[Class A]

So why do these claimed market dynamics apply to Pentax but not Fuji?

I think it's because people buy Fuji gear for its looks rather than for the technology. They think they are joining the Leica club without paying the full price of admission.

The X100 was slow and had usability issues but still sold well. The press (e.g. Dpreview) typically loves anything retro, lesser ergonomics notwithstanding.

Fuji also did an outstanding PR job, making a lot of well-know photographer bloggers use and promote their gear.

In short, Fuji managed to play outside the rules that apply to others.

[Rondec]

It's interesting that within all this defense of Fuji there aren't the standard criticisms that have been levied against Pentax here and elsewhere. Stuff like:

- They are short-sighted for not providing an upgrade path to users to full-frame.
- APS-C is doomed as full-frame prices come down. They will be doomed if they don't release full frame
- They can't be considered a serious camera company if they don't offer a full-frame camera
- Pros shoot full frame. As a market they are smaller but they buy products with higher margins and are very influential. If you don't offer full frame then you just can't compete
- Full frame is better. I need/want it. If they don't offer full-frame, I won't even consider them.

So why do these claimed market dynamics apply to Pentax but not Fuji?

I think they have a much smaller user base and folks who shoot Fuji know that there isn't going to be an upgrade path when they buy in. Many use it as a secondary camera system and have a full frame camera as well.

In the end, most people buy into a camera system for the lenses and Fuji glass is pretty nice.

I think Fuji has been pretty good at obfuscating over time -- fudging iso to make their camera's performance look better, use a non-bayer X Trans sensor to supposedly get better performance (probably doesn't really make a difference in real world performance, just limits third party editing ability). People who have drunk the Fuji koolaid are convinced that they are getting significantly better performance out of their APS-C sensors than any other brand out there.

Sigma does a little bit of the same thing with Foveon sensors. The difference is that at low isos, Foveon sensors really do outperform bayer sensors with regard to color and resolution.

[Winder]

Never say never.

NEX E mount was also never originally considered as, or marketed as, a full-frame mount. But Sony thought, after a few years of NEX being APS-C only, that full-frame made technical and business sense for E mount. So they released several cameras (stills and video) that were full-frame E-mount, and created a whole new line of FE lenses to go with them. Third party lens makers followed.

Fuji could do the same. Business is business. New cameras and lenses to be sold, new opportunities to pursue.

---------- Post added 2014-09-24 at 09:15 PM ----------



My first SLR was a K-mount Ricoh [XR2S], shooting a few Pentax M lenses (and a few Metz flashes too). That history does indeed make me sympathetic to all those brands, especially since I still have all that gear, and it all still works fine.

However, few Pentaxians (or Metzians or Ricohians?) are totally blind to other brands just because of their personal camera history. Most will recognise the need to use 'the right tool for the job', and/or obtain the best 'bang for the buck'.

Pentax users are loyal, but not blindly so. Hence many experienced users may have moved on, tired of waiting for full-frame. But, on the other hand, many new users have joined the cult, ready to be upsold to full-frame the moment Pentax releases one.

With the E-mount a FF sensor will actually fit. With X-mount the FF sensor is too large to fit. Fuji would have to launch a new mount and while they say they might launch a 2nd mount in the future, they don't have any intention to do so until the X-mount line up has been filled out. By the end of 2015 they will have 19 lenses for X-mount covering from 14mm to 400mm.

I think Fuji is waiting to launch the X-Pro 2 until they have the organic sensor ready to go. The prototype that Fuji & Panasonic partnered to create had an signal to noise ratio of 88db compared to the 43bd S/N of the 36MP D800 FF sensor. Basically the organic APS-C sensor could provide a 4 stop improvement over the current 36MP FF sensor. I think Fuji is banking on the next generation of APS-C sensors making people forget about FF for a few years. A 16-bit 36MP APS-C sensor that can hold 14 stops of DR out to 3200 ISO? I imagine the sensors will be expensive to produce and FF versions will push bodies back up to $5,000 range, but you could have a 75MP FF sensor that has better high ISO and color than the current 36MP or the 50MP medium format sensor, but you need Zeiss Otus quality lenses..... Which is why Zeiss is working on lenses like the Otus. Fuji is designing their new line of APS-C lenses with these high resolution sensors in mind and already building in support for UHS-II cards (250MB write speeds).

[monochrome]

Having just lived through a corporate acquisition during which the acquirer's name, products, corporate culture, business philosophy, processes and people were forced upon me (and mine were absorbed and subsumed) - if I were Ricoh and my customers and potential customers thought of my products the way the bulk of regular posters on this Forum think and speak of Pentax -

I would permanently relegate the brand name Pentax as well as any unique identifying characteristics (K-mount) to the dustbin and start over with something that has a positive image.

Think that little shot on the back of the K-3 was a mistake? I think it was a test.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 09-24-2014 at 05:59 AM.

[normhead]

The only bug in the above being, the diffraction limit getting lower and lower as pixel size gets smaller. It doesn't matter what your lens quality is, there's no way around the diffraction limit. You're going to end up shooting everything a ƒ4 if you want maximum sharpness. OK, its not that bad, and those sensors will make an improvement, but my guess is they'll only be of interest to those doing extremely technical photography.

---------- Post added 09-24-14 at 09:02 AM ----------

With the E-mount a FF sensor will actually fit. With X-mount the FF sensor is too large to fit. Fuji would have to launch a new mount and while they say they might launch a 2nd mount in the future, they don't have any intention to do so until the X-mount line up has been filled out. By the end of 2015 they will have 19 lenses for X-mount covering from 14mm to 400mm.

I think Fuji is waiting to launch the X-Pro 2 until they have the organic sensor ready to go. The prototype that Fuji & Panasonic partnered to create had an signal to noise ratio of 88db compared to the 43bd S/N of the 36MP D800 FF sensor. Basically the organic APS-C sensor could provide a 4 stop improvement over the current 36MP FF sensor. I think Fuji is banking on the next generation of APS-C sensors making people forget about FF for a few years. A 16-bit 36MP APS-C sensor that can hold 14 stops of DR out to 3200 ISO? I imagine the sensors will be expensive to produce and FF versions will push bodies back up to $5,000 range, but you could have a 75MP FF sensor that has better high ISO and color than the current 36MP or the 50MP medium format sensor, but you need Zeiss Otus quality lenses..... Which is why Zeiss is working on lenses like the Otus. Fuji is designing their new line of APS-C lenses with these high resolution sensors in mind and already building in support for UHS-II cards (250MB write speeds).

The only bug in the above being, the diffraction limit getting lower and lower as pixel size gets smaller. It doesn't matter what your lens quality is, there's no way around the diffraction limit. You're going to end up shooting everything a ƒ4 if you want maximum sharpness. OK, its not that bad, and those sensors will make an improvement, but my guess is they'll only be of interest to those doing extremely technical photography, at least until the price comes down. But Canon et al are certainly gambling a pile of money on these sensor right now. And based on those sensors, there could be a time when the first cameras with organic sensors become "have to have" items for the serious photographer. Pentax, Nikon and Sony are doomed.

---------- Post added 09-24-14 at 09:12 AM ----------

For he Fuji badwagonites...

Hi all, my name is Mick Howe and I've just joined the forum and would like to say hello to everyone. I've been into photography for sometime now used various cameras along the way, I bought into the Fuji system at the beginning of the year sold all my dslr kit to enable me to fund it, using this lightweight kit is good for the back and legs when your out on a hike, then after a while I got the hankering for another dslr and that is why I'm here I bought an K20 secondhand best money ever spent, camera looks brand-new all I had to do was set it the way I shoot and up-grade the firmware will post some images as and when I get some decent shots, and thanks for having me cheers...Mick.

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/29-welcomes-introductions/272947-new-memb...#ixzz3EEpvClRF

How is that possible? He bought into Fuji, but it didn't replace even his K20D? Imagine if he'd owned a K-3.

Just what are the demographics of these Fuji purchasing people. It occurs to me that we're talking about a camera being presented as if it were a challenge to Pentax. Where are the testimonials of folks switching from Pentax to Fuji? There must be a Fuji site somewhere that can give us some insight to who these folks might be, if in fact they exist.

[johnmflores]

Has anybody claimed those dynamics don't apply to Fuji then?

It was my understanding that the two are compared so much because their situation is so alike.

Nobody here in the last few pages have said anything about Fuji's lack of a full-frame sensor as a liability. And then there's this...

[Rondec]

---------- Post added 09-24-14 at 09:02 AM ----------

[/COLOR]

The only bug in the above being, the diffraction limit getting lower and lower as pixel size gets smaller. It doesn't matter what your lens quality is, there's no way around the diffraction limit. You're going to end up shooting everything a ƒ4 if you want maximum sharpness. OK, its not that bad, and those sensors will make an improvement, but my guess is they'll only be of interest to those doing extremely technical photography, at least until the price comes down. But Canon et al are certainly gambling a pile of money on these sensor right now. And based on those sensors, there could be a time when the first cameras with organic sensors become "have to have" items for the serious photographer. Pentax, Nikon and Sony are doomed.

---------- Post added 09-24-14 at 09:12 AM ----------

For he Fuji badwagonites...


How is that possible? He bought into Fuji, but it didn't replace even his K20D? Imagine if he'd owned a K-3.

Just what are the demographics of these Fuji purchasing people. It occurs to me that we're talking about a camera being presented as if it were a challenge to Pentax. Where are the testimonials of folks switching from Pentax to Fuji? There must be a Fuji site somewhere that can give us some insight to who these folks might be, if in fact they exist.

I have to think that we are near hitting the max in the megapixel race. I know 50 megapixel full frame sensors are bound to come soon, but the question is why? Back in the day, people were pretty happy with 12 megapixel full frame sensors from Nikon. I know a couple of pros who still shoot with those. They can't print quite as big, perhaps, but for studio/portrait photography it shouldn't be a big deal not to have 36 megapixels. I don't need 24 megapixels for the most part -- 16 is enough for me.

[Winder]

The only bug in the above being, the diffraction limit getting lower and lower as pixel size gets smaller. It doesn't matter what your lens quality is, there's no way around the diffraction limit. You're going to end up shooting everything a ƒ4 if you want maximum sharpness. OK, its not that bad, and those sensors will make an improvement, but my guess is they'll only be of interest to those doing extremely technical photography.

---------- Post added 09-24-14 at 09:02 AM ----------



The only bug in the above being, the diffraction limit getting lower and lower as pixel size gets smaller. It doesn't matter what your lens quality is, there's no way around the diffraction limit. You're going to end up shooting everything a ƒ4 if you want maximum sharpness. OK, its not that bad, and those sensors will make an improvement, but my guess is they'll only be of interest to those doing extremely technical photography, at least until the price comes down. But Canon et al are certainly gambling a pile of money on these sensor right now. And based on those sensors, there could be a time when the first cameras with organic sensors become "have to have" items for the serious photographer. Pentax, Nikon and Sony are doomed.

Pentax has already added the first generation of diffraction correction algorithms to firmware 1.10. The improvements are modest. Fuji also offers it. I don't expect the first generation of organic sensors APS-C sensors to be 36MP. I used 36MP because that is the current FF King. I would guess that the X-Pro 2 will have a 24MP organic sensor with 16-bit RAW files. Diffraction correction algorithms will continue to improve and so will processing speeds and other support technologies needed to make higher resolutions sensor practical. 36MP APS-C isn't much different than the current 16MP M4/3.

[DeadJohn]

It's interesting that within all this defense of Fuji there aren't the standard criticisms that have been levied against Pentax here and elsewhere. Stuff like:

- They are short-sighted for not providing an upgrade path to users to full-frame.
- APS-C is doomed as full-frame prices come down. They will be doomed if they don't release full frame
- They can't be considered a serious camera company if they don't offer a full-frame camera
- Pros shoot full frame. As a market they are smaller but they buy products with higher margins and are very influential. If you don't offer full frame then you just can't compete
- Full frame is better. I need/want it. If they don't offer full-frame, I won't even consider them.

So why do these claimed market dynamics apply to Pentax but not Fuji?

I've never looked for the equivalent of FujiForums.com but I suspect those complaints exist. I know that Canon and Nikon certainly get criticism, some of it deserved and some of it crazy.

[gazonk]

Nobody here in the last few pages have said anything about Fuji's lack of a full-frame sensor as a liability. And then there's this...

Google is weird, I get "about 4760 results" - and more than 6000 for "canon is doomed" and "nikon is doomed"

[normhead]

Hey DeadJohn, I thought you were dead... just kidding...

---------- Post added 09-24-14 at 09:34 AM ----------

Google is weird, I get "about 4760 results" - and more than 6000 for "canon is doomed" and "nikon is doomed"

Too funny.
It would appear, every camera company has their "bubble of doom".
Doom and gloomers of the world unite. Join the Church of Gloom and Doom, where all prophecies point to our coming extinction.

It doesn't matter what you think is doomed, the important part is the "doom" part. We accept doomers of all persuasions and preferences for their targets of doom. If you think the mouse living in your basement with the 30 bated mouse traps is doomed, that's good enough for us.

At some point I'm going to make up a PDF of the application form for The Church of Doom and Gloom, and start emailing it to appropriate forum members.

[johnmflores]

It would appear, every camera company has their "bubble of doom".
Doom and gloomers of the world unite. Join the Church of Gloom and Doom, where all prophecies point to our coming extinction.

It doesn't matter what you think is doomed, the important part is the "doom" part. We accept doomers of all persuasions and preferences for their targets of doom. If you think the mouse living in your basement with the 30 bated mouse traps is doomed, that's good enough for us.

IN DOOM WE TRUST
(All others pay cash.)

[Jan67]

I think it's because people buy Fuji gear for its looks rather than for the technology. They think they are joining the Leica club without paying the full price of admission.

Well, I like the look of XT1, much better than some other designs, like K-S1. Old school probably.
Instead of Leica club I had a feeling of joining Pentax Limited Lens Club, but with much larger apertures...
Regarding technology - I would say, that MILC generally offer very interesting features, like direct 100%crop view of focused detail. If you have it you love it. Or manual focus support, either digital loupe or split screen. It's quite comfortable to shoot with FA77 e.g. There are some features missing, like strong HDR bracketing - can live with that.

Many use it as a secondary camera system and have a full frame camera as well.
In the end, most people buy into a camera system for the lenses and Fuji glass is pretty nice.
I think Fuji has been pretty good at obfuscating over time -- fudging iso to make their camera's performance look better, use a non-bayer X Trans sensor to supposedly get better performance (probably doesn't really make a difference in real world performance, just limits third party editing ability). People who have drunk the Fuji koolaid are convinced that they are getting significantly better performance out of their APS-C sensors than any other brand out there.

There are many people selling their 5DmkIII or D800x and moving to fuji. I really don´t care about sensor, fudging ISO results etc. Not only results are good but also the way how you reach them is simply more joy. K3 is a nice camera, but I was used to control almost every image on the LCD, if it is sharp and well exposed. I do it quite rarely with XT1 because AF is very reliable.

I understand that so many Pentax fans would like to use their FA ltd. on Pentax full frame camera.
The questions are:
1) Should that be DSLR ?
2) Should that be 24x36mm or something more?
3) Does Pentax has enough resources to keep top position in APSC, FF and MF ?

[Wired]

Huh? No way, they're the best.

the quality of the copy is fantastic. but I spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to scan and email... I gave up. the interface is no where near as good as the one on my K3!




P.S. you negative nancies can doom and gloom all you want. I still got a Q7 in my glove box, a K3 in the trunk, and a 645 in my studio bag. I'm happy shooting my gear, and will be for years to come. A body shouldn't keep your or sway you from brand to brand, it should be the glass!!!! I didn't buy a D800 just because of that glorious sensor, I bought it because of that 135mm f2.0 DC that I've been lusting over for years! Not to mention til-shift 24 and 85mm lenses which I still have yet to get... but the egronomics and interface are just not as refined as Pentax.

Sadly if you made me choose I would choose my D800 to live with daily... But if you made me take one on an extended trip and I could only take one bag... K3, FA Limiteds, DA15 Ltd, and 50-135.

[monochrome]

Mine's a tale that can't be told, my freedom I hold dear.
How years ago in days of old, when magic filled the air.
T'was in the darkest depths of Mordor, I met a girl so fair.
But Gollum, and the evil one crept up and slipped away with her, her, her....yeah.