KonstantinosK: We've been shouting for years for a waterproof large sensor compact and the first firm to come out with one is... Leica? Oh, the irony. I just hope this will drive other manufacturers to make one with a more affordable price. APSC would be wonderful but a 1" sensor could be enough.
"Canon, Oly Fuji and Pentax feel indifferent for the sector, so the most probable is that something will come from Sony."
All of those companies have current waterproof camera models, while Sony has none (unless the latest TX model hasn't been discontinued yet). So how is Sony less indifferent for the sector?
Thoughts: No, Barnaby you may have got it wrong.
Fuji want to be the top three camera maker.and Sony have always made it clear they want to be the top two camera maker.
So take one of the current top two off the list? perhaps?
But globally, as of Oct 2015, Canon still had 43% of the interchangeable lens camera market, Nikon 31%, and Sony 14%. That leaves 12% for Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh, Samsung and Leica.These numbers were reported by Thom Hogan. I don't know his source, but there's no reason to believe that he just made them up.
0MitchAG: To the Editor:Thank you a lot for these interviews. The Fuji execs are always open and very honest. Their understanding of the market and photographers is very admirable and they are passionately committed to the course. Some points about the writing though (in the hope that the quality of writing never devolves to the low standard set by another certain photography website...):
When the text is in brackets mid sentence, does that mean the Fuji guys just stopped talking? Your bracket modifications need some work ("But when small camera systems [achieve parity] they’ll start to buy into smaller systems.") - without the bracketing, it's hard to believe he actually said such fragmented sentences considering his English is otherwise very good. Is that really a direct quote or a mistake? Another ambiguity: "So a print popping out the side of a camera is a [novelty] for them."Also, mind your proof-reading: "that area is not an are we’re [interested in] pursuing."
As stated, the text has been edited for clarity. Whenever the editor has changed the exact wording, the replacement words are put in brackets. This is a common practice.
The Name is Bond: For these supposedly 'Pro' cameras, there is a decided lack of pro features. At last the XP2 has dual SD slots, but does it have RGB histogram? It's a bizarre absence on all the previous models. And that's in addition to the reported fragility of the lenses that unlike real pro lenses, and despite the price and the metal, are easily damaged by a slight knock.
I think the word 'Pro' is arguably a fraud.
And let's not forget the plastic skin textures at higher ISOs that could not be switched off and which could only be of use to those looking for a thick layer of foundation without the hassle. Ie, young females. 'Pro' indeed. Hrmphh.
It's not a fraud, since there are no regulations for the use of 'Pro' in product names. It's just marketing.
jonny1976: in addiction....1900 dollar against 900.....for a 2% of performance...practically every canon camera and lenses cast 1000 more than competition, and most of the time the difference is leveled by a sensor who is by far subpar to competition.
How can the difference be levelled by the sensor? Canon sensors mainly lag behind in DR at low ISOs (and many photographers aren't bothered by this), not in any qualities that would negate the optical qualities of the lenses.
papa natas: What...??!!Wasn't there suppose to have first the Panasonic version of this camera?
As far as I know, all X series models are made by Leica, not to be confused with the rebranded Panasonic compacts. Some people claimed that the Q was a Panasonic model too, but we have yet to see a version from them.
Christof21: No question about the lack of IBIS... Would be interesting to know what Fuji answers.
A good interview should ask the relevant questions, we don't learn anything from this kind of interview
It would have been also interested to have a question about the organic sensor but again, not a single question about it.
A bit uninteresting. These are the typical questions and we know what Fuji answers to these questions.
Regarding IBIS, Fuji would say that they have stabilized lenses, and the lenses that lack OIS don't really need it. You may not agree with that, but it's the obvious answer. So not a necessary question.And regarding the organic sensor, companies rarely answer questions about technology or products still in development.
WayneHuangPhoto: Why didn't Fuji just go all out and put a 36mp sensor in there?
Because nobody makes one in APS-C size. It probably would have cost them a lot to have someone develop a completely new sensor, rather than using an existing design.
bfrankpoto: This is going to sound mean, but I don't care about film simulation. I can't imagine many professionals using that on a regular basis. I would love to hear if this is something that could realistically be considered as a replacement for dSLR gear. The viewfinder issue is troubling. Sounds like using a 70-200 equivalent may not work very well.
The X-Pro1 was considered top of the line mainly because of the advanced hybrid viewfinder. Now we should probably regard both the X-Pro2 and the X-T1 as top of the line, because they target different users. The X-Pro is for those who want the "rangefinder experience", and the X-T for those who want a mirrorless camera that handles and behaves more like an SLR.
Dash29: I wouldn't consider any of those models better than my Sony Nex 6 for travel.
I think a bit more thought could have gone into the choice.
Yes, exactly. He's reading compact camera as if it's an adjective followed by a noun, when in fact (in this context) it should be read as just a noun. It's an established marketing label that is used to refer to a specific category of camera, namely cameras with a fixed lens. Most camera manufacturers and most review sites use the term "compact camera" in this way, so I don't see the source of the confusion.
Keeper78: The grain in the pictures look like from my ex A6000...Somebody know if is the same sensor?
PDAF doesn't require a different sensor, unless you do it like Canon with their Dual Pixel AF. Otherwise, it only requires that you mask off half of some of the pixels. The underlying sensor doesn't need to be changed. It has to be able to read out the data fast enough to be usable for AF, of course.
Marksphoto: I don't get it, why do I see in comments that this camera is an upgrade? This camera is a downgrade, I got a tilting screen on my xt10 and the photos don't look any better in the sample gallery. If I had purchased the x pro2 I would be DOWNGRADING.
Fuji is not going to sell many of these precicely because no touch screen, it's a poor marketing decision they have made period. Hope they don't make this error in their xt2 this summer or they will be in the hole. and if in the summer when I see the xpro2 on ebay for $600... even then I will not be interested.
What they mean, of course, is that it's an upgrade compared to its predecessor, the X-Pro1, which is the model that the X-Pro2 replaces.
nicolaiecostel: First the price chop, now this. Next they'll probably pay you to have one.
I could live with that.
Peiasdf: OMG, DPReview still have that old studio scene. I thought it was consumed by a great London Fire when DP moved to Seattle. I love that setup as every camera I have got for the past 13 years was tested on that and similar studio scene. I always check the watch face, Africa on the globe, battery, coin on Martini bottle and tree on Bailey's bottle to see improvement in new camera. I always think one of these day I can read the small fonts on the coins that's still fuzzy lines even to 800E.
The new scene was introduced because the old one had some shortcomings, I believe. For example, a flat scene eliminates the effect of DoF. And a more symmetrical scene means that you can evaluate the same thing in different corners of the scene, which is good for evaluating lenses.
tkbslc: Seems like another example of a company (and investors) that believe that their initial double and triple digit growth patterns will happen forever.
If you look at the figures, the sales and revenue appear to be very strong, but because growth is leveling out in a mature market, they are forced to act like the sky is falling. 1.6 billion in sales last year with near 40% margin and 105 people lose their jobs?
Nobody can be happy with steady profits anymore, it has to be growth every quarter or the CEO is out and the stock tanks. This mentality is not healthy for the economy and society.
dcolak, I agree with you, but unfortunately that's not how it works in reality. The stock market is extremely sensitive to forecasts and expectations.
Combatmedic870: Ok...a new camera with a 2 year old A6000 sensors. Sorry but this camera is probably DOA.
@Combatmedic870I believe they charge you for a complete camera, not just a sensor. Otherwise an Olympus E-M5 wouldn't cost more than an E-PL7 with the exact same sensor.
@PeiasdfThe Toshiba 24 MP APS-C sensor used by Nikon uses copper, not aluminium. But yes, I don't think Sony has used copper in an APS-C sensor.
Ruy Penalva: Horrendous! Maybe Fred Flintstones buy one.
Wow! We've come a long way when a camera like this is considered horrendous.
It's not about actual profits, it's about actual profits relative to expected profits. If analysts forecast a billion dollars in profit, half a billion is a failure.
mosc: The world should just indicate the physical aperture diameter and the viewing angle ranges. Interpreting anything else requires sensor information. If people really want to talk about lens-only attributes when they look at lens stats, viewing angle and aperture diameter ranges are all they should get.
Viewing angle is not an attribute of the lens, you need to know the sensor size for that. The physical FL, however, is an attribute of the lens. Strange that you advocate the use of physical aperture size, but not physical FL.
wetsleet: This glut of "360 degree" cameras - their speil all seems to imply a full sphere of vision, but you keep on with the "360 degree" moniker. Which is it please, and why the confusion of terms?
The circumference, or 'equator' if you will, of a half sphere is 360 degrees, and that's why these cameras, somewhat disingenuously, are marketed as 360 degree cameras. But you don't get a 360 degree field of view, of course, unless there's two lenses and sensors on the camera.