Will Fuji continue to resist full frame sensors?

[jsrockit]

The XT3 is close to the same size as the Sony Alpha 7r. The 7r is heavier by 22%, so it comes down to price. Setting (FF) ego aside logic goes with the Fuji for me.

Well, in body size sure... but how about lens size? Fuji has a lot more small and light lenses...

 

[jsrockit]

Don't they have digital MF camera already?
Canonikon has none.

Yes, but MF is not mainstream...

 

[Brian Atherton]

For me, it comes down to lens size and weight.

My days of lugging around heavy lenses is done.

 

[splitimageview]

Yes, but MF is not mainstream...

To Fuji, that’s kinda the point.

Much easier to not have to compete against N-S-C

 

[willie_901]

With Nikon and Canon finally entering the full frame mirrorless market Fuji have just released the XT3 and to to me it appears to be a brilliant camera. My friend Karen who bought the X100F recently is considering one herself and looking at the specs and reviews who could blame her.

Do you think a camera like the XT3 will lose sales against Sony and now Nikon and Canon by not being full frame? Given the mirrorless choices out there at the moment I would go with the Fuji every time especially considering that it is now the third incarnation of what was already a brilliant camera on it's original release.

FUJIFILM has a fuller frame camera – the GFX-50S with a 51.4MP 44 x 33mm Bayer sensor. But it costs about $2K more than the Z7. The stellar GF lenses are not cheap either ($1.3 to $2.2K).

The XT3 has two disadvantages: APS-C and no IBIS. Sensor area is important because the maximum possible total signal (exposure) depends on area when sensor technologies are equivalent. IBIS is great, but it has no advantage over in-lens stabilization unless you are doing video or using third-party lenses.

The X-T3 offers a significant improvement in AF performance and the Fujinon lens lineup is diverse. A XT3 body is about $2.1K less than the Z7, $800 less than the Canon R and only about $500 less than the Z6. These prices are just +/- $100 estimates.

In my view FUJIFILM's market share is not more vulnerable now that Nikon and Canon have 24 X 36mm mirrorless cameras. Their primary competition is SONY. The Nikon and Canon bodies change when lens adapters are used to mount existing lenses.

I think some FUJIFILM owners will switch to Nikon or Canon. I also think some Canon and Nikon owners who decide to switch to mirriorless will go with FUJIFILM or SONY.

 

[Dogman]

I see the numbers of photographers who still think a digital sensor should be the same size as a piece of 35mm film to be very small and diminishing. That ship has sailed.

Once there was merit in being able to reuse older film designed lenses but newer optical designs, auto focusing, and image stabilization, plus the low cost of the excellent Fuji lenses means that ship has sailed also.

In the early days of digital, the 35mm format was the standard of image quality to which all else was compared. Everyone wanted something equivalent for their digital camera with the ability to use their 35mm lenses. Since then we've seen smaller digital formats like M4/3 and APS-C come along with astoundingly good image quality and a range of superb lenses. Even the 1" format is highly capable. IMO APS-C now exceeds 35mm film in image quality. Image quality is a given with all digital formats. FF digital might be marginally better but, really, who needs "better" when you're dealing with this degree of excellence?

I suspect the desire for the New Big Thing will hook many photographers and they will dump their current systems and hop to the new ones. Others will just continue to take pictures and not get involved in the endless quest.

 

[gavinlg]

I've thought about this a bit.
After seeing the announcement of the canon and Nikon FF mirrorless cameras and their respective lenses, I don't think Fuji will be tempted to the FF category, and neither would I want them to.
The Xtrans aps-c Fuji's are so close in IQ to the FF cameras, yet have smaller, more tactile, sweeter lenses thanks to the slightly smaller format. They absolutely nailed the size to quality ratio.

Take a look at these lens size comparisons:
Fast 35mm equivalent lenses - http://j.mp/2NYw6Kq
Fast 85mm lenses - http://j.mp/2wTwoLV

It seems that the mirrorless bodies from sony/canon/Nikon are employing even larger lens designs than their mirrored equivalents.

 

[jsrockit]

I've thought about this a bit.
After seeing the announcement of the canon and Nikon FF mirrorless cameras and their respective lenses, I don't think Fuji will be tempted to the FF category, and neither would I want them to.
The Xtrans aps-c Fuji's are so close in IQ to the FF cameras, yet have smaller, more tactile, sweeter lenses thanks to the slightly smaller format. They absolutely nailed the size to quality ratio.

Take a look at these lens size comparisons:
Fast 35mm equivalent lenses - http://j.mp/2NYw6Kq
Fast 85mm lenses - http://j.mp/2wTwoLV

It seems that the mirrorless bodies from sony/canon/Nikon are employing even larger lens designs than their mirrored equivalents.

I agree completely... but many people do not care about size. Some guys even seem to buy big lenses just to have big lenses!!! haha.

 

[mod2001]

I think there's no need to Fuji to jump on the FF-train, at least for now. But they should think to offer their top cameras alternatively with Bayer sensor instead of X-Trans. Latter one probably divides more than the sensor format itself, either you love it your hate it, I'm in the second group. Luckily they don't go this route with there MF line.

Jürgen