Jump to content
  • Posts

    • @epscott looking at the size difference between the (photo oriented) X-T1 and the (video) X-T4 shows exactly why Fujifilm is going wrong by giving in to the video generation. The X-T4 is not only a lot bulkier, but also a lot heavier. Plus, the development effort spent on creating video features cannot be spent on making the best photo camera available. Fujifilm should not cripple their photo cameras with video futures, but should create a different line for video cameras.
    • I have been a Fuji user only relatively recently.  My previous system was Canon and the weight was becoming a factor.  Sold it all and now a Fuji convert. I have tried to keep it simple and small.  XT2 AND XT3  with 16-55, 50-140 plus Samyang 8mm fisheye and 100mm macro.  Still making mistakes but hey ho  there's always the delete button. I live in Dundee,  Scotland and have settled here until my toes point to the sky.
    • pixel shift would be nice to be able to get higher resolution files but from what i've read the x-trans pixel pattern makes it harder to achieve this compared to the bayer arrangement... the GFX100 i think does have pixel shift but i'm not sure whether it's bayer or x-trans
    • That is simply not true. It makes the camera more complicated and more expensive, and the camera usually ends up being a compromise. So there's more to break, more stuff to cool (so the camera is going to be heavier than needed for photography), and more to pay. I wish Fujifilm would resist the market pressure of the Youtube generation, and focus on creating the most usable and best photo cameras possible.
×
×
  • Create New...