Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
I believe they'll come up with either a 21 or a 25mm (equivalent) version. Probably 25mm, because that's a little 'safer'.
Do you think Fuji will release other focal lengths?
- Thread starter tlitody
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 90
- Views 1K
jsrockit
Moderator
It'll be 28mm before any other focal length... if they ever make another one of these at all.
Fuchs
Well-known
I think that a 21mm equivalent and an 85/90mm equivalent will be mandatory. If not, at least a couple of very high quality focal length converters to the tele and wide sides.
tlitody
Well-known
I tkink converters may be possible but can they reduce focal length from standard lens?
Also what about frame lines? Can that be done with firmware on this camera? The reason we don't have longer tele lenses on rangefinders is because of the miniscule frame lines. i.e. you can't see to frame and focus accurately. I think separate models with viewfinder designed for lens focal length would be better.
Also what about frame lines? Can that be done with firmware on this camera? The reason we don't have longer tele lenses on rangefinders is because of the miniscule frame lines. i.e. you can't see to frame and focus accurately. I think separate models with viewfinder designed for lens focal length would be better.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
I hope you are a patient guy.
The current 35mm is nice (a 40 would be even better) but to lure me away from (mostly) film, it should have interchangeable lenses. Or maybe, just maybe a 28-90 f-fast, if it is exceptionally good.
Avotius
Some guy
I dont think they will, but then again I hope they do come out with a 50 f1.8 or something like that, my wife would jump on that, she is already really interested in this camera, more so then I have ever seen her for a camera, but she is a 50 fan not a 35.
narsuitus
Well-known
I shot many events with two 35mm bodies and a 35mm f/2 or f/1.4 on one body and an 85mm f/1.8 on the other body.
If I had an X100 with an f/2 35mm equiv lens and an X100 with an f/2 85mm equiv lens, I would not need interchangeable lenses because these are the only two focal lengths I really need. Anything wider, longer, closer (macro), or fishier, I would shot with my SLR.
If, however, Fuji insists on producing a wider wide-angle version of the X100, I hope it will be in the 18 to 21mm equivalent focal length range.
If I had an X100 with an f/2 35mm equiv lens and an X100 with an f/2 85mm equiv lens, I would not need interchangeable lenses because these are the only two focal lengths I really need. Anything wider, longer, closer (macro), or fishier, I would shot with my SLR.
If, however, Fuji insists on producing a wider wide-angle version of the X100, I hope it will be in the 18 to 21mm equivalent focal length range.
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
Fuji is good but their not nuts.
I can see a zoomie version coming out.
That would draw the non serious RF shooters.
To make different bodies with different focal lengths is to good to be true.
A zoomie from 28 - 90 gets it done, easier and cheaper.
I don't want that one at all....
I can see a zoomie version coming out.
That would draw the non serious RF shooters.
To make different bodies with different focal lengths is to good to be true.
A zoomie from 28 - 90 gets it done, easier and cheaper.
I don't want that one at all....
kbg32
neo-romanticist
With so many different opinions, do we ever get what we want?
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
If one accepts digital zoom to no smaller than 6Mp [like the R-D1], the X100 is equipped with a 35~46mm zoom. If one adopts the couple of steps back/forth method on top of that, the lens is a 25~65 zoom...
That cannot be such a hardship...can it?
bwcolor
Veteran
Yes, if they come through with what they have shown at Photokina.
jsrockit
Moderator
Nope... despite hundreds of cameras being on the market at the same time, I never feel anyone gets it exactly right... 😀
buzzkill58
Always learning...
I second that thought!
schaki
Established
There is already the Epson R-D1 with 1.5 multiplier. But yea, why not an other one, if Fuji can do it even better. The best would be FF then of course. I wouldn't be against a X100 with 28mm prime either.
Mephiloco
Well-known
If the X100 does well I think Fuji would continue to do as they have done in the past with their Pro line of cameras. If they determine it'll be profitable, I'm sure they'll make a few models of different focal lengths, and maybe a ZI model with a zoom.
I think interchangeable lens is out of the question for the time being, it'd likely be a couple years down the road unless they'd already decided to create one regardless of how the X100 does.
Anyways, If they were to make an interchangeable body, what mount would it take? u4/3 is too small to cover the sensor, and pretty much everything else would be unnecessarily large and wouldn't balance well on the body. M-mount is an obvious no-no because they wouldn't stand to make money on the lenses, and by making it M mount you'd be dooming the camera to being a 'Leica alternative', thus alienating prospective buyers who dont already own Leica lenses or don't care for manual focus
I think interchangeable lens is out of the question for the time being, it'd likely be a couple years down the road unless they'd already decided to create one regardless of how the X100 does.
Anyways, If they were to make an interchangeable body, what mount would it take? u4/3 is too small to cover the sensor, and pretty much everything else would be unnecessarily large and wouldn't balance well on the body. M-mount is an obvious no-no because they wouldn't stand to make money on the lenses, and by making it M mount you'd be dooming the camera to being a 'Leica alternative', thus alienating prospective buyers who dont already own Leica lenses or don't care for manual focus
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Designing or manufacturing a lens mount is not magic...despite fan clubs in each type. [I have even seen a 42mm screw mount home-made converted to bayonet by hand filing away alternate segments of thread [in body and lens]...just insert lens and twist a quarter turn.]
The issue is one of flange-to-sensor distance and business strategy:
Flange-to-sensor distance: SLR mounts are too far away...requiring thick body without a mirror box. The M-mount is 28mm, the u4/3 mount is 20mm and the NEX mount is 18mm. A shallower mount can be adapted to deeper mounts...essentially adding a metal shim ring. So, add 10mm for NEX and 8mm for u4/3 and the M-lenses will focus correctly.
I had carefully measured images of the X100 and had determined the flange-to-sensor distance to be 26mm.
Business strategy: If Fuji decides to make a new mount with diameter just smaller than the M...then an M-adapter is impossible, forcing new sales of Fujinon lenses. On the other hand, Fuji could easily made the mount diameter large enough so that a 2mm shim-ring adapter could be made...and Leica glass owners would be secretly very happy...but still denounce the camera.
Regardless, all in-camera automation would no longer function...and another round of M-fan criticisms.
If I were Fuji, I would simply make a new mount...and ignore the M-noises.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The usual RFF fantasies: that they are going to sell a million of these cameras, and that a new line of telecentric lenses can be developed at no significant expense.
While I'd not be surprised to see a couple of variants -- ultrawide and short tele, 18 equivalent and 75 equivalent -- I'd be even less surprised if they don't appear. As for a 28 equivalent when there's already a 35 equivalent, well, dream on.
Purely commercially, imagine the expense to a dealer of stocking three slow-selling, expensive cameras instead of one. Why do you think Leica dropped the viewfinder magnification options, except à la carte?
Cheers,
R.
While I'd not be surprised to see a couple of variants -- ultrawide and short tele, 18 equivalent and 75 equivalent -- I'd be even less surprised if they don't appear. As for a 28 equivalent when there's already a 35 equivalent, well, dream on.
Purely commercially, imagine the expense to a dealer of stocking three slow-selling, expensive cameras instead of one. Why do you think Leica dropped the viewfinder magnification options, except à la carte?
Cheers,
R.
Paul T.
Veteran
Roger's telling us we're a very small tent. The cheek of it!
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Careful measurement indicates the OVF could accommodate a 25mm equivalent FoV @ 90%. Wider yet if we accept 85% coverage...Leica style.
If longer focal lengths are offered, a screw-in eyepiece magnifier can be used. Adding a thread in the deep eyepiece well is simple enough...even Hong Kong suppliers offer Leica M-compatible 1.25X and 1.4X.
[I have not yet found a well-lit picture on the Internet showing the thread.]
In all cases, the EVF can take care of itself.
If longer focal lengths are offered, a screw-in eyepiece magnifier can be used. Adding a thread in the deep eyepiece well is simple enough...even Hong Kong suppliers offer Leica M-compatible 1.25X and 1.4X.
[I have not yet found a well-lit picture on the Internet showing the thread.]
In all cases, the EVF can take care of itself.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
I bet they will. The uneducated masses, plagued by little boxes with tiny TV screens that marketing departments and press call cameras, will discover a revolutionary new technology: the viewfinder. And they'll buy. A lot. Of these cameras.
Call me a fantasist. I don't mind. 🙂
(I almost bought one of those boxen, too, a Samsung NX100 with a prime lens that I would have used with an optical viewfinder. As reported, Fuji's X100 -- notice the similarity of the names? -- will be less expensive than such a setup is. So I'll wait for the real thing.)
Similar threads
