Fuji Thom Hogan Article on Fuji

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
124
Lexington, Virginia
Steve

Interesting read. I’ve been sucked into Fuji from Mu43. Like Mu43, Fuji has good affordable small primes. FF lenses tend to be bigger and costlier, but they are getting closer. FF bodies have largely caught up in size, but those new high MP sensors are going to need highly corrected lenses and i’m not sure the makers will maintain a line of smaller, cheaper primes for the lower MP sensor bodies.
 
Last edited:

serhan

All-Pro
May 7, 2011
124
NYC
Fuji has the best apsc line up at this moment. However Fuji didn't open their lenses for the third parties. Most probably they didn't need it. However, that is where the smaller, cheaper primes are coming for the FF at the moment. Samyang has small af 24mm 2.8, 35mm 2.8, and 45mm 1.8 FF lenses. Samyang even released a sharp af 85mm 1.4 that is similar size to old slr lenses. Sigma also started on the small lenses with 45mm 2.8 after big Art dslr lenses and I am sure more small primes will follow with their L mount commitment. It is all good for the consumers. M43 was overpriced initially compared to current prices that their lenses lenses are selling....

Higher MP will give more resolution on any lens but the other side is you need a good IBIS or a tripod or higher shutter speed which pushes ISO...
 

davidzvi

Top Veteran
Apr 18, 2014
104
Boston Burbs
David
Yes an interesting read. I tend to agree, all manufacturers offer too many options. Consumer (and salesperson) confusion is a real issue. I can think of at least 2-3 models that would make sense to eliminate from almost every manufacturer's lineup.
 

Kevin

Code Monkey 🐒
Nov 3, 2018
104
Pennsylvania, USA
This line about phones caught my attention because it seems like it is becoming more common that "flagship" phones from companies like Apple & Samsung are indeed in the 1K+ range and doesn't seem to be letting go.
The net net is that many people feel that they get a very competent camera when they spend US$1000 for a new smartphone.
With the lifespan of a "smartphone" being about 2-3 years before updates starting getting scarcer I really don't see spending that much money on a device being a viable solution for a lot of folks even if it does do double duty as a camera. At least for me I'd rather buy a cheaper phone and use a dedicated device for those times when I really want to bring a camera along with me. My current Canon might be in the "all consumer" category but at least I know I'll still have that and the gear for it long after my phone is but a memory.




Don't mind me, didn't mean to take this conversation off in a different direction, I just got distracted by that part since I'm phone shopping these days and having some sticker shock. :coffee-79:
 

Covey22

Hall of Famer
Feb 3, 2012
124
With the lifespan of a "smartphone" being about 2-3 years before updates starting getting scarcer I really don't see spending that much money on a device being a viable solution for a lot of folks even if it does do double duty as a camera. At least for me I'd rather buy a cheaper phone and use a dedicated device for those times when I really want to bring a camera along with me.
Software Defined (i.e., Computational) Photography has really changed the game again for dedicated still cameras. I agree the price needs to come down for phones (I think Google's iteration of the 3a series is an acknowledgement of sorts).

However, the size and convenience (including one of Thom's fond bully pulpit points - the ability to immediately edit, resize and share photos taken) was already an strike against DSCs. SDP just added more ballast to the Gorilla in the Room - now I look at my Sony RX-100, with it's larger sensor, versus my Pixel with Motion Capture and near prescient ability to catch and recommend Peak Action/Decisive Moment photos out of the batch - and it's slowly but surely making it tougher for me to carry a dedicated camera daily.

It's a combination of all those things that reinforce's Thom's point that the manufacturers need to do something different to distinguish themselves from the cell phone market, or be relegated to a smaller and smaller customer base every year.

That being said, my Pixel didn't make me NOT carry my XT + 50-140 to the Jazz Fest. I recognize when I need absolute Image Quality, but it doesn't reduce my desire to find an even smaller package that could deliver what that lovely APS-C and glass does, without busting my hump for a mile and a half.
 

Covey22

Hall of Famer
Feb 3, 2012
124
Thom does make a key point about the Product Strategy: Fuji XF is getting slowly but surely price-squeezed between low-end DSLR DX and High-End Full-Frame.

I love the XF optics. But that being said, if you can get a full-frame body and access to a wide set of legacy and new lenses for the same price as a high-end Fuji, why wouldn't you? The weight is almost a wash at XF high end.

What XF really needs is more lens options at the long end. I absolutely agree they need at least a 70-300 equivalent (just think, for 300 bucks I can get a low-end DSLR with decent AF, reasonable FPS and a 70-300 that gives me a 450mm equivalent in a very compact package),and no, I'm not considering lens adapters. They also need an F4.0 long prime that could easily take one of the dedicated TCs.

Autofocus is my bugaboo - especially on tracking as Thom notes. It's really bad in XT-1/10 generation - I'm debating how to move up to a -3/30 just for the improved AF, more points, larger sensing area, but I actually think one more generation might put them on par with Nikon Z, which is what I really want.
 

mike3996

Top Veteran
Apr 2, 2018
104
Fuji does so many things right, especially bodies.

  • Direct controls vs PASM (I know which I prefer, the rest of you can configure your cameras act as PASM cameras).
  • So many smart design decisions in the EVF, the whole OVF rangefinder of course.
  • Manual focus mode with AF-L override.
  • Retro aesthetics.
The lenses are practically where they struggle as a system. I mean they do well but for example, 85/1.8 FF lenses aren't exactly super expensive so 56/1.2 has to be extra great. 23/2 is great but 23/1.4 is suddenly big and heavy and there are smaller 35/2 FF lenses around. The list continues like that.

And the lenses also cost a good deal, both new and second-hand. The prices aren't exorbitant but still, an APSC lens is an APSC lens. Feels like it shouldn't cost the FF equivalent.

I know this makes absolutely zero business sense for Fuji but I wish they released an L-mount full frame body around the same size as X-T3. I know I would have my ideal camera with the perfect set of features and tools, with great adaptability of all sorts of SLR and rangefinder lenses.

Still, Fuji remains my absolute favorite system that I don't own right now. Whenever that billingham of mine falls into the sea I know which shop I'm going to get new replacement gear.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
124
Lexington, Virginia
Steve
This line about phones caught my attention because it seems like it is becoming more common that "flagship" phones from companies like Apple & Samsung are indeed in the 1K+ range and doesn't seem to be letting go.

With the lifespan of a "smartphone" being about 2-3 years before updates starting getting scarcer I really don't see spending that much money on a device being a viable solution for a lot of folks even if it does do double duty as a camera. At least for me I'd rather buy a cheaper phone and use a dedicated device for those times when I really want to bring a camera along with me. My current Canon might be in the "all consumer" category but at least I know I'll still have that and the gear for it long after my phone is but a memory.




Don't mind me, didn't mean to take this conversation off in a different direction, I just got distracted by that part since I'm phone shopping these days and having some sticker shock. :coffee-79:
Pixel 3a. I went shopping with my sister and she is really pleased with hers. Camera is really good.
 
Last edited:

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
124
Lexington, Virginia
Steve
Like Mu43, Fuji has a lovely set of small primes. I bet the FF equivalents would be 2.8 instead of 2, which kind of negates the one stop advantage over APS-C. For me to switch to FF I need bodies in the $1200 or less range and small primes under $500. Canon has the RP but no cheap lenses. Supposedly, Nikon is coming out with a lower end Z body. OTOH, Sony has cleverly left a series of "dead" bodies at low prices and Samyang has provided lenses. I have an A7 and the Samyang 35 2.8 and it's pretty good, although the high iso noise is the same as the XE3. It's just so hard to predict what will happen when the pool of customers gets small enough.
 
Last edited:

serhan

All-Pro
May 7, 2011
124
NYC
Yes, used Sony prices are great bargains esp now I am seeing used A7R II is at $1100, A7R III used is at $1800... Canon is supposedly coming with 70MP camera also...

Cell phones are squeezing the low end sales with their big budgets for software and even hardware, eg pixel 4 coming:
Google will reportedly have a ‘DSLR-like’ attachment for upcoming Pixel phones

All camera brands are hurting with sales:
Fujifilm FY2020/3 Q1 Financial Results: Strong GFX100 and X-T30 Sales, but Severe Market Conditions Make Revenue Fall 15% - Fuji Rumors
 

davidzvi

Top Veteran
Apr 18, 2014
104
Boston Burbs
David
This line about phones caught my attention because it seems like it is becoming more common that "flagship" phones from companies like Apple & Samsung are indeed in the 1K+ range and doesn't seem to be letting go.

With the lifespan of a "smartphone" being about 2-3 years before updates starting getting scarcer I really don't see spending that much money on a device being a viable solution for a lot of folks even if it does do double duty as a camera. At least for me I'd rather buy a cheaper phone and use a dedicated device for those times when I really want to bring a camera along with me. My current Canon might be in the "all consumer" category but at least I know I'll still have that and the gear for it long after my phone is but a memory.




Don't mind me, didn't mean to take this conversation off in a different direction, I just got distracted by that part since I'm phone shopping these days and having some sticker shock. :coffee-79:
Completely agree. Yes they are getting better, but it's not the experience I'm looking for and I also prefer dedicated devices.

Sidebar, just took advantage of the Samsung trade in, $300 off an S10e for trading in my S7.
 

Covey22

Hall of Famer
Feb 3, 2012
124
Doesn't the DoF equivalence make it comparable? I think his point that DX somewhere along the way lost it's original appeal when the lenses just became as big as FF is still valid. At that point, we are behind, given higher ISO performance of the sensors.
 

davidzvi

Top Veteran
Apr 18, 2014
104
Boston Burbs
David
I am amused by the concept of eventually having to give up my APS-C bodies and f2 primes to go to a similarly sized system of FF bodies and 2.8 primes.
Actually been there, done that.

I went from APS-C and f2.8 zooms with f/1.8 prime backups (and better low light when needed) to FF with f/4 zooms and f/2.8 zoom backups. My FF carry kit during events was smaller and lighter than my APS-C kit*. And the DOF was actually marginally shallower.

*The only exception was when I was using the original Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.
 

bassman

Regular
Feb 12, 2014
19
New Jersey, USA
The Bassman
Doesn't the DoF equivalence make it comparable? I think his point that DX somewhere along the way lost it's original appeal when the lenses just became as big as FF is still valid. At that point, we are behind, given higher ISO performance of the sensors.
I’m not sure you meant it this way, but I believe DX and the Canon cropped cameras were originally introduced because it was way too costly to produce FF sensors. I’m sure neither Nikon nor Canon ever wanted that format to be anything more than a bridge until they could (a) produce market-price acceptable FF cameras and (b) convert the cropped frame users that had bought into the interim strategy. Of course, the customers didn’t realize that it was and interim strategy - they were told by Canikon that cropped sensors were the new normal, and sold on the promise (never realized) of a full line of smaller lenses.

Of course, that never was delivered. After all this time, Nikon offers one normal DX prime (35/1.8), two macros (40 and 85) and one fisheye.
 

davidzvi

Top Veteran
Apr 18, 2014
104
Boston Burbs
David
I’m not sure you meant it this way, but I believe DX and the Canon cropped cameras were originally introduced because it was way too costly to produce FF sensors. I’m sure neither Nikon nor Canon ever wanted that format to be anything more than a bridge until they could (a) produce market-price acceptable FF cameras and (b) convert the cropped frame users that had bought into the interim strategy. Of course, the customers didn’t realize that it was and interim strategy - they were told by Canikon that cropped sensors were the new normal, and sold on the promise (never realized) of a full line of smaller lenses.

Of course, that never was delivered. After all this time, Nikon offers one normal DX prime (35/1.8), two macros (40 and 85) and one fisheye.
I agree that DX was originally a "cost" savings decision in part, the other being readout speed. All the rest of the internals have come a long way.

D1X 2001 -- 5.3mp DX CCD Sensor -- 3fps
D2H 2003 -- 4.1mp DX JFET Sensor -- 8fps
D2X 2004 -- 12.2mp DX CMOS Sensor -- 5fps
D3 2007 -- 12mp FF CMOS Sensor -- 9fps

The D3 has a DX crop mode that shoots at 11fps and gives you a 5.1mp image. If you had a 12mp FF sensor in 2001 would you be measuring in frames per second or seconds per frame?

As to DX lenses? No, neither Nikon or Canon released even close to a complete set of crop sensor glass. But your list is missing a few significant offerings on the Nikon side (not familiar enough with Canon to answer for them). The most noticeable fill the gap just using FF doesn't cover. The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0, 12-24mm f/4, and 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 are very good. All but the last (the 10-24mm) are designated as a pro lens by Nikon with the gold ring. The rest of the DX offerings have been really hit or miss with more misses than hits IMHO.
 

bassman

Regular
Feb 12, 2014
19
New Jersey, USA
The Bassman
L
I agree that DX was originally a "cost" savings decision in part, the other being readout speed. All the rest of the internals have come a long way.

D1X 2001 -- 5.3mp DX CCD Sensor -- 3fps
D2H 2003 -- 4.1mp DX JFET Sensor -- 8fps
D2X 2004 -- 12.2mp DX CMOS Sensor -- 5fps
D3 2007 -- 12mp FF CMOS Sensor -- 9fps

The D3 has a DX crop mode that shoots at 11fps and gives you a 5.1mp image. If you had a 12mp FF sensor in 2001 would you be measuring in frames per second or seconds per frame?

As to DX lenses? No, neither Nikon or Canon released even close to a complete set of crop sensor glass. But your list is missing a few significant offerings on the Nikon side (not familiar enough with Canon to answer for them). The most noticeable fill the gap just using FF doesn't cover. The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0, 12-24mm f/4, and 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 are very good. All but the last (the 10-24mm) are designated as a pro lens by Nikon with the gold ring. The rest of the DX offerings have been really hit or miss with more misses than hits IMHO.
You’re correct on the zooms - I was referring to the paucity of primes. I’m out tonight on a shoot with m43 12, 17, 45 and 75: none of which exist in DX.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom