Why I don't want a FF X

The whole discussion is absurd because what constitutes "pro level" is a constantly shifting target. What was considered "more than a hobby photographer will ever need" five years ago is now considered "so low quality that no serious photographer would ever buy one."

I've been a professional graphic artist and photographer for 30 years. The output from the X-E2 with it's APS-C sensor would have blown my clients away ten years ago and ten years isn't very long.

Perspective, people. Perspective.

Charles2 said:

XE-1 with full frame Summaron 35/3.5









Sample shot:
Captive

Click to expand...

Based on this, Fuji should go medium format!!
--
Fuji XE-2, Canon FD 50 & 85 1.2L, Fuji 14mm 2.8, 27mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, Bower 8mm 2.8

If Fuji do a FF camera, they should just do what they did with the S2, S3, and S5 Pro… Put a great sensor in an available, well sorted DSLR body. There are plenty of great FF Nikon and Canon lenses available, so a Nikon or Canon body is ideal.

It really depends what you're looking for…. great Fuji style images, or a great Fuji style body. I'll take the former every time. When I'm looking at my photos 10 years from now, I really won't give a rat's a$$ how retro the camera the camera was that took them. Just give me that wonderful Fuji image quality in a camera that I can shoot EVERYTHING with. I don't want to buy an eclectic selection of prime lenses in order to shoot whatever suits them, I want to buy a 300mm f/2.8 (or a 200mm f/2, a 500mm f/4, a 85mm f/1.4, or a 24-70mm f/2.8) and shoot what I WANT with it.

Why WOULDN'T I want Fuji image quality when I shoot sports or wildlife?

SB

Interestingly, the largest difference I see between those two shots is in the center area of each needle cluster of the cactus on the right. It does seem kind of strange though that they aren't a bit better resolved considering that in the same shot the needles of the cactus on the left are quite sharp. I'm not very familiar with these two cameras, but could it be the jpg engine making this drastic of a difference?

masterofdeception said:

Well, actually I would like to see a FF X. For others, but not for me. I don't need or want one, because:

1 It will cost a small fortune - I mean £1500 or more, and the lenses? We're talking an investment of £5000 plus for a decent system - much cheaper than Leica, but way beyond my means or needs and in no way value for money for an enthusiast like me - for pros maybe, but still marginal for most I'd think

Click to expand...

So what. Whoever has disposable income and/or a business need will buy it. That doesn't affect your current gear what-so-ever.

masterofdeception said:

2 It won't be in my hands for at least a year and a half, and going on past form, I'll need to wait until 2017 or later until all the decent AF lenses I need are available

Click to expand...

I thought you didn't want one.

masterofdeception said:

3 It still won't be perfect, and for all sorts of reasons we'll all be needing a new version as soon as it's available - by 2017 who knows what we'll be lusting after - probably the Iphone9 will be outperforming what we have today!

Click to expand...

This makes no sense. Substitute XPro FF with XE-3, or XE-4 etc. Nothing is ever perfect, and you don't *need* a new version. You *want* a new version. What does the iPhone have to do with any of this?

masterofdeception said:

4 It will be a marginal improvement over the existing X cameras - only 400% pixel peepers will will be concerned - IQ is only one component of great photography (and arguably isn't important at all)

Click to expand...

That's what people in Nikonland said for years until... the D3 came out. Who knows, maybe Fuji has some disruptive technologies up their sleeves!

masterofdeception said:

5 I have a good camera, great glass, and I can take pictures and improve my photography skills with the camera I have - the Gas syndrome is a never ending one, that never ends in better pictures

Click to expand...

Great, so why do you care if Fuji comes out with a new FF camera or a crop sensor camera for that matter? Enjoy your gear and do as you say - improve your photog skills, maybe get a printer (love my epson 3880). No real value in discussing vaporware IMHO.

masterofdeception said:

6 I dropped my excellent 5d Mk II for the Fuji X, for weight, size, cost and functionality - I'm not about to go backwards - a FF is likely to compromise all of these

Click to expand...

Applicable to you. What about the other million people who own Fuji and who want a FF with x-trans? Not everyone picked up a x camera for the same reasons as you.

masterofdeception said:

7 FF's advantage in shallow DOF isn't for everyone, which is why Ansel Adams and f/64 were once fashionable, and will be again - all this talk about shooting wide open makes me laugh - it's just a fad, like instagram is a fad

Click to expand...

Some people like FF for more than just DoF BTW. Low light, ability to cram more MP, legacy lens support etc.

masterofdeception said:

Sure, there are lots (?) of people who "need" FF, but even then why would they wait when they can pick up a Sony now?

Click to expand...

Because Sony doesn't have any lenses at the moment, so they don't really have a system (A7/A7r specifically). And no, strapping on adapters in front defeats the purpose of a mirrorless system.

masterofdeception said:

Not saying that a FF X won't be interesting, but for me it's bound to be out of my league and way beyond my means. Still bring it on for those who "need" it. My main issue with it is that it will divert Fuji from their declared aim of providing an APC format that is "as good as" FF. I don't want their resources to be diluted by chasing the Sony/Canikon FF market, though I expect that they will. That's a pity, because I think they were genuinely onto something new and good with the current X system.

Click to expand...

I don't think it will divert Fuji in the least since crop sensor, like with Canikon, will continue to be their cash cows. They would simply be catering to a new audience which in the end, is good for all Fuji users. Like me, who has just joined the family.

Have a good one.

Randy Benter said:

I agree with most of what you say. I am not interested in a Fuji FF ILC, but I would be interested in a FF fixed lens camera (X1000?).

I don't mind that some people want a Fuji FF ILC as long as we agree that it should be a new system and sold along side Fuji's APS-C cameras. I think the notion of a FF X-Pro2 is ridiculous. What kind of message would that send to all those who purchased the X-Pro1 with several XF lenses?

Click to expand...

What kind of message? That they are constantly innovating and that the XPro FF doesn't make their pictures all of a sudden worse, or their current camera any worse. That they listen to their customers and are ready to create more tools for the toolbox. Win win.

a l b e r t said:

shigzeo ? said:

Not necessarily true. There are a number of very small SLR lenses out there that are smaller than mirror less lenses. Today's mirror less lenses are large. Fuji's 35/1,4 competes with SLR 50/2's or 1,8's some of which are pancakes. OM lenses are tiny, older german SLR lens are tiny. Canon and Nikon's SLR lenses are large, so are modern Zeiss lenses, but SLR lenses were not always huge. Some were positively tiny.

Click to expand...

Try the older tiny lenses on your mirrorless. The corners are not sharp wide open and is still not as sharp as the center at f/8. Modern lenses are optimized for sharpness as people pixel peep and demand lenses that are sharp from corner to corner. That's why they are big.

Click to expand...

My newest lens is the Zeiss 100/2 Makro. My oldest lens is the Nikkor 85/1,8K. It is sharp from edge to edge. In the centre, it is sharp wide open and falls away a bit typical of portrait lenses. Stopped down just a bit it is one of the sharpest lenses I have. Ditto the 50/2, though that lens has haze wide open.

Not a single old lens I've used is anywhere near soft. Some M lenses are retrofocus and put the image at too sharp an angle to the sensor. Those ones will have problems, but it's not the lens being unsharp, it's today's technology not being able to handle anything but lenses with deep registers, or big ass lenses.

The 85/1,8 and 50/2 I have used to shoot photographs that are in magazines and in international advertising campaigns.

Bad lenses are bad lenses. Good lenses are good lenses. This will always be the case and will not change from decade to decade.

Slideshow Bob said:

If Fuji do a FF camera, they should just do what they did with the S2, S3, and S5 Pro… Put a great sensor in an available, well sorted DSLR body. There are plenty of great FF Nikon and Canon lenses available, so a Nikon or Canon body is ideal.

It really depends what you're looking for…. great Fuji style images, or a great Fuji style body. I'll take the former every time. When I'm looking at my photos 10 years from now, I really won't give a rat's a$$ how retro the camera the camera was that took them. Just give me that wonderful Fuji image quality in a camera that I can shoot EVERYTHING with. I don't want to buy an eclectic selection of prime lenses in order to shoot whatever suits them, I want to buy a 300mm f/2.8 (or a 200mm f/2, a 500mm f/4, a 85mm f/1.4, or a 24-70mm f/2.8) and shoot what I WANT with it.

Why WOULDN'T I want Fuji image quality when I shoot sports or wildlife?

SB

Click to expand...

I'm guessing neither Canon nore Nikon would allow them to do this again.

Whilst I'd disagree with some of the OP's point(what format size did Ansel Adams use? :-D) I think they do highlight why an interchangeable lens FF camera may not be the best route for Fuji to go.

The real problem for me is always likely to be lens size, the temptation is to look at Leica lenses but remember these are very expensive manual focus primes in the wide/normal range. A system built on AF lenses is always going to be much larger than that or (as seems to be the case with the Sony A7) trade off performance for smaller size.

For say landscape(lots of focal lengths covered) or wildlife shooters(long/fast lenses needed) this is going to mean that the overall size of the system really isn't helped much by having a smaller camera. The real appeal does seem to be to a Leica like market of people shooting things like street photography and in that market a single focal length is much less of a trade off, especially if the camera is a second body for them.

I look at the RX1 and the A7 and to me it seems to highlight the advantages of having a fixed lens on a FF digital mirrorless. I'm guessing the latter plus a viewfinder, grip and extra controls would be similar in size to an A7 + 35mm yet your dealing with a lens that's a full stop faster. Being able to build the lens into the camera and match it to the sensor makes for a much smaller package. Look at the massive size of the rear element of the RX1 lens, I'm guessing that's helping correct light angles in a way that isn't possible on the A7 hence the 35mm having to be a stop slower and the 55 F/1.8 having to be so long to correct them.

djsphynx said:

masterofdeception said:

Well, actually I would like to see a FF X. For others, but not for me. I don't need or want one, because:

1 It will cost a small fortune - I mean £1500 or more, and the lenses? We're talking an investment of £5000 plus for a decent system - much cheaper than Leica, but way beyond my means or needs and in no way value for money for an enthusiast like me - for pros maybe, but still marginal for most I'd think

Click to expand...

So what. Whoever has disposable income and/or a business need will buy it. That doesn't affect your current gear what-so-ever.

Click to expand...

That was my point, except that focussing on a completely new FF is bound to affect Fuji's commitment to the X system. The X systtem isn't keeping them afloat as it is.

djsphynx said:

djsphynx said:

2 It won't be in my hands for at least a year and a half, and going on past form, I'll need to wait until 2017 or later until all the decent AF lenses I need are available

Click to expand...

I thought you didn't want one.

Click to expand...

I don't.

djsphynx said:

djsphynx said:

3 It still won't be perfect, and for all sorts of reasons we'll all be needing a new version as soon as it's available - by 2017 who knows what we'll be lusting after - probably the Iphone9 will be outperforming what we have today!

Click to expand...

This makes no sense. Substitute XPro FF with XE-3, or XE-4 etc. Nothing is ever perfect, and you don't *need* a new version. You *want* a new version. What does the iPhone have to do with any of this?

Click to expand...

See my end comment about resources. I was being ironic about the iPhone, but hey.

djsphynx said:

djsphynx said:

4 It will be a marginal improvement over the existing X cameras - only 400% pixel peepers will will be concerned - IQ is only one component of great photography (and arguably isn't important at all)

Click to expand...

That's what people in Nikonland said for years until... the D3 came out. Who knows, maybe Fuji has some disruptive technologies up their sleeves!

Click to expand...

Right, you can wait for that then.

djsphynx said:

djsphynx said:

5 I have a good camera, great glass, and I can take pictures and improve my photography skills with the camera I have - the Gas syndrome is a never ending one, that never ends in better pictures

Click to expand...

Great, so why do you care if Fuji comes out with a new FF camera or a crop sensor camera for that matter? Enjoy your gear and do as you say - improve your photog skills, maybe get a printer (love my epson 3880). No real value in discussing vaporware IMHO.

Click to expand...

See my comment about resources. I have an epson 3000 that fulfils my current needs.

djsphynx said:

djsphynx said:

6 I dropped my excellent 5d Mk II for the Fuji X, for weight, size, cost and functionality - I'm not about to go backwards - a FF is likely to compromise all of these

Click to expand...

Applicable to you. What about the other million people who own Fuji and who want a FF with x-trans? Not everyone picked up a x camera for the same reasons as you.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about me.

djsphynx said:

djsphynx said:

7 FF's advantage in shallow DOF isn't for everyone, which is why Ansel Adams and f/64 were once fashionable, and will be again - all this talk about shooting wide open makes me laugh - it's just a fad, like instagram is a fad

Click to expand...

Some people like FF for more than just DoF BTW. Low light, ability to cram more MP, legacy lens support etc.

Click to expand...

Great, Sony can help them.

djsphynx said:

djsphynx said:

Sure, there are lots (?) of people who "need" FF, but even then why would they wait when they can pick up a Sony now?

Click to expand...

Because Sony doesn't have any lenses at the moment, so they don't really have a system (A7/A7r specifically). And no, strapping on adapters in front defeats the purpose of a mirrorless system zFuji don!t have

Click to expand...

Sony are at least a year ahead. If you want to wait 3 or 4 years for Fuji's system, then good luck.

djsphynx said:

djsphynx said:

Not saying that a FF X won't be interesting, but for me it's bound to be out of my league and way beyond my means. Still bring it on for those who "need" it. My main issue with it is that it will divert Fuji from their declared aim of providing an APC format that is "as good as" FF. I don't want their resources to be diluted by chasing the Sony/Canikon FF market, though I expect that they will. That's a pity, because I think they were genuinely onto something new and good with the current X system.

Click to expand...

I don't think it will divert Fuji in the least since crop sensor, like with Canikon, will continue to be their cash cows. They would simply be catering to a new audience which in the end, is good for all Fuji users. Like me, who has just joined the family.

Click to expand...

Well tell that to those of us who are still waiting for the 56 1.2 and the X-Pro 2.

djsphynx said:

Have a good one.

Click to expand...

You too.

djsphynx said:

--
http://www.roberthawara.com

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But 1US = 1£ when it comes to consumer goods, so that's £4,000. And the Fuji system I mentioned has 4 lenses covering 21 to 300 FF eqv.

So you need another lense that covers 21 to 28 and 200 to 300. I can't say how good the Nikon lenses you mention are, as I've always had Canon, but I'll assume they are at least better than the Fuji ones.

Anyway, this wasn't about that. What I was actually saying was that the Fuji FF system equivalent of the X system - 4 top primes covering 21 to 85 and a decent zoom covering 70 to 300, will cost at least £5,000 here in the UK. Want to have a bet on that?

That should read 5 lenses covering 21 to 300.

Oh and another thing, the FF crowd are going to want lenses that match the sensor as a bare minimum, so top quality 1.4 at least for the 35, 50 and 85. 2.8 for the 14 and the 70-200, and whatever (!) for the 21-300.

Professionals have already Canon and Nikon cameras and both companies have a HUGE lens system for FF cameras.

Serious amateurs or professionals are NOT going to buy new systems - they might use good APS-C cameras like Fuji X system as smaller cameras for special purposes. And also the big player Sony has produced a NEW FF system (smaller and lightweight ) - is it wise to copy that idea ? Not economically. And Fuji has already understood that it is not just the megapixels...

And i have experience of the FF weight ( carrying 7D + 24-105 + other lenses - and i have mostly cheap lightweight lenses).

Also pros are tying to save their backs - and the world is nowadays such a place that carrying a huge expensive FF gear bag around is not at all safe. We are going back to portable or even pocketable systems (Nokia phones;-) )- not to heavier and bigger loads . ( Leica was the camera of choice of Cartier - Bresson, Doisneau and many others who wanted "invisible" and camouflaged cameras )

I have an Epson R3000 printer that uses up to A3+ paper - 330mm+483mm. In that size resolution of my Fuji X-E1 or Canon 7D is NOT AT ALL a limiting factor. And i have order some big prints from my Canon 7D images - in 1000mm+1500mm size - from reasonable viewing distance they look surprisingly good.

I understand that FF images are "better" in principle in commercial big prints - But seriously , how many of us amateurs really need it for something ? I really can not afford many big images/ year and i do not have a 80"4K TV where i could see the difference and i do not have enough walls ... And looking at images on my iMac in 200% is not that satisfying pixel peeping. And i cannot and want not invest so much money !

I really hope Fuji continues on this APS-C path - at the moment IQ is good enough for 99% of my ideas. And the IQ will get better.




Fuji X-E1 in Rome , April 2013



--
Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, Canon DSLR cameras, lenses and now also a Fuji X-E1
60.21 N 24.86 E

Chris G Hughes said:

The whole discussion is absurd because what constitutes "pro level" is a constantly shifting target. What was considered "more than a hobby photographer will ever need" five years ago is now considered "so low quality that no serious photographer would ever buy one."

I've been a professional graphic artist and photographer for 30 years. The output from the X-E2 with it's APS-C sensor would have blown my clients away ten years ago and ten years isn't very long.

Perspective, people. Perspective.

Click to expand...

10 years is a very long time in the progression of digital photography, even for things like TV's image quality has come a long way in the past 10 years.

Perspective is correct

afragisk said:

I carried the Canon 60D with sigma 50-150 os and sigma 8-16 during my last vacation in the Greek islands and they were too heavy for half day outings. I am male, 37 and quite fit. Granted the biggest issue is (are?) the heavy zooms but I figured if I go the prime way, I might as well go mirrorless. Not to forget the significant weight difference between FF camera and XE2.
--
Fuji XE-2, Canon FD 50 & 85 1.2L, Fuji 14mm 2.8, 27mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, Bower 8mm 2.8

Click to expand...

if you can do with primes what you did with those heavy zooms then you bought the wrong kit in the first place

masterofdeception said:

That should read 5 lenses covering 21 to 300.

Oh and another thing, the FF crowd are going to want lenses that match the sensor as a bare minimum, so top quality 1.4 at least for the 35, 50 and 85. 2.8 for the 14 and the 70-200, and whatever (!) for the 21-300.

Click to expand...

there is no Fuji 56mm available its still just on paper and no you don't need f1.4 FF lenses to match the APS-C Fuji ones.

someone gave you the answer to your question, moving the goal posts now serves what point?

Sal Baker said:

You still don't understand the difference between a 36mp sensor and a 16mp sensor. How can you be taken seriously? The comparison above has nothing to do with APS-C vs FF sensors with that amount of MP discrepancy.

Sal

Click to expand...

How can you rationalise that an honest comparison between the Sony A7r and Fuji X-E2 "has nothing to do with Full frame vs APSC"

You have no credibility.

All points very well made and taken!!

I would rather wish from Fuji to make a 4/3 X-Trans sensor with 24-100 f2 or 22-150 f3 camera. Or maybe if they can loan their great sensor to Olympus and Olympus could add a new lens in lineup with above specs.

Many thanks for sharing your ideas!!

LWS2013 said:

masterofdeception said:

That should read 5 lenses covering 21 to 300.

Oh and another thing, the FF crowd are going to want lenses that match the sensor as a bare minimum, so top quality 1.4 at least for the 35, 50 and 85. 2.8 for the 14 and the 70-200, and whatever (!) for the 21-300.

Click to expand...

there is no Fuji 56mm available its still just on paper and no you don't need f1.4 FF lenses to match the APS-C Fuji ones.

someone gave you the answer to your question, moving the goal posts now serves what point?

Click to expand...

I'm not moving any goalposts, which I why I said "fair enough" to what I thought was a very good response. My goalposts are the same as set out in the heading of my post - to explain why I (not you or the 3m others who "need" FF) don't want a FF X camera. My point, which everyone seems to be ignoring for their own reasons, is that a FF X system would not suit MY needs or my pocket, and would divert Fuji from developing a very good system I've already bought into. It's not me who's moving the goalposts - a system that suits my needs and pocket - it's everyone else telling me why they need a FF and how I can have one too for less than £5,000 by buying a Nikon DSLR. I didn't start this to find out which FF systems I can buy for less than £5,000. I've already sold my 5D Mk II and L lenses, so why would I bother?

The Nikon system isn't equivalent to what I have now. I don't care if the DF or 610 or whatever isn't all that big, or that I can stick tons of third party lenses on the front. People want a FF for the better DOF control - fair enough - and OK you only need f/2 to match f/1.4, but why buy a FF camera to get better DOF and put an f/2 on it? With your brand spanking new weather proofed FF Fuji X and it's amazing organic sensor you're going to want f/1.4, or f/1.2, aren't you, and that's what Fuji are going to give you. You think that's going to be cheap? If Fuji do develop a FF X camera, and only produce 35, 50 and 85 f/2 lenses, how much more whining is there going to be on here? BTW I don't use MF lenses except for macro - I'm talking about a system that uses AF.

I know the 56 isn't available yet, but I have faith it will be soon. Most people would have settled for a 56 f/1.4 if they could have had it already, but Fuji moved those goalposts, not me.

stimpy said:

Sal Baker said:

You still don't understand the difference between a 36mp sensor and a 16mp sensor. How can you be taken seriously? The comparison above has nothing to do with APS-C vs FF sensors with that amount of MP discrepancy.

Sal

Click to expand...

How can you rationalise that an honest comparison between the Sony A7r and Fuji X-E2 "has nothing to do with Full frame vs APSC"

Click to expand...

Simple: one is 36mp and the the other is 16mp. The 36mp should look a lot better in a 100% crop. In the comparison above the 36mp only looks a little better which I find astonishing. Sony would need to get out of the camera business if they couldn't make a 36mp sensor that showed more resolution than a 16mp sensor at 100%

Sal