MRohlfing
Well-known
I own the 50 version of the X100 already :angel:
tlitody
Well-known
Oh come on, these days delivery is so fast from importer to online retailer that online retailers don't need to stock. And since everyone is looking for a bargain they all buy online. They only use shops to look which is why they are all going bust except in major towns and cities. Pro cameras which are low volume items have always managed to sell in the past. And Canons and Nikons at twice or three the price are stocked and they aren't exactly fast selling items.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
There are camera maker opening boutiques in places like West Palm Beach...and staffed with suck-up artists. The whole purchase experience is just ego-indulgence.
Then there are retailers who stock everything with demo models tethered on benches and let customers play with them...Tokyo mega-mart style.
Then there are Internet retailers who really are virtual store fronts drop-shipping goods when ordered.
Profit margins are different and old business models don't apply anymore.
Then there are retailers who stock everything with demo models tethered on benches and let customers play with them...Tokyo mega-mart style.
Then there are Internet retailers who really are virtual store fronts drop-shipping goods when ordered.
Profit margins are different and old business models don't apply anymore.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Flange distance is relevant only if they want to be able to adapt M-mount lenses. Speculating about flange distances is pointless, there is really no good business case M-mount - a lot of added complexity and cost, for the satisfaction of a very small group of customers, who also happen to be some of the most picky and easily-turned-off customers on the planet
Models with different focal lengths might be a possibility (Sigma did that), but as a number of people have pointed out the odds aren't good.
Live with it guys, in all probability it's not going to happen. Use sneaker zoom instead.
damien.murphy
Damien
My personal preference would be for a 50mm equivalent, and/ or a Tri-Elmar type effort of 28-35-50. I don't see the next Fuji variation (if there is one) of the x100 being an interchangeable model, as too much on the x100 has been tailored to the 35mm-equivalent lens, and most users would not be happy to see an APS-sensor model given that used M8's can be had for $2k.
I do think the profits from the x100 will make this a very buoyant segment for Fuji, and will provide a good baseline and warchest to pursue an interchangeable model, but given Fuji's preference in the past to shy away from interchangeable models I can't see them going down such a route with the x100.
Personally, I don't see why an interchangeable model is needed should Fuji produce fixed lens models to cater to most peoples needs. I know 35mm, 50mm, 90mm and/ or a tri-elmar wide model would not cater to ALL the market, but it would probably satisfy a good 80% of the market.
Frankly though, this is all presuming a lot, and who is to say Fuji will produce anything other than the x100, and my personal suspicion is that Fuji probably have not looked beyond the 35mm-equivalent x100 which will satisfy a decent chunk of the RF userbase.
I do think the profits from the x100 will make this a very buoyant segment for Fuji, and will provide a good baseline and warchest to pursue an interchangeable model, but given Fuji's preference in the past to shy away from interchangeable models I can't see them going down such a route with the x100.
Personally, I don't see why an interchangeable model is needed should Fuji produce fixed lens models to cater to most peoples needs. I know 35mm, 50mm, 90mm and/ or a tri-elmar wide model would not cater to ALL the market, but it would probably satisfy a good 80% of the market.
Frankly though, this is all presuming a lot, and who is to say Fuji will produce anything other than the x100, and my personal suspicion is that Fuji probably have not looked beyond the 35mm-equivalent x100 which will satisfy a decent chunk of the RF userbase.
Naumoski
Well-known
If the x100 concept is to be a fixed lens camera, than producing cameras with different focal lengths, for example - 24/35/50 etc, would mean producing 3 same bodies + 3 different lens. And would be less expensive for Fuji to produce 1 body with interchangeable lens mount, and it's less expensive to buy 1 camera + 3 lens, than 3 cameras + 3 lens, obviously.
We don't know their plans yet, or to which direction they want to focus - advanced P&S or cameras with interchangeable lens etc..?
We don't know their plans yet, or to which direction they want to focus - advanced P&S or cameras with interchangeable lens etc..?
J F Bland_Zeiss Ikon
Newbie
Personal opinion - Fuji is kind of a fickle company. While they say they support film, they've used going green to cull the product line. While they manufacture film, their website no longer has film cameras, to the dismay of many. It feels like they've lost their way, or like many companies, they cater to their home market and pay lip service to their offshore satellites. The internal talk at Fuji is to press digital cameras, and they've been innovative with 3D models. As film sales have somewhat stabilized, they need digital to grow.
The EVF in the x100 looks like the heads up display in a fighter cockpit. This camera has a lot of innovations in it. The 35mm equiv. focal length makes a lot of sense, whether it's 40mm or 28mm can't make that much difference, but optimizing the system for image quality and utility does. With good optics, cropping and enlarging for the composition is a possibility.
Maybe we should look at this from Fuji's point of view. Filling a gap in the pro-sumer, pro line up. Charging a little more for convenience, nice features that cover a lot ground, light ,compact, dirt simple but almost a manual system and an aspirational price point. The early buzz is good. They know they were going to be compared to 4/3 and M mounts and opted to "perfect" the image chain to the majority of what they perceive as their target customers. Nobody really likes a Swiss knife approach, where everything works, but it's not optimal for anything. Here they said "x" marks and spot.
I say the x100 will evolve, but think that as others have stated, it may be individual focal lengths. There may be a lean way of doing the mfg. .
It's fun to watch.
The EVF in the x100 looks like the heads up display in a fighter cockpit. This camera has a lot of innovations in it. The 35mm equiv. focal length makes a lot of sense, whether it's 40mm or 28mm can't make that much difference, but optimizing the system for image quality and utility does. With good optics, cropping and enlarging for the composition is a possibility.
Maybe we should look at this from Fuji's point of view. Filling a gap in the pro-sumer, pro line up. Charging a little more for convenience, nice features that cover a lot ground, light ,compact, dirt simple but almost a manual system and an aspirational price point. The early buzz is good. They know they were going to be compared to 4/3 and M mounts and opted to "perfect" the image chain to the majority of what they perceive as their target customers. Nobody really likes a Swiss knife approach, where everything works, but it's not optimal for anything. Here they said "x" marks and spot.
I say the x100 will evolve, but think that as others have stated, it may be individual focal lengths. There may be a lean way of doing the mfg. .
It's fun to watch.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Once they prove the concept, they'll probably use a similar viewfinder on a series of lower end zoom cameras that are more consumer friendly and profitable.
I've been off on this camera so far -- I called the price out at $2000 -- but my instinct is that these companies use their high-end cameras as beta test programs that guys like us will pay for, but what they are really aiming for is to sell 100x $500 cameras at Best Buy.
They probably figure that if they introduce the concept of a EVF rangefinder style to the consumer market, nobody will notice. By aiming at the more serious prosumer market they get proof of concept and lots of beta testers.
And sure, they know there is a pent-up demand for a camera like this, they'll sell out max production for the first six months unless the reviews are horrid.
I've been off on this camera so far -- I called the price out at $2000 -- but my instinct is that these companies use their high-end cameras as beta test programs that guys like us will pay for, but what they are really aiming for is to sell 100x $500 cameras at Best Buy.
They probably figure that if they introduce the concept of a EVF rangefinder style to the consumer market, nobody will notice. By aiming at the more serious prosumer market they get proof of concept and lots of beta testers.
And sure, they know there is a pent-up demand for a camera like this, they'll sell out max production for the first six months unless the reviews are horrid.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Frank,
They do? Where from? A few hundred people in places like RFF may say they'd buy one, of whom maybe 10% will find the money. Even if it's a few thousand with 10% sell-through, that's not many cameras by Fuji's standards.
I'm not saying the X100 is a bad idea. I'm hoping to get one for review. All I'm saying is that the excitement in some quarters may lead some people to hope for some things that are unlikely to happen.
Cheers,
R.
wgerrard
Veteran
The obvious answer to the question is that if initial X100 sales are high enough, Fuji might entertain the idea of releasing variant models. I'd guess that sales will reach that point only if Fuji can get mass market stores to carry the thing. I don't think they will because people will look at the camera and think "retro operation" as well as "retro look".
Many of the attributes most of us around here look for in a camera are precisely the attributes that turn off most consumers. That's why you won't see the X100 in very many of the big box stores. And that means the X100 will be invisible to the great mass of potential buyers.
Many of the attributes most of us around here look for in a camera are precisely the attributes that turn off most consumers. That's why you won't see the X100 in very many of the big box stores. And that means the X100 will be invisible to the great mass of potential buyers.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Why wouldn't the sales be at least as good as, say, a Canon G12? or a Leica X1?
My gut tells me that with 300,000 graduates of college photography programs in the USA alone, there is a large market of serious amateurs who would understand the advantages of this camera.
My gut tells me that with 300,000 graduates of college photography programs in the USA alone, there is a large market of serious amateurs who would understand the advantages of this camera.
tlitody
Well-known
Flange distance is relevant only if they want to be able to adapt M-mount lenses. Speculating about flange distances is pointless, there is really no good business case M-mount - a lot of added complexity and cost, for the satisfaction of a very small group of customers, who also happen to be some of the most picky and easily-turned-off customers on the planet
Models with different focal lengths might be a possibility (Sigma did that), but as a number of people have pointed out the odds aren't good.
Live with it guys, in all probability it's not going to happen. Use sneaker zoom instead.
Why isn't it going to happen? They just released the GF670 and have announced the GF670W. Both will be lower volume sales than the X100 so why not the X100W or X100Tele ?
eddie1960
Established
I don't think we'll see alternate models it fragments their market too much. Ultimately if it does well enough and the evil market continues to grow i could see it as a base for interchangeable lenses. I think this is just testing the waters myself. I do however imagine either fuji or an aftermarket chinese supplier will come up with converters to address the wide/tele market. I'm still interested as i think this could be a good walkabout camera if they get it right though i would have preferred a wider lens the 35 isn't bad (on my k10 i have an m 28 almost glued to it lately)
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Yours is about the only argument why it might happen, but my money is on accessory wide/tele converters. I wouldn't mind being wrong though.
Let them bring the thing to market first and then see how it actually sells.
28mm version...
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Flange distance is relevant only if they want to be able to adapt M-mount lenses. Speculating about flange distances is pointless, there is really no good business case M-mount - a lot of added complexity and cost, for the satisfaction of a very small group of customers, who also happen to be some of the most picky and easily-turned-off customers on the planet
.
Agreed...I was not rooting for the true Leica'philes, rather common folks who might own CV and other lenses.
In any case, extra flange distance can be gained by making the body mount protruding somewhat from the body surface...3mm was gained this way in the R-D1 to accommodate the electronics and LCD behind the sensor.
But flange distance is not easily reduced without elbow room to use a recess mount...like some enlargers.
Last edited:
italy74
Well-known
Hmmmm....
Let's assume the camera works fine and gets people's favour and attention.
On one hand, you have a camera which is perfectly integrated with its own lens (and WHAT a lens, for sure) this means excellent picture quality but low versatility.
About the "few steps back and forth" I don't agree, because perspectives changes a lot, it's not only a matter of "filling the frame", thus some more lenses would be nice, always with the benefit of an automatically magnified viewfinder. I'd say that whatever FL from 21 to 135 would be possible, but, if I'd have to name three which could come first they would be
1) 85/90 mm aov ( = 60 mm effective lens ) - it would come first, to give a certain "balance" to the offer. 2) Then it would come a 24/25 mm (16 mm lens) to satisfy wider shooters for a while. Third, would come a 50mm (35 mm lens). Then all the rest. The real plus would be a F/4 walkaround zoom, whose fl might vary depending on one's tastes, keeping as close as possible at 1:3 ration it might be 25-75 or 28-90 (my eventual choice, which could be also corrected better than a wider lens)
p.s.: I missed how fast is synchro-flash: 1/125? 1/250? or what ?
Let's assume the camera works fine and gets people's favour and attention.
On one hand, you have a camera which is perfectly integrated with its own lens (and WHAT a lens, for sure) this means excellent picture quality but low versatility.
About the "few steps back and forth" I don't agree, because perspectives changes a lot, it's not only a matter of "filling the frame", thus some more lenses would be nice, always with the benefit of an automatically magnified viewfinder. I'd say that whatever FL from 21 to 135 would be possible, but, if I'd have to name three which could come first they would be
1) 85/90 mm aov ( = 60 mm effective lens ) - it would come first, to give a certain "balance" to the offer. 2) Then it would come a 24/25 mm (16 mm lens) to satisfy wider shooters for a while. Third, would come a 50mm (35 mm lens). Then all the rest. The real plus would be a F/4 walkaround zoom, whose fl might vary depending on one's tastes, keeping as close as possible at 1:3 ration it might be 25-75 or 28-90 (my eventual choice, which could be also corrected better than a wider lens)
p.s.: I missed how fast is synchro-flash: 1/125? 1/250? or what ?
Get over it all... the camera is fixed lens. It will never have a zoom and that the lord for that.