ChatNoir

X-T1. By the end of the year I might change. If Fuji doesn't do a more exciting refurbishing job with the X-T2 - than they have actually done with the X-Pro2 and they also decided to abandon further all professional film like FP100C - what I really require for fine art purposes - I might even fully abandon Fujifilm. Impossible to cope with 4 systems including 2 analog alive - I need to make a choice somehow and I might put the fancy but in fact a bit to expensive MILC-stuff aside.

Having friends owning Leica, while I'm working with both Fuji and Nikon using the better prime glass, I really don't know what to think from Leica. When I listen of my friends stories I'm getting very confused. If there's anything better in Leica's glass, there's a lot to be said about Leica's color accuracy & exposure control. Of course you can overcome a lot with separate exposure meters & expo discs and tweak the rest in post, but aren't we living in 2015? I also know people liking Zeiss-glass over Leica's very own. Well? One anecdote: I once was shooting at the same location with a (Leica-)friend. When we compared our pictures after the shoot - he was so frustrated with my X-Pro1 pictures he send a few of those ones to Leica. Never got an answer. I was really surprised how wrong Leica's exposure & WB could go and in pixel peeping, there was nothing truly sharper or better, even in the corners - than what my XF35mm F1.4 had produced. But I don't underestimate Leica, the SL might be an extremely expensive camera, but when more native glass becomes available I'm convinced this is the kind of FF-camera Fuji should have conceived & build. Despite the massive fanboyism on this forum for APS/C sensors - it's really a missed chance for Fuji not to evolve in this direction.

It was one of the first things that made me question the (initial?) Fuji X manufacturing quality. I've had one of the first batch X-Pro1's and XF35mm F1.4's. After a few months there was suddenly a (very significant...) metal particle behind the back lens of the XF35mm. The shop immediately recognized the problem, stated it was out of any doubt a guarantee issue and send the lens back to Fujifilm. And after that, I could only experience that Fuji's service org in my country was inexistent. The shop expected they would immediately replace the lens by a new copy, but they didn't. In fact nothing happened, beside after pushing a bit, sending back the lens in the same state, metal particle still in it. In a second attempt, they wanted to offer me a used (repaired?) lens that was, upon their own claim, only used for demo purposes. This all was feeling very unprofessional, and it took more than two months and a few not very nice discussions with Fuji before the shop itself - ashamed about Fuji's weak response - decided to exchange the lens on their own account as a service. Case closed, but this experience had made me once very suspicious and I have even been considering to sell off everything I had purchased from Fuji. And a bad experience never comes alone. After that I've had a weird issue with the XF60 F2.4 (front plastic broke off, it's in my eyes a good optical performer but poorly designed lens) and my X-Pro1 (problems with the LCD back panel plastic and with a blocked shutter release button). I must say quite a few people convinced me this were not typical Fuji problems and I finally bought the X-T1. After that I've never had any more issues. I really think that Fuji has suffered from a lot of design and quality issues after starting up the X-pro1 & lens manufacturing. It explains for me why they put that intensive kaizen strategy in place for the first wave of gear - just to save this system's future and credibility in the market. The X-T1 feels to be a much more solid concept - also from a construction point of view - than the X-Pro1. I've used the new XF35mm and my other XF's without any flaw. I know it sounds as a repeat from other posts but after adhering to Nikon for about 30 years, I never had an issue with one Nikkor - not even with those that many classify under the 'plastic age' - the AF-S /G-range. Many AF-D's and older AIS-lenses were built like a tank, to last a lifetime even being used under the most harsh conditions. I'm still using F2's with glass from that era and am still blown away by the optical quality and sharpness these lenses had back in the 70's. A lot of people are making observations about the current lenses that make look the older lens designers like stupid people, but of course they weren't. Old glass is often having a particular look and image feel that puts the present clinical cool pixel race at stake. In many respects - looking at the future life - I've got questions about the very lightweight construction and the lots of firmware in this XF-lens concept. But I suppose this is a typical 2015 product story. Nothing being offered today in such a mass production has been designed to survive many decades. It's nice to watch the Fujifilm manufacturing movies, but any other major vendor can show you the same kind of production process (those movies also exist, btw, for f.i. the Nikkors). In the past, lens manufacturing was REALLY handwork from the start to the end. Precisely that makes me long so much for the old times and I'm not the only one that loves to work with vintage stuff, even roll film.

I really liked the X-Pro1 concept from day one and in ch so it has stopped me selling my Fuji for now... I really liked the X-Pro1 concept from the day it was announced. I really hoped it was a kind of Leica M-competitor, without having to miss the modern convenience of what a Pro-DSLR could offer. There were a lot of good ideas in it, but when I finally owned one, it felt so disappointing. From built quality (I really suffered from issues) to its true, core performance. I've given all chances to Fujifilm and their kaizen-approach, but also to Apple, Adobe, Capture One,... to come with a decent RAW conversion and it just didn't fully happen. The most important is that Fuji really learned from what the users were saying - that may sound extraordinary, but maybe they didn't even have a choice with such a new system. Once again, going for 'APS/C only' to developing the XF-flange wasn't the most clever choice. I still think Fuji's management has originally with the X100 been looking more for a solution to save their compact camera business and compete with M43 than they were searching to become a true hard-core professional camera manufacturer. If the X-Pro1 would have received a FF 24MP X-trans sensor (which was available in those days in Sony & Nikon camera's) and a more or less professional AF-servo system - they could have released possible the ultimate winner for the next 3 years - the dream camera for many professionals, the ultimate, standard tool but maybe not something they could sell at at a more elevated price at a wider, advanced shooter audience. But only being APS/C with a disappointing AF and a quite poor low light performance, we all now the X-Pro1 never became a sales miracle. Well I like the X-T1 but I still don't judge this to be a 'swiss knife'. My own perception remains that the bodies might be close to an advanced expert solution like a D7200, but it's no Nikon FX. Design-wise it looks better and works less disturbing and offensive in many situations, it's lightweight, interesting for travel, has an ideal form factor. And the optical formulas of those Fujinons are excellent. I don't know what stepping up means for Fuji. Or they have to leave the 'hobby arena' that is business-wise their camera division now and aim to become something like Sony or Nikon is now (which will be a huge challenge and business risk) - or they can stay a relatively small, but niche player making not the best solutions out there, but the ones that holds the middle between a wider range of more affordable solutions in the medium advanced APS/C segment and truly expert kind of stuff. To say it different I don't expect a Leica M.240 or Sony A7RII concept from Fuji in a near future. The X-Pro2 will have that slightly higher 24MP resolution and get rid of a few hurdles or missing features (like more solid video, where I'm btw myself not waiting for). Still no organic sensor, no world-shocking new technologies, no sensor stabilization. And no high resolution mode. To be honest, I don't know I will still consider the X-Pro2 in 2016. Investing in a second system remains extremely expensive. Despite the X-T1's improvements and competences, the fact it's a more fluent player I keep on reaching for my Nikon gear, my best Nikkors and the new wave of Sigma Art glass, in which I still have more trust on the more critical missions. That's not the best sign, most of all because in the 2016-2017 timeframe we will likely face Nikon (FX?) competition and full Nikon F compatibility in the MILC market and if that ever becomes true, I don't know I can still justify to use Fuji.

"Lugging around stuff" - well of course FX zooms of this type are huge. So primes are not only offering a better IQ, the weight is a lot more acceptable and it's really an exaggeration that the size is so different of the Fuji equals. I've always been using my Nikon F cameras with (the best wave of) primes, just as I do with my X-T1. Of course this is the Fuji X forum, there's only one brand that does it all and never has an issue. But there's really nothing out there that I couldn't have done with my Nikon FX-gear and in quite a few cases, it would have been better too. Where I know that is a sure fact, I won't even care about the weight and 'lugging'. The Fuji might be an ideal travel camera - but there have been moments in the last three years I really started getting nervous from all the AF-missers, the way to many low light issues, the X-Pro1's shutter lag, the problems with flashes and even transceivers and most of all, RAW-conversion problems (that were in the beginning really dramatic). I finally dumped the X-Pro1 one year ago in favor of the X-T1 - and that was a major relief, the X-T1 is a credible concept. Fuji evolved a lot in a very short time, but there's still a lot at stake. I don't want to restart this over-and-over discussion again but the X-series are missing the full frame concept and that will gradually render their further penetration in the market extremely difficult. The A7 and even Leica M.240 might not even had any chance for their supremacy in their market segments if the the X-series and in particular, the X-Pro1 would have received a 35mm sensor & glass from the very start. A camera remains a tool. I'm not buying a new chainsaw every year, because there is a lot of media-hyped fuzz about a new model. I won't do the same with cameras but things seem to be different in this MILC-world. I feel the mood that a lot of people are excessively changing from cameras and systems in this market - this forum is full of this type of users. Well, one or years is an extremely short lifecycle - I can't even depreciate over that period of time. Nikon dealt 55 years with the same concept and I hardly ever felt the need to change a camera after 3 years - I'm still owning film F-cameras and using once in a while in for particular fine art missions. Going three years back with today's knowledge, very likely I wouldn't become a MLIC adopter again - I'm still waiting for the 'better result' that just isn't there, it's just a commercial myth - 'buy a new camera, and become a better photographer' is something that looks pretty much like 'buy a better computer and become an IT-specialist'.

'Nikon shit'. I've got a lot of difficulty to understand people hopping from one system for another one, to another one, and likely over a few years again to another one. Nikon is still a first class manufacturer I'm not really understanding the 'shit' in it - using myself Nikon F for more than 30 years now. Or you bought the wrong Nikon camera for your purpose, or you don't have the best fitted lenses. Not one other system in the world allows me to work in such a flexible manner with the same glass on a top notch roll-film era SLR and a DSLR (well, not even Canon). When I bought the Fuji X-Pro1 just after its release for its lightweight, small form factor footprint and 'filmic performance', I've had more shit with this camera than with any other system I've ever touched (and that were quite a few). Gradually it became more or less a normal functioning camera, but I was never blown away by its AF-performance and I even started liking my Nikon stuff more and more over the X-Pro1 which remained an extremely difficult tool in low light. The X-T1 I've purchased - just out of frustration, at that moment in time - is a lot better and I assume the X-Pro2 will finally be the kind of 'electronic RF' I wished for. But it has taken about 4 years to get there and thus likely 3 investments - to deliver the performance that an entry-level Nikon FX provides me readily. It's just a free choice - and yes, the lightweight, form factor aspect and RF-concept might be tempting but it won't ever buy you more compelling pictures or make you a better photographer - that's just a myth. And the Sony A7 doesn't really do anything better than FX Nikon gear, not the least in ergonomics - also that is a myth.

I'm not fully getting most of your points. If this is all horribly wrong - there is not a single camera on the market that fulfills your requirements - easy to claim anything similar from any other brand or model. I advice to build one of your own camera - it can't be that difficult to develop the perfect landscape camera with your knowledge...and please call it the AA-1. (referring to Ansel Adams) ;-) Neither Sony or Olympus can serve as a reference when it comes to easy operability & ergonomics. The word horrible is in this case for me never far away. Not that Fuji is that good but looking at FW4.0, they are slowly copying now what's already many years a standard in most expert/pro DSLRs. I'm the first to admit that I'll rather use my Nikon gear to do landscape photography, simply because the X-T1 misses a bit the resolution to do so - though the result can be surprisingly good if you don't care too much about the format. Portrait is a little bit a different sake. Since I've always been using rather short than long focal lengths to do this, even the 56mm is a bit long for me. Macro is a specialism. If you do so, buy a kind of bellow system, you won't hear me complaining with some kind of solution, if I'd ever need it. That's personal. What is really horrible, is that the support of the X-Trans conversions by mainstream software is still not at the level to expected. Give me from this 16MP only a bit more effective detail and less artifacts and I immediately forget anything else on the market. I'm really praying Adobe gets to it one day. And yes, flashes are the point of Fuji, I still don't get it why there is nothing decent around in their own accessory line.

I wonder which secret weapon Fuji has to counter the Sony A7RII, or better, serious market strategy to proceed in the premium MILC segment. The current range of A7's must be the most perfect solution and despite all the Fujinon kudos, you can't go wrong with Zeiss - they are proving since decades to be the best lens manufacturer in the whole industry. Where is Fuji's next step? When will Fuji have a compelling (organic) sensor having the same ISO-performance as their closest competition? On sensor stabilisation? A higher resolution, that matches Sony? Get rid of that current X-trans CFA concept that generated more problems than it ever solved in post? Nothing of that, likely the X-E3 with again the old 16MP, that's what in the pipeline I'm afraid and the X-Pro2 will be too little, too late when it's only released over - say 6-7 months from now. Please, Fuji, save the X-series by releasing something very revolutionary. Sony is doing everything now to kill your business.

I still can't understand why I ever would want to use a (very lossy) jpg-only workflow, unless maybe for simplicity or the fact that Fuji made a bit of a mess out of X-trans RAW conversions. Whether those jpg-files have a Quality of 97 or 99% now - they never deliver the full potential and detail of your expensive X-series investment - and they also never provide you headroom to do even the smallest corrections in post, at least, in a decent manner. It happened only by accident a few months ago with my X-T1, yes, one of those damned dials had changed. Basically I could throw all that 'fabulous' jpg Q 97%-material away, since the post-workflow I required to do had virtually become impossible and the required material wasn't just there. Saving space on cards too... c'mon boys, if you can't even afford the required GB for a camera solution like this,...? If Fuji has to focus on one thing it's on the RAW-workflow where most advanced and pro-photographers rely on. Instead of offering this free but impossible Silkypix derivate, they should second a few specialists for a week or two to Adobe to get finally fixed what a lot of people dislike (and is quite possible to do, see how a one-man initiative like Iridient could impress the whole X-series world). This would be a MAJOR step forward in securing the entire X-trans universe. Like most fine art & landscape photographers, after a few cups of strong coffee I can live with what comes out of Lr today but bottom line me too, I have been tempted to changeover a few times due to the X-trans RAW hassle which is hardly to defend for any camera system in 2015. It's btw one of reasons why I still use my DSLR for a fair bit of work.

We need to see what the present credentials of Fujifilm X are. Words like lightweight, compact, premium seem to be very important, just like the pro-camera image excellence - in both sensor & lens competences. They will never deviate too much from that. The whole range is in fact a re-considering of the same concept from (slightly) different view/budget angles - within this old school faux-RF, faux-DSLR design constraint. I can only wish even more of this for future models. But if you ask my real opinion - well I've always hoped that Fujifilm could become a true Leica competitor in every aspect except for the pricing (which is for Leica really nothing less than absurd). Regarding body design nothing's more to like than a compact, performant RF-alike concept. I think a further evolved version of the X-Pro1/X100 OVF/EVF concept can completely put any purely optical RF-concept to shame (to be honest, I never liked it that much and a lot of RF photographers have frequent issues that their 'perfect shot' is not fully precise on the subjects they focussed on.) Whatever Fuji might claim in interviews, I'm afraid that going to a line of 35mm sensors @ a higher res (24-36MP or even more) is paramount to stay in business with their current mission to appeal to very demanding advanced amateur & pro photographers. Whether that is really 100% required from a technical point of view is likely a never-ending discussion. It has some similarity with another men's discussion: what's best - a highly-tuned, technological superbly designed 1600l engine delivering 200HP or a 3000l delivering the same power, out of the box without a lot of special design requirements. While some will claim the 1600l is the better choice for your new sports-coupé for particular reasons (I don't see to be honest, but I bet emissions and consumption will be two of them) - I'd pick the 3000l if I could just make that choice at the same price... Unfortunately in the EU the tax system forces you in the first option, that's the true problem, not existing for cameras (yet?) ;-) . A full-frame tax... hmmm, that's maybe something politicians haven't discovered yet. And providing a tax-reduction to smartphone users since they apply smaller sized-sensors - leading to a smaller ecological footprint (combining a phone and a camera requires less materials so less emissions...). Joke! Back to Fuji, the claim that lenses have to be bigger for 35mm doesn't stand see again Leica. Add just a motor drive to those Leica M lenses and they would still be smaller than most of the present Fujinons. Going to small sensor drives Fujifilm's development into faster, larger sized lenses, that will be a permanent struggle. And because they are more wide-angle, more aspherical elements are required to reduce the distortion and let us forget the typical wide-angle artifacts. On top of it, I think dat Fuji's extremely small flange to sensor distance isn't making their lens design easy. Leica had a lot of initial issues with the M8 too (...!) to cover the entire sensor - Nikon F will NEVER face that problem ;-) . But even if Fuji would stay with APS/C (and an organic evolution of the current size) I'm convinced that Fuji could squeeze a lot more detail and sharpness out of the native pixels when they revisit the (still not best supported and I don't see why so necessary) X-trans CFA and should go the same way all the other camera manufacturers do with a lot more success. Why not a multi-layer Foveon sensor. Beside the organic sensor development claims of quite a few companies, the multilayer concept also seems to living in a lot of manufacturer labs. A priority for me is really a far better ISO performance (which isn't really that impressive compared to the present FF cameras). Now a Foveon and ISO-performance have never been good friends, one issue. Unless Fuji can design something better. Well, here it is, my final quote. Give me indeed an X-Pro2-body, same size as its fabulous ancestor but now with the full-blown 35mm sensor it deserves, offering the best DR-performance on the market, ofcourse with an integrated stabilization providing us with a few extra headroom in less good light conditions. We could also use a better OVF (providing better optical info) and want the X-T1's LCD into the EVF. Such a top notch camera has to incorporate a serious pro-AF, deliver a fully exploitable ISO of at least 25600 and the most perfect Lightroom support from day 1 (without green, color bleeding and waxy skin artifacts). Fujifilm, did you hear that?

A hot shoe has never been designed for this kind of gimmick. Creates forces and torques, while it has only very little, undeep screws. That's my opinion, reason why I never bought such a thumb-rest. Also in the DSLR time, I've had several times issues with hot-shoe plates sitting loose after using bigger flashes, it's an extremely delicate item.

I really NEVER would have bought the X-T1 if the X-Pro1 would have been upgradable to the same firmware. But the first gen sensor doesn't allow the same focussing mechanism (the absolute weak point of the X-Pro1) and I'm also afraid the processor, memory, even built in LCD are not up to a point they allow this (it has been a quite slow camera from day one). Once again we feel the pain - how Fuji waited too long to come with a X-Pro successor or even an intermediate version - an updated, faster, X-trans II - even @ the same resolution it deserved its place more on the market than a stripped subversion of the X-T1. Likely a massive dump of the first X-Pro1 gen would be the result on the second hands market - which was an interesting concept full of refreshing faux-RF ideas, but (very) far from being a mature, reliable all-round camera.

Didn't Fuji themselves picture the DSLR-user as a caveman in one of their campaigns? Aren't there a lot of Fuji fanboys (even X-photographers) writing and talking in a very offensive, even destructive manner about Nikon & Canon, making a story how they ditched all that mass-consumer gear in favor of these so much better X-series? I'm almost 40 year a passionate photographer and I have really used a lot of brands and brands. None of them was perfect, but each of them had a particular 'sweet spot' in which I could use them. For me, a camera is a tool, not a cult. I don't need to over-defend like some do why I stay with a particular brand, or why I purchased a brand-new MLIC-solution, as long as the result is perfectly matching my expectations than that's my choice. I still find that Fuji isn't as much the holy grail as some claim it to be, but in it's particular window of a lightweight, compact IL solution, it's one of the best things I've seen. There it stays for me, it doesn't have to be more.

Being around in industry for 30 years I can tell you there are many limitations why engineering and design depts can't be expanded without boundaries. Living to tight budgets and the almost permanent concern to generate savings in bigger companies is one. The true market availability of technically competent resources with a fair level of education and experience is a second one. The current wave of engineers are much more management oriented than purely interested in a technical career, for most it's just a 'bridge' to jump to a major, leading function one day and I see less and less people that can present a full technical record of more than a decade. No, I don't think Fujifilm's resources and capabilities are endless. The reason why the X-Pro2 was delayed so many times. Wether this X-T10 will generate revenue.... well the cheaper versions like the X-A1 and X-M1 apparently didn't. Premium on a very tight budget doesn't fully work because you're entering as a company a different market with not the same expectations. That's a risk and it's not the first company that experiences a decent sales erosion in one model range by releasing another one. Let's hope for Fuji I'm wrong - but isn't it precisely this where the DSLR-world got into trouble?