Jump to content

The X-E3 Poll

Jano
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jano Contributor

Jano

Posted
Posted (edited)

Dear fellow X-E lovers,

 

with our hopes high that Fuji is actually working on an X-E3 now, I've been thinking a lot about what I would want the X-E3 to be like and for which features I am actually willing (and able) to pay. Since I've read all sorts of things about what people want ranging from "as cheap as possible" to "make it an X-T2 in rangefinder format" I decided to make a poll to collect all those opinions in a meaningful way. I am hoping that many people here (and from FR) participate so that I can generate some interesting statistics from the data. Patrick has done some polls but without a bit of background information I believe the value of those polls is quite low (sorry, Patrick ;-)

 

So, here's the link if you want to participate (it shouldn't take long):

https://goo.gl/forms/LixLzXFAzOH6SwYx1 » Poll is now closed!

 

I am planning to leave it open for about a week and then do an analysis which I will of course publish here in the forum or maybe as a guest post on FR.

If you have any comments feel free to drop them here.

 

Thank you!

Edited by Jano
Link to post
Share on other sites
renes Contributor

renes

Posted
Posted (edited)

Done.

 

I am dissapointed you have not listed the eyecup need - it's really a pain shooting with X-E2 in strong back/side lighting. I found the Fuji eyepiece with no eyrcup attachement one of the worst part of its cams.

Edited by renes
Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonard_O Newbie

Leonard_O

Posted
Posted

Poll done.

 

What I am looking for in an X-E3, is a compact rangefinder which maintains the general size of my X-E2, but at a minimum includes the 24 MP X-Trans III with X-T2 firmware. Some of the additional features such as the joystick would be nice, but not so it exceeds the price point of the X-100F.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulver Newbie

Ulver

Posted
Posted

X-E3 will be last model in this line, so it should mature to quasi pro level rangefinder in this target price range. It should have a build quality of x-pro1 and OVF from x-pro1 + EVF (from x-e2), no bells & whistles, just stable pro xtransIII (sensor & processor) base in solid rangefinder body. Without: 4K, tilt & touch screen, dual iso dial, flash. Would be nice to have: PDAF, additonal electronic shutter and WR, but not necessary. In 3-4 years time x-pro2 will be on Fujifilm sales for a 1000$ for a body, so it's a last time for Fujifilm to end this line with a style, as we already know that X-pro3 will go Medium, as Fujifilm skipped FF, and building new lens lineup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted (edited)

The X pro 3 won’t be a medium format camera.

 

Fuji is very unlikely to throw away the entire work done on building a entire and complex lens system AROUND  the Aps-C  format.

 

Those lenses aren’t usable for a larger format.

 

Having made the choice to have a medium format line, they will keep both lines. Sony has announced the possibility to provide 100 or even 200 Mp. medium formats 

 

It is therefore possible that the pixel density of the Aps-c too will grow, although to me the principal question will always remain, why? I’s rather have a better sensor rather than a “ larger” one.

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites
mdm Experienced

mdm

Posted
Posted

I just may guess that larger megapixel count is not the goal but side effect. When the chipset manufacturer transitioning to a new technological process, it can not keep the old sensor's density. So that's why we are getting 16 - 24 - 32 etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulver Newbie

Ulver

Posted
Posted

Basic facts: 1. Fujifilm going MF by huge investment in GFX and new Medium Format lens line-up, and not FF. 2. Decission about going MF was taken a couple years ago, because it takes not only a couple of years to design a one lens from scratch, but also it needs changes in engineering lens and camera departments, they needed to move more people from actual products line-up, to work on future products. So basicly if we got already GFX on market, that means that best teams are working on MF line-up and not FF, because behind this move was strategic decission, to skip FF. 3. FF market already taken by other companies. 4. MF image quality advantage over FF. 5. GFX system should be most affordable for FF pro camera users from fashion, commercial and landscape niche(official fujifilm statement). 6. Fujifilm camera nomenclature, "pro" products gets the best technology avilable, and Fujifilm analog MF rangefinder history of products. Complementarity of digital product lines (x-pro vs. x-t) like GFX vs. new digital GW (i.e. GW960), and the lack of digital MF rangefinders on the market, which is a great opportunity for Fujifilm to be the first on the market in this niche.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ulver Newbie

Ulver

Posted
Posted

Fujifilm can't compete on todays market in 2000$ price range for a body with 24mp aps-c cam, when clients for this money can already buy FF camera with higher MP count. So they moved to MF, to avoid MP war on FF market, already taken by other players, especialy Sony (which sells sensors to Fujifilm). We should also remember Fujifilm analog MF products and R&D already done in field of MF lenses. There are many factors which tells us that MF x-pro3 is not just real possibility, but a logic choice for Fujifilm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted

I just may guess that larger megapixel count is not the goal but side effect. When the chipset manufacturer transitioning to a new technological process, it can not keep the old sensor's density. So that's why we are getting 16 - 24 - 32 etc.

 

 

 

Yes, but I still fail to see the logic of it, it is like putting a bigger and bigger engine in every new model of a car although the speed limits  and the tire size stays the same. But I guess, it is indeed a byproduct of the bigger, better, improved and more expensive paradigm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aswald Mentor

Aswald

Posted
Posted

I'm waiting for the 30mpx APS-C X-Pro3 which shoots 16 bit raw, and newer, faster lenses to hit F1.2 and F1.0. When that happens, the line between APS-C and FF will be blurred.

 

Don't need MF resolution. Will leave that for the die hard studio, wedding and landscape photographers. ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • George_P
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By George_P · Posted

      I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      First post here but long time fuji shorter. I use the XT2 with the 23mm f2 / 35mm 1.4 / 16-80mm f4 I'm considering the 23mm f1.4 r (Non-WR) About me: - I shoot black and white only. - I like macro details to wide open landscapes and everything in-between. - I shoot mostly for art, intrigue and creativity of the image. My question - is the 23mm f1.4 going to offer me any meaningful difference over the f2 for the above scenarios Thanks and sorry for bringing it up again...
×
×
  • Create New...