Reading mode: Light Dark

NYT: Great article on Fuji X

Go to last post
Very interesting article.

I guess a contributing factor in Fujifilm being in the black while many other manufacturers are struggling with losses, some very worrying like with Sony.

The future still looks murky to me, the rise of the do-it-all mobile phone devices I feel will one day result in there being only a limited number of genuine stand-alone camera manufacturers remaining.

Sony had to buy its photographic division (purchasing Konica Minolta SLR Division because it had no hope of developing and establishing its own) and with their record losses they maybe could just end Sony cameras in one hit.

Fujfilm on the other hand enjoys a 100% genuine photographic heritage and have forged a niche for themselves in the increasingly competitive digital camera industry.

It is the relatively small players I am worried about, like Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad that deserve to survive more than most IMO. I don't care about Sony, it can go back to doing what it does well, making radios, computer game consoles and T.V's. But Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad, like Fujifilm, are the real deal in the world of photographics. There's nothing fake in anything they do - none of them had to "buy" their expertise in photographics, each have earned their right to always be a part of the industry in my opinion.

:-)
 
Last edited:
liquid stereo said:
harold1968 said:
Les Berkley said:
The New York Times has an excellent articleon the success of the Fuji X-series cameras. Since I don't do the 'fanboy' thing, I will point out that the article could apply to Olympus and Panasonic and even Samsung as well.
Click to expand...
thanks

its probably the paper I am least likely to read as I think its cr@p, but no prob reading article on tech by link as long as I am not paying them anything ;)

nice quote from the article:

“When we were little, when we went into our father’s room or our grandfather’s room, there was an important-looking camera on the shelf, and we were told not to touch it because it was valuable,” Mr. Imai said. “We wanted to create that kind of look and feel.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Fogsville said:
fwiw, the cost of building a mirrorless camera with an electronic viewfinder is over 60% less than the cost incurred when building a DSLR with an optical prism viewfinder and mirror box, or a true optical rangefinder (e.g., Leica.) And that also includes the quasi-optical viewfinder used in the X100s and X-Pro 1 (they aren't 'true' optical viewfinders but simply windows with electronic info on them.)

When they speak of the differences in retail pricing, that should probably be mentioned. Camera manufacturers like the idea of mirrorless not only because they feel that consumers (i.e., hobbyists) want smaller cameras. It also has to do with less costs overall. Fully electronic cameras are cheaper to make and so pricing can appear to be a lot more competitive to the consumer.

What would be interesting to know would be actual profit per unit (and excluding volume) for each of the manufacturers.
Click to expand...
whilst you are right that the mirror box has a cost, where do you get the 60% from ?

designing short back focal lenses is more difficult in some aspects, and since Canikon have been making mirror boxes for many decades one would have assumed its made extremely cheaply

I feel more care and attention and design work has gone into the Fuji X-pro1 then the Canon 7D or 70D. I can't speak to materials but smaller/miniturisation is always more expensive
 
harold1968 said:
Les Berkley said:
The New York Times has an excellent articleon the success of the Fuji X-series cameras. Since I don't do the 'fanboy' thing, I will point out that the article could apply to Olympus and Panasonic and even Samsung as well.
Click to expand...
thanks

its probably the paper I am least likely to read as I think its cr@p, but no prob reading article on tech by link as long as I am not paying them anything ;)

nice quote from the article:

“When we were little, when we went into our father’s room or our grandfather’s room, there was an important-looking camera on the shelf, and we were told not to touch it because it was valuable,” Mr. Imai said. “We wanted to create that kind of look and feel.”
Click to expand...
 
harold1968 said:
liquid stereo said:
harold1968 said:
Les Berkley said:
The New York Times has an excellent articleon the success of the Fuji X-series cameras. Since I don't do the 'fanboy' thing, I will point out that the article could apply to Olympus and Panasonic and even Samsung as well.
Click to expand...
thanks

its probably the paper I am least likely to read as I think its cr@p, but no prob reading article on tech by link as long as I am not paying them anything ;)

nice quote from the article:

“When we were little, when we went into our father’s room or our grandfather’s room, there was an important-looking camera on the shelf, and we were told not to touch it because it was valuable,” Mr. Imai said. “We wanted to create that kind of look and feel.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
BillyInya said:
Fujfilm on the other hand enjoys a 100% genuine photographic heritage and have forged a niche for themselves in the increasingly competitive digital camera industry.

It is the relatively small players I am worried about, like Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad that deserve to survive more than most IMO. I don't care about Sony, it can go back to doing what it does well, making radios, computer game consoles and T.V's. But Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad, like Fujifilm, are the real deal in the world of photographics. There's nothing fake in anything they do - none of them had to "buy" their expertise in photographics, each have earned their right to always be a part of the industry in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree with you except Nikon is not a "small player" in the sense that along with Canon, they sell more cameras than anyone. In fact Thom Hogan wrote about how Nikon is projected to overtake Canon in worldwide sales.

Perhaps you meant that Niikon is not a huge electronics conglomerate like Sony, but clearly they are not "a small player" like Leica or Hasselblad. Here in the US for example, Leica has around 1% of the camera market, while Nikon and Canon together account for close to 50% of the market. And AFAIK, Canon and Nikon have been 1 and 2 in the world for some time.

But yes, Nikon and Fujifilm are absolutely two "real deal", legendary photographic companies, but I would also add Pentax (now owned by Ricoh) and Canon to that list.

But if I were you I wouldn't be worried about Nikon a) for the obvious reason, because they are extremely successful with profits in the billions, and b) because they also make optics and things like steppers which are used in semiconductors which are always needed c) because their parent company is Mitsubishi, one of the most successful companies in Japan.

Anyway, I'm glad Fujifilm is doing well, I'm on my third X camera, and X-E1. Hoping to see some more reasonably priced, but still high quality lenses (not into this up market pricing BS). But I've always loved their lenses back when I shot Large Format, where Fujinon lenses are some of the best you can buy.

Lastly, I thought Mr Wong was overplaying it a bit. The D800 is not "beastly to carry around" and it doesn't weight 1 kilogram (2.2 lbs) more like 800 g. Yes, it's a bit heavier than more mirrorless cameras, but then these are few mirrorless cameras that as good IQ and the huge number of inexpensive and high grade lenses that are available for F-mount. I love my X-E1, but whenever I read mirrorless fans exaggerate about DSLRs I kind of tune out. It's not like a DSLR is a Sinar F or Mamiya RB67, or some 3 kilo (6.7 lbs) monster camera studio camera. What Wong is doing is called an oversell. :-)
 
Last edited:
Les Berkley said:
The New York Times has an excellent article on the success of the Fuji X-series cameras. Since I don't do the 'fanboy' thing, I will point out that the article could apply to Olympus and Panasonic and even Samsung as well.
Click to expand...
Thank you posting the link. I think the writer is right on with the information. I am sorry it turned into bash time for a highly respected news paper.

Thanks again.
 
I buy products that work. Not look good. I don't drool. Pretty is stupid. You want pretty, buy a wooden box and paint it. In cars, people, and cameras.

Anyone who comments on how my camera looks is instantly disregarded as an idiot.
mr moonlight said:
David McGaughey said:
Canon/Nikon, each, sell more than 10X that number in DSLRs.
Click to expand...
Regardless of who's selling more, guess who's following who? Fuji realized the same thing apple did a little over a decade ago and what Leica has known all along. People are more inclined to purchase and pay more for a product that looks great and is well designed. My Fuji cameras look great on my living room shelf, my Canon gear is functional, but hideous. When I'm out with my Fuji, I regularly get people commenting on how beautiful my camera is as well as inquiries as to how much it cost and who makes it. We're not talking only photographers here. A lot of people just want it for the way it looks. The only people I've ever had approach me in regards to my Canon gear have all been photographers or aspiring photographers who already know what I'm shooting with and are just asking gearhead questions.

There's nothing wrong with buying something because you like the way it looks. Ever drool over a car you've only seen in pictures?
Click to expand...
 
tko said:
I buy products that work. Not look good. I don't drool. Pretty is stupid. You want pretty, buy a wooden box and paint it. In cars, people, and cameras.

Anyone who comments on how my camera looks is instantly disregarded as an idiot.
Click to expand...
That's taking it to a rather absurd extreme. The truth is that design matters. It matters to different degrees to different people but it matters. I'm sure this point isn't lost on photographers (artists) as design is also an art.
 
marike6 said:
BillyInya said:
Fujfilm on the other hand enjoys a 100% genuine photographic heritage and have forged a niche for themselves in the increasingly competitive digital camera industry.

It is the relatively small players I am worried about, like Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad that deserve to survive more than most IMO. I don't care about Sony, it can go back to doing what it does well, making radios, computer game consoles and T.V's. But Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad, like Fujifilm, are the real deal in the world of photographics. There's nothing fake in anything they do - none of them had to "buy" their expertise in photographics, each have earned their right to always be a part of the industry in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree with you except Nikon is not a "small player" in the sense that along with Canon, they sell more cameras than anyone. In fact Thom Hogan wrote about how Nikon is projected to overtake Canon in worldwide sales.

Perhaps you meant that Niikon is not a huge electronics conglomerate like Sony, but clearly they are not "a small player" like Leica or Hasselblad. Here in the US for example, Leica has around 1% of the camera market, while Nikon and Canon together account for close to 50% of the market. And AFAIK, Canon and Nikon have been 1 and 2 in the world for some time.

But yes, Nikon and Fujifilm are absolutely two "real deal", legendary photographic companies, but I would also add Pentax (now owned by Ricoh) and Canon to that list.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are quite right. Nikon is a giant in photographics, undoubtedly. I was meaning in terms of the sheer size of the company when looking at Fujifilm and Sony for example.

I get the feeling heritage will be a contributing factor in who sinks or swims because this always seems to be an influencing factor in product development direction (if we believe what the manufacturers say themselves). But the best thing is you can't fake heritage.

Funny, I was thinking how is Sony going to do a retro camera should they want to. They'd have to name it Konica or Minolta or if they want to keep it branded "Sony" they'd need to shape it like a transistor radio ... lol

Cheers
 
marike6 said:
harold1968 said:
liquid stereo said:
harold1968 said:
Les Berkley said:
The New York Times has an excellent articleon the success of the Fuji X-series cameras. Since I don't do the 'fanboy' thing, I will point out that the article could apply to Olympus and Panasonic and even Samsung as well.
Click to expand...
thanks

its probably the paper I am least likely to read as I think its cr@p, but no prob reading article on tech by link as long as I am not paying them anything ;)

nice quote from the article:

“When we were little, when we went into our father’s room or our grandfather’s room, there was an important-looking camera on the shelf, and we were told not to touch it because it was valuable,” Mr. Imai said. “We wanted to create that kind of look and feel.”

--
harold.co.il
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure what such diatribe contributes but if you think it does...

Personally, I'd like to see a bit more substance in the piece.
Click to expand...
by seeming to endorse an article I might be seen to be endorsing the paper

I wanted to make it quite clear that is not the case
Click to expand...
No offense, but do you really think anyone is worrying whether or not you are "endorsing" the NYT?

Perhaps if you decide to run for political office one day, people might. On a camera forum, I can assure you that nobody does.

But the Times is one of the most respected, and widely quoted papers in the world, so I'm sure that on the off chance that someone cares about your views on the periodical, they wouldn't fault you for giving a positive word about a random Fuji X article on a Fuji X forum.
marike6 said:
Whether people care or not they are in no doubt and thus I am not seen to be saying, "yes this is a great article and by implication the paper is great"
Click to expand...
You seem to be very analytical and rigorous in thinking things through, but I can assure you that in this case you are over thinking this whole newspaper thing. By a country mile. :-)
Click to expand...
I am sure no one cares

But each endorsement is cumulative, and I don't want to be part of that. Your point that it appears to you to be a respected oracle is potentially frightening (I can assure you that most people don't respect it, especially outside the US)

Democracy is doing what you believe in every moment, not suspending it out of laziness, then you have no excuse or influence.

You are right, I am over thinking, what can I do :)

--
harold.co.il
 
Last edited:
The article, or at least the part about that retro look, does not apply to Sony or Olympus which to me look sometimes like a surveillance camera.
 
deednets said:
harold1968 said:
Les Berkley said:
The New York Times has an excellent articleon the success of the Fuji X-series cameras. Since I don't do the 'fanboy' thing, I will point out that the article could apply to Olympus and Panasonic and even Samsung as well.
Click to expand...
thanks

its probably the paper I am least likely to read as I think its cr@p, but no prob reading article on tech by link as long as I am not paying them anything ;)

nice quote from the article:

“When we were little, when we went into our father’s room or our grandfather’s room, there was an important-looking camera on the shelf, and we were told not to touch it because it was valuable,” Mr. Imai said. “We wanted to create that kind of look and feel.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
BillyInya said:
Very interesting article.

I guess a contributing factor in Fujifilm being in the black while many other manufacturers are struggling with losses, some very worrying like with Sony.

The future still looks murky to me, the rise of the do-it-all mobile phone devices I feel will one day result in there being only a limited number of genuine stand-alone camera manufacturers remaining.

Sony had to buy its photographic division (purchasing Konica Minolta SLR Division because it had no hope of developing and establishing its own) and with their record losses they maybe could just end Sony cameras in one hit.

Fujfilm on the other hand enjoys a 100% genuine photographic heritage and have forged a niche for themselves in the increasingly competitive digital camera industry.

It is the relatively small players I am worried about, like Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad that deserve to survive more than most IMO. I don't care about Sony, it can go back to doing what it does well, making radios, computer game consoles and T.V's. But Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad, like Fujifilm, are the real deal in the world of photographics. There's nothing fake in anything they do - none of them had to "buy" their expertise in photographics, each have earned their right to always be a part of the industry in my opinion.

:-)
Click to expand...
A company only deserves to survive on its merits. I don't see big or small, only product and market.

As Sony makes so many great products I am deeply concerned with its well being, and I think more then any other company at the moment deserves to be a dominant camera player.

Hasselblad makes good products in a declining market and under attack from as good competitors, such as phase one and Leica. I find it difficult to defend the Luna and Stella

Leica is doing very well at the moment, but its main profit cash cow, the M series, is under attack from very competent APs-C players, e.g. Fuji, and with the Sony A7, better FF players. Therefore it will have to keep growing its luxury market to survive. Leica appeal is part workflow (rangefinder), part results and part jewellery. Its difficult for competitors to attack 1 and 3 and , although uncomfortable for enthusiasts, probably the areas Leica needs to work on to survive. If it can come up with innovative products (like the X2 was, or the M9 was) then all the better but this will be increasingly difficult as other companies go for the lightweight FF market.

I used to be a Nikon fan, and they make some great cameras, but how they have dealt with some recent faults and customer issues mean I will unlikely buy a product form them again. Frankly I was further put off by the DF, an uglier version of the D610 with functionality stripped out for twice the price. I think Nikon needs an urgent rethink as well.

--
harold.co.il
 
Last edited:
harold1968 said:
BillyInya said:
Very interesting article.

I guess a contributing factor in Fujifilm being in the black while many other manufacturers are struggling with losses, some very worrying like with Sony.

The future still looks murky to me, the rise of the do-it-all mobile phone devices I feel will one day result in there being only a limited number of genuine stand-alone camera manufacturers remaining.

Sony had to buy its photographic division (purchasing Konica Minolta SLR Division because it had no hope of developing and establishing its own) and with their record losses they maybe could just end Sony cameras in one hit.

Fujfilm on the other hand enjoys a 100% genuine photographic heritage and have forged a niche for themselves in the increasingly competitive digital camera industry.

It is the relatively small players I am worried about, like Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad that deserve to survive more than most IMO. I don't care about Sony, it can go back to doing what it does well, making radios, computer game consoles and T.V's. But Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad, like Fujifilm, are the real deal in the world of photographics. There's nothing fake in anything they do - none of them had to "buy" their expertise in photographics, each have earned their right to always be a part of the industry in my opinion.

:-)
Click to expand...
I used to be a Nikon fan, and they make some great cameras, but how they have dealt with some recent faults and customer issues mean I will unlikely buy a product form them again. Frankly I was further put off by the DF, an uglier version of the D610 with functionality stripped out for twice the price. I think Nikon needs an urgent rethink as well.
Click to expand...
To me clear, what is "ugly" to one user is beautiful to another. For me the Df is a great looking camera, a perfect blend of form and function with actual exposure dials for all shooting parameters.

And the only functionality found in the D610 that is not in the Df is video. For many users, video is of no importance. Nikon wanted to make the Df a simple photographic tool and my early thoughts are that they succeeded.

As far the Df price, if you live in the UK, yes you pay a premium for most camera gear. Most other regions, the Df is nowhere near "twice the price" of the D610 at all, but at $2750 it is exactly $750 more than the D610. But it's "Made in Japan" more robust magnesium alloy build quality, nicer VF, exposure dials and lens compatibility with full matrix metering with any Nikon lenses including pre-AI Nikkors, make it well worth it. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
marike6 said:
harold1968 said:
BillyInya said:
Very interesting article.

I guess a contributing factor in Fujifilm being in the black while many other manufacturers are struggling with losses, some very worrying like with Sony.

The future still looks murky to me, the rise of the do-it-all mobile phone devices I feel will one day result in there being only a limited number of genuine stand-alone camera manufacturers remaining.

Sony had to buy its photographic division (purchasing Konica Minolta SLR Division because it had no hope of developing and establishing its own) and with their record losses they maybe could just end Sony cameras in one hit.

Fujfilm on the other hand enjoys a 100% genuine photographic heritage and have forged a niche for themselves in the increasingly competitive digital camera industry.

It is the relatively small players I am worried about, like Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad that deserve to survive more than most IMO. I don't care about Sony, it can go back to doing what it does well, making radios, computer game consoles and T.V's. But Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad, like Fujifilm, are the real deal in the world of photographics. There's nothing fake in anything they do - none of them had to "buy" their expertise in photographics, each have earned their right to always be a part of the industry in my opinion.

:-)
Click to expand...
I used to be a Nikon fan, and they make some great cameras, but how they have dealt with some recent faults and customer issues mean I will unlikely buy a product form them again. Frankly I was further put off by the DF, an uglier version of the D610 with functionality stripped out for twice the price. I think Nikon needs an urgent rethink as well.
Click to expand...
To me clear, what is "ugly" to one user is beautiful to another. For me the Df is a great looking camera, a perfect blend of form and function with actual exposure dials for all shooting parameters.

And the only functionality found in the D610 that is not in the Df is video. For many users, video is of no importance. Nikon wanted to make the Df a simple photographic tool and my early thoughts are that they succeeded.

As far the Df price, if you live in the UK, yes you pay a premium for most camera gear. Most other regions, the Df is nowhere near "twice the price" of the D610 at all, but at $2750 it is exactly $750 more than the D610. But it's "Made in Japan" more robust magnesium alloy build quality, nicer VF, exposure dials and lens compatibility with full matrix metering with any Nikon lenses including pre-AI Nikkors, make it well worth it. YMMV.
Click to expand...
I was looking forward to the DF after seeing the marketing teasers. The final product didn't look at all like I expected. IMO it looks like a committee of engineers were told to make a retro looking DSLR, and then the marketing group came in and insisted on covering their bases with more "stuff". I heard about the Fuji x cameras from disgruntled users in the Nikon forum. I checked out the X-E1 and was pleased. Fuji obviously gave a lead designer full authority to keep the industrial design and functionality clean and cohesive looking. To me the DF looks like different committees designed the top, front, and back of the camera. I'm sure it takes great photos though.

Sal
 
Sal Baker said:
marike6 said:
harold1968 said:
BillyInya said:
Very interesting article.

I guess a contributing factor in Fujifilm being in the black while many other manufacturers are struggling with losses, some very worrying like with Sony.

The future still looks murky to me, the rise of the do-it-all mobile phone devices I feel will one day result in there being only a limited number of genuine stand-alone camera manufacturers remaining.

Sony had to buy its photographic division (purchasing Konica Minolta SLR Division because it had no hope of developing and establishing its own) and with their record losses they maybe could just end Sony cameras in one hit.

Fujfilm on the other hand enjoys a 100% genuine photographic heritage and have forged a niche for themselves in the increasingly competitive digital camera industry.

It is the relatively small players I am worried about, like Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad that deserve to survive more than most IMO. I don't care about Sony, it can go back to doing what it does well, making radios, computer game consoles and T.V's. But Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad, like Fujifilm, are the real deal in the world of photographics. There's nothing fake in anything they do - none of them had to "buy" their expertise in photographics, each have earned their right to always be a part of the industry in my opinion.

:-)
Click to expand...
I used to be a Nikon fan, and they make some great cameras, but how they have dealt with some recent faults and customer issues mean I will unlikely buy a product form them again. Frankly I was further put off by the DF, an uglier version of the D610 with functionality stripped out for twice the price. I think Nikon needs an urgent rethink as well.
Click to expand...
To me clear, what is "ugly" to one user is beautiful to another. For me the Df is a great looking camera, a perfect blend of form and function with actual exposure dials for all shooting parameters.

And the only functionality found in the D610 that is not in the Df is video. For many users, video is of no importance. Nikon wanted to make the Df a simple photographic tool and my early thoughts are that they succeeded.

As far the Df price, if you live in the UK, yes you pay a premium for most camera gear. Most other regions, the Df is nowhere near "twice the price" of the D610 at all, but at $2750 it is exactly $750 more than the D610. But it's "Made in Japan" more robust magnesium alloy build quality, nicer VF, exposure dials and lens compatibility with full matrix metering with any Nikon lenses including pre-AI Nikkors, make it well worth it. YMMV.
Click to expand...
I was looking forward to the DF after seeing the marketing teasers. The final product didn't look at all like I expected. IMO it looks like a committee of engineers were told to make a retro looking DSLR, and then the marketing group came in and insisted on covering their bases with more "stuff". I heard about the Fuji x cameras from disgruntled users in the Nikon forum. I checked out the X-E1 and was pleased. Fuji obviously gave a lead designer full authority to keep the industrial design and functionality clean and cohesive looking. To me the DF looks like different committees designed the top, front, and back of the camera. I'm sure it takes great photos though.

Sal
Click to expand...
I agree with both, there are taste issues which are individual

In the UK the D610 is £1,499 (going down) and the D600 can be picked up new for £1,099. The DF is £2749 which I think is outrageous

IMHO the x-pro1 is a beautiful camera. The OVF is really nice. Version 3 of the software has made it decently snappy, although not in DSLR territory. Its metal body combined with design is very pleasing to use. And of course the IQ is sublime. In the UK the deals are so good its effectively being given away with two lenses, or two lenses are free, whichever way you look at it :D

--
harold.co.il
 
Last edited:
Para by para

1. Who is Irwin Wong, and why should we care? If you google him, all the early hits are by him, and not about him. He's here because he is bilingual and probably someone's friend and easy to get a quote from.

2. We get a quote from the unkonwn friend of somebody. The only fact, the weight of the D800, is wrong. So much for the paper of record.

3. The unknown obscure photographer we are supposed to care about bought 2 Fuji cameras.

4. Unlike Kodak, Fuji has survived, but the explanation provided is pure pablum, and misleading.

5. What should be the first paragraph. Fuji is presented as a contrarian success in the camera marketplace. This is a lie, or at least a very tendentious exaggeration. The styling is first mentioned here.

6. in a misplaced paragraph, an industry analyst is quoted saying that Fuji made different decisions than Kodak and is surviving. No effort is made to relate this fact to the fact that Fuji makes interesting cameras. The cameras have nothing to do with Fuji's survival. Of course, Fuiji's survival is important to the cameras. But the relationship of the two is deliberately left vague so the reader can misconstrue it.

7. WTF? Cameras are very unimportant to Fuji's business.

8. A paragraph about the camera market. Duh.

9. Camera sales are "plunging."

10. Some camera makers are making sharing easier --so is this an article about the camera market now?

11. Ah, the connection is slowly being made (now that we have been hooked by the Obscure Irwin Wong). Fuji is part of the mirrorless segment. It is implied that mirrorless is a bright spot in a declining market, although that is a false impression. P&S has plunged. Dslr's are doing best.

12. Typical Japanese corporate BS is quoted and two unrelated facts are presented as if they tell us anything without context.

13. Mirrorless is defined.

14. Tries, but fails to define the difference between mirrorless and rangefinder. Where is the editing?

15. Confusing paragraph about price. Says incorrectly that all mirrorless cameras have interchangeable lenses.

16. Vague and imprecise, but sort of OK.

17. Unnamed sources say Fuji has more of an international following than MILC manufacturers. Is this true?

18. Mirrorless market position is outlined by a quote. OK.

19. Second mention of Fuji styling. Why wait so long?

20. An interesting quote by someone at Fuji who actually knows something, about why the design decision was made.

21. Fuji's have no buttions or software menus? Nikon uses menus for shutter speed? Where is the editing?

22 & 23. More on how the design was developed.

24. A nice closing quote, but has little to do with the first 20 paragraphs.

Typical NYTime, poorly written and arranged, abysmally edited, full of inaccuracies and misleading statements, more impressionistic than substantial.

Compare this piece to a pro writer who knows his stuff like Thom Hogan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top