Fuji Did Fuji awake the sleeping giant?!

Devil's in the details and that's obviously a hacked photo of an X100 because the rumor folks haven't actually SEEN anything yet, but if its really 28mm f2-ish in anything like a pancake form, I'm at least looking at it. And if it really has a Voitlander lens with physical distance and DOF scale, they're gonna have to fight me off. But I think that photo is more of a wet dream at this stage than anything else. Still, will be cool to see what it turns out to be...

-Ray
 
Hope they get the target audience better than they did with the V1: Body and lenses almost as big as an OMD EM5, but with half the sensor size? So little customization or control? "Open mouth, shoot foot." (This being said, I do have a V1 that I can't bring myself to get rid of. :) )

I hesitate to see Nikon's gaffs this time. "Looks like a range-finder, Ops like a P&S?"
 
Devil's in the details and that's obviously a hacked photo of an X100 because the rumor folks haven't actually SEEN anything yet, but if its really 28mm f2-ish in anything like a pancake form, I'm at least looking at it. And if it really has a Voitlander lens with physical distance and DOF scale, they're gonna have to fight me off. But I think that photo is more of a wet dream at this stage than anything else. Still, will be cool to see what it turns out to be...

-Ray

The image caption does say, "The dream camera: mockup of Nikon mirrorless camera based on the Fuji X100 done by a reader"
 
I wouldn't count Nikon out just yet.....When they feel like doing things right, they do stuff like this: :cool:
-> Nikon | Imaging Products | Nikon S3 Year 2000 Millennium Model

That's cool and everything.... but why not shove an effing sensor inside. I have the utmost respect for people who still shoot film, but make that same camera with a sensor inside and watch the zombies line up to buy one. The problem with selling a $2,000 rangefinder film body is that there is already a TON of them. Make it a digital version and you WIN. Your only competition is a Leica at 3-5 times the price or an old 6MP Epson that people still buy on the second hand market.
 
That's cool and everything.... but why not shove an effing sensor inside. I have the utmost respect for people who still shoot film, but make that same camera with a sensor inside and watch the zombies line up to buy one. The problem with selling a $2,000 rangefinder film body is that there is already a TON of them. Make it a digital version and you WIN. Your only competition is a Leica at 3-5 times the price or an old 6MP Epson that people still buy on the second hand market.

Sensor quality when it was released (2000) wasn't as it is today...:D:D:D
 
I don't know if either Canon or Nikon qualify as the sleeping giant when it comes to digital. They're pretty much awake and trying to hold their ground. I think Sony is probably more likely the sleeping giant because they have an established mirrorless design, great sensors, Minolta's excellent AF lenses (on their Alpha DSLRs), have the working relationship with Zeiss and cameras like the RX1 show what they can do when they are only half paying attention to things. You get the feeling if they had the right leadership and got their mind in the game they would be a force to be reckoned with.

Of course they lost 70 billion yen in 2012.
 
That's cool and everything.... but why not shove an effing sensor inside. I have the utmost respect for people who still shoot film, but make that same camera with a sensor inside and watch the zombies line up to buy one. The problem with selling a $2,000 rangefinder film body is that there is already a TON of them. Make it a digital version and you WIN. Your only competition is a Leica at 3-5 times the price or an old 6MP Epson that people still buy on the second hand market.

Could'nt agree more
 
I'd say the trifecta of virtues in the current phase of the Digital Photo Revolution is: Pro-Like (DSLR/pro Rangefinder image quality and flexibility); Portable (light/small); and Shooting Satisfaction (how fun is it to use).

From my own experience, I think Nikon flopped on all three with the V1. It has something of a shot at flexibility with interchangeable lenses, but the selection is so small that it's hard to give them a lot of credit for that right now - and image quality could be a lot better. (The V1 really struggled for me in low-light environments, and even the sharp outdoor pics felt fairly flat.) Going with a small sensor didn't do a whole lot for the portability; the V1 is bulky and heavy, and while the lenses are smaller than M4/3, it's not by enough to make a big difference in carrying around a shooting kit. Finally, it's not even all that fun to shoot for me. Fast autofocus is touted as a benefit in most of the reviews I've read, but at least in my shooting, I never noticed it being significantly faster (mainly indoors, which was probably a factor); trying to get a suitably non-blurry shot indoors was a pain; controls are primitive and not nearly as nice as the X10 or Pentax Q, my two current 'most fun' cameras; and the heavy body and minimal grip made it tiring to aim and shoot.

I haven't played around with an EOS-M, so I can't say how comfortable it is to hold and shoot, or what the image quality's like. But the photos of the body design aren't inspiring (a mostly-featureless block with minimal concessions to a grip, much like the V1), having only two lenses is very limiting (I don't count adapted lenses, since most of the systems can use lenses from their bigger brothers), and the lack of physical controls is very disappointing.
 
Back
Top