If Sony releases a FF Nex what will this do to X sales?

Started Aug 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
NTNphoto
Regular MemberPosts: 169Gear list
Like?
Re: If Sony releases a FF Nex what will this do to X sales?
In reply to uniball, Aug 12, 2013

Rod McD wrote:

I think that a Sony NEX FF would affect Fuji sales, but not emphatically if the price is as high as I think it will be (around $3K). If it's any good, it might have more of an effect on Leica! I'm one potential buyer who's waiting to see what Sony's FF looks like, and judging by other posts, I'm not alone.......

The Fuji XPro1 is undoubtedly a premium product but it isn't in that price league. Nevertheless, there will be some buyers who would both prefer FF and have the ability to afford it. Some key and as yet unknown factors are the design of the camera and the lens options that go with it. Obviously it has to appeal to an individual buyer as well as be affordable, and the lens system has to meet their needs.

I suspect that the same market forces that operate with DSLRs to push mpx and sensor size upward will operate in the mirror-less market. If the Sony camera sells well, I suspect Fuji will respond. We already know that they are considering an FF development. It looks from all the conjecture like Sony will be first. Fuji will watch and wait, but if it's good business, you can bet your boots they'll respond with their own model. That may not happen in the current economic situation.

BTW, would people please stop saying that all FF cameras are bigger and that all FF lenses are bigger. - It's getting like some sort of religion here in DPR despite all evidence to the contrary. It's simply not true all the time. The APSC X Pro1 is bigger (wider and higher) than a FF Leica. And there many FF lenses out there that are no bigger (and some are smaller) than similar APSC lenses. And that includes some AF lenses of reasonable speed - eg the Contax G lenses. Just consign the 'FF is bigger' mantra to the bin, at least if you're talking bodies and prime mirror-less lenses. It's all a matter of design. I acknowledge that fast 24-70 & 70-200 zooms and very long FF tele lenses are big, but if you're planning to use them, you're better off with a DSLR anyway.

Rod

Well said. But it does raise the question why, in rangefinder forums are there more and more discerning photographers shooting Fuji's with Leica glass? Same on the Leica forums. Same on the FujiX forum (often pros).  Did they go out and buy a Fuji and then buy a bunch of very expensive lenses for it? Or did the lenses precede the Fuji. The latter would be my bet.

If I had a closet stuffed with an easy $10k+ worth of glass, does the cost of a new body really dissuade me from upgrading. Or, have these FF people already come to the conclusion the difference is not material to them?

No response needed but I already made my choice. My last three cameras were an X100, a D800 and an XE-1. I had been shooting Nikons for almost 40 years. The D800 was not mine, it was with me for 3 weeks and used/evaluated a lot before being handed over to a friend I bought it for. Cost -- irrelevant for me. Lenses, I already had them.  An XE-1 was ordered and all my Nikon gear has subsequently been sold.

FF cameras are expensive. It strikes me as odd that on a thread where price comes up constantly, FF is the holy grail. Yet with people where price is not an obstacle, people are moving from FF to APS.

FF cameras tend to be solid performers, its reflected in the cost. It can't be just the sensor as the Fuji's stand up quite well in many FF comparisons.  Buy the camera, the sensor is only one variable of many that come together to offer a good photographer the tool he needs. For those who believe FF, in and of itself, will help their photography, buy a medium format.

As far as Fuji is concerned, I think they can afford to lose a few cost concious buyers to a FF Sony and Sony's lens line-up.

The x pro wasn't exactly cheap when it came out. A nikon D600 plus the very highly regarded new 50mm 1.8 G is not much more than the xpro1 plus fuji 35mm 1.4 when originally released. So when that cost argument gets thrown around along with the size argument I just shake my head. I'm willing to bet that the nikon 50 is a better lens than the fuji 50mm equivalent and it costs about $300 less.

A D600 is bigger and marginally heavier than the Fuji but the IQ is better, it has better and more accurate high ISO, and has affordable prime lens options that are very very good. Now slap a 2.8 zoom on the nikon and I agree it is way way bigger and heavier. It's the reason I bought a fuji, for the times when I don't want all that weight, but FF can had cheaply. A refurb D600 + that 50mm 1.8 can be had for about $1800 right now. A case can be made for the oil spot thing, but I haven't had it on mine after over 15k actuations so I think I probably don't have it and can't really comment.

I'm sorry but I have shot my FF Nikon alongside my Fuji X on assignment and quite honestly the FF output was superior at similar ISO. I feel like I keep putting the Fuji down when I really do rather like it, especially with Leica M mount glass in front of it, but there is some serious Fuji fanboyism on this board that is ridiculous. Sure the Fuji cameras are nice and I 100% enjoy using my Fuji more than my Nikon, but from a pure IQ standpoint my nikon is better and that's why I still have it even if I don't love using it.

 NTNphoto's gear list:NTNphoto's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D600 Nikon Df Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
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