kosmoskatten wrote:
Tariq: perhaps, but to me that is kind of a backwards thinking.
Fuji could of course let you choose a package deal consisting of a body + lens to ensure that they sell lenses. They could do so and still profit from it even when presenting it as a "package deal" at a "subsidized" price.
I don't understand why Fuji should penalize their customers by charging a high price for the body alone. Anyone who buys the X Pro 1 is a customer. If you really like the camera you are quite likely to buy some lenses for it.
And what if I want a second body as a back up?
If they are not including peaking as a feature they have already made a decision to make it a lesser option than the competition. Again, this could be a marketing decision which would say: "we prefer you to buy and use our Fujinon lenses but we will support use of your legacy glass." "But, we won't make it too easy to use them..."
If it has no peaking and iffy fly by wire MF for their own lenses then it is less appealing to some, me included. Especially if AF is sub par.
It's just something they would have to consider in the body pricing IF they were at all concerned that there might be a significant number of buyers who would not also be buying lenses. If they ,for instance, priced the body at a level that just barely resulted in a profit while expecting the lenses to subsidize the body to a degree - and few lenses were sold - they would have a serious problem.
The obvious analogy is computer hardware vs software pricing. Apple practically gives OS X away - and certainly does not charge anything even remotely close to covering the costs associated with developing it - but has traditionally subsidized this cost through hardware prices. Microsoft has historically charged much more for the software in contrast as they could not rely on selling hardware as a subsidy.
As I have written before, I think Fuji ran into this issue with their Nikon mount DSLR's since they did not profit at all from lens and accessory sales, particularly when the DSLR APS market became more completive. I doubt they will allow themselves to run into this problem again.
All said though, I do expect the vast majority of XP1 users will try the Fuji lenses and find them so good - and offering so many advantages over using alt lenses with the body (such as the ability to focus while using the optical finder alone) - that Fuji will be selling a lot of lenses.
Ι was thinking of getting the fuji 28mm (or 27 as the case may be). I like the hoodie
Then a CV superwide which I'd zone focus, and probably one of my M normals with the EVF, for those few times that I want a portrait lens. And probably keep the x100 for 35mm and general backup, I think it still has a place with its silent shutter and nice lens.
kosmoskatten wrote:
If Leica can produce a "crude" electronic full frame digital camera with an intricate optomechanical range finder and sell it like hot cakes despite an astronomical price tag, why can't the other makers release a similar product at half or two thirds of the price?
It may be that the 30,000 or so Leica M9's that have sold over the past two years (that's the figure I read last September) is really nowhere near the numbers that might entice the other players. Heck, Fuji sold many multiples of that number of x100's in just the first year. I have no clue as to the price point a FF NEX-7/ Fuji XP1 would have to be at in order to sell in the numbers to be profitable for Sony, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, etc but it seems like it must not be a sure thing yet or someone would have done it (Sony is rumored to be working on a FF NEX style body but it will likely be a while now that their FF strategy has been pushed back).
Well, at least Sony has the HUGE benefit of trickling down their technology and being able to use it on a broader scale than Leica.
Sony could produce a cheaper full frame option than Leica, with far less R&D time, charge a lot less and sell a lot more. The NEX7 has given them a platform already. Sony started in digital with pumping out low volume cameras with just one feature differing between them to gather a feel for the market and then they would incorporate the result in the next generation a few months later already.
Sony could become a true giant, so could Fuji. They have to win over the customers by producing excellent cameras and gain long term confidence. That will involve a few risks. But you don't get to the top by releasing sub par products.
I think Sony has gained a reasonably strong percentage for such a short time in the major league but they are still not making good on their lens line up for the professionals.
Regarding the X Pro 1 I agree to the thinking that the X1 lenses certainly will be good enough to satisfy most, if not all people. They seem to have a well thought out and fairly extensive lens road map and Fuji is a lot stronger than most people think so I really think they can pull through.
As they have hinted on more X camera bodies I think they are in it for the long run, which is good for all of us.
Spyro P. wrote:
-36X24 is so extremely overrated and doesn't really mean anything.
Surely, you jest...
-Sticking your eye against a tiny television and squinting at grainy pixels from point blank is as good as an optical VF. What's that? A migraine? Must be you need new spectacles.
-Actually no VF at all is also a very good option, why are we beeing so stuck to the past?
Stuck in the past? Are you suggesting a TLR format and/or swivel LCD? Obviously, there's an inherent stability that comes with an OVF pressed to your face. I've not been a big fan of EVF in the past, but they're coming around (the Fuji is superb IMO), but holding a camera at arms length is untenable to me.
-medium format rangefinders never really existed, it was an illusion. You can forget about them now because they never had a reason of existence. Same for pocket full frame cameras, and active infrared focusing, and large format and and and....
What's the M9 then?
-Cameras that are designed exclusively for manual focus are for weirdos who are willing to hand out $7k to an oddball anachronistic tiny german company.
-Any camera that looks like a film camera is as good as a film camera, and worth paying $1.7k for (yes this is sans lens). Even though MF sucks and AF sucks too, and your lenses are cropped to half. Doesnt matter it looks cool.
I'll play along, what can I do.
I'll go with the times, pretend that I'm stupid, keep hoping.
But patience does have its limits...
Spyro P. wrote:
Many many moons, and when it does happen it will probably be by accident.
In the meantime they will try every trick in the book to convince us that:
-36X24 is so extremely overrated and doesn't really mean anything.
-Sticking your eye against a tiny television and squinting at grainy pixels from point blank is as good as an optical VF. What's that? A migraine? Must be you need new spectacles.
-Actually no VF at all is also a very good option, why are we beeing so stuck to the past?
-medium format rangefinders never really existed, it was an illusion. You can forget about them now because they never had a reason of existence. Same for pocket full frame cameras, and active infrared focusing, and large format and and and....
-Cameras that are designed exclusively for manual focus are for weirdos who are willing to hand out $7k to an oddball anachronistic tiny german company.
-Any camera that looks like a film camera is as good as a film camera, and worth paying $1.7k for (yes this is sans lens). Even though MF sucks and AF sucks too, and your lenses are cropped to half. Doesnt matter it looks cool.
I'll play along, what can I do.
I'll go with the times, pretend that I'm stupid, keep hoping.
But patience does have its limits......Show more →
Stuck in the past? Are you suggesting a TLR format and/or swivel LCD? Obviously, there's an inherent stability that comes with an OVF pressed to your face. I've not been a big fan of EVF in the past, but they're coming around (the Fuji is superb IMO), but holding a camera at arms length is untenable to me.
What's the M9 then?
I hope you didn't miss out on the irony embedded in the original posting.
Some of them are VERY impressive. The 18mm looks very good aside from some PF and CA.
The 35 and 60 look outstanding. The sensor is truly a work of art...the details are great without any halos, smooth shadows and transitions, very 3D.
Download them and bring them up in Photoshop for a true idea of what the files show.
Some of them are VERY impressive. The 18mm looks very good aside from some PF and CA.
The 35 and 60 look outstanding. The sensor is truly a work of art...the details are great without any halos, smooth shadows and transitions, very 3D.
Download them and bring them up in Photoshop for a true idea of what the files show.
Don't cancel your NEX order! I bet the reviewers here work for Sony or Canon, that could be the only explanation for how these images look. How is it possible to get camera movement at 32,000 ISO? Have you seen these http://www.flickr.com/photos/26706225@N08/ ? Overall not very impressive at all compared to the NEX 7 samples. Disappointing I must say but I'm sure they excuse from Fuji will be this is a pre-production camera. These are so bad it must be a defective camera.
michaelwatkins wrote:
Whatever the number, Fujifilm, or any compact system camera maker, have more to gain by being open than to remain closed.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That would depend upon their body/ lens pricing strategy. Fuji's XP1 body is likely priced so high that they are not going to hurt too much if their lenses don't sell due to folks using alt lenses.
Pricing has little bearing on my assertion. Fujifilm will price both components such that they stand on their own from a profit perspective.
I don't see alt-glass replacing sales of AF lenses for this or any camera. There is evidence of this with Sony. Despite the popularity of the NEX as an alt-glass platform, their AF lenses regularly go out of stock. They are still going to sell a pile of Zeiss 24mm lenses, along with 50's and 16's and the zooms and whatever else comes down the road. But Sony also gained, by happy accident, access to a slice of the enthusiast user pie who may or may not also buy DSLRs, AF lenses, multiple bodies of any sort, more lenses than the average consumer, but also enjoy using manual focus alternative glass. These people were using the NEX before focus peaking was added; maybe we can infer that Sony picked up on the interest because it was significant from their perspective which would mean they recognized a sales benefit. Plus software is relatively cheap to add for the return. A cottage industry of adapter makers rapidly grew around NEX thanks to the short back focal length making it possible to adapt almost anything.
So we see buyers picking up NEX cameras that would never have done so before. Sony introduced the line with modest expectations and reportedly was surprised at the level of interest from all types of user including enthusiasts and pros, and as a result the NEX-7 was born and more should follow.
Clearly Sony is benefiting from being open. Why should it be any different for Fujifilm? Or any other maker?
Unlike the early NEX models, this camera is not a consumer commodity, so you'd think that Fujifilm and any other maker putting out cameras like these would want to tap into the slice of the enthusiast and pro pie that are willing to put up without full EXIF data and autofocus in pursuit of their infantile auto-erotic fantasies.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
As I have written before, I think Fuji ran into this issue with their Nikon mount DSLR's since they did not profit at all from lens and accessory sales, particularly when the DSLR APS market became more completive. I doubt they will allow themselves to run into this problem again.
Do you believe that manual focus lenses pose a similar threat to AF X Mount lens sales?
(I don't)
More importantly, given all the words these pages have seen blessing Fujifilm as a likely provider of high quality lenses, were the Nikon Mount Fuji lenses substandard in some way? Or just-as-good but not priced in such a way to be competitive with the Nikon brand? Or better but poorly marketed? Or was AF less strong or did they suffer from compatibility issues with Nikon bodies? Or was the real problem the body? What was the core issue that made those bodies and lenses unprofitable?
Sharing a mount with a major maker of commodity AF lenses I'd agree is a challenge that probably is best avoided but I don't see a way to extrapolate that problem to manual focus lenses.
