bluetsunami wrote:
I'll be on board for $1700 if it includes the 35mm lens.
Same. I've been bitching about the lack of digital cameras such as the G2 & Hexar AF for so long that it wouldnt make sense not to get one.
But.
I've been burned by the x100 and now I'm not sure I want to play Fuji's beta tester any more.
Bloody thing has broken twice on me in 10 months, been at the service centre for 2.5 months in total.
bluetsunami wrote:
Also, reading some of Steve Huff's articles about the X-P1, he brought up a rumor that Fuji may be releasing a larger than Full Frame mirrorless body at some point. At a reasonable price point, that'd be a world beater. Although I wonder what that'd be priced at? They could probably easily get away with $4,000 plus I think considering the complete lack of any products in such a segment.
It wouldnt surprise me
Fuji specialises in the segment, they use to make texas leicas after all
and the GA 645 which was awesome
The X100 was a feeding frenzy and then lots on the used market.....Not sure why.
My first thought is people want the digital rangefinder experience for a cost less than a M, particularly those sitting on rangefinder glass. The fixed lens x100 didn't fit the bill. Until we see a true rangefinder like the Leica, I don't see it.
My M8 has a awfully bright, nice finder with a patch.
I have a D700 with less than 500 frames that hasn't been shot since the M8 purchase.
Is this a true rangefinder? Looks like one, sort of. Window missin?
Just Sayin!
alba63 wrote:
Thanks, interesting indeed: no microlenses, no IR filter, maybe no AA either due to small pixel size, sounds like a very pure light path. Experts (on dpreview, like Dr. Fossum) have said that actual noise performance is difficult to predict.
BTW the already famous claim "better than FF technology" may also be result of a sloppy translation, I have already found a different translation that sounds more reserved. It may be that in the end the correct version would be more "which compares favorably to current FF technology", which would be a much more vague statement and may also be said about the Nex-7.
This interesting. A few years ago I was laughed at when I suggested organic sensors in the future, although I was thinking 5-10 years out, so around 2013-2018. Glad to see it's coming to fruition.
dennishh wrote:
I'll second that! To much money I can get a 5DMK2 for $1900. Sony will drop the price of the NEX 7 by a couple of hundred and Fuji is done.
Fuji's intial lens lineup for the X pro is already vastly better than the crap Sony is offering. Seriously what's fine for the NEX c3 is not fine for a camera the class of the NEX-7. One fast 24mm is not nearly enough.
Price seems high, but if it delivers the IQ and has good AF coupled with excellent lenses, it's not that bad. I'm worried about AF though, Fuji's X100 is rubbish compared to the m4/3 and Nikon V1/J1.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Fuji's intial lens lineup for the X pro is already vastly better than the crap Sony is offering. Seriously what's fine for the NEX c3 is not fine for a camera the class of the NEX-7. One fast 24mm is not nearly enough.
Price seems high, but if it delivers the IQ and has good AF coupled with excellent lenses, it's not that bad. I'm worried about AF though, Fuji's X100 is rubbish compared to the m4/3 and Nikon V1/J1.
Both the Nex 30 macro and 50/1.8 appear to be solid lenses. I'm not saying that I'd prefer them over the potential Fuji lineup, but the Nex lens line deserves a little more credit. The 50/1.8 even has IS, which is a first in a 50 prime, I believe.
To address another point, the Sony A850 was $1999 US at release. Outrageous deal.
lovinglife wrote:
Price is too high. Used M8's are in the $2K range .. of course thats for a used camera but still..
but this most likely has a few advantages over the m8 (subject to personal opinion of course), i know i'd prefer something like this to an m8, even if i was just shooting leica glass.
this is the same price range as most 'pro' aps-c dslrs.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Fuji's intial lens lineup for the X pro is already vastly better than the crap Sony is offering. Seriously what's fine for the NEX c3 is not fine for a camera the class of the NEX-7. One fast 24mm is not nearly enough.
This is quite true. Sony/Zeiss have been in credibly slow bringing lenses to market -- for the DSLR's as well as NEX. I seriously don't understand this. Why bring out a NEX-7 if you only really have one lens that can match its potential quality? NEX-7 buyers aren't going to be interested in a consumer 18-55mm zoom as a standard lens. I suspect most NEX-7 buyers are buying to put alternative lenses on it. Sony has been able to produce some compelling bodies but have been less than convincing/successful with lenses. This is where Zeiss presumably is supposed to come in, but that really appears to be a half-hearted effort at best (for whatever reason). Sony needs to manage this better and see this as a definite limiting factor on sales.
The 16/2.8 is ok, not amazing, but ok. The 24/1.8 looks great, the kit-zoom is good, the 50/1.8 reviews very well. People are overplaying this issue. Not that auto focus lenses matters to me at all anyway..
Lotusm50
Sony is an electronics company and Fuji is a longterm manufacturer of high quality large format lenses, (film) medium format systems and when I am not mistaken Pro TV cameras.
I used to have a Fuji GSW690, 6x9 cm medium format rangefinder (aka Texas Leica) it had stellar optics.
What part is really Zeiss in Sony Zeiss lenses is very diffuse.
glacierpete wrote:
Lotusm50
Sony is an electronics company and Fuji is a longterm manufacturer of high quality large format lenses, (film) medium format systems and when I am not mistaken Pro TV cameras.
I used to have a Fuji GSW690, 6x9 cm medium format rangefinder (aka Texas Leica) it had stellar optics.
What part is really Zeiss in Sony Zeiss lenses is very diffuse.
Yes, I am well aware of all this and none of it has any real bearing on my point. Whether Zeiss' role is 100% in the Sony/Zeiss lenses or 5%, Sony isn't managing their lens development and offerings very well.
The pricing of the Fuji lenses vs the body is interesting from a marketing point of view if you think about it, particularly if the body is easily adapted to other lenses. Sort of the opposite of what Sony does. Fuji would charge a premium for the body so regardless if one ends up buying their lenses or not, they still make money. They then offer exceptional (hopefully) lenes cheaper than one might expect so of course if you buy the body, most will likely buy the lenses. Sony on the other hand sells the body fairly cheaply but charges quite a bit for their premium ZA APS lens(s). Total body plus premium lens for both the Sony NEX-7 and the XP1 end up around the same price!
TR3B wrote:
The X100 was a feeding frenzy and then lots on the used market.....Not sure why.
I'm a big fan, but it's quirky. You have to be okay with a 35mm FOV being your only option, the AF is slower than u4/3 or NEX, people seem to hate the menus (only way I ever use those is to format my cards), etc.. A perfect fit for some, but I can see where there would be too many compromises for other people.
I also don't know that it makes a great backup camera for folks who normally use SLRs (I assume that's one source of the used market) - it's not a pocketable package.
