2 come with a Full Frame Sensor” talk.
Let’s save that for the X-Pro3 ^^
i agree on xtrans2 wash out detail i think its 16MP problem a6000 is 24mp that reason i think…look at photo from dpreview , only one reason why i did t get XT1 is 16mp ITS NOT ENOUGT!!! i love my x100s but so many times i m missing detail ….spacial for landscaping …. please stay APS-C if you want but at least 24MP and keep image quality as is it …….. details we want more details please i dont have any sony camera i use Canon FF for professional work and i m tired of it anyway…
This is what im talking about its not small different its big different !!!! Fuji 24MP same image quality !!!! and i m sure people will forgot about sony APS-C option!!!
And this is top size in APS-C Samsung NX1 fuji file looks like little Hobbit next to 28MP jpeg and i see detail is there!!!!
Ah, you mean the color noise caused by moire that adds apparent detail to the a6000 image?
But I’d have to admit, the X100T image looks a bit blurry (It might be out of focus), the other Fuji’s are much better, specially the X10 looks very crisp! It’ll probably even better if you take the RAW and process it with something other than Adobe (that is what DPReview uses I think).
Just recalled Tarantino’s hero in the final scene of Four Rooms: “Ough really?” I’ve started to think about switching to Sony A7II some time later.
whatever makes you happy. you go for it.
Exactly!
im happy with all my fujis. no hate. all love. still love my panasonics too fyi. the photographer is the problem. not the camera. correction: the person who is holding the camera. complaining. is the the real problem. heheh
i love my x100s its most enjoyable camera i ever own but detail is not there … i m ready to switch full time Fuji system if they bring more mega pixel sensor, you know for us its ok, but when i try sell my photos to client they were complaining about detail…. since you deliver very detail files to client they are expecting same or even better … and unfortunately Fuji cant deliver enough detail for my commercial use. I do photography and 3D visualizations ,my photo-montages go to big (some times huge )prints across London and all around UK .
What kind of detail? I’ve seen Fuji prints from the X series cameras on commercial billboards and the sides of huge office buildings (80 x 18 ft) in the U.S. So I really kinda don’t get what kind of detail you’re talking about. Some done with an x100s. I am not getting how some photogs are doing this large print with the fuji x cameras, while others are claiming it can’t be done.
http://www.markkitaoka.com/latest-news/fuji-x100s-commercial-use
Did you see billboards ‘Shot on iPhone 6’? That does not prove anything.
So silly, Its obvious that the billboard work that you’re refering to has more to do with the marketing campaign for the company “Apple”, and its competition with Samsung than anything which is being discussed. Most major marketing art directors aren’t idiots that can’t read exif files.
He said, that his clients were complaing about detail. The link that I posted gives some insight or perpective from photog that has done that type of work. The photographer is married to a printing expert, hmm. There are many other photogs that are doing commercial work using the Fuji system for extra large print and put on the side of buildings or on large 80 ft banners in major metropolitan centers all over the word. Nothing to prove. Its being done. http://www.markkitaoka.com/tag/dallas-symphony-orchestra
Absolutely amazing the amount of back and forth over technical specs and ‘who’s right’ Good Grief in my world cameras are for creating. And yes I am the commercial photographer who shoots for Dallas Symphony among other clients. I am brand agnostic BTW. Fuji is a remarkable tool in the right job. As are my Canons for fast dance action. And my Pentax 645Z for studio fashion work. Arguing and going back and forth does nothing to improve your craft. Images of test shot targets and gear isn’t what clients look to for inspiration. The most important piece of gear is what is behind the viewfinder.
Cry me a river. Don’t worry, we get it. We just like ALSO to argue about specs.
Great have a website where we can browse your work?
Yes. However, it is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Yes of course
Thanks for jumping in, Mark, and adding some perspective to this conversation. Unfortunately, there’s too much measurebating here from folks who don’t understand that it’s about the content, and for whom professional photography is just a dream.
“…but when i try sell my photos to client they were complaining about detail…”
Where’s that bullsh*t emoticon when you need it?
Assuming you’re selling anything to anyone … AND assuming they’re complaining about details, then the fault is you, not the camera.
You should have understood your client’s requirement outputs from the get.
You should have been using the correct tool for such a job, such as an ultra-high megapixel FF camera like the Nikon D810, or Sony A7r.
Something tells me you’re not a pro, even though you may be trying to imply you’re one.
haha, yeah. I’ve not once had any complaints from clients regarding detail. Seriously, not once. The X system has been more than sufficient to cover, although I would prefer a 24mp sensor. Whether it was direct with a client, Getty or Corbis they have all been happy with the IQ from the 16mp sensor.
Mind you, after speaking to the client you knew extreme IQ was required, then maybe hiring the Nikon D810 would be a sensible option. Or, stitch a number of shots together with Autopano Giga if the subject isn’t moving.
I’m with you on that. I wish the GX7 and the XE2 had a baby… That’s my dream camera!
Amen to that. People are to quick to cry, “It don’t work” when a little patience, practice, skill and ingenuity would get them a long way.
This would all be true, and I’d be completely happy with my Fuji, IF processing with LR didn’t turn all that lovely detail to painterly mush when I photograph a landscape with a lot of fine grass/leaf detail in it. Unfortunately, as the processing stands right now, the advantages of the great XF lenses and X-Trans is thrown away in these circumstances and I’m afraid higher res cameras with ordinary Bayer sensors simply do blow it out of the water. Fuji/Adobe need to take this much more seriously and finally get it sorted.
I noticed this too when comparing the a6000 and the XT-10. I am considering switching to the Fuji system, but it definitely seems to maintain less detail than the Sony when the 24mp file is resized to 16mp for comparison, per the DPReview comparison tool. Why is this?
Why do you think? Honest question.
I don’t know, which is why I’m asking the question.
Well, I’ll get eaten alive for that, but here it goes. Sony simply has more resolution and uses it better. Also, Fuji lenses are overhyped while Sony ones are underrated. I am obviously generalizing, but the good Sony lenses are easily as good as Fuji’s. Paired with a better sensor and there you have it.
Now, Fuji does have more good lenses overall and a better line up than Sony’s APS-C line.
That sounds about right to me. Fuji is amazing, but I agree with the overrated/underrated assertion.
For me, when comparing between brands, once you have the lenses with the proper IQ and acceptable pricing in the lineup, everything comes down to handling and extra features.
I think you have a valid point as far as resolution but remember that image quality also has other factors at play. I’ve never been particularly fond of Sony’s colors and much prefer Fuji’s. It takes a lot of extra work to get Sony’s colors to look as pleasing to me as Fuji’s. For me personally, resolution does not matter as much as my images are never displayed at 100%. But color is very important to me as it affects the overall mood of the image. My color correction with Fuji is a breeze compared to with Canon/Sony.
Agreed, there are other factors, but speedgraphic mentioned resolution specifically, so I addressed that. Fuji definitely got something right with their colors.
I really don’t understand this LR/X-Trans issue. I am switching from Aperture to LR6 at the moment and, if anything, my X100S files look better. Here’s a recent photo with lots of trees that was edited in LR (still learning so be gentle):
https://flic.kr/p/v5Mg51
How much more detail does this photo need? I’m not interested in every single branch of every single tree. Either my standards are low or I’m completely missing the point. I hope it’s the latter… 😉
Of course Fuji can make amazing pictures! The point is that an XT-10 is more expensive than an a6000, and the a6000 consistently delivers sharper results in controlled tests. I’m willing to be convinced that that doesn’t matter, though, since I know a lot of people I respect love Fuji.
I’m glad I missed the point… 🙂 Yeah, I guess the price/quality balance may be an issue for Fuji, but – indeed – some people just love Fuji for a lot of other things (dials, lenses, looks, usability, etc.). I’m afraid that I’m one of them… 😉
Sony can make amazing cameras but good luck pairing the A6000 with the lack of lenses for it. For Sony users, most pros have to go FF since in that front Sony is actually investing on lenses and in that sense, it’s not really possible to compare the A6000.
So you’re saying the DPR studio shots, shot with a Sony lens, aren’t real?
And you can shoot Sony full frame lenses on a crop body, BTW.
What?? Seriously, that’s the conclusion you got from what I wrote? C’mon, man.
I’m talking about the lens line up and about all the gaps in both focal length quantity and lens quality. Sony has some nice lenses, but most of them are either pancakes or zoom, it’s just that they stopped caring about APS-C when they went FF, it’s a business decision, it’s been years since the last lens road map for APS-C E-mount.
You sure can shoot APS-C with FF lenses, but then, what’s the point? It’s much more expensive and bulkier and you are getting the worst of both worlds, far from being a true solution. You don’t get the size advantage and neither the price advantage, that’s why I said that people should buy Sony’s FF, they abandoned the APS-C market for the most part and they will only invest on it again after they stablish their FF cameras and probably not before they bring their A9 line up.
While I do agree with most of what you said, that nonsense about the quality of Sony lenses should stop. The good Sony APS-C lenses cost roughly the same and provide similar IQ as Fuji equivalents. The weaker ones are either cheaper, smaller or both.
I didn’t say Sony can’t produce great lenses, but the good ones are the few. They have nice primes like the 24mm, 35mm and the 50mm, and at that time Sony also released the NEX-7 and it looked like they would get serious about it, but right after thy made the RX1 and after that they shift their focus to the FF.
Most of their APS-C lenses are zoom and pancakes, even worst, they have a lot of lenses with very similar focal length, while they have other focal length that simply lacks lenses.
But if you were to make a graphic with the quality of the lenses of both Sony and Fuji, Fuji would score higher for sure, they have a certain standard that even their kit zoom addresses. I wouldn’t care about which one have the highest score or anything like that, my main issue has always been way before that with the lack of options. A 85mm equivalent for portraits, a 135mm, a constant f/2.8 quality zoom, etc.
Anyway, my point is not that Sony can’t make good lenses but you can’t really compare the Fuji line up and Sony’s APS-C E-mount line up. And I think that this is very unfortunate because Sony makes cameras that push forward, cameras with some nice feats but you need to pair those bodies with some lenses.
Sony is pushing video now, the A7000 will probably come with 4K but the focus-by-wire in the lenses I used is horrible, you can’t adjust the sensitivity and they react to acceleration as well, which makes quite bad for video and they could easily fiz that with some firmware update but so far I wouldn’t trust Sony to do that.
“my point is not that Sony can’t make good lenses but you can’t really compare the Fuji line up and Sony’s APS-C E-mount line up”
Yep, that I can only agree with.
Perhaps it’s time to stop shooting controlled tests and get out and shoot in the real world. 😉
If you know what you’re doing the Fujifilm cameras offer outstanding IQ.
It is just many people don’t enjoy downsizing their photos too much.
It seems that your time machine needs a checkup, as you’re stuck in 2012.
It’s still horrible in Lightroom to this day.
http://www.virtualspeechcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/scream-16_6155.jpg
What about Fuji does all that in a full frame camera to achieve medium format image quality?
How about Fuji dong that in medium format and achieve large format image quality.
How about Fuji dong that in large format and achieve 8×10 negative quality? 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY
Pretty interesting and I like the philosophy and logic behind it.
Don’t mind APS-C sensor just please upgrade it already. Release the x200 with the new sensor.
Thanks for the clarification. I always knew my camera takes better pictures than the guy holding it. 😉
All I’m reading is excuses. Ultimately fuji engineers can’t do what leica does. Smaller camera with small lenses. I want fuji to be leica killers, but their engineers make excuses instead of making innovation.
The ultimate Leica killer is Leica. They’ve been so innovative in releasing autofocus FF bodies for the past century and a half…
Leica doesn’t have to do much. There’s two people who buy Leica’s…Rich people as jewelry, and photographers who like to keep it simple. Half of Leica owners don’t even want a meter…
How many digital Leica RF owners you know personally?
I know a lot, but I live in San Francisco and LA so those numbers are probably skewed to the rest of the country. We also have Leica stores in both of those cities so you meet a lot of people who own them. You also have to remember they release insanely priced kit (upwards of $30K) and people buy them. You cant compare them to a normal camera company, they’re a luxury company… lowering they’re price point will not help them, but they partner with panasonic on lower end cameras obviously.
Yeah, that’s a non-representative sample. After all, statistically speaking, an average SF/LA inhabitant got one million dollars, one ball and one silicone boob…
Might as well throw New York into that non representative sample. I guess the majority of high end working photographers have got one million dollars, one ball and one silicone boob…
I’m not backing digital Leica’s, its too much $ for me. I do however own an M6 that i’ve had for 17 years that I still shoot on a regular basis. How’s that for GAS scenario you keep throwing out constantly on this site.
Oh wait, you wouldn’t know anything about that…that’s close to the time that you abandoned film… cause you had no love for it.
Personally, I don’t care how much something costs. What I do care for is a bang for buck, and RF Leica seriously sucks in this regard (another story is an S Typ 007).
As far as film goes… 135 film in 2015 is just another hobby, like making blowguns (illegal in CA) or flying kites (oddly enough, still legal). Nothing wrong with it.
Well the majority of what I shoot is 6×7 and it far exceeds everything I shoot on my Fuji’s in daylight.
You should be careful about what you call a hobby. I might throw your it’s the photographer not the equipment back in your face. Or are you saying that the image quality is so much better on the Fuji X series over film? In that case is it not fair for me to say that the image quality of the sony is so much better then the Fujis?
Wait I can’t make a blowgun here??? I’ve always wanted to do that…. I should move now, this ruins everything. What are you doing with a blowgun by the way?
That’s really cute that you still fly kites 🙂
As soon as we hit ISO values above 400, yes. Pretty much any modern digital camera will perform better than film.
I also collect Hello Kitty assault rifles.
Ugh, unfortunately assault weapons are illegal here too. Makes you wonder if they made those laws to keep certain types of people from living here….
If so, they’ve certainly succeeded, as I don’t have even the slightest desire to move into CA. The fact that I was born in USSR makes me very allergic to communism.
To be honest, it was Leica who invented AF
You’re confused, it was Al Gore.
LOL!
Really, you want the Leica $$$$ price tag too? You’re minimizing the coments about the cost. Everyone doesn’t want to spend “Leica” money on the camera body. Can we be realistic? http://www.gizmag.com/compare-best-mirrorless-cameras-2014/35308/
Just buy Sony and put some Zeiss or Voigtlanders on it then.
You can have a small camera with small lenses if you want to pay $10k for it.
And Leica JUST came out with full frame + autofocus in a small body so….
So if Leica can do it for $4K and you’re still paying for that Leica name, then Fuji should be able to do it. I don’t see the issue.
The issue is smaller brighter optics cost a lot of money. Want small lenses, buy a Leica.
C’mon, people … think.
Leica FF lenses are small because they’re NOT autofocus. Autofocus mechanisms add significant size and weight to the interior construction, not to mention the additional cowling to protect the innards. Add IS to that, and the size goes up yet again.
An apples to apples argument might be better?
Sure, but there simply aren’t MF lenses for Fuji to compare with.
Right. Fuji doesn’t make manual focus lenses, so why are they being compared to anyone who does?
Why not? That is clearly an advantage for some systems.
@idlau: “And Leica JUST came out with full frame + autofocus in a small body so….”
Not with INTERCHANGEABLE lenses they didn’t. That changes everything.
Leica M lenses don’t have autofocus or image stabilization. That’s why they’re smaller.
I think Sony has proved that we don’t want AF in the lenses anyways… X-Pro2 should have BSI when it comes out in a few years….
Not a few years. Next year.
You new to Fuji? We all thought it would be 2014… Then 2015…. Then late 2015…. Now 2016. They’re reliant on Sony sensors. You can expect the X-Pro2 6 months after the A7000 release and were not sure when that is yet.
I’ll repeat that: Not a few years. Next year.
As to the 6-month rumor, it’s just that: another rumor. Considering that the aggregate of other major camera manufacturers buys far more Sony Semiconductor APS-C/FX sensors than Sony Imaging does, Sony would be shooting themselves in the foot with a “6-month” strategy, bringing an end to other manufacturers’ close collaboration with Sony Semiconductor, which dates back close to 20 years.
Maybe for weekend shooting for personal shots but for work, event, wedding or outdoor adventure shooting I’d rather have the benefit of AF
Sorry, I meant IS in the lens, not AF. I agree that there always has to be a good AF option as not everyone wants to shoot manual focus for all occasions.
I was just trying to say that it seems image stabilization in the body vs the lens seems to be the way to go.
Then go buy a Leica and then you will have no excuses.
Yes I want anti-leica people Killers. I bet I can easily hire them in US for some bucks, right?
get out and shoot.
I want all brands to survive and provide choice at whatever price they feel right.
It’s up to me, not them, to buy it – and – foremost to USE it.
You’re joking, right?
yep, that’s pretty much how I read it too – we’re going to give you enough arguments about products we sell, what’s the point of talking about something we don’t sell?
Fuji a Leica killer? Not the same market man! Very very few real photographers can afford a Leica system. Zack and others picking up Fuji X bodies call it the new Leica for a reason. Leica is the Leica killer.
Fuji can and should make a camera to compete with the Leica Q. At half the price, it would sell like hotcakes.
It is not true that Fuji lenses perform wide open like competing lenses perform stopped down by one full stop. In fact, the Fuji 23 is significantly less sharp in the corners at F1.4 than the Sony 35 is at F1.4, let alone F2.
Good day Mr. Takashi Ueno. Please ask for some budget and do yourself something good. Buy a Leica M and some summicron, summilux lenses, or the new Q, if you don’t get enough budget. You may try Carl Zeiss ZM lenses, too.
Sorry, obviously you can try Carl Zeiss lenses with the Sony A7 system, small MF and Fuji-size AF lenses.
Then,
say that bullshit again about lense-size and quality.
Fuji has lenses today already much bigger than my Leica lenses. I love my X100, but the system-lenses are just too big for me to buy a Fuji APS-C mount System.
Medium format? Well, that might be an idea, but why go bigger, when I just got smaller for better quality.
Don’t get me wrong, I prefer a Fuji over Sony, but that’s a mental thing and still a “choice” thing of lenses. But that’s changing fast, now.
Make the X100T AF as fast as the X-T1 FW 4.0.
I might buy it, but you won’t sell me on a system.
MF? AF? I don’t care most of the time. But the X100 is not an ergonomic MF monster.
a pure EVF x100? nope!
want both OVF and EVF.
$4-6k wha..? Buy a robotic A7r with all that frkin noise? Not. Rent it maybe. And for the price you pay for it, not any better quality than the Fuji. and certain not better color. Every A7 I see being used, has an adapter with a Canon lense on it. Hmm I wonder why.
Sony corrected the noisy shutter vibration after a few months of ebay sales, but now its $3198 for the second version. Go figure.
Me, I can put all my Fuji primes (23,35,56 + 50-140) and the camera with grip on, along with tether cables,batteries, and Surface tablet, backup body, into my Manfrotto “Backpack 30” and slide it under my airline seat. No way is my equivalent Canon setup are they even close in total size and weight.
You really can’t see a difference between a file from an a7r and Fuji’s sensor?
Exactly, since i got M my X-Pro1 is taking dust, M is so much more fun to shoot with – straight simple tool.
@carlos, @hexx And of course, you have now qualms comparing a body that cost 6550€ to which you add 1550€ for a nice 23mm (that a 8100€ total) with a body that costed what 1500€ at lauch and a lens for what, 1000€, tops?
I sure hope it is more “fun”
Have you ever thought about the fact that almost all tiny lenses on this planet are MF? Most of those you named sure are. Ever wondered why Nikon’s AiS lenses were so tiny and their AF lenses are much bigger? Go figure!
And no, Sony’s AF lenses are NOT the size of Fuji’s… Let’s compare the “standard” lens, Fuji 35 vs Sony 55:
– Sony is slightly faster in equivalent DOF
– Fuji is 1.5 cm shorter at the same diameter
– Fuji is 100g lighter (over 1/3rd less)
– Fuji is several hundred bucks cheaper
– Fuji can focus almost twice as close
Yeah, basically identical… FF AF lenses could be about the same size in theory but in Sony’s case they definitely aren’t.
So, if one is OK with MF, than Fuji is squarely beaten, right?
Also, you forgot a small detail in your comparison – overall IQ.
Yes and no. Fuji obviously does not build MF lenses so of course it is beaten in absolute size compared to someone like Leica. Squarely? No, you can always adapt those lenses to the Fuji.
Oh yeah, IQ, what’s there to compare? Both are awesome. The Sony will be able to render more detail due to its larger MP sensors but both outperform a vast majority of photographers.
Well, you can adapt lenses to every mirrorless and Sony would provide the best platform for that. That is what I meant by “squarely beaten”.
Saying that all are awesome requires the acceptance of some level of sufficiency. However, that level is subjective. In the end, the measurable IQ from, say, an a7r with a nice lens will outclass Fuji easily.
Of course, that doesn’t matter for the lonely individual with their own set of requirements, but it certainly makes Ueno’s statement look like the usual marketing talk from someone who doesn’t know the strengths of their product (which is not exclusive to Fuji).
So Fuji just admitted that if you want top image quality you need to go full frame…and they don’t want that. That’s what I heard, anybody else?
Fuji is always going to be behind Sony in the tech as long as we’re married to their sensors and they come out 6 months behind. I love the feel and controls of my Fuji..but give me a new sensor now or I will abandon ship. This is not GAS… it’s been too long. The X-Pro1 was announced January 2012 and it’s not going to come out until next year THAT’S A $ YEAR CYCLE. I know sony puts out bodies like crazy but i’d rather have more options then one every 4 years. The fact is, all manufactures are starting to address firmware updates, so that’s no longer an argument for Fuji anymore. And the real GAS is needing to update every time a new body comes out. If I pick up an A7RII tomorrow and they release a new camera in 6 months…I’ve still got a pretty good camera in my hands. If the X-Pro 2 comes out with the A7000 sensor in a year, the A7RII is still going to be way better.
I don’t want to leave you fuji, but you’re not leaving me much of a choice.
No, actually, he’s merely restricting himself to sensor size in that statement, but there’s an implied qualifier, “if all other things were equal.” Thing is, not all other things are equal, he continues, in particular lens quality. And because high-quality APS-C lenses are easier to make, he concludes,
So, no, that’s not what he says.
(I’m not saying i agree with him; I’m just pointing out that there’s a lot more to what he said than what you seem to have informed… in fact, he said the opposite.)
It’s an incredibly flawed argument. And that is what he’s saying by default. Basically all you need is a full frame lens that’s sharp wide open (which we know exists) and then the aps-c quality cannot match it. The whole argument relys on the fact that full frame lenses need to be stopped down and we have many examples where this is not true.
And as much as I love my Fuji lenses, there are a few that are not rack sharp wide open, so the statement doesn’t even really work with all Fuji glass.
Well not even that. What it’s Fuji about is maintain a small portable size with ubergood quality. This is why Fuji has become popular. Carry around anywhere brilliant camera’s without people noticing you or you hurting your shoulder. Be able to walk around with 2 camera;s on a wedding without the pain… superb small camera’s, superb small lenses, and laught at anybody struggling to walk around with a dslr…:-)
Now that I would actually agree with. I love being able to take my X-T1, 14mm, 23mm, and 56mm in a small bag and have complete coverage. I agree that the majority of E mount lenses are way too big or the smaller ones aren’t very fast for primes. If I switch the the A7RII I would be using mainly my Leica M primes as well as L series glass for some of the more serious work. Basis lenses seem great but still pretty large for my taste.
I would also add that Fuji’s all manual controls are fantastic. I love all the dials on the X-T1.
I believe you ware correct in your initial statement. Some people tried to explain the nonsensical marketing talk, but in the end this is exactly what he said – you can have similar IQ in a smaller package. Which is empirically incorrect.
Completely agree…fuji is not necessarily better on paper but I can walk around all day at a wedding shooting wide open with accurate focus, something I could never do with my full frame canons. I see no difference in the quality other than better fuji colours but I take ‘better’ more intimate photos, I’m not noticed as much and my back doesn’t hurt.
“Basically all you need is a full frame lens that’s sharp wide open
(which we know exists) and then the aps-c quality cannot match it.”
That’s exactly what he is not saying.
He points out, that you can’t simply transfer an excellent full-frame lens calculated for film to digital and expect it still is excellent, cause sensors have other needs than film to delivery excellent quality.
Also his point is, that if you accept the goal to produce a system smaller than the huge Pro-DSLR today this can either be achieved by staying with the fullframe sensor-format and then using full-frame lenses limitedby size and so not fully using the potential of the sensor or to go Fuji’s step and take APS-C sensor combined with glass optimized for it’s needs to achieve best image quality possible (in the restrictions of the smaller overall package).
@Stuttering_Stanley: “I know sony puts out bodies like crazy but i’d rather have more options then one every 4 years.”
Your Fujifilm camera is already capable of producing better IQ than you’re capable of making. So perhaps work on your technique instead of whining like an instant gratification baby that you’re not getting a new camera every 24 months?
Just a thought. 😉
Here’s a thought. Imagine you don’t own a camera, or your a canon or Nikon user and want to make the switch to mirrorless as I’m sure plenty of people on this site have done. What camera are you going to buy… One with a really outdated 16mp sensor? Most likely not… They’re not competitive right now. And other people not buying into the Fuji system hurts you, because it means they make less money and have less money to develop. And don’t talk to me about IQ… 90% of what I shoot is MF 6×7 and it looks WAY better then anything coming out of my Fujis. I’m not allowed to want a better sensor? You don’t think Fuji wants people to buy their cameras? I’m not sure what world you live in where you think it’s ok for the manufacture not to worry about their business model and sales… This is a buisness to them, and they are slipping rapidly. Your making an argument that I personally don’t need a new camera… What about the people who absolutely need a new camera? Would you tell them to go buy a Fuji over the competition right now?
I moved from Canon 5dmkii to Sony but sold it after 18 months to go to Fuji. They had a number of nice – good lenses but they always seemed to be lacking. Back focusing was also an issue resulting in soft images.
Sony sensors are some of the best around but as a complete system, especially in the quality of lenses, they were lacking compared to Canon and Fuji. When I was using Sony, I had to keep the 5dmkii and 100-400 lens plus and UWA as the options Sony had didn’t match. They are getting better but…. not there yet. Anyway, I want to enjoy using my camera and not spend my day menu diving and that is something Sony hasn’t really made any improvements on. They could be so much more than a good sensor, but they need to go back to basics in terms of handling and lenses (their own and not rely on Zeiss).
What are you using on the fuji to replace the 100-400?
When I used the 100-400 with the 5dmkii, I mainly shot around the 150-300 fl. Initially I used the 55-200, and still do if I really need the 300mm equivalent but, now I mainly use the 50-140 purely for the much improved IQ with the option of f/2.8. I’ll be adding the converter when it comes out.
In terms of IQ, the 50-140 is better than I had with the 100-400 and I save 550g, 950g vs 1500g.
Edit, and, the IS on the 50-140 is incredible. Very easy to shoot at 140mm @ 1/4sec
Here’s a thought: If the Fujis don’t work for you, use something else. Plenty of choices out there. Fujifilm Imaging is in the black this year (hardly slipping), and Imaging represents less than 15% of their business. I think they’re doing fine by taking a steady, measured approach. If that’s not fast enough for someone from the “instant gratification” generation, well … tough.
Also, if you really do shoot MF 6×7, why are you comparing that to ANY APS-C sensor? They’re never going to be on the same playing field. So that’s a non-sequitur.
Meanwhile, other working pros, like David Hobby, Zack Arias, and Damien Lovegrove (among many, many others), seem to be getting great professional results from their X-Series cameras. Oh, and if you still don’t believe that IQ is good enough for you, how ’bout this guy >> http://www.markkitaoka.com/latest-news/fuji-x100s-commercial-use
Yeah, 80′ tall on the side of the Dallas’ Symphony Orchestra building, and shot with the X100s. And it looks great.
So unless you’re making ultra-large high quality prints for New York Art Gallery clients, or shooting fast sports, or action in low light, or rapidly-moving wildlife … what’s your excuse again?
Son you can’t bay a camera from Sony anymore if the ekonomi report was true.But maybe you are happy with just a sensor as long it is a full frame.
“So Fuji just admitted that if you want top image quality you need to go full frame…” If that’s the only thing you picked out, you have serious comprehension problems mate – go back and read the interview again. Or just simply go and enjoy the SONY system 😉
While that may not be true, it definitely is hard to tell on Flickr and 500px, that is for sure. Although some fanboys keep yelping like puppies about how Sony is killing everyone with their cameras, I find it very hard to believe when I look at photos online. After viewing several images from A7 series cameras on Flickr and 500px, to see whether the hype is justified, the majority of the photos that I have seen do not support that claim. I am sure they are very nice cameras, but it seems the cameras (no matter what brand), in most cases, are far better than the people using them.
That’s always the case. That’s why as a consumer you need to put both cameras in your hand shoot the same images, and work the same files. You cant compare some random X-T1 images to some random A7R images.
What I will say about Fuji is that the controls are so much better. I’m shooting far more, and not having to live in menu’s with the X-T1. I wish Sony had the layout of Fuji.
As Stuttering_Stanley said, that is a very strange way of comparing two cameras.
The problem I have with the Fuji system which has kept me with my Nikon system is not the 16mp x-trans sensor, the body controls, and certainly not the lenses (top notch and relatively small). It’s simply been the following:
– AF performance is generally behind.
– Electronic Viewfinder
– Poor battery life
– and probably the trump card… Poor flash TTL support!
He can easily defend image quality and lens quality, Fuji does well there but not everything about the experience ends there. Fuji does not have much if any of a financial advantage either.
Don’t hate on me, I’m excited about Fuji products but bottom line when you compare one to another in most cases the DSLR’s still rise to the top.
I agree with you about the AF; a good DSLR still wins overall for speed and acquisition (if not always for planar accuracy and flexibility).
Personally, I like the EVF, and am starting to prefer them.
Battery life needs improvement, granted.
Flash support is unlikely to ever equal Nikon’s iTTL CLS system, but if you know flash well and are doing advanced stuff, just go full manual. Boom. Problem solved.
Fuji does still have the advantage if you’re comparing the X cameras to either Nikon’s prosumer or pro DSLRs.
All you stated have made it clear that Fuji is a very good system for fun purposes
Yeah, it is fun to use but it also pays my bills and feeds the family. For the type of work I do, I preferred the flexibility of the X system, going from very small and light to bigger f/2.8 lenses for studio shoots etc.
Using strobes and multiple flashes for commercial work is always in manual. For large jobs, you set the camera to bulb in complete darkness and can carry the flash around large rooms to paint with light. Otherwise, set up groups of flashes that can be controlled from a trigger on top of the camera. I’d never consider using TTL for commercial work when using multiple light sources.
I would add that TTL would be best for “Red Carpet” work and as such, efforts need to be made to improve it.
You are right. I always think any equipment could get great pictures. The most important thing is to find the most enjoyable system. Unless someone is an extreme shooter.
Agreed on all points. People love these either/or arguments … which is always the first indication they don’t shoot professionally. 😉
Personally I have no problem using Nikon’s CLS system in TTL for commercial work. It’s the best there is and now also usable with Profoto gear. The nice thing about that system is that it will at least get you in the ballpark, and then you can fine-tune in full manual from there if need be.
Great for pro use, too, depending on what you’re shooting. In my application the Fujis enable me to do certain things that my DSLRs are incapable of.
Right tool for the right job, fun notwithstanding.
I think Fuji could clean up if it made a ruggedised X-T1 – something the size than the X-T1 with the battery grip built-in, which took a larger battery capable of 800-1,000 shots per charge, remained APS-C, but improved on AF still further than FW 4.0 (which is very good, BTW), a faster frame rate, and a flash system capable of HSS and improved TTL capabilities (in particular, OCF).
Basically something for all those pros not willing or able to spend $6,000 on a camera body every few years, but who might spend $2,500. In other words, filling the Nikon D300s void.
Yes, agreed. A mirrorless camera that filled the Nikon D400 gap. Because we already know that Nikon has ignored the DX lens lineup … and APS-C lenses are a place where Fuji is already ahead of Nikon. If Nikon doesn’t fill that void in 2016, it could be wide open for Fuji.
I’m a professional photographer myself and using Nikon for more than 25 years I think.Then I bought the XT1 with one lens, and now I have four lenses. I notice I’m using the Fuji more and more, also and especially for commercial work. The quality is at par or even better than my Nikons with all the expensive 1.4 and 2.8 lenses. And it’s much nicer to use, except, as you mentioned, the AF speed and the Flash system. Although I’m experimenting now with manual flash. The batterylife is already ok, especially as I always have three batteries with me. I would like to add the lack of true manual focussing to your list and the speed in which the camera comes back ‘online’ after taking a shot using the Mechanical Shutter (release button + EVF). When shooting a lot, in situations when things around you change rapidly, the camera is much slower to use than my Nikons.
The only thing I hope for in the future is that they will improve these things, perhaps trying to enlarge the sensor and MP a bit, as I read somewhere in the news section on this site (with compatibility with current lenses ofcourse).
And in the software section: a Fuji stand-alone raw converter! Cross-platform please! > Linux ;).
The first three things you mention are all simply the nature of mirrorless. Everything is being read from the sensor, like you’re using the camera in video mode all the time, so AF is always going to be a bit poorer, the battery is always going to drain much faster and the options for viewfinders are much more limited. (If you do use an optical viewfinder, it can’t be an exact 1:1 representation of the frame.)
If those are things that bother you, mirrorless simply is not and never will be for you.
Not necessarily. It’s quite likely — probable, even — that mirrorless AF will eventually catch up to DSLRs. The reason? Because more technology R&D is being spent on mirrorless than on DSLRs now (which have long since matured and are only seeing iterative improvements). Thus, it’s quite conceivable that with faster processors and more advanced sensors, on-chip AF could catch up.
As to battery life, battery tech is always advancing, too.
The way I view what Fuji offers. “My Personal Opinion”
I myself love the things that Fuji is bringing to camera users both consumer and prosumer “not Pros”. I love the style and design that Fuji has chosen for their top of the line camera bodies, but I still find with all the great style and design the core functions and speed of any Fuji X Camera is still only equivalent to a good prosumer film camera. Regardless of the EVF and the OVF and all the options. Pack it full of whatever you wish, these Fuji X cameras are still slow and buggy. So yes they equate to a good old prosumer film camera. If the bodies matched the lenses my statements would be 100% different.
My go to camera for work is my Canon 1D X and I do not see any current or near future Fuji X camera coming close to replacing that work horse. With that said, for play and some personal projects I use the Fuji X system, but I also use many old 35mm and medium format film cameras as well, and the current Fuji offerings fit right in with the film cameras. They do not fit in with current Pro DSLR’s.
My old Canon 20D with it’s 1.6 crop factor and 8.2 Megapixel CMOS Sensor can out perform the X-T1 in AF speed in many different conditions. The fact that you must use a square of the focal area to get good fast focus with the X-T1 is a sham at best, It’s like ok we are half way there so it is good enough. “it’s not” So lets be real here, Fuji like many other mirrorless creators have a lot of work to do before we can all just drop our DSLR’s and never look back.
I love my Fuji X cameras and like many others I hope that we see some big changes in the not so distant future. But I’m not going to just set around and wait. Keep flipping those mirrors.
I totally agree what he said. But I still want a FULL Frame Fujifilm camera.
Just kidding. Fujifilm has already made a great system with some great lenses.
Had a lot of fun with my Fujifilm gears. Thanks Fujifilm and please keep it!
I think on the long run we can only win with Fuji. Sooner or later (2017-18) bayer and xtrans sensors will be replaced with stacked sensors. Wich will mean 16-28 mpx TRUE resolution on APSC sensor size with the current pixel size, or 4 times bigger pixels with the current resolution.
All companies will offer such cameras, so the sensor quality will have a huge jump, but the lens quality will be still one plus for Fuji.
Youbcan say that FF sensors will have the extra goodness, but hey, think positive! APSC sensors in 5 years will outperform todays FF offerings.bAnd you want this performance, not that.
While mostly true, the argument is that 35mm sensors will also advance. Right now, Canon and Nikon have entry-level cameras which match or surpass the objective image quality 35mm sensors of the original 5D, for example but of course there are now much better 35mm sensors than the original 5D’s, too. APS-C will match today’s 35mm, but by the time it does, that day’s 35mm sensor will also have been improved and still be ahed of APS-C. X-Trans, bayer, stacked, organic, backlit, whatever you want; the simple physical size constraints means a larger sensor will always offer certain advantages over a smaller one. APS-C physically can not match 35mm, in the same way 35mm sensors will never match or overtake medium format.
I know. I tryed to say only this: sensors will evolve and the current ff performance will be topped by future APSC. Future FF will alwasy be superior. For me the compact size, the fuji control layout, the camera style, color rendering and the lenses worth more than the fact, it’s not FF. And these positive things will be there with the new sensor too.
If you want a good performace, you will get it. If you must own the best gadget up to date, prepare to pay a lot for Sony cameras in every half year. For me, it’s not worth it. For my purposes (amateur hobbyst) fuji is more than enough. In fact, i love my X-M1, and on specs side, it’s one of the worst fuji camera. But i have a lot of fun shooting with it and learn photography.
“For me the compact size, the fuji control layout, the camera style, color rendering and the lenses worth more than the fact, it’s not FF.”
Well, maybe that’s what Fuji should be advertising.
Yes, and I’ll keep driving my 50s Chevy because all new cars sometime down the road will be electric…
OK just one more tidbit, anyone remember the old 2002 Minolta Dimage 7Hi 5.2MP Digital Camera with EVF. That camera was around 1,200.00 US. Loaded with features. I had it, used it, and can tell you that the current Fuji X cameras are only a bit above the functions and speed of that camera “In relation to time and technology”. So ask what real advances have been made with mirrorless other than slapping a bigger sensor in a new shell? Something worth asking.
Damn capitalist pigs are holding technology back! Where’s my hoverboard?! Where’s my flying car?!
we have a troll
Well, what is a “real advance” then?
The ludicrous part is that “full frame” is just a mindset.
It’s all about choices. Fuji chose APS-C as the best trade-off between size and quality. They also chose to built top-notch lenses that perfectly fit APS-C (unlike certain other companies). Sure there are other, and for some better, possibilities: bigger sensors, bigger bodies, bigger lenses, – heck – better image quality. They are just not Fuji’s choice and certainly not mine (and fortunately they are not the choice of many others). I can live with the downsides, no matter what the “experts” say.
This exec is simply ignoring the fact Sony has a full lineup of bodies approximately the same size as the X-T1 and small lenses to go with it. Pair any A7 with the 35mm Zeiss F2.8 and compare that to the X-T1 + 23mm F1.4 and the A7 combo is smaller with same weight. It will have massively better high ISO (even with slower lense), better video, and much higher resolution. I like Fuji a lot, but they’re not doing damage control. They’re about to dump X-Trans as a failure because it can’t do good quality video, and Sony has shown the world FF sensor in small form factor is a reality.
I would say that Fuji should soon run out of business then.
Patrick needs to rename the comments section into “Doom and gloom”.
I was simply looking emphasize the Fuji executive is out in lala land. He’s talking like the a7 line doesn’t exist and it does. That doesn’t mean I just like food to you or that I’m saying they’re going to go out of business. In fact I like them quite a lot more than Sony. That doesn’t alter the reality of the situation. Fuji wasted a crap ton of R&D on x-trans sensor technology that is now being abandoned.
Sure, I get your point. I’m not surprised that a Fuji exec polishes his story to his own good (every exec would do that probably, which makes most of these interviews quite useless). My point is actually that choosing a camera system is not only a rational thing. As you indicate yourself, there is the “like” factor. What I personally like about Fuji is that they listen to people with a heart for photography, which probably means they have a heart for photography themselves (I personally couldn’t care less about “videography”, but I may just be a little old-fashioned). The system they have created in just “a few” years oozes pure passion for photography and is simply amazing. They may not produce the best cameras from a purely technical perspective, but they make clear choices and are truly innovative. The X-Trans sensor is such a true innovation, It may not be perfect and even be abandoned in the end, but at least they have shown some guts (unlike some dinosaur companies). Sony also develops impressive stuff, but like I pointed out elsewhere: I don’t see much passion and coherence on their side (rather a lot of technical “exhibitionism”).
We need to think about the whole lens line up , not single lens
Think about the longer lens will be much bigger on Sony FE system.
Sony FE 90 Macro. Zeiss 85 F1.8 , 35 F1.4 was so huge on the not very small body (look at the a7mk ii). XT-1 Was not small, but you can still choose XA-2 or XT-10. XE-2 …
wow. that made me shiver for a bit. lol. that does sound like an awesome dream.” fujisonic” . only if the fuji guys can do this idea. its like having subaru and toyota frs-brz. oooh!
A fixed-prime lens full frame camera would not have be any bigger than the current X-Pro1 with 35MM 1.4
I was with this guy until he said “The combination of FUJIFILM color reproduction, the X-Trans sensor, and the FUJINON lens technology, allowed us to create an interchangeable lens camera that could rival the image quality of full frame D-SLR in the APS-C format.”
Um, No!
IQ of X-Trans is indeed amazing, and in many situations, with good or controlled lighting it really rivals full-frame IQ. However, in extreme low light (although X-Trans is better than anything APS-C else at that), or when you want to go ultra-wide, you are simply running out of options with anything smaller than full-frame. Also, I think it’s a bit of schizophrenia to reject full-frame due to its bulkiness, but developing a medium format system at the same time.
It seems that Fujifilm is going through a transition right now, after which business decisions are prioritized over engineering creativity. In other words: I am afraid that Fujifilm is losing its geek appeal and becoming a solid, but conservative manufacturer; just like the yellow, red and blue empire, we’ll see a green empire doing much of the same, in a year from now, and X-Trans may be a matter of the past, then.
(BTW, I sincerely hope, Fujifilm will prove me wrong in everything above! And damn, I would definitely *buy* a Fujifilm camera with a full-frame X-Trans sensor without hesitation, as I don’t care about video, but do have a need for ultra-wide angle lenses; and medium format, then again, is *really* too bulky and lenses are too expensive for me)
What a bunch of nonsense. What he’s saying would require being at the forefront of sensor development (and they can’t even keep up) and each and of every one of their lenses being 1. significantly smaller and/or lighter (not happening), and 2. being outstanding straight from wide open (again not happening).
They allowed themselves to make a bigger 35mm with great performance, as there was a smaller one already. As to the Batis and longer lenses, you are correct, but we are not talking about huge differences.
I agree that we have to talk about “whole lens line up”, but you are forgetting that we are also talking IQ. Sensor plus lens. Fuji would like us to believe that its system is smaller, lighter and provides similar IQ.
It’s very simple: from a business point, this is the choice between trying to become a mainstream camera giant or remaining a small, premium-oriented niche player using non-market standard strategies and technologies (a bit the Leica-approach). I don’t know what’s the best to be honest. A manufacturer can perfectly built a special realm around (older) APS/C sensor technology & possibly even medium format, squeeze the last bit of performance out of deviating CFA’s and optical engineering. Has it future? Maybe. Is it technically really the best? I doubt and that could immediately be the weakest point, in particular to keep on attracting the real, hard-core professional crowd. But entering the mainstream market means hyper-competition and a lot of pressure on the margin while you need a giantesk budgets keep up your R&D and model development with the tendencies.
The “IQ of X-Trans is indeed amazing” is a little bit controversial. There’s not only a pure theoretical difference with 35mm – the current Sony 35mm sensors are just having 5-6 years progress vs the APS/C one used in the Fuji X series. That is very significant… mostly in the corner of overall sensitivity, DR & ISO-performance! The X-trans is not a miracle. I think that many of us would like to see the difference between this generation of X-series, and one built around the same FF-sensor line that makes the Sony and Nikon so much shine. I’m concerned that the Sony A9000-sensor is not the right answer for keeping Fuji on the track for a brilliant future – this is just traveling in second class.