SigmaChrome
Forum Pro
Awe... come on Truman! You tell me this NOW! OMG! I've wasted the last 50-odd years.
;-)
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Full Circle?
- Thread starter Truman Prevatt
- Start date
;-)
forest dream
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,930
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,588
Still no too late, may be you can try lightweight photography journey via Fujifilm X-T1 (400g) + XC 15-45mm (136g) + XC 50-230mm (375g)
;-)
I liked my x-t1 a lot. I sold it and bought a x-t3 and never liked it. Strangely 100 grams make a lot of difference.
By roll film format I was referring to the use of the 35 mm movie film of the day for still photography. The 127 was roll film - a little smaller than 120 but one still had to mess with the roll. At some point it time roll film backs were designed for the Speed Graphics for use by the press. However, the 127 format started to die off in about 1960 as the 35 mm film stock become better and more available in color. Actually it was Kodak that put a bullet in the head of it's 127 roll film format when the introduced the 126 cartage in 1963 to go along with their Instamatic camera - the snapshot camera preferred by Buffy the Little League Mom. The whole ideal was that Buffy could open the camera and pop in a cartage and close the camera - the camera did the rest. Then when she took the last shot she simply took out the cartage and put it in a prepurchased envelope and mail it off to Kodak. The prints and negatives would arrive later in the mail. The of course Kodak expand the line to 110 format which was a flop. As 35mm film (which was tagged little format) became better the smaller 126 and 110 formats faded.
The 35 mm camera using 35 mm movie film turned sideways was a seminal disruptive even in still photography. We still use it today even in digital. Even the 645 small medium format cameras, e.g., Mamiya 645, use 120 film not 127 film.
That seems to be the case with my Q2M - but I still want the option to turn it off. I have done hand held exposure bracketing on my Q2M and I expect IBIS is very valuable there.
Which is not the case at all. Cameras with IBIS have floating sensors. When power is off - the sensor is free floating like lens elements in lenses with magnetic linear motors. When power is off to the actuators - the sensor is free not locked down. Special needs to be taken cleaning a sensor in a camera with IBIS and only clean it with the camera ON.
--Same with Olympus computational photography multi-shot mode, IBIS just a extra features which useful when it needed.
Some consumer dislike FAS.
Different consumer may has different needed.
Easy solution - screen modular design allow consumer purchase screen module either FAS / two pivoting screen / E-Ink status panel
Screen modular design should be simple since it similar to X-H2s optional cooling fan. Consumer just screw screen module into back of camera body.
More prefer combine M-C1-C7 dials with aperture ring and shutter speed.
Similar to X100V, but replace ISO dial with M-C1-C7.
When M(Manual) selected, entire camera operate same as Fujifilm X-E3.
Consumer can FULLY programmable below item (or more) into C1-C7 :
If C1-C7 defined aperture/shutter speed, consumer stills can override predefined parameters (switch back to manual) via rotate aperture ring/shutter speed dials.
- max ISO
- minimum shutter speed, which can be either a specific speed or 1/, 2/, 3/ or 4/focal length.
- AF subject
- IBIS mode
- focal length & lens name if using manual lens
- crop mode
- Computational Photography multi-shot mode. E.g. C7 - direct enter Pixel-Shift-High-Res interface, default with predefined setting but allow change via special Q-menu
Also prefer Q2 unmark EC dial which allow programmable to other function via Fn button on top dials.
Leica Q2 EC dials - Pressing Fn button initially gives access to whichever function you last used. Holding the button for a 'long press' allows you to choose which of your stored options you want the camera to call upon when you next tap it.
"The winds of heaven is that which blows between a horse's ears," Bedouin Proverb
__
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt
forest dream
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,930
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,588
Agree. FULL programmable should include "allow consumer manually turn off".
Similar M-C1-C7 dials, consumer can turn off C1...C7 via switch to M (manual) mode.
Nikon Z9 featuring VR Lock when camera off.
Most likely the camera actuators draw a small amount of power to "lock" the magnets to hold the sensor. That is certainly better than nothing but - not what I would consider physically locked. I would like to see the sensor housed and physically locked down. It could be done by the actuators moving the sensor down into a seat and arms holding it in place. However, magnetically locking the sensor in place - even if it draws a little from the batter is something all IBIS systems should do.
The discussion is interesting, and I think it is fair to say that the path forward is not at all clear. So many pulls involved between stills-video, optical perfection to compete with FF-compactness, distinctiveness-standardization (PASM).
Fuji should keep in mind another circle that is often validated... and that is the tendency for old-style, tactile tech left behind often makes a very profitable niche come back, such as film and vinyl records have done. For that to work in the APSC medium, you would want to concentrate on compactness.
A top priority for me for a next body would be a small IBIS body (limited to 3-3.5 stops with 3-axis you could design it to take up a very limited space) so that the Fujicrons and other small lenses can be more effectively used in low light. The notion that IBIS is primarily benefitting video strikes me as very odd. In reality, it is economical (IBIS is cheaper than adding IS to all the lenses), and saves on overall size compared to IS.
Keeping old style controls (not PASM) would be the next priority.
If nothing else, Fuji needs to sharpen distinctions between the classes. It would be a good idea for X-T to rely on stills and compactness while the X-H has greater emphasis on faster lenses and video. If these two lines get aligned as flagship (XH) and mid-tier (XT), that would be a major marketing mistake, IMO.
Fuji should keep in mind another circle that is often validated... and that is the tendency for old-style, tactile tech left behind often makes a very profitable niche come back, such as film and vinyl records have done. For that to work in the APSC medium, you would want to concentrate on compactness.
A top priority for me for a next body would be a small IBIS body (limited to 3-3.5 stops with 3-axis you could design it to take up a very limited space) so that the Fujicrons and other small lenses can be more effectively used in low light. The notion that IBIS is primarily benefitting video strikes me as very odd. In reality, it is economical (IBIS is cheaper than adding IS to all the lenses), and saves on overall size compared to IS.
Keeping old style controls (not PASM) would be the next priority.
If nothing else, Fuji needs to sharpen distinctions between the classes. It would be a good idea for X-T to rely on stills and compactness while the X-H has greater emphasis on faster lenses and video. If these two lines get aligned as flagship (XH) and mid-tier (XT), that would be a major marketing mistake, IMO.
snip
No longer will there be one sensor in all X cameras. There are options to target different aspects. The 26 MP stacked for speed for sports, slow motion video, etc., and the 40 MP for applications that don't require the speed.
But the XH2 form factor is a large form factor - about the size of the XH1. If the XT5 is a larger form factor than the XT4 I seem that as a colossal mistake. If Fuji tries to mimic all the high speed aspects of the XH2 in a smaller form factor I see that as a colossal mistake. The mid tier XT to the flagship XH2 is a mistake. The XT should be targeted to a different niche - a different camera. I don't think one needs to really reduce the IBIS capability but to reduce it's size. If it only hits 5 stops rather than 7 - that's enough.
Fuji got a lot of its customers because of its small form factor, high quality lens mirrorless with a traditional UI. Niche yes but with the XH2 and XSxx in the house there i the XT and XPro (at least in my option) should stay in that niche.
Yes and if Fuji doesn't do it someone else will.
I have no problem with the XH2S - it is good that Fuji has developed the base technology to support this camera. It is also good that Fuji has developed two sensors - the 26 MP stacked sensor for the H2S and the 40 MP BSI non-stacked for the XH2.
No longer will there be one sensor in all X cameras. There are options to target different aspects. The 26 MP stacked for speed for sports, slow motion video, etc., and the 40 MP for applications that don't require the speed.
But the XH2 form factor is a large form factor - about the size of the XH1. If the XT5 is a larger form factor than the XT4 I seem that as a colossal mistake. If Fuji tries to mimic all the high speed aspects of the XH2 in a smaller form factor I see that as a colossal mistake. The mid tier XT to the flagship XH2 is a mistake. The XT should be targeted to a different niche - a different camera. I don't think one needs to really reduce the IBIS capability but to reduce it's size. If it only hits 5 stops rather than 7 - that's enough.
Fuji got a lot of its customers because of its small form factor, high quality lens mirrorless with a traditional UI. Niche yes but with the XH2 and XSxx in the house there i the XT and XPro (at least in my option) should stay in that niche.
robert1955
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,159
- Solutions
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4,962
I mostly agree, except for the very last sentence. I don’t think these marketing labels are that important to most people, price points are and the xt5 introduced at a somewhat lower price than the xh2 at that time will work well.
I would not even mind the retro dials, though I ‘d prefer a well thought out pasm/control dial
No doubt, price point is key. I think the pro reviewers put more emphasis on where the various bodies rank than the consumer. To your point, the original X-H1 got off to a terrible start due to unacceptable pricing compared to video oriented FF cameras coming out at the same time (not to mention aging sensor, unclear marketing goal).
Now look at the X-T4 which really has only one key feature upgrade - IBIS - and has kept its pricing up all along (with the help of some shortages, I suppose). And I'm looking at the 'Most Popular Cameras' listing as I write this - and the X-T4 is still on top at 5.6% while the exciting, new X-H2S is at only 2.0% - and price pretty clearly is the reason for that.
Fuji surely must understand where its bread is buttered!
--
JNR
Last edited:
KariP
Veteran Member
My first Fujifilm ilc was X-E1 . It had something to do with my Leila-dreams. Much cheaper , but usable like Leica. T1 is also quite small like E3.
Then came H1 that i bought because it was very cheap - 50%off
Evolution of H1 goes imo to a strange direction - very good camera . Size and weight and also the price quite high. In Finland X-H2s is 2990€. New Canon R7 has also APS C sensor and is quite nice camera - price 1500€. H2s is perhaps more for professionals and a flagship - i just wonder if There are professionals …..
--
Kari
I started SLR film photography in 1968. Now two systems: Fujifilm X-H1 + X-E3 and Canon FF gear 5dMkIV + R6
Rightsaidfred
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,961
- Solutions
- 18
- Reaction score
- 2,996
You're right Truman.
I will keep my tiny and lightweight XF 35 mm f/1.4.
And my tiny and lightweight XF 23 mm f/2.
And my tiny and lightweight XF 50 mm f/2.
It's just such a relief to use them.
Exactly.
True.
True.
Regards,
Martin
Doug MacMillan
Senior Member
I have a Leica catalog from 1959. The M3 body sold for $259.00, which would be $2,500 in today's money, more than the H2s. Some famous professionals had Leicas, but the overwhelming majority were owned by bankers and dentists who used their expensive toy to take crushingly boring photos.
BTW, my M3 that I've had for 40 years was made in 1963.
Fuji XF lens designers take a more conventional approach avoiding miniaturisation; if that was even possible. Olympus M43 sort of covers that department. Having bought Sony A7 some years ago imagine my surprise at the size and weight of their 90mm macro lens. The alternative go for lighter manual focus lenses? However sometimes it is worth the effort to take on a heavy-duty lens like Fuji 16-55mm f2,8 to appreciate that it takes no short cuts.
To be fair to Fuji - this is the introduction of the fifth generation technology. This is only the beginning not the end of the line for this generation. I agree the XH2S is expensive but it has a very expensive to fabricate sensor - it could not be anything else. This should also stop the whining about "Fuji can't AF or track." Will every Fuji camera - especially those with the non-stacked sensor chip compare in AF speed and AF tracking. Of course not. Will they be better than the current XTrans IV - of course. That does not keep the peanut gallery that wants the best for nothing for whining and demanding they get it - but that is a different story.
I am willing to give Fuji time to roll out the remainder of the 5th generation line. It is only the clowns that demand everything to be exposed in a nanosecond or else they will go buy a Sony. My suggestion - go buy a Sony and be happy.
Or as Spock would say - "be well and prosper."
I'll try to be generous here, and just say that you might have gotten lost in the big forest and just plain missed seeing so many trees (of Fuji origin).
The lens designers have taken all sorts of approaches, including highly successful small lenses. In the wrong hands, even the 18-55 will perform better than the 16-55 because the stabilization will make up for a wrong decision regarding shutter speed by using IS - accomplished in a very small package. Not that the two lenses are all that easily compared - and the optical qualities are not close. There is real compromise either way.
Same with the differentiation regarding small primes and large primes.
I think it is a mistake to compare FF, APSc and m4/3rds in the way you have here... as sensor size really does make a huge difference. At least, Fuji tries to bridge both ways, and your comments reflect how trying to do so much in both directions can tend to get you lost in the forest.
MaartenSFS
Senior Member
I enjoyed your write up. I think that it’s too soon to say whether or not that is the direction that they are headed in. I too sm hoping for an 18mm f/2 II. The new 30mm f/2.8 could be interesting, though.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum