The future for Fuji cameras

Started Dec 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 11,626
Re: The future for Fuji cameras

Midwest wrote:

57even wrote:

Midwest wrote:

57even wrote:

Reuters article fails to mention the fact that smaller companies have minimal penetration in the US compared to the big three. Only reasons SLRs are still dominant are:

1. Price - entry level prices for DSLRs are still low compared to mirrorless. Fuji's low cost entry level is a bid to fight off that difference.

2. Brand - most people only know Nikon and Canon in the camera market, and they push SLRs so that's what people buy.

Nothing to do with a preference for the OVF? Faster AF and something called 'tracking'? Great handling and plenty of body controls on a non-cramped body?

No. Most first time users or buyers of entry level SLRs generally have no idea, and they are quite used to a compact or smart-phone so unlike you they don't care about EVFs.

The OVF on entry level (and most APSC) SLRs is pretty awful anyway. I know several people who bought an EVF camera because is was much brighter and easier to see

I started with a Canon Rebel and moved to a 7D. While the 7D's OVF is certainly better than my old T3i and XSi (600D and 450D) had, I never once felt that they were too small, dim, hard to see. Having spent a lot of time in the Rebel / XXXD forum I recall no specific posts or threads where people had a hard time using one of those OVF's. I can say for certain that I've seen some more expensive EVF cameras with threads about those viewfinders being hard to see on sunny days (I'm talking EVF, not the LCD), too bright when you put them up to your eye when your eyes are used to darkness, and other complaints.

Not from me. I see complaints about everything on the forums, but I only believe what I try for myself. Current EVFs are much better than most entry level OVFs.

Everyone has their preferences, I respect that, but speaking at least for Canon's entry level DSLR's I don't think the OVF can be called 'awful' by any stretch of a sober imagination.

Everything is comparative. I find small penta-mirror viewfinders next to useless for gauging focus or accurate framing. And of course totally useless for gauging exposure.

, plus you have all the information in the VF and you don't have to hold it at arm's length to do video.

Of course you can't do video through an OVF anyhow on a DSLR, you have to use the LCD. Frankly I've done so little video that I can't recall what information Canon displays about the video on the LCD.

The point is I can see everything I want in the EVF before I take the shot, and at least with Fujis what I see in the review is almost exactly what I saw in the EVF. They are also much better for checking point focus following a shot, especially if you use glasses.

I am completely OK using an EVF alongside my D800, and I don't mind it in the least. It's extremely convenient being able to preview so much information (WB, exposure etc) before firing the shutter, and it's much easier to manual focus (magnified image etc).

Again, we all have our preferences. I never found that I was able to really judge white balance or other things well enough in an EVF for that to be a benefit to me.

I find the Fujis particularly good in that respect. The Sony's less so (too much contrast). Oly in between. But I don't mind either. EVF took some getting used to, but now I don't notice it. Just a matter of adapting.

I suppose it depends on how quickly one must make a shot; you have plenty of time to examine WB etc. if shooting a landscape but not if shooting kids' sports. But if your eyes are used to a cloudy day the white balance may look more acceptable in an EVF than it is going to later on when your eyes get used to other light.

Fuji's auto WB is so good I have almost never had to adjust it. The human eye adjusts pretty well to WB on an EVF because its an emitter (much brighter than the surroundings). What I see is generally what I get.

As for manual focus, you certainly have a point, but I can't manually focus as well as the camera can autofocus 95% of the time and it takes me a lot longer. Hence I virtually never manually focus. Again, whether shooting landscapes or action it makes a difference how handy this is. What you need and what I need are two different things and that's fine by me.

MF is always a useful last resort in situations where AF typically struggles. It is absolutely essential for night photography. On most SLRs I have to resort to live view and MF. Even on my D800.

AF is also far more accurate and it's no longer slow by comparison. As for tracking, most entry level SLR cameras can't track a three legged tortoise so I don't see that makes any difference.

Phase detect AF has been a lot faster than contrast detect since day one and still remains that way. In really good circumstances CDAF has gotten much quicker, but it still can't track action as good as my 2008 Canon Rebel did, and once the light levels drop, CDAF slows way down. It does make a difference, unless you're only shooting relatively static things like landscapes or flowers and under favorable conditions. I believe it was the Nikon 1 that added some PD sensors on the imaging sensor and got a much faster AF out of the deal, but when the light level drops it has to switch back to contrast detect and is then much slower again.

But it is still not as accurate. Only the top end SLRs are calibrated well enough to use fast lenses with any predictability, and even they cannot adjust for focus shifting (on aperture and focus distance) and nearly all of them come with user adjustment because, simply, their focus tables are an estimate.

I replaced my D7000 with an Xpro1 because even with FW1.00 and some practice I could achieve extremely sharp focus, something that was entirely hit and miss on the Nikon in anything but good light. In fact, only my D700 and D800 have been reliable in the regard, both the the same D3 base 51 point AF, and even they needed focus adjustment with some lenses.

But if you don't know you will buy a Canon or Nikon SLR because that's what everyone else does.

Perhaps "everyone" buys Canon and Nikon not just because 'that's what everyone else does' but because of their reputation of making good cameras.

Lots of people make good cameras. I spend a lot of time being asked by friends which camera to buy and if I say anything other than "DSLR, Canon or Nikon" they get worried because they never heard of the alternatives. However, those who tried out (on my advice) some of the alternatives nearly all decided to take my advice. And that has included Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh, Pentax, Sony and Fuji. I'm not brand biased, I just try and match a camera to their requirements. Sometimes though it's not one they heard of, and I always get immediate resistance.

It's not the DSLR crowd I see in the forums excitedly posting "When is the new model coming out - I'm on the BH preorder list, I can't wait - Just found out Amazon is going to get theirs a week sooner, cancelled my BH order, got on the Amazon list - I paid the full list price in advance but I don't care - does anyone have any links to sample photos - UPS tracking shows my new XYZ will be delivered this Friday, can't wait - etc. etc. " I see a lot of that for other types of cameras though, certainly a lot more than I ever have for DSLR's.

Not reading the Nikon FX forum then.

Everyone pursues photography their own way and if it makes someone happy then I have no problem with it. I just make the occasional observation about what I notice. To each their own.

I find I can adapt the the inconveniences of any system (there are always some) if I get the results I like from the files the camera produces. I don't mind having to work at it, as long as I find a solution in the end. I always have, if it's worth the effort. If it's not I just sell the camera.

The Fuji was worth the effort. Some people are not comfortable being early adopters, so they would be better off waiting until the bugs are ironed out. I got good enough results from the get go and they have improved considerably over time.

Whatever the supposed "issues" with Fuji, there are other issues (some even worse) with other cameras. A point which seems to be completely overlooked.

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow