ChatNoir

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
 
 
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'.

It remains an ugly camera and I still cannot understand why it really exists either. Is there for Fujifilm such a significant market to conquer by dropping a few features and making the design somewhat cheaper (if that is even the case)? The X-T1 was a winner - nobody is going to discuss that - but I'm afraid this is a complete misfit and a waste of development resources - while a lot of people had been hoping that Fujifilm made a true next step with a compelling X-Pro2-concept.

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. 

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.