X300 thoughts

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by keith_anderson|7, Jul 10, 2011.

  1. Been seeing rumors churning about the Fuji x300. First off, my only complaint about the x100 is the price tag. Hopefully it'll drop but
    you never know. IQ is great and it's reasonably small, the lens is good (although I don't like idea of having a fixed prime but I could
    live with that) and fills a niche so... maybe the price will stat high. Of course "high" is relative, too, and dropping $1200USD maybe
    isn't a big deal for everyone.

    Anyway, I got really excited hearing the x300 would address my desire for lens options aside for the fixed prime. Cool, right?

    Well, would that mean they'd introduce yet another proprietary lens system? I'm just not sure the world needs that. I mean, take the
    Pentax Q or the Samsung NX10. Are big markets expected for these systems with a trickle of lens options available? If either of
    those systems made m4/3 lenses and m4/3 mount bodies, I'd think it would be a benefit to the camera maker and the consumer. I
    would love more m4/3 lens offerings, that's for sure. Plus I'd be more likely to buy a non-Panny or non-Oly body if I could drop it into
    my existing m4/3 lens collection.

    What if Fuji just makes an x300 that's m4/3 compatible or a M mount? Or maybe I'm missing the point?
     
  2. One of the most-liked features of the X100 is its optical (dual with electronic) finder, and I'm sure it works as well as it does because of a fixed prime lens. Start going to interchangeable lenses and making the requisite other changes, and you no longer have what makes the X100 so compelling (simplicity, elegance, etc.).

    As for those rumors... well, this whole thread might be tossed out, as discussing rumors is not allowed here on photo.net.

    The X100, Q, NX10, and m4/3 are real, though, so we can certainly discuss them... ;-)
     
  3. Actually I had no idea rumors weren't allowed in the discussions. That said, I think this is more of an open question about whether we need more cameras that fall into the evil category but which DON'T conform to the m4/3 or other standard. Seems like a waste to me.
    It's not really the same thing as everyone getting into the compact market... you don't need a lens assortment to accompany the camera.
    I actually don't care about the VF, I like a semi compact with a large or largeish sensor and thus good IQ and good low light performance. For example, if the Sigma DPx series didn't have the slowness downside I'd probably get one of them. The x100 is out of my price range for that category of camera. The LX5 has a crappy sensor (no offense, it's good for a P&S but not good enough for what I want).
    So at the risk of seeming like a rumor monger, I wish that if the x300 is made, it should be made to conform to other standards. Who needs another Q or NX or NEX evil? I sure don't.
     
  4. Keith:
    I think you're missing the point. If you don't care about the viewfinder and if the X100 is too expensive, then look at the Sony NEX. What's wrong with the NEX?
    An X-something from Fuji with interchangeable lenses is going to be larger and heavier than the X100. Part of the reason the X100 is compact is because its lens is sit back within the body. This is easier with a fixed lens, for a variety of reasons. Put the lens mount further from the sensor, and then the lens has to be larger and heavier. Is it impossible? No. But it's harder, and harder equals more expensive. So a camera of the same size of the X100, with the same size sensor, but with interchangeable lenses is going to cost more.
    Eric
     
  5. What if Fuji just makes an x300 that's m4/3 compatible or a M mount? Or maybe I'm missing the point?​
    I understand the OP's wish, but 4/3 lenses can't cover the image area of the x100's APS-C sensor. I'd be surprised if Fuji decided to make the x-series sensor 40% smaller (4/3 instead of APS-C) just so that people could put other manufacturers' lenses on the camera. That means less income for Fuji, and besides the x100's high-ISO output is at least one and more often closer to two stops better than 4/3 cameras and I can't see them stepping backward in high-ISO performance, as a noticeably smaller sensor would force them to do.

    The M mount is possible, I suppose, but despite a lot of talk on the Internet I'm not sure how many Leica owners actually would buy a crop-frame Japanese-made digital body to put their manual-focus lenses onto (I don't see Fuji making the x-series full-frame).
     
  6. Eric: I wasn't asking if I should buy the x100 or not, it's not what I am looking for in a camera, esp for the price. I was asking whether Fuji making interchangeable lens cameras based on the x100 is a good idea or not. They'd have to offer lenses, too, and I would gather the offerings would be slow to materialize, which kind of kills the concept for me. Not to mention that technical hurdles of doing it, which would make the camera decidedly unlike the x100.
    Don: yes, I was thinking of a smaller sensor. If they keep it APS-C I'm even more perplexed why this is a good idea. While sharing a mount with other manufacturer's designs might cost them some income, introducing their own mount may cost them the whole line of cameras which seem to not hit a niche very well. If they keep it APS-C, they'd also have a camera that's more DSLR like in size, which sort of kills it for me as well.
    Acutally based on the replies I get the sense that I'm not alone in thinking this is a bad idea, it just doesn't add up as far as I can tell.
     
  7. Don: yes, I was thinking of a smaller sensor. If they keep it APS-C I'm even more perplexed why this is a good idea.​
    But the x100 was the star of Photokina last fall because it offered some things no other camera offers: very small form factor for an APS-C sensor camera with an eyelevel finder, unique viewfinder, unparallelled high-ISO performance for a smaller-than-full-frame camera, lens matched carefully to sensor. If you're OK with Fuji dumping all four of those things in the "x300", what do you want from Fuji in a (4/3) x300 camera that the existing 4/3 cameras don't already offer?
    I'm not being contentious; I just don't understand what you like about the x100 that would translate into a 4/3 camera without duplicating what's already available from Olympus and Panasonic. The answer to that would determine the likelihood of Fuji making any successor to the x100 a 4/3 camera (again, I'd be surprised if they decreased the sensor size from the x100).
    If they keep it APS-C, they'd have a camera that's more DSLR like in size, which sort of kills it for me as well.​
    Well, if it's a mirrorless APS-C camera it could be an interchangeable lens camera that's much smaller than an SLR and with better lenses (no mirror to clear). I'm thinking of a sort of mini digital Mamiya 7: a proprietary lens mount with a few outstanding lenses and size that's much smaller than an SLR of the same capture area.
     
  8. I just spent the day at an airshow and brought along my X100 as well as my D700. The image quality from the X100 blows me away, it's such a small and lightweight camera. The image quality is essentially equal to the Nikon D300, which is pretty incredible. I've not yet explored all the options in highlight and shadow control, but in the default settings it's really performing well. I love the optical viewfinder (it beats the rear LCD and an EVF anyday). Boeing Model 40 airplane built in 1928, pictured below (rebuilt from a 1930s wreck in the 1980s).
    00Z1PY-378427584.jpg
     
  9. Don, for sure I assumed that a x100 with interchangeable lenses would stay close in size to the x100, which argues (in my mind) for something m4/3-like in terms of sensor size. If you're saying you'd prefer a larger sensor and thus larger camera, I understand that. My preference would be to have better IQ than the current m4/3 lineup, if that's possible, at high ISO, in a body about the size of the x100, without the need for me to invest in a whole new system. Fuji seems to do high ISO very well and wouldn't surprise me if they would outdo Oly and Panny in low light or high ISO.
    A larger sensor? With a larger body? Is the draw of a Fuji offering that's larger and has interchangable lenses just the VF? I am interested in hearing about your preference, esp compared to Nikon and Canon dSLRs. For sure you could get a Canon 7D and have a very nice selection of primes that have outstanding IQ and outstanding low light performance.
    If they went bigger, I'd love to see the digital version of the ga645zi, which I love, but only keep because there are no digital camera that fill that niche. I guess a few interchangable primes for a similar sized body would be nice, too (I'm likening that to your Mamiya example). But... if I could get a m4/3 sized body with better IQ, I'd really prefer that. Not saying the bigger version isn't useful at all. Just not my preference at this point.
     
  10. I am interested in hearing about your preference, esp compared to Nikon and Canon dSLRs. For sure you could get a Canon 7D and have a very nice selection of primes that have outstanding IQ and outstanding low light performance.​
    I've got several dSLRs already, and there's a lot they don't do as well as a smaller and quieter camera does. To me, the only downsides of the "smaller quieter" cameras are (1) that their eyelevel viewfinders often stink and (2) their sensors are smaller and noisier than Nikon's and Canon's SLR sensors are (the x100 was the first camera that proved an exception to both of those).
    That's why I'd like someone -- Canon, Nikon, Fuji, or Pentax -- to develop a mirrorless, interchangeable-lens APS-C camera with built-in (not clip-on) eyelevel finder (if the lenses were interchangeable, it would probably have to be an EVF to be at all accurate for framing).
    Then we'd have a camera that's smaller, quieter, and equipped with potentially better lenses than any comparable-sensor camera with a mirror box can ever be.
    I don't think I'm the only one who wants this camera system, and quite a few people actually think it will eventually replace the SLR. I think the first company to produce it will absolutely clean up, and right now, with the x100, Fuji seems most capable of doing it.
    I can't believe that Fuji could work any magic with the 4/3 sensor that will outdo what Panasonic and Olympus (who have been at 4/3 for years) have done, and I think Fuji too would ask why they should try to reinvent that 4/3 wheel when there are plenty of excellent 4/3 cameras out there already. But I've been wrong before(!), and perhaps (as you hope) the x300 will go to a smaller sensor so it can use the 4/3 mount.
     
  11. I'd like a debugged firmware/interface and some flexibility of focal length but with the same viewfinder technology. I've got a GF1 with EVF and kit zoom which I'd sell to part-fund such a purchase. It's not bad, but it's not "there" either.
    Fujinon lenses are superb, so I'd be happy with that. Doesn't have to be M-mount or M43. Hell, I might even consider auxiliary lenses for equivalents to 28mm and 50mm to slip onto the fixed 23/35 lens. The purists will cry out in horror, I know, but with the large sensor the compromise on IQ might not be so great and the viewfinder wouldn't need such a major overhaul.
     
  12. Don:
    I don't think anybody is saying that the X100's successor should be larger. Nor would many users of the X100 argue to decrease the size of the sensor. Keep both the same.
    I would gladly pay another $1200 for an X100 follow-up with a fixed 90/2 lens. At that point, I would only take my dSLR for dedicated photo shoots like sports/wildlife where I need a much longer focal length.
    Eric
     
  13. I don't think anybody is saying that the X100's successor should be larger. Nor would many users of the X100 argue to decrease the size of the sensor. Keep both the same.​
    Eric, I agree with you that the sensor should stay the same. I was only responding to the OP's suggestion of a 4/3 lensmount (which would require a smaller sensor) or an M (Leica) lensmount (which would require a larger sensor if it were to be different from current crop-sensor M-lens-compatible digital cameras and appeal to Leica lens owners who want full-frame).
    But I myself think APS-C (like the x100) is a sweet spot for "large sensor in a small camera" designs.
     
  14. This is a fantastic world - the X100 just came to the market and the number of people wishing for and talking about its successor is unbelievable. Why?
    Is the image quality a deceptive one? No, to the contrary most references to image quality put it at the top or close to the top of APS-C sensor results.
    So, if a camera is supposed to be and instrument to produce images and the X100 does it well why would Fujifilm rush to introduce its successor and discontinue a brand new product?
    Ok, we can expect, desire or ask them to introduce a new line of camera(s) that fulfills the needs of people that require interchangeable lenses, but this will be a new product not the "upgrade" of the X100.
    I think we need to make it clear, the camera has a philosophy that comes in line with the one of some film models Fuji sold before, with and without telemeter - my first 35mm film camera was a full frame 35 mm Fujica Compact 35, with a fixed 38mm Fujinon lens. Therefore, they do not need to be inspired by Leica (we tend to forget the number of other rangefinders that did exist in the market, and that the first digital rangefinder was sold by Epson).
    An interchangeable lens camera would demand changes that would make the camera completely different from the quietness of the almost silent X100 and would also loose its capability to synchronize the flash up to 1/2000s, as the lens leaf shutter that allows it had to give place to a more traditional focal-plan shutter. Also the OVF, one of the highlights of the X100, would probably be put aside as the required re-enginieering would increase the price tag in a way that the likelihood of having just the EVF would be very high.
    If we think of a new camera line, the number of options increase and 4/3s can not be excluded as Fujifilm is a member of the consortium since the begining, and the decrease of the sensor's size would cause mixed reactions - welcome by some and deceptive to others. But this is an issue of their market surveys, business plans and the risks they want to run, not if each one of us agree or not with the decision.
    Obviously they can go another direction and here they have several options: APS-C, 35mm FF, MF or even a panoramic sensor.
    They have the expertise and know how to build lenses if they decide to adopt a proprietary mount, and again it will depend on their strategies, the forecasted returns and profitability (or loss), but none of the options will produce the "successor" to the X100, with most of them pointing to market segments well above consumer cameras.
    The panoramic cameras have been a tradition within their product lines, from large format to 35mm film (they designed and produced the Hasselblad XPan, sold in Japan under their own brand name) and doing that in digital would be a real new product, besides competing with the software generated panoramas (in camera or stitched), but the cost of a sensor equivalent to the XPan would be out of reach for the common user.
    Therefore, I think it is better for people that think the X100 matches their needs and photographing styles to buy the camera and enjoy it. The others, either not convinced about its capabilities or with a negative assessment, shall explore the market where they can eventually find their dream camera.
     
  15. Here is the Reuters interview with the head of Fuji's camera division
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-fujifilm-idUSTRE7631CG20110704
    Fujifilm may also re-enter the more lucrative interchangeable lens camera market from which it withdrew in 2004, Takeshi Higuchi, head of the company's camera division, said in an interview with Reuters on Monday.
    The launch of a mirrorless camera, which has an electronic viewfinder, making it lighter and more compact than a professional-style single-lens reflex camera, would be an extension of Fujifilm's effort to move upmarket and would put it in direct competition with Sony.​
    The article is generally vague probably because the Fuji exec was vague. That leads to people on the Internets speculating as to what they will actually make. Fuji is already a member of the Micro 4/3 consortium but has never made any bodies or lenses for the system. Will they make M4/3 equipment? Will they make a new mirrorless lens mount? Will they make other fixed lens cameras like the X100? Nobody actually knows, probably not even Fuji as I would guess they are internally debating what to actually make right now.
    In the meantime you can enjoy the gear you already have or complain about it or post your dream camera wish list. In the end it doesn't matter that much.
     
  16. I'm not sure I agree with the statement that Fuji couldn't do much better with a m4/3 sensor than Panasonic or Olympus. The x100 has a (guessing here based on other posts) a Sony made CMOS sensor. I think it's a fair guess that the fixed prime accounts for some of the great IQ, but processing must play a significant role as well. Could one rule out an APS-C EXR sensor? Not sure I believe all the claims, but I will say it seems to improve dynamic range and is good in low light situations. I think this is a strength of Fuji that not everyone else has.
    If I had to chose between a GF1 or a e-P3 or a x300 with a m4/3 sensor, I'd get the x300, provided the lens offerings were also m4/3. Otherwise I would just get an x100 as an extraordinary walkaround camera and keep my m4/3 equipment as is.
     
  17. That's why I'd like someone -- Canon, Nikon, Fuji, or Pentax -- to develop a mirrorless, interchangeable-lens APS-C camera with built-in (not clip-on) eyelevel finder (if the lenses were interchangeable, it would probably have to be an EVF to be at all accurate for framing).
    Does the Panasonic G series not already do that? My G1 is all of that and has pretty darn good IQ to boot.
     
  18. That's why I'd like someone -- Canon, Nikon, Fuji, or Pentax -- to develop a mirrorless, interchangeable-lens APS-C camera with built-in (not clip-on) eyelevel finder (if the lenses were interchangeable, it would probably have to be an EVF to be at all accurate for framing).
    Does the Panasonic G series not already do that? My G1 is all of that and has pretty darn good IQ to boot.​
    The Panasonic G series is Micro 4/3 which is smaller than APS-C. While that may not matter to you the previous post did mention APS-C. The Samsung NX series has versions with and without integrated EVFs and is APS-C. The other systems like Micro 4/3 and Sony NEX have mount adapters for tons of other lenses (Nikon, Canon, Leica M) but I don't think the Samsung NX has as many mount adapters.
     
  19. Don V. - +1
     
  20. It looks like Leica is planning the camera Don describes wanting from Fuji:
    http://dpreview.com/news/1107/11071310leicaMILC.asp
    M mount? Or yet another proprietary mount? I guess we'll have to wait and see what it means for this market to have so many proprietary offerings without many lens options for each system (m4/3 excepted, although that's not that many lenses either compared to dSLR offerings).
     
  21. > but I don't think the Samsung NX has as many mount adapters
    Samsung offers K-mount adapter. I have played with the NX11 for couple of hours and can say it's an interesting camera. It's not too small, ISO 100 to 400 are clean (for my taste) and ISO 1600 is bearable (again to my taste). They offer two pancakes (20/2.8 and 30/2.0), a standard zoom and a tele zoom. Zoom have optical stabilization. This is just a reference, I'm not advertising for them. The only thing I can say for its money it's worth images it produces. Here in Russia the price tag for body with a standard zoom (18-55/3.5-5.6) is about US$600.
     
  22. Everybody knows I am an EXR fanboy, but I have lost hope. Due to Fuji's lack of software expertise and shoddy QA in their Chinese factories, they are quickly losing out: 8th place and dropping, half the market share of Samsung, less than Kodak. The Sony BSI-CMOS doesn't have as much dynamic range as did the Fuji CCD sensor, so I think EXR technology is driving down a dead-end street.

    Rumors indicate the X200 will be more P&S like than the X100, and the X300, if Fuji lasts that long, might have interchangeable lenses. I was never interested in the X100 because I had a Yashica T5 and got tired of being limited to one focal length. In the words of Thom Hogan, "RIP Fuji."
     
  23. I was never interested in the X100 because I had a Yashica T5 and got tired of being limited to one focal length​
    For me it is the fact that I like the 35mm focal length as a single lens more than any other focal length. In other words, if I had to choose one lens to go on vacation with, 35mm wins. Fuji knew this, and they are very aware that tons of Leica M photographers want a body and 35mm lens. And that is often all they ever use. Anyone can walk around Tokyo and you'll see them.
    The thing the Fuji X100 has in spades, is stupendous image quality. White balance is incredible. It literally blows away my Nikon P7000, which I thought was a great camera up until I got the X100. I only wish the X100 had the same rear LCD, and the same superb menus that the P7000 has, as well as the superb ergonomics of the P7000, which are far better and in another league from the X100. But in the end, image quality wins.
     
  24. It is true Fuji has great color, as does Kodak, especially when you compare with Panasonic JPEG.

    I really enjoy the choice of Provia/Astia/Velvia in my two EXR cameras.
     
  25. Bill, quite right. And the monochrome with yellow filter in-camera conversion is pretty good too.
    00Z52R-382375584.jpg
     

Share This Page