[luftfluss]

Going Pro: We interview Fujifilm execs in Tokyo: Digital Photography Review

A very good read, IMO.

[Fontan]

An interesting read indeed.

It did make me wonder if this is a classic case of vesting themselves too much in fantasy, not reality.

I am not sure if I agree with the notion that going with FF will make the set up larger to the point of being disadvantaged. Leica M9 feels just fine to me, not by any means too big. I do agree that APS-C format can produce adequately fantastic images; but unfortunately consumers don't focus on that (look at our forum here!). So, in terms of the business model, I am not sure how smart it is to stick to a set of principles that may not jive so well with their consumer base. Sure, great IQ is great, but often people buy cameras based on looks and specs - that is the reality.

[biz-engineer]

An interesting read indeed. It did make me wonder if this is a classic case of vesting themselves too much in fantasy, not reality. I am not sure if I agree with the notion that going with FF will make the set up larger to the point of being disadvantaged. Leica M9 feels just fine to me, not by any means too big. I do agree that APS-C format can produce adequately fantastic images; but unfortunately consumers don't focus on that (look at our forum here!). So, in terms of the business model, I am not sure how smart it is to stick to a set of principles that may not jive so well with their consumer base. Sure, great IQ is great, but often people buy cameras based on looks and specs - that is the reality.

Going ff or not is controversial. But at least Fuji executives are clear about their position. I wouldn't say the same about Ricoh/Pentax who have been confused for the last five years or so. What I like about Fuji is that they seem to give as much importance to their lens offering as much as camera bodies. In Pentax land, lenses are a mixture of obsolete, not so old, and new lenses, the number of Pentax lenses being up to date is less than Fuji's. Fuji have a consistent system offer, matching camera bodies with optics of the same generation. Pentax have new bodies with old AF tech/optics, and only very new lenses with AF that match the new Pentax camera bodies. For instance, I'd much prefer the Pentax system if the main lenses (16-50, 50-135 etc) would be HD DC AW. The same goes if you consider Pentax FF lenses, they won't be up to the new sensors. And you know that the overall performance you can expect from a system will be limited by the performance of the least performing element: why spend thousands of dollars into a top notch camera body and put a sluggish old lens on it ? In an interview as well as with products, Fuji communicates clarity and consistency, Pentax communicates confusion (Pentax exec. interview about the FF: "hummm it depends, maybe yes, maybe no, we are studying the market bla bla bla", and then release fall 2015, then postponed etc...).

[Rondec]

Fuji doesn't have much choice at this point. I don't think their mount is full frame compatible. They've made their bed and now they have to lie in it. Make the most of the APS-C sensor size. Combined with their amazing X-Trans magic, you can expect amazing performance -- or at least as good as a generation old camera like the D7200 or the K3.

Their lenses are fine, but the upper end ones seem to be pretty expensive.

There is a whole different thread comparing the two companies and their lens offerings. I would just say that they do have a little different philosophies with regard to camera bodies and lens development. If you don't mind having a little slower lenses (not everyone needs f1.2 on all their lenses) then Pentax has quite a bit to offer.

[Fogel70]

I agree with Fuji that APS-C might be the best compromise for most users of mirrorless systems.
Using larger sensor might not offer much advantage if you want a compact system.
Fi Fuji 35/1.4 for APS-C is smaller/lighter than Sony 55/1.8 for FF.

For DSLR there is much more need to use FF sensors as the lens mount is usually optimized for 135 film from the past.
DSLR wide angle lenses can be made of higher quality for FF than for APS-C, and the OVF can be made of higher quality using FF sensor.

So I believe DSLR users will see more benefit of upgrading to FF, than users of mirrorless systems.

[Winder]

I am not sure if I agree with the notion that going with FF will make the set up larger to the point of being disadvantaged. Leica M9 feels just fine to me, not by any means too big. I do agree that APS-C format can produce adequately fantastic images; but unfortunately consumers don't focus on that (look at our forum here!). So, in terms of the business model, I am not sure how smart it is to stick to a set of principles that may not jive so well with their consumer base. Sure, great IQ is great, but often people buy cameras based on looks and specs - that is the reality.

Fuji has said that they are looking at a medium format mirorless. If they do decide to produce a mount for MF mirrorless then that will fill out their line up and they won't need to worry about the crowded FF market. A MF version of the X-T1 and 5-7 high quality prime lenses are all that they need.

[mecrox]

Fuji doesn't have much choice at this point. I don't think their mount is full frame compatible. They've made their bed and now they have to lie in it. Make the most of the APS-C sensor size. Combined with their amazing X-Trans magic, you can expect amazing performance -- or at least as good as a generation old camera like the D7200 or the K3.

Their lenses are fine, but the upper end ones seem to be pretty expensive.

There is a whole different thread comparing the two companies and their lens offerings. I would just say that they do have a little different philosophies with regard to camera bodies and lens development. If you don't mind having a little slower lenses (not everyone needs f1.2 on all their lenses) then Pentax has quite a bit to offer.

I agree, and the form and layout of the X-Pro 2 is deffo for retroprogressives - not everyone will like that kind of style at all. Further, where I live, the X-Pro 2 is debuting for about the same price as a D750 or an A7 II. That alone immediately puts it into very specialist territory. You'd really really have to have a thing about Fuji and APS-C to justify that kind of expense when lenses are included. I like Fuji myself, and perhaps I will eventually go Fuji too, but their cameras are very far from a vox pop operation. The big numbers and the value-for-money stuff remain firmly with the big three manufacturers.

I do like that interview. It's refreshingly clear and no-nonsense. Whether Fuji are right or wrong on their reading of the tea leaves, at least they make it very clear where they are coming from and where they are going to. The only thing missing, as others have said, is an entry in the MF game. Oh, and IBIS. I fear Fuji made a serious mistake leaving that out at the get-go.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 01-22-2016 at 07:20 AM.

[tuco]

...Make the most of the APS-C sensor size. Combined with their amazing X-Trans magic ...

I thought Fuji made that X-Trans to combat moire with a 16MP sensor. And today we see 24 and 36MP sensors without AA filters doing pretty good in that department. So I don't know why Fuji sticks with it for sensors >= 24MP because life for the end user can be easier without that X-Trans, I think.

[bertwert]

Interesting...

[Rondec]

I thought Fuji made that X-Trans to combat moire with a 16MP sensor. And today we see 24 and 36MP sensors without AA filters doing pretty good in that department. So I don't know why Fuji sticks with it for sensors >= 24MP because life for the end user can be easier without that X-Trans, I think.

I thought the point of X Trans was that it took the place of the Bayer filter and was supposed to give better noise performance and better color reproduction. I think all of these cameras have some type of color filter that allows that camera sensor see color. The X Trans is just supposed to be more random (it still isn't random) than the Bayer one.

From what I've seen, Fuji cameras benefit from overly optimistic isos and a really good jpeg engine. RAW files are equivalent to similar APS-C sensors from other makers.

[clackers]

Good interview. They're the least popular of the mirrorless brands (even Pentax outsells them) on PetaPixel's 2014 figures, but I always like hearing execs give their reasons.

[Rondec]

Good interview. They're the least popular of the mirrorless brands (even Pentax outsells them) on PetaPixel's 2014 figures, but I always like hearing execs give their reasons.

Yes, but in the interview, they say that they are shooting to be "top three."

[Digitalis]

I thought the point of X Trans was that it took the place of the Bayer filter and was supposed to give better noise performance and better color reproduction.

The low noise is mostly the imaging processing pipeline, the idea behind X-trans is to prevent Moire that Bayer sensors are especially vulnerable to. Colour reproduction with X-trans is said to be worse than Bayer sensors, but mostly I think that is a RAW -processing issue, also files from X-trans are a pain to de-mosaic.

[Rupert]

Keeping in mind that the vast majority of shooters in this world, billions in fact, use only a smart phone. Few of them are screaming for a FF. We are a very tiny minority, but we don't seem to recognize that fact.
If billions don't need a FF, what makes us thing we all do?

Regards!

[Rondec]

Keeping in mind that the vast majority of shooters in this world, billions in fact, use only a smart phone. Few of them are screaming for a FF. We are a very tiny minority, but we don't seem to recognize that fact.
If billions don't need a FF, what makes us thing we all do?

Regards!

It is the thing that drives a forum like this, though. Forums tend to be gear-centric and the desire for ultimate image quality drives people to get more expensive glass, bigger sensor cameras. There definitely is a big difference in quality depending on what you choose to shoot with and how big you print.

That said, the biggest thing that drives new camera sales is want. And if you want a new camera and you can afford it, than there isn't any problem, as far as I can tell.