[RobA_Oz]

If you accept 20 pixel blur on K-1 as a sharp image then the sensor need to move +- 1.5 mm (~600 pixels) to compensate for 5 stops of SR.
If you accept 5 pixel blur on K-1 as a sharp image then the sensor need to move +- 0.4 mm (~150 pixels) to compensate for 5 stops of SR.

But I doubt we will see a 5 stops improvement in every shot captured, it's probably more like 2-4 stops in real use.
Like on most other image stabilization systems the CIPA rating is most likely over rated compared to real world usage.

I understand what you're saying there. The thing we don't have is Ricoh's basis for the 5 stop improvement, either what they classify as "acceptably sharp" or how the interaction between combined motions is interpreted as stops of improvement. The latter is possibly important to understand, because we don't know how much of the gain in SR is attributed to the change to 5-axis motion compensation, and how much is refinement of the linear motion control.

[Fogel70]

I understand what you're saying there. The thing we don't have is Ricoh's basis for the 5 stop improvement, either what they classify as "acceptably sharp" or how the interaction between combined motions is interpreted as stops of improvement. The latter is possibly important to understand, because we don't know how much of the gain in SR is attributed to the change to 5-axis motion compensation, and how much is refinement of the linear motion control.

The CIPA test method for image stabilization only use 2 axis motion (pitch and jaw) so there is no gain in providing more than 2 axis image stabilization.'

The CIPA test method is well described, but I'm not sure if this is the latest version.
CIPA DC-011 Measurement and Description Method for Image Stabilization Performance of Digital Cameras: Home

[D4rknezz]

Oh ...look. Petapixel picked up that forum post and made it into an article

Why Sony's Full Frame Pro Mirrorless Was a Fatal Mistake

[gatorguy]

Oh ...look. Petapixel picked up that forum post and made it into an article

Why Sony's Full Frame Pro Mirrorless Was a Fatal Mistake

...and a rebuttal
In Defense of Sony's Pro Mirrorless Cameras

[Mountain Vision]

Just an FYI, there is a thread in the fuji forum right now from Nixon and canon shooters who also shoot fuji Xpro1/2 and they have head to head shots and feel the Xpro could replace the 5DMII.

I'm wondering if we aren't all making a little too much of fuji painting itself into a corner. Perhaps APS-C is the good enough compromise of digital that 35mm was for film?

I know a lot of Pentaxians coveted full frame and now that we have it we can begin to wonder when or if so and so will get it, but I personally never thought it was a magical format. It worked for film, but let's not make it seem like Fuji is doomed.

[Simen1]

Perhaps APS-C is the good enough compromise of digital that 35mm was for film?

There is no such thing as one size fits all. For film it was more important to have few film formats because of availability and infrastructure of development, enlargements and so on. For digital cameras the sensor size is only restricted by the mount and lens system. Also there is a different cost model. You only pay once for the digital sensor, and the pricing is far from proportional to the area.

I think digital APS-C have been a very cost efficient format for a about a decade, but the most cost efficient size seems to slowly move its way up to full frame 35mm. FF sensors are slowly becoming cheaper per area and the lens availability and pricing are quite good if you avoid the newest and priciest products (just like for other formats).

[Rondec]

...and a rebuttal
In Defense of Sony's Pro Mirrorless Cameras

I read it. Clearly there is a place for mirrorless cameras and maybe they are the wave of the future (I still like a good OVF over an EVF). I would only say that the size benefits have been overstated over time. Yes, he found certain lenses where there is some size benefit, but Sony tends to show their mirrorless cameras with certain primes to demonstrate the small size and if you shoot fast lenses, you probably won't see a huge benefit. Both types of gear will require a specialized bag to transport and no professional is going to go out just with an 35mm and 50mm prime to a photo shoot.

Just an FYI, there is a thread in the fuji forum right now from Nixon and canon shooters who also shoot fuji Xpro1/2 and they have head to head shots and feel the Xpro could replace the 5DMII.

I'm wondering if we aren't all making a little too much of fuji painting itself into a corner. Perhaps APS-C is the good enough compromise of digital that 35mm was for film?

I know a lot of Pentaxians coveted full frame and now that we have it we can begin to wonder when or if so and so will get it, but I personally never thought it was a magical format. It worked for film, but let's not make it seem like Fuji is doomed.

The issue to me isn't that everyone is going to dramatically shift to full frame, it has to do with where Fuji can price their APS-C gear. In a market place where you can get a decent full frame camera for 1500 or 1600 dollars, it is hard to imagine selling APS-C gear for over a thousand dollars. I know that Pentax has sort of given up on it and has priced the K3 II at 800. In order to price APS-C gear higher, it probably has to have amazing frame rates, buffers, etc -- like the new D500 -- and these are things that Fuji hasn't really excelled in doing.

I expect Fuji to be around awhile, but I think there is going to be a downward pressure on their pricing that may hurt their ability to develop new cameras in the future.

[clackers]

Yeah, I'm not sure staking a company's future on cropped mirrorless cameras selling for more than a thousand dollars will work.

It didn't for Samsung.

[Fogel70]

I think digital APS-C have been a very cost efficient format for a about a decade, but the most cost efficient size seems to slowly move its way up to full frame 35mm. FF sensors are slowly becoming cheaper per area and the lens availability and pricing are quite good if you avoid the newest and priciest products (just like for other formats).

High end APS-C lenses are also often more expensive than lower end FF lenses, where they perform approximately the same.

FI Fuji 56/1.2 for APS-C cost much more than Canon/Nikon 85/1.8 on FF.
Even Pentax FA 77/1.8 Ltd is considerable cheaper than the Fuji lens.

Fuji 56/1.2 = $1000
Nikon 85/1.8 = $475
Canon 85/1.8 =$370
Pentax 77/1.8 = $735

Fuji X-pro 2 = $1700 + lens = $2700
Nikon 810 = $2800 + lens = $3275
Canon 5DIII = $2500 + lens = $2870
Pentax K1 = $1800 + lens = $2535
Adding more lenses may give FF further advantage in price.

So which is compromise may depend on what type of lenses you need.

[Simen1]

Fuji X-pro2 and Fuji lenses are in the expensive end of the scale for APS-C.

[Rondec]

High end APS-C lenses are also often more expensive than lower end FF lenses, where they perform approximately the same.

FI Fuji 56/1.2 for APS-C cost much more than Canon/Nikon 85/1.8 on FF.
Even Pentax FA 77/1.8 Ltd is considerable cheaper than the Fuji lens.

Fuji 56/1.2 = $1000
Nikon 85/1.8 = $475
Canon 85/1.8 =$370
Pentax 77/1.8 = $735

Fuji X-pro 2 = $1700 + lens = $2700
Nikon 810 = $2800 + lens = $3275
Canon 5DIII = $2500 + lens = $2870
Pentax K1 = $1800 + lens = $2535
Adding more lenses may give FF further advantage in price.

So which is compromise may depend on what type of lenses you need.

I always have a hard time knowing how to compare formats. If you are buying a full frame with a triumvirate of f2.8 zooms, it is going to be expensive. If you get an entry level APS-C with a 18-135/55-300 equivalent, it is going to be pretty cheap. Depending on the body and lenses you choose, you can spend a little more or less as the case may be. At this point, there are lots of different price points and as long as fast aperture lenses aren't your only goal, you can do pretty well with APS-C.

[Mountain Vision]

Fuji X-pro2 and Fuji lenses are in the expensive end of the scale for APS-C.

It's hard to argue fuji lenses aren't about as good as you can get though. I don't think they are overpriced or over rated. But they aren't cheap.

The Xpro and XT-1 are about the control layout, the simplicity of shooting.

I don't think they are a novelty of pure aesthetics, but aesthetics in a functional design.

As an example, I gave up on compact cameras until I got the X10/20 series. Not the biggest sensor, not the widest or fastest lens, but the IQ matched with the design of the camera makes shooting with a compact (where an slr is simply a burden) an absolute pleasure. For years I was just using the camera on my phone for that, and missing a lot of opportunities, but I didn't care because lugging a camera I hated handling and added a half pound to my harness made almost no sense.

So, don't dismiss the novelty of fuji actually making cameras the way their audience wants them. How long have Pentax users asked for a digital MX? Have they gotten it? Nope. Fortunately one of Pentax strong points is camera design, even if they don't always give what is asked for. Fuji on the other hand seems to be producing exactly what people want.

[Rondec]

It's hard to argue fuji lenses aren't about as good as you can get though. I don't think they are overpriced or over rated. But they aren't cheap.

The Xpro and XT-1 are about the control layout, the simplicity of shooting.

I don't think they are a novelty of pure aesthetics, but aesthetics in a functional design.

As an example, I gave up on compact cameras until I got the X10/20 series. Not the biggest sensor, not the widest or fastest lens, but the IQ matched with the design of the camera makes shooting with a compact (where an slr is simply a burden) an absolute pleasure. For years I was just using the camera on my phone for that, and missing a lot of opportunities, but I didn't care because lugging a camera I hated handling and added a half pound to my harness made almost no sense.

So, don't dismiss the novelty of fuji actually making cameras the way their audience wants them. How long have Pentax users asked for a digital MX? Have they gotten it? Nope. Fortunately one of Pentax strong points is camera design, even if they don't always give what is asked for. Fuji on the other hand seems to be producing exactly what people want.

...But not selling high volume of cameras and likely is going to be a tougher sell going forward.

[Zygonyx]

Fuji is producing "exactly what people want", but actually NOT EVERYONE :
- besides auto modes, the Av/Tv control wheels are making users loosing time when changing shooting modes, versus traditional SLR controls and "User" modes,
- long sessions shooters dislike the flat and unergonomic grips,
- long sessions shooters dislike the very poor battery performance,
- long glass users dislike the very (though reducing with new but uninspiring 100-400mm) limited choice,
- big fingers users dislike the too small buttons and too thin/cheap knobs,
- post-treatment practicers are limited in terms of software compatibility,
- large prints needers stay stucked to low resolution sensors (even if X-pro 2 reduces the gap),
- sensorshift users cannot find the multiple functions that SR permits,
- FF aspiring customers will never be served with X mount,

and Fuji's selling prices are very expensive, for overall IQ advantages that still remain to be proven.

Ah.... Ok, Fuji's system is globally more compact & lightweight than other APS-C systems, and offers some nice prime lenses ; but that doesn't change/make EVERYTHING.

[interested_observer]

Here is another article on the web that replies to the original article....

• Bad science and dissing the Sony A7 FE concept