tbarker13
shooter of stuff
This looks like it could be fun. Wonder how long it takes to go from this to the market.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
That is my main concern.
Exactly...
FranZ
Established
Just don't get it.
They are talking about both FF ánd APS-C.
FF = FF and not APS-C!
They are talking about both FF ánd APS-C.
FF = FF and not APS-C!
bensyverson
Well-known
No, they're saying their APS-C performance will be as good or better than FF performance. They're not doing FF.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Not to worry! A few minutes after the camera is put on the store shelves, the M-to-Fuji adapters will show up on eBay.
hteasley
Pupil
That reasoning was what I was questioning. I'm not entirely certain that it would be more expensive: your only given reason for added expense was licensing costs of using someone else's design, and I was pointing out that the M mount carries no license cost at all.
Why would designing a new mount be cheaper than a modified M-mount? Surely using the M-mount as a base solves *some* engineering questions already....
I agree there are good reasons for them to not do M-mount, but "more expensive to design than starting from scratch" is not a reason I am on board with. There's a ton I don't know about this, of course, so if there's something I'm not seeing, I'm way open to correction.
celluloidprop
Well-known
I think it's safe to assume one of the lenses will be a variation of the 23/2 from the X100.
If it shapes up nicely, I see myself buying in - a X100-style body with 21/35/50 equivalent lenses would be ideal for me. A M9 is always tempting, but for my way of working I don't know that an EVF and decent AF is any worse than a traditional RF for speed and accuracy.
If it shapes up nicely, I see myself buying in - a X100-style body with 21/35/50 equivalent lenses would be ideal for me. A M9 is always tempting, but for my way of working I don't know that an EVF and decent AF is any worse than a traditional RF for speed and accuracy.
Last edited:
Archlich
Well-known
If there ever will be one, it'll be announced very late; the X100's only advantage then would be size and cost. Its leaf shutter as well maybe, for we're not sure if the new system will be using a focal plane shutter.
I have always been wondering why the X100 has a 35mm equivalent lens - judging from the Fuji custom if they produce a fixed lens series it'll be a 40-50ish first then a wide version with 28mm (or equivalent). Now this interchangeable system has made the reason clear.
I'd think 35mm is the best compromise lens out there. For some 28mm is too wide and for some 50mm is too narrow. If you are a user of the 28 or 50mm, you can adapt to the 35mm a bit easier than vise-versa. Also, remember this is really a 23mm lens adapted to be a 35mm lens on a APS-C sensor... could be the reason they didn't go 28mm.
Last edited:
hxpham
Established
I hope they move the back button AF switch to where the back wheel is, because the position of it [the AF button] is really awkward as it is now.
celluloidprop
Well-known
This whole thing looks like it's a long ways away from formal announcement. There's a good chance it will replace the X100 entirely, or that it will be expensive enough that the X100 will remain in place as a budget option (or for people who only want/need a single focal length).
Formal announcement is Feb 2012.
claacct
Well-known
The other reason is that while the lens is 35mm the VF has a coverage of 90% which means the VF actually shows 40-45mm coverage which is close to whats considered normal field of view for 35mm cameras... The same applies to Leica bodies as well - 35mm on the lens 40mm+ on the VF.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Just dump al the gimmicks, display's etc.
Give me a full frame sensor with a great dynamic range and low noise. I don't care how much pixels there are.
Give me a full frame sensor with a great dynamic range and low noise. I don't care how much pixels there are.
bensyverson
Well-known
It's always more expensive to produce a backward-compatible system rather than starting from scratch, because you need to design, verify and test against the legacy equipment. But the M system would be particularly expensive...
- Legacy M lenses often have oblique ray angles, requiring a different microlens array configuration than the more telecentric modern designs. Fuji would have to spend time researching and creating a compromise MLA that wouldn't be optimal for either set of lenses.
- Bench testing would mean purchasing multiple copies of a wide range of M lenses. A non-trivial cost, even for a large company. Especially if they want built-in correction profiles for each major lens (which would be a must, given the above compromise).
- Fuji would either have to decide to make "M-Auto" lenses mechanically incompatible with the standard M mount, or spend time and money testing them on other bodies.
Last edited:
georadu
Member
Hi,
Can someone make a 3d model out of those distorted images. I have the X100 and this piece of news is very interesting.
Oh, and, hi to all guys, I'm new here.
George
Can someone make a 3d model out of those distorted images. I have the X100 and this piece of news is very interesting.
Oh, and, hi to all guys, I'm new here.
George
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
These are strange times when one can get so excited about a shutter speed dial on a new digital camera. This must rank as the golden era of still photography, considering the variety of gear out there..
Roger Hicks
Veteran
'Rangefinder-like'
Or as we say in English,
'Point and shoot autofocus with manual override and an optical viewfinder'.
Gosh! How original!
Cheers,
R.
Or as we say in English,
'Point and shoot autofocus with manual override and an optical viewfinder'.
Gosh! How original!
Cheers,
R.
celluloidprop
Well-known
Rangefinder-like - small(er) bodies and lenses, quieter, more inconspicuous.
I'm not sure it's fair to call anything with a EVF a 'point and shoot.' Performance aside, is there anything conceptually different between SLR phase-detection autofocus and mirrorless contrast-detection? You hold it up to your eye and decide what you want to focus on.
I'm not sure it's fair to call anything with a EVF a 'point and shoot.' Performance aside, is there anything conceptually different between SLR phase-detection autofocus and mirrorless contrast-detection? You hold it up to your eye and decide what you want to focus on.