GFX & f2 lenses spell the end for high end, x lenses

[Naddan28]

With the GFX system, recent slew of f2 lenses and pulling of the alleged superfast 33m I have to wonder whether it spells the end for any development (or redevelopment) of high end x lenses. What do others think?

 

Personally I'm on the fence and have held off investing anymore cash in my X series gear.

[milandro]

Probably, and that is, I think, a good thing.

 

So those who can’t live with the X system and its limitations, will let the rest of us ( those who can and like things to stay as they are) enjoy the X cameras as they were meant to be. 

 

Small, affordable high quality cameras with small high quality affordable lenses built around a small affordable sensor.

 

Which is how the Fuji X system was born and made this brand return to a successful camera and lenses production.

 

If you want large camera, large sensor, large output, large lenses and a large price to match, then you have another more expensive system.

 

The  GIANT FUJI X 

 

Enjoy that and... to each his own.

Edited February 18, 2017 by milandro

[Warwick]

Agreed. I sold my f1.4 and f1.2 lenses when the new f2 ones came out. The result is I take my camera with me to more places and use it more often.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RM_Photog]

Probably, and that is, I think, a good thing.

 

So those who can’t live with the X system and its limitations, will let the rest of us ( those who can and like things to stay as they are) enjoy the X cameras as they were meant to be. 

 

Small, affordable high quality cameras with small high quality affordable lenses built around a small affordable sensor.

 

Which is how the Fuji X system was born and made this brand return to a successful camera and lenses production.

 

If you want large camera, large sensor, large output, large lenses and a large price to match, then you have another more expensive system.

 

The  GIANT FUJI X 

 

Enjoy that and... to each his own.

 

 

How is anybody else's choice of camera affecting your ability to enjoy your x series? If anything, having more people buying the X system is a good thing for you because it brings your prices down. A niche product is going to be more expensive and the smaller the niche, the higher the price. The more x lenses that are developed the better, in my opinion! 

 

 

I shoot professionally but I have no desire to switch to the GFX system. I want good wide aperture (1.0, 1.2, 1.4) lenses for my X series cameras because they're smaller and lighter than the full-frame Canon system I left behind. I don't want to switch over to an even bigger setup now (GFX) because it's the hot new trend. I want high quality lenses for the X series I fell in love with. I know there are other photographers like me out there. If all of us leave Fuji in a few years because they neglect the X series lens and camera lineup, how long do you think the X series will stay successful? Enthusiasts alone aren't going to invest enough money to keep an entire camera system afloat. 

[mdm]

Agreed. I sold my f1.4 and f1.2 lenses when the new f2 ones came out. The result is I take my camera with me to more places and use it more often.

 

 

Did you notice a difference in low-light performance of f2 lenses vs f1.4. Is it minor or not?

[Naddan28]

The Fuji x series was built on good ergonomics, IQ and colour/jpeg rendition supported by great glass. Given the standard length f2 lenses didn't come along for years I can't see how they "made" the system. If you're going to pin that on a single product, it's probably the XT1.

 

Whilst I agree the 33mm f1 is probably too much, a series of fast focusing sub f2, WR primes is hardly niche, even more so a 50mm standard equivalent one. I can't actually think of a single serious lens mount that doesn't have a premium sub f2 50mm equivalent. The 35mm f1.4 produces a great image but try shooting a child indoors...I'd rather manual focus. It makes no sense to have inferior focusing, weather seal lacking, fast glass at a price premium to the f2 range.

 

If Sony had (or does) designed an FE mount camera that had the ergonomic and build qualities of a Fuji X, I suspect you'd see a lot of reluctant Fuji users jumping ship. Something nobody really wants.

[Warwick]

Did you notice a difference in low-light performance of f2 lenses vs f1.4. Is it minor or not?

I don't find it significantly slower. Mind you, my XPro2 has a better low-light sensor than my old XT1

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[milandro]

it is affecting it because it is changing the system into something else that originally wasn’t.

 

I chose this system because of its small size but everything ( lenses and camera) is getting ginormous because of the demand for things that are foreign to the initial thought of the system.

 

Anyway, It is quite clear, to me, that Fuji is making a different choice.

 

I have been a pro for over 30 year and now I would like to enjoy photography with a great system small and compact and not too expensive hence my dislike of the forces pulling in an opposite direction.

 

The GFX is gaining a lot of support but it won’t be mine (see also this forum talking of the new kid on the block more than it does about anything else these days). It is quite fine by me.

 

I am not interested in that game and if I were I’d go Hasselblad.

Edited February 18, 2017 by milandro

[mdm]

I don't find it significantly slower. Mind you, my XPro2 has a better low-light sensor than my old XT1

 

 

Good to know that.

[johant]

For me, it doesn't make sense to buy a small camera, and then put a large cannon in front of it. I would be perfectly happy with Fujifilm focusing the X-series cameras on city and street photography.

[milandro]

pretty much my feeling too.

 

The liberating feeling that I experience from having a relatively small camera ( although I made it bigger with an L plate & grip ) is second to none.

 

As I wrote above. 

 

I bought a 16-55 and quickly reminded my why I didn’t want it. Yes it might have been better than the 18-55 and certainly wider but all that weight made me really doubt that I was going to use the camera as casually.

 

Similarly the “ necessary” grip for the X-T2, yes you may not use it but then two important  (for some) plus of this camera ( 4K and autofocus speed) are not supported or well supported.

 

I think the brand has made a choice and that choice is opening a new market segment where they can be a leader rather than occupying a crowded market place.

 

This may mean that in the smaller formats, things will take a step back too, returning Fuji in a market segment ( the small affordable mirrorless system camera with smaller affordable lenses at an higher quality than any other brand in that market segment at a better price than SONY) where they have been a leader in the last 3 or 4 years.

 

As long as the brand has an identity and pursues it, it will keep its market leadership in the mirrorless segment and I believe that as soon as it starts giving mixed messages about what the brand is all about this will spell problems because it puts this camera in direct competition with brands with larger experience and resources.

Edited February 19, 2017 by milandro

[adzman808]

We actually already have the great fast glass. The 1.4 23 & 35, plus of course the 56.

 

The "problem" (IMO) is that people whinned on and on about AF speed until Fuji listened, and now these people seem to want noctilux aperture glass that focuses like m43 whilst being the size of their thumb !!!!!!!!!

 

PERSONALLY as someone who grew up on manual focus I'm happy to have a slower AF and a faster aperture, but that's just not the world these days.

 

And to the chap asking about whether a stop makes a difference....

 

Well between say ISO 200 and 400 or 1/4000 and 1/8000 no not really. But between say 6400 and 12800 or 1/30 and 1/15 yeah it matters a lot more!

[milandro]

well, I have never felt the need to shoot anything above 1600 ISO in my entire, long, life and I plan to keep it this way

Edited February 19, 2017 by milandro

[Adrenalinenova]

The GFX is just a halo product. Sure it's the first affordable med format. And many pros and deep pocket prosumers will go there. I'm glad for them.

 

But after initial sales, it's a limited market and should saturate quickly. Then fuji will hopefully turn back to their mini-pro line the x lenses.

 

I expect the GFX headlines/hype to get more people talking fuji, but their wallets will lead them to the x series, not the GFX. So I'm the end we will likely get more market share and more attention. Not necessarily a bad thing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flysurfer]

The F2 lens trio is very popular. They sell very well and users like them.

 

That said, some of the "large, heavy and expensive" lenses also gained popularity in recent months, probably due to the availability of the X-T2.

 

The next area to fill will probably be video, seeing that there's currently no video-optimized lens in the line-up.

 

As for additional high-end lenses for still photography, I'm pretty sure we will eventually also see a few of those in 2018 and beyond. 

Edited February 19, 2017 by flysurfer

[adzman808]

 

As for additional high-end lenses for still photography, I'm pretty sure we will eventually also see a few of those in 2018 and beyond.

 

Any HUNCHES as too which ones?

[mdm]

... in 2018 and beyond. 

 

And beyond... Oh yeah, sure, no problem, won't be in hurry Fuji it's ok just to know....

[flysurfer]

Any HUNCHES as too which ones?

 

 

If I had to guess, I'm pretty confident that a red-badge wide-angle zoom has high priority.

 

For 2017, there's also the 80mm Macro with OIS, WR and teleconverter compatibility.

 

X-Mount is mature, so in the long run I'd expect 2-3 new lenses from Fujifilm every year. 

[Tikcus]

We actually already have the great fast glass. The 1.4 23 & 35, plus of course the 56.

 

The "problem" (IMO) is that people whinned on and on about AF speed until Fuji listened, and now these people seem to want noctilux aperture glass that focuses like m43 whilst being the size of their thumb !!!!!!!!!

 

PERSONALLY as someone who grew up on manual focus I'm happy to have a slower AF and a faster aperture, but that's just not the world these days.

 

And to the chap asking about whether a stop makes a difference....

 

Well between say ISO 200 and 400 or 1/4000 and 1/8000 no not really. But between say 6400 and 12800 or 1/30 and 1/15 yeah it matters a lot more!

 

I couldn't agree more with this.

 

i've said it before that the original lenses focus fast enough, i've never had an issue with the original 18/35/60 on any xtrans 2 series camera

 

When i'm shooting live events the extra stop of light can be the difference between getting an acceptable photograph and not

[adzman808]

 

When i'm shooting live events the extra stop of light can be the difference between getting an acceptable photograph and not

Yes, exactly.

 

Sometimes people like to brag about their ability to hand hold at slow speeds or they demand IBIS, (not on this thread though) and for sure this is an important skill and IBIS can be a useful feature.

 

But when something is moving in the frame there's just no substitute for shutter speed, and in indoor events, this can mean needing a fast lens

[milandro]

True, but there are also folks out there who want the most light efficient lens and the best IBIS & OIS the largest sensor and the fastet autofocus camera even if all they do is shooting their children or grandchildren running around the house.

 

If cameras were sold only to deserving, competent and able photographers they would be sold in very small amounts and cost a fortune.

 

So maybe it is a good job that the majority of those demanding all these features are really in the need of any of these.   I am sure that a lot of GFX will be finding their way into the homes of people shooting subjects that might just as well being shot with a phone camera.

Edited February 20, 2017 by milandro

[mdm]

 I am sure that a lot of GFX will be finding their way into the homes of people shooting subjects that might just as well being shot with a phone camera.

 

That might be true, but at the same time things are moving in both directions. I used to attend some photo-art courses last year and our lecturer, who has an art education in painting and photography had sold his last camera Fuji X100s few years ago and now use his iphone 4 for shooting.

[milandro]

yes, there is a whole arty trend  pursuing that way of expression, a bit like all those who were into Polaroid art at one time ( I too was very involved in the PN 55 & 655)

Edited February 20, 2017 by milandro

[adzman808]

True, but there are also folks out there who want the most light efficient lens and the best IBIS & OIS the largest sensor and the fastet autofocus camera even if all they do is shooting their children or grandchildren running around the house.

 

If cameras were sold only to deserving, competent and able photographers they would be sold in very small amounts and cost a fortune.

 

So maybe it is a good job that the majority of those demanding all these features are really in the need of any of these.   I am sure that a lot of GFX will be finding their way into the homes of people shooting subjects that might just as well being shot with a phone camera.

If someone has the coin, and isn't jeopardising anything important (like the mortgage or the kids college fund) to get the product they desire, good luck to them.

 

This notion that people shouldn't be allowed a fast car, unless they're a racing driver, or an expensive dive watch unless they're a professional diver or a really nice top line camera, unless they're the living embodiment of Vivian Maier or Ansel Adams or something, is just a derivative of wealth politics, and as much as everyone is entitled to their opinion, mine is that this is a pretty puerile point of view!

 

Don't worry, I don't expect you to agree with that :) I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that we live in a world where money, and not ability decides what we can buy!

 

Besides as you say, how much money would things cost if you needed the ability to allowed to buy them? Like if Puma only made one pair of running shoes and you had to be Usain Bolt to be allowed to buy them

 

Perhaps it's best to look at it the other way around, someone who's good at something, can use any product from the genre they're good at, because they have ability. Those that don't, need as much help as the technology can give. But those that are good can still take profit from this situation, becuase although they don't need the advanced product to deliver the goods, it's nice for them to have the option, which wouldn't exist if the less able weren't clamouring for it

[milandro]

I don’t agree but I don’t worry in the least... I’will carry on with my life’s vision, regardless. I have done it for almost 60 years already.

 

I understand that some people celebrate “ having” things above “ being". I try not to. The world would be a beter place if consumerism would’t rule it.

 

Using the derogatory adjective “ Puerile” ( which comes from the Latin for young kid, a son. Well ...thanks for the ‘ compliment” but I am not young nor am I puerile in my thoughts) about my opinions was completely unwarranted if you were aiming at being truly respectful of my opinions .

 

But that has given me now enough insight.

 

Using smileys, however, doesn’t take anything away from such rude ad hominem comments. You said that that you weren’t trying to be rude but you did succeed in being precisely that.

Edited February 20, 2017 by milandro