dennishh wrote:
Exactly! No one has brought up this point before, the investment in lenses that might be better but basically useless if Fuji wants to produce a full frame camera. I know with the Sony the same thing applies, but at least with the Sony you can put an adapter on the NEX-7 and use the A lenses which in many cases are way better then the E lenses. One of the first experiments if the NEX-7 becomes available before the Fuji is trying out the adapter with the Zeiss 24mm f2 and seeing how it compares to the 24 mm F1.8. I know this option is a heavier one but if Sony does hit the market with a professional 35mm 36 megapixel full frame it might be the way to go.You could still have one or two e lenses like the 50 mm 1.8 and a Zoom. Has anyone tried the 16 to 50 2.8? Can't wait to see the comparison between the Fuji and Sony....Show more →
Yeah, Dennis, I think we're going to see Sony slowly merge the NEX, DSLR and SLT lines into one largely compatible system that is relatively modular. We're already seeing hints of that with the LA-EA2, and I think it will allow Sony to have a wholly unique system to set it apart, but it'll take time.
ontime wrote:
From the buyer's standpoint, it doesn't matter how complicated anything is to implement. And it also doesn't matter how much the 5D II was at release - it's all about the current environment.
Oh, I hear you, but the hybrid viewfinder is one of the main features that sets this camera apart, and many will buy the camera based on this expensive technology.
The X-Pro 1..well, I think it will be fantastic but I did get an early e-mail report from someone who has been using one for a little while and it was not the greatest report. I will not post details here because I have no images and can not disclose who this is so it is really pointless. I heard things about the AF being slow, especially when light gets low, lenses being metal on the inside and plasticky on the outside, manual focus NOT good, not so hot battery life and the 2nd gen EVF being average. On the other hand, IQ is supposedly razor sharp and crisp with those Fuji colors many of us adore. So until I get on in my hands for a while I can not judge but I did not really expect metal lens construction for $500-$600 nor did I expect the AF to blaze like a Nikon V1 (though I hoped for it). We shall see soon enough but NO camera is ever perfect....Show more →
Like he wrote, what can you expect nowadays for $500-600 if the lens is to support auto aperture and AF? One could kind of see this too by looking very closely at the Fuji product photos... just like the X100 when it only existed as photos... the impression of old metal camera construction with the reality being quite different...
Just a note, plastic doesn't automatically equal bad.
Also I understand huff isn't a technical enough tester for most of you, but I also don't think his site is targeted towards most of you. I think he takes some unfair heat and I personally don't doubt someone who uses the camera emailed him. I don't see him lying to drive traffic, people generally like him it seems if all that he said turned out untrue, he'd have no further readers.
dennishh wrote:
Exactly! No one has brought up this point before, the investment in lenses that might be better but basically useless if Fuji wants to produce a full frame camera. I know with the Sony the same thing applies, but at least with the Sony you can put an adapter on the NEX-7 and use the A lenses which in many cases are way better then the E lenses. One of the first experiments if the NEX-7 becomes available before the Fuji is trying out the adapter with the Zeiss 24mm f2 and seeing how it compares to the 24 mm F1.8. I know this option is a heavier one but if Sony does hit the market with a professional 35mm 36 megapixel full frame it might be the way to go.You could still have one or two e lenses like the 50 mm 1.8 and a Zoom. Has anyone tried the 16 to 50 2.8? Can't wait to see the comparison between the Fuji and Sony....Show more →
Why would Fuji want to produce a FF camera? It would mean another subset of lenses for an even more niche market, and a good probability for a number of alienated users. As mentioned earlier, do we really need FF that badly if an APS-C system has all the lenses we'll generally need? Why don't you feel as locked in with your Canon gear? Keep in mind that the EF system has evolved considerably since 1987. Same with the growth of m4/3. In a few years (which will pass all too quickly), both the NEX and Fuji X systems will have many more lens options available.
If you want to commit now, you'll have to make a somewhat calculated decision. But I also don't think it's as significant as you might believe.
You've already hinted at how you can avoid getting locked into a given maker's lens line up. It's to assemble a set of 'universal' lenses that can be adapted to most current and likely future mirrorless systems, whether APS-C or even FF, if that ever happens. Currently that means older manual focus SLR lenses, old and new rangefinder lenses, or Zeiss's ZF series. And if Conurus is any indication with their upcoming EF-NEX adapter, it's quite possible they or someone else will eventually figure out how to make an X mount adapter to allow AF and AE with fully electronic lenses from other manufacturers.
This approach makes the camera a 'disposable' portion of the system, to be updated when another camera from whatever manufacturer better suits your needs while your core set of lenses remain relatively unchanged and represent the major portion of your investment.
Of course it will depend on what you want out of a system. If it's AF and AE, then you have fewer options and are basically stuck within a given system. If you're willing to work with MF, then you'll have fewer constraints and the Fuji becomes a less risky decision because you won't be as deeply committed to their system. This is what I'm finding as I search for a mirrorless camera for my needs. I already have a significant investment in rangefinder lenses in anticipation of this, so it's really just a matter of spending around $1000, give or take, to try out a NEX-5N, or GXR, or NEX-7, etc.
h00ligan wrote:
Just a note, plastic doesn't automatically equal bad.
Of course, I've been using Canon equipment for over 20 years I can remember back during the EOS-1N era where Canon stated that the durable 'engineering' plastics used in the camera were more durable and better at dissipating impact shock than traditional metal designs... So it doesn't really matter, so long as it works. Whichever decision a company makes, you can be sure the marketing department will put the appropriate spin on it.
h00ligan wrote:
Just a note, plastic doesn't automatically equal bad.
Also I understand huff isn't a technical enough tester for most of you, but I also don't think his site is targeted towards most of you. I think he takes some unfair heat and I personally don't doubt someone who uses the camera emailed him. I don't see him lying to drive traffic, people generally like him it seems if all that he said turned out untrue, he'd have no further readers.
I'm not saying he's lying, he just brains dumps a bunch of unedited garbage with typos and run-ons. If you actually read what he wrote there is no info there. He is just capitalizing on a popular camera and posting basically nothing in order to get hits.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I have a strong feeling the X1 will be superior to the NEX-7 in the corners for rangefinder glass.
That is probably more important than any other consideration if you have a M mount wide collection.
I'd say that's very likely. It'll probably be inline with the GXR with M lenses, which is a bit better in the corners than the 5N and a ton better than the 7, from what I've seen.
michaelwatkins wrote:
Ricardo, in my opinion your concern over lens portability is warranted but probably you can rest easy about one thing - the X Pro 1 is highly unlikely to be the last Fujifilm camera that will accept these lenses. Buying into the X mount does tie one to Fujifilm to be sure. Probably there'll be other X cameras that can take the lenses; we are still barely into the early evolution of mirrorless compact interchangeable lens digital cameras.
If the lenses perform well then they'll be worth their price tag but at roughly 60% of the cost of a decent Zeiss rangefinder lens, albeit faster in some cases, some buyers may question whether it makes sense to tie themselves to one maker even if they do perform quite well, not that vendor lock in is a new phenomena.
Exactly what I'm thinking. If one can 'tolerate' manual focusing and the camera offers decent MF assist options, then it makes way more sense to invest in a set of high quality lenses that are portable between mirrorless systems. At the moment the best bang for the buck in terms of image quality, small size, build and price is the Zeiss ZM line.
I think the Fuji lenses will be good, but I'm not expecting miraculous image quality. Part of this suspicion is based on the minimalist MTF info provided for each lens combined with the early full rez samples. It should be possible to better these with the equivalent Zeiss, and perhaps some of the Voigtlander focal lengths, assuming close focus ability is not a priority.
), mostly because it is another "look". Simple as that.