Fujifilm X200 rumor...

Koven,

I use both sensor sizes on a regular basis.

I can't imagine what difference you are seeing with the exception of out of focus rendering.

I completely understand why you don't want to post examples. At the same time I would like to learn more. Perhaps you could say more about what needs to be solved?
 
Full Frame x200 with an f2 lens and Im sold. Yes I would rather a full 35mm sensor over aps-c anyday. Yes there is a solid difference in how the images look from a FF sensor.

Think of it like this. A photo shot with a 5d and a 35mm f2 is going to look very different than a photo shot with a canon point and shoot at 35mm equivalent, f2. The point and shoot will give a point and shoot look in the photo. Aps-c does the same thing, just not so marked. The difference is still there though.

Bigger is better. Which is why I don't go under aps-c. m4/3 doesn't gel with me for that reason too.
 
Its easier for them to make the X100 line FF because there isn't really a system associated with it. I feel that they'll still have to release a professional level APS-c camera above the X-E2 to accommodate existing X-Pro1 users.

I'm personally extremely excited about this rumored X200.
 
gavinlg said:
Full Frame x200 with an f2 lens and Im sold. Yes I would rather a full 35mm sensor over aps-c anyday. Yes there is a solid difference in how the images look from a FF sensor.

Think of it like this. A photo shot with a 5d and a 35mm f2 is going to look very different than a photo shot with a canon point and shoot at 35mm equivalent, f2. The point and shoot will give a point and shoot look in the photo. Aps-c does the same thing, just not so marked. The difference is still there though.

Bigger is better. Which is why I don't go under aps-c. m4/3 doesn't gel with me for that reason too.
Click to expand...


This is true for some, but I could say that "Bigger is a waste of money if you really don't need it. So Bigger is maybe better, maybe not better".

For guys like me, spending $$$ on anything larger than APS is silly.
 
I'll admit it... I am a Fuji Fan boy...

I think when you look at their historical camera lineup it is really awesome and innovative. They have made some really really cool tools. I still drool over a G series medium format camera or a X-Pan.

They are good at making big things as small as they can while not comprising usability; at least, that is what stands out to me about their designs in the past.

We know how small one could make a full frame 35 mm f/2 camera (Sony RX-1), but I think a FF X200 or whatever would be larger than that. From the early mockups of the X100 its really clear they were channeling the Leica M spirit.

Sony has proven its possible to make a FF mirroless camera smaller than the M; I wonder if Fuji would dedicate a R&D budget to do the same if they are not going to go all in with FF sensors in a future system. I am a little doubtful of a FF X100... It sounds like a Halo project and those usually don't make money.

It could depend on how much what they have learned from the X-series is transferable to a FF X-series mitigating the R&D for such a camera.

I would love to see them try...
 
I think Sony should be remembered in the history of digital photography as the company who pushes the envelope.

I have no desire to own any of their cameras but I really like their impact on other manufacturers to move forward with producing FF cameras.
 
Sony has always seemed to push the envelope across the electronics world. They just didn't make the ipod or ipad so we have forgotten, but they made the walkman among many others!

Fuji is innovative in a very "niche" way. I mean the G series cameras are niche cameras as well as the x-pan etc, but photographers really like them because they just work so well.

I think the Fuji X100 is a niche camera that caught on because it made a lot of noise. I think it was a risky camera to make; they made a photographer's camera with a retro design dropping it in a see of automation and it was a success. It was not the most intuitive camera (parallax error, quirky menus, disputable AF, and manual controls), but it still made a splash. I find it pretty amazing in the modern camera world that a product that did more than use "retro" aesthetics, but actually "retro functionality" (OVF/manual control dials) was so successful.

Nikon, who has abandoned that paradigm, just did the same thing with the Df, and it seems to initially be a polarizing camera.
 
jsrockit said:
I wasn't until I saw the news that a successor to the X-Pro1 isn't expected anytime soon. If that's the case, I'll take a FF X100.
Click to expand...

Same here. I wasn't 100% happy with my first Fuji experience but I can't help but root for them. They have a lot of great things going and I hope to own one of their products again soon.
 
I much rather be using a modern APS sensor with a camera and lens system designed and optimized for that size sensor. Sure, it's an amazing feat of engineering for Sony to squeeze a full-frame sensor into a compact body but what's the point if the lenses still has to be the size of a beer bottle? With laggard performance, lousy battery life, etc.

Fuji should perfect what they've already got and provide professional, high level quality control and customer service. That's what's missing from the marketplace and I would much rather pay a premium for it instead of for bragging rights on another half-a$$ed full frame wannabee.
 
daveleo said:
This is true for some, but I could say that "Bigger is a waste of money if you really don't need it. So Bigger is maybe better, maybe not better".

For guys like me, spending $$$ on anything larger than APS is silly.
Click to expand...

+1

For a lot of folks, myself included, I current don't c the need.

My photo normally don't play w/ of of focus dof looks, and when it does, apsc is good enough. For me the only advantage to ff is higher iso w/ denser mp (>24mp). I solved my higher iso req for now by getting a stop more of my Fuji by using a speedbooster. I don't make pictures bigger than 13x19, so 16mp is already good enough for my needs.

It isn't to say I might one day get a ff, I am a gear head. I may get it used when I can pick one up for half of the price used. If I had really wanted one, I would have bought a d600 or 700 a year ago, considering I have a lot of Nikon lenses around still.

Apsc is just fine.

I read the update about no Fuji ff xp camera as well. I really think they are waiting to c how the Sony a7 plays out plus I think they are pushing to get their organic sensor tech (partner w/ Panasonic) ready in a product by no later then early 2015. If this is the case, they don't need to cause their development teams useless churn..

In the world of semiconductor manufacturing, yield is everything.. This is what drives the bottom line cost. The smaller the sensor, the better the yield. I am not sure if Fuji has their own sensor fab house or not, but Sony definitely does, so their cost is going to be much cheaper then others.. Sony sells their sensors as a third party as well, so their cost structure includes potential volume sales to others.

Gary
 
Frank Petronio said:
I much rather be using a modern APS sensor with a camera and lens system designed and optimized for that size sensor. Sure, it's an amazing feat of engineering for Sony to squeeze a full-frame sensor into a compact body but what's the point if the lenses still has to be the size of a beer bottle? With laggard performance, lousy battery life, etc.

Fuji should perfect what they've already got and provide professional, high quality quality control and customer service. That's what's missing from the marketplace and I would much rather pay a premium for it instead of for bragging rights on another half-a$$ed full frame wannabee.
Click to expand...

Well said.
Gary
 
As a person who sold his D700+24/35/50/85 kit to fund an XE-1+18/35/60 kit and has added an X100s, I feel confident in saying that for my needs, FF has lost its appeal. When I got my D700, it was in part for the ISO and in part for the fact that I couldn't get the primes I wanted in the angles of view that I wanted with APS-C. Both Canon and Nikon STILL have those gaps in APS-C primes.

I went with the Fuji's largely because I wasn't taking my D700 with me as often as I'd have liked. I take the Fujis everywhere. But I've found that the ISO performance is even better than the D700, the resolution is marginally higher, the color out of the camera is way better, and the images are just more impressive. And I have the focal lengths I want, so that's no longer an issue.

I rarely shot my Nikon primes wide open because focus often became a liability. I'd usually stop down a stop or two. I shoot my Fujis a stop wider in the same situations and have the same rate of success I always did and the same depth of field. And the Fuji's perform way better wide open or close to it than the Nikons ever did. So for me, FF holds no appeal. Sure, if you're a person that loves to get the near eye sharp and let the other eye, and the rest of the image, go soft, then full frame is the way to do it. I'm not opposed to focus separation. But the benefit of FF over APS-C in this regard is one stop, minimal, and generally where you don't want to be when shooting portraits or moving subjects. YMMV.
 
Frank Petronio said:
I much rather be using a modern APS sensor with a camera and lens system designed and optimized for that size sensor. Sure, it's an amazing feat of engineering for Sony to squeeze a full-frame sensor into a compact body but what's the point if the lenses still has to be the size of a beer bottle? With laggard performance, lousy battery life, etc.

Fuji should perfect what they've already got and provide professional, high level quality control and customer service. That's what's missing from the marketplace and I would much rather pay a premium for it instead of for bragging rights on another half-a$$ed full frame wannabee.
Click to expand...

I think that you're forgetting that what Sony has done is a first and will only lead to greater things in the future, not just from sony, but from all other manufacturers as well. To call the Sony system a "half-a$$ed full frame wannabee" is outrageous. Sony is the only company right now that is actually taking any chances and making innovative products.

I still believe that the best size/performance ratio is with full frame sensors and will be the standard in the not so distant future. Sure, not everyone needs it right now, but it's good that it's there for those that do.
 
NicoM said:
I think that you're forgetting that what Sony has done is a first and will only lead to greater things in the future, not just from sony, but from all other manufacturers as well. To call the Sony system a "half-a$$ed full frame wannabee" is outrageous. Sony is the only company right now that is actually taking any chances and making innovative products.

I still believe that the best size/performance ratio is with full frame sensors and will be the standard in the not so distant future. Sure, not everyone needs it right now, but it's good that it's there for those that do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm no hater of the A7/A7R, except in this regard: steal from Fuji and launch with a 28, 50, and 85/90 prime. The launch lens selection is half-baked, the roadmap is vague or nonexistent, and Sony already has a bad history of launching new systems and not giving them the necessary lenses (APS-C NEX users should sell their cameras if there's a lens they've been waiting on). The camera isn't half-baked, but the lens lineup is, and Sony should know better by now.
 
While I am a huge x100 fan and will use it until it falls apart, I am disappointed if this means a longer delay on a XPII. Reason is; the x100 is the ONLY digital I have and have been waiting for a XPII so I can use my Cron 35 + 50 on a newer XPII. If they will take their time I will have to consider the existing XPI. Which raises the question: is that my best digital choice for Leica M glass? Hmmmm
 
uhh, I want to challenge you on that. Where do you see the innovation in the Sony cameras? Full frame in a small camera body? Leica done it years ago with the M9. The difference is that Leica actually has good lenses that match the body size of the camera.
The last REAL innovation in the camera world was Fuji's hybrid viewfinder and I have a feeling it will stay that way for quite a while.
Just because a company throws out products left, right and center without a clear vision does not mean they are innovators.

(BTW: Fuji has to be careful with that as well with their recent lineup. How many similar cameras do we need?)

Believe me if Sony would have innovations going, you would see Pros in the field with them. But you don't.


NicoM said:
Sony is the only company right now that is actually taking any chances and making innovative products.

I still believe that the best size/performance ratio is with full frame sensors and will be the standard in the not so distant future. Sure, not everyone needs it right now, but it's good that it's there for those that do.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom