True, but panasonic doesn’t have a very elegant way to go from touch AF/Fire then back to center point AF because it saves where you touched to focus/fire. I often switch between the touchscreen and EVF on my Oly when moving in and out of different light. For Oly, as long as you had set a focus point, that will be your default focus point even after you do a touch focus/fire shot on a different focus point.
Never used Panasonic in my life so no info on my side what they have or don’t . Friend of mine is OLY shooter so my info is based on my exrerience with his EM-10
A touch screen that is seamless integrated like the one in the Leica T and a similar option menu would bea great. Don’t need an articulated screen. But if its nicely integrated, I would go with it. Could be useful.
If they implement something like Panasonic’s Touchpad AF, sure, that’d be useful. Maybe also nice to have for browsing in playback, so long as it works as smooth as an iPhone, and not a janky unresponsive mess.
My fellow Fuji users are amongst the most egocentric of all brand loyalists. So many people don’t want video simply because they don’t use it, others don’t want a flippy screen because they don’t use it, others don’t want a touch screen…
Guys and girls, there are no reasons NOT to have these features, if you don’t want a screen that flips out, don’t flip out the screen; easy solution.
If you don’t need video, just use the camera for stills. Easy solution.
If you expect Fuji to make a featureless camera to your own specific requirements, it will sell 50 copies, it won’t be supported by third party lens & accessory manufacturers, and you won’t see the Fuji line grow.
Modern camera’s are all so close in final image quality that features become the deciding factor for most regular consumers – many people choosing between m43 and Fuji go for m43 because they are better at everything else apart from IQ – and to many that is enough to buy an Olympus or Panasonic.
I don’t use video, but that’s because it stinks. Video is one of the biggest reasons given to M43 and DSLR users give when deciding not to switch; it is important to Fuji that they attract this segment of the market of they want to remain sustainable.
The same goes for flippy screens, touch controls and wifi – all extras that polorise opinion as to worthiness but to many those features are the difference between adopting Fuji and buying something else.
Wifi to most is a massive waste of time – but to someone like me who shoots product for a living, being able to take an iPad over to my lights and adjust them whilst seeing exactly how it affects the photo in real time is a friggin time saver. It’s a simple feature with complex benefits.
If you want to be hipster and have a analogue camera void of all modern features get a film camera, because waiting for Fuji to produce a featureless stills camera aint ever gonna happen.
perhaps without an lcd.
perhaps only over smartphone/wifi.
i never use the lcd, cause all things i have to switch i use
the hybrid. its a lot faster then taking the cam from eye – look on lcd – again on eye…especially with my old eyes (44y) :-))).
no lcd means – smaller, lighter, more robust, more battery life (for those who use it), and perhaps cheaper…
It is; I just got another d750 kit after returning the previous one bc of bad 24-120 lens and there is a significant difference. Admittedly, for fun and family pics I prefer the XT1 because of the lcd screen and size/weight but anything beyond kids playing would be too fast for fuji, even with the firmware and updated tracking AF.
Also, and I know I’ll get flamed for this, the XT1 just feels more like a nostalgic novelty rather than a heavy duty camera. That’s how it feels for me but I know that lots of pros have switched completely. It doesn’t help that I’m not of the knobs and ISO dials generation and actually prefer function buttons and front/rear wheels. The poor astrophotography performance made me switch back to both bodies but that’s for my needs and I know that peoples’ mileage and experiences will vary.
I am sorry for your bad 24-120. Mine is working like a charm out of the box. BTW, what problems you have? I just got it and haven’t tested it thoroughly yet.
Problem with X-T1 is only limited to 1)unable to capture fast movement and 2) poor low light performance. Matters or not really depends on your task. For daily use, it’s definitely a great idea to buy a camera you enjoy using.
the lens was soft at all lengths except for 85mm, fine tune didn’t help (a function the new fuji needs). The new one is much better. Even though it’s a little soft at midrange, it’s very sharp at 24 and at 120, which is where I use it most. Now I’m trying to decide between the tamron or the sigma C 150-600.
Thanks for the input.
6 months ago I was in a motocross accident that left me quadriplegic and as I have no use of my hands a touch screen would be brilliant for me. I’m a fuji shooter and I’m heavily invested in my x-t1 kit, but recently to continue with my photography I had to sell my x-t1 to buy an Olympus OMD em1 because of its touch shutter and focus I can use my pinky knuckle to take pictures. i’m still holding on to some of my lenses hoping that the X Pro 2 will have a touch screen as I love my gear and would love to continue shooting with it. Obviously there are not many quadriplegic photographers out there but I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one that found this convenient and I’m sincerely hoping that I’ll be able to go back to my Fuji set up when the X Pro 2 is announced.
I was about to write the same. The worst argument of these guys is that the R&D time and money should be used somewhere else. Really? Gimme a break. These are the same people that some years ago were probably saying “digital is crap, film is the best, that’s what true photography is about” and now they are using it anyway. The problem with that kind of thinking is that there are several possibilities for aplications related to these “new tech” that some people can take advantage of, like you said yourself about Wi Fi. And these ignorants dare to call “gimmicks” just because they are incapable of taking advantage of it, tech should march forward, period. “If you don’t want it, don’t use it” is the simplest solution but some people can’t even understand that. That way of thinking is something I will ever be able to understand and it’s so absurd and inconceivable that it becomes hard to even start arguing because it’s simply stating the obvious.
Yes, a touchscreen for touch autofocus.
But leave a way for the camera to be fully useable without the touchscreen, with a menu to disable it for people who don’t want it. Then everybody can be happy, no need to fight about a technology that has become so trivial on every device nowadays 🙂
Only if it has GH4 style 4k video. This means professional quality video controls, v-log and connections. In that case it should be fully articulated and touch. If not the same one as the XT1 will do just fine without touch.
“…Guys and girls, there are no reasons NOT to have these features, if you don’t want a screen that flips out, don’t flip out the screen; easy solution.
If you don’t need video, just use the camera for stills. Easy solution.”
I’ve been reading this line of logic for as long as there have been internet forums. Let me explain the alternative.
I don’t want a flippy screen because it a) adds complexity b) adds cost c) reduces bodyshell rigidity and integrity d) adds unwelcome bulk. I have a flippy screen on my X-T1 and it is neatly taped down so that it doesn’t catch on anything. If it was offered as a delete option I would change it in the blink of an eye.
I don’t want video because it a) adds software and firmware complexity b) adds cost. I prefer my camera to do one thing very well rather than two things ok.
I don’t want a touchscreen because a) direct controls can be adjusted by feel and assessed at a glance b) It’s far easier to review images without a welter of fingerprints all over the screen c) it adds cost d) it adds complexity.
In short, I don’t want to pay for things I neither want nor will use, and that compromise the form and function of the camera. I do want to have the right tool for the job.
How would you like it if the next time you went into a restaurant they brought an extra meal to your table? When you complain to the waiter they respond by saying “If you don’t want it, don’t eat it.” Then leave it on the table and charge you for it?
I don’t carve the Sunday joint with a Swiss Army knife. I use a carving knife because it is designed for that job and as a result it delivers a better result. I could use a Swiss Army knife – it would do the job, in the same way as it can do many other jobs, but it is a compromise and won’t deliver as neat an end result as the dedicated tool.
See? Convergence is not always the optimum answer.
Lot of big words and claims about logic, but what are you basing yourself off? We have been hearing about the oh-so-fragile flippy LCDs since they appeared, but where are all those broken ones?
a) adds complexity? And that results in what precisely?
b) adds cost? A hinge and some plastic? The actual LCD probably costs them less than 10 bucks.
c) reduces bodyshell rigidity and integrity? There you go with the big words. Where is the empirical evidence? It’s been more than 10 years after all, there should be some examples.
d) adds bulk? It would add bulk to a small camera, not huge bodies like the Fuji ones.
Your video argument is even worse.
a) adds software and firmware complexity? Are you kidding now? How precisely does that affect anyone?
b) adds cost? You mean, to pay one guy to write some code occasionally, spread over thousands of cameras and lenses?
c) “I prefer my camera to do one thing very well rather than two things ok.” Me too, but having video does not affect stills at all.
Touchscreen.
a, b) would be relevant only if Fuji sacrifices current controls for touchscreen ones.
c,d) same nonsense as above
You are speaking about some theoretical compromise that is simply a non-issue in the real world. Features like video, which is pretty much useless on a Fuji, are included precisely because they are dirt cheap to implement and then can decorate the spec sheet. And finally, as to your really bad restaurant example, it would be more like the chef adding some red pepper on top of your meal and “charging” you for it. It is your logic that fails, simply based on reality. So, yes, if you don’t need it, don’t use it.
Oh dear. You’re really invested in this, aren’t you? “big words and claims about logic” – really? I have offered an alternative viewpoint, without pissing on anybody.
Tell you what – IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN DON’T READ IT. There – that’s your logic applied to this scenario…
Seriously, now – do you honestly have no understanding of how much things cost – you do realise that low cost is not the same as no cost? That pennies make a difference in FMCG?
Do you really have no idea of how software and firmware actually work? “pay one guy to write some code occasionally” – really? Do you have the slightest idea of how coding and testing and upgrading is actually undertaken? I suspect you would be the first to scream from the rooftops if a bug – sorry, “undocumented feature” – was introduced because of your “guy”…
I don’t know what “real world” you inhabit, but I’m genuinely glad it isn’t mine.
Bill, I think you’re being a little defensive over someone offering a counterpoint to your arguments. Your logic falls short for me too. It relies on false analogies and questionable assumptions. There are certain lines of argument that almost never pass the smell test for me…comparing someone to Hitler, saying “it’s a matter of simple physics” when you’re not a physist, and talking about how much extra cost video capabilities add to a DSLR that you’re not in charge of designing. Low cost vs no cost is a distinction without a difference in this case.
Looking at your answer, I am certainly less invested than you are. I am also not pissing on anybody, I said that your logic is weak and then explained why. You, on the other hand, did that the second someone challenged you.
I’ll let t_linn’s comment speak for me.
Your analogy of a swiss army knife is senseless; the X-T1 has video, it has a LCD, it has a flippy screen; yet these additions do not make it any less capable of taking photos – as that is it’s primary role as a tool, unlike a swiss army knife which is not designed to carve a Sunday joint.
Your analogy of food is wrong also. If you see a Sunday dinner on the menu for £20 with turkey, peas, carrots and gravy you don’t get to pick and choose what you add or remove and hope for a reduction in cost.
You make a call as to whether what’s offered is attractive to you based on your needs, taste and budget.
It seems given the list of things you find complex and expensive that Fuji is not a good manufacturer for you – and that’s fine. Your points are valid, what you need is a non-complex and cheap camera; and there are plenty of options for you.
Touchscreen and Focusing…
I need some heavy “Nose reduction” for that. Does the X-Pro2 come with it?
To be honest:
touchscreen for menues and focusing in “live view” -cool (a gimmick, but a cool one).
touchscreen for focusing while using the view finder? No go! But I would like to see a different way to set the focus point (personally I like the Canon Joystick). Another small touch sensitiv panel (right size and right location!!!!) would be awesome!
Exactly, 100% agree. Maybe they could use the touch screen in combination with the eye sensor. When using the view finder, the touch screen should be disabled, as the screen is shut off anyway.
as TomDiTom stated, after your post, arguing against even an LCD screen: “no lcd means – smaller, lighter, more robust, more battery life (for those who use it), and perhaps cheaper…”
I think that is a great example of how leaving out some of these features is actually beneficial, even if no LCD is a little extreme. The result is a more concise, efficient tool that isn’t cluttered with gimmicks. That is why people choose Fuji over M43.
I think flippy screens are definitely bulkier, which i think would be a valid reason for not wanting one.
I’d love a rotating screen though, that you can turn backwards so it would be like not having one unless needed or using just to protect the screen in your bag.
i know i shouldn’t use the word “gimmick”. I have so many reasons for loving Fuji but what it comes down to is direct manual controls which other cameras just don’t have. It’s too bad the comments always degrade to this
So… other manufacturers didn’t build ‘direct manual controls’ into their cameras? How is it that M43 users can select shutter speeds, or aperture sizes? or ISO? Ditto Leica, and Nikon, Canon, and Sony users?
Once you’ve figured out that every maker has direct, manual controls, why don’t you take one further step and compare:
How long it takes to change ISO, aperture, and shutter speed across all camera lines, all manufacturers, tally the number, then explain how one control set, or another, is better; and explain where each is worse.
I assure you there are benefits to every design. Sony cameras are faster than Nikon at selecting ISO, and both are faster than Fujifilm, though Nikon and Fujifilm nearly require you to remove your eye from the scene (not that that matters, as Fujifilm users, we are more mature and prefer to slow down and think, right?).
Shutter speed: not a single Fujifilm camera allows you to to dial in precise numbers on the lovely ‘manual’ exposure wheel. Fine tuning requires a secondary dial. Finally with the X100T did the aperture follow suit on that camera.
Then we have aperture-less lenses… what do you do then?
It has nothing to do with manual controls and everything to do with a style or interface layer that each of us like. The sooner we admit that controls on the lens or on labelled dials do not matter except for looks, and or nostalgia, the better.
Not that there is anything wrong with either. I purchased the X-Pro 1 for its looks. The X-T1 looked good on paper, but I find it hideous in comparison to the simpler X-T10. That is a personal opinion. And so is the stick-with-manual control schtick that is one of the cornerstones to Fujifilm fanboydom… despite those same control schemes being reversed at many corners by Fujifilm’s own lenses, bodies, and design exceptions that don’t go far enough in one direction or another.
Well said OHM – I feel a lot of the reason people really don’t want this stuff is because secretly they like having something that (appears) to be a basic, old school analogue camera, as if somehow not having modern features will make them purists and everyone will go whaaaaaaa how cool they must be to not use their flippy screen or video.
But in reality it just makes them hipsters who secretly love the advantage of digital and whom dare not shoot film when the urge to be hip grabs them.
Let’s be honest – the Fuji’s look cool (at least until the X-T1 imho) and that attracts a lot of people, but selling to hipsters is just a small piece of the pie, and if they want to sell to the wider photographic community and attract professional users they are going to have to add similar features to their competition.
I think flippy screens are for X-T1 and the others. Let the PRO stay clean and simple but with the best sensor and fastest processor. Touch screen is OK for navigation in menus, just don’t take away any direct manual controls.
I completely agree with the idea of being able to reverse the LCD screen for protection. I wish it was fully articulating for those low, portrait-oriented shots. The current design does not accommodate that scenario.
I disagree with your assertion that people choose Fuji over M43 for the sake of simplicity. For me it was strictly an image quality decision. If M43 had similar image quality I would probably be in their camp given the amazingly small size of some of their lenses.
I’d say add as many features as possible to the x-pro2, then release a toned down xe-3 for those that dont want all the features… The flagship camera should include everything and not hold back
Development costs money. Fuji could, conceivably, release the x-pro2 with 4G LTE support across the major networks, shove android into it and release the x-pro2 phone.
There are two branches here:
Shove as many features as you can and make a device that can’t do anything right.
Focus on a few select features and make a device that performs well in the situations you most want it to.
The X-Pro2 phone may sound cool, but that feature only attracts a small part of the market and really stretches the idea of a camera phone.
Realize also that any feature included will be viciously attacked in reviews should it not be as good as x-brand even if the feature isn’t the main point.
“In short, the X-Pro2 Phone is bulky, expensive, doesn’t have a rear facing camera for videochat and doesn’t have much better megapixels than current-era phones.”
A level of quality gets implied when a feature is added and failing to meet that quality makes more people upset than simply not having the feature.
No thanks – I prefer not to review my pics thru a film of oils, fingerprints, etc. That’s one of the reasons I like the XE-2/XPro-1 rangefinder styling over XT-1 – keeps the nose prints off the lcd
I understand your arguments and many features you mention I agree with you. For example: Even if I don’t use my current Fuji for videos (that’s mainly because I am not into videos at all), I do agree that Fuji should deliver a state of the art video solution.
But this specific poll is just about a single feature: Touch screen.
And here, you need to understand that it really depends on the implementation of the touch function, if this is a good thing or not. One of the best features of the Fuji X-Pro is the hybrid view finder. I mostly use the view finder (also the electronic one) and therefore a touch screen for focusing is not very useful here.
Also, when working with a short depth of field, it is critical to set the focus point very accurate. While a touch screen might work for this on a tripod, it will most likely fail without a tripod, because when you hold the camera in one hand and try to set the focus point on the touch screen with the other hand, the camera will automatically shake when tapping on the back of the camera. And you have not pressed the shutter release button yet…
A joystick like control would be the better solution for this use case.
But, I totally agree, that a touch screen for zooming and scrolling to review photos would be awesome. Finally, if Fuji would be able to revolutionize the camera menu and make it smartphone like easy and touch friendly, a touch screen would make totally sense here as well.
I’d love touchscreen focusing combined with the option to turn it off when using the viewfinder. All you lucky right-eyed shooters wouldn’t even have to worry about the “nose problem” with a rangefinder body.
I asked for the option because I have seen some photographers propose looking through the EVF while basically using the LCD screen as a touchpad to move the focus point. Particularly with a rangefinder this seems like it has the potential to be useful. If the eye sensor turned off the touchscreen functionality automatically it would eliminate this possibility.
Hear! Hear! Well written, hamster. Wifi…a Godsend. Flip out screen…transformed the way I shoot in many scenarios. Why people would eliminate means to expand creative expression is beyond me. Touch focus, FWIW, really comes into its own with video. (Of course, I realize that is not going to be a persuasive argument among a vocal contingent here. 🙂
That’s the one thing I miss since switching to Fuji. The GX7 touchscreen was tops. Look through the viewfinder and move your focus point with your thumb. Not to mention the Q menu would be quicker to use.
Then Panasonic must have different design principles than Olympus. I use the touch screen on my OM-D, but can’t think of any function that requires it.
You people voting against touchscreen are missing the huge potential this has for usability. Most of you are thinking about shooting but that is not the greatest benefit. Yes, choosing the AF point would be one useful feature for touch but there would be a better solution to that that doesn’t require weird hand position or taking your eye away from the viewfinder.
The real potential benefit would be in the menu, playback and in-camera RAW processing, which most of us do on the LCD anyway. Think of this:
– Tapping a menu item instead of pressing arrow keys four times. Same goes for the Q menu when shooting with the LCD.
– Double tapping during image review to check focus or pan around after zooming in. This is especially useful when you had to focus-recompose due to need for speed. The current solution of zooming in and panning with arrow buttons is extremely slow!
– In-camera processing with the Fujis is great, but it would move to a whole new level if a touchscreen was combined with a live preview of the changes. Imagine the options (exposure, shadows, highlights, film simulation) in a vertical bar to the left of the image tapped with your left thumb. The items (film simulation, WB) or slider (exposure, shadows, highlights) appear to the right of the image in another vertical bar which you operate with your right thumb.
There is much to gain but of course there are two conditions:
1: Touch control doesn’t replace any hardware controls.
2: The touch screen can be turned off either completely or only in shooting mode (but having it on during image review / menu browsing). Meaning both options are available.
You’re just advocating gross motor usage over fine motor usage. These cameras are designed to keep your thumb close to the controls. Touch screen usage will have your off hand using the device and making broader motions than your fingers before returning under the lens. In short, time savings isn’t going to be major.
BUT, UI expectations in touchscreen devices are significantly different from UI expectations in physical key devices.
Old keypad cellphones were expected to have large amounts of shortcutting, even if you didn’t know it was there. By pressing numeric sequences you could skip through numerous menus without taking a glance at the device.
Touch screen devices oppose such speed and efficiency. These focus on the FEEL of using the device and get called “90’s tech” if they don’t meet the entertainment portion of using the device. Adding in screen transitions, for instance, cause notable delays if you’re just keying in a series of keypresses you know will lead to the result you desire.
The point I’m trying to make is that you cannot design a UI for one mode of input without damaging the operation of another. The “Touch screen side buttons” that webpages use look absurd on a real computer, but redesigning the site for multiple platforms instead of using “one size fits our target market” costs more money than they would gain otherwise.
“The point I’m trying to make is that you cannot design a UI for one mode of input without damaging the operation of another.”
I know where you’re coming from but that is not universally true. A good button-GUI will usually be a good touch-GUI simply because a good GUI doesn’t cram tons of things on the screen, making each item much smaller. Let’s take the Q-Menu as an example: nothing would need to be changed for it to work great for touch input, except for showing the possible options when touching an item. On the other hand the Q-Menu with its current button-implementation is anything but intuitive. Changing it to a “classic” touch-GUI (meaning you see all possible options) would make it a lot easier to use. Same goes for the “normal” menu. Hardly any need to change something, just add touch.
Concerning your point of it not saving much time: try it. I would of course not use my left hand to navigate the menu because a) most people are right-handed and touch more precisely and faster with that hand and b) the left hand is supposed to support the weight of the camera. Using the right hand hardly changes the hand position and my hand is easily back in place by the time I’ve raised the camera to my eye.
And if you were talking about two-handed usage I would not use that in a shooting situation where speed is important. But in-camera RAW conversion is not about speed so two-handed operation nothing to be afraid of.
And no, I’m also not a fan of screen transitions. But I think you could very well build a touch interface without them and nobody would complain.
Like I have said a good touch implementation would not harm the button control in any way and it surely should not replace any buttons/dials. If you can’t think of an interface that combines both strengths without compromising the experience, you’ll just have to think harder 😉
People might not want some features because they could add to the overall cost, get in your way of using the camera (think accidental “nose navigation” on touch screen), increase camera size, make the body more fragile, make button layout clunkier, drain on the battery, etc. These are all valid concerns IMO.
Would prefer the hardest scratch resistant lcd panel available, if that means no touch screen, that’s fine, but should be 3:2 not 4:3 ratio…also a high-eyepoint EVF.
The reason I voted no is because of power consumption and I’m not expecting the X-Pro2 to make a dramatic jump in battery life. If Fuji decided to add it then just allow a user to turn it off.
Good point. I tend to think that these features won’t hurt (I’m actually rather indifferent about the addition of a touch screen), but didn’t realize that they may drain the battery (which, as we know, is already quite weak).
The battery drain through a touch screen is ridiculously small. I bet you wouldn’t notice the difference. And obviously you could turn it off so that really isn’t an issue.
The only negative would be higher parts and programming costs. But I’d gladly pay that small extra for the great potential it has (see my post below).
I just read some of your comments and some of them made me smile. 🙂 One thing is for sure : It’s fun & useful to participate in all those polls. Another thing, the most important one : I don’t know of any other digital camera company who does design and build its products according to our desires, advices, experience. And if Fujifilm reads this blog – I think we are on the right track.
Oh Hamster… How narrow-minded that you equate a lack of complexity with low price. Today, Fuji provides a good balance between features and functions, allied to good glass and a sensible attitude to firmware upgrades. They don’t put in features just because they can. If I wanted a Playstation or Smartphone UI, I would go for Sony or Samsung. If I wanted every bell and whistle going, I would use Panasonic. Fuji fits the bill, by offering cameras that do the job without getting in the way. Thank you very much for your concern, but it is misplaced.
There are two directions Fujifilm can look to conceive the X-Pro2 – one is of course Sony A, the overly-feature-and-option-rich-providing-about-everything-ever-encountered in the universe of electronic cameras, the other is Leica M, providing a sober, optical RF-instrument to make pictures. I prefer the last one with just a little bit of the first one. What the X-Pro2 needs is a better AF, a new era sensor and a kind of revised X-T1-alike firmware. That should do it. Personally, they can even leave the back LCD away – it would make the camera even less obstrusive ;-). If there has to be one wel indeed I hope they provide it with the ‘gorilla glass’ kind of protection.
Wow, I’m a bit astonished how many people don’t want a touch screen. I think it’s a great addition, especially for focussing and the fuji quick menu is very suitable for a touch screen. It would be great for unnoticed photographie.
I also love these function to look through the EVF and change the af point with your finger of the panasonic cameras. Thats quick and handy.
92 Responses
I voted yes, but if it wouldn’t be on it then its no dealbreaker either.
I’ll think its a nice to have feature as long as it can be turned off.
Agreed. As long as it is articulated.
Articulated touch screen with focus, chande the focus point and focus+ shoot option like Olimpus
Actually Panasonic has that feat for quite a while, way longer than Olympus.
True, but panasonic doesn’t have a very elegant way to go from touch AF/Fire then back to center point AF because it saves where you touched to focus/fire. I often switch between the touchscreen and EVF on my Oly when moving in and out of different light. For Oly, as long as you had set a focus point, that will be your default focus point even after you do a touch focus/fire shot on a different focus point.
Never used Panasonic in my life so no info on my side what they have or don’t . Friend of mine is OLY shooter so my info is based on my exrerience with his EM-10
No, please not. Or at least have a switch to disable the touch screen function
A touch screen that is seamless integrated like the one in the Leica T and a similar option menu would bea great. Don’t need an articulated screen. But if its nicely integrated, I would go with it. Could be useful.
NOOOOO!!
No need for touch screen, I had it in my Olympus, first is was fun and “cool” , but when I bought my Fuji, didnt miss touchscreen at all
If they implement something like Panasonic’s Touchpad AF, sure, that’d be useful. Maybe also nice to have for browsing in playback, so long as it works as smooth as an iPhone, and not a janky unresponsive mess.
My fellow Fuji users are amongst the most egocentric of all brand loyalists. So many people don’t want video simply because they don’t use it, others don’t want a flippy screen because they don’t use it, others don’t want a touch screen…
Guys and girls, there are no reasons NOT to have these features, if you don’t want a screen that flips out, don’t flip out the screen; easy solution.
If you don’t need video, just use the camera for stills. Easy solution.
If you expect Fuji to make a featureless camera to your own specific requirements, it will sell 50 copies, it won’t be supported by third party lens & accessory manufacturers, and you won’t see the Fuji line grow.
Modern camera’s are all so close in final image quality that features become the deciding factor for most regular consumers – many people choosing between m43 and Fuji go for m43 because they are better at everything else apart from IQ – and to many that is enough to buy an Olympus or Panasonic.
I don’t use video, but that’s because it stinks. Video is one of the biggest reasons given to M43 and DSLR users give when deciding not to switch; it is important to Fuji that they attract this segment of the market of they want to remain sustainable.
The same goes for flippy screens, touch controls and wifi – all extras that polorise opinion as to worthiness but to many those features are the difference between adopting Fuji and buying something else.
Wifi to most is a massive waste of time – but to someone like me who shoots product for a living, being able to take an iPad over to my lights and adjust them whilst seeing exactly how it affects the photo in real time is a friggin time saver. It’s a simple feature with complex benefits.
If you want to be hipster and have a analogue camera void of all modern features get a film camera, because waiting for Fuji to produce a featureless stills camera aint ever gonna happen.
Why wouldn’t anyone want this? Very useful on Olympus cameras
perhaps….
perhaps without an lcd.
perhaps only over smartphone/wifi.
i never use the lcd, cause all things i have to switch i use
the hybrid. its a lot faster then taking the cam from eye – look on lcd – again on eye…especially with my old eyes (44y) :-))).
no lcd means – smaller, lighter, more robust, more battery life (for those who use it), and perhaps cheaper…
perhaps…
perhaps…make a poll
thank your for your great work patrick
It will also means less sales. Less sales = less return. Less return = less money for Fujifilm to invest in r&d + future development.
Keep the LCD 🙂
– smaller, lighter, more robust, more battery life – marginally on all counts
you already can have more battery life by switching off EVF and display.
If the AF isn’t up to par then No on the touch screen as well. Make a statement by staying behind the curve. It worked for Leica…until it didn’t.
I also feel that shutter lag is still noticeable when compared with dslr.
It is; I just got another d750 kit after returning the previous one bc of bad 24-120 lens and there is a significant difference. Admittedly, for fun and family pics I prefer the XT1 because of the lcd screen and size/weight but anything beyond kids playing would be too fast for fuji, even with the firmware and updated tracking AF.
Also, and I know I’ll get flamed for this, the XT1 just feels more like a nostalgic novelty rather than a heavy duty camera. That’s how it feels for me but I know that lots of pros have switched completely. It doesn’t help that I’m not of the knobs and ISO dials generation and actually prefer function buttons and front/rear wheels. The poor astrophotography performance made me switch back to both bodies but that’s for my needs and I know that peoples’ mileage and experiences will vary.
I am sorry for your bad 24-120. Mine is working like a charm out of the box. BTW, what problems you have? I just got it and haven’t tested it thoroughly yet.
Problem with X-T1 is only limited to 1)unable to capture fast movement and 2) poor low light performance. Matters or not really depends on your task. For daily use, it’s definitely a great idea to buy a camera you enjoy using.
the lens was soft at all lengths except for 85mm, fine tune didn’t help (a function the new fuji needs). The new one is much better. Even though it’s a little soft at midrange, it’s very sharp at 24 and at 120, which is where I use it most. Now I’m trying to decide between the tamron or the sigma C 150-600.
Thanks for the input.
6 months ago I was in a motocross accident that left me quadriplegic and as I have no use of my hands a touch screen would be brilliant for me. I’m a fuji shooter and I’m heavily invested in my x-t1 kit, but recently to continue with my photography I had to sell my x-t1 to buy an Olympus OMD em1 because of its touch shutter and focus I can use my pinky knuckle to take pictures. i’m still holding on to some of my lenses hoping that the X Pro 2 will have a touch screen as I love my gear and would love to continue shooting with it. Obviously there are not many quadriplegic photographers out there but I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one that found this convenient and I’m sincerely hoping that I’ll be able to go back to my Fuji set up when the X Pro 2 is announced.
I was about to write the same. The worst argument of these guys is that the R&D time and money should be used somewhere else. Really? Gimme a break. These are the same people that some years ago were probably saying “digital is crap, film is the best, that’s what true photography is about” and now they are using it anyway. The problem with that kind of thinking is that there are several possibilities for aplications related to these “new tech” that some people can take advantage of, like you said yourself about Wi Fi. And these ignorants dare to call “gimmicks” just because they are incapable of taking advantage of it, tech should march forward, period. “If you don’t want it, don’t use it” is the simplest solution but some people can’t even understand that. That way of thinking is something I will ever be able to understand and it’s so absurd and inconceivable that it becomes hard to even start arguing because it’s simply stating the obvious.
Yes, a touchscreen for touch autofocus.
But leave a way for the camera to be fully useable without the touchscreen, with a menu to disable it for people who don’t want it. Then everybody can be happy, no need to fight about a technology that has become so trivial on every device nowadays 🙂
Only if it has GH4 style 4k video. This means professional quality video controls, v-log and connections. In that case it should be fully articulated and touch. If not the same one as the XT1 will do just fine without touch.
“…Guys and girls, there are no reasons NOT to have these features, if you don’t want a screen that flips out, don’t flip out the screen; easy solution.
If you don’t need video, just use the camera for stills. Easy solution.”
I’ve been reading this line of logic for as long as there have been internet forums. Let me explain the alternative.
I don’t want a flippy screen because it a) adds complexity b) adds cost c) reduces bodyshell rigidity and integrity d) adds unwelcome bulk. I have a flippy screen on my X-T1 and it is neatly taped down so that it doesn’t catch on anything. If it was offered as a delete option I would change it in the blink of an eye.
I don’t want video because it a) adds software and firmware complexity b) adds cost. I prefer my camera to do one thing very well rather than two things ok.
I don’t want a touchscreen because a) direct controls can be adjusted by feel and assessed at a glance b) It’s far easier to review images without a welter of fingerprints all over the screen c) it adds cost d) it adds complexity.
In short, I don’t want to pay for things I neither want nor will use, and that compromise the form and function of the camera. I do want to have the right tool for the job.
How would you like it if the next time you went into a restaurant they brought an extra meal to your table? When you complain to the waiter they respond by saying “If you don’t want it, don’t eat it.” Then leave it on the table and charge you for it?
I don’t carve the Sunday joint with a Swiss Army knife. I use a carving knife because it is designed for that job and as a result it delivers a better result. I could use a Swiss Army knife – it would do the job, in the same way as it can do many other jobs, but it is a compromise and won’t deliver as neat an end result as the dedicated tool.
See? Convergence is not always the optimum answer.
Lot of big words and claims about logic, but what are you basing yourself off? We have been hearing about the oh-so-fragile flippy LCDs since they appeared, but where are all those broken ones?
a) adds complexity? And that results in what precisely?
b) adds cost? A hinge and some plastic? The actual LCD probably costs them less than 10 bucks.
c) reduces bodyshell rigidity and integrity? There you go with the big words. Where is the empirical evidence? It’s been more than 10 years after all, there should be some examples.
d) adds bulk? It would add bulk to a small camera, not huge bodies like the Fuji ones.
Your video argument is even worse.
a) adds software and firmware complexity? Are you kidding now? How precisely does that affect anyone?
b) adds cost? You mean, to pay one guy to write some code occasionally, spread over thousands of cameras and lenses?
c) “I prefer my camera to do one thing very well rather than two things ok.” Me too, but having video does not affect stills at all.
Touchscreen.
a, b) would be relevant only if Fuji sacrifices current controls for touchscreen ones.
c,d) same nonsense as above
You are speaking about some theoretical compromise that is simply a non-issue in the real world. Features like video, which is pretty much useless on a Fuji, are included precisely because they are dirt cheap to implement and then can decorate the spec sheet. And finally, as to your really bad restaurant example, it would be more like the chef adding some red pepper on top of your meal and “charging” you for it. It is your logic that fails, simply based on reality. So, yes, if you don’t need it, don’t use it.
Oh dear. You’re really invested in this, aren’t you? “big words and claims about logic” – really? I have offered an alternative viewpoint, without pissing on anybody.
Tell you what – IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN DON’T READ IT. There – that’s your logic applied to this scenario…
Seriously, now – do you honestly have no understanding of how much things cost – you do realise that low cost is not the same as no cost? That pennies make a difference in FMCG?
Do you really have no idea of how software and firmware actually work? “pay one guy to write some code occasionally” – really? Do you have the slightest idea of how coding and testing and upgrading is actually undertaken? I suspect you would be the first to scream from the rooftops if a bug – sorry, “undocumented feature” – was introduced because of your “guy”…
I don’t know what “real world” you inhabit, but I’m genuinely glad it isn’t mine.
Bill, I think you’re being a little defensive over someone offering a counterpoint to your arguments. Your logic falls short for me too. It relies on false analogies and questionable assumptions. There are certain lines of argument that almost never pass the smell test for me…comparing someone to Hitler, saying “it’s a matter of simple physics” when you’re not a physist, and talking about how much extra cost video capabilities add to a DSLR that you’re not in charge of designing. Low cost vs no cost is a distinction without a difference in this case.
Looking at your answer, I am certainly less invested than you are. I am also not pissing on anybody, I said that your logic is weak and then explained why. You, on the other hand, did that the second someone challenged you.
I’ll let t_linn’s comment speak for me.
And Bill, let put it in a method probably dear to your heart:
IF YOU DON’T LIKE TOUCH SCREENS YOU DON’T HAVE TO TOUCH THEM
IF you read his list it boils down to money – he wants a cheap camera and hopes by removing these features he’ll get an X-T1 or XPro II for $200. Lol
Your analogy of a swiss army knife is senseless; the X-T1 has video, it has a LCD, it has a flippy screen; yet these additions do not make it any less capable of taking photos – as that is it’s primary role as a tool, unlike a swiss army knife which is not designed to carve a Sunday joint.
Your analogy of food is wrong also. If you see a Sunday dinner on the menu for £20 with turkey, peas, carrots and gravy you don’t get to pick and choose what you add or remove and hope for a reduction in cost.
You make a call as to whether what’s offered is attractive to you based on your needs, taste and budget.
It seems given the list of things you find complex and expensive that Fuji is not a good manufacturer for you – and that’s fine. Your points are valid, what you need is a non-complex and cheap camera; and there are plenty of options for you.
Touchscreen and Focusing…
I need some heavy “Nose reduction” for that. Does the X-Pro2 come with it?
To be honest:
touchscreen for menues and focusing in “live view” -cool (a gimmick, but a cool one).
touchscreen for focusing while using the view finder? No go! But I would like to see a different way to set the focus point (personally I like the Canon Joystick). Another small touch sensitiv panel (right size and right location!!!!) would be awesome!
Exactly, 100% agree. Maybe they could use the touch screen in combination with the eye sensor. When using the view finder, the touch screen should be disabled, as the screen is shut off anyway.
as TomDiTom stated, after your post, arguing against even an LCD screen: “no lcd means – smaller, lighter, more robust, more battery life (for those who use it), and perhaps cheaper…”
I think that is a great example of how leaving out some of these features is actually beneficial, even if no LCD is a little extreme. The result is a more concise, efficient tool that isn’t cluttered with gimmicks. That is why people choose Fuji over M43.
I think flippy screens are definitely bulkier, which i think would be a valid reason for not wanting one.
I’d love a rotating screen though, that you can turn backwards so it would be like not having one unless needed or using just to protect the screen in your bag.
“The result is a more concise, efficient tool that isn’t cluttered with gimmicks. That is why people choose Fuji over M43.”
Oh, boy.
i know i shouldn’t use the word “gimmick”. I have so many reasons for loving Fuji but what it comes down to is direct manual controls which other cameras just don’t have. It’s too bad the comments always degrade to this
“It’s too bad the comments always degrade to this.”
To pointing out your nonsense?
So… other manufacturers didn’t build ‘direct manual controls’ into their cameras? How is it that M43 users can select shutter speeds, or aperture sizes? or ISO? Ditto Leica, and Nikon, Canon, and Sony users?
Once you’ve figured out that every maker has direct, manual controls, why don’t you take one further step and compare:
How long it takes to change ISO, aperture, and shutter speed across all camera lines, all manufacturers, tally the number, then explain how one control set, or another, is better; and explain where each is worse.
I assure you there are benefits to every design. Sony cameras are faster than Nikon at selecting ISO, and both are faster than Fujifilm, though Nikon and Fujifilm nearly require you to remove your eye from the scene (not that that matters, as Fujifilm users, we are more mature and prefer to slow down and think, right?).
Shutter speed: not a single Fujifilm camera allows you to to dial in precise numbers on the lovely ‘manual’ exposure wheel. Fine tuning requires a secondary dial. Finally with the X100T did the aperture follow suit on that camera.
Then we have aperture-less lenses… what do you do then?
It has nothing to do with manual controls and everything to do with a style or interface layer that each of us like. The sooner we admit that controls on the lens or on labelled dials do not matter except for looks, and or nostalgia, the better.
Not that there is anything wrong with either. I purchased the X-Pro 1 for its looks. The X-T1 looked good on paper, but I find it hideous in comparison to the simpler X-T10. That is a personal opinion. And so is the stick-with-manual control schtick that is one of the cornerstones to Fujifilm fanboydom… despite those same control schemes being reversed at many corners by Fujifilm’s own lenses, bodies, and design exceptions that don’t go far enough in one direction or another.
Face it: it’s all about looks.
Well said OHM – I feel a lot of the reason people really don’t want this stuff is because secretly they like having something that (appears) to be a basic, old school analogue camera, as if somehow not having modern features will make them purists and everyone will go whaaaaaaa how cool they must be to not use their flippy screen or video.
But in reality it just makes them hipsters who secretly love the advantage of digital and whom dare not shoot film when the urge to be hip grabs them.
Let’s be honest – the Fuji’s look cool (at least until the X-T1 imho) and that attracts a lot of people, but selling to hipsters is just a small piece of the pie, and if they want to sell to the wider photographic community and attract professional users they are going to have to add similar features to their competition.
I think flippy screens are for X-T1 and the others. Let the PRO stay clean and simple but with the best sensor and fastest processor. Touch screen is OK for navigation in menus, just don’t take away any direct manual controls.
I completely agree with the idea of being able to reverse the LCD screen for protection. I wish it was fully articulating for those low, portrait-oriented shots. The current design does not accommodate that scenario.
I disagree with your assertion that people choose Fuji over M43 for the sake of simplicity. For me it was strictly an image quality decision. If M43 had similar image quality I would probably be in their camp given the amazingly small size of some of their lenses.
I’d say add as many features as possible to the x-pro2, then release a toned down xe-3 for those that dont want all the features… The flagship camera should include everything and not hold back
Development costs money. Fuji could, conceivably, release the x-pro2 with 4G LTE support across the major networks, shove android into it and release the x-pro2 phone.
There are two branches here:
Shove as many features as you can and make a device that can’t do anything right.
Focus on a few select features and make a device that performs well in the situations you most want it to.
The X-Pro2 phone may sound cool, but that feature only attracts a small part of the market and really stretches the idea of a camera phone.
Realize also that any feature included will be viciously attacked in reviews should it not be as good as x-brand even if the feature isn’t the main point.
“In short, the X-Pro2 Phone is bulky, expensive, doesn’t have a rear facing camera for videochat and doesn’t have much better megapixels than current-era phones.”
A level of quality gets implied when a feature is added and failing to meet that quality makes more people upset than simply not having the feature.
No thanks – I prefer not to review my pics thru a film of oils, fingerprints, etc. That’s one of the reasons I like the XE-2/XPro-1 rangefinder styling over XT-1 – keeps the nose prints off the lcd
I understand your arguments and many features you mention I agree with you. For example: Even if I don’t use my current Fuji for videos (that’s mainly because I am not into videos at all), I do agree that Fuji should deliver a state of the art video solution.
But this specific poll is just about a single feature: Touch screen.
And here, you need to understand that it really depends on the implementation of the touch function, if this is a good thing or not. One of the best features of the Fuji X-Pro is the hybrid view finder. I mostly use the view finder (also the electronic one) and therefore a touch screen for focusing is not very useful here.
Also, when working with a short depth of field, it is critical to set the focus point very accurate. While a touch screen might work for this on a tripod, it will most likely fail without a tripod, because when you hold the camera in one hand and try to set the focus point on the touch screen with the other hand, the camera will automatically shake when tapping on the back of the camera. And you have not pressed the shutter release button yet…
A joystick like control would be the better solution for this use case.
But, I totally agree, that a touch screen for zooming and scrolling to review photos would be awesome. Finally, if Fuji would be able to revolutionize the camera menu and make it smartphone like easy and touch friendly, a touch screen would make totally sense here as well.
Yes, but only with full customizability. I want to be able to use it in EVF, EFV+LCD, LCD only, or turn that thing off completely.
As for naysayers… C’mon, even Leica does that!
Do you shoot with you fingers ? Not me. Hence I am a priori indifferent.
More precisely, I do not see how touch sceen and anlog controls can be coherent. I fear a Nikon Df effect.
X Pro 1 something must be very rugged camera. I don’t think, that touch screen would be one.
I’d love touchscreen focusing combined with the option to turn it off when using the viewfinder. All you lucky right-eyed shooters wouldn’t even have to worry about the “nose problem” with a rangefinder body.
Doesn’t the eye sensor already take care of that?
I asked for the option because I have seen some photographers propose looking through the EVF while basically using the LCD screen as a touchpad to move the focus point. Particularly with a rangefinder this seems like it has the potential to be useful. If the eye sensor turned off the touchscreen functionality automatically it would eliminate this possibility.
I see what you mean, fair enough.
Interesting question and discussion?
Hear! Hear! Well written, hamster. Wifi…a Godsend. Flip out screen…transformed the way I shoot in many scenarios. Why people would eliminate means to expand creative expression is beyond me. Touch focus, FWIW, really comes into its own with video. (Of course, I realize that is not going to be a persuasive argument among a vocal contingent here. 🙂
Choosing focal point with touch screen would be much faster than keys
one of the reasons i enjoyed switching from panasonic was the lack of a touchscreen. i really hate touching screens. buttons are sooooo much better
That’s the one thing I miss since switching to Fuji. The GX7 touchscreen was tops. Look through the viewfinder and move your focus point with your thumb. Not to mention the Q menu would be quicker to use.
The Panasonic didn’t allow you to use buttons instead of the screen?
No, half the “buttons” were on the screen
Then Panasonic must have different design principles than Olympus. I use the touch screen on my OM-D, but can’t think of any function that requires it.
You people voting against touchscreen are missing the huge potential this has for usability. Most of you are thinking about shooting but that is not the greatest benefit. Yes, choosing the AF point would be one useful feature for touch but there would be a better solution to that that doesn’t require weird hand position or taking your eye away from the viewfinder.
The real potential benefit would be in the menu, playback and in-camera RAW processing, which most of us do on the LCD anyway. Think of this:
– Tapping a menu item instead of pressing arrow keys four times. Same goes for the Q menu when shooting with the LCD.
– Double tapping during image review to check focus or pan around after zooming in. This is especially useful when you had to focus-recompose due to need for speed. The current solution of zooming in and panning with arrow buttons is extremely slow!
– In-camera processing with the Fujis is great, but it would move to a whole new level if a touchscreen was combined with a live preview of the changes. Imagine the options (exposure, shadows, highlights, film simulation) in a vertical bar to the left of the image tapped with your left thumb. The items (film simulation, WB) or slider (exposure, shadows, highlights) appear to the right of the image in another vertical bar which you operate with your right thumb.
There is much to gain but of course there are two conditions:
1: Touch control doesn’t replace any hardware controls.
2: The touch screen can be turned off either completely or only in shooting mode (but having it on during image review / menu browsing). Meaning both options are available.
You’re just advocating gross motor usage over fine motor usage. These cameras are designed to keep your thumb close to the controls. Touch screen usage will have your off hand using the device and making broader motions than your fingers before returning under the lens. In short, time savings isn’t going to be major.
BUT, UI expectations in touchscreen devices are significantly different from UI expectations in physical key devices.
Old keypad cellphones were expected to have large amounts of shortcutting, even if you didn’t know it was there. By pressing numeric sequences you could skip through numerous menus without taking a glance at the device.
Touch screen devices oppose such speed and efficiency. These focus on the FEEL of using the device and get called “90’s tech” if they don’t meet the entertainment portion of using the device. Adding in screen transitions, for instance, cause notable delays if you’re just keying in a series of keypresses you know will lead to the result you desire.
The point I’m trying to make is that you cannot design a UI for one mode of input without damaging the operation of another. The “Touch screen side buttons” that webpages use look absurd on a real computer, but redesigning the site for multiple platforms instead of using “one size fits our target market” costs more money than they would gain otherwise.
“The point I’m trying to make is that you cannot design a UI for one mode of input without damaging the operation of another.”
I know where you’re coming from but that is not universally true. A good button-GUI will usually be a good touch-GUI simply because a good GUI doesn’t cram tons of things on the screen, making each item much smaller. Let’s take the Q-Menu as an example: nothing would need to be changed for it to work great for touch input, except for showing the possible options when touching an item. On the other hand the Q-Menu with its current button-implementation is anything but intuitive. Changing it to a “classic” touch-GUI (meaning you see all possible options) would make it a lot easier to use. Same goes for the “normal” menu. Hardly any need to change something, just add touch.
Concerning your point of it not saving much time: try it. I would of course not use my left hand to navigate the menu because a) most people are right-handed and touch more precisely and faster with that hand and b) the left hand is supposed to support the weight of the camera. Using the right hand hardly changes the hand position and my hand is easily back in place by the time I’ve raised the camera to my eye.
And if you were talking about two-handed usage I would not use that in a shooting situation where speed is important. But in-camera RAW conversion is not about speed so two-handed operation nothing to be afraid of.
And no, I’m also not a fan of screen transitions. But I think you could very well build a touch interface without them and nobody would complain.
Like I have said a good touch implementation would not harm the button control in any way and it surely should not replace any buttons/dials. If you can’t think of an interface that combines both strengths without compromising the experience, you’ll just have to think harder 😉
We don’t need no stinkin touchscreen!
People might not want some features because they could add to the overall cost, get in your way of using the camera (think accidental “nose navigation” on touch screen), increase camera size, make the body more fragile, make button layout clunkier, drain on the battery, etc. These are all valid concerns IMO.
A screen is to display things. No need to put finger grease on it, images will get blur !
That’s why smartphones and tablets never really took off.
I say “YES” but with the option to disable the touch feature.
Would prefer the hardest scratch resistant lcd panel available, if that means no touch screen, that’s fine, but should be 3:2 not 4:3 ratio…also a high-eyepoint EVF.
Many touch UIs can also be operated with buttons for those not wanting to fingerprint. No reason not to offer it
Yes, so long as everything else stays the same or is improved. I want maximum usability.
The question should read “Should Fuji remain competitive in a crowded market? And in doing so afford a future lens roadmap for us camera snobs?”
The reason I voted no is because of power consumption and I’m not expecting the X-Pro2 to make a dramatic jump in battery life. If Fuji decided to add it then just allow a user to turn it off.
Does a touchscreen consume more when on ? Pretty sure there will be an on/off switch
Good point. I tend to think that these features won’t hurt (I’m actually rather indifferent about the addition of a touch screen), but didn’t realize that they may drain the battery (which, as we know, is already quite weak).
The battery drain through a touch screen is ridiculously small. I bet you wouldn’t notice the difference. And obviously you could turn it off so that really isn’t an issue.
The only negative would be higher parts and programming costs. But I’d gladly pay that small extra for the great potential it has (see my post below).
I just read some of your comments and some of them made me smile. 🙂 One thing is for sure : It’s fun & useful to participate in all those polls. Another thing, the most important one : I don’t know of any other digital camera company who does design and build its products according to our desires, advices, experience. And if Fujifilm reads this blog – I think we are on the right track.
Oh Hamster… How narrow-minded that you equate a lack of complexity with low price. Today, Fuji provides a good balance between features and functions, allied to good glass and a sensible attitude to firmware upgrades. They don’t put in features just because they can. If I wanted a Playstation or Smartphone UI, I would go for Sony or Samsung. If I wanted every bell and whistle going, I would use Panasonic. Fuji fits the bill, by offering cameras that do the job without getting in the way. Thank you very much for your concern, but it is misplaced.
I didn’t equate complexity with cheapness – that came from you. Pal.
“I don’t want a flippy screen because it a) adds complexity b) adds cost”
“I don’t want video because it a) adds software and firmware complexity b) adds cost”
“I don’t want video because it a) adds software and firmware complexity b) adds cost.”
And now you say Fuji have the feature set just right, despite you not liking the added cost and complexity being too hard for your brain to work with.
This has to be the funniest post on Fuji Rumors.
What a backtrack. Hillarious.
dislike this poll,
New poll X-Pro2 with Organic sensor.
🙂
There are two directions Fujifilm can look to conceive the X-Pro2 – one is of course Sony A, the overly-feature-and-option-rich-providing-about-everything-ever-encountered in the universe of electronic cameras, the other is Leica M, providing a sober, optical RF-instrument to make pictures. I prefer the last one with just a little bit of the first one. What the X-Pro2 needs is a better AF, a new era sensor and a kind of revised X-T1-alike firmware. That should do it. Personally, they can even leave the back LCD away – it would make the camera even less obstrusive ;-). If there has to be one wel indeed I hope they provide it with the ‘gorilla glass’ kind of protection.
TILT only!
I would hope that Fuji survives by serving a niche market of enthusiasts. I might be dreaming, however.
While we’re discussing screen, how about poll for tilt vs fully articulated vs fixed screen?
Wow, I’m a bit astonished how many people don’t want a touch screen. I think it’s a great addition, especially for focussing and the fuji quick menu is very suitable for a touch screen. It would be great for unnoticed photographie.
I also love these function to look through the EVF and change the af point with your finger of the panasonic cameras. Thats quick and handy.
Give us a GOOD touch screen, just like the one find in new Panasonic camera. and if you don’t want touch screen, you just turn it off.
Touch Screen is an option that you choose to use, when it’s off you don’t notice at all, it’s not like articulated screen vs fixed screen.
Just turn it off!!!! Give us a touch screen fuji!!!!
I’d much rather use buttons, much more precise than a screen