RF market post Fuji X100

[GSNfan]

Originally Posted by tapesonthefloor

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]

Originally Posted by GSNfan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

lol, I love that quote.

[tapesonthefloor]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by tapesonthefloor

[i]I care about what it can do for 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]

Originally Posted by tapesonthefloor

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]

Originally Posted by GSNfan

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]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

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]

Originally Posted by GSNfan

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Quash

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.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by photomoof

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]

Originally Posted by tapesonthefloor

...

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by j j

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

That's mathematically sound.