Fuji X1 sensor ratio not pro?

Started May 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
RealXenuis
Senior MemberPosts: 1,152Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji X1 sensor ratio not pro?
In reply to left eye, May 24, 2012

The debate over dimension is going on right now in other markets, such as screen size on tablets and phones. There's not really a "solution", but rather choice. You have lots of choice right now, that should be exciting.

I thought the look of the E300 was interesting. But I think your argument belittles the intensive amounts of market research these companies partake of. I don't think it's a matter of not knowing what we want, but rather, making something the majority of us want. Other cam co's fill in the niches the others don't. For instance, you call the E300 a classic and I do not. At the same time, the XP1 is something that I WANT, and perhaps you don't (at least not the sensor format?).

I think it's a hard case for you to make that there are a dearth of designs that people want, and that co's are clueless about it. The OM-5, the XP1, the X100, the PENs, those are all very deliberate designs. They weren't rolling dice - they've done their research and for the most part, these weren't blind attempts. If you want daring, look at Pentax, at least for physical design.

If i were to tell them what camera I wanted, it would not be far off from the XP1. So again, we all have our own sensibilities. It sounds like YOU have some specific desires that they're not meeting. You should email them! List your wants, and start a campaign! If enough agree with you, I bet you'd see something close.

Cars....I dunno, I disagree with you there too. Does a Fiat500 look like a Camry look like a Ford Truck? I think there's a great amount of variety.

left eye wrote:

as I said a few replies back the words 'pro' and 'traditional' we're used to point, not to define, its got this thread off to a start, but defining or debating those terms isn't what the real subject was about.

I loved my Voigtländer 6x9, I still covert it, a beauty, and I did like the format ratio - it was the longest i'd generally use. However should the longest general (non panoramic) format be our 'standard' now? In the days of widescreen movies we're all shifting our views on what shape frames an image; all I'm asking is what do YOU really prefer? For me its 4:3 or thereabouts, and its still that for digital medium format sensors.

I have little debate with Fuji choosing 2:3 for the X-Pro1, I guess I desire a risk that is actually solid. Like 4:3, 1:1, manual focus lenses (not electronic), just putting a proper rangefinder system in, its so close to being it
give us the best of the past and take us into the future - lets go...

I bought the Olympus E300 when it was first released, the 'Evolution' as it was billed, with its wonderful Kodak sensor. Blimey it had no pentaprism hump; today the OM-D is 'recreating' a hump for its EVF! The E300 was flat on top, I could so much more easily slip it into a bag, it was neat - like a rangefinder. Anyway that piece of genius evaporated into the ether. Why? Because we wanted pentaprism humps? I think there is a confusion with manufactures with what we actually want. So the E300 has become a design classic rather than a leader.

Can we please tell them, so they are not influenced by their 'research' of what they pick up through limited market forces.

Why do cars all look the same these days... etc...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow