Will Fujifilm Make The Same Mistake?

[Aswald]

For a long time I assumed, like many others, that Sony would come up with a premium line of a9 mirrorless FF cameras. In fact, I thought the appearance of these big large aperture FE mount lenses like the 35mm f/1.4, and now the 85mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8, and 70-200mm f/2.8 heralded the imminent release of a larger bodied a9. A bigger body, I thought, would have more heat sinking ability for 4/6/8K video, would improve the ergonomics, and lengthen the battery life.

 

Then it suddenly dawned on me: what's point of having a larger bodied mirrorless platform? It seemed a gross oxymoron that defeated the point of mirrorless, so you ended up with all the disadvantages of mirrorless and none of the advantages. 

 

Seen from Sony's point of view, you'd be thinking that you're still better off developing DSLT technology for full on professional use. Since the mirror doesn't move, you also eliminate mirror-slap just as well as with mirrorless, and you can theoretically get frame rates much faster than conventional DSLR, let alone with mirrorless. AF with DSLT should be just as fast as a DSLR, and definitely faster than mirrorless. With an equipment bag loaded with several proper professional lenses, there is a size advantage to DSLT/DSLR. DSLT already has an EVF with exposure preview. If Sony upgraded their A line to have 5-axis IBIS (on a wider diameter mount better able to take it), and then added their best sensor, why on earth would I want to ever consider buying one of their FF mirrorless cameras ever again? Well maybe to adapt lenses, but non-native AF lenses perform so inconsistently, and how important was it for me to have a vintage retro lens contraption anyway? Suddenly the magic spell of FF mirrorless was broken (not that I was ever particular spellbound by it in the first place), and I could see through the delusion of it all.

 

But then I thought to myself why it was that (other than Leica) nobody else is building FF mirrorless systems. I started to suspect that most of these companies like Fuji, Canon, Nikon, and Pentax already know perfectly well that the blow out in lens size means that the size advantage of mirrorless doesn't scale up to FF. Mirrorless APS-C and M4/3 make sense, but not mirrorless FF. By going it alone on the mirrorless FF path, Sony look "unique", which is great for the marketing ploy of product differentiation, but are they just selling novelty as an end to itself?

 

It just seems to me that Sony are better off having the mirrorless a7 series as a high-end prosumer line for casual and street photography, while continuing to develop the DSLT A mount line as their full on professional line. I wanted people to look again at the potentials of a new line of A mount DSLTs. I didn't want a fickle marketplace to ignore them again, especially now that people are sold on the virtues of EVF exposure preview and IBIS—the time might be ripe for Sony to attempt a fresh assault on the market with their A mount line. I would be only to happy for them to threaten the Canon-Nikon duopoly. 

 

As for Fuji, they are particularly smart because they have probably thought through all of these issues at the design planning stage. They picked a dedicated full time APS-C system, which was not a cropped down entry level carrot to entice people to upgrade to the full frame sibling. Because the lenses are dedicated to the APS-C format, you extract the most out of it. Tony Northrup raises this issue here:

 

https://youtu.be/CavQykgW1oc?t=15m44s

 

That's the reason Fuji are so good. They make lenses for Hasselblad, and don't need to enter into a marketing exercise with Leica or Zeiss. Fuji's dedicated APS-C format lenses are outstanding, and this renders the IQ difference with FF negligible. 

 

It also future proofs the system because APS-C sensors will only improve in their performance, and you won't need brute increases in format size to get high resolution images. It won't be long before we have a Sony 36MP APS-C sensor or even an organic sensor, and going down the slippery slope towards a 120+MP larger format sensor is looking like a path of ever diminishing returns. 

 

But the a7 line fanboys will "prove" me wrong by repeating over and over how their a7 line cameras are an inherently superior camera design because they said so. Sigh...

 

I was beginning to be a fan of their DSLT when it suddenly went..........  For one, I had grown rather fond of their unique shape. And then came the A7......like a needle jumping tracks, I had to change idee recue on another unique shape. The host of giant lenses made me wonder even more...

 

I'm not sure how, (like Milandro mentioned) fast lenses in demand like the 33F1 would enable Fujifilm to differentiate themselves from the compact-mirrorless-giant-lens category.

[Aswald]

I have said that one of the reasons ( among few other including also a chance encounter with it) why I bought into the Fuji system was an acquired “ disability” with my hands after both were operated upon following  carpal tunnel syndrome.

 

My fingers have lost what I call dexterity, for lack of a better word, and I drop things easily. Changing heavy lenses  and certainly having them around my neck ( I have three vertebral stenosis in my neck too) is not fun.

 

I am not asking for sympathy but I am simply explaining the process which brought me to Fuji.

 

Anyway, so when I bought a portrait lens a couple of ears ago I was in the shop with enough cash to buy the 56mm which, in fact, I had ordered.

 

I asked to see also the 60mm and by comparison I thought that I preferred the 60mm to the 56mm. It also costed almost half, but that’s another thing. The “slow speed” didn’t bother me a bit. It was fast enough for my needs.

 

I was aware that I was sacrificing “ bokeh” but I thought that I could live without that. I am not going to talk of image quality because both lenses have plenty.

 

 

 

My personal needs might not be shared by all the Fuji community but I was under the impression that these cameras were all about offering high quality in a small camera and lens.

 

Pretty much the same as the Olympus OM2 or a Pentax LX of my youth with the added bonus of great quality at 1600 ISO ( which certainly was not there at the time of film) which would have given me the chance to up the sensitivity with little loss of quality.

 

I have never used so much the sensitivity dial (or fn button) in my whole life, it has become one of the camera controls that I use the most.

 

Anyway.

 

For me, alla I need and want is a small camera body and small great quality lenses. This is the nature of the mirrorless beast.

 

I don’t see the point of a large lens on a small body, unless there are specific reasons to do that, but that’s me.

 

I'm of the opinion that you've made the right choice with the 60.

 

I have both and despite it's AF characteristics, I actually shoot more with and find shooting the 60 more fulfilling. The 56, I take out on very specific personal assignments or if lighting is going to be an impossible challenge.

[Sator-Photography]

Large lenses are still much easier to handle with a small body on the mount, that combined with Fuji's wonderful control layouts means that my ideal system would be a large telephoto lens with a Fuji body.

If Nikon would make a crop version of the DF I probably wouldn't have any interest in Fuji, except that I still need a Mirrorless body to be able to focus large aperture lenses from Samyang.

 

It's not unreasonable to want big lenses on a small body.

 

It all depends on what you mean by large lenses. For me who shoots people in studio or on location, that means something like a 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 135mm f/1.8, in which case the fullness of a DSLR body grip makes the setup more balanced and easier to handle. Once you go to anything larger than this, to the point that you'd prefer to have the lens mounted on a tripod, then a small body becomes advantageous again, especially when you are going to be carrying your kit to a distant location. At that point, you also get more reach out of an APS-C system anyway. That's why I do want to eventually get the Fuji 100-400mm zoom lens because it gives you so much more reach than full frame. 

 

That means you have to think through your own shooting style. What holds true for doing street photography with an a7RII and a pancake lens, doesn't hold true in other situations. These a7 series fanboys who use their cameras for casual shooting want to dictate to those who use professional equipment on formal shoots that what holds true for them holds true for everyone. But it just isn't so. That's the reason why editors who know what doing professional photography is like contacted me to republish my long forum post as a proper article. 

 

One counter to my critique was that with an a7 series camera, you can get compactness with a pancake lens, but you have the option of shooting with bigger professional lenses when you wanted: "the best of both worlds". That's the thinking of someone whose default mode of shooting is casually with a pancake or semi-pancake type of lens, but occasionally might pull out a larger lens. If, as it is with me, your default mode of shooting is with a full cache of professional equipment including multiple fast lenses this simply makes no sense.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Sator-Photography

[Aswald]

Lenses are needed for any camera to work, the size of it is of course fully detrimental to the whole system's size.

 

If I am to buy the XF 23 F1.4 lens, should I complain about its size ? No, that lens is the size it needs to be for an F1.4 aperture, no matter what, you still can not bend the law of physics, the Nikkor 24-70 VR lens is doing a good job at showing that example, the non VR lens was already big, the VR version is just got larger because of the extra space needed for the stabilisation to work.

 

Want smaller lenses ? Go to an even smaller system, m4/3 is also a very good balance of size/weight even in the lenses department, but again, F2.8 zooms are going to be large on it, it's the same thing repeating itself all over the place and the general pro-sumer market can not, or will not understand.

The Nikon 1 system is another good example, I can have the heaviest of any Nikon 1 body, with 3 lenses, that covers wide angle with super zoom and "nifty fifty" all this for roughly the weight of a Nikon D800 body only. But in exchange, my IQ is taking a dip to counter balance the gain in size/weight.

 

There will always be a trade-off somewhere, until someone figure out a way to bend our laws of physics, thing will remain as they are. In the end, buy whatever makes you feel good and don't bother too much with what happens to the sides.

 

It's just a tool after all.

Horses for courses?

 

If anything, we can thank sony for showing the world what happens when you put a FF sensor in a mirrorless body.

[Sator-Photography]

...the Nikkor 24-70 VR lens is doing a good job at showing that example, the non VR lens was already big, the VR version is just got larger because of the extra space needed for the stabilisation to work.

 

 

I do wonder if there are other design reasons for the size of the Nikkor 24-70mm VR. The reason is that the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 has image stabilisation and is the same size as the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. 

 

If you were a Nikon shooter and size was an issue for you, you could always pick the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (third from the left in this comparison of 24-70mm f/2.8s) instead:

 

[darknj]

Horses for courses?

 

If anything, we can thank sony for showing the world what happens when you put a FF sensor in a mirrorless body.

 

Yes and also, the Sony A7 line looked fantastic on paper, it really got me interested in the system, then I saw the lenses and their prices, that got me to a full stop. I mean a 55mm F1.8 over 800$ ?! It's a freaking "nifty-fifty" for christ's sake plus I never saw the higher IQ that was supposed to match the price of that lens.

 

So that was pretty much when the whole thing died for me, I still keep track of it as it does raise my curiosity on a technological perspective.

[milandro]

I'm of the opinion that you've made the right choice with the 60.

 

I have both and despite it's AF characteristics, I actually shoot more with and find shooting the 60 more fulfilling. The 56, I take out on very specific personal assignments or if lighting is going to be an impossible challenge.

 

 

Cheers  .  

 

Yes, of course, you don’t hear me saying that there is absolutely no place for light efficient lenses but sometimes it looks like if you don’t shoot fully open with a depth of field of a couple of millimeters life isn’t worth living.

 

I like shallow depth of field but there are many other ways to achieve that than putting huge pieces of glass on an otherwise camera.

[darknj]

I do wonder if there are other design reasons for the size of the Nikkor 24-70mm VR. The reason is that the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 has image stabilisation and is the same size as the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. 

[...]

 

I also wondered the same thing but the Tamron lens but considering the vignetting issue and some less than good AF accuracy in struggling environment, I still prefer to the old non VR lens over the Tamron version.

 

And I shoot Nikon only on non-hobby photography time, that's pretty much getting smaller and smaller as I am heavily thinking on moving away from the Nikon FF format and use a combo of Fuji and Nikon D500 depending on situation and needs.

[Aswald]

.........lenses but sometimes it looks like if you don’t shoot fully open with a depth of field of a couple of millimeters life isn’t worth living.

 

Hahaha...thankfully, I'm moving away from extreme isolation photography and onto more "content rich" story telling type of photography.....

 

My aim is to set aperture on F8 on a nice piece of glass with great depth of field and shoot from the hip.

[milandro]

I am doing that with the 12mm Samyang and it is a liberating experience 

[Aswald]

Yes and also, the Sony A7 line looked fantastic on paper, it really got me interested in the system, then I saw the lenses and their prices, that got me to a full stop. I mean a 55mm F1.8 over 800$ ?! It's a freaking "nifty-fifty" for christ's sake plus I never saw the higher IQ that was supposed to match the price of that lens.

 

So that was pretty much when the whole thing died for me, I still keep track of it as it does raise my curiosity on a technological perspective.

Haha....they had me at the RX1R....then I saw the price.....

 

Despite it all, I do like the A7 series bodies. Built like a tank. Didn't need 42mpix so.......

[Aswald]

I am doing that with the 12mm Samyang and it is a liberating experience 

 

I just got too. Got hooked and shooting away. It's an awesome piece of glass. Sharp, great IQ.

[Aswald]

I do wonder if there are other design reasons for the size of the Nikkor 24-70mm VR. The reason is that the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 has image stabilisation and is the same size as the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. 

 

If you were a Nikon shooter and size was an issue for you, you could always pick the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (third from the left in this comparison of 24-70mm f/2.8s) instead:

 

 

Wow....it's probably to cater for their future 100mpix sensor.

[darknj]

Haha....they had me at the RX1R....then I saw the price.....

[...]

 

Oh forgot about that one ! Yeah, it sounded super good until the price part... People are actually wondering between the RX1R/II and the Leica Q (I think it's the Q ?) of better IQ.

[Sator-Photography]

I was beginning to be a fan of their DSLT when it suddenly went..........  

 

Rumours has it that they lost money on the a99 and couldn't recoup their investment.

 

Sony DSLTs like the a99 have EVF/exposure preview, and IBIS (called SteadyShot since their Minolta days). After their DSLT line flopped, despite the considerable R&D investment and hopes they justly had for it, they put their EVF plus IBIS into a mirrorless. Suddenly, everyone is raving that mirrorless is inherently superior because exposure preview means "WYSIWYG" (what you see is what you get), and how totally revolutionary IBIS is—even though A mount digital cameras have had IBIS since Minolta added it to the Dimage A1 DSLR way back in 2003:

 

 

The Minolta Dimage A1 from 2003: notice it has a badge saying AS Anti-Shake, later renamed Super SteadyShot by Minolta before Sony dropped the "super" bit. That's IBIS! Or to quote from Sony's website for the specs of the a99:

 

SteadyShot INSIDE

SYSTEM: SENSOR-SHIFT MECHANISM YES

STEADYSHOT INSIDE SCALE (IN VIEWFINDER) NO

CAMERA-SHAKE WARNING (IN VIEWFINDER) NO

 

STEADYSHOT INSIDE CAPABILITY Approx. 2.5 EV - 4.5 EV decrease in shutter speed (varies according to shooting conditions and lens used)

STEADYSHOT INSIDE COMPATIBILITY All Sony DSLR lenses and A-Mount bayonet lenses from Minolta and Konica Minolta

 

 

Despite none of this being novel, buyers raved how revolutionary IBIS made mirrorless cameras and how "mirrorless is so much more compact. Wow...DSLRs like the A mount DSLTs are a thing of the past, especially since Sony sensors are so much better than anyone else's!" Ummmm....aren't the sensors in DSLTs also made by Sony? The response was a kind of mania like the craze for hula hoops long ago:

 

 

Financially, the mania saved Sony, but this isn't really based on technological fundamentals. The mania for FF mirrorless is as irrational as the cold shoulder the market gave to Sony's considerable innovations in DSLT. At some point, sober economic rationalism will creep back in, meaning that it is questionable how economically sustainable for Sony this FF mirrorless hoopla is. At that point, a relaunch of DSLT line cameras might give Sony a more resilient future. They can sell it as having the key advantages of mirrorless, only it's much faster...possibly even faster than a conventional DSLR. And more compact as an overall system used with professional grade fast lenses.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Sator-Photography

[Sator-Photography]

Horses for courses?

 

If anything, we can thank sony for showing the world what happens when you put a FF sensor in a mirrorless body.

 

I probably have a legion of Sony fanboys after my scalp, but I will say this: if you really do your homework there could still be a place for an a7 series camera for you. If:

 

1. You love legacy glass. It's best to shoot with full frame lenses on a FF sensor, not adapt it to APS-C. You don't care that adapters are bulky because vintage MF lenses are often quite compact anyway

2. You want a FF ILC as your compact system for street and casual walkabout photography. You don't shoot with anything faster and longer than a 55mm f/1.8

3. You are a videographer. You have the Sony cine lens for the FE mount and you want to shoot 4K with it on the a7SII. 

 

But only a minority think it through as carefully. I realised too late that none of the above really applies sufficiently to me to have made it worthwhile buying a ticket into the system. 

[Andy F]

"The Minolta Dimage A1 A mount DSLR from 2003: notice it has a badge saying AS Anti-Shake, later renamed Super SteadyShot by Minolta before Sony dropped the "super" bit. That's IBIS!"

 

The Dimage A1 is not an A-mount camera. It has a 2/3" sensor – look at the focal length of the non-removable lens: 7.2–50.8mm

[Aswald]

Rumours has it that they lost money on the a99 and couldn't recoup their investment.

 

Sony DSLTs like the a99 have EVF/exposure preview, and IBIS (called SteadyShot since their Minolta days). After their DSLT line flopped, despite the considerable R&D investment and hopes they had for, they put their EVF plus IBIS into a mirrorless. Suddenly, everyone is raving that mirrorless is inherently superior because exposure preview means "WYSIWYG" (what you see is what you get), and how totally revolutionary IBIS is—even though A mount DSLRs have had IBIS since Minolta added it to the A mount Dimage A1 DSLR way back in 2003:

 

The Minolta Dimage A1 A mount DSLR from 2003: notice it has a badge saying AS Anti-Shake, later renamed Super SteadyShot by Minolta before Sony dropped the "super" bit. That's IBIS!

 

Next, buyers raved that "mirrorless is so much more compact. Wow...DSLRs like the A mount DSLTs are a thing of the past, especially since Sony sensors are so much better than anyone else's!" Ummmm....aren't the sensors in DSLTs also made by Sony? The response was a kind of mania like the craze for hula hoops long ago:

 

Financially, the mania saved Sony, but this isn't really based on technological fundamentals. The mania for FF mirrorless is as irrational as the cold shoulder the market gave to Sony's considerable innovations in DSLT. At some point, sober economic rationalism will creep back in, meaning that it is questionable how economically sustainable for Sony this FF mirrorless hoopla is. At that point, a relaunch of DSLT line cameras might give Sony a more resilient future. They can sell it as having the key advantages of mirrorless, only it's much faster...possibly even faster than a conventional DSLR. And more compact as an overall system used with professional grade fast lenses.

 

From an economical point of view I agree with you. I think that their DSLT is the way to go for their professional market. I hope they will continue that line with a successor soon. I was beginning to like it when they "replaced" it with the A7 series. That's when I decided on Fujifilm and never looked back.

 

Not sure if anyone of you here heard of Vinogradov Alexander. He's one of my favorite portrait photographers and he uses the A99 producing fantastic results. Not sure if he's "upgraded" to the A7 series yet.

 

Feel free to follow him.

 

https://www.facebook.com/vinogradov.alexander/posts/10207242170267202?pnref=story

[Aswald]

I probably have a legion of Sony fanboys after my scalp, but I will say this: if you really do your homework there could still be a place for an a7 series camera for you. If:

 

1. You love legacy glass. It's best to shoot with full frame lenses on a FF sensor, not adapt it to APS-C. You don't care that adapters are bulky because vintage MF lenses are often quite compact anyway

2. You want a FF ILC as your compact system for street and casual walkabout photography. You don't shoot with anything faster and longer than a 55mm f/1.8

3. You are a videographer. You have the Sony cine lens for the FE mount and you want to shoot 4K with it on the a7SII. 

 

But only a minority think it through as carefully. I realised too late that none of the above really applies sufficiently to me to have made it worthwhile buying a ticket into the system. 

 

Choices....I had a friend who went from the A7 to the A7R to A7Rii and finally to the A7s....always lamenting that he really "didn't need" the higher megapixels....

[marcosv]

Oh forgot about that one ! Yeah, it sounded super good until the price part... People are actually wondering between the RX1R/II and the Leica Q (I think it's the Q ?) of better IQ.

LOL.  I know someone who bought a RX1 with the expensive EVF attachment.  I bought a X100s and we both went shooting.  Imagine the look on his face when he realized he left his RX1 on a restaurant's table and then the look when I caught up with him, and handed the RX1 back.  He said, for a moment he had visions of drowning his despair in a newly purchased X100s he would have bought as a replacement.

[Fredkelder]

These endless discussions are even more fun when you know that everyone deeply modifies his RAW files through the Photoshop mill.
So that at the end, no photographer is able to recognize which brand of camera was used by simply looking at the final picture.

In addition, the best of them are sponsored to extoll their "favorite" brand, while they did the same for another sponsor the year before.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Fredkelder

[Aswald]

These endless discussions are even more fun when you know that everyone deeply modifies his RAW files through the Photoshop mill.

So that at the end, no photographer is able to recognize which brand of camera was used by simply looking at the final picture.

 

It's quite true.....

 

People often say to me, "Fujifilm!" or "Canon!" when they look at my pics.....after a while, I just say, "yes, sharp eye you got".

[Fredkelder]

It's quite true.....

 

People often say to me, "Fujifilm!" or "Canon!" when they look at my pics.....after a while, I just say, "yes, sharp eye you got".

Do you mean none of them says "Sony!"...??

[Sator-Photography]

From an economical point of view I agree with you. I think that their DSLT is the way to go for their professional market. I hope they will continue that line with a successor soon. I was beginning to like it when they "replaced" it with the A7 series. That's when I decided on Fujifilm and never looked back.

 

Not sure if anyone of you here heard of Vinogradov Alexander. He's one of my favorite portrait photographers and he uses the A99 producing fantastic results. Not sure if he's "upgraded" to the A7 series yet.

 

Feel free to follow him.

 

https://www.facebook.com/vinogradov.alexander/posts/10207242170267202?pnref=story

 

I hope he doesn't and that Sony doesn't suddenly just dump their A mount clients like this. It would be a PR disaster for them to do so.

 

There are actually gems in the so much more mature Sony A mount lens lineup. I also don't know what happened to the old Minolta 200mm f/2.8, which is a lovely portrait lens. The Minolta/Sony 135mm f/2.8/T4.5 STF lens with the apodization filter is one of the most amazing portrait lenses I know. Astonishing actually. But it's very hard to work with it when you lose a half stop of light with the A to E mount adapter making it more like a T5.6 lens. It's just so simple really: native lenses are best.

 

It's an irony that I am probably the Sony FF mirrorless fetishist's public enemy number one, when I probably own much more expensive Sony/Minolta glass than most of them ever will.  

[Tom H.]

These endless discussions are even more fun when you know that everyone deeply modifies his RAW files through the Photoshop mill.

So that at the end, no photographer is able to recognize which brand of camera was used by simply looking at the final picture.

In addition, the best of them are sponsored to extoll their "favorite" brand, while they did the same for another sponsor the year before.

Looking at my shelf, Fujifilm cameras fit right in with my old 135 format cameras. Nikon FM2, Hasselblad Xpan,... It's the perfect blend of portability while delivering more than adequate image quality.

 

Looking at FF dlsr's, they will probably remain the go to workhorse for sports shooters and people who need durability above anything else. And with the ultra high megapixel bodies these days, they have basically taken the role that 120 format used to fill. With the size and weight downside that medium format used to have versus 135 shooting.

 

Sony FF with it' s big lenses, reminds me most of the 120 format cams for slower paced work. Like my Mamiya 6 or my Hasselblad 503CW. Great cams, but not the ones I tend to take for everyday work...

Edited April 6, 2016 by Tom H.