In the 20 years since I encontered the format, I cannot remember I ever thought to pronounce its name, or to ever have heard it pronounce anything but "jif".
smatty: Although I would love the 23mm f1.4 and 56mm f1.4, they seem to be a bit too bulky for the compactness that I learned to love the X-Pro 1 for.
I might actually rather get the XF 27mm f2.8 pancake and have to compensate the larger DOF with better composition of more interesting subjects - now how is that for a concept? ;)
I kind of think that's more because they did not want to overlap with the X100 / X100s offer.Me too I would have preferred a pancake 23mm though.
That's amazing, I've thought nobody thought of that, that I invented it :)
I sure hope they do it right, film like quality on a electro-chemical, or bio-electric, what you have, sensor; adjustable iso by camera knobs, 35 exposures, then you rewind it, extract it, plug it on a computer and post produce.
Winding again the film erases the images on it and reset it.
And, as I'm sci-fictioning, it should be as affordable as original film rolls were in their heyday.
I've a question about the release button, since it appears to have a threaded hole, but I'm not sure about it from the pictures I've seen: does it accept traditional cable releases?
marcuz: Should this be called "rangefinder style" mirrorless, as in the specs?This is just yet one more tiny sensor plain mirrorless imho.
Yeah, I cannot know that, I don't dispute it, I'm just saying, a rangefinder body isn't something you would say only of cameras with a rangefinder mechanism using parallax focusing etc?I may be wrong, maybe in english language rangefinder style is synonym of mirrorless?
Should this be called "rangefinder style" mirrorless, as in the specs?This is just yet one more tiny sensor plain mirrorless imho.
Yeah, towards the end, I read something like "buy us or we destroy you"...
I don't know, I agree that depth of the old scene was a bit of a problem, making difficult to understand if what was blurred in a camera result was indeed unresolved or simply slightly out of focus, but what it seems to me here is that there's much of the same stuff repeated all over a bit hectically.
I mean, the printings on a a curved surface (the bottle) with the ulterior complexity of the reflection of its etiquette, the etchings of the paper money and the slight pattern of its watermarking, the tone of yellow and red of the kinda universally known mickey mouse figurine, that are maybe more reliable to note how a sensor handle colors than the color grid here, at least to me, well I'll miss them...
Amazing images, interesting insights on the reportage and on the picture making, good read; thanks for your article!
This is really a lovely camera. Fujifilm is the only one company with an approach to mirrorless that I like, and I say that as a Oly e-p1 owner.Pity it's too expensive for my pockets!
Core business in finance... that's sad.
Nice look, very low capabilities against other mirrorless cameras, huge price...
Atlasman: A 100mm equivalent in the m4/3 format looks like a 50mm—the image still has the characteristics of a 50mm—I would never use it for portraits.
I use a C/Y Zeiss 1:1.4/50 as standard portrait lens on the EP-1 and I'm very satisfied by it... Great bokeh, DOF and feeling. As long as you don't shot your portraits from half a meter distance, a 45 mm lens still can qualify as a portrait lens for this format.
Not taking into account the cost, it is really outstanding: the shoreline shot with the person reading a book, is really oozing detail, most of the sample here are.
The image under the "Compared to the Sony NEX-C3" title up here in the article says it better than words could.
Imho it looks like it was designed throwing ideas randomly to the drawing board.I love Pentax, old and new and colored ones too, but this looks like a ugly tiny derivative brick of nonsense with ridiculous specs for photography.