dazedgonebye
Veteran
I don't see that many G12/P7000 folks moving to this. That's a lot of zoom/articulating lcd/do everything camera to give up for a fixed lens model...even with improved IQ and way cool viewfinder.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
The key word here is "might".
PKR
Veteran
In my professional world, they don't call me frank, i.e. for nothing.
is it Franc ?
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
I have a question for everyone, and Google isn't giving me the answer very quickly. Does FujiFilm currently back an interchangeable lens system in any way? I notice they sold a few dSLRs a few years ago in Nikon F, but do they have any current SLRs? What other lens mounts have they backed in the past?
Just curious. If the answer is "they don't really have a mount standard", I bet I know why they're reticent about creating their own mount or backing the u4/3 standard. If I were Fujifilm I'd wait just a couple more years until full-frame 35mm sensors become widely affordable. Affordable FF sensors are really just around the corner, so announcing a new Fujifilm lens mount now would seem like a bit of a dead-end, wouldn't it? I wouldn't want to invest thousands into a second-best system if I knew Fuji was looking into creating full-frame bodies in a year or two.
APS-C is awesome in a fixed-lens rangefinderalike, though. I think they made the right choice.
Just curious. If the answer is "they don't really have a mount standard", I bet I know why they're reticent about creating their own mount or backing the u4/3 standard. If I were Fujifilm I'd wait just a couple more years until full-frame 35mm sensors become widely affordable. Affordable FF sensors are really just around the corner, so announcing a new Fujifilm lens mount now would seem like a bit of a dead-end, wouldn't it? I wouldn't want to invest thousands into a second-best system if I knew Fuji was looking into creating full-frame bodies in a year or two.
APS-C is awesome in a fixed-lens rangefinderalike, though. I think they made the right choice.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That is a mischaracterisation.
The 4/3 sensor is 20% smaller in image height than Nikon APS-C and 17% smaller in image height than Canon APS-C.
There is no way to claim a two-fold difference in sensor size between 4/3 and APS-C. As you'd know if you were actually paying attention.
:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:
(Wikipedia)
DNG
Film Friendly
I see the X100 as addition, not a replacement... I'll sell the ZD 17mm and use the G1 as adopted lens Camera only
PKR
Veteran
About 18 months ago Nikon surveyed a bunch of professionals regarding cameras they wanted to see. I don't know if this was from the marketing group or if it came from the design people. All companies (pro camera) do this from time to time. I think Fuji's x100 looks like a camera that many asked for. The only thing missing is interchangeable lenses. Nikon may have shared the information received with Fuji, if Nikon didn't plan to enter this APS-C RF (type) market.
Last edited:
Broke
Established
I think he means the surface area is 1/4 that of a full frame sensor, sounds about right.
That is a mischaracterisation.
The 4/3 sensor is 20% smaller in image height than Nikon APS-C and 17% smaller in image height than Canon APS-C.
There is no way to claim a two-fold difference in sensor size between 4/3 and APS-C. As you'd know if you were actually paying attention.
:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:
(Wikipedia)
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That's not the way sensor economics are going. There's not much sign that FF sensors are getting cheaper very quickly. The main thing that is driving sensor costs down is that the performance of very small sensors is getting better rather quickly, and indeed the better cell phone sensors are, pixel-for-pixel, probably more sophisticated than the best FF sensors available.
Tell me with a straight face that most people who buy cameras need a better sensor than the one in, say, the Canon 7D.
For most photographic applications, for most people, APS-C is already bigger than is needed. Full frame will in my opinion continue to be the domain of professionals and "serious" amateurs.
Some of those (a minority) who use FF will use it because they need it. Most of the rest won't actually need FF, but want to be seen as using "the best". They will then post their photos of cats and flowers to Flicker or look at them on their 1020 HDTVs.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Canon APS-C: 329 mm^2.
4/3: 225 mm^2.
Less than 1.5X.
If you crop the long edge so that you can actually print on papers with commonly available aspect ratios, the difference is smaller still.
Last edited:
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
A part of me wants to suggest that FF sensor prices are not a true reflection of the economics, but lest I sound like a conspiracy theorist I'll keep these thoughts to myself.
You're absolutely right—with regards to photo quality. As someone with a love of old lenses, though, I basically need a FF sensor to wring every last drop of that old magic from the lenses I already have. I will never buy a non-FF interchangeable lens body for that reason.
DNG
Film Friendly
Who knows.... I would say that u/43 is not an option, the sensor is too big for u4/3, the Sony E mount may be better. Since Sony is developing a system of lenses, some with Zeiss designs.
Edit:
Did I misunderstand what you said? I think so Peter.
Last edited:
Gazzah
RF newbie
By area the 4/3 sensor is about 2/3 the size of the asp-c - that can make a major difference in pixel density and therefore IQ and DR. This Fuji is one of the few digicams that have interested me in a long time, mainly for the viewfinder I hate EVs and holding a cam out at arms length is just wrong. I will wait for a few tests and user reviews before I get to excited though. I do wish they had used one of their own sensors in it - I have an old S2 Pro DSLR that produces wonderfull OOC JPGs - saves a lot of processing time if you are in a hurry.
Gary H
Gary H
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It is very, very hard to make a large CMOS device without defects.
The yields for FF sensors are a LOT lower than the yields for smaller sensors.
PKR
Veteran
I've heard "rumors" that the yield on FX sensor production is an issue too. I think the ASP-C may be a lot easier to produce. FX sensor yield may be below 50%. It's, as you know, a tricky process. Fabs are run on the edge of working/not working. A very small change in filtering or ph of the water used will shut down a foundry. Nikon is reportedly making their FX sensor in their own foundry.. this is new, as Sony produced them in the past. Sony may still be making the Nikon ASP-C for them.
eddie1960
Established
This is already true so status quo
i was in a shop the other day looking at some gear and the salespeople were selling people up into canon 5d who likely would be better off with a simple point shoot
it'll end up on green mode all the time with the most used function being the zoom ring on the lens they talked them into (one person was looking at a superzoom to go with it)
it reminds me of how hard it was to teach my salespeople in a big box how to sell audio - they persisted in demoing with crap cds burned from crap mp3s and then wondered why they couldn't move a higher end speaker. when i came on the floor doing a week an sales to learn the company i sold 8 stereo only packages the first weak valued at $3-5000 when asked how i did it i responded i listened then showed the customer what they could acheive by keeping it simple
same applies with cameras
Go to sites where people are only looking for the latest technology or sites where people love DSLRs and looooooooooong lenses....
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I like optical finders, too, but to most younger people, that attitude would just be seen as a sign of cumudgeonliness.
Gazzah
RF newbie
Semilog - I admit that i do indeed suffer from "cumudgeonliness" - in most things in life..
I would really like them to produce a B&W only version - with no bayer layer, increased rez, better DR (so Im told) but that is real "cumudgeonliness" - so maybe I will just keep quiet now....
Gary H
I would really like them to produce a B&W only version - with no bayer layer, increased rez, better DR (so Im told) but that is real "cumudgeonliness" - so maybe I will just keep quiet now....
Gary H
PKR
Veteran
In theory, if you drop the Bayer sites you could up the resolution 3x.