You're right. The problem though, is that it's hard to beat the convenience of digital....which is why film is slowly being relegated to a niche product.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 8, 2013 at 20:30:10 UTC
Roland Karlsson: An expensive way to make optical magic :) Not many lens mounts yet. And the planned ones are rather esoteric. No Pentax and Sony :(
If this thing works WELL and does what it says it will....then it is CHEAP! As for Pentax/Sony......they are starting out with the Canon mount for a simple reason...Canon sells more DSLR's than anyone else. This is also the reason I chose Canon over Nikon 10 years ago....bigger lens selection.
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 14, 2013 at 21:30:07 UTC
I laugh at all the whining about cine lenses and the prices. Since the 5D2 came out everybody thinks they're the next Spielberg. 99% of the people complaining about the price of cine lenses have never even touched one, let alone know anything about film making.
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 10, 2013 at 21:35:44 UTC
as 13th comment
| 4 replies
cd cooker: Canon, show some love to those poor photographers please. Lately, all we see are overpriced Canon lenses. I am not talking about these purpose built lenses, dpreview doesn't need to cover these lenses in the first place. I am talking about a $850 35mm IS F2, a $650 28mm IS F2.8 or 24mm IS F2.8. Is $600+ is the new standard of affordable? And $1K+ is the starting point for decent glass?
Be happy you're not shooting Leica...then you would know what expensive is.
As for overpriced....if Canon is selling the lenses for these prices then they are not overpriced...you just can't afford them.
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 10, 2013 at 19:35:23 UTC
maxnimo: Since my Canon 50mm prime lens died I'm done with Canon. A $380 prime lens should not die before the camera dies. Never again will I buy Canon camera equipment, and I most certainly won't spend $5000 for a prime.
My $400 50mm is 7 years old and counting.... Besides, do you honestly think this $5000 cine prime is even remotely in the same universe for build quality?? Dude, look at the pics of these lenses...they look awesome.
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 10, 2013 at 19:33:25 UTC
Timmbits: Happy to see Fuji improve this nice camera! And it's nice to have a fixed lens option/version of the pro1/xe1. Also nice to see APSC continue to improve and evolve, staying ahead of the smaller sensor MFT category. Definitely strong price competition for the superior full frame RX1, but it has it's work cut out for it if you think outside the box for a fixed lens... because some of the apsc and mft are at a similar price point with a lens - like slapping on a 30mm F2 onto a Samsung NX20 (which is my setup) or NX300, as well as the MFT competition which doesn't match this in IQ but comes close. This segment is getting more popular and more crowded... competition that will benefit us photographers. With this segment getting more crowded the best strategy would be to wait it out until prices start dropping by a 25% or so.
Borisk1 - How do you figure the resolution is the same....the Sony is a 24MP sensor, the Fuji is a 16. They both have fixed lenses with 35mm equivalency so on any given final image the Sony will always have more resolution as both cameras depict the same FOV.
The greater pixel density of the Fuji is irrelevant when you can't change lenses....the FOV of the two cameras is the same.
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 8, 2013 at 23:37:47 UTC
photobeans: This is such a beautiful camera. I want to hold it, admire it, and use it.
Shamael - I laugh at you people who make posts like the 'X100 is worth $800'....no...it is worth $1300 which is why it will be backordered the second it is available. The old, used X100's are selling for $800, so you are right about that.
Just because you wish an Audi RS5 was $25k does not make it worth $25k
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 8, 2013 at 23:33:53 UTC
This should always have been a 50mm equiv camera if it were to have a fixed lens.
Silly Fuji.
itsastickup - You can still get shallow depth of field with the X100...you just need to focus on a close subject. Still, I know what you are getting at. I have never liked the idea of being limited to one focal length...which is why I bought the XPro:)
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 8, 2013 at 23:27:31 UTC
ryrychung: Hoping Fuji treats us existing X100 users with peaking/Q menu/shorter default focusing distances in a firmware update...probably not likely though.
I doubt it....that would reduce the number of people who would buy an X100S. Maybe the XPro1 will get the upgrade since it isn't immediately scheduled to be replaced....
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 22:21:48 UTC
jonikon: I don't understand why Pentax is so intent on designing and marketing higher end cameras around a tiny 1/1.7" sensor at a time when most photo enthusiasts are moving to larger sensor cameras in this market segment. The Sony RX-100 with a much larger 1" sensor appears to be smaller and lighter than this clunky Pentax MX-1 retro design. Unfortunately, It appears that the Pentax acquisition by Ricoh has not improved the marketing savvy of the old Pentax, and the MX-1 (like the Pentax Q), will be yet another poor selling over-priced camera with a tiny 1/1.7" sensor for a very small niche market. Too bad the more savvy and technology innovative Fujifilm did not acquire the Pentax camera division. Oh well....
Well Greynerd...the RX100 is really the benchmark for this segment...hard not to compare other cameras to it..
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 17:52:02 UTC
Clint Dunn: So they make a great looking P&S and then tack on a cheap looking tiltable screen....ughh. Am I the only one who doesn't want a tilting screen on my camera?? So much unnecessary depth added to the camera.
Cane....I may have the intelligence of someone over 65 but in fact I am only 40:) Seems to me that you are likely the one over 65 if you need a tilting screen....
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 17:50:46 UTC
Cy Cheze: Herd: "Gotta have a hotshoe." And pocketable too? Really now. A compact camera with an oversized flash or viewfinder mounted on a hotshoe makes it top-heavy, awkward, and vulnerable to damage. It's like putting a boat or a luggage crate atop a Mini Cooper or Smart.
As for the choice of a 1/1.7" size lens, as opposed to a 1" one, it remains to be seen whether the 1" doesn't confine a camera to having a narrow aperture, except at the shortest focal length, or else need to be as big as a Nikon V/J device.
Cane...seems you missed the point. This camera doesn't have a hotshoe...as per someone else's complaint. We are saying...who cares...so we are on the same page.
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 17:49:06 UTC
Paul Farace: NO GPS???? If you don't know where you are, then maybe you need to visit the doctor! :o) The thing doesn't have an OPTICAL VIEW FINDER!!!! That kills it for me!
I hear people like you complain all the time about no viewfinder on a P&S and I scratch my head. Any P&S I have ever used with an optical viewfinder SUCKED (like on my G10). The view is tiny, tiny and what view you do have is only about 60% coverage...what's the point?
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 17:04:06 UTC
jonikon: I don't understand why Pentax is so intent on designing and marketing higher end cameras around a tiny 1/1.7" sensor at a time when most photo enthusiasts are moving to larger sensor cameras in this market segment. The Sony RX-100 with a much larger 1" sensor appears to be smaller and lighter than this clunky Pentax MX-1 retro design. Unfortunately, It appears that the Pentax acquisition by Ricoh has not improved the marketing savvy of the old Pentax, and the MX-1 (like the Pentax Q), will be yet another poor selling over-priced camera with a tiny 1/1.7" sensor for a very small niche market. Too bad the more savvy and technology innovative Fujifilm did not acquire the Pentax camera division. Oh well....
I'm an enthusiast.....I'm moving to a larger sensor for my pocketable camera (RX100)...so obviously jonikon is correct:) Really, it's all about me.
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 16:56:25 UTC
Clint Dunn: So they make a great looking P&S and then tack on a cheap looking tiltable screen....ughh. Am I the only one who doesn't want a tilting screen on my camera?? So much unnecessary depth added to the camera.
Somehow I think you're wrong...
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 16:54:48 UTC
Cy Cheze: Herd: "Gotta have a hotshoe." And pocketable too? Really now. A compact camera with an oversized flash or viewfinder mounted on a hotshoe makes it top-heavy, awkward, and vulnerable to damage. It's like putting a boat or a luggage crate atop a Mini Cooper or Smart.
As for the choice of a 1/1.7" size lens, as opposed to a 1" one, it remains to be seen whether the 1" doesn't confine a camera to having a narrow aperture, except at the shortest focal length, or else need to be as big as a Nikon V/J device.
I agree...who cares about a hotshoe on a P&S with a 1/1.7 sensor. This type of camera is all about portability. If I want to use an external flash I'll shoot with my DSLR.
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 16:53:59 UTC
So they make a great looking P&S and then tack on a cheap looking tiltable screen....ughh. Am I the only one who doesn't want a tilting screen on my camera?? So much unnecessary depth added to the camera.
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 16:46:41 UTC
as 48th comment
| 11 replies
Vancouver, Canada
John Crawley: It is hard to beat film...
You're right. The problem though, is that it's hard to beat the convenience of digital....which is why film is slowly being relegated to a niche product.
Roland Karlsson: An expensive way to make optical magic :) Not many lens mounts yet. And the planned ones are rather esoteric. No Pentax and Sony :(
If this thing works WELL and does what it says it will....then it is CHEAP! As for Pentax/Sony......they are starting out with the Canon mount for a simple reason...Canon sells more DSLR's than anyone else. This is also the reason I chose Canon over Nikon 10 years ago....bigger lens selection.
I laugh at all the whining about cine lenses and the prices. Since the 5D2 came out everybody thinks they're the next Spielberg. 99% of the people complaining about the price of cine lenses have never even touched one, let alone know anything about film making.
cd cooker: Canon, show some love to those poor photographers please. Lately, all we see are overpriced Canon lenses. I am not talking about these purpose built lenses, dpreview doesn't need to cover these lenses in the first place. I am talking about a $850 35mm IS F2, a $650 28mm IS F2.8 or 24mm IS F2.8. Is $600+ is the new standard of affordable? And $1K+ is the starting point for decent glass?
Be happy you're not shooting Leica...then you would know what expensive is.
As for overpriced....if Canon is selling the lenses for these prices then they are not overpriced...you just can't afford them.
maxnimo: Since my Canon 50mm prime lens died I'm done with Canon. A $380 prime lens should not die before the camera dies. Never again will I buy Canon camera equipment, and I most certainly won't spend $5000 for a prime.
My $400 50mm is 7 years old and counting....
Besides, do you honestly think this $5000 cine prime is even remotely in the same universe for build quality?? Dude, look at the pics of these lenses...they look awesome.
Timmbits: Happy to see Fuji improve this nice camera!
And it's nice to have a fixed lens option/version of the pro1/xe1.
Also nice to see APSC continue to improve and evolve, staying ahead of the smaller sensor MFT category.
Definitely strong price competition for the superior full frame RX1, but it has it's work cut out for it if you think outside the box for a fixed lens... because some of the apsc and mft are at a similar price point with a lens - like slapping on a 30mm F2 onto a Samsung NX20 (which is my setup) or NX300, as well as the MFT competition which doesn't match this in IQ but comes close.
This segment is getting more popular and more crowded... competition that will benefit us photographers. With this segment getting more crowded the best strategy would be to wait it out until prices start dropping by a 25% or so.
Borisk1 - How do you figure the resolution is the same....the Sony is a 24MP sensor, the Fuji is a 16. They both have fixed lenses with 35mm equivalency so on any given final image the Sony will always have more resolution as both cameras depict the same FOV.
The greater pixel density of the Fuji is irrelevant when you can't change lenses....the FOV of the two cameras is the same.
photobeans: This is such a beautiful camera. I want to hold it, admire it, and use it.
Shamael - I laugh at you people who make posts like the 'X100 is worth $800'....no...it is worth $1300 which is why it will be backordered the second it is available. The old, used X100's are selling for $800, so you are right about that.
Just because you wish an Audi RS5 was $25k does not make it worth $25k
Pixel Judge: Now, Fuji, can you show me the lenses you promised???
Hurry!
Have you not seen their lens roadmap???? So far Fuji has stuck to the plan. The info's there...Google is your friend.
itsastickup: No Bokeh. No Buy.
This should always have been a 50mm equiv camera if it were to have a fixed lens.
Silly Fuji.
itsastickup - You can still get shallow depth of field with the X100...you just need to focus on a close subject. Still, I know what you are getting at. I have never liked the idea of being limited to one focal length...which is why I bought the XPro:)
ryrychung: Hoping Fuji treats us existing X100 users with peaking/Q menu/shorter default focusing distances in a firmware update...probably not likely though.
I doubt it....that would reduce the number of people who would buy an X100S. Maybe the XPro1 will get the upgrade since it isn't immediately scheduled to be replaced....
MrPetkus: Focus peaking! I sure hope this makes it's way to the X-Pro2...
XPro2??? Here's hoping it comes to the XPro1 with a FW update. Not sure if it is possible...but man that would be nice!
Wow...not sure why anyone would buy a Leica X2 when this new Fuji becomes available...
jonikon: I don't understand why Pentax is so intent on designing and marketing higher end cameras around a tiny 1/1.7" sensor at a time when most photo enthusiasts are moving to larger sensor cameras in this market segment. The Sony RX-100 with a much larger 1" sensor appears to be smaller and lighter than this clunky Pentax MX-1 retro design.
Unfortunately, It appears that the Pentax acquisition by Ricoh has not improved the marketing savvy of the old Pentax, and the MX-1 (like the Pentax Q), will be yet another poor selling over-priced camera with a tiny 1/1.7" sensor for a very small niche market. Too bad the more savvy and technology innovative Fujifilm did not acquire the Pentax camera division. Oh well....
Well Greynerd...the RX100 is really the benchmark for this segment...hard not to compare other cameras to it..
Clint Dunn: So they make a great looking P&S and then tack on a cheap looking tiltable screen....ughh. Am I the only one who doesn't want a tilting screen on my camera?? So much unnecessary depth added to the camera.
Cane....I may have the intelligence of someone over 65 but in fact I am only 40:) Seems to me that you are likely the one over 65 if you need a tilting screen....
Cy Cheze: Herd: "Gotta have a hotshoe." And pocketable too? Really now. A compact camera with an oversized flash or viewfinder mounted on a hotshoe makes it top-heavy, awkward, and vulnerable to damage. It's like putting a boat or a luggage crate atop a Mini Cooper or Smart.
As for the choice of a 1/1.7" size lens, as opposed to a 1" one, it remains to be seen whether the 1" doesn't confine a camera to having a narrow aperture, except at the shortest focal length, or else need to be as big as a Nikon V/J device.
Cane...seems you missed the point. This camera doesn't have a hotshoe...as per someone else's complaint. We are saying...who cares...so we are on the same page.
Paul Farace: NO GPS???? If you don't know where you are, then maybe you need to visit the doctor! :o) The thing doesn't have an OPTICAL VIEW FINDER!!!! That kills it for me!
I hear people like you complain all the time about no viewfinder on a P&S and I scratch my head. Any P&S I have ever used with an optical viewfinder SUCKED (like on my G10). The view is tiny, tiny and what view you do have is only about 60% coverage...what's the point?
jonikon: I don't understand why Pentax is so intent on designing and marketing higher end cameras around a tiny 1/1.7" sensor at a time when most photo enthusiasts are moving to larger sensor cameras in this market segment. The Sony RX-100 with a much larger 1" sensor appears to be smaller and lighter than this clunky Pentax MX-1 retro design.
Unfortunately, It appears that the Pentax acquisition by Ricoh has not improved the marketing savvy of the old Pentax, and the MX-1 (like the Pentax Q), will be yet another poor selling over-priced camera with a tiny 1/1.7" sensor for a very small niche market. Too bad the more savvy and technology innovative Fujifilm did not acquire the Pentax camera division. Oh well....
I'm an enthusiast.....I'm moving to a larger sensor for my pocketable camera (RX100)...so obviously jonikon is correct:) Really, it's all about me.
Clint Dunn: So they make a great looking P&S and then tack on a cheap looking tiltable screen....ughh. Am I the only one who doesn't want a tilting screen on my camera?? So much unnecessary depth added to the camera.
Somehow I think you're wrong...
Cy Cheze: Herd: "Gotta have a hotshoe." And pocketable too? Really now. A compact camera with an oversized flash or viewfinder mounted on a hotshoe makes it top-heavy, awkward, and vulnerable to damage. It's like putting a boat or a luggage crate atop a Mini Cooper or Smart.
As for the choice of a 1/1.7" size lens, as opposed to a 1" one, it remains to be seen whether the 1" doesn't confine a camera to having a narrow aperture, except at the shortest focal length, or else need to be as big as a Nikon V/J device.
I agree...who cares about a hotshoe on a P&S with a 1/1.7 sensor. This type of camera is all about portability. If I want to use an external flash I'll shoot with my DSLR.
So they make a great looking P&S and then tack on a cheap looking tiltable screen....ughh. Am I the only one who doesn't want a tilting screen on my camera?? So much unnecessary depth added to the camera.