Sparrow
Veteran
I do hope you have your bomb proof trousers on, Stewart. The Potiban will be gathering to unleash an Improvised Explosive Spell on you for that sacrilegous claim!
I didn't think Fuji had that level of technology ...
... anyway I'm safe enough in this tactical vest, and the strategic underpants ... obviously
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I think it is far more accurate to say that "mirrorless"—aka "all electronic TTL interchangeable lens camera designs"—have done a lot to change future photographic equipment, rather than Photography. Thank Olympus and Panasonic for bringing these camera designs to the market first. Thank Sony for being the first to incorporate a "full frame" sensor into such a design. Thank Ricoh for building such a camera designed to use existing RF lenses.
And thank Fuji for whatever you like, if you like Fuji X cameras. But they're late to the game by comparison to the others. They do know how to style and market, better than most of the above... ;-)
G
And thank Fuji for whatever you like, if you like Fuji X cameras. But they're late to the game by comparison to the others. They do know how to style and market, better than most of the above... ;-)
G
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Late to the game! What was there to compare to the X100 when it was released? (serious question)
Lss
Well-known
I'm not sure that is fair. They are still the only ones with a hybrid viewfinder. The X100 and to lesser extent the X-Pro 1 are definitely original. The big innovation by Panasonic and Olympus is introducing a lens mount for a mirrorless digital camera, a couple years after Epson and Leica had their first digital products out. The big innovation by Sony is small size.
The more current crop of X series cameras are indeed late to the game, but the ones with hybrid viewfinders are more special in this sense.
Coopersounds
Well-known
I think i get your point, but this part sits at odds with me. In what way is Fuji X exclusive? Also, I am 35, brought up in Adelaide, and most cameras I saw with family etc were SLR cameras, not so much rangefinders. Given the age of the group you mention (20-35) most parents would be 45-60 at a guess?
This puts them in a period of time where SLR not rangefinder cameras where dominant.
I guess for me that blows your idea of a camera their parents would have used at their age.
Does that make sense or am I rambling????
BTW otherwise very interesting thing to note!
Also, who would be the Allen Ginsberg of photography??
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
I think I mean more just a camera that looks like a traditional camera. SLRs were definitely more popular during my (our?) parents upbringing, but the market was still mostly all about metal, angular designs that looked like a camera. The x-pro1/x100 look more similar to a (say) minolta SRT just in design style and size/thickness comparatively to modern SLRS. Hope that makes sense...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I see! Maybe this Fuji X thing also as local as JK back to reading effect?
Personally, here I know only one person who jumped on x-wagon.
Haven't seen even single picture from him after it, yet.
Was Potter book(s) available only in few shops in UK?
You have to find the store here to have Fuji X series on display.
Our older kid and all of her friends who were into photo and videography went with DSLR at the same time Fuji X100 was super hot ...on the Internet forums.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I thought this was about the X series interchangeable lens cameras, but ok:
* Ricoh GXR - interchangeable camera units, better controls, better image quality. Essentially five cameras in one, depending on which camera unit you fit.
* Leica X2 - fixed lens - better lens, better controls, more sensitivity, better dynamic range.
The X100 is stylish, the controls look good but don't work for my hands, the EVF is crummy, the menus are the usual Fuji mess, the optical viewfinder is good. I tried one and returned it quickly. Didn't like it at all.
The GXR and the X/X2 do a heck of a lot better as a camera for me, although not as stylish and you need to fit a viewfinder rather than having it built-in. I can pick whether I want an OVF or EVF with either GXR or X2.
G
Aristophanes
Well-known
The U$299 Canon and Nikon DSLR kit did by far more of that reinvigoration .
Coopersounds
Well-known
MCTuomey
Veteran
social media and photo hosting have done more for photography than any gear manufacturer. in economic terms, it's distribution and consumption driving the gear makers. also the nature of the demand for images has changed, whether for the professional or the happy-snapper: delivery speed means a lot - images "on the device" today not tomorrow, yesterday not now.
mirrorless v mirrored - seems to me it's but one element of the broader trend over the last 2 decades toward faster workflow and turnaround of high quality imaging with lighter, smaller format equipment. the larger trend is the significant one, mirrorless being just another step on the path.
mirrorless v mirrored - seems to me it's but one element of the broader trend over the last 2 decades toward faster workflow and turnaround of high quality imaging with lighter, smaller format equipment. the larger trend is the significant one, mirrorless being just another step on the path.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If you insist that a fixed lens camera is the Fuji X model ...
The Epson R-D1 and Leica M are not a "mirrorless camera" design, they are rangefinder cameras. No one else had an interchangeable lens, TTL electronic viewing—aka "mirrorless"—camera before Olympus and Panasonic introduced Micro-FourThirds in October 2008, then early 2009. Sony was next with NEX, then Samsung, then Fuji. Canon and Nikon were later.
I see nothing special about a "hybrid viewfinder" where the EVF is crummy like the Fuji's. It's a cool idea that just doesn't work in this implementation.
The Panasonic G1 and the Olympus VF-2 EVFs were better performers before any of the others. The Olympus E-M1 viewfinder is at present the best EVF in any camera, followed by the Sony A7/A7r, and a bit behind the pack the Fuji XT-1
G
Lss
Well-known
Interchangeable lenses were an obvious addition to digital cameras with electronic TTL. For some time, the sensor technology and price point were not there for a system that would have lasted. Someone naturally needs to be the first, and the continuation on the FT path with the MFT standard was certainly an innovation that had much potential. But putting a smaller sensor in a mirrorless body than what Epson and Leica did is no feat as such. And yes, these are rangefinder cameras. I'm considering the general form factor and system size here, too, not only viewfinders.
No doubt the implementation needs to be improved.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'm glad you consider creating a whole new camera design paradigm so easy. You might try doing it some day to get a little reality into your thoughts.
The interchangeable lenses and TTL electronic viewing system is what mirrorless is all about. Not format or camera size.
Leica's feat was engineering the M9 sensor, with Kodak assistance, to allow the majority of their existing RF lenses to work with a digital sensor of the same format as their film cameras. It was a breathtaking achievement that took them three quarters of a decade to produce. The rest of the camera is unremarkable and broke no new ground—same viewfinder and focusing system they'd used since 1953, similar shutter to the M7/MP, slightly fatter body to accommodate the electronics and battery.
No one ever called a rangefinder camera mirrorless until Micro-FourThirds users started putting Leica M lenses on their cameras. Then the rangefinder geeks has to try to one-up the new innovations by claiming they were mirrorless before the term was invented. Such idiocy.
G
The interchangeable lenses and TTL electronic viewing system is what mirrorless is all about. Not format or camera size.
Leica's feat was engineering the M9 sensor, with Kodak assistance, to allow the majority of their existing RF lenses to work with a digital sensor of the same format as their film cameras. It was a breathtaking achievement that took them three quarters of a decade to produce. The rest of the camera is unremarkable and broke no new ground—same viewfinder and focusing system they'd used since 1953, similar shutter to the M7/MP, slightly fatter body to accommodate the electronics and battery.
No one ever called a rangefinder camera mirrorless until Micro-FourThirds users started putting Leica M lenses on their cameras. Then the rangefinder geeks has to try to one-up the new innovations by claiming they were mirrorless before the term was invented. Such idiocy.
G
Lss
Well-known
The idea of adding a mount for interchangeable lenses on a digital camera is trivial. It's a different thing to make it a reality and a success. No need to start insulting people.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
No manufacturer comes to mind, but as far as photography right now....possibly Nan Goldin.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Samouraï
Well-known
I'd agree that Sony is pushing the industry harder. 400+iso FF sensor, 200+iso MF sensor in every new MF camera, FF mirrorless. But I also think Sony doesn't care about customer experience...at all. Whereas Fuji seems to care what customers think after they've already been paid. And Sigma is in the background with their Foveon X3 chips that are more important than anything that's occurred in digital photography since its inception and mainstream acceptance, but few care.
willie_901
Veteran
Yes, SONY pushes... in 360 degrees, in three dimensions with no focus or, it appears to me, strategy.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Okay, for me, the Lumix G1 (back in late 2008) changed my photography, as it was the first really compact and useful digitial camera I could see owning, with which I subsequently made thousands of images documenting my hometown.
Recently, I acquired a Fujifilm X10 (at a deeply discounted price) and find that its EXR dynamic range mode outdoes the Lumix G5 sensor in dynamic range, if one is careful to accept the tradeoff in reduced pixel resolution in the files, while the X10's smaller sensor gives an intrinsically wider DOF, something that comes in very handy for urban documentation. I've subsequently taken to using the little X10 much more, while my micro-4/3 kit and its excellent selection of AF and manual lenses sits unused.
On paper, the X10 is the inferior camera, but in practice, for me, it rocks. Yes, I'd like an EVF and interchangeable lenses, but for what it is, and costs, the X10 shines. In that respect, a Fujifilm X-series camera has changed my photography.
~Joe
Recently, I acquired a Fujifilm X10 (at a deeply discounted price) and find that its EXR dynamic range mode outdoes the Lumix G5 sensor in dynamic range, if one is careful to accept the tradeoff in reduced pixel resolution in the files, while the X10's smaller sensor gives an intrinsically wider DOF, something that comes in very handy for urban documentation. I've subsequently taken to using the little X10 much more, while my micro-4/3 kit and its excellent selection of AF and manual lenses sits unused.
On paper, the X10 is the inferior camera, but in practice, for me, it rocks. Yes, I'd like an EVF and interchangeable lenses, but for what it is, and costs, the X10 shines. In that respect, a Fujifilm X-series camera has changed my photography.
~Joe