The number of hints is growing: Fuji could go FF… and 2014 could be the year. According to a new source the company will launch a Full Frame Compact Camera (X200?) in the second half of 2014.
But the fixed lens FF could only be the beginning. Always according to this new source, there will be also FF X-series cameras with interchangeable lenses, coming late 2014 early 2015.
You know it, take it with a grain of salt. It’s the first time that this source whispered some rumors to me.
greez
Patrick (google+, facebook and twitter)
PRE-ORDER
by using the links below to make your purchase, you’ll support FR. It won’t cost you a single penny extra, but FR will get a small commision that will help to keep this site running. Thanks.
X-E2 – USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama / DigitalRev / Pictureline / EUROPE: wexphotographicUK / DigitalRev / Fotomundus24 GER / PCHstore /
XQ1 – USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama / DigitalRev / EUROPE: wexphotographicUK / DigitalRev / PCHstore /
114 Responses
True or no, APS with great glass works for me. No desire for bigger, heavier, more expensive gear.
Agree with you 100% on that! The X-Pro 1, while bigger than most mirror-less offerings, is the perfect size and feel for me. The lenses I have are nicely balanced for it too.
Just can’t imagine going back to big glass and even bigger expense, just to facilitate the use of a FF sensor.
I enjoy taking pictures with what I have. Ticking a spec. box does not make me covet the latest flavour for that alone.
By all means, bring on the FF option, but do not sacrifice the great APS-C prestige some of us currently feel right at home with.
Gee, I would be happy if they just released the 56/1.2 in 2014. I think that might be stretch for them all on its own, given their history with releasing lenses, like, for the system they already have?
I would expect the 56mm lens to be announced sometime in January and ship by the end of February or certainly before the end of the quarter. I also suspect that this longer, faster lens with plenty of bokeh will help quite those lusting for FF that want more DOF.
Really. I hope you are right, they don’t have a very good track record of releasing lenses on time. The 56 is already what, 1-1/2 years overdue based on the original promise? Personally, based on what we saw with the 55-200 and the 23 (and the 14, maybe? didn’t follow that one much), I would be surprised if you can actually get a 56/1.2 in your hands before next fall, at the earliest. I very much hope I am wrong, though, I seriously want this lenses, if the autofocus is reasonable.
The last version of their roadmap seems right on schedule. Which includes the 23mm in early 4th quarter, 10-24 late 4th qtr 2013 and 56 for 1st quarter 2014. The schedule is for announcement, not shipping so add 30+ days to the announcement and understand shipping starts earlier in some countries vs others.
see this ling to the roadmap
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/
Oh, I didn’t realize the roadmap was for announcements, I thought those were delivery dates. Thanks for the info! 🙂
Announcements make it official. US does not seem to get the first batches of anything Fuji. Canada is ahead and Asian countries ahead of that.
I have waited for a FF from Fuji. I have the x100 and think it is (firmware v2) just about perfect. I would have no interest in FF with a fixed lens. the x-trans sensor is the best on the market IMHO. The resolution beats most full frame cameras as it is. If they kept the pixel count to 16 or even 24 and went FF the low light performance should rival the D600. As I type this I realize a FF fixed 35mm Fuji would be great…. never any dust no oil spots great low light and sick sharpness and detail.
Yup sign me up!!!
“the x-trans sensor is the best on the market IMHO. The resolution beats most full frame cameras as it is” – no, it doesn’t. Your comment regarding oil spots on D600 – that’s from shutter 😉
From an electronics point of view, FF is an artificial hype, based on chip technology properties and limitations of 5 years ago.
If some major-brands APS/C cameras perform less than their FF-brothers, it’s due to built in deficiencies to let the more expensive ranges shine, who else would buy it? If there is a real difference in the actual performance, anyhow, it should be for the present CMOS-generations very marginal. Btw: the pixel density of the so praised D800 and the X-trans is about the same, so…?
Fujifilm was one major brand (not the only, see Pentax) that seemed to want to beat this myth. Well… these new FF-rumors are creating a lot of fuzz. Maybe they’re only here to test how this fan-crowd reacts. How we will absorb the feeling of traveling second class with our present investments.
Why would we require a FF-version of the X100, bigger, heavier and more expensive, with exactly the same features? Why a full frame X-Pro1-brother, same story? And what is that other rumor, about this organic sensor, putting any other CMOS to shame at resolutions and noise-levels still to see in the FF-landscape? Is it the overwhelming ‘FF-credibility’ pressure caused by Nikon, Canon and Sony?
Confusion, that’s what it is.
My wallet with fuji-intended money goes asleep for two years, that’s for sure. Sorry for all these nice lenses and other stuff to come, if Fuji doesn’t clear up their intensions with a real roadmap and a lot more credibility, I’m looking away, I hope not for ever – I would regret my investment in X-trans camera’s and lenses very much.
“f some major-brands APS/C cameras perform less than their FF-brothers, it’s due to built in deficiencies to let the more expensive ranges shine, who else would buy it?”
Sorry to interrupt here, but that really is nonsense. The Fujis are amazing and the smaller sensors enable the weight and size of the cameras and lenses to be kept down, but don’t kid yourself when you’ve never used larger sensors or larger format film.
you dont know what youre talking about, is not a matter of iso, is a matter of 3D, the more large the sensor, the more 3d efect you get, and this is about geometry and optics laws not computer nerd
Unlikely to switch for years, if at all. Too much money invested in existing Fujinon glass.
Dear Oly, dear FCB,
I think that the D800 can perfectly serve as a reference in the FF-market.
Its sensor has EXACTLY the same pixel pitch as the X-Pro1, 4.8µm. The only thing is a difference in surface: the APS/C sensor is 1.5x smaller. But the D800 has a resolution of 36.4Mpixel, meaning… that the pixels are on this sensor even closer to each other than on the X-trans sensor.
FF does not do anything better in 2013 than APS/C would do: noise levels, pixel quality… Even 43 – again, is performing almost equal with FF. So what? Explain me the difference?
Yes, there is a mathematical one, effecting in a lot of optical consequences. Bigger lenses, harder to design and manufacture, more risk to get artifacts like chromatic aberration and most of all, an according price tag. A 50mm F1.4 lens will have a lot more bokeh in a FF sensor range than the famous Fuji 35mm F1.4. However, a F2.0 will be equal. If you want to call that ‘pop’ (a not very accurate description of what people feel), it’s OK for me, but the X-Pro1 proofs enough that its IQ is not compromised by having a ‘smaller sensor’.
Tell me: how many FF owners don’t even have a lens stopping down to F2.0? Most are using the big, bulky and most of all slow zooms that come almost as a standard with these camera’s. Just to be there, out in the crowd, with the biggest and most impressive camera. Just to say, “when I’m shooting with this kind of super sized gun, be sure I’m making professional pictures”.
FF is a hype. It is just there to get more bucks out of your pocket. I performed several comparisons with the X-Pro1, even versus Leica, and you’d be surprised how top-notch it performs. Also the glass performs.
And it surprises me that also Fujifilm is heading now in this FF-direction, likely more under a commercial pressure than for true technical reasons.
Where I’m afraid of, is that it will compromise the current X-range in the longer term, as ‘there needs to be a difference’, there are many ways to do this, it’s already happening, you’ve got XF lenses and… XC lenses. Be sure that XS (or so) will be next.
Frankly, do we as a user base see this as a positive evolution? I don’t.
“Its sensor has EXACTLY the same pixel pitch as the X-Pro1, 4.8µm. The only thing is a difference in surface: the APS/C sensor is 1.5x smaller.”
This is incorrect. The APS sensor is half the size and you omitted the fact that the D800 has more than twice the number of pixels.
In other words, the D800 is more like twice the 16mp APS sensor. In practice this is like having a much bigger film format and the equivalent of enlarging the image by only half as much.
Whilst Fuji has done an absolutely amazing job with this sensor, the low light performance is not quite up to the standards of the current full frame sensors. Amazingly good, and virtually as good as earlier full frame sensors, but the larger sensor will always have the advantage. The Fuji’s real strength is in its superb interpretation of colour, which is nothing to do with pixel pitch.
try to print something larger than 1 cm and you will see with your eyes, art cannot be described by words
If I can count well the D800 has more than twice the number of pixels. an important factor if you want to make very large prints at pixel-resolution.
The question is, if you do so, would a Phase One not be a more obvious choice 😉 ? Almost nobody does, certainly I don’t.
Still, the X-trans has an identical pixel pitch at a lower pixel density over its surface. The sensor size is 23.6mm x 15.6mm, while the D800 is 35.9 × 24 mm. The sensor is only 1,5x smaller in both the X and Y direction, that’s what I meant. Of course, in surface this effects in a difference of 2,33.
But this this all matters? I do not see ONE reason why Fuji should not work in R&D on sensors that outperform FF’s. Like the organic sensor. That’s what I mean. By also taking the exit to FF, we’re traveling second class now. Our investment in X-material will vaporize. I repeat, is that what we want?
Btw Oly, I make quite a lot prints. Precisely that is the reason why all those pixel and full or halfframe discussion lead to nowhere. What is visible on a computerscreen, doesn’t tell anything about prints you’ll finally have in your hands.
I’ve been standing with my humble X-Pro1 next to massive DSLR’s with huge zooms on the same events, still afterwards people came telling me that my prints were a lot better. Were they? Probably not. But the X-Pro1 excels in something. And it isn’t exactly in being the fastest camera available. ;-).
Sorry, this idea that the X Pro1 is better than FF sensors is just plain wrong. It’s only a normal sensor that’s been modified.
And a couple of people have said that because they own X Pro1s and have invested in the system, Fuji would be wrong to bring out something better. One poster said that if they did bring out an FF system, then it would mean that his X Pro1 would no longer be top of the range!
Can you lot not see how silly that sounds?
Wether you go ILC or fixed lens, Fuji will give you a choice of a FF or APSC line up. It sounds like everybody wins. Thanks Patrick.
No, not everybody wins. I’d rather they spend their not unlimited resources on one sensor-size and one system, than wasting resources over different sizes and system. Look at sony: they will soon have four interchangeable lens systems, and all of them lacking some very important lens or accessory.
Fuji should just concentrate in making better apsc sensors, more, better and/or smaller lenses, and it would become the best all-around digital system ever
Which is exactly what Oly and Pany are doing with the 4/3 sensor and the m43 cameras. Making them better and better. And, no, the 4/3 sensor has NOT maxed out.
Same for me psk I’ve spent my money on Fuji glass and I do not want to start buying into a new system again. Let’s hope we can use existing lenses but it is unlikely they will be compatible.
If Fuji decides to go FF, then that’s good. It’s just way too soon to go FF.
The X Series — for me — is not mature enough, for example: several lenses are still missing (prime tele lens, anyone? I know I do).
After the X reaches its maturity i.e. having wider lens coverage, accessories (batteries do concern me), and body upgrades, that’s when the dev team can allocate the resources for FF development (organic sensor too, of course).
Has Fuji reached its mature point yet? It’s almost there, just give it more time. I do believe the Kaizen ideology does speed things up.
But it’s basically 1.5~2 years away from the launch of the FF ILC system, by then Fuji X should be mature enough.
You can’t complain about lenses, by January, the system will be 2 years old and the available lenses will be.
14/18/23/27/35/56/60 primes
10-24/16-50/18-55/50-230/55-200 zoom
Which other system had those lenses in their first 2 years of existence? None.
Sure, there are gaps to fill and there will be weather sealed lenses too apparently, the final stepp will be same focal length but cheaper or more expensive. Some people would like a 16mm, 85mm, 135mm primes – much longer than that I’m not sure is a priority in a system like the Fuji X. Then you can have more pancakes for cheaper prices or very high quality even faster primes. But it seems unlikely that by 2015 the main gaps won’t be filled.
2015 is a good year for launching it, by then organic sensor can be a reality as well, Fuji X system will be mature enough, everything fits well.
+1, Add an XF 55-135/4 OIS (physically shorter than the 55-200, maybe also a bit lighter). I think I am not alone wishing for a constant aperture telezoom with reasonable size and weight and so would happily trade the focal length 135-200 for that.
Well, I’d really like a very fast super-wide angle lens (e.g. 10 / 2.0 or the like). And not too big please. That would become my permanent lens of the camera. And, emh, a longer macro lens, a, ehm, macro zoom, and the like.
Problem is: camera companies are never really done with your lens system. But it never happened in the past that all companies had to divide their resources over so many different systems. In my humble opinion, FF now is a very bad move for Fuji…
You are correct, Valentino. The road map says 1st quarter 2014 for the 56mm.
Are we jumping the gun a bit here lads wanting a FF camera? it wasn’t to long ago we were all wanting (and i still do) the follow up to the XP1 almost 2 years since they launched that, we have seen a shed load of cut down versions in the last few years and now with the X-E2 sporting quite a few goodies the XP2 should be all that plus more. Lets hope the show in the new year brings us a late christmas present
That is great to hear. I will use both my X-Pro 1 or 2 and the full frame MILC side-by-side if it turns out to be a great camera. I still hope they release a X-Pro 2 with an APS-C sized sensor in the near future…
I am sure Fuji will do it right with a set of high-quality fast primes (21mm, 50 mm, and 90mm at release please) at release. No need to rush it without lenses to support the system.
The only FF I I’m willing to buy right now it’s the NIkon DF, other than that I’mall for the X-E2
Any rumours on imminent (CES) potential releases – X-30 perhaps? FF in a year and beyond is nothing but UFI. Anybody needing it, has it, or can buy a Sony A7 now, or the upcoming Nikon DF soon.
The Nikon DF may be an option, but I don’t consider the A7/A7r are great option: to ugly and uninspiring design; very loud and clunky shutter; and lack of high-quality fast primes native to the system. I would prefer my X-Pro 1 over the A7/A7r, and the image quality is exceptional, irrespective of all of the criticism it has received…
Perhaps those clever Fuji people will provide a full frame camera with new full frame lenses and an adaptor allowing the current lenses to be used that utilises the APSC size of the full frame sensor. This will entice new custom whilst allowing the current customer base to use the kit they have invested in. Just a thought and I am no techie but metabones do it so I am sure Fuji can. I hope this is the case.
I think that will be very hard. Fuji X mount has one of, if not the shortest flange distance of APS-C sensors. I think it stands at less than 18mm – E-mount is 18mm if I’m not mistaken. The new FF camera from Fuji will have a different mount since X-mount isn’t big enough to have a FF sensor on it and to be able to use an adapter, they would need an even shorter flange distance for this FF mount, which seems very, very unlikely. So unless they can successfully have a very creative solution to solve this, that will be very unlikely to happen.
Maybe camera manufacturers could revert to a square (or 5×4 ratio) sensor within the APSC or m4/3 lens mount. The sensor would be of a larger usable size in reality as 3×2 ratio is neatly always cropped for A4, 3, 2 printing. With square format you design your cameras for horizontal shooting only and users crop if a horizontal or vertical image is required.
But full frame is only a reference to one of the film sizes and there is no need for it to be desired as the holy grail… Why not a 30x30mm, 25×25, 50×50 sensors? Square sensors will also reduce lens size needed compared with 3×2 proportions.
Wow, now THAT would be cool. Bring back some old school medium and large format styling. I like this idea!
The whole reason I got into the Fuji System was it’s small size and low weight. So if Fuji wants to develop big FF cameras and big FF glass, I do not see the point. I have a D800 and it stays on the shelf except for sports and wildlife because it is too big and heavy to carry around all day.
you don’t have to buy the FF camera, I don’t understand why people keep saying as if they were the only customer of Fuji. You don’t have to see a point for yourself, it’s not about you. Fuji will keep developing their APS-C cameras, just keep buying the APS-C ones, FF is not for me either bu I totally see the point of launching one.
A completely new market just waiting to be explored, there IS demand for FF mirrorless cameras, as long as Fuji doesn’t go much bigger than the XPRO cameras, Fuji can be very successfull here. It’s not Sony that would be a Leica killer but Fuji. But watch out for Pentax – if rumors are true.
+1, If/when Fuji would produce an X style FF MLC it has potential to be the most interesting FF MLC available, due to the nice X interface and Fujis ability to design high class lenses.
+1
Was going to write something thoughtful … but what do I care if Fuji does FF or Fuji Fans want FF? Sony is there, Oly will be soon, and perhaps a few other classic brands.
The FF party will be rocking with or without Fuji!
And Fuji will probably make bucket loads selling moderately expensive cameras with cheaper APS-C sensors to their dedicated fans. I think they learned with X series that being first is expensive, and being last is profitable.
Horse pucky.
The only people forking over $2000+ for FF are enthusiasts with money to burn. There’s no “rockin” diddly.
“The only people forking over $2000+ for FF are enthusiasts with money to burn. There’s no “rockin” diddly.”
Really? What are professionals using?
If you spend much time reading about the Fuji system, you’ll notice that “pros” are using the XP1, X100s, and XE-1 — mostly with primes. You don’t hear any of the pros featured on this site pining for FF — in fact, just the opposite. Most pros agree that the APS-C system is more than adequate — especially with the release of the XE2.
No, a very large number of, if not most, pros like myself are using full frame DSLRs.
Many of us are fed up with carting around these archaic, noisy machines. Myself, I will probably buy into the next generation of X Pro if the focussing is better. But if by chance Fuji bring out a full frame version then it would be an absolute dream camera for my uses (emphasis on my uses).
But why would they talk about anything else besides APS-C if there is no FF?
FF is not for me, ok. But how can you simply say that nobody else wants or needs one? It may not work for me or for you, but I’m pretty sure there are plenty of people wanting it.
And let’s suppose you are right and only enthusiasts with money will buy it, right? So what?? Fuji make cameras to sell no just to please you, who cares if the people that will buy the camera will be a pro or an enthusiast? WTH.
Just the amount of interest the A7/r got, it shows that there is a market for FF mirrorless and that’s enough.
I don’t get this, seriously. two years from now Fuji may launch a FF system, you don’t want it? Don’t buy it, right? Why do you need to be against it as if it was some kind of irrational personal matter?
I don’t give a hoot what someone buys. My point was in response to Tim’s reference to a “full frame party” — I say nonsense. The vast majority of “photographers” are NOT going to ditch their APS-C and m4/3 systems and repurchase a FF body and reinvest in all new glass JUST BECAUSE some manufacturer introduces a FF body.
And — take a look at the 1800+ comments on DPReview.com regarding the acceptance of the Sony FF MILCs — GUESS WHAT? The majority of comments are NEGATIVE.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — people want FF because they don’t have it — not because they NEED IT. Psycho enthusiasts with too much money would own 2-3 different versions of compact, m4/3, APS-C and FF just to be able to shoot something different on a whim — doesn’t make their photographs any better.
Fuji can release a dozen full frame cameras and lenses — so will Pentax and Olympus — all of them are copying each other. What I think some of you who are pining for FF need to come to grips with is just how much you NEED a whole new format if you’re not already shooting FF. Unless you’re working with large-aperture, very fast glass, ANY current APS-C or m4/3 cam + A-Grade lens combo will be more than good enough.
Don’t take my word for it though — why don’t you two actually READ what many of the pros featured here on FR say about the viability of FF for them, and why they’ve switched to APS-C. Here’s a great piece by Thom Hogan on this very subject:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-full-frame-debate.html
ciao
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — people want FF because they don’t have it — not because they NEED IT. ”
Sorry, but I think you’ll find that the manufacturers know their markets better than you do.
There are plenty of people who own FF who want to stay with FF, many of whom use them for their jobs, myself included. I use two of the things.
I do this full time, but you obviously know what I want better than I do, so thanks for your advice.
“The vast majority of “photographers” are NOT going to ditch their APS-C and m4/3 systems and repurchase a FF body and reinvest in all new glass JUST BECAUSE some manufacturer introduces a FF body.”
I doubt your vast majority. Given the stir created by “Fuji going FF” your argument seems invalid.
But it’s not negative just because it’s FF. it’s because it’s Sony.
Sony has yet to show us that they can take a system seriously and stick with it. How many times has Sony changed their mind in the last couple of years when it comes to what direction to take.
At first they didn’t care about E-mount, established a strong APS-C A-mount, then they started to give E-mount some attention with more serious bodies, in between they announced they FF SLT A-mount, they bet a lot on that as it was a replacement for the previous A-mount FF and then, they basically forgot completely about A-mount and APS-C E-mount and launched a FF E-mount.
How can most of people trust Sony with that? The choices between the feats with the A7 and A7R are very weird.
Be it if people need or not, there is a market and Fuji should go for that. There is much more profit in the high-end market than the low-end.
I agree that people won’t simply switch like that, but if the product delivers, they will. I don’t need FF but I think Fuji should go for that, they have to do before Canikon awakes because wanting or not, for – today’s – merit or not, their branc has weight.
My friend, there is no need to worry that a full frame camera would be larger. I think that it makes no difference, the key is equivalence. Just look at the Leica M or Sony a7 with the 35 2.8 (aps-c equivalence of a 23 1.8 in terms of DOF and light gathering). The x-pro 1 could already fit a much larger sensor. That means that a full frame x pro 2 with a 50mm f2.2 lens should be around the same size as a x pro 1with the 35 1.4. You loose nothing since the loss of f-stops in the lens is neutralized by the gain of ISO sensitivity through the larger sensor. On the other hand you win the option to attach faster lenses and specialist lenses like shift lenses thus opening much larger possibilities. Not to speak of dozens of nice Leica/Zeiss/Voigtländer lenses you could use to their full potential with the nice split image focusing or focus peaking.
What I would love to see would be retractable lenses like in my mamiya 6, maybe in a medium format fuji rangefinder in 2016. 😉
My only hope’s are that fuji FF (if that ever happens) will handle leica M UWA lenses better than sony APS-C (look nex magenta corners and smearing) or FF (look at those horrible results http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224).
Well, I guess it probably wouldn’t handle UWA lenses, but it would still leave a huge range of lenses that can be used just fine…. And I would trust Fuji to deliver excellent UWA choices, seeing what they already did with the 14mm.
regards rearranged
is it possible that Fuji being Fuji will release FF together with organic sensor tech they’re developing with Pana?
well, the timing will be right, the expecting date for the organic sensor is 2015
hmm.. that 5th of November will be deciding point for me, really curious what Nikon has for us
It’s just a rewrapped D4 with a retro-styled body but the same old F-mount and DSLR
“It’s just a rewrapped D4 with a retro-styled body but the same old F-mount and DSLR”
I think we can be 100% sure that it is most certainly not going to be anything like the D4 apart from the sensor.
New FF system means new bigger and more expensive FF lenses. It’s not like Fuji didn’t charge enough for their crop-sensor lens crop. FF isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
I have the X-E1 and will skip the X-E2 (not worth upgrading for the features). With the two good zooms and the 14 mm, I have the range covered and the IQ/weight/features make this my camera of choice. I also have the X10 (pocket camera). If Fuji goes FF with all new lenses needed, I will stick with my Canon 5D II. Fuji cannot compete with Nikon/Canon/Sony FF machine because the Fuji FF will be a niche camera in a mass market. Even Fuji does not have the billions $ needed to succeed here. Why would I get rid of $30,000 worth of Canon “L” lenses to buy a few Fuji lenses and another big FF camera? By next year, Canon will catch up to the Nikon D800 for IQ/MP count and used Canon L lenses are 1/5 of the cost I anticipate for the new Fuji FF lenses. BTW, I will keep upgrading the X-E1. For me, 20-30 MP X-series with current lenses and the other features we all want will do the entire job nicely and, if you read about Organic LED, it is possible and I believe Fuji will introduce it. Then I will dump the Canon stuff.
Why does everyone think that FF cameras have to be huge with large glass to match.
Some people do not need the “horsepower” provided by the CaNikon DSLRs. I’ve both a Nikon kit for my professional work as well as an X-E1 for my take everywhere, personal work I do.
Each camera has a different set of skills and is employed where it works the best.
That was my guess based on logic when Sony rumors of mirrorless FF got stronger and when the first rumor of a FF X200 surfaced.
When I wrote I thought that if they go fixed lens FF by 2014, by 2015 they should have a FF ILC, just like Sony launched the RX1 in 2012 and the A7/r in 2013. But not just that, by 2015 the Fuji X APS-C system will be well served with lenses and bodies, most likely a pretty complete system – the same can’t be said for the E-mount APS-C cameras from Sony, it’s almost 4 years old and it lets a lot to be desired on the lenses. Fuji would never start FF cameras without a solid APS-C system.
By early 2015 Sony will have around 10 lenses – according to the roadmap. All the lenses for Sony will be expensive ones, for sure, even more with the majority of at least half of then having Zeiss’s logo – which will sure overprice things.
If Fuji does anything near what they have done for Fuji X – or maybe even more aggressive – that will have a big impact on Sony’s system. For FF there are less amateurs than for APS-C systems, people really care about the details, the little things that makes a camera great and people care a lot about lenses.
Fuji can provice a better optics for less money plus a great camera – plus KAIZEN! That will be very interesting even more now that it has been surfacing some rumors about a Pentax FF, which can possibly be mirrorless too.
+1
If Fuji designs a full frame MILC, it will undoubtedly be better than what Sony will be offering, in my opinion anyways. If they can design one similar in size (a little bigger perhaps) and design to the X-Pro 1 with a set of fast primes (21mm, 50mm, and 90mm at launch would be optimal) that are balanced with the system, and they introduce the camera without a sufficiently fast processor, fast and accurate AF, and a bright, large EVF/OVF, it will likely be a success. As long as the body costs around $2000 or less, I can’t see them going wrong with it.
And, the APS-C system will be fully mature by then, supported by a full set of lenses, assuming they bring out a 1:1 macro and a fast telephoto lens by then. Both systems can easily co-exist and satisfy different customers’ needs…
I meant to say “with a sufficiently fast processor…”
All the knowledge Fuji gathers with the Fuji X will be passed ahead, Fuji had some catch up to do compared to micro4/3 and Sony but Kaizen has been making wonders.
I don’t know if a 21mm, but perhaps a 24mm. But the focal length will depend on the FF fixed lens, just like Fuji skipped the 23mm a bit because of the X100. I think that a 24mm/50mm/85~90mm would be a very good start.
But I think that the camera will cost more than $2000. For FF I can only think about Fuji going two ways, one with Hybrid VF and the other with just EVF – but both being the best they can offer, while Sony will still launch more FF E-mount next year. I think that there are more chances that the EVF one will cost as much as the Sony A7r than it costing less like the A7.
One thing that I still don’t get is why Sony split some of the feats, the A7r is the expensive one but some of the feats are not as good or fast as the cheaper A7.
I can also see some people getting angry at Sony depending on the FF E-mount camera to come in 2014.
Most likely because Sony in the A7r reused the D800/E sensor, which does not support PDAF. Would have been more expensive to use another 36 MP sensor design.
That doesn’t make so much sense because Sony has the tech to implement PDAF on any of their sensor. Sensors with PDAF is just pixels doubling as PDAF.
A7r: 36MP, microlenses, no AA, slower fps, slower flash sync, slower AF, CDAF only, better build quality, better video quality (by EOSHD)
A7: 24MP, AA, faster fps, electronic first curtain shutter, faster flash sync, faster AF, hybrid AF, heavier, worse video
Those aren’t the type of weighting you usually do when chosing between two models. If not for the flash sync, anyone wanting something better would choose the A7r – since neither have a really fast fps so I don’t think that it would decide anything. Let’s say you wanted the A7r but because of the slower flash sync you have to buy the A7? That doesn’t make sense.
I agree with your logics about using pixels as PDAF sensors, but what if that actually requires another HW design related to the sensor (compare X-E2 v.s. X-E1 that are said to have the same sensor with and without PDAF, it seems not to be enough just to make an FW update on the X-E1)? If so it would likely be more efficient to use an existing sensor mainly because of that higher volumes generally give lower piece price. Then of course the possibility that PDAF was not feasible because of some other technical limitation such as processing power exists. Maybe Sony will tell us later.
Exact same engineers designed both cameras, so obviously there are technical reasons for PDAF and flash sync issues, probably something to do with read speed on the sensor (electronic first shutter curtain might not be working with slower sensor).
It’s not like the engineers are stupid and were just randomly adding and removing features, but most likely there were technical problems.
+1
How the Fuji X-series made me feel inadequate. http://is.gd/KzJ9e8
“I must have been in some gear-wanker denial stage – more in love with the perfect white-balance and skin tones that the X-trans sensor produced, than actually looking at what I was shooting. But slowly I realized – as I eagerly went back through the photos I had taken with these revolutionary new X cameras – that I sucked, truly sucked, at photography.” 🙂
more people should read that article. its relevant.
I`m just wondering about the benefits of a X200 FF comparing to the current X100s in terms of IQ and portability, since the current x100s is such a wonderful camera. The FF camera will be larger, heavier, and i have doubts if the IQ increment will compensate.
I see only two reasons for going full-frame:
High Resolution (as Sony 24MP and 36MP)
Shallower depth of field
The first one is a strong argument.
The second i reasonable for SLRs users who dont mind big lenses.
But in a mirrorless system size matters, and Sony is struggling in this point.
As a result the 35mm lens has only an f2.8 max aperture.
The Fuji 23mm f1.4, equalling a 35mm f2.1 creates a shallower depth of field!
Also i feel the 55mm f1.8 is too slow for the Zeiss high pricetag.
Yeah and the 23/1.4 is also 2 stops brighter, when it comes to low light, the IQ wouldn’t be much different and possibly better, it would be ISO 3200 against 12800.
But I don’t think that the 55/1.8 is slow and the Zeiss price tag is just the Zeiss price tag.
I do not need a FF camera. Just produce a 35mm f/0.95 and I will never ever use another lens and camera.
Voigtlander produces a 25mm f/0.95 for m43, which is equivalent to 50mm f/2.0 for only $999. A 35mm f/0.95 would be equivalent to 50mm f/1.6, which would be perfect for all situations. Anyone agree?
Sorry, would be equivalent to 50mm f/1.42 on a Fuji APS-C.
I don’t agree. and it doesn’t matter.
I doubt that Fuji would spend all this money and research and then pull the rug out on the current excellent lenses and bodies. Why go full frame when there is absolutely no need. These cameras are designed for journalism and documentary work, and there is more than enough quality here and the size is perfect. Portrait work (studio) and landscape may need 36 MP in which the new Sony A7r would fit the bill.
If Fuji goes full frame (other than fixed kens) I’m selling NOW!
Why would it effect you? They can have both APS-C and full frame. It provides another choice. But, really, who knows what they are planning…this is just a rumour site.
If you like what you have, why do you care? They are not going to drop the APS-C line, as many people prefer that for the smaller size.
Owning X-E1 last year (plus several DSLRs over last years) I was wondering if full frame would finally meet my pixel peeping needs. Purchasing X20 last week I found my self taking sh#t loads more pictures than ever.
Man… I have even printed some! Out of curiosity went to the same location shooting X-E1 and X20 side by side, printing A3 I see no obvious difference. If you need crazy shallow DOF there’s no discussion but for day to day shooting??? Why FF and big lenses?
Now I see that only point when I need X-E1 is landscape (with my beloved VC 12mm). Otherwise I would get rid of this and just keep X20. If they made 15-21mm equivalent wide zoom range compact I would be happy to ditch X-E1 and all the lenses.
That’s what I was worried about, that they would DROP the APS-C 😉 Thanks!
Why are people assuming that Fuji cannot offer a FF line-up in parallel to their APSC cameras? If they decide to offer a FF line in addition to their APSC line, then we should without logic assume that they are magically dropping the APSC cameras and sell all our APSC gear? Does their offering have to be exclusive? If someone chooses FF or APSC, why do we feel the need to make the case for our preference? If you need or want one or the other, make your choice and move along.
Exactly! Well said! People will get upset over anything…
+1
maybe they can offer FF line-up in parallel. but rather than focusing on one line-up they will now be focusing on two! that means slower development since they will be sharing resources.
Fuji have been concentrating on more than one line up for years. Their product range consist of more than just the X series of cameras and include lenses for a wide range of professional use, processing equipment as well as cheap compacts.
Yes, you are right. But by going FF they are more likely to get resources from X series team not from the other product range. Thus sacrificing development APS-C model. It will be slower from now on.
Its been two years since the release of X-series and still, no huge technological improvement since then.
I still say that APS users have no need to worry. FF & APS are not mutually exclusive. Progress in terms of sensor development and other areas usually benefits both.
If anyone is worried, just look at the way Fuji has treated its X customers over the last couple of years and compare it with Nikon for example.
People were up in arms not long ago about a rumoured new Fuji model reducing the value of their cameras. That camera never materialised, instead Fuji issued amazing updates for existing cameras and continues to do so.
People should stop worrying and look at just how good Fuji is as a company and how well it treats its customers.
If thats the case. This would make FF the flagship system. And APS-C as a lower alternative since their not mutually exclusive.
It would be sad to know that I just invested all my gear for a lower alternative, given that I paid for a premium price.
Ever notice when a new APS-C model camera is announced, forum whiners bemoan the lack of a full frame model? When the full frame model is announced, the same whiners declare their loyalty to APS-C and extol the virtues of modern APS-C IQ.
In fact, NOTHING creates more hub-bub in online forums than the Full Frame versus APS-C versus everything else debate. It will NEVER end.
Fueling the ongoing battle are experts with scientific equations and formulas that prove that the larger the sensor, the better the light processing ability for both daylight and low light shots. There are still thousands of online sites with photographers slinging DSLRs and vastly expensive, large aperture lenses for everything from landscape to portrait to video-only productions.
Then you have the debate within the debate — 36mp? 24mp? 20? 16? How many MP does a FF DSLR need to be considered “adequate” despite being full frame? No one has an answer for this. People whine about the file sizes of the 24mp and 36mp models, then make stupidly demeaning comments about the insufficiency of 12mp and 16mp models.
Sony just announced the A7 / A7R and all people on DPreview can do is cry about the lack of a full model lineup of fast primes and equally fast zooms at launch, despite the two adapters being released at the same time that will enable many other legacy lenses to be used — some with outstanding and unique effect. Price, features, size, weight, innovation — MEANINGLESS to forum whiners because Sony isn’t launching the cameras with 50 lenses to choose from.
There are over 1800 posts on DPR regarding the new Olympus OM-D E-M1 camera and its M4/3. Care to speculate on how many of those posts are bitchin and cryin about the camera not being APS-C, much less FF?
At the same time, we have a tidal wave of former DSLR pros, semi-pros and serious hobbyists that have, or are in process of, moving away from FF to APS-C and M4/3 MILC systems — NOT just because they’re smaller and less expensive, but because they are GOOD ENOUGH or sometimes BETTER than the older, bigger systems.
There is no denying this — it’s happening. Many forward-thinkers see the DSLR in the same light as the rotary telephone — on their way to becoming obsolete over the coming years. Then again, when you consider the SIZE of some of the newer models of MILC cameras coming on the market, there’s hardly a night and day difference between the DSLR.
What we CAN count on is manufacturers playing the “me too” game, and that includes Fuji. If indeed they decide to jump into the FF arena, it’ll be because Sony, Nikon, and who-knows-who-else will releases their own. Just look at the latest copy-catting going on with super-zooms — both Sony and Olympus releasing their own versions of the same type of camera within a couple weeks of each other.
I rented a D600 and 70-200 f2.8 combo from lensrentals.com last week and shot some boat races, portraits, nighttime, macro and landscape shots with it (and my legacy D-primes that I have, along with my lowly D80 DSLR). I can honestly say that the pictures the FF D600 produced — even with older Nikon prime lenses — was excellent. And there were a whole lot of crap shots too, just like any other camera / lens combo.
I bought the Fuji XE-1 and 18-55 and 55-200 and have rented the primes. Same thing — great images. Crap images when my technique is off. The XE-1 is easier to work with thanks to it’s styling, but the D600 is fast and confident. The XE-1 becomes part of me, the D600 something I’m carrying like luggage no matter what.
And let’s put the whole f1.2 DOF thing to bed too — how many photographs do any of us aspire to shoot where only the tip of someone’s nose in in focus, or one leg on a grasshopper, or one petal on a flower. As a professional photographer commented recently, “You’ll find yourself in trouble more often than not shooting full frame wide open.” Frankly, Fuji’s LMO technology for minimizing artifacts and especially diffraction at small apertures is FAR more useful for many types of photography than increasing the sensor size and investing tens of thousands of dollars in big, fast glass to be able to keep 1mm of something in focus and everything else in “creamy bokeh” — I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m sick of hearing about that. People viewing my photos or any other never go, “Wow! Look at the creamy bokeh and the lack of DOF! You must have shot this with a full-frame sensor! Can you blow it up 200x so I can pixel peep? Wow!”
Let’s dispense with the full frame versus anything else nonsense. If it’s what you want, something you can’t live without, no sense in going on if you don’t have it — then by all means go buy a full frame DSLR or whatever FF MILC you can get your hands on now. But enough with the fight. If Fuji makes a full frame camera in 2014 or 2015 or whenever, we can count on it being poo-poo’d by more people than applaud it, despite how stupid that is.
People just want what they can’t have. Once they have what they think they want, they want something else. Jesse James comes to mind….
mi mi mi
I have to comment on these ridiculous hysterical posts, mostly by the anti full frame brigade.
I haven’t seen any whining about a lack of full frame, just people saying how good it would be, but a lot of whining about people who dare even mention the words “full frame”. Do you guys even know the meaning of the word “bokeh”?
Here are the facts: APS and 35mm full frame are two different formats, in the same way that 6×4.5 and 35mm film are two different formats. They are not mutually exclusive, one just has a bigger sensor than the other. The existence of one doesn’t affect the other. Each to their own. Each different format is useful and preferable to different users.
There are full frame cameras which are no bigger or heavier than an X1 Pro. Some of us would love a full frame X Pro. I am a full time wedding photographer and would dearly love one. I frankly doubt that it will happen because of the need for a whole new range of lenses. That’s fine – I’m not whining, just saying that I’d love one.
Personally I greatly prefer full frame 35mm to a smaller format for my work, but that’s the way I work, but I don’t say anything against those who prefer APS. Why should anyone rubbish my work just because I say that? You’ve never even seen my work.
Calking – this is an absolutely brilliant post. Well done. I agree with you 100%. It would be great if this post of yours gets wide distribution at DPReview. You really should post it there too.
BTW, I am heavily invested in both Oly/Pany and Fuji system cameras, and have no intention of getting wrapped up in this FF nonsense. I can even do great landscape shots with my existing cameras. I also hate creamy bokeh. And, for the type of photography I do, I need that extended DOF.
“And let’s put the whole f1.2 DOF thing to bed too — how many photographs do any of us aspire to shoot where only the tip of someone’s nose in in focus, or one leg on a grasshopper, or one petal on a flower.”
I do. The ability to remove distracting background and isolate my subject is a good addition.
I do not. With my type of photography I require extended DOF.
You might as heard of stopping down. Going FF can cover both our photography.
@ Fred
I don’t think you get my post. But check out what “Chris” writes below. It’s very appropriate.
Patrick: You should be pleased with the level of interaction taking place behind these posts. Fuji has indeed tapped a nerve.
Why do many people in here say FF camera will be big in size and weight? Please compare a fujifilm X pro 1, Xe1, X100 to Sony RX1 in term of size and weight. Fujifilm can produce a small FF camera and I’m waiting for it, a Full frame compact 35mm f/2 with better AF speed, lens rear focus, weather seal camera.
People refer to the lenses not the camera body when it comes to size and weight. And it’s true, the larger the sensor/film area the larger the lens must be to properly illuminate it.
Neil,
And yes I agree that Fullframe size sensor will require more space which enlarge the camera size.
But
Please, what I mean is Sony can make a small full frame compact which is definitely smaller than the x100, XE1, XP1. Leica has some FF camera which is quite small compared to DSLR and small lenses too, some of them use 49mm thread size which is not big at all.
Please refer to this image:
http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x100s/images/comparedtox100sfront-001.jpg?v=2562
http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x100s/images/comparedtox100stop-001.jpg?v=2562
Source: DP Review fujifilm X100s review, Page 2 specs.
I’m not here to argue about APSC or FF. It’s personal choice.
Sensors improve, so, size matters, but technology matters too.
On the other hand, there are so many beautiful FF lenses from the past that can be used in a modern digital FF camera with their original angle.
The X-Pro1 has opened a new field in the industry and going FF will be just a natural step of evolution, without reducing the value of the existing X series.
Agree 100%. There is so much drama and hyperbole around this subject.
Fuji have really tapped into something special in the last few years and could have a great line up covering a lot of peoples needs in another couple.
They’ve shown they aren’t daft and they’ve supported their existing products very well. The future looks good for them and us.
APSC has big advantages and I’m sure they’ll continue to add value to the system. Add to that the prospect of a mix of new excellent Fuji glass and quality old manual lenses on a 35mm X-Pro 2 body – could be a very satisfying combo to work with.
Choice can be a challenge and budgets are an issue for everyone – but really, what’s all the fuss about!?
Sony already shows that FF doesn’t means big. And FF’s IQ generally better, just like APS-C is better than the M4/3. For Fuji to compete with Sony, it is quite reasonable to make such move.
I think I will stay with APS-C and still looking forward to the 10-24 lens. That’s because I do have a FF D700, and don’t see much difference between smaller APS-C, and I don’t want more pixels due to storage size and speed. I moved from Canon 20D/40D to D700, and lost, at that time, EFS 10-22. That was a wonderful Canon lens, and I never really have a ultra wide since. I think the Fuji 10-24 will be my main lens on X body, and a 2nd body with the 55-200. If I need FF, I just pick up the D700. I haven’t sold any Nikon gear yet.
I really like Fuji as a company. The way they upgrade the old models, the way they communicate with me personally. I am happy to hear they will get a FF too.
The EF-S 10-22mm works well on Fuji X-Series cameras via an adapter…
Fuji has been a great company to buy photographic stuff from. I love their products and how they keep improving things. But they are a business, and where there’s a market and money to be made, a business is going to explore that. It’s entirely possible that a full frame line will bring in additional revenues so as not to hurt development of the crop line.
And I love my Fuji X100s and XE-1 far more than I ever did my Canon 5D3. I also make more pictures. My Fujis don’t become obsolete because there is another option. And anyone who considers any of their gear as an investment should reconsider their priorities. For pros they might be considered tools. For me it’s the means by which I explore and create and have a good time. Either way, it’s the price of admission. If one should sell gear, one should expect that the value will decline over time. I had thousands of dollars invested in Canon when I made the switch, and tried to maximize what the return was for the lenses, but I made the purchase for the joy of photography, not for minimizing financial loss upon sale.
And personally, coming from a full frame camera, I have to say that the larger sensor in no way made me a better photographer. I would imagine most people are limited my their skill and vision, and not the size of the sensor they are using.
Apsc and full frame are 2 different markets. Just go for it, Fuji.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-full-frame-debate.html
*runaway*
A XPRO2 with FF makes no sense as Fuji has developed a new sensor together with Panasonic, which gives more pixel (higher resolution) and and the pixels will be more light sensitive as before. Further there will be no need for Fuji to develope new glass too.
Anyone knows if x-series lenses will be compatible with Fuji next generation FF compact cameras?
Dear all,
I here are some thoughts about this full frame-APS-C debate.
I think that lens size is proportional to sensor size. A mirrorless body has a series of advantages over a DSLR : no mirror, no pentaprism mean less weight, volume, vibrations. A mirrorless body is and will always be smaller than a DLSR. But when it come to lenses, no such reduction in weight and volume. And why would that be ? Only sensor’s size drives the size and weight of lenses, as examplified by the Sony a7 : the body is indeed remarkably small, but when it comes to lenses, there is barely any difference with DSLR. Any lens above 35 mm is bulky, not speaking of zooms (note that Zeiss slow it down to stop 4.0 to limit its weigth).
Therefore I strongly belive that when it comes to create an unobstrusive camera, you need to use a mirroless body AND an APS-C sensor BECAUSE it will allow you to design smaller lenses (compared to full frame). Fuji may in the future make a X-camera full frame system with interchangeable lenses, and it may sell, but not to photographers that want an unobstrusive system. That is why I think that the fuji X-system will stabily stay on APS-C sensor.
The only exception is with the 35 mm focal length. As examplified by the Sony RX1, this (rather short) focal can fit with a full frame without gaining too much weight and volume. I think therefore reasonable to believe in the release of full frame X200. But any hight focal lenght will unbalance the unobstructiveness of the rangefinder.
If they make a fixed 35mm FF camera it would be cool if they made a fixed 85mm FF camera too. They would sell so, so many of those as you could do mostly everything with those two bodies.