View Full Version : Will Fujifilm get it right?
Lot of people hope, including me, that Fujifilm will get things right with the X100 but Thom Hogan is rather pessimistic in his followup article (http://www.bythom.com/2010%20Nikon%20News.htm). Any signs that Hogan is too pessimistic on this?
—Mitch/Paris
Scratching the Surface (http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157621142420186/)
Hogan is analysing (or, rather, pretending to analyze) an interface that he has not used and about which core details are not publicly known. His criticisms are overblown exactly to the extent that those critical details are, and remain, unknown.
And he has done nothing to fill in any of those details.
In addition, his criticisms of the left-side viewfinder are, to put it mildly, asinine. And I say this as a left-eyed shooter.
There are going to be good things and bad things about this camera, just like every other camera. When the camera is on the street, we will learn how the X-100's specific tradeoffs work for any given photographer.
What I do know is that the tradeoffs of the available DSLRs, many of which Hogan seems to be crazy about (specifically: those that have the important-to-Hogan feature of bearing the "brand N" label), don't work as well for me as the tradeoffs in my M6.
I doubt that the X-100 will be a lot worse for my purposes than any of the current compact DSLRs. Whether it approaches an M6 is another matter altogether, and that obtaining answer requires only patience and about $1000.
FrozenInTime
10-07-2010, 22:01
Conspiracy theory: comments paid for by Nikon to spread doubt and give then time to catch up ?
nikon-trying-to-freeze-the-mirrorless-market-with-vague-statements (http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2010/09/nikon-trying-to-freeze-the-mirrorless-market-with-vague-statements.html)
Semilog, I certainly agree with you on the left-eye comment but, to be fair, Hogan does criticize Nikon a lot.
—Mitch/Paris
Tokyo: It is love by people and special thanks for you (http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/1329514827/in/set-72157601877119712/lightbox/)
Does Thom take photos?
Yup. Mostly landscape.
I will say about his work only that he is reasonably technically competent, and obviously energetic.
However, if you read his articles, his camera preferences will make it immediately clear that the parameters that he values most are not necessarily the same as the parameters that many in our community (at RFF) value most. His preferences are not invalid, but they may not apply to you or me.
And he frequently has the very un-useful habit (for a "serious" commentator) of not distinguishing between objective difference and subjective preference.
Conspiracy theory: comments paid for by Nikon to spread doubt and give then time to catch up ?
nikon-trying-to-freeze-the-mirrorless-market-with-vague-statements (http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2010/09/nikon-trying-to-freeze-the-mirrorless-market-with-vague-statements.html)
Well, what would you say if you're a camera manufacturer, and you were caught by Fuji's announcement on the wrong foot? Would you say no, we don't have any of this up in our sleeve? Or would you rather give all those Nikon fans out there a vague reason to wait a little longer, until Fuji's offering is out for real, showing its first (unavoidable) flaws, so that you're winning a little time to cover up your own omissions?
...
And he frequently has the very un-useful habit (for a "serious" commentator) of not distinguishing between objective difference and subjective preference.
+1
Yup. Mostly landscape...*snip*
Yeah that makes sense, thanks. I agree, it's important to know a bit about the reviewer's background before one places too much reliance on opinions. Most importantly, look at their photos. Not that I dont respect landscape photographers, quite the opposite actually, but I wouldnt expect them to understand what is important in a camera for street or documentary photography. They dont, and, to be honest, it shows.
Personally I found Sean Reid's photos quite close to my aesthetic (I'm not affiliated with him in any way), thats why it didnt surprise me that he typically covers little things that make or break a camera for me and I cant find anywhere else on the internet like prefocusing/zone focusing ability, seeing the subject, shutter sound, if the lens resets when the camera takes a photo or switches off etc. I know I'm a little weird like that and probably in the minority who worries about such small details but there you go, one look at the photos and I know who will understand my priorities.
Yes, the comment about the viewfinder location says it all. Also, I cannot understand how he professes to give a meaningful appraisal by criticising the dial arrangement at the back, without mentioning the analogue controls on the top. Yes, if they don't have a dedicated ISO button it will suck. But the analogue aperture and comp controls still put it ahead of the GF1 - a very successful camera - even without considering the innovative viewfinder.
LIke anyone else, Hogan is struggling to articulate a memorable, concise, ' schtick, just like those columns in your favourite newspaper which say one thing one day, then the opposite the next. Huge numbers of commentators have proclaimed the importance of the X100. COming in a little late, it's logical he'd take the opposite tack to stimulate controversy, but I think he's struggling.
It would be far more effective if he'd pointed out why the X100 could be a disappointment. Fuji might actually sit up and take notice. By declaring it is a disappointment, he's ensuring they don't.
Actually, there are dozens of things Fuji could indeed get wrong. Look at the X1, a nice if not radical concept let down by the execution. But I would think anyone interested in cameras would welcome a camera with a decent viewfinder and more usable, analogue controls, not necessarily for the object itself, but for how it can influence the competition and help transform the tools we need to take photos.
noimmunity
10-08-2010, 02:44
Look at the X1, a nice if not radical concept let down by the execution. But I would think anyone interested in cameras would welcome a camera with a decent viewfinder and more usable, analogue controls, not necessarily for the object itself, but for how it can influence the competition and help transform the tools we need to take photos.
Leica's response was telling: "the X100 proves the validity of the X1 concept."
In a sense, the success of the actual production model X100 is fast becoming a moot point. In the age of viral marketing, the business model is based as much upon providing a service as much as an actual good. The X100 (not the X1, sorry Leica) has established the validity of a concept (a concept that was admittedly discussed here for literally years before its adoption by a major camera maker).
Any serious critic of photographic equipment should be realizing that the X100 already is a success irrelevant of its actual implementation (which will certainly be surpassed by future iterations).
It's still a concept, a debating point though isn't it? Not a working model of a camera about to go into production.
So far I guess the only thing I'm disappointed with is the fixed lens concept.
Not to say they shouldn't have gone that way, but it might just be the one thing that stops me buying the camera.
antiquark
10-08-2010, 18:32
However, if you read his articles, his camera preferences will make it immediately clear that the parameters that he values most are not necessarily the same as the parameters that many in our community (at RFF) value most. .
Here are some essays by Hogan on how Nikon can improve their cameras:
http://www.bythom.com/design2010.htm
http://www.bythom.com/usersuggestions.htm
It gives you an idea of his design philosophy (i.e., lay on the features, thick and heavy!) which is somewhat at odds with the X100 concept.
NickTrop
10-08-2010, 19:44
His only point is about an ISO dial - and that's an unknown. This camera really should have one. A minus but not a deal breaker if it doesn't... As for the rest? Holy mother of pure speculation Batman! - and overblown quibbles. It's a compact digital fixed lens rangefinder with a fast lens - essentially, with what would seem to be a great, innovative VF and control dials instead of menus. It should be a great camera based on these facts Fuji's track record - hence the excitement. They know how to make a camera. - Always did, why they survived.
NickTrop
10-08-2010, 19:48
So far I guess the only thing I'm disappointed with is the fixed lens concept. Not to say they shouldn't have gone that way, but it might just be the one thing that stops me buying the camera.
But that's the whole point! I'm definitely not buying, and ironically I agree with you in a sideways kinda way. I have a compact Nikon DSLR with a fast 50mm lens that never leaves the camera. It's a DIY "fixed lens" camera. Suits my needs, is small enough. This camera doesn't offer enough over what I have apart from some dials (which is nice) and cool styling... I actually prefer 50mm to 35mm so there's no need to spring for the Fuji, though I would if I hit the lottery. It is an interesting camera though and looking forward to its release, user comments, reviews, and sample pics.
Personally I found Sean Reid's photos quite close to my aesthetic (I'm not affiliated with him in any way), thats why it didnt surprise me that he typically covers little things that make or break a camera for me and I cant find anywhere else on the internet like prefocusing/zone focusing ability, seeing the subject, shutter sound, if the lens resets when the camera takes a photo or switches off etc. I know I'm a little weird like that and probably in the minority who worries about such small details but there you go, one look at the photos and I know who will understand my priorities.
Bingo!
Another example. Lloyd Chambers takes very different photos than I do, but he understands that not everyone weights camera and lens parameters in the same way, and he takes tremendous care to ensure that his reviews are as broadly useful as possible, including to photographers who do different things than he does. This takes both objectivity and imagination (the latter to understand how others might see things).
...So far I guess the only thing I'm disappointed with is the fixed lens concept.
Not to say they shouldn't have gone that way, but it might just be the one thing that stops me buying the camera.I know you're not second guessing the fixed lens design, but the issue is interesting because, it seems to me, herein lies a big difference between film and digital cameras. Film cameras with interchangeable lenses, obviously the norm, don't involve sub-optimization; digital cameras do because of the need for light to strike the sensor perpendicular to the sensor plane rather than at an angle, as possible with film. Hence, the desirability for the type of "shifted" micro lenses that Fujifilm is designing for the X100, which can be optimized by having the lens and sensor designed for each other. Ricoh is using the same approach in their lens-sensor units for the new GXR camera. In contrast, the Leica M8/M9 design, with interchangeable lenses, is a sub-optimization — the question is whether the sub-optimization makes a significant enough of a differences to matter. On the other hand, Olympus for the E1-E5 4/3rds cameras use relatively large 4/3rds lenses that have a large image circle relative to the size of the sensor, with the result that image quality all the way across the frame is outstaning, actually better than that of the Leica M8/9 design, according to a post in the long X100 thread on the LUF by someone called "nugat".
As I understand it, then, here are two ways of achieving the best possible image quality in digital cameras by (1) optimizing a non-interchangeable lens with a sensor so that the lens can be relatively small like that of the X100, or (2) designing a lens (even a zoom lens like the Olympus 4/3rds system) with an image circle substantially larger than the size of the sensor. Is all this correct?
—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria Book Project (http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/3043427126/in/set-72157613189560804/lightbox/)
BillBingham2
10-09-2010, 05:58
I do not know if it's image circle or distance of the last element from the focal plane and getting all your light rays to hit the sensor at 90 degrees. Perhaps you do both. All of the 4/3s glass is very long compared to CV M mount glass. Even the new Leica glass is longer than the old stuff. When ZM glass first came out it too was longer than CV or 10 year old Leica glass. It was rumored to be that way for a digital body.
B2
Using a big sensor helps, too, because bigger sensors (as has always been true for larger formats) place lower demands on the optical system. In the film era, some of the very best lenses on any cameras were found on the subminiature Minoxes.
Brian Sweeney
10-09-2010, 06:08
The Olympus 17/2.8 is quite small, looks like a slight negative element up front for retro-focus design. It is only 22mm long, as per the website. It does quite well on the camera, could be some firmware optimizations going on.
BillBingham2
10-09-2010, 06:41
I wonder if the 4/3s mount provides this sort of info back to the body. They get the focal length from it while they drive the focus and aperture from the body. They might be taking the leica approach.
Anyone got some time to read up on the mount?
B2 (;->
As I understand it, then, here are two ways of achieving the best possible image quality in digital cameras by (1) optimizing a non-interchangeable lens with a sensor so that the lens can be relatively small like that of the X100, or (2) designing a lens (even a zoom lens like the Olympus 4/3rds system) with an image circle substantially larger than the size of the sensor. Is all this correct?
Interesting.
I guess as a non pro I don't need the absolute finest quality down to the wire. I admit I'm having too much fun slapping all manner of lenses on my two current digital cameras - Epson RD1 and Panasonic GH1.
I'm amazed actually that I'm still using my 1980's M lenses on brand new cameras. Cameras not even made by Leica.
That's not to say Fuji should compromise on their design to suit me. I wouldn't deny Fuji the large amount of potential customers who will buy this camera if it delivers on image quality.
Just in an open debate on a concept camera, the one thing that might stop me buying the camera is the fixed lens.
Good on Fuji for bucking the current trends and offering something different I guess. :)
jsrockit
10-11-2010, 07:01
Sounds like pessimism to me... the camera's not even out yet. This camera appears to get more right than wrong... and that should be applauded.
damien.murphy
10-11-2010, 08:04
Lot of people hope, including me, that Fujifilm will get things right with the X100 but Thom Hogan is rather pessimistic in his followup article (http://www.bythom.com/2010%20Nikon%20News.htm). Any signs that Hogan is too pessimistic on this?
—Mitch/Paris
Scratching the Surface (http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157621142420186/)
Yeah, Thom really wants camera makers to design and manufacture cameras for him. He's been at it for years with Nikon, but perhaps he owns Nikon stock.. :)
He took the biscuit for me though, in joining many other non-Leica shooters, in telling Leica what cameras they should be making. Seemed a bit of a hack after that, so wouldn't be bothered with too much of what he's saying re: the Fuji.
More on topic, the one thing that is an item of concern with the X100, is whether Fuji can keep the functionality manageable, as some Fuji digital cameras in the past have had awful menus
..not that I plan to be surfing any of the menu items when I get mine :)
antiquark
10-11-2010, 08:28
Some of his complaints are questionable. IE:
Too many buttons. (Button count is in line with modern digi cams. )
Needs another button for ISO. (Lots of cameras omit the ISO button.)
The viewfinder will make your nose jam for left-eyed people. (Same could be said about SLRs, the center finder makes EVERYBODYs nose jam!)
Compact cameras should have hand grips. (Probably the handgrip has been removed to increase compactness. )
Offset hot shoe and tripod mounts are a no-no. (Sez who? Offset hotshoe worked fine for the famous Nikon F3, offset tripod works fine for the Leica M series. )
Of course we should wait until an actual X100 appears in the real world, then we can determine how usable it really is.
jsrockit
10-11-2010, 08:50
More on topic, the one thing that is an item of concern with the X100, is whether Fuji can keep the functionality manageable, as some Fuji digital cameras in the past have had awful menus
..not that I plan to be surfing any of the menu items when I get mine :)
But with shutter speed dials and aperture rings, etc, there won't be the need to always go into menus. Even if ISO is buried in a menu, oh well... it'll still be 99% good if they deliver as proposed.
MaxElmar
10-11-2010, 09:15
I'm very excited to have a look through that viewfinder - I've always said that optical with an electronic overlay was the way to go. It seems so obvious to me...
Thom is a bit grumpy on it, but I think he's had high hopes for various compacts for over many years and he's always disappointed. Sadly, it's gotten to be a habit for him...
with 90% coverage and 0.5x magnification, I first wanna look through that VF before making up my mind.
to get an idea of what a 95% (slightly better) coverage with 0.5x magnifications looks like, look through an entry level DSLR for example a Nikon D40/D60 so on.
with 90% coverage and 0.5x magnification, I first wanna look through that VF before making up my mind.
to get an idea of what a 95% (slightly better) coverage with 0.5x magnifications looks like, look through an entry level DSLR for example a Nikon D40/D60 so on.
AS has been mentioned a couple of times already, the 90 % coverage applies to the framelines. They have to be slightly conservative to allow for parallax; even so, they're about as tight as any RF framelines you can find.
You will still be able to see outside the framelines of course - which you can't do on an entry level DSLR for example a Nikon D40/D60.
AS has been mentioned a couple of times already, the 90 % coverage applies to the framelines. They have to be slightly conservative to allow for parallax; even so, they're about as tight as any RF framelines you can find.
You will still be able to see outside the framelines of course - which you can't do on an entry level DSLR for example a Nikon D40/D60.
I could live with 90% coverage even though i'm aware that with parallax factored in it can be like shooting in the dark. However, the 0.5x magnification is something that I will have too see for myself. because I simply cannot stand it in DSLRs, the whole world reduced in size by half through a small window is claustrophobic to me at least.
I'm also slightly uneasy about the highest ISO setting being 6400, which means anything above ISO 800 will be noisy if one takes the parallel of other sensors.
I really do look forward to X100, but I also know this much that for me it will be either X100, Nikon D7000 or an X camera that is yet to be announced. As much as I hate DSLRs for street, that D7000 has all the right specs and the right price. We shall have to wait and see.
damien.murphy
10-11-2010, 10:19
But with shutter speed dials and aperture rings, etc, there won't be the need to always go into menus. Even if ISO is buried in a menu, oh well... it'll still be 99% good if they deliver as proposed.
That is true, and to be honest I hate delving into menus unnecessarily. If I could control shutter speed, aperture, iso, metering mode, and have a button for raw, without having to delve into the menu's, I would be a very happy customer :)
Correction:
The Nikon D60 is actually 0.8x magnification!
And I absolutely can't stand the VF of D60. I think this is not looking good for me at least.
On the other hand D7000 has 100% coverage with 0.94x magnification.
Anyway, I know its too early but just making a few points that are deciding factors in my case.
Lot of people hope, including me, that Fujifilm will get things right with the X100 but Thom Hogan is rather pessimistic in his followup article (http://www.bythom.com/2010%20Nikon%20News.htm). Any signs that Hogan is too pessimistic on this?
—Mitch/Paris
Scratching the Surface (http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157621142420186/)
There is only one way Fujifilm could have got it more right with me - and that is a digital Xpan. Mr Hogan was not at Photokina. Admittedly I was only around the Fujifilm area a relatively short period of time but I saw no one leaving without a big smile on their face - a smile of an 8 year old boy winning 3 minutes in a big toy store with a trolley to fill.
The AF speed and accuracy of the Panasonic GH2 was probably a bigger piece of news and with a much higher likelihood to upset the markets, but no one smiled there. I think Fujifilm's pricing [subject to the camera actually delivering on specs] is a clever move. It is not so far away from other cameras bought by enthusiasts (Sigma DPs, GXR, PENs, GF1), yet it is at a price point where people who held back at the X1 (I did) will think themselves prudent.
I for one thing think Fujifilm absolutely right on target with the 35mm focal length. It will fit beautifully between my DP1 and DP2 :D I only hope it will not have green cast ;)
And the best thing is of course that it will enable Fujifilm to finally build that digital Xpan. TX-3 perhaps :angel:
Offset hot shoe and tripod mounts are a no-no.[/B] (Sez who? Offset hotshoe worked fine for the famous Nikon F3, offset tripod works fine for the Leica M series. )
I don't like offset tripod sockets, but it's not far offset, and what we really want is a socket close to the lens's nodal point, for stitching pano's. The very short lens on this camera puts the socket closer to the actual nodal point than on almost any other APS-C camera, and of course if it has to be perfect, you're going to need an adaptor plate in any case.
Anyway, these criticisms are pretty weak sauce.
Correction:
The Nikon D60 is actually 0.8x magnification!
And I absolutely can't stand the VF of D60. I think this is not looking good for me at least.
Once again: The D60 only has 0.8x magnification when mounted with a FIFTY MILLIMETER LENS EQUIVALENT.
The X-100 has a THIRTY-FIVE MILLIMETER LENS EQUIVALENT.
35 / 50 = 0.7X
0.7X x 0.8X = 0.56X.
In other words, when both cameras are considered at 35mm equivalent, the magnification of the subject field on the X-100, at 0.5x, is quite close to that of the D60 at 0.56X.
But the X-100 will show a MUCH larger field of view (including things outside the framelines) compared to the D60 or any other SLR.
Now, the 0.5X finder may still be too wide for your taste (personally, I like shooting an M6 0.85), but please at least compare apples to apples.
Frank Petronio
10-11-2010, 21:29
I'm pessimistic because there is a lot to cram into an entirely new camera, from a manufacturer who doesn't have a track record of making superior UI decisions and they are pricing it lower than I'd expect a really top-notch camera to be. It may likely focus faster than an X1 and have a viewfinder. It has pleasant industrial design. The rest I'll leave to you guys to report back on.
...and they are pricing it lower than I'd expect a really top-notch camera to be...With continued weakness of the dollar the yen today is just below 82 to the dollar. With the yen so string vis-a-vis the dollar it would suprise me that Fujifilm could sell this camera at $1,000.
—Mitch/Paris
Scratching the Surface (http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/3288123582/in/set-72157621142420186/lightbox/)
damien.murphy
10-12-2010, 03:57
It may likely focus faster than an X1 and have a viewfinder. It has pleasant industrial design.
Fuji had me at viewfinder :)
SeonNantonPhotos
10-13-2010, 09:40
I do think it is going to be a usable camera since I like rangefinders... looking at the camera gives me a nostalgic feeling for a time that photography was more romantic, i dont really care for the automation... and zoom who really cares about zoom if you can just walk alittle closer ... i am a street photographer and I think it will be perfect for my purposes, so when this camera does see daylight.. I will get my hands on this beautiful rangefineder, i mean sure they are gonna be naysayers ..but there is no such thin as the perfect all purpose camera ..
I do think it is going to be a usable camera since I like rangefinders... looking at the camera gives me a nostalgic feeling for a time that photography was more romantic, i dont really care for the automation... and zoom who really cares about zoom if you can just walk alittle closer ... i am a street photographer and I think it will be perfect for my purposes, so when this camera does see daylight.. I will get my hands on this beautiful rangefineder, i mean sure they are gonna be naysayers ..but there is no such thin as the perfect all purpose camera ..
When was photography romantic?
Even Michelangelo Antonioni masterpiece Blowup, which is the most flattering portrayal of a photographer ever put on the screen shows the photographer as a conceited predatory bag... :)
SeonNantonPhotos
10-13-2010, 11:00
When was photography romantic?
Even Michelangelo Antonioni masterpiece Blowup, which is the most flattering portrayal of a photographer ever put on the screen shows the photographer as a conceited predatory bag... :)
Yes there was a time that photography was as i put it "romantic" I am a child of the digital era but I went back to film because I love the look of the rangefinder became disenfranchised with all the automation in the digital camera.. and as long as the X100 shoots great stills i dont care about movies and af or any of that crap... i can focus myself and i would get a camcorder if I wanted to shoot movies...
further to sum up what i meant i would quote Ansel Adams "A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed." (there is your romance)
DougFord
10-13-2010, 11:28
Now, the 0.5X finder may still be too wide for your taste (personally, I like shooting an M6 0.85), but please at least compare apples to apples.
You would think that looking through the viewfinder ‘should’ be not unlike looking through the viewfinder of the CLE as far as relative frameline sizes are concerned
CLE - .58 with 40mm framelines
Fuji - .50 with 35mm-e framelines
fuji
126.5(W) x 74.4(H) x 53.9(D) mm including lens
CLE
124.5 x 77.5 x 32mm (D) (without lens)
Very close in size to a CLE with the 40mm summi/rokkor attached, sans hood.
fuji
126.5(W) x 74.4(H) x 53.9(D) mm including lens
CLE
124.5 x 77.5 x 32mm (D) (without lens)
Very close in size to a CLE with the 40mm summi/rokkor attached, sans hood.
Wow, I had not seen a specific comparison of the dimensions. That's super cool.
Pherdinand
10-13-2010, 12:58
and who the heck is Thom Hogan, some kind of relative of Hulk?
And why should we care about him commenting on something he didnt even use yet?
DougFord
10-13-2010, 13:42
CLE - .58 with 40mm framelines
Fuji - .50 with 35mm-e framelines
fuji
126.5(W) x 74.4(H) x 53.9(D) mm including lens
CLE
124.5 x 77.5 x 32mm (D) (without lens)
add 23.5mm (summicron) to the (D) = 55.5mm for the CLE
I'm thinking that at least one of the engineers had a CLE sitting on their desk.
Or, it could be just a coinkydink :rolleyes:
John Robertson
10-13-2010, 15:03
You can never please all of the people all of the time, but if you can please some of the people -- etc etc.
sojournerphoto
10-13-2010, 16:01
You would think that looking through the viewfinder ‘should’ be not unlike looking through the viewfinder of the CLE as far as relative frameline sizes are concerned
CLE - .58 with 40mm framelines
Fuji - .50 with 35mm-e framelines
fuji
126.5(W) x 74.4(H) x 53.9(D) mm including lens
CLE
124.5 x 77.5 x 32mm (D) (without lens)
Very close in size to a CLE with the 40mm summi/rokkor attached, sans hood.
iirc the R4x has a 0.5x viewfinder. I wondered if the 0.5x is a bit wide for a 35mm eq lens and that perhaps it has a narrower field than the R4's. Certainly, on the R4, the 35mm frames are really the smallest I'd want to use. The Ikon is 0.74 and that's about perfect with 35, but it's a very big (and expensive) finder. Time will of course tell.
Also, fwiw, it not sensbile to compare slr magnificatoin with rf. slr's vary with focal length and are typically quoted with a 50 lens, which makes less than 36 by 24 sensor cameras sound better than they are. A 50 on a Canon APS-c camera is equivalent to an 80 o full 35mm frame, but the mag is usually similar or lower than a good full frame silm or digital slr. Therefore the picture is tiny.
Mike
Did Fujifilm get it right...concept, design, marketing...? Yes.
Will Fujifilm get it right...menu, built quality, IQ...? More than likely.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.