What would be your wishlist to Fujifilm today?

DJ STU-C said:

John Gellings said:

DJ STU-C said:

John Gellings said:

MAC said:

DJ STU-C said:

Its simple from me, think about new photographers and what their alternative to the £400/£500 DSLR with kit lens market is. Because like it or not, the lack of anything in Mirrorless world to provide an option means lots of people will never buy a camera.

Im fairly certain we were fed marketing speil at one time or another that Mirrorless would be much cheaper than DSLR due to less moving parts, no optical VF, having both AF and imaging on the same sensor etc etc.

Click to expand...

good points

you'd think a simple 23 mm f2 on a small fuji wouldn't cost a fortune - but it does - and will not get newbies to enter

Click to expand...

Yet Fuji is one of the hottest cameras out there for "newbies." One man's fortune is another man's hot dog.

Click to expand...

My main issue John, that much like Football, it’s moving itself away from catering for the working man (or woman), £400 for a camera kit was/is doable for most, when we start hitting 4 figures it soon becomes a middle class luxury.

Click to expand...

Well, I would say that it is still in reach of the middle class, but the middle class can't have everything anymore. I mean I see tons of middle class people with a bigger house than they need, multiple cars, buying tons of food, etc. If photography is your thing, surely a $2000 camera isn't going to stop the middle class. It isn't like a $2000 camera is something new. I'd argue now that a $2000 camera today is a lot better than a $2000 camera just 10 years ago overall. So much so, that you can buy a camera right now and use it for a very long time. Unfortunately for some, Fuji has decided not to make low end cameras anymore. Canon still does. Nikon does too.

That said, if circumstances don't allow for a $2000 camera (as they sometimes do), I would say there are plenty of cameras on the used market that will still help the average person make photos if they want to get away from their phone.

Click to expand...

No, that was my point, it becomes only affordable to the middle class, and not the working class. That old £400 kit could provide someone on modest income a worthwhile entry into photography and a great hobby, £1200 and it’s suddenly much less attainable when you’re on £12 an hour and have bills to pay.

It shouldn’t be a plaything for the well off in my opinion.

Click to expand...

John Gellings said:

DJ STU-C said:

John Gellings said:

DJ STU-C said:

John Gellings said:

MAC said:

DJ STU-C said:

Its simple from me, think about new photographers and what their alternative to the £400/£500 DSLR with kit lens market is. Because like it or not, the lack of anything in Mirrorless world to provide an option means lots of people will never buy a camera.

Im fairly certain we were fed marketing speil at one time or another that Mirrorless would be much cheaper than DSLR due to less moving parts, no optical VF, having both AF and imaging on the same sensor etc etc.

Click to expand...

good points

you'd think a simple 23 mm f2 on a small fuji wouldn't cost a fortune - but it does - and will not get newbies to enter

Click to expand...

Yet Fuji is one of the hottest cameras out there for "newbies." One man's fortune is another man's hot dog.

Click to expand...

My main issue John, that much like Football, it’s moving itself away from catering for the working man (or woman), £400 for a camera kit was/is doable for most, when we start hitting 4 figures it soon becomes a middle class luxury.

Click to expand...

Well, I would say that it is still in reach of the middle class, but the middle class can't have everything anymore. I mean I see tons of middle class people with a bigger house than they need, multiple cars, buying tons of food, etc. If photography is your thing, surely a $2000 camera isn't going to stop the middle class. It isn't like a $2000 camera is something new. I'd argue now that a $2000 camera today is a lot better than a $2000 camera just 10 years ago overall. So much so, that you can buy a camera right now and use it for a very long time. Unfortunately for some, Fuji has decided not to make low end cameras anymore. Canon still does. Nikon does too.

That said, if circumstances don't allow for a $2000 camera (as they sometimes do), I would say there are plenty of cameras on the used market that will still help the average person make photos if they want to get away from their phone.

Click to expand...

No, that was my point, it becomes only affordable to the middle class, and not the working class. That old £400 kit could provide someone on modest income a worthwhile entry into photography and a great hobby, £1200 and it’s suddenly much less attainable when you’re on £12 an hour and have bills to pay.

It shouldn’t be a plaything for the well off in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Certain cameras have always been expensive though. And Canon still makes a $500 APSC mirrorless still. That is the Rebel of its time. Fuji has never been the Rebel of its time.

Click to expand...

Mountaingrapher said:

Hi everyone,

Everything is in the title, if you'd like let's share why you'd wish Fujifilm would do for current or next generation bodies. Some wishes could be just a matter a software, some of hardware. Discuss features, functionalities, software & hardware -bodies and lenses-.

I am just curious to read what would be other people one's when thinking about the Fuji X system.

Click to expand...

Erik Baumgartner said:

Mountaingrapher said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

#1) An option to assign real-time minimum shutter speed control in Auto-ISO mode to a dial has long been on my wishlist - this would negate having to select a different Auto-ISO preset as conditions change, or really having to use the presets at all, and could easily be implemented in a number of ways. They should also, of course, fix the auto-min. SS implementation with at least a 2X focal length option. As it routinely selects 1/60” for a 56mm lens, it is currently worthless.

Click to expand...

I'd be nice indeed if the SS dial could define the MINIMUM shutter speed also, indeed, But it's tricky because sometimes you want fix SS, or like the lowest SS (no reduce ISO) than is compatible with what you shoot, whereas sometimes you want the highest ISO under a value and the fastest SS that is compatible with the thing you're shooting...

Click to expand...

A menu option that transfers the min. SS (and maybe the three Auto-ISO presets) to the rear dial in “T” mode when Auto ISO is active would do the trick.

Erik Baumgartner said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

The X-T50 would have been a much nicer camera with the original drive dial, an ISO dial, or a customizable dial, IMO.

Click to expand...

It exists, it's the X-T5.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it would be nice to also have a smaller body with most of the same core features and interface to complement it - much as the X-T20 was to the X-T2.

Erik Baumgartner said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

The X-E5 is better and isn’t compromising any significant previous functionality, but if they could make the film sim dial customizable for those who don’t use film sims, and not make it cost as much as an X-T5, they’d be getting somewhere. For those who do use film sims, it’s nice that you can now have some custom recipes on the dial - you should be able customize all the positions, IMO.

Click to expand...

That'll likely be a X-Pro with the X-Trans V (or VI?) sensor, not the X-E5.

Click to expand...

Well, it could have been the X-E5. Nice camera, but it costs as much as the X-T5.

I’d love an X-Pro4, but without the OVF and the stupid X-Pro3 screen. For $1699, the X-E5 should have been that camera.

Click to expand...

1. a better EVF: I need the EVF to be big, high res, and color accurate
2. a better LCD screen: it needs to be at least as good as any current smartphone screens
3. a better menu system: learn from Leica or Hasselblad?
4. a longer battery life never hurts
5. a better camera strap system: have you seen the old Hasselblad or Rollei straps?
6. Simplify lens thread: too many filter sizes!

SDPharm said:

For me, the X-T5 works perfectly. No need to add additional 'features.' But I wish they can work on these things to can make it even better:

1. a better EVF: I need the EVF to be big, high res, and color accurate
2. a better LCD screen: it needs to be at least as good as any current smartphone screens
3. a better menu system: learn from Leica or Hasselblad?
4. a longer battery life never hurts
5. a better camera strap system: have you seen the old Hasselblad or Rollei straps?
6. Simplify lens thread: too many filter sizes!

Click to expand...

DJ STU-C said:

SDPharm said:

For me, the X-T5 works perfectly. No need to add additional 'features.' But I wish they can work on these things to can make it even better:

1. a better EVF: I need the EVF to be big, high res, and color accurate
2. a better LCD screen: it needs to be at least as good as any current smartphone screens
3. a better menu system: learn from Leica or Hasselblad?
4. a longer battery life never hurts
5. a better camera strap system: have you seen the old Hasselblad or Rollei straps?
6. Simplify lens thread: too many filter sizes!

Click to expand...

Those smartphone screens aren’t being adopted by cameras for a reason, because they cost a small fortune.

Click to expand...

io_bg said:

DJ STU-C said:

SDPharm said:

For me, the X-T5 works perfectly. No need to add additional 'features.' But I wish they can work on these things to can make it even better:

1. a better EVF: I need the EVF to be big, high res, and color accurate
2. a better LCD screen: it needs to be at least as good as any current smartphone screens
3. a better menu system: learn from Leica or Hasselblad?
4. a longer battery life never hurts
5. a better camera strap system: have you seen the old Hasselblad or Rollei straps?
6. Simplify lens thread: too many filter sizes!

Click to expand...

Those smartphone screens aren’t being adopted by cameras for a reason, because they cost a small fortune.

Click to expand...

But so do cameras nowadays. How much more would it cost to adopt a cheap OLED screen, like $/€20? I totally agree with points 2 and 3.

Click to expand...

Minolta TC-1 said:

io_bg said:

DJ STU-C said:

SDPharm said:

For me, the X-T5 works perfectly. No need to add additional 'features.' But I wish they can work on these things to can make it even better:

1. a better EVF: I need the EVF to be big, high res, and color accurate
2. a better LCD screen: it needs to be at least as good as any current smartphone screens
3. a better menu system: learn from Leica or Hasselblad?
4. a longer battery life never hurts
5. a better camera strap system: have you seen the old Hasselblad or Rollei straps?
6. Simplify lens thread: too many filter sizes!

Click to expand...

Those smartphone screens aren’t being adopted by cameras for a reason, because they cost a small fortune.

Click to expand...

But so do cameras nowadays. How much more would it cost to adopt a cheap OLED screen, like $/€20? I totally agree with points 2 and 3.

Click to expand...

I think this entire screen topic is a bit off-track. There is no use at all using "current smartphone screens" on cameras. Why? Because smartphones are made for gaming these days and feature 120Hz screens, which is completely useless on a camera. Also, with current resolutions going over 3K (vertical), cutting a screen like that in half would perhaps give you a 1600x1200 resolution, which is not as high as e.g. the Sony A7RVI and only about the same as the X-T5.

Second, "cheap OLED" doesn't equal "as good as any current smartphone screen". Worse, no screen the size of a camera will be cheap to produce because of numbers. The camera market is what, 100x smaller than the smartphone market? That by itself will inflate the production cost of the screen to the point where it's no longer interesting to use.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a screen that costs €20 more will result in a €20 price increase of the camera. The price at which a device is sold, is typically 3-5x the price of the components. So adding a better LCD panel would lift your price by €100.

Click to expand...

io_bg said:

DelnT said:

I would like an X-Pro with a modern sensor.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with the 26 mp one? It offers plenty of resolution and unless you're often cropping heavily I don't see any advantages by going 40 mp.

Click to expand...

Minolta TC-1 said:

io_bg said:

DJ STU-C said:

SDPharm said:

For me, the X-T5 works perfectly. No need to add additional 'features.' But I wish they can work on these things to can make it even better:

1. a better EVF: I need the EVF to be big, high res, and color accurate
2. a better LCD screen: it needs to be at least as good as any current smartphone screens
3. a better menu system: learn from Leica or Hasselblad?
4. a longer battery life never hurts
5. a better camera strap system: have you seen the old Hasselblad or Rollei straps?
6. Simplify lens thread: too many filter sizes!

Click to expand...

Those smartphone screens aren’t being adopted by cameras for a reason, because they cost a small fortune.

Click to expand...

But so do cameras nowadays. How much more would it cost to adopt a cheap OLED screen, like $/€20? I totally agree with points 2 and 3.

Click to expand...

I think this entire screen topic is a bit off-track. There is no use at all using "current smartphone screens" on cameras. Why? Because smartphones are made for gaming these days and feature 120Hz screens, which is completely useless on a camera. Also, with current resolutions going over 3K (vertical), cutting a screen like that in half would perhaps give you a 1600x1200 resolution, which is not as high as e.g. the Sony A7RVI and only about the same as the X-T5.

Second, "cheap OLED" doesn't equal "as good as any current smartphone screen". Worse, no screen the size of a camera will be cheap to produce because of numbers. The camera market is what, 100x smaller than the smartphone market? That by itself will inflate the production cost of the screen to the point where it's no longer interesting to use.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a screen that costs €20 more will result in a €20 price increase of the camera. The price at which a device is sold, is typically 3-5x the price of the components. So adding a better LCD panel would lift your price by €100.

Click to expand...

io_bg said:

Minolta TC-1 said:

io_bg said:

DJ STU-C said:

SDPharm said:

For me, the X-T5 works perfectly. No need to add additional 'features.' But I wish they can work on these things to can make it even better:

1. a better EVF: I need the EVF to be big, high res, and color accurate
2. a better LCD screen: it needs to be at least as good as any current smartphone screens
3. a better menu system: learn from Leica or Hasselblad?
4. a longer battery life never hurts
5. a better camera strap system: have you seen the old Hasselblad or Rollei straps?
6. Simplify lens thread: too many filter sizes!

Click to expand...

Those smartphone screens aren’t being adopted by cameras for a reason, because they cost a small fortune.

Click to expand...

But so do cameras nowadays. How much more would it cost to adopt a cheap OLED screen, like $/€20? I totally agree with points 2 and 3.

Click to expand...

I think this entire screen topic is a bit off-track. There is no use at all using "current smartphone screens" on cameras. Why? Because smartphones are made for gaming these days and feature 120Hz screens, which is completely useless on a camera. Also, with current resolutions going over 3K (vertical), cutting a screen like that in half would perhaps give you a 1600x1200 resolution, which is not as high as e.g. the Sony A7RVI and only about the same as the X-T5.

Second, "cheap OLED" doesn't equal "as good as any current smartphone screen". Worse, no screen the size of a camera will be cheap to produce because of numbers. The camera market is what, 100x smaller than the smartphone market? That by itself will inflate the production cost of the screen to the point where it's no longer interesting to use.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a screen that costs €20 more will result in a €20 price increase of the camera. The price at which a device is sold, is typically 3-5x the price of the components. So adding a better LCD panel would lift your price by €100.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Smartphone screens are so much brighter and have better viewing angles in comparison to cameras' rear screens. This is the part camera makers have to get right. And yes, I'd pay €100 more for a nice screen.

Click to expand...

DJ STU-C said:

io_bg said:

Minolta TC-1 said:

So adding a better LCD panel would lift your price by €100.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Smartphone screens are so much brighter and have better viewing angles in comparison to cameras' rear screens. This is the part camera makers have to get right. And yes, I'd pay €100 more for a nice screen.

Click to expand...

But you're also missing the point, that those smartphone screens would cost Fujifilm far more than £100/euros to purchase, due to the buying power and volumes purchased by these smartphone companies.

Also the processing power required to power them, using chips that would cost far far more to buy in small volumes than the likes of Apple are paying for them in their 10s of millions.

Click to expand...

Minolta TC-1 said:

DJ STU-C said:

io_bg said:

Minolta TC-1 said:

So adding a better LCD panel would lift your price by €100.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Smartphone screens are so much brighter and have better viewing angles in comparison to cameras' rear screens. This is the part camera makers have to get right. And yes, I'd pay €100 more for a nice screen.

Click to expand...

But you're also missing the point, that those smartphone screens would cost Fujifilm far more than £100/euros to purchase, due to the buying power and volumes purchased by these smartphone companies.

Also the processing power required to power them, using chips that would cost far far more to buy in small volumes than the likes of Apple are paying for them in their 10s of millions.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my assumption that the LCD panel would add €20 to the BOM was way off if you're factoring in the numbers game. The screen of a smartphone, according to AI, is around 20% of the BOM of a smartphone. The BOM is 20% of the sales price of the phone. So for a €1000 phone, you get €200 BOM, €40 of which is the screen.

Now multiply that by 5 or 10 because 1) you want different dimensions which results in 2) way lower volumes. So the cost of the screen would be €200-€400. Multiply by 5 for the sales price and you'll get your nice 120Hz gaming screen in your camera for €1K-€2K on top of the cost of the rest of the camera ;-)

Click to expand...

Minolta TC-1 said:

DJ STU-C said:

io_bg said:

Minolta TC-1 said:

So adding a better LCD panel would lift your price by €100.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Smartphone screens are so much brighter and have better viewing angles in comparison to cameras' rear screens. This is the part camera makers have to get right. And yes, I'd pay €100 more for a nice screen.

Click to expand...

But you're also missing the point, that those smartphone screens would cost Fujifilm far more than £100/euros to purchase, due to the buying power and volumes purchased by these smartphone companies.

Also the processing power required to power them, using chips that would cost far far more to buy in small volumes than the likes of Apple are paying for them in their 10s of millions.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my assumption that the LCD panel would add €20 to the BOM was way off if you're factoring in the numbers game. The screen of a smartphone, according to AI, is around 20% of the BOM of a smartphone. The BOM is 20% of the sales price of the phone. So for a €1000 phone, you get €200 BOM, €40 of which is the screen.

Now multiply that by 5 or 10 because 1) you want different dimensions which results in 2) way lower volumes. So the cost of the screen would be €200-€400. Multiply by 5 for the sales price and you'll get your nice 120Hz gaming screen in your camera for €1K-€2K on top of the cost of the rest of the camera ;-)

Click to expand...

io_bg said:

I don't know why you keep insisting on 120 hz screens. No one has said we want that, instead more brightness and contrast are needed for easier viewing outside.

And you keep changing your rules, first, adding a better screen would cost me €100, now it would suddenly cost 1-2K more.

Click to expand...

• a better LCD screen: it needs to be at least as good as any current smartphone screens