I don't get it, they make a budget line, a mid to high level g line and a high end Za line. I do wish there were more pancake nex primes so I'm not sure at all what you're saying?
ricardovaste wrote:
1.4 vs 2.4 m dot viewfinder. I've seen through the a77, which seems "okay"... So the Fuji won't be as good ? Or as clearly defined? Doesn't sound so good there...
Focal plane shutter? Does that mean we no longer have the silent leaf shutter operation of the x100?
Focal plane shutter doesn't mean it'll be noisy. Try shooting a Leica M.
I think Lotusm50 is simply talking about the perception of a system/brand, rather than the actual output of certain lenses. Sony are clearly aiming at a larger audience, which includes the bottom end of the market, where as Fuji (and Samsung) seem to be aiming more towards "premium" products. How people view that, or even care about that, of course varies wildly...
FlyPenFly wrote:
I don't get it, they make a budget line, a mid to high level g line and a high end Za line. I do wish there were more pancake nex primes so I'm not sure at all what you're saying?
It goes back to a comment made by another poster. They suggested that the Fuji X-Pro1 was better than the NEX-7 as a premium compact becuase (essentially) there is only one good lens for the NEX (the ZA 24/1.8). The lenses available for Sony's premium, high-quality, high-resolution compact camera of professional pretensions, are lenses from Sony's (as you say) "budget line". It is a disconnect created by the way Sony markets and manages its lens offerings.
Lotusm50 wrote:
It goes back to a comment made by another poster. They suggested that the Fuji X-Pro1 was better than the NEX-7 as a premium compact becuase (essentially) there is only one good lens for the NEX (the ZA 24/1.8). The lenses available for Sony's premium, high-quality, high-resolution compact camera of professional pretensions, are lenses from Sony's (as you say) "budget line". It is a disconnect created by the way Sony markets and manages its lens offerings.
They're not necessarily from Sony's "budget line." You're forgetting the "Easy Choice" line from Sony for a-mount, that features all plastic construction, including the lens mount. Often, the G lens designation is attributed simply to either build quality or speed. Since they didn't make the 50mm f1.4 or faster, I'm not surprised it isn't a G.
Maybe it is a matter of perception, but my simple point is that we don't know how good these Fuji lenses are, either. They're relatively inexpensive, and, while the barrel is apparently metal, it looks to me that the filter threads are plastic, just like the NEX lenses, but we'll see.
douglasf13 wrote:
Maybe it is a matter of perception, but my simple point is that we don't know how good these Fuji lenses are, either. They're relatively inexpensive, and, while the barrel is apparently metal, it looks to me that the filter threads are plastic, just like the NEX lenses, but we'll see.
That's a fair point. I also think the fact that the Fuji lenses have an aperture ring and appear to be of fairly sophisticated design using special glass and aspherical elements may likely point to high end lenses.
Regarding the lenses, I am personally not so keen on the Sony Nex, not in terms of performance but rather drawing style. It would be interesting to see what kind of look has Fuji designed into its new lenses. I am not aware of any specific Fuji look, like Zeiss or Minolta, but one thing for sure, perfection is boring. I hope they didn't aim for perfect MTF at the expense of a nice drawing style.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That's a fair point. I also think the fact that the Fuji lenses have an aperture ring and appear to be of fairly sophisticated design using special glass and aspherical elements may likely point to high end lenses.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, from the looks of it, I'd prefer the Fuji lens lineup over the NEX lineup if I went with native lenses, because the focal lengths and sizes make more sense for me. I'm just saying that many Sony non-G lenses are good. The 50/1.8 is actually a pretty unusual, complicated design as well, especially considering it has OSS. It's the first native NEX lens that has tempted me.
It looks as if the Fuji lenses still have focus by wire, but the aperture rings are nice. Are they just electronically controlled, or are they mechanical aperture rings?
brett maxwell wrote:
That's quite the wishful thinking, no manufacturer has ever released a FF digital for under $2500. The APS-C Canon 7D came out at $1700, body only. The $1000-2000 bracket will continue to be dominated by APS-C for at least a few more years, with cameras of different quality, style, and demand falling at all different places in that spectrum.
You can buy a 5d2 for about 2k now, I think $2k-2.5k would be reasonable for an XP-1 type body with a FF sensor. $1700 for an XP-1 with an APS-C sensor is simply too much, at least for me to consider it.
douglasf13 wrote:
It looks as if the Fuji lenses still have focus by wire, but the aperture rings are nice. Are they just electronically controlled, or are they mechanical aperture rings?
I don't know re the aperture rings. I am a bit concerned abou the manual focus feel. Hopefully that's improved over the x100 but these being AF lenses, I suspect they will fall short for manual focus ultimately...and the AF better be damn good - and much improved - over the x100. That's another thing I'm a bit concerned about with a camera at this price level.
The shutter on the film M's is quite. Not so sure about the metal ones on the digital M's.
The shutter on my M6 was somewhat quiet, but not nearly as quiet as an X100 or several other options. The original M8 was quite a bit louder, but the upgrade to the shutter brought it to about M6 level again. The M9 is in between.
