Fuji is on a roll

[Sparrow]

In just three years thirteen cameras have been added to the x-series range ... that's one every three months. No wonder I can't keep up with all the names and specification ... perhaps its just me but it all seems a bit excessive

 

[Spyro]

I really dont see how lugging 10kg of glass and magnesium alloy is a tribute to Ansel Adams, and I dont believe in photography through suffering. I'd rather invest my energy in taking photos and arguing on the internet LOL

 

[jonasv]

I'm all for technology evolving in whatever form it needs to be (physically) in order for it to improve. I would jump at the chance to own the Otus.

My main problem (annoyance) is that technology is so good nowadays that humanity is becoming lazier and lazier. A requirement for a camera to be compact and light-weight, which in pretty much all cases compromises either performance or ergonomics; simply because we are collectively becoming lazy.

Id rather become fitter or stronger as a person, and use cameras that have been optimized for overall image quality performance rather than portability at the expense of optical compromise. A hobby should require some effort, anything easy and straight-forward and without some type of challenge doesn't remain rewarding for long.

I imagine the Ansel Adams photographers of old would think of today's photographers as spoilt and overly-pampered.

I carry two cameras and a backup for professional assignments.

Trying to avoid back injuries is not laziness.

 

[Harry S.]

But why is that more of a problem now than ever? That's always been a problem for working photographers. I'm all for making competent small cameras, but I also like the choice of having better performing cameras. The only reason I really chimed in on the matter is because I don't want the future of photography being dictated by the smartphone-wielding masses, as Spyro touched on.

My mentioning of laziness is not just about photography, I see it in daily life where young people can barely spell or calculate basic mathematics because their phone can and will do it for them. People don't know where anything is because they have a GPS navigation device to show them the way, their cars' even park themselves when they arrive...

 

[Spyro]

My mentioning of laziness is not just about photography, I see it in daily life where young people can barely spell or calculate basic mathematics because their phone can and will do it for them. People don't know where anything is because they have a GPS navigation device to show them the way, their cars' even park themselves when they arrive...

I will agree with you on that one sir.

 

[daveleo]

There are lots of other reasons that people (even working pro photographers) use smaller cameras, other than stupidity and laziness.
If a small, relatively inexpensive, fast-to-the-final-product, high-tech machine gets the job done on time to everyone's satisfaction, you actually have to be stupid NOT to use it!

But, aside from that, you're right - people are getting generally stupider and lazier while the machines are getting smarter.

EDIT: does this have something to do with Fujifilm being on a roll ????

 

[4deck71]

@ Harry S.

I hear you on your laments and it is undoubtedly a concern. I am also concerned about our society's over-reliance, about smart kids not being able to multiply or care to, even I remember phone numbers from my youth but not a single number from the past seven years...

Back to compactness and lighter weight.

I gotta say I think your concerns set up a bit of a straw argument here, but if you feel the image quality you desire from your full-frame kit relates to a built-up physical prowess and acumen, well, ok. But I am not sure those are requirements for others.

For me as an advanced enthusiast, I am drawn to the X-T1 for its ability to help me slow down, be more engaged, thoughtful, thinking in the process of the photography. "Get smarter."

I like a smaller system to be less obtrusive and it encourages me to have a camera with me more often. I can clearly see the image improvement between the new full-frame sensors and these most recent and advanced aps-c cameras. I was have been torn between the Sony A7 and a new Fuji and after renting an E-X2 and handling the A7, I am going Fuji.

The manual engagement relative to the functioning of the Nex-6 I have owned for 18 months (a camera I really like) slows me down in the most positive, productive way. The image quality is not that of full-frame, but considering all of the elements of size, quality, cost, my style of photography, my growth, I think the X-T1 with the 23, the 56, and a Speedbooster for my FD glass is going to be an amazing fit for a long time.

There can't be anything lazy about getting out and taking more and more intentional photographs.

Lastly, I do think that we can get to splitting hairs in the last 97% percentile too often. Keeping perspective on all of this is a good thing.

That was long. Thanks for reading.

 

[noimmunity]

I'm all for technology evolving in whatever form it needs to be (physically) in order for it to improve. I would jump at the chance to own the Otus.

My main problem (annoyance) is that technology is so good nowadays that humanity is becoming lazier and lazier. A requirement for a camera to be compact and light-weight, which in pretty much all cases compromises either performance or ergonomics; simply because we are collectively becoming lazy.

Id rather become fitter or stronger as a person, and use cameras that have been optimized for overall image quality performance rather than portability at the expense of optical compromise. A hobby should require some effort, anything easy and straight-forward and without some type of challenge doesn't remain rewarding for long.

I imagine the Ansel Adams photographers of old would think of today's photographers as spoilt and overly-pampered.

I think it would help to put these observations in the context of the various divisions in the global labor force, the principal ones of which are related to nationality, class, gender, and citizenship status. What we find is that a disproportionate number of people globally are working longer for less. No laziness there.

As for reliance on technological prosthesis, I don't really see anything fundamentally new here. Didn't the automobile produce the same effect? And it is well-known that automobile use itself has been extremely disproportionate between different regions, classes, and genders at different times.

"Optimized for overall image quality" is a parameter that would exclude almost every camera in use today and in the past. Almost every camera is a compromise.

This is coming from a person who has refused to drive automobiles for his entire life and regularly walks through alpine terrain for weeks on end every year.

I think the remarks here would be more constructive if they were directed at: a) a new global social contract designed to balance the divisions of labor; b) ways of creating social relations that foster mutual aid and cooperation, thus lessening people's mutual fear and the perceived need for prosthetic compensation of innate human fragility, neoteny, and weakness.

I think Fuji offers a pretty compelling digital system camera in terms of the overall compromises.

 

[kshapero]

But why is that more of a problem now than ever? That's always been a problem for working photographers. I'm all for making competent small cameras, but I also like the choice of having better performing cameras. The only reason I really chimed in on the matter is because I don't want the future of photography being dictated by the smartphone-wielding masses, as Spyro touched on.

My mentioning of laziness is not just about photography, I see it in daily life where young people can barely spell or calculate basic mathematics because their phone can and will do it for them. People don't know where anything is because they have a GPS navigation device to show them the way, their cars' even park themselves when they arrive...

Schools do not even teach cursive anymore. We are raising morons and softies, hence the need for smaller simpler cameras.
(Why does this make no sense?)

 

[jsrockit]

I'm all for technology evolving in whatever form it needs to be (physically) in order for it to improve. I would jump at the chance to own the Otus.

I wouldn't mind trying that lens either.

My main problem (annoyance) is that technology is so good nowadays that humanity is becoming lazier and lazier. A requirement for a camera to be compact and light-weight, which in pretty much all cases compromises either performance or ergonomics; simply because we are collectively becoming lazy.

This could be said many times throughout Photography's history...namely with the advent of 35mm. I choose to see it as I'm using the tool I'm most comfortable with. Should we all be using large format?

Id rather become fitter or stronger as a person, and use cameras that have been optimized for overall image quality performance rather than portability at the expense of optical compromise. A hobby should require some effort, anything easy and straight-forward and without some type of challenge doesn't remain rewarding for long.

It has nothing to do with strength. It's about what works for each individual. We do not all photograph the same way, so why would we all use the same equipment? The challenge is photography is in making a compelling image... not in pure technical IQ.

I imagine the Ansel Adams photographers of old would think of today's photographers as spoilt and overly-pampered.

Why compare large format photographers to those of us that use small format cameras? What did Ansel Adams think of small format photographers of his time?

 

[robert blu]

I agree with Harry S. about the general trend toward laziness in our society. Which is worrying specially when we speak about a "mental laziness".

I also understand his worry about the future of photography, but I see it in a different way: the risk is that due to the investment necessary to develop the technology the big players will only follow what the market desires, in order to get a profit (nothing bad in this of course). In this case if a company like Fuji takes a new/different road it's only a benefit. More options available better is for us.

robert

 

[gavinlg]

In just three years thirteen cameras have been added to the x-series range ... that's one every three months. No wonder I can't keep up with all the names and specification ... perhaps its just me but it all seems a bit excessive

Umm. The xpro1 is 2 years old.
The xe1 has been superseded once, and likewise with the x100, both have the same modifications.

The smaller cameras are just point and shoots that share the same name and little else.

The upgrade cycles of these cameras is actually on the longer end of most manufactureres.

 

[Sparrow]

Umm. The xpro1 is 2 years old.
The xe1 has been superseded once, and likewise with the x100, both have the same modifications.

The smaller cameras are just point and shoots that share the same name and little else.

The upgrade cycles of these cameras is actually on the longer end of most manufactureres.

... ah, that's fine then ... Wikipedia probably got it wrong

... actually, now I've recounted it could be fifteen releases

 

[daveleo]

^ ooooo . . .
never argue with a man who does his homework 😉

 

[jsrockit]

The only reason I really chimed in on the matter is because I don't want the future of photography being dictated by the smartphone-wielding masses, as Spyro touched on.

The smartphone weidling masses are into social media and vernacular phiotography of friends and family. It's just one way in which photos are used.

My mentioning of laziness is not just about photography, I see it in daily life where young people can barely spell or calculate basic mathematics because their phone can and will do it for them. ...

Is this really true? I don't see it as fact in my life. Young people seem the same as always.

 

[GaryLH]

... ah, that's fine then ... Wikipedia probably got it wrong

... actually, now I've recounted it could be fifteen releases

Quite true.

But I believe that most people that replied to your comment were talking about the apsc sensor size cameras not the smaller then 1 inch p&s sensors that were labeled w/ the x body designation, which I believe that there are 6 of those. And some of those are also older being superseded as well. Of course, Fuji also has p&s that were not labeled x as well. I think it was their way of saying this set of p&s are better then our normal ones and that is why we are charging more.

Sony on the other hand has been know to release multiple apsc camera bodies in a single year, while they neglect their lens line for those same camera as opposed to Fuji. Third party like Zeiss and Sigma, etc., have come to Sony rescue w/ better lenses instead. Fuji has been mainly marching on its own w/ some third party filling in here and their.

We are lucky to c one apsc size camera body from Fuji a year. Thus for those that are only interested in their apsc line, it seems about right.

Gary

 

[Sparrow]

Quite true.

But I believe that most people that replied to your comment were talking about the apsc sensor size cameras not the smaller then 1 inch p&s sensors that were labeled w/ the x body designation, which I believe that there are 6 of those. And some of those are also older being superseded as well. Of course, Fuji also has p&s that were not labeled x as well. I think it was their way of saying this set of p&s are better then our normal ones and that is why we are charging more.

Sony on the other hand has been know to release multiple apsc camera bodies in a single year, while they neglect their lens line for those same camera as opposed to Fuji. Third party like Zeiss and Sigma, etc., have come to Sony rescue w/ better lenses instead. Fuji has been mainly marching on its own w/ some third party filling in here and their.

We are lucky to c one apsc size camera body from Fuji a year. Thus for those that are only interested in their apsc line, it seems about right.

Gary

... it w/ just u who replied

 

[jsrockit]

In 3 years, they've released the X100, X100s, X-E1, X-E2, X-Pro1, X-A1, X-M1, and now the X-T1 in ranges from $1699 to $499. Doesn't sound any different than Canon or Nikon with their many price points. The rest of the camera are a different class.

 

[GaryLH]

... it w/ just u who replied

So u don't count gavinlg?

Gary

 

[Sparrow]

So u don't count gavinlg?

Gary

Ah, sorry Gavinlg ... I took your comment as a humorous response to Gary's post, rather than evidence of any lack of understanding of the x-serise