Rational: Poor engineering choices.
To build a high resolution sensor and at the same time to cripple the camera it goes in by not allowing that camera to store the image in native RAW format but only as jpg (which is compressed and hence suboptimal compared to the RAW file) is schizophrenic at best, bad engineering at worst.
Count me out.
I do recall having seen a review of the specs of that camera that said that "to keep the size of the files that are saved to a manageable size, Canon disabled the saving of RAW files for this camera at the highest resolution".I cannot find that same statement any more, so I may stand corrected if I misread it. If it turns out to be true, however, it would be a most unfortunate decision.
Poor engineering choices.
Digital camera used by non-pros will take off only after they have been endowed with enough software smarts to:a) Have true auto-color-balance; today's cameras that claim to do so, don't.b) Are idiot-proof and use just the fight amount of fill-in-flash to salvage backlit photos.c) Have much better motion-compensation to offset novices' jerking the camera every time they press the shutter,d) Have smarter autofocus (e.g. to focus on automatically identified faces regardless where they are in a frame),e) Make it unnecessary to have to use Photoshop except extremely rarely.f) Automate a lot of the typical photographer's judgment calls
When the word gets around that such a camera that makes every novice's photos look like those of a pro, is available for no more than $200, users will buy it.
The cost of a decent DSLR and lens package is a significant consideration, too. On top of it, one usually has to spend a pretty penny to get Photoshop (legally) so as to fix the many problems that photographer inexperience leaves in a typical digital photo. In today's economy, one cannot justify spending all this money more than once every many years (or just once, period) unless one uses a camera to make a living with it.
(continued to part 3 of 3)
Most upscale smartphones do quite well when there is good lighting that does not require much skill (no contrasty light, no strong backlight, no dim light), and a smartphone is so much easier to carry around that a 1Ds Mark III with an upscale L zoom lens.
(continued to part 2 or 3)
As a matter of principle, I have no intention of sharing my photos over the Internet with Adobe or anyone else, no matter what the price.
Sooo, all of the sudden, impure thoughts come to mind, such as visits to places where copyright violations are the coin of the realm. Not that I would do it, of course, nor that I am advocating it -perish the thought...
The Adobe talking head is simply saying, "We want as much money as we can make, and screw the customers".
The customers' reply should be, "Oh, yeah? Watch who gets screwed when we refuse to sign up for your money-grabbing scheme and patronize, instead, other options" (unspecified, to keep this posting legal).
I can identify with a lot of the sentiment expressed by Brian Griffin in his interview. That said, I don't like the samples of his photographs shown here. Granted, they are "different" but that is neither a "necessary" nor a "sufficient" condition (to use mathematical terms) for a photograph to be worthy of a second look, or to be one I would like to have on my wall.Had these photos been taken by some unknown aspiring photographer, such a photographer would have been told to go back to the drawing board.
Rational: It is amazing that Fuji doesn't seem to "get it right" when it decides what camera models to roll out and how to price them. It is as if such decisions are made by non-photographers. The formula for success is really quite simple:
1. Excellence in performance sells. Applies to cameras and to lenses. Look at Leica.2. Aesthetic appeal in cameras sells (that is all that the X-100 has going for it; sadly, Fuji screwed up by having lots of firmware problems, bad autofocusing and grossly overpriced end product).3. Versatility sells. That means either zoom or interchangeable lenses or both. The X100 has neither; no I will not carry two camera bodies.
If a manufacturer does not follow those three simple edicts, then it can only compete on gimmickry and price and lose in the process.
Just because "people" were placing orders for something does not mean that what they are ordering is worth ordering. People were also buying pet rocks a few decades ago; does that mean that a plain old stone in a gift wrapping is worth money?
As for "people" seeming quite content with a fixed lens, you must be referring to people who do not know any better.
It is amazing that Fuji doesn't seem to "get it right" when it decides what camera models to roll out and how to price them. It is as if such decisions are made by non-photographers. The formula for success is really quite simple: