Jump to content
Aswald

Will Fujifilm Make The Same Mistake?

Recommended Posts

As I often say: "No system is perfect. Choose a system because of its real benefits rather than its unreal benefits"

/uploads/emoticons/default_wink.png">

Edited by Fredkelder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know whether what happened to Sony might happen to Fuji too.

 

I don’t think that, at this point, there would ever be a Fuji full frame ( while there might be a “ medium format” with fixed lens and optical adapters, a bit like an overgrown X100T)  and I agree, as the article puts it, a mirrorless full frame offers more a fad than a well thought logical choice since the “ advantages” over a more traditional design are minimal at best.

 

 

In my view, once a company defines the identity of a product which turn out to be a success ( small size of camera and lenses, high quality image, retro feel and looks) reason has it that that company should stick to what made this camera a success... but we are seeing a certain amount of Fuji users demanding things which go in a direction which is absolutely contrary to the product identity ( as seen and established to date).

 

 

 

So they are asking light efficient large lenses ( which would impair the view of the OVF for those using it and would bring the camera out of balance) and larger grips for more battery life while the logic would suggest using smaller lenses and develop better batteries to stay within the idea of compactness and avoid adding weight and size to something that sells because it is small.

 

 

In the end we might end up with the largest small camera in the APS-C world, who knows?

 

On the other hand, do I really care of what the future will bring?

 

Within the Fuji system I found my own niche and I am happy.  I admit not being interested in comparing my cameras with other systems... because I just simply don’t care. Maybe there are better cameras out there but would I make any better pictures with them? I doubt it.

 

The only important thing is how comfortable I am with camera and the software that I use.

 

Frankly speaking that’s another area in which I really don’t obsess too much. I found something that works for me (although others might find unrefined or even technically objectionable) and I do it. I am reasonably happy with the results. At this point in time, my like my judgement on the things that I do is the only one judgement that I really care about.

 

I don’t have to please anyone else than myself and I am not unhappy.

 

I made my choice based mostly on the feel and looks of the X cameras and that’s that. I really don’t care that this that or the other system are “ better” or worse.

 

Often I see people announcing their divorce from the Fuji system and selling all their equipment (more often than not at a gigantic loss) when I read the reason why that happens ( with very few exceptions mentioning limitations which impair a particular thing, but then I wonder why one committed so heavily to one system...) I think that those who do that must be crazy but hey, farewell, to each his own!

 

 

Of course there will be contradictions from Fuji’s part and maybe a faux pas or two ( like the release or lack of release of Kaizen) but it’s all in the game.

 

At this point, frankly speaking, with my two cameras ( X-E2 and X-T1) several lenses : Samyang 8mm fish eye, 12mm , Fuji 18-55, 60, 50-230, Pentax Macro 100mm, Helios 58mm, Meyer Göerz 50, and few adapters I am mostly done with buying.

 

I might buy something else but, unless a camera will fail I may never “ need” to replace it.

 

Which brings me to people continuously “ updating”. Does everyone “ need” the update? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about this with by buddy from SonyAlphaRumors... he's preparing an answer to this. Here some of the points he will publish soon:

 

  1. Size: It's not the "mirrorless" aspect that makes Sony FF attractive. But mirrorless is necessary for most of these innovative features to exist.
  2. Big lenses: The lenses are big because it's high quality glass, for example the new 85mm GM lens is made for ultimate quality. [...] Sartor, the author of the article, did not take into account that lenses are also designed for different image quality performances.
    "Let's make a more fair comparison: Here is the Zeiss FE 35mmF2.8 Vs the XF18mmF2.0 (29mm f/3.0 FF equivalent) comparison by CameraSize (re-aligned on the LCD screen)"
    "Owning a Sony A7 camera gives you an extreme flexibility: If small size is what matters you can use small APS-C or FF lenses on the very same E-mount. If extreme quality is what matters you can use the bigger FF GM lenses. Such a flexibility is yet second to none in the camera business!"
  3. IBIS: SonyAlphaRumors says that Sartor doesn't bring a real actual proof to support his thesis.

More coming soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a whole multi-page discussion on this topic on the "other" forum.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Well, similar or identical discussions are not mutually exclusive otherwise what would be the point of having two different fora and not merging them? Same thing on saxophone’s fora really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, similar or identical discussions are not mutually exclusive otherwise what would be the point of having two different fora and not merging them? Same thing on saxophone’s fora really.

I didn't argue that /uploads/emoticons/default_wink.png">

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks as if Sony is trying to replace dslrs with their mirrorless. The mirrorless concept of compactness is just one of the key selling point. It explains why their dslr range is almost non existent. It looks like a niche marketing idea.

 

Other than a Fujifilm MF, I really hope Fujifilm don't do a FF mirrorless and end up with gigantic lenses. Back to square one for consumers if that happens.

 

No one expected aps-c Fujifilm mirrorless to be so good when it first emerge. Most accepted their typical drawbacks back then but today, it's a different story. We're (Fujifilm) moving closer and closer to dslr territory.

 

I'd like to think of it as a "David and the Goiliath"....let's hope Fujifilm keeps it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Big lenses: The lenses are big because it's high quality glass, for example the new 85mm GM lens is made for ultimate quality. [...] Sartor, the author of the article, did not take into account that lenses are also designed for different image quality performances.

"Let's make a more fair comparison: Here is the Zeiss FE 35mmF2.8 Vs the XF18mmF2.0 (29mm f/3.0 FF equivalent) comparison by CameraSize (re-aligned on the LCD screen)"

[...]

 

Well, the fixed lens size are fine, it's more the zooms that are having more size issues, we have the same thing with the F2.8 lenses on the XF system, both lenses are very good but very big and very heavy.

But really, only NOW Sony is starting to release good to very good quality lens, it took them almost 3 years to start doing it. The previous FE Sony lenses were between okayish and "oh love of god why this monstrosity ?!".

 

I was interested in the Sony alpha line for a long time before going for Fuji and every time I see something happen to the Sony world, I am glad happy of my choice, the only exception is that marvelous line of Batiss line of lenses for the FE mount, those lenses are gorgeous to use and work with. 

But for the rest, there is quite a lot of "meh" feeling to the system, at least for me. The bodies are great but severely lacking in decent quality of glass, until recently. I have also heard numerous nightmare from their after sales support, if you think we have it bad with Fuji, give it a go with Sony, you will love the Fuji support very suddenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lens for FF mirrorless is huge because the sensor is very near the lens. It's a technical issue. As a technical issue, the industry will find solutions (curve sensor or whatever).
For now, the mirrorless APS-c is the best compromise between image quality and size.
The future will be different from today, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that I've create such a stir. I haven't been following all of the fora I've cross posted to, because before I could cross-post to the Fuji-X Forum, Petapixel contacted me and I spend some hours turning it into a publishable article. In fact a couple of websites contacted me with editors who agreed with what I wrote, but Petapixel got in first. The version on Petapixel is the final version, the stuff previously posted to other fora are draft versions.

I see someone is comparing a Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 Vs the XF18mm f/2.0. The latter is one stop faster! It is not a counter-argument at all since if you read my article, I make it clear that I fully acknowledge that when shooting with pancake type lenses the size advantage of FF mirrorless can be seen. That's why I keep repeating that it's a critique of professional grade full frame mirrorless—as opposed to just using it for casual walkabout shooting with a pancake or quasi-pancake slow lens. The problem is when you start mounting faster professional grade lenses on the body that this size advantage business falls apart. It's absurd to keep showing pictures of a Sony FF with pancake type lenses and repeating the argument ad nauseam that FF mirrorless is superior because it is inherently more compact.

 

The bottom line is that FF mirrorless is fine as an option for casual walkabout shooting, but you are still better off with a DSLR/DSLT for more serious professional grade work, because these are faster and the lenses are more compact, which is important when carrying multiple lenses on a shoot.

 

This made me cringe:

 

"The lenses are big because it’s high quality glass, for example the new 85mm GM lens is made for ultimate quality"

 

We'll see what the independent reviews say, but irrespective of the quality of the lens, it still doesn't change the fact that it totally undermines any size advantage inherent to mirrorless. Sony could make big and high quality lenses for A mount too. "Mirrorless is better because the lenses are bigger and higher quality" is hardly a credible argument for why mirrorless is an inherently better camera design. Hey my Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 is BIG and HEAVY, built for "ultimate quality", but I'm hardly going to say that this decisively proves that DSLRs are a superior camera design. My lens is bigger than yours, therefore my camera is better too! And more compact! Honestly...

 

As for this:

 

"It’s not the 'mirrorless' aspect that makes Sony FF attractive. But mirrorless is necessary for most of these innovative features to exist."

 

What innovative features? IBIS was first put into A mount DSLRs by Minolta back in 2003. EVF/exposure preview was already in Sony DSLRs/DSLTs long before an a7 ever existed. You can put eye detect AF into an A mount. You can put a Sony BSI sensor into A mount. None of these innovations are unique or inherent technical characteristics specific to mirrorless. I mean, really, "the fact that my a7RII has a 42MP BSI sensor definitively proves that mirrorless is an inherently superior camera design"? It won't be long before Nikon or Pentax will have their hands on the same Sony BSI sensor for their DSLRs.

 

I appreciate that the concern about the theoretical potential for negative impact on IQ that having an APS-C non-IBIS forced to do overtime as a FF IBIS mount is speculative. But why did they do this? How technically difficult is it to overcome this handicap? Yes, this is a grave uncertainty that hangs over the future of the FE mount, and without precise engineering data from the lab we are reduced to speculating about how bad this problem really is. However, the fact that the Sigma CEO expressed concerns about the fact that it is more difficult to design lenses for such a mount is a fact that is out in the public sphere, and hardly a matter of speculation. Even Zeiss admit it is "challenging" to develop ultra wide angle lenses for the FE mount. The increased R&D costs to overcome these difficulties clearly are being passed onto the buyer, because such hurdles retard lens development. The onus of proof firmly reassuring us that having an APS-C non-IBIS dimension mount function as a FF IBIS mount will have absolutely NO negative impact on IQ, or increase the costs of lens R&D/manufacture just to overcome the handicap (that need to be handed on to the consumer), rests squarely on the Sony fanboys.

 

I dare any of these a7 series fanboys to make an official statement on behalf of Sony that turning an APS-C non-IBIS dimension mount into a FF IBIS mount unconditionally stating that this:

 

1. Cannot possibly increase the difficulties associated with lens development

2. Cannot possibly cause degradation in IQ

3. Cannot possibly increase the cost of R&D and manufacture to bring them on par with competitors

4. Cannot possibly cause FE mount lenses to be more expensive than DSLR FF lenses

4. Cannot possibly stop third parties like Sigma and Tamron from developing cost-alternative FE mount optons

 

Even if one of them was foolish enough to do so, why would we believe even a word of this?

Edited by Sator-Photography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that rather than comparing the Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 against the Fuji XF18mm f/2.0, you should look at the Sony 50mm f/1.8 against the Fuji 35mm f/2.0:

 

 

The Fuji is the FF equivalent of a 52.5mm lens, while the Sony is 1/3rd stop faster. No need to draw funny lines trying to convince the reader that a lens a stop faster is just as big as its slower full frame rough equivalent by a few millimeters. 

 

Now for the acid test, let's compare the Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4 to the Sony 50mm f/1.8. The Fuji has the disadvantage of being 2/3rd stop faster, as well as a slightly longer FF equivalent field of view, but it still beats the Sony hands in the compactness department:

 

 

In terms of IQ, I can tell you from testing myself that the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 compares extremely well to the Sony-Zeiss 55mm f/1.8, despite the Fuji being half the price.

 

I would also LOVE to be able to compare the Fuji 23mm f/1.4 against the Sony-Zeiss 35mm f/1.4! But sizecomparison.com don't allow you to pick this combination. I've messaged them to ask them to add it, I would encourage you all to the do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a wider perspective, it does look as if Sony is trying to reinvent/recreate their market share. While I have nothing against them or their gear, I do find moving back to "dslr" size on a mirrorless platform a bit oxymoronic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a wider perspective, it does look as if Sony is trying to reinvent/recreate their market share. While I have nothing against them or their gear, I do find moving back to "dslr" size on a mirrorless platform a bit oxymoronic.

 

 

 

 

 

That certainly is but, If I may, isn’t it the same side of a different medal that we are seeing being forged over here too?

 

I believe the title of this thread suggests that as Sony went into an ever  larger “ small camera” system ( which, I think, is an undeniable fact)  so, the same could happen to Fuji if the would listen to some customers asking ( ore dare I say “ voting”) for lenses with huge diameter front elements and extended range and last, but by no means the least, a larger grip to accommodate large hands and provide more battery capacity.

 

One of the reasons to redesign the 35mm and probably the 23mm which is said to come soon, is the fact that the current models of these lenses impair the vision of the OVF on the X pro 2, true, this is, for some people like the friend that I’ve talked about, little more than an aesthetic function, for some, but a very important one for the image of that camera.

 

Some of the Fuji crowd are “ demanding” improved video functions , and we are told that this would among other “ problems” overheat the camera and drain the batteries, so the temptation must be big to put the new versions of the sensor into a larger body capable to dissipate the heat. This may come with the X-T2.

 

But don’t forget the demand for the 35mm f1 ( and even larger longer lenses)!

 

 

If all of these “ demands” were to be satisfied we will end up with a large , small sensor camera! An oxymoron , a contradiction in terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I go hiking I carry the Canon 400f5.6 with an 1100D, not because it delivers the best IQ (though the crop sensor is usually not a disadvantage), but because putting a 5D on the same lens was twice as much hassle. The camera grip was constantly hitting my leg when carrying the camera by my side, and digging into my ribs when I had it clipped to my shoulder strap.

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.

Edited by 9.V.III

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, so many heads, so many ideas.

 

From where I stand it might not be unreasonable but it is awkward.

 

I went to try some on the most popular large lenses to see what the fuss was all about and as I handled them I knew it wasn’t for me.

 

I want a small camera with lenses as small as humanly possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a wider perspective, it does look as if Sony is trying to reinvent/recreate their market share. While I have nothing against them or their gear, I do find moving back to "dslr" size on a mirrorless platform a bit oxymoronic.

 

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 too happy for them to challenge 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...

Edited by Sator-Photography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That certainly is but, If I may, isn’t it the same side of a different medal that we are seeing being forged over here too?

 

I believe the title of this thread suggests that as Sony went into an ever  larger “ small camera” system ( which, I think, is an undeniable fact)  so, the same could happen to Fuji if the would listen to some customers asking ( ore dare I say “ voting”) for lenses with huge diameter front elements and extended range and last, but by no means the least, a larger grip to accommodate large hands and provide more battery capacity.

 

One of the reasons to redesign the 35mm and probably the 23mm which is said to come soon, is the fact that the current models of these lenses impair the vision of the OVF on the X pro 2, true, this is, for some people like the friend that I’ve talked about, little more than an aesthetic function, for some, but a very important one for the image of that camera.

 

Some of the Fuji crowd are “ demanding” improved video functions , and we are told that this would among other “ problems” overheat the camera and drain the batteries, so the temptation must be big to put the new versions of the sensor into a larger body capable to dissipate the heat. This may come with the X-T2.

 

But don’t forget the demand for the 35mm f1 ( and even larger longer lenses)!

 

 

If all of these “ demands” were to be satisfied we will end up with a large , small sensor camera! An oxymoron , a contradiction in terms.

 

Pot calling kettle black?

 

 

Although I'm guilty as charged, I definitely don't hope what you've mentioned to happen. I was very glad that the XF56 F1.2 was a lot smaller than the EF85 F1.2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...