Prognathous
Veteran Member
With the new 12MP "upgrade", it think Fuji's high-ISO party is over. I'm glad I got an F31 when it was still possible. Soon they'll all be gone.
Prog.
Prog.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
So, is the 6.3MP sensor officially discontinued?
- Thread starter Prognathous
- Start date
Cubensis
Senior Member
It would appear that the days of 6mp F-series cams are over.
Fuji A310, F10, F30, & S6000fd
--
Fuji A310, F10, F30, & S6000fd
Aristophanes
Leading Member
There are some compelling reasons why more megapixels matter. The first and dominant is whre people are viewing photos now. With the advent of media streaming devices to HDTVs, iPods, Flickr, etc. photos are being viewed in higher res at much larger sizes. The secondary reason is that virtually every consumer PC/Mac ships with photo software that has gotten a lot better over the years, with simpler interfaces and sometimes excellent instruction (PSE for example). So zooming and cropping are entering the mainstream, with sharpening and other enhancements definitely a prosumer mainstay.
All of this means that MP upgrades are almost a necessity for market competitiveness. It is how it is done. What concerns me more is that the Super CCD innovation is now exiting whole lines of Fuji offerings. The Z series says bye-bye, and now the lightweight super-zooms are abandoning that technology. Perhaps Fuji is dividing its line for price point reach. If so, there is no longer much differentiation between a Fuji, Canon, or Panasonic. Sure, the Fuji 8000 appears to be less expensive than some of the others, but the upsell on the Pannys and Canons is more, better features.
Fuji's market strategies are inscrutable. I know Fuji is quite popular in Japan, so there may be some price issues there (and IrSimple) that are driving the design and market placement.
All of this means that MP upgrades are almost a necessity for market competitiveness. It is how it is done. What concerns me more is that the Super CCD innovation is now exiting whole lines of Fuji offerings. The Z series says bye-bye, and now the lightweight super-zooms are abandoning that technology. Perhaps Fuji is dividing its line for price point reach. If so, there is no longer much differentiation between a Fuji, Canon, or Panasonic. Sure, the Fuji 8000 appears to be less expensive than some of the others, but the upsell on the Pannys and Canons is more, better features.
Fuji's market strategies are inscrutable. I know Fuji is quite popular in Japan, so there may be some price issues there (and IrSimple) that are driving the design and market placement.
Prognathous
Veteran Member
None of those require more than 1~2 MP.
How often do you need to crop so much that 6MP is not enough, and how often do you need usable high-ISO? Do tell.
Prog.
Cubensis
Senior Member
And where does one view 12mp images at pixel level? Not on HDTV, Ipods, or Flickr... and higher "res" means nothing if the shot is ugly at pixel level.
I'd say sharpening is much more common then cropping. Regardless - is someone who thinks 12mp is cool going to crop or even post process? Unlikely.
--
Fuji A310, F10, F30, & S6000fd
Exactly! Fuji's move to higher megapixel , higher noise, small sensors just makes me sick. The very highest standard of HDTV marketed in the US is "1080p" . That's 1080 by 1920 pixels or (1080*1920) 2.07 megapixels. More pixels is better for cropping purposes only. OK, maybe also for life sized, full portrait, poster sized printing (when viewed from 18 inches away). Like we do that. NOT.
Bill Force
Veteran Member
Aristophanes wrote:
.
What happened to integrity and truth in advertising.
--
' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.
.
INSCRUTIBLE perhaps if you consider false, deceptive, outright lies to be inscrutible.
What happened to integrity and truth in advertising.
--
' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.
digital_ray_of_light
Veteran Member
Sadly it looks that way. I hope not, but... Unless they find a way to re-invigorate "SR" and thus justify having a 6mp sensor in a 12mp world.
I'm still waiting for a version of the E900 using the "magic 6mp sensor!". If not, an E900 version of the F50fd (with RAW) and wide angle is a must!
--
Comprehensive 2007 speculation and predictions: http://1001noisycameras.blogspot.com
Aristophanes
Leading Member
Like all those DSLR owners? ;-)
I'd say they do far more and to them the MPs matter very, very much.
For the average consumer cropping and zooming is an option offered readily at a kiosk processor. Sometimes sharpening is part of an "enhance option, not even standard fare. The average consumer and even prosumer who touches up photos is trying to zoom in on the cat for a blow-up, or maybe make Grandma's moustache disappear.
My main point was a majority of people are not printing their photos. They're looking at them at higher rez than digitally. Whoever says that a 1-2 MP cellphone camera as taking better shots than a DSLR is out to lunch. I've seen both on an HDTV and…well…no point arguing.
But yes, ISO is what digital cameras are lousy at and what true photographers miss about 35mm. Fuji has come closest to that witht he Super CCD, but that may not be where the market is. I wish they had the guts to market their ISO advantage. Fuji actually has a pretty good web demo stressing the importance of ISO, but somehow that gets lost with non Super CCDs in their product matrix. It's their crown jewel. their Zelda and Super Mario franchise. Their MacOS. Why it is not front-and-centre—higher megapixels or not—is bizarre.
Cubensis
Senior Member
I think you are confused regarding the size of a DSLR sensor... ;-)
Again, what does this have to do with a 1/1.6 size sensor with 12mp's that isn't aimed anywhere near DSLR users.
What does "higher rez than digitally" mean?
Again, what does that have to do with a 1/1.6 sensor with 12mp? You seem to be confused over how pixel density and sensor size relate.
ISO isn't something a digital camera "does" its a rating based on the amplification of a CCD...
Again, what are you talking about? Films were rated by ASA... and there were some pretty noisy films...
They did... did you miss the F30/31 reviews and marketing campaign...?
You seem to have contradicted your first post - so I'll assume you agree that 12mp in a 1/1.6 sensor is laughable.
--
Fuji A310, F10, F30, & S6000fd
sarlo100
Senior Member
And to think that I was waiting and hoping they'd do exactly that - F31 sensor in an E900 updated body with SD card support. I was looking to drop down to one compact camera only, and that would have been it. Then Fuji went all Canon on me, and their only clear advantage over Canon is when it comes to the damned sensor. This 12MP garbage and spreading features across camera lines is lunacy, and if they think they're going to compete with Canon by going this route, I hope they enjoy losing market share.
Aristophanes
Leading Member
Wow! Are you that angry at Fuji?
Apparently so. Bitterness bitterness.
I am not confusing the size of sensors. It's about the MPs. It's about whether the end-user market is aiming to print (not) or blow them up an a 20" monitor. The tradeoff of IQ versus noise is the question that requires answering.
ISO is a user-specified setting that "does" something for the image quality based on the standard. Back in the day, low light + speed = grain, but we actually made that part of the aesthetic. That is what got lost, so to speak, with the transfer to digital. A Fuji disposable camera at 400 ISO often takes better pictures than most $500 Canon IS super-dupers digitals in lower light settings.
And no, I don't think 12 MP on that size sensor is "laughable". We'll have to see what Fuji is tweaking out with the Super CCD at 12 MP. I am sure you're not privy to all the engineering specs of the design and software interpolation (or you wouldn't be so angry). Let's not pre-judge.
The F3x marketing campaign always bumped up against the Canon/Panny/Sony juggernauts of IS and some better design options (histograms, SD card support, far better burst modes, excellent menus). All I see from Fuji's marketing is, frankly a muddy message and World Cup soccer ads. They need to market more like Apple. Think different. Less is more. Something like that.
However, if the other guys are all fighting with megapixels, and you come to the brawl with an ISO spec, and your marketshare drops (as poor Nikon has been experiencing and I bet Fuji has also with Canon's market share tallies are eating everyone, and Panny gaining big time as well), then you'd better market better, or get into the megapixel war on your terms, and to me that means the Super CCD design and its clear ISO advantages. So what irks me with Fuji is not so much they're trying to stay in the megapixel race, but that they are introducing models without Super CCD, especially in the super-zoom category and the whole Z series.
Where was the ad for the 9/6xxx series showing the manual zoom: Putting the MAN, back in cameras. Actually emphasizing this was a CAMERA and not some digital toy. Images of hands actually doing something semi-artistic with the zoom, contrasted with a Canon's wimpy little zoom switch designed for garden gnome-sized people. Phallic sells.
Or: Two guys taking photos at a nighttime garden party, kegs in the background. Guy #1 using a Canon, the flash goes off like a BOMB. Snap to the photo. Looks like all the subjects has a searchlight beamed off their teeth and forehead. The girls crowded around saying "I loook awful!". #2 takes a Fuji shot of of everyone looking at #1s disaster. #2s shot has no flash. Snap to photo. Looks terrific. Girls smiling. Someone's getting laid that night. You know the subtext. Tagline: No flash, no problem. (I ditched the "We're high on ISO" version).
I also bet Fuji has seen what over-design and over-pricing have done to Olympus (550). And Fuji does not compete well with the dropping prices of DSLRs, so they really need to innovate with their crown jewel even more.
Fuji is the Buster Keaton of this biz. Perhaps the costs to produce their own specific CCD are too prohibitive and will only be reserved for higher-end models. Fuji is odd in that they seem to have heavily invested in unique technologies, leveraged their high-end lens crafting, but then feel compelled to slug it out on the low margin front with Kodak and HP. The Super CCD is an engine like a BMW 5xx series. Why is Fuji intent on competing with Skoda?
Strange company.
Apparently so. Bitterness bitterness.
I am not confusing the size of sensors. It's about the MPs. It's about whether the end-user market is aiming to print (not) or blow them up an a 20" monitor. The tradeoff of IQ versus noise is the question that requires answering.
ISO is a user-specified setting that "does" something for the image quality based on the standard. Back in the day, low light + speed = grain, but we actually made that part of the aesthetic. That is what got lost, so to speak, with the transfer to digital. A Fuji disposable camera at 400 ISO often takes better pictures than most $500 Canon IS super-dupers digitals in lower light settings.
And no, I don't think 12 MP on that size sensor is "laughable". We'll have to see what Fuji is tweaking out with the Super CCD at 12 MP. I am sure you're not privy to all the engineering specs of the design and software interpolation (or you wouldn't be so angry). Let's not pre-judge.
The F3x marketing campaign always bumped up against the Canon/Panny/Sony juggernauts of IS and some better design options (histograms, SD card support, far better burst modes, excellent menus). All I see from Fuji's marketing is, frankly a muddy message and World Cup soccer ads. They need to market more like Apple. Think different. Less is more. Something like that.
However, if the other guys are all fighting with megapixels, and you come to the brawl with an ISO spec, and your marketshare drops (as poor Nikon has been experiencing and I bet Fuji has also with Canon's market share tallies are eating everyone, and Panny gaining big time as well), then you'd better market better, or get into the megapixel war on your terms, and to me that means the Super CCD design and its clear ISO advantages. So what irks me with Fuji is not so much they're trying to stay in the megapixel race, but that they are introducing models without Super CCD, especially in the super-zoom category and the whole Z series.
Where was the ad for the 9/6xxx series showing the manual zoom: Putting the MAN, back in cameras. Actually emphasizing this was a CAMERA and not some digital toy. Images of hands actually doing something semi-artistic with the zoom, contrasted with a Canon's wimpy little zoom switch designed for garden gnome-sized people. Phallic sells.
Or: Two guys taking photos at a nighttime garden party, kegs in the background. Guy #1 using a Canon, the flash goes off like a BOMB. Snap to the photo. Looks like all the subjects has a searchlight beamed off their teeth and forehead. The girls crowded around saying "I loook awful!". #2 takes a Fuji shot of of everyone looking at #1s disaster. #2s shot has no flash. Snap to photo. Looks terrific. Girls smiling. Someone's getting laid that night. You know the subtext. Tagline: No flash, no problem. (I ditched the "We're high on ISO" version).
I also bet Fuji has seen what over-design and over-pricing have done to Olympus (550). And Fuji does not compete well with the dropping prices of DSLRs, so they really need to innovate with their crown jewel even more.
Fuji is the Buster Keaton of this biz. Perhaps the costs to produce their own specific CCD are too prohibitive and will only be reserved for higher-end models. Fuji is odd in that they seem to have heavily invested in unique technologies, leveraged their high-end lens crafting, but then feel compelled to slug it out on the low margin front with Kodak and HP. The Super CCD is an engine like a BMW 5xx series. Why is Fuji intent on competing with Skoda?
Strange company.
Victor Major
Well-known member
Overall good post, but you are still mistaken about the importance of pixel count in pocket cameras.
There is NO consumer level display device capable of reproducing more than 3 mega pixels. There are super high resolution prototypes (2 x 1080HD) that do about 8.5 megapixels (I saw one made by Chimai here in Taiwan), but thats it.
Ergo, for a pocket camera, 3MP is adequate both for 4x3 prints and for the latest tech displays.
If consumers were educated and rational, for their POCKET CAMERA they would demand 4 MP max with glass to match, super high speed (6400 ISO+) and no noise.
Since they (we) are not, we have these noisy monstrosities of 12 MP with IS and average glass...and its not just Fuji, they are just giving up the battle and delivering to the ignorant super-consumer something they will throw money at.
V.
Aristophanes
Leading Member
Pocket camera or not it doesn't make a difference. More pixels makes for more scalability. That's the love of DSLRs lately.
Your thinking like a traditional photographer where the zoom done as part of the frame and the shot is complete when the shutter is pressed. Click! Done.
The issue is zooming. If you're taking a 3 MP photo from your iPod with a photo of a structural defect in a building foundation to the boardroom of your firm and you need to really zoom in, more MPs is better. Otherwise we'd really believe all those adds about how excellent it is to go shopping using our camera phones. To really get the most out of PMPs, you MUST zoom. They're almost useless with it.
If you watch people at kiosks readying prints zooming is a big part of what is done. They shoot then frame. And that's for the few who do print. A local retailer recently told me a majority or people get their photos on CD as well, but only print a limited few that have been edited. 4x6" prints are so passé. Think Blade Runner: zoom (even around a corner) and then print. That's the shot.
Consumer photo editing apps crop and red eye are the 2 most used features by a country mile.
Pocket camera or DSLR, the MP race has merit based largely on the new vectors besides traditional print photography.
I am not saying there is no market for the sweet spot Fuji has found with 6.3 MP largish sensors. It just may a really small market.
Noise. Grain. 6400 ISO? Now we're beyond what consumer or even prosumer 35mm was regularly doling out. 800 ISO was tough enough to master. The sweet spot was 400. You can dream but most of us are not owls ;-)
The funny thing about noise from CCDs is that it may not be related solely to smaller pixels. The quality of smaller sensor pixels may increase (actually they generally have in the industry). So we'll have to see what Fuji has done.
I mean, isn't that the whole point of Super CCD? That you can make a CCD with a different structural layout, same MP, but higher ISO of the digital variety? Perhaps Fuji is really able to get their octagonal interpolated design to do far better at higher ISOs and denser pixels while keeping the noise down. This is supposed to be the version 7 or so of the Super CCD design.
I have used both an F31 and an F40 and I have to say the noise difference between the 2 is non-existent. I am not entirely trusting of the review that slammed it there. Same for colour depth. Not seeing much difference. I do like the F40s sharp as a tack edges. But for me the IQ difference has been negligible. I may not be taking the variety of customized shots necessary for full evaluation, but I think the F40fd has been slammed somewhat unfairly.
Also, these cameras are not just "consumer" cameras. I spent hours last summer walking around a building building renovation with an engineer photographing all sorts of items using a compact digital. It's a multi-million $$$ job. It's changed the inspection industry. You can do reviews on the spot before leaving the site. They're incredibly valuable tools.
It is just plain ignorant to find something "laughable" when there has been no objective analysis yet. I'll give Fuji the benefit of the doubt as long as they keep that high ISO Super CCD thing they've got. I hate using the flash. Hate it. If you take photos of anything with even a hint of shiny metal, the glare makes analysis impossible.
BTW: My first camera was a 1972 Rollei 35mm compact.
Your thinking like a traditional photographer where the zoom done as part of the frame and the shot is complete when the shutter is pressed. Click! Done.
The issue is zooming. If you're taking a 3 MP photo from your iPod with a photo of a structural defect in a building foundation to the boardroom of your firm and you need to really zoom in, more MPs is better. Otherwise we'd really believe all those adds about how excellent it is to go shopping using our camera phones. To really get the most out of PMPs, you MUST zoom. They're almost useless with it.
If you watch people at kiosks readying prints zooming is a big part of what is done. They shoot then frame. And that's for the few who do print. A local retailer recently told me a majority or people get their photos on CD as well, but only print a limited few that have been edited. 4x6" prints are so passé. Think Blade Runner: zoom (even around a corner) and then print. That's the shot.
Consumer photo editing apps crop and red eye are the 2 most used features by a country mile.
Pocket camera or DSLR, the MP race has merit based largely on the new vectors besides traditional print photography.
I am not saying there is no market for the sweet spot Fuji has found with 6.3 MP largish sensors. It just may a really small market.
Noise. Grain. 6400 ISO? Now we're beyond what consumer or even prosumer 35mm was regularly doling out. 800 ISO was tough enough to master. The sweet spot was 400. You can dream but most of us are not owls ;-)
The funny thing about noise from CCDs is that it may not be related solely to smaller pixels. The quality of smaller sensor pixels may increase (actually they generally have in the industry). So we'll have to see what Fuji has done.
I mean, isn't that the whole point of Super CCD? That you can make a CCD with a different structural layout, same MP, but higher ISO of the digital variety? Perhaps Fuji is really able to get their octagonal interpolated design to do far better at higher ISOs and denser pixels while keeping the noise down. This is supposed to be the version 7 or so of the Super CCD design.
I have used both an F31 and an F40 and I have to say the noise difference between the 2 is non-existent. I am not entirely trusting of the review that slammed it there. Same for colour depth. Not seeing much difference. I do like the F40s sharp as a tack edges. But for me the IQ difference has been negligible. I may not be taking the variety of customized shots necessary for full evaluation, but I think the F40fd has been slammed somewhat unfairly.
Also, these cameras are not just "consumer" cameras. I spent hours last summer walking around a building building renovation with an engineer photographing all sorts of items using a compact digital. It's a multi-million $$$ job. It's changed the inspection industry. You can do reviews on the spot before leaving the site. They're incredibly valuable tools.
It is just plain ignorant to find something "laughable" when there has been no objective analysis yet. I'll give Fuji the benefit of the doubt as long as they keep that high ISO Super CCD thing they've got. I hate using the flash. Hate it. If you take photos of anything with even a hint of shiny metal, the glare makes analysis impossible.
BTW: My first camera was a 1972 Rollei 35mm compact.
Victor Major
Well-known member
You again make many good points, however I stand by the statements I made regarding pocket camera priorities.
The market for these cameras are the non-professional, casual photo takers. They barely know how to turn the thing on, let alone use photo editing software with any degree of competence or regularity.
This is the mob that demands ludicrous megapixels and IS, not the niche user that wrings the last bit of in camera and post processing performance to get the desired result.
With regard to high ISO and low noise, this is something that digital products already do better then film. Large sensor DSLRs and above deliver a very wide range of ISO settings with remarkably low noise even at 3200 ISO.
Noise levels can be managed by using advanced conductors and chip technology. Pixel density indeed has not much to do with noise per se, its the type of technology and materials used that allow for the noise to become apparent when gain producing devices (photosensors) are crammed too close together as in high megapixel/small size chips.
Thus just as we saw amazing high ISO performance form small chip Super CCDs, we could eventually see even usable 6400 ISO in pocket cameras, but I am afraid this will happen only if either we make a technological quantum leap (no pun intended) or the stupid SMALL SENSOR megapixel race stops so that the low noise technology can catch up.
V.
The market for these cameras are the non-professional, casual photo takers. They barely know how to turn the thing on, let alone use photo editing software with any degree of competence or regularity.
This is the mob that demands ludicrous megapixels and IS, not the niche user that wrings the last bit of in camera and post processing performance to get the desired result.
With regard to high ISO and low noise, this is something that digital products already do better then film. Large sensor DSLRs and above deliver a very wide range of ISO settings with remarkably low noise even at 3200 ISO.
Noise levels can be managed by using advanced conductors and chip technology. Pixel density indeed has not much to do with noise per se, its the type of technology and materials used that allow for the noise to become apparent when gain producing devices (photosensors) are crammed too close together as in high megapixel/small size chips.
Thus just as we saw amazing high ISO performance form small chip Super CCDs, we could eventually see even usable 6400 ISO in pocket cameras, but I am afraid this will happen only if either we make a technological quantum leap (no pun intended) or the stupid SMALL SENSOR megapixel race stops so that the low noise technology can catch up.
V.
Les Lammers
Veteran Member
This is the mob that demands ludicrous megapixels and IS, not the niche user that wrings the last bit of in camera and post processing performance to get the desired result.
The consumer does not demand more MP's. But they certainly believe more is better and that is what makes them buy new cameras IMHO. Most people will not take the time or care to learn the basics of sensors. They just want birthday pics
and want to e-mail them to friends and family.
Bad Pic kev
Veteran Member
tis debate is about needs and wants.
i do not need more than 6mp. i want more than 6mp, so i can compete with other photogs.
fuji wants to make the best digital cameras that rival its film dominance. fuji needs to make higher mp cameras to stay in business.
so half the people on dp criticize fuji for lack of resolution, the other have does the same when they do.
everyone needs a car, just a small little car to get about with. yet i was a kit car that goes over 230mhp.
what you need, is seldom what you want.
one last soapbox comment. how many people email fujifilm and tell them what they want?
--
Photographs and memories
Christmas cards you sent to me
All that I have are these
To remember you
i do not need more than 6mp. i want more than 6mp, so i can compete with other photogs.
fuji wants to make the best digital cameras that rival its film dominance. fuji needs to make higher mp cameras to stay in business.
so half the people on dp criticize fuji for lack of resolution, the other have does the same when they do.
everyone needs a car, just a small little car to get about with. yet i was a kit car that goes over 230mhp.
what you need, is seldom what you want.
one last soapbox comment. how many people email fujifilm and tell them what they want?
--
Photographs and memories
Christmas cards you sent to me
All that I have are these
To remember you
Aristophanes
Leading Member
Probably true. But intentions and capabilities is what people also buy. We do not need 0-60 in 4.2 seconds, but it impresses us. The market is not perfectly rational, but expectantly, hopefully irrational, tempered by the rational (best bang for the buck, but "Oh well, another $80 is probably worth it").
If your claim was the case, then the simplest cheapest Kodak or HP would be dominating the market. In fact, the more complex, IS assisted, high MP products are, especially from Canon. And many of us in these forums generally agree that Canon's take pretty good shots, even at higher MPs, but not at higher ISOs.
See above.
Agreed about the DSLRs, but it took awhile to get there.
Now, for compact or even super-zooms cameras so far only the Fuji's in my experience have come close to matching what my 1972 Rollei could do with ISO 800 film and a bit of practice. At least the digital lets me make a zillion mistakes trying to get the right shot. And PS can work wonders lightening things up.
Also, noise is not the same thing as grain. The latter had a certain aesthetic that was acceptable and looked, well, analog. Artistic even. Generally, grain manifested itself evenly across the frame. Think of those backstage Bob Dylan photos. Digital noise looks blurry, is often uneven, and leads to white bursts. Very artificial.
Maybe it is. Looking at the F50fd photos I am not seeing more noise. Probably too early for real analysis, I'll grant given how staged those photos are. But, if Fuji gets only 5% more noise from double the pixels plus superbe sharpening, good colour (especially skin tones) then that may be an IQ tradeoff worth living with. The hysteria about how this is "laughable" is not borne out by the history. Looking back at reviews to 2004, I generally see that MPs have tripled on average, but that noise has generally stayed the same or even decreased in most reviews for Canon. There has been a modest spike in noise issues with newer models (Canon S5 comes to mind), and it may be a solvable problem, and maybe, just maybe, Fuji has come closer to solving it.
Which brings me back to the central mystery and that is why is Fuji not using the proven low light ISO capabilities of the Super CCD in their super-zoom models?
Soundman 500
Leading Member
I think they will, when the 6000/9100 replacement comes out. There is no way this camera is a replacement for the 6000. I think the best is yet to come...
Mark
Aristophanes
Leading Member
Mark, I (hopefully) agree. Two of the new models still have Super CCD.
But…the fact that their in-house technology is being supplanted by outsourced (most likely) CCDs tells us that either:
1) Fuji is targeting the Super CCD for a higher margin buyer. They want to upsell you within their own line.
2) The Super CCDs are not cost-effective to produce and Fuji isn't making enough money off them to ramp up dedicated production. Being proprietary has its price. So they have to outsource CCD acquisition in order to hit all price points effectively.
Of all the cameras ideal for the Super CCD concept, a wide angle super zoom with a fairly large sensor is it. So the 8000 is ideal but not enabled. Pity. If the IQ is in the same range as the Pannys and Canons it will get killed in the market as it is less enabled (histogram, burst mode, long shutter speeds, better menus, better styling, etc.). Fuji is showing up to a gunfight with a water pistol.
It's a real shame that Super CCD in the Z series is being supplanted by a "blog" setting.
But…the fact that their in-house technology is being supplanted by outsourced (most likely) CCDs tells us that either:
1) Fuji is targeting the Super CCD for a higher margin buyer. They want to upsell you within their own line.
2) The Super CCDs are not cost-effective to produce and Fuji isn't making enough money off them to ramp up dedicated production. Being proprietary has its price. So they have to outsource CCD acquisition in order to hit all price points effectively.
Of all the cameras ideal for the Super CCD concept, a wide angle super zoom with a fairly large sensor is it. So the 8000 is ideal but not enabled. Pity. If the IQ is in the same range as the Pannys and Canons it will get killed in the market as it is less enabled (histogram, burst mode, long shutter speeds, better menus, better styling, etc.). Fuji is showing up to a gunfight with a water pistol.
It's a real shame that Super CCD in the Z series is being supplanted by a "blog" setting.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum