The future for Fuji cameras

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 13,430
Like?
Re: The future for Fuji cameras
In reply to Graham Hill, 8 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

tecnoworld wrote:

It's a very odd market the one where even eos-m sold better than fuji x, which is imo the best mirrorless system to date.

Sometimes it's just the way products are perceived. I have many friends that would buy a canon 70d over a fuji x-e2 just because they think the former is 'pro' and the latter is a step up from 'p&s'.

And, believe me, most customers think this way alas.

That's what I wrote in a previous post: Fujifilm has to have the whole package. They have some of the finest cameras in the market, but they have to market them and distribute them as well as, or even better, than Canon and Nikon.

It is in these last two areas that Fujifilm sadly falls down hard at.

It's tough to just increase marketing and distribution proactively. Suppose Chevrolet unveils a new small car; whether it's great or only middling, barring a total lemon (like the Vega ) it is going to be reasonably successful or even better. A smaller brand with 10% as many dealers may have a better car but it's just not going to do as well because of what can be afforded for advertising and how many outlets it will be available at.

It's not Fuji's fault, it's just the way things are when you're a smaller player.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Carson
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,049Gear list
Like?
Re: The future for Fuji cameras
In reply to Midwest, 8 months ago

Midwest wrote:

John Carson wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

John Carson wrote:

Panasonic introduced the G1 in 2008, following years of development. The future was clear then.

Not at all. I recall all kinds of issues with this camera, particularly it's beyond lethargic focusing. No one was proclaiming the future is mirrorless back then.

Its focusing was not "beyond lethargic" (though the first offering from Olympus was widely criticised on that basis). DP Review declared in its review.

"And our initial tests would suggest that they have solved at least one of the technological problems mentioned earlier (the contrast-detect autofocus is easily as fast as any other entry-level DSLR)." (emphasis added)

Phase detect has been fast for a long time. Contrast detect is still much slower. Did DP mean that the G1's AF was as fast as the live- view AF on a DSLR? I had a circa 2008 entry level DSLR and its AF was hardly as slow as even a current mirrorless.

You can read the article yourself. The answer is no, it was much faster than live-view AF on a DSLR.

The important point to note is that in the early days attention was focused on the ability of the cameras to focus on static subjects. DSLR live view was pretty hopeless at that, and the Panasonic cameras impressed by being much faster (one of the reasons was that the lenses were deliberately designed with light focusing elements, which could be rapidly moved back and forth as contrast detect requires).

It was only later that the emphasis shifted to the tracking of moving objects, where contrast detect had a big disadvantage relative to phase detect.

Of course, current mirrorless cameras are increasingly using sensor-based phase detect. This still has a way to go, but holds out the promise of becoming as good as the phase detect offered by DSLRs.

-- hide signature --

john carson

 John Carson's gear list:John Carson's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
57even
Senior MemberPosts: 5,830Gear list
Like?
Re: The future for Fuji cameras
In reply to Midwest, 8 months ago

Midwest wrote:

57even wrote:

Midwest wrote:

57even wrote:

Reuters article fails to mention the fact that smaller companies have minimal penetration in the US compared to the big three. Only reasons SLRs are still dominant are:

1. Price - entry level prices for DSLRs are still low compared to mirrorless. Fuji's low cost entry level is a bid to fight off that difference.

2. Brand - most people only know Nikon and Canon in the camera market, and they push SLRs so that's what people buy.

Nothing to do with a preference for the OVF? Faster AF and something called 'tracking'? Great handling and plenty of body controls on a non-cramped body?

No. Most first time users or buyers of entry level SLRs generally have no idea, and they are quite used to a compact or smart-phone so unlike you they don't care about EVFs.

The OVF on entry level (and most APSC) SLRs is pretty awful anyway. I know several people who bought an EVF camera because is was much brighter and easier to see

I started with a Canon Rebel and moved to a 7D. While the 7D's OVF is certainly better than my old T3i and XSi (600D and 450D) had, I never once felt that they were too small, dim, hard to see. Having spent a lot of time in the Rebel / XXXD forum I recall no specific posts or threads where people had a hard time using one of those OVF's. I can say for certain that I've seen some more expensive EVF cameras with threads about those viewfinders being hard to see on sunny days (I'm talking EVF, not the LCD), too bright when you put them up to your eye when your eyes are used to darkness, and other complaints.

Not from me. I see complaints about everything on the forums, but I only believe what I try for myself. Current EVFs are much better than most entry level OVFs.

Everyone has their preferences, I respect that, but speaking at least for Canon's entry level DSLR's I don't think the OVF can be called 'awful' by any stretch of a sober imagination.

Everything is comparative. I find small penta-mirror viewfinders next to useless for gauging focus or accurate framing. And of course totally useless for gauging exposure.

, plus you have all the information in the VF and you don't have to hold it at arm's length to do video.

Of course you can't do video through an OVF anyhow on a DSLR, you have to use the LCD. Frankly I've done so little video that I can't recall what information Canon displays about the video on the LCD.

The point is I can see everything I want in the EVF before I take the shot, and at least with Fujis what I see in the review is almost exactly what I saw in the EVF. They are also much better for checking point focus following a shot, especially if you use glasses.

I am completely OK using an EVF alongside my D800, and I don't mind it in the least. It's extremely convenient being able to preview so much information (WB, exposure etc) before firing the shutter, and it's much easier to manual focus (magnified image etc).

Again, we all have our preferences. I never found that I was able to really judge white balance or other things well enough in an EVF for that to be a benefit to me.

I find the Fujis particularly good in that respect. The Sony's less so (too much contrast). Oly in between. But I don't mind either. EVF took some getting used to, but now I don't notice it. Just a matter of adapting.

I suppose it depends on how quickly one must make a shot; you have plenty of time to examine WB etc. if shooting a landscape but not if shooting kids' sports. But if your eyes are used to a cloudy day the white balance may look more acceptable in an EVF than it is going to later on when your eyes get used to other light.

Fuji's auto WB is so good I have almost never had to adjust it. The human eye adjusts pretty well to WB on an EVF because its an emitter (much brighter than the surroundings). What I see is generally what I get.

As for manual focus, you certainly have a point, but I can't manually focus as well as the camera can autofocus 95% of the time and it takes me a lot longer. Hence I virtually never manually focus. Again, whether shooting landscapes or action it makes a difference how handy this is. What you need and what I need are two different things and that's fine by me.

MF is always a useful last resort in situations where AF typically struggles. It is absolutely essential for night photography. On most SLRs I have to resort to live view and MF. Even on my D800.

AF is also far more accurate and it's no longer slow by comparison. As for tracking, most entry level SLR cameras can't track a three legged tortoise so I don't see that makes any difference.

Phase detect AF has been a lot faster than contrast detect since day one and still remains that way. In really good circumstances CDAF has gotten much quicker, but it still can't track action as good as my 2008 Canon Rebel did, and once the light levels drop, CDAF slows way down. It does make a difference, unless you're only shooting relatively static things like landscapes or flowers and under favorable conditions. I believe it was the Nikon 1 that added some PD sensors on the imaging sensor and got a much faster AF out of the deal, but when the light level drops it has to switch back to contrast detect and is then much slower again.

But it is still not as accurate. Only the top end SLRs are calibrated well enough to use fast lenses with any predictability, and even they cannot adjust for focus shifting (on aperture and focus distance) and nearly all of them come with user adjustment because, simply, their focus tables are an estimate.

I replaced my D7000 with an Xpro1 because even with FW1.00 and some practice I could achieve extremely sharp focus, something that was entirely hit and miss on the Nikon in anything but good light. In fact, only my D700 and D800 have been reliable in the regard, both the the same D3 base 51 point AF, and even they needed focus adjustment with some lenses.

But if you don't know you will buy a Canon or Nikon SLR because that's what everyone else does.

Perhaps "everyone" buys Canon and Nikon not just because 'that's what everyone else does' but because of their reputation of making good cameras.

Lots of people make good cameras. I spend a lot of time being asked by friends which camera to buy and if I say anything other than "DSLR, Canon or Nikon" they get worried because they never heard of the alternatives. However, those who tried out (on my advice) some of the alternatives nearly all decided to take my advice. And that has included Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh, Pentax, Sony and Fuji. I'm not brand biased, I just try and match a camera to their requirements. Sometimes though it's not one they heard of, and I always get immediate resistance.

It's not the DSLR crowd I see in the forums excitedly posting "When is the new model coming out - I'm on the BH preorder list, I can't wait - Just found out Amazon is going to get theirs a week sooner, cancelled my BH order, got on the Amazon list - I paid the full list price in advance but I don't care - does anyone have any links to sample photos - UPS tracking shows my new XYZ will be delivered this Friday, can't wait - etc. etc. " I see a lot of that for other types of cameras though, certainly a lot more than I ever have for DSLR's.

Not reading the Nikon FX forum then.

Everyone pursues photography their own way and if it makes someone happy then I have no problem with it. I just make the occasional observation about what I notice. To each their own.

I find I can adapt the the inconveniences of any system (there are always some) if I get the results I like from the files the camera produces. I don't mind having to work at it, as long as I find a solution in the end. I always have, if it's worth the effort. If it's not I just sell the camera.

The Fuji was worth the effort. Some people are not comfortable being early adopters, so they would be better off waiting until the bugs are ironed out. I got good enough results from the get go and they have improved considerably over time.

Whatever the supposed "issues" with Fuji, there are other issues (some even worse) with other cameras. A point which seems to be completely overlooked.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Carson
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,049Gear list
Like?
Re: To TransX or not?
In reply to Joel Stern, 8 months ago

Joel Stern wrote:

I was talking to a Fuji technical guy at Fuji today as a friend has a new 23mm lens and could not figure out how to make it into AF as it was MF only. So the problem was solved and we got to talking and I mentioned DPR and the fact that many people think the TransX is a problem, it certainly has been a challenge for many in PP.... He told me to wait as you never know what will come up, but that being said, it means little at this point in time, but time will tell. I think without the TransX for many a Fuji XE would be much more attractive just because it is a commitment in a system that can change in a minute and I think will. But then any system will, it happened to me already with Ricoh's GXR, no more lenses from Ricoh just the M mount and any adapters for other than M lenses.... Not what I bought into (I thought).... at least with Fuji the glass will remain and that glass sure seems to be very good, well that is an understatement.

-- hide signature --

If i am typing on my iPad, please excuse any typos.

I think that eventually every manufacturer will be using Foveon-type sensors, so the point will become moot. As you say, the lenses will remain whatever happens with the sensors.

-- hide signature --

john carson

 John Carson's gear list:John Carson's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
57even
Senior MemberPosts: 5,830Gear list
Like?
Re: The future for Fuji cameras
In reply to LWS2013, 8 months ago

LWS2013 wrote:

57even wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

mooshoepork wrote:

Not trying to troll...

But given the recent sales reports over at fuji rumors, does anyone else worry about the potential for Fuji to throw in the towel and abandon this venture?

Having only sold 700,000...seems really low.

I love my x100s and x-e2, but I'm worried that if they continue to not make money they'll withdraw.

It's a tough market to crack, and I hope they fair better in 2014.

Thoughts?

If Fuji drop the X sensor and use a bayer one instead then they have a future, at the moment a great camera and lens systems is being ruined by the X sensor

No. It isn't.

Yes, it is, the X sensor is the biggest arguing point of the whole system, some like it and some don't but many put up with it because they like the cameras and lenses.

Arguing? Not from me. It's just that forums generally attract all the complainers. It's been a long time since I came here for advice.

Clearly a lot of people are managing just fine with Xtrans, so perhaps the complainers protest too much?

I just found ways to make it work instead of complaining about it. As it is I use LR, as I have found sharpening using non-USM methods works better on Fuji files, even those already converted with LR. OnOne's Perfect Suite has a pretty good sharpening algorithm, as does Focal Blade. I still use LR because its moire free and has good highlight recovery, and even using a two pass USM in CS5 works better than LR's cruder USM.

Overall, I like to see innovation. I don't mind being an early adopter, if I am reasonably confident that issues will get sorted and so far Fuji has done a good job.

If you don't then you have a wide selection of "normal" cameras to choose from. As it is I have a wide selection of RAW converters to choose from. I don't have any issues with it at all.

There are some serious issues with Bayer sensors that most people seem to overlook because they are so used to seeing them they think they are normal. But moire and outlining look hideous in print, and Fujis almost completely avoid both.

Even on my Nikon D800 I get better results with NX2 than LR. Quite noticeably. This is not an issue unique to Fuji. I worked around that one too.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Marx81
Regular MemberPosts: 416Gear list
Like?
Re: The future for Fuji cameras
In reply to mooshoepork, 8 months ago

Well , I don't know about Fuji future .

I have and like the X100 , but all what I bought into the system beyond the cam is a spare original battery . It doesn't work : so in the future I'll get another one .

That's all between me and Fuji .

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marxx/

 Marx81's gear list:Marx81's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wyldberi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,510Gear list
Like?
Re: The future for Fuji cameras
In reply to Graham Hill, 8 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

What makes you think FF sensors are not going to get better?

I didn't state that I think FF sensors will not improve. My position is that in the near future sensor design will be transformed to such a degree that discussions concerning the relative merits of sensor size will become a moot point.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: The future for Fuji cameras
In reply to 57even, 8 months ago

57even wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

57even wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

mooshoepork wrote:

Not trying to troll...

But given the recent sales reports over at fuji rumors, does anyone else worry about the potential for Fuji to throw in the towel and abandon this venture?

Having only sold 700,000...seems really low.

I love my x100s and x-e2, but I'm worried that if they continue to not make money they'll withdraw.

It's a tough market to crack, and I hope they fair better in 2014.

Thoughts?

If Fuji drop the X sensor and use a bayer one instead then they have a future, at the moment a great camera and lens systems is being ruined by the X sensor

No. It isn't.

Yes, it is, the X sensor is the biggest arguing point of the whole system, some like it and some don't but many put up with it because they like the cameras and lenses.

Arguing? Not from me. It's just that forums generally attract all the complainers. It's been a long time since I came here for advice.

Clearly a lot of people are managing just fine with Xtrans, so perhaps the complainers protest too much?

I just found ways to make it work instead of complaining about it.

This sums up the whole thread IMHO. People reply from their own perspective rather than accept the general consensus may be totally different.

If one is to consider the future for Fuji cameras, an specifically the X-Trans ones, we all must look from a wider perspective to make accurate judgements.

And whilst the X-Trans is OK for some users on this forum (which by it's very nature attracts enthusiasts of the X-Trans sensor) there is a much wider market out there that is far more important to Fujifilm and they simply do not want the hassle of changing their workflow. This applies to many professionals and enthusiasts.

The notion that Adobe should change their software to meet the demands of a handful of enthusiasts is unreal. If the X-Trans was widely adopted it may have been realistic, but Fuji should know through their terrible sales figures that the be befits for most users do not warrant changing workflow.

So many professionals I talk to on shoots WANT to love the Fuji because they absolutely adore the retro styling and manual controls of the camera, and have great things to say about the lenses.

But almost all of them agree that they do not want to change their workflow, or risk having X-Trans issues with their final output.

The simple fact is most people buy the Fuji for it's colours and functionality - not for the X-Trans sensor, so having the same sensor as the X100 in an ILC makes more sense, especially when you consider how well adopted this was by professionals.

A return to that is what's needed.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wyldberi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,510Gear list
Like?
Re: The future for Fuji cameras
In reply to mooshoepork, 8 months ago

mooshoepork wrote:

Not trying to troll...

But given the recent sales reports over at fuji rumors, does anyone else worry about the potential for Fuji to throw in the towel and abandon this venture?

Having only sold 700,000...seems really low.

I love my x100s and x-e2, but I'm worried that if they continue to not make money they'll withdraw.

It's a tough market to crack, and I hope they fair better in 2014.

Thoughts?

If you look at the latest financial statements you'll see that the numbers isn't the only factor that matters. In 2010 Fujifilm took a big hit with large financial losses as the world markets attempted to cope with the economic downturn that began during the bush/cheney administration. Consumer camera sales took the biggest hit.

Last spring Fujifilm announced they were reorganizing their operations and thinning out the camera line-up. The idea was to return this market segment to profitability by weeding out the multitude of camera models they were producing, and focus on the X Cameras, waterproof cameras, and cameras with powerful zoom lenses.

The latest financial statements reveal that Fuji's strategy has worked. The columns previously showing significant losses now show the losses being generated by Fuji's camera division have been nearly extinguished, and the sales volume in the U.S.A. increased in 2013 over that in 2012.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: The future for Fuji cameras
In reply to wyldberi, 8 months ago

wyldberi wrote:

mooshoepork wrote:

Not trying to troll...

But given the recent sales reports over at fuji rumors, does anyone else worry about the potential for Fuji to throw in the towel and abandon this venture?

Having only sold 700,000...seems really low.

I love my x100s and x-e2, but I'm worried that if they continue to not make money they'll withdraw.

It's a tough market to crack, and I hope they fair better in 2014.

Thoughts?

The latest financial statements reveal that Fuji's strategy has worked. The columns previously showing significant losses now show the losses being generated by Fuji's camera division have been nearly extinguished, and the sales volume in the U.S.A. increased in 2013 over that in 2012.

The latest financial statement from Fujifilm to investors shows a 2,212 Million Yen loss in the imaging department.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads