Fujifilm X200 rumor...

daveleo said:
A FF X200 has to come in noticably larger than the X100/s.
Really "noticably".
That (if correct) puts it in a very different niche than the X100, in terms of carrying it around town.
Click to expand...

For me... Larger does not matter, since I never even put it in my jacket pocket.. Slightly heavier is ok, since I always felt the x100 was too light.

My hope is that it will be rx1 size plus the extra height to accommodate the ovf/evf at most. If they ended up doing an evf only (heaven forbid), then I hope it is same size as rx1.

Anyway this is just a rumor..
Gary
 
If we keep hearing some good XPro2 FF rumors, I could care less about the new Sonys.
 
f16sunshine said:
No, you're not alone. I'm with you in that view.
I'm using a Hexar AF now for film and find it just about perfect.
It's very close to the xpro1 size (M6ish).
The slightly wider spread on controls would benefit the x100 or future x200.
Click to expand...

Yeah quite true. I hope they put a detent on the exposure comp dial or a lock when they release their new camera bodies in 2014.

Gary
 
Maybe the world needs a full frame Fuji-X (with a fixed lens ?) , but it also needs a camera with the X100 format, size, weight and price.

I think that if Fuji abandons that niche, by physically upscaling the X100 line, someone else will slip into it.
 
GOnna start saving now


The x100 changed my life but im starting to see that I need FF to move to the next level.
 
^im curious too, what will a FF do to you that the X100/s is not capable of other than shallower DoF.

granted I sold my x100s and am waiting for a FF x200 but my motive was purely because the x100s wasn't going to be used as much as I just got an M9. i just enjoyed the fuji x cameras that I wan't to support the next x200 that they release.
 
taemo said:
^im curious too, what will a FF do to you that the X100/s is not capable of other than shallower DoF.

granted I sold my x100s and am waiting for a FF x200 but my motive was purely because the x100s wasn't going to be used as much as I just got an M9. i just enjoyed the fuji x cameras that I wan't to support the next x200 that they release.
Click to expand...

Check out my site, 90% of the pics were taken with the x100.

http://elllis.de/


I've been spending the last year and a bit looking over my work and there are some small things ive been noticing about my photos that having FF would solve. Its hard to notice without actually being told what it is but when you're told what it is it will be so in your face.

Not gonna post what it is because It would just be used against me to devalue the work ive done. The colors the cameras produce are great and thats why ive been able to compete with people who have FF cameras, but once I have FF i think ill be able to really step up my game.
 
archeophoto said:
Rather then a FF X100, I would prefer one with a f1.4 or better with a f1.2 lens.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. A 1.4 x100s is almost certainly smaller than the nearly-equivalent 2.0 FF x100s. A 1.4 FF x100s would likely be awfully large. None of the three is nearly as appealing as what we have now.

I'm of the opinion that Pentax was on to the right idea, and that Fuji should consider following suit; namely that a company dedicating itself to building a quality APS-C system complete with a thorough (if not exhaustive) format-appropriate set of lenses needs to jump past FF to differentiate its own product line. Tough to pull off, and there are plenty of reasons the 645d didn't take off. But I think a revival of sorts of the GW670 or GW690 could be the right idea. Bigger than full frame, smaller than 6x7, high megapixel bodies. A "Texas x100" if you will. Two models: a 28 or 35ish focal length and an 85 or 90ish focal length. Good for studio work or landscape. Building on the relative success of the x100s with the strobe crowd because of the leaf shutter. And both cameras could probably be had for less than a 40mp digital back. A way to jump up to medium format for less than other offerings.

Pie in the sky, sure. But I think it could work if Fuji could find a partner to make the sensors. Then again, I'd also like to see a digital X-Pan.
 
I wish companies would commit to cost-efficient, compact, and quite nice quality DX-APS sensors for the rest of us who don't give a flying truck about having the biggest sensor in the house. When I look at photographers' work I don't see any pictures that would make a difference between APS and FF until you get to the point of doing large scale landscapes and by then most people are using large format film or a medium format back. The quality difference between APS and FF is pretty blurry these days....
 
seeing how larger than full frame, i.e., medium format digital, now basically satisfies the print needs once served by large format film, i see the full frame leica m9 and m240 as the equivalents of the medium format fujis. the market for large format rangefinders was always appealing, yet very, very small in the late film era.
 
koven said:
I've been spending the last year and a bit looking over my work and there are some small things ive been noticing about my photos that having FF would solve. Its hard to notice without actually being told what it is but when you're told what it is it will be so in your face.

Not gonna post what it is because It would just be used against me to devalue the work ive done. The colors the cameras produce are great and thats why ive been able to compete with people who have FF cameras, but once I have FF i think ill be able to really step up my game.
Click to expand...

Most of your audience will not care if it so hard to notice without telling someone. You are catering to pixel peepers? :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom