Fuji bias?

[GerrySiegel]

In the event that linked gets broken, here is what our galaxy looks like under clear skies. Twenty minute exposure and some flashlights on the rocks...pretty.<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Gerry has a point that just about any camera with long exposure functions could have made that capture. and there is little doubt that mirrorless systems are becoming more mature. i am always amazed at the ratio of image quality to size of my little XE1's, as well as their reassuring build quality and tactile controls. i dont agree, however, that there are no limitations. i think it's more a case of knowing what they are and embracing them--or not, as the case may be, and choosing the right system for your shooting style. i would love to have the a6000's AF capabilities, Sony's lens offerings not so much. i bought the XE1s as a way into the system, knowing there would be other bodies in the future. the relatively low buy-in point enabled me to spend more on those amazing Fuji prime lenses. my point in saying that is, i had a long-term strategy and decided to buy into the system which offered the most promise at the time for my needs. there's always something new around the corner in the digital age, and bodies tend to be more disposable, so they aren't great long-term investments, compared to lenses.</p>

<p>getting back to the original topic of the thread, i dont know that there is a tangible pro-Fuji bias or an explicit anti-Sony bias. it does stand to reason that users of this forum, most of whom aren't first-time buyers, have more specific requirements for the cameras they choose. Fuji definitely targeted photo enthusiasts, not just technology buyers, so any notions of perceived bias may come from that. or maybe its the fact their system matured faster and presented a clearer path as to where it was going. but there are probably few people who wouldnt accept a free A6000 or A7rII if one was offered. getting market-savvy consumers who do their own research to plunk down significant coin on anything is tough these days, though. there are just so many options at every price point.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>It is amazing how we become so involved in on-paper performance and features of competing camera systems and extoll what is important for ourselves or what our feelings may be in regard to brand A versus brand B versus brand C and so on, and the apparent (to the critiquer) of the forces, weaknesses and approach of the manufacturers, without thinking that such values and qualifiers may have little importance for another photographer. I have used exceptionally fine optics from some manufacturers who were considered very average by most (some Yashica ML series lenses) or even mediocre by some and have used less than perfect optics from the best (Leica, Nikon,..) while enjoying their truly superior lenses as well. How the company markets its products, what trendy features it might have, how it is perceived in the photo business world, whatever gaps it might have in a full line of optics I may never need, all these are nothing compared to the importance of using the camera to determine how good it is for your own needs.</p>

<p>The Fuji and Sony are no doubt equal for many amateur photographers because one or the other can provide a level of performance that often in these cases exceeds the photographer's needs. I have always found it best to forget what I've heard from fans of one system or product compared to the other and to simply determine which camera(s) and lens(es) I wish to test, do that, and make a decision on that basis.</p>

<p>Biases and "expert opinions" are everywhere. Some Leica RF camera users (happily only a few loud ones) could not wait to tear apart Cosina for daring to revive the Voigtlander name in recent decades and craft RF cameras (film mirrorless cameras) and lenses at a price level Leica could not do. The excellent Konica RF system and lenses received equal disdain from some traditional RF camera users, despite the very high quality of their system (similar to, or competitive in features, to the M7) at a reasonable price.</p>

<p>Biases are just biases. Only you can decide which features and performance match your needs. The relative prominence of any one camera on the market is I believe only a small consideration compared to those more important needs.</p>

[donbright]

<p>The proof is in the imaging. I've been studying this, and the images coming from the Fuji X-system camera's are stunning. The XT-1 definitley punching above its weight. I think this point makes the product attractive, so it's just a matter appreciation, not bias. Sensibility, not bias. I've been stuck to this subject for months now, I want one, but I have a list of Nikkor lenses that need a Digital counterpart. So my dilemma is, start over with Fuji, and it's modern lens line, or stick with my AIS lenses with a full frame camera.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Fuji has essentially one line of cameras and Sony has way too many and that makes people confused.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Spoke to a dealer that has been holding out on carrying the less profitable Sony line-up (They've now acquired them).</p>

<p>He indicated that Fuji and alike, fell behind too quickly when it came to technology, and because of that, his store gets stuck with reducing value inventory.<br /> He therefore believes that several companies will eventually succumb to the heavily capitalized Sony <strong>behemoth</strong>...</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji has essentially one line of cameras and Sony has way too many and that makes people confused.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, Sony's carpet bombing approach left some obvious gaps, mainly because as a sensor manufacturer, it was easy for Sony's factory to spit out various formats: 1", APS-C, APS-C mirrorless, Full Frame, Full Frame mirrorless. However it is not so easy to generate complete lens line-ups for what are essentially <em>four separate interchangeable lens mounts</em>. So, if anything, the confusion rests entirely on Sony's product line. is it Nex or Alpha? SLT or full frame? videographer or stills shooter? amateur or pro? ok, you have a high-rez camera, but going that route entails compromises, like 12-bit RAW and f/4 zooms. ok, you have a high-rez compact crop body at an attractive price point, but many of the lenses are subpar or mediocre and a full set of the best lenses will cost almost the equivalent of full frame lenses, thus negating that advantage.<br>

<br>

Fuji's approach, OTOH, has been simplified out of necessity, and they dont have to cripple their crop body lineup to protect FF sales, like Nikon and Canon.<br>

</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji and alike, fell behind too quickly when it came to technology, and because of that, his store gets stuck with reducing value inventory.<br />He therefore believes that several companies will eventually succumb to the heavily capitalized Sony <strong>behemoth</strong>...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is interesting. But we cant just take the word of one retailer as gospel. if you look at the larger picture, camera sales are slumping, period. Mirrorless volume doesnt even begin to approach the high point of DSLRs, which peaked a few years ago. The big mirrorless push, then, is motivated primarily by cheaper manufacturing costs. what that comes down to, then, is how much camera does anyone really need, and will buyers keep re-upping for modest iterations of bodies which are already pretty good? Fuji and everyone else are all in the same boat, to a degree, but if any company goes out of business, it's probably going to be Olympus before Fuji. and even if Fuji stopped producing cameras tomorrow, their current bodies and lenses are more than sufficient for most users for many years. if i had to survive on an XT1 and current lenses for a decade, i could probably do everything i need to do, except maybe super-big landscape prints and extreme low-light shooting. When we speculate that Fuji is behind on technology, what, exactly, do we mean? are we talking sensor size, AF capabilities, video, wi-fi, GPS, high-ISO performance, what? and at what price point are we making this claim? low-end/mid level? high-end? Fuji's continued firmware updates have continued to stave of obsolescence for older cameras, which encourages more lens purchases, instead of body upgrades with each successive iteration--which is what Sony, Nikon and Canon want you to do; surely that can't be seen as a negative. Also, some of the technology in current cameras is cruft, non-essential bells and whistles that a purist doesnt need or want. Fuji's guilty of this as much as anyone, yet at the same time, the retro styling, control dials, aperture rings, etc., appeal to purist sensibilities in a way that other companies do not.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Unless one is loaded with moolah, you get to make a decision on a brand and size and choose something. Yet I still have to hear told or see one that optimizes every last thing; each compromises one thing or another, to suit a market. Water resistance. Solid metal dials maybe. Two dials, larger dials... More metal,less thermoplastic.. LCDs that articulate this way or that. Size of body and handgrip feel. Portrait and battery accessory. Lenses that offer wide array of both primes and zooms. Affordability however you define same.

 

So I philosophise that to keep cognitive consistency we tend to favor what we choose,me and you all. And emphasize those manufacturer decisions that support our sensitivites (biases if you like). Which is just fine.... Because from what I can see and read, all the brands of mirrorless yield clear sharp photos when mounted with a quality lens, expect to pay as much for the lens as the body so it seems nowadays.

 

Then there is " the look." Sometimes called ergonomics which is sort of in the same league. Choosing a classic look is almost a throw in item. But it counts, and why not. A camera is a personal accessory that also takes pictures...

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Those Fuji lenses.</p>

<p>So, why would I want a Sony?</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji's approach, OTOH, has been simplified out of necessity, and they dont have to cripple their crop body lineup to protect FF sales, like Nikon and Canon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my opinion Fuji cameras are APS-C size and not cropped body. Their lenses and lens mount dimension were designed for the sensor unlike Canon and Nikon (Pentax and Sony APS-C SLT too) in which the lens mount was designed for 35mm full frame and many of the lenses were also designed for the larger format and thus they are cropped.<br>

Back in the film days there were 126, 110 etc.. all smaller than 35mm but were they cropped. In fact the medium format DSLR are mostly cropped because their lens mount were designed for a format that is larger than the sensor. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

Reading this thread I know why we safely predict Fuji is not going out of business. Unlike Olympus which has been going out of business for over ten years. Sony, a company famous for Walkmen and game boxes and Trinitron, confuses tenderfoot shoppers by entering a market it knows little about, like, when it took over Minolta for some obscure reason . And then hits the shelves with a smorgasbord, all over the place... As for other big once reliable guns like Canon or Nikon,well we know they must protect their large DSLR history by crippling the product line yes -I said cripple, just to keep EOS lens users from marching on dealers with pitchforks. Who's left? Panasonic? Blah. They make great toaster ovens,I know. And a couple decent lenses, which must have been a fluke...long live APS-C, a great idea that size. Everyone says so ........with that juicy 2:3 'normal' format aspic ratio we learned to love and respect.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Spoke to a dealer..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've heard all kinds of crazy stuff from dealers. My favorite was that Minolta rescued both Leica and Nikon at some point between the 1970s and 1990s. Presumably this well meaning fellow - admittedly a Minolta fan - conflated some related business ventures, such a the R8, and circumstantial evidence ("Minolta and Nikon headquarters are both in Japan, see!?!"), along with scuttlebutt from industry reps, with fact. It all sounded very talk radio chem-trails.</p>

<p><br />Sony has some great tech and no coherent marketing savvy.</p>

<p>Fuji has some very good tech and very good marketing savvy.</p>

<p>The only reason I won't rate Fuji's marketing savvy as excellent is because they're too cheap to hire a proper tech writer/editor to translate their Japanglish website and printed manuals - which sound like they're written by a Japanese engineer or marketing grad student whose command of American English is pretty good but not quite hip to subtleties and nuances - into contemporary idiomatic English. From a media observer's perspective, that indicates either a tight budget or a bit of tone-deafness, maybe a bit of both.</p>

<p>I wouldn't venture any predictions about the near future for either. Both Canon and Nikon have access to great tech which they implement very grudgingly, along with 1990s-state-of-the-art marketing savvy, and both are still hanging around mostly because the traditional optical finder SLR remains viable in terms of practicality and economics. Canikon are willing to spend money on professional English language tech writers/editors. They just aren't willing to commit the same resources to a web savvy manager for their mirrorless projects.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>With the X series, Fuji realised that people actually like optical finders and traditional controls, and even went so far as to innovate with the clever hybrid finder in the X100 and its descendants. This made the range distinctive and got them a lot of attention (which persists even now that some of their cameras are EVF only). If you want anything other than an EVF or a clumsy accessory OVF (usually without any shooting info displayed) it's pretty much Fuji or Leica. Fuji are making the cameras that Leica should be making below the M range.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>im thinking the next generation of mirrorless is gonna be pretty good since the field is so competitive right now. might be worth it to wait for XT2 and A7000, if you're on the fence. </p>

[andrew_brown7]

<p>If Nikon made a Nex 7 lookalike I would probably have bought it, but they don't, so I couldn't. I'm sure we are all biased in favour of one sort or make of camera over another and there's no logic to it; it just is.<br>

My only concern is how long these modern cameras might last and whether they would be repairable in 30 years; my F and F2 cameras still function well (perfectly?) after nearly 50 years of use.<br>

As regards quality of lenses, my guess would be they are nearly all the same, nowadays probably designed by the same Program, and anyway I'm of the opinion I certainly wouldn't know pictures taken by a 50 mm pre-AI Nikkor or a Canon FD or FL. In fact I'm biased, as I still use Nikkor lenses with film cameras and on the 7 and 6 that I have and I used to use the Canon lenses on my old F1.<br>

We are always looking to validate our desires, purchases and 'wants' and it is really difficult to buy something and then wonder a few days or hours later whether you should really bought something else.<br>

Anyway, best of luck with the search; as a final thought--if it feels right then it probably is right, regardless of make or model.<br>

Mustn't ramble on.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>My only concern is how long these modern cameras might last and whether they would be repairable in 30 years; my F and F2 cameras still function well (perfectly?) after nearly 50 years of use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I imagine proprietary battery life and availability will be one of the main issues in the long run, especially if you have a camera that uses an uncommon battery. The Leica DMR, discontinued in 2007, has already been a 'battery orphan' for several years, and 'new old' cells go for crazy money - it's much easier to find the consumables for a Leica I from the 1920s! You can't hoard batteries indefinitely, either - even unused, their life will be limited. I suspect the best long-term bet would be something with an accessory grip or battery holder that can take standard AAs. Compatible media cards won't be available for ever, of course, but at least you can keep a stock of those.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Is it true that Fuji is making lenses for Hasselblad these days? Fuji didn't just show up with the advent of the XT-1, so it seems hard pressed they would go weak on support in parts. Yet there's a sense I get that Fuji is like a start up company, as you can plot and see how well they are evolving, paying attention to their customers and producing what Photographers want in the XT-1. I think there on to something here, its a very smart effort, I'm liking what I see, and as I've mentioned somewhere here, the image quality produced from the fixed X-Mount lenses via an XT-1 are stunning</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Fuji has been making high end glass for decades - for Hasselblad ever since the XPan and the H series, and they've been making much more expensive lenses for video and cine use longer than that. You can buy a $100,000+ Fujinon from B&H or Adorama. They also make or used to make highly regarded large format lenses and lenses for their own medium format cameras, and there was the Fujica line of 35mm gear that was discontinued some time ago. They were mostly out of the consumer lens market (except P&S and instant cameras) for a while, but they have plenty of optics knowledge in house.</p>

[evan_parker2]

<p>Those arguments hold zero water with me: "Fuji has been making lenses longer", "Fuji knows color since they used to make film", "Fuji's aura just FEELS like photography". When you start making these kinds of arguments, you're being a fanboy.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>im thinking the next generation of mirrorless is gonna be pretty good since the field is so competitive right now. might be worth it to wait for XT2 and A7000,<br>

Im thinking the same, though I'm kind of interested to see what the X-Pro2 will be as well.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Hey Eric, sorry, I left off the quotation marks..mia culpa</p>

[andylynn]

Evan, a lot of people don't realize Fuji is a high end lens maker. That's why I'm clarifying. And they do put a lot of thought

into their jpg color modes, which shows in the results, and the cameras do have a control layout that is more friendly to

people who prefer dials over buttons. Those two factors are important to a lot of people.

[Uhooru]

<p>Uh, Fuji has been making high quality lenses for photography and video for many years. Don't have to be a fan boy to acknowledge that.</p>