RF market post Fuji X100

[GSNfan]

Anyone willing to speculate what the RF market, film and digital, would be like after X100 is released? Do you fear a weakening of demand for RF cameras and a reduction in used market value for both film and digital RFs? This is in case Fuji X100 lives to its promise. I'd appreciate rational and pragmatic answers, thanks.

[Kolame]

I believe, analogue rangefinder won't die. There always be someone selling his or her M6 (and for most people this camera is at least "ok"), and film production is going well right now.
But for digital, the system of the X100 is where the digital rangefinder will go to. Of course, with interchangeable lenses.

[semilog]

Anyone willing to speculate what the RF market, film and digital, would be like after X100 is released? Do you fear a weakening of demand for RF cameras and a reduction in used market value for both film and digital RFs?

No.


10 char

[back alley]

i doubt that the x100 would become the primary camera for many shooters, it more than likely might be the second body for many so maybe there will be a decrease in the m3/m2 buyer market.

[ZeissFan]

It's just a camera. Another camera on which people have placed extraordinarily high hopes. Might be great. Might be average.

Even if it's great, does it convince film users that it's finally time to ditch their extensive rangefinder systems and "go digital"? Or convince people to buy into a film rangefinder? I don't think so.

I think it's effect will be negligible.

[stompyq]

Hopefully it'll steer the market away from m4/3

[back alley]

Hopefully it'll steer the market away from m4/3

why do you hope for that?

[jsrockit]

This camera will have no effect on Leica old or new. We all know if one wants a Leica, nothing else replaces that feel (however silly that sounds). I still believe it is a niche camera... but a niche camera that could end up being my primary camera and will probably do very well. For me, it seems like all my favorite cameras rolled into one hybrid.

[bwcolor]

I believe that the sky will open and God will descend and she will reveal herself to be using the new camera.

What does the X100 have to do with the 'rangefinder market'? It isn't a rangefinder and the percentage of camera owners shooting real rangefinders is very close to zero.

[jsrockit]

What does the X100 have to do with the 'rangefinder market'? It isn't a rangefinder and the percentage of camera owners shooting real rangefinders is very close to zero.

While it is not a rangefinder, it is the closest thing we have seen in digital to things like the Konica Hexar AF and the Contax G Series. Those are definitely cameras that rangefinder fans loved. It is the form factor and spirit that makes it similar.

[btgc]

Non-existant camera impacts RF market as much as global cataclysm in future may change weather and vegetation. It's still unclear.

[jmkelly]

At half the price it will have exactly twice the effect that the Leica X1 has.

[damien.murphy]

If I had an M8 I planned to sell, I might be concerned, but as the owner of a few film M's I can't see it changing anything for me. I'd like an X100, and may sell one of the M bodies I have to raise funds, but then I was planning to sell one of them anyway. I don't shoot enough 35mm to justify having a camera body lying idle all the time, and an X100 in the bag for colour shooting would nicely compliment a film M with B&W film loaded.

[Wiyum]

It seems to me that RF users (especially film RF users) are a rather diverse crowd that use rangefinders for a variety of reasons. You can see that in the way that this forum is divided on so many issues. Some love RFs for the small size and light weight. Some appreciate the manual controls. Some just love shooting film. Others like the build of the cameras, or the rangefinder focusing, and others are simply Leica junkies/snobs/aficionados. The x100 ticks many of the boxes that contribute to rangefinder appeal, so it is certainly likely that, if successful, it will steer some away from an RF that might have purchased one/contribute to some giving up on their RF. But it is neither a rangefinder-focusing camera nor is it a Leica, nor does it have interchangeable lenses, nor does it shoot film, so there are plenty of segments in the "RF user" group that won't be interested.

Meanwhile, I contend that most of the people that will buy an x100 *instead* of an RF would have been buying used anyway, so the effect on new product sales will be miniscule. The used markets may see some shifts, but nothing major.

I do expect the camera to be a big deal though, both among the community on this site and among hobbyists that may not have naturally found their way to RFs. I'm excited, both by the facts of the camera and by the way Fuji is treating it. I cannot remember a time when any company (even Leica) had this kind of enthusiastic and enthusiast-driven approach to marketing a camera. They know we're out here, and they want to sell us a camera. What more could you ask for?

[Sparrow]

i doubt that the x100 would become the primary camera for many shooters, it more than likely might be the second body for many so maybe there will be a decrease in the m3/m2 buyer market.

I do hope so :)

... I may lie about my age with the geezer group thing, as I seem to have the proper attitude :mad:

[j j]

At half the price it will have exactly twice the effect that the Leica X1 has.

I think you are underestimating; the X100 will have 100X the impact of the X1...

[bwcolor]

While it is not a rangefinder, it is the closest thing we have seen in digital to things like the Konica Hexar AF and the Contax G Series. Those are definitely cameras that rangefinder fans loved. It is the form factor and spirit that makes it similar.


I agree that form factor is the same. I have a G2, so I understand that argument. I would suggest that those few that do use rangefinders will also continue to use rangefinders because the X100 is not a rangefinder. I have been waiting for a compact digital and unlike you, did not spring for the X1. If the X100 is not what I am expecting I will wait for the X2, Nikon, Canon, or maybe consider the GXR. That said, I own at least ten true rangefinder cameras and I will continue to use them. There really isn't much of a market for new rangefinders and perhaps that is the point of the post. Will manufacturers simply stop making rangefinders with the introduction of the X100? I'm amazed that they still make these cameras, so why not market very high price rangefinders after the X100? That said, I question the future of mechanical rangefinders. Certainly, electronics will and can replace such a mechanism, which is prone to misalignment and is relatively delicate.

Yes, the M10 will be a rangefinder.

[mackigator]

If the X100 shows itself to be a better tool than my film RF's I won't care what it does to the RF market. Right now I have no plans to buy one, but I'll listen carefully for feedback from those who do.

[Arjay]

Prices for used Konica Hexar AF's might go down - but we'll only know after the X100 has appeared on the market.

Apart from that, if the X100 is a huge success, other camera manufacturers might take the needs of RF camera users more seriously and come up with further offerings that combine a large sensor with traditional camera controls, hopefully also with interchangeable lenses. However, I think that is still some time away, as e.g. the X100 with its inside-the-lens shutter and its closely matched lens/sensor combination does not really look like a potential camera platform for interchangeable lenses.

This camera won't immediately affect the market for M style cameras because that specific user group is beyond ultra conservative. For them, the camera will have to have been a smash hit for some years before they will discover that technology really has an attactive offering for them.

[GSNfan]

To say Fuji x100 is just another camera would be a mistake. It looks like a M Leica has a fast 35mm lens, shoots up to ISO 6400 and its only ~$1000. X100 is fixed lens but since its an AF camera lens adopters would be no problem and I'm sure they will be cheap as well. Also with a step up ring, it would be easy to use lens adopters of other cameras. X100 does not come in black but those of us who obsess about such things could easily use black electric tape. As to its manual focus implementation and the quality of its OVF, those we have to wait and see.

Reading the tea leafs, i definitely see at first a surge in used RF cameras for sale. People would at lease try to unload some of their extra camera bodies to raise cash. As to the RF market in general, its quite obvious that X100 is not good news for companies and dealers alike. Anytime the dealers started asking less and less for used RF camera and lenses the market would adjust itself and there will be a general decrease in the prices of RF gear.

[Frankie]

Leica aficionados immediately didn't like it because it ain't no interchangeable lens M-Leica...despite many couldn't afford the M8/9, or more than one lens [while a RFF poll indicates 35mm FL being most popular].

RF junkies criticized it because it has no RF patch...AF+AFL notwithstanding.

Zone shooters denounced it because it has no lens barrel markings...despite a virtual focusing scale with DoF indicator available in the O/EVF or LCD. [Zone focusing is really just preset focal distances given an f-stop...the X100 firmware might yet have such a feature.]

Meanwhile, many believe an in-lens shutter precludes later interchangeable lens versions...forgeting Hasselblad was a professional choice for decades with the same "limitation".

Despite Fuji had indicated, and the Leica M8/9 experiences had confirmed a ~20% offset from optimum wouldn't hurt much, especially with better sensor and higher post-processing headroom...many still insist dRF requires new magic.



I believe the X100 will spawn [I]new-think and renewed defiance of the Thought Police. And that, I believe is what a post Fuji X100 market might evolve into...the product price will guarantee that.

[migtex]

I go with Frankie!
It will open an "old" new niche that others will HAVE TO follow. (1000/€/$ Camera is market no "one" can not overlook).

I'm saving already!
And no, I don't indent to get rid of my film RF's!

[Wiyum]

[I had immediately imagined the 3-stops built-in ND filters could be replaced with 3 anti-vignetting patterns instead...]


I believe the camera has a single 3-stop filter, essentially an ND 0.9 filter, so were your dream to come to pass, you'd need to pick a single pattern. Though it is likely that the filter is small, and at a point in the optical path where it couldn't feasibly correct vignetting.

[Brian Levy]

I think it might be the camera to finally convert me IF it is as good as hoped. Not having a zoom or interchangeable lenses is no big deal for me as I tend to use a 40mm aobut 90% of the time in 35mm format. 35mm I do not care for quite as much but it would be only a little time before I could adjust and happily lve with it. As to the market impact, I'm not sure it will have much effect on the mass produced product nor the 95+% of the population that buys it.

[Jamie Pillers]

IF the x100 provides modern aps-c type image quality, and the viewfinder lives up to the hype, and the price isn't ridiculous, then this camera or some version of it WILL be my full-time primary street photography camera. I've been waiting sooooo long for something digital to come along to replace the Hexar AF I sold many years ago. And here it is.. I hope. If this isn't it... "it" is not far away... as I predicted when I joined up here :-)

As a street photography camera, the x100 could be dynamite! Changing ISO and white balance on the fly while moving in and out of wildly ranging light conditions in Oakland and San Francisco practically requires one to carry multiple cameras loaded with multiple kinds of film. Tired of that.

35mm fixed focal length? Perfect. No 'thinking about some other lens I'd like to have today' stuff. Just go out and make pictures.

I'm just praying that a BIG demand for this camera materializes. Then we might see some competition in this niche. YES!

[Jamie Pillers]

I wonder if anyone said this same thing when the Barnacks first hit the streets all those years ago? :rolleyes:

[Nettar]

I've really enjoyed the discussion above, but I wonder whether restricting attention to the Fuji X100 is narrowing perspective too much. Let's look beyond that camera to those that will follow, enlightened by Iker Morán's insightful interview (for Quesabesde) with Hiroshi Kawahara, the Operations Manager at Fujifilm's Electronic Imaging Products Division. That interview is headlined "The FinePix X100 is the starting point of the high-end cameras to follow in future," and the longer quotation from Mr Kawahara is:

"I'm happy to hear people commenting that Fujifilm came back to the professional market. The FinePix X100 is the starting point of the high-end cameras to follow in future, and although I can not tell you anything specific at this stage, please look forward to new Fujifilm cameras in the future."

See http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/fujifilm-finepix-x100-entrevista-hiroshi-kawahara,1_en_7074

I wonder whether I am alone in thinking that the innovative viewfinder of the X100 is rather eccentric for a camera with a fixed 23mm lens -- in particular, for a camera that actually could cope quite well with just the electronic viewfinder. Wouldn't a hybrid viewfinder, with rangefinder facilities, be ideal for a very compact digital camera with interchangeable lenses, particularly wide angle lenses? A rangefinder would be ideal for getting accurate focus with lenses such as an 18mm f/4 (an electronic viewfinder is not so helpful here), and the electronic viewfinder would be great for framing accurately, assessing depth of field, and so forth, for a wider variety of lenses. Perhaps an interchangeable lens camera with a hybrid viewfinder, and rangefinder-like characteristics, is one of the "new Fujifilm cameras in the future."

[skibeerr]

Your original answer is a little over dramatic me thinks. But you are right if I alone where the entire market.

Being a Hexar af lover when the x1 was released I gave it a few hours of thought,
but it was the lack of VF that killed it for me.
The price of the x1 is correct if compared with the other Leica offerings, lack of competition in a niche market.

The x100 blew me off my socks just with some photo's and a list of specs, crazy isn't it
and I am not alone!
Hopefully Fuji has chosen a decent production run/ price, and discarded the niche market approach.

So again the answer is yes if I where the world market.

Wim

[skibeerr]

I wonder if anyone said this same thing when the Barnacks first hit the streets all those years ago? :rolleyes:

OH but they DID change the camera scene back then!!!

[jarski]

just imagine the fuss in camera forums when Canon or Nikon announce first specs about their future Mirrorless camera system :p

[jsrockit]

I agree that form factor is the same. I have a G2, so I understand that argument. I would suggest that those few that do use rangefinders will also continue to use rangefinders because the X100 is not a rangefinder. I have been waiting for a compact digital and unlike you, did not spring for the X1. If the X100 is not what I am expecting I will wait for the X2, Nikon, Canon, or maybe consider the GXR. That said, I own at least ten true rangefinder cameras and I will continue to use them. There really isn't much of a market for new rangefinders and perhaps that is the point of the post. Will manufacturers simply stop making rangefinders with the introduction of the X100? I'm amazed that they still make these cameras, so why not market very high price rangefinders after the X100? That said, I question the future of mechanical rangefinders. Certainly, electronics will and can replace such a mechanism, which is prone to misalignment and is relatively delicate.

Yes, the M10 will be a rangefinder.

I see what you mean. I will buy the X100 as well (even while owning the GXR and X1). I don't mind having multiple cameras (like you, but all digital)... at least one will be inspirational on any given day. I think film rangefinders will exist for many years in some form... we have 3 different brands making 35mm RF cameras right now...more than the 1990s had prior to digital. We've seen more RF cameras introduced in 2000-2010 than we've seen in quite awhile. I just don't think we will see anyone but Leica make a true manual focus rangefinder in digital. Many people who are film only seem to make fun of the X100 as a camera that is trying to look retro but isn't really retro. I have no issue with that, but I've fully embraced digital these days.

[thegman]

Can't see it making much difference, I doubt it will affect the range finder market, as it's not a range finder. It looks cool of course, so maybe those people who get range finders for the looks/size might be tempted though.

[migtex]

More X100 (http://www.finepix-x100.com/story/craftsmanship?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=jan) GAS!!

http://www.finepix-x100.com/sites/all/modules/x100/content/images/story/craftsmanship-1.jpg

[ampguy]

I think that once folks realize it's made by CV and the OVF can get mis-aligned easily, and the lens has distortion, and you can't replace the lens without replacing the camera, that Sony NEX sales will take off like crazy!

It will help put a nail in the coffin the u4/3 though.

Any other questions? ;)


Anyone willing to speculate what the RF market, film and digital, would be like after X100 is released? Do you fear a weakening of demand for RF cameras and a reduction in used market value for both film and digital RFs? This is in case Fuji X100 lives to its promise. I'd appreciate rational and pragmatic answers, thanks.

[jsrockit]

I think that once folks realize it's made by CV and the OVF can get mis-aligned easily, and the lens has distortion, and you can't replace the lens without replacing the camera...

Yeah, I mean... because CV makes so much garbage.

[shadowfox]

I think that once folks realize it's made by CV and the OVF can get mis-aligned easily, and the lens has distortion, and you can't replace the lens without replacing the camera, that Sony NEX sales will take off like crazy!

It will help put a nail in the coffin the u4/3 though.

Any other questions? ;)

Keep pedaling, Ted. :p

[Benjamin Marks]

I have no interest in acquiring one of these, but I have to say there are a lot of innovations wrapped up in the camera and I think the amount of buzz it is getting cannot have escaped Fuji's notice, or that of the other photo mfct'rers. I dearly want to see innovation in this market segment rewarded, particularly as in the world of digi-cams there is a me-too'ism which I find boring and that leads to lackluster products. I would love to see Nikon and Canon take notice of the market segment (to quote Bill Murray's character in "Caddyshack" "How 'bout a little something for the effort?"). I have a hard time seeing how the success or failure of a fixed lens camera will "kill the micro 4/3 segment," as one poster would have it. Maybe I have missed the irony somewhere . . .

[edit: from the Fuji exec's interview above: "Furthermore, it is very difficult for an interchangeable lenses system to be compatible with a "hybrid viewfinder" system. In addition, achieving compact size and structure for high-resolution becomes a problem in interchangeable lenses systems. We will of course consider the possibility of forthcoming models reflecting the expectation of the end-users. " -- Doesn't sound like anyone is getting any nails in their coffin anytime soon . . .]

Ben Marks

[tapesonthefloor]

Agreed! Gunga galunga, camera industry. Gunga. Galunga.

[Wiyum]

I think that once folks realize it's made by CV and the OVF can get mis-aligned easily, and the lens has distortion, and you can't replace the lens without replacing the camera, that Sony NEX sales will take off like crazy!

It will help put a nail in the coffin the u4/3 though.

Any other questions? ;)

Jeez, that hadn't occurred to me! You wouldn't have recently acquired an NEX camera and want confirmation for your purchase, would you?

Seriously, you come off as a defensive brand troll...

If this camera performs as promised, it will be a new segment, and an amazing product.

Meanwhile, as one who has held and used an NEX, I can say that this camera, thankfully, has nothing in common with the NEX, as far as I understand. I like manual controls, real viewfinders, and camera design that assumes that I'm not an idiot or a new-camera owner.

I and Sony alone must be glad that you enjoy the assumption that you know nothing of cameras or photography when using Sony's latest NEX camera...

[GSNfan]

Since this new round of X100 news, there have been two M8s going for $1800 in the classified section of this forum. Just a coincidence or the start of a trend? We'll have to wait and see.

I might have fallen off the X100 bandwagon but I'm afraid even if this camera is not everything its touted to be, still a lot of people will buy it just for the way it looks, not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Frankie]

......I might have fallen off the X100 bandwagon but I'm afraid even if this camera is not everything its touted to be, still a lot of people will buy it just for the way it looks, not that there is anything wrong with that.

There are two German products that defy logic: Porsche 911 and Leica M.

The rear engine Porsche 911 design was contrary to laws of physics [as was the VW Beetle by the spiritual founding professor], but 4+ decades of dogged development efforts created a cult following. However, you will still read [disguised] negative remarks from journalists and critics.

The Leica M VF [M3] was originally conceived for use with a 50mm lens. 90 and 135mm framelines was easy to add, so put it on. Wide-angles was a whole different matter; macro...forget it. Decades of weird lenses Monty Python style, goggles, dual-range... later, a cult following was also established.

There was nothing classic or retro about the M body, compound curves and non-boxy designs were beyond machining operations of the day...CNC was invented much later. The M body design was just "old".

The X100 was never touted to be anything but itself...RFF opinions notwithstanding.

A common and simplistic description about the X100 design was "retro". I would rather call it "true" Japanese style. You will understand what I mean if you had spend time in Japan. I am glad the Japanese people are no longer shy in expressing themselves...instead of hiding behind the "establishment" facade.

I had spent more time than many on the X100 because of a lust for information. I immediately wanted one at first sight because it was "my idea"...a perfect walk-about camera that will not need film/processing support.

I had long believed that it will have modern firmware, but also manual control where matters.

Have SD/XC, will travel.

[GSNfan]

Imo Nikon is the epitome of Japanese design and design aesthetic. While Leica has the M series to be proud of, Nikon has so many cameras that its hard to know them all.

The X100 is no doubt the camera that a lot of us wanted, but one of those reasons was that it was not a Leica. What happened was once Fuji saw the enthusiasm, it begun to push X100 like a Leica type camera. Engraving and other purely cosmetic nonsense are a perfect example.

X100 is a pioneering camera, which finally made it clear to camera makers how important is form factor and viewfinder in digital compacts. But then again X100 would be forgotten by next year this time, trust me on that. There is no such a thing as a classic digital camera, there are only old and outdated digital cameras.

[dogberryjr]

Agreed! Gunga galunga, camera industry. Gunga. Galunga.
So you're saying the X100 will give total consciousness? That's nice.

[Frankie]

......The X100 is no doubt the camera that a lot of us wanted, but one of those reasons was that it was not a Leica. What happened was once Fuji saw the enthusiasm, it begun to push X100 like a Leica type camera. Engraving and other purely cosmetic nonsense are a perfect example.......

Actually, the top plate engraving and "Made In Japan" markings were on the Photokina camera...day 1.

[tapesonthefloor]

There is no such a thing as a classic digital camera, there are only old and outdated digital cameras.

This is growing less and less true at a measurable rate as sensor technology peaks, which is why mainstream manufacturers are moving so drastically towards gimmick over the past couple years (not that they didn't before). The big players built their digital camera economy around disposable and obsolete cameras, but the technology has grown to the point where yesterday's camera is still good enough for today and they need some other way of pushing today's designs out the door. Samsung has chosen putting an LCD screen on the front of their cameras. Fujifilm has chosen pushing camera design forward.

...not that the industry won't find new ways of making their cameras outdated: new card formats, new connector types, RAW converters protected by copyright and DRM, but I get the feeling you will still see 5D2s in heavy use a decade from now, and that might very well make it a "classic digital camera". Am I wrong?

[Frankie]

Tapesonthefloor is correct.

APS-C or larger sensors achieved 6u pixel size in late '08 [first Kodak], Dalsa was not far behind, nor Sony and others. The Nikon D3X started the new era...

The next smaller pixel would be 5.2u, perhaps soon.

Whether Leica or Nikon likes it or not, FF [or ~43mm image circle] at 6u is 24MP. No one wants to start a new lens array with larger image circle. [Leica of course will promote S2...]

I described all that as "FF truce" long ago, and manufacturers will have to find new ways to entice customers. Touting "my sensor has more pixel than yours" won't cut it anymore.

We all know firmware can be upgraded, and SD/HC and SD/XC are already on the market, what else can a manufacturer now promote?

[v_roma]

Agreed. My main digital camera is a Canon 350D, released almost 5 years ago. I wish it was stronger here and there but it certainly does not feel obsolete.

This is growing less and less true at a measurable rate as sensor technology peaks, which is why mainstream manufacturers are moving so drastically towards gimmick over the past couple years (not that they didn't before). The big players built their digital camera economy around disposable and obsolete cameras, but the technology has grown to the point where yesterday's camera is still good enough for today and they need some other way of pushing today's designs out the door. Samsung has chosen putting an LCD screen on the front of their cameras. Fujifilm has chosen pushing camera design forward.

...not that the industry won't find new ways of making their cameras outdated: new card formats, new connector types, RAW converters protected by copyright and DRM, but I get the feeling you will still see 5D2s in heavy use a decade from now, and that might very well make it a "classic digital camera". Am I wrong?

[bmasonoh]

No

For many the RF experience is rooted in film. For others it is developing and dare I say wet printing.

A digital rangefinder will not satiate those with these urges (myself included).

Having said that, it might make a nice complement to the arsenal. But it will never be a replacement of the analogue.

[videogamemaker]

I would argue the original 5D is a "classic". I am still using one to make 90x120cm massive prints, and I have no complaints.

I think we have hit the spot tech wise within the past several years that as long as the body works for you, you can keep it and use it till it falls apart. I certainly plan to keep using my 5D for another 5, 10, 20 years. If it breaks I will buy another 5D original to replace it.

I have wanted a 2nd camera for a while, and told myself I would when one with the right aspects comes along, and the x100 is looking like it fits for me. With the same-ish resolution as my 5D which makes prints of all sizes I am happy with, I see no reason why it can't become a "classic" that I use for decades to come.

[jsrockit]

What happened was once Fuji saw the enthusiasm, it begun to push X100 like a Leica type camera. Engraving and other purely cosmetic nonsense are a perfect example.


They never added anything cosmetic since they announced it.

[GSNfan]

This is growing less and less true at a measurable rate as sensor technology peaks

Sensor technology is in its infancy, we still haven't got FF sensors for the mass market yet. Secondly digital technology does not peak, ever, it might stagnate due to market necessities but it never actually peaks, the CPU technology is a good indication. When they could not increase the processing power on a single chip, multi core became the new trend etc...


which is why mainstream manufacturers are moving so drastically towards gimmick over the past couple years (not that they didn't before). The big players built their digital camera economy around disposable and obsolete cameras, but the technology has grown to the point where yesterday's camera is still good enough for today and they need some other way of pushing today's designs out the door. Samsung has chosen putting an LCD screen on the front of their cameras. Fujifilm has chosen pushing camera design forward.

Camera makers are more interested in market share and their bottom end, helping us with new technology in not top of their priorities. They will only introduce a new technology when they're sure it will give them an edge over the competition.


...but I get the feeling you will still see 5D2s in heavy use a decade from now, and that might very well make it a "classic digital camera". Am I wrong?

5D is going for $1000 in the used market, despite being a FF digital camera with a great reputation. This is at a time when FF cameras are still above $3000 for Nikon/Canon and $2000 for Sony... Is that mark of a classic camera? Not really, for one a discontinued old digital camera has no way of being fixed, secondly in 10 years there would be at least 50 more FF used camera in the market, because every manufacturer have to release a FF camera every second year if they wish to stay on top.

Every time someone has made a prediction about digital technology peaking, it has become a great joke, so I would not even conceive of the notion that digital camera technology would peak one day. in fact it might even accelerate now that Sony is going all guns blazing and trying to dominate the market.

[tapesonthefloor]

Sensor technology is in its infancy, we still haven't got FF sensors for the mass market yet. Secondly digital technology does not peak, ever, it might stagnate due to market necessities but it never actually peaks...

I wasn't clear enough about what I meant when I used the word "peak". What I meant was: sensors are finally getting good enough, in the same way that Windows XP is good enough, and that people will still be using it in ten years unless the practice is outlawed (for better or worse).

The first digital camera sensor I was even halfway satisfied with was the 6mp CCD in the Nikon D40, but I still found its noise unbearable in all but the sunniest settings. I haven't fiddled much with anything newer because most digital camera interfaces make me vomit a little bit in my mouth, but based on what I know I can predict that sensors one and two generations beyond the D40's will probably be good enough for me. And by good enough, I mean good enough for now, good enough for five years from now, and good enough for ten years from now. Good enough. I call that a peak.

The Fujifilm ex-hundred is being developed with the knowledge that camera disposability is levelling off. Fujifilm seems to be engineering a camera that will continue to be good enough in its interface and sensor for perhaps up to a decade. At least, I hope that's true.

So, that's what I mean by peaking. I don't care nearly as much about the industry and its innovations as some people. I care about what it can do for me, my processes, and my art. Digital cameras are finally—hopefully!—good enough for me, and this ex-hundred symbolizes the start of that brave new world.

Also, FYI: full-frame is obsolete unless you need to use old glass, or unless you have fringe DOF needs. Make no mistake: the sensor in the Fujifilm ex-hundred is, by all metrics except metric, "full-frame" for that camera.

[jsrockit]

I'll side with GSNfan on sensors. There will always be improvements (just as film always had "Improvements") and sensors are not good enough yet to the point of levelling off. We certainly need more dynamic range for one thing. I'm not saying that we don't have good sensors right now. I'm just saying that there is a lot of room for improvement and innovations beyond film.

[videogamemaker]

I'll side with GSNfan on sensors. There will always be improvements (just as film always had "Improvements") and sensors are not good enough yet to the point of levelling off. We certainly need more dynamic range for one thing. I'm not saying that we don't have good sensors right now. I'm just saying that there is a lot of room for improvement and innovations beyond film.

I agree with the last part, but not with the first. I do tons of post work, and I find my 5D sensor almost always up to the task, both in dynamic range and resolution, for all my print needs. If the X100 is indeed the d90 sensor, I see it being perfect for all the work I do. Would I love it if it had 3x the dynamic range? Sure, of course, and that's the part I agree with you with, that sensor's have room for improvement over what film could offer us, but I think once we get a camera that makes files of the quality necessary for our individual work, the improvements do indeed become irrelevant until years if not decades later when our current cameras break.

I was fully ready to keep using my 5D for another 5 years, a full decade, or even longer in the future. The mark II, the D3x, are both nicer, but when I can print, composite, color grade, or adjust curves to my hearts content without the files my current camera makes breaking, what's the point? The only reason the X100 tugs my heart strings is that it's so much smaller and lighter while still maintaining a real viewfinder. (I'm also hoping it syncs above 1/160 with an elinchrome skyport, but that's neither announced, nor important to most other photographers)

[Jamie Pillers]

In my way of thinking, it meets all the important criteria that define a rangefinder camera for me. No mirror slap, viewfinder with room around the framelines, small compact body. Just because focusing is 'by wire' doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for the huge advances the x100 represents.

[jsrockit]

VGM... all I'm trying to say is whenever anyone thinks we have enough or that things have levelled off, technology moves on and proves us wrong. It doesn't mean that the current cameras suck, but that future cameras will improve in ways we cannot imagine. The Canon 5D is great. However, years from now something will come out making that seem antiquated.

I mean, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

[videogamemaker]

VGM... all I'm trying to say is whenever anyone thinks we have enough or that things have levelled off, technology moves on and proves us wrong. It doesn't mean that the current cameras suck, but that future cameras will improve in ways we cannot imagine. The Canon 5D is great. However, years from now something will come out making that seem antiquated.

I mean, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

lol, I love that quote.

[tapesonthefloor]

VGM... all I'm trying to say is whenever anyone thinks we have enough or that things have levelled off, technology moves on and proves us wrong. It doesn't mean that the current cameras suck, but that future cameras will improve in ways we cannot imagine. The Canon 5D is great. However, years from now something will come out making that seem antiquated.

I mean, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

Great quote, but I've been able to compute at a high level using the same hardware (and same amount of RAM, depending on which box we're discussing) I bought in 1999. Technology may be marching forward in "ways I cannot imagine", but if new technology is unable to satisfy my needs (don't read into that) more efficiently than old/current technology, I consider that a "levelling off", of a sort.


...and this is rff.com: don't expect my photographic needs to be all that complicated. I just souped a couple old rolls of b&w while sitting cross-legged in my bathroom. I'm pretty sure my developing tank had cat hair in it. I got back my 1800x1200 scans an hour ago. I'm in heaven. I'm telling you: what technology can do is going to far outpace what I'll ever actually need.

(Full disclosure: I'm in IT/application design. My skillset has to stay on the very cutting edge of digital information management or I fall behind. I'm aware of "progress". When I get home most nights, though, I simply couldn't care less.)

[GSNfan]

I care about what it can do for [I]me, my processes, and my art.[/b] Digital cameras are finally—hopefully!—good enough for me, and this ex-hundred symbolizes the start of that brave new world.


Art by its very definition is a unique creation that cannot be repeated. With digital you can take the same raw file and how you process it into art can be repeated infinitely. This is the biggest limitation with digital photography because software post-processing is a linear process, preprogrammed and can be repeated exactly the same way many times over. That in itself kills the notion of the artistic value of the photos - in my humble opinion.

[jsrockit]

I'm aware of "progress". When I get home most nights, though, I simply couldn't care less.)

That's another decision entirely...and one that the general RFF member can appreciate. I could care less about many technological advancements for my needs as well. I generally like things simple. However, I still believe sensors will move forward in leaps and bounds with or without us.

[jsrockit]

Art by its very definition is a unique creation that cannot be repeated. With digital you can take the same raw file and how you process it into art can be repeated infinitely. This is the biggest limitation with digital photography because software post-processing is a linear process, preprogrammed and can be repeated exactly the same way many times over. That in itself kills the notion of the artistic value of the photos - in my humble opinion.

Many art galleries would not agree.

[GSNfan]

Many art galleries would not agree.

I'm not saying a digital photo cannot be art. It can, but purely on content. And if you're after content then any digital camera will do, not necessarily the latest and the most advanced.

[tapesonthefloor]

Art by its very definition is a unique creation that cannot be repeated. With digital you can take the same raw file and how you process it into art can be repeated infinitely. This is the biggest limitation with digital photography because software post-processing is a linear process, preprogrammed and can be repeated exactly the same way many times over. That in itself kills the notion of the artistic value of the photos - in my humble opinion.

We can disagree on this one. It's cool. But I've made "art" that is the digital bits. The work was art by virtue of its quantification and its inherent repeatability. I'm very protective of my all-inclusive definition of "art", but again... I'm more than happy to disagree, for I feel richer for having had the conversation regardless. :D

[Quash]

Re: Art
I'm not sure anyone benefits when we try to limit the definiton of art. This usually only leads to mediocrity. In terms of digital's contribution to art, post processing has its strengths and limitations but have you seen any of Ansel Adam's works side by side with different choices made when developing. Adam and his hands were artists in the darkroom. It's amazing what they accomplished.

Re: Sensor development
Is my D90 "good enough?" You bet. The only thing limiting it is its owner. Could I take great photos in 20 years with it? Absolutely. But, will I want to if new sensors have no noise at any ISO, I can get perfectly sharp photos when handholding 3s shots, and they have dynamic range of the human eye? Probably not. I thinking I'll be upgrading to the Fuji X1000.

[jsrockit]

Re: Sensor development
Is my D90 "good enough?" You bet. The only thing limiting it is its owner. Could I take great photos in 20 years with it? Absolutely. But, will I want to if new sensors have no noise at any ISO, I can get perfectly sharp photos when handholding 3s shots, and they have dynamic range of the human eye? Probably not. I thinking I'll be upgrading to the Fuji X1000.

That's what I was trying to say...it just wasn't coming out so eloquently. :o

[jsrockit]

The Konica AF sold poorly, as did the Contax G series. I remember my photo clients complaining they just could not move these cameras when they were new. Everyone (including me) looked at them, admired them, but did not open their wallets.

Well, in all fairness, compared to SLRs, the Leica M6 sold poorly as well. All of these were not mainstream cameras.

[Matus]

...

The Fujifilm ex-hundred is being developed with the knowledge that camera disposability is levelling off. Fujifilm seems to be engineering a camera that will continue to be good enough in its interface and sensor for perhaps up to a decade. At least, I hope that's true.

...


Well that is what Fujifilm is trying to make us believe to ease spending $1k+ on a fixed lens camera. But let's be honest - the X100 is bringing quite some new technology. But most of the time when something new pops out - it's get much improved in the second generation. The only way for the X100 to keep the value is to NOT introduce X200 18 moths later. Think of RD-1.

I am looking forward to see X100 performing. But I try not to have any false hopes concerning noise or dynamic range. From image point of view is is still "just" a 12 Mpix APS-C camera - hopefully with a really good lens - that's what matters, after all.

[Roger Hicks]

VGM... all I'm trying to say is whenever anyone thinks we have enough or that things have levelled off, technology moves on and proves us wrong. It doesn't mean that the current cameras suck, but that future cameras will improve in ways we cannot imagine. The Canon 5D is great. However, years from now something will come out making that seem antiquated.

I mean, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

True, which is part of the reason why the title of this thread might as well be "Apples market post oranges."

Cheers,

R.

[kbg32]

The Fuji X100 is not going to change a thing. It's just another object of desire for some. Another tool for image making for others. Rain will fall, the wind will blow.......I don't see the X100 as anything special. All that matters is what is in your hands that produces imagery that you want. If new technology helps you get there, great!

[DougFord]

This is Fuji's niche to blow.
The next major release should be a slightly larger version with a FF sensor. Same spec as the x100.
Fuji would create their own niche, fixed primes/uncompromising image quality/compact package/hybrid viewfinder.
Interchangeable lenses add size and weight and deter from the 'lensor dogma' that currently seems to be the 'engineers choice' when IQ is the paramount concern.
The offset OVF with parallax correction favors a small lens that doesn't block the view, so fixed lenses from here on out for the x-series of cameras, me thinks.

[Andy Kibber]

I think you are underestimating; the X100 will have 100X the impact of the X1...

That's mathematically sound.