Fuji goes Fat Mirrorless

On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 17:22:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2016-10-01 21:05:51 +0000, Robert Coe said:
:
: On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 08:50:30 -0700, Savageduck
: wrote:
: : On 2016-10-01 15:00:45 +0000, Robert Coe said:
: :
: : Is the FF arena significantly more competitive than the APS-C arena?
: : I would have thought not, especially now that Canon, already very strong
: : with the 7D Mk II, appears to have achieved a quantum leap in APS-C
: : mirrorless.
: :
: : How is the 7D Mk II a "quantum leap" in APS-C mirrorless? Especially
: : considering that the 7D Mk II is a DSLR not a mirrorless.
:
: The M-5, not the 7D2. Sorry, I should have made that clear. I've gotten used
: to the Canon Forum, where everyone is presumed to know about all recent
: developments in the Canon world. The sentence should have read, "... already
: very strong with the 7D Mk II, appears to have achieved, with the M-5, a
: quantum leap in APS-C mirrorless."
:
: The problem with any particular camera manufacturer centric forum, be
: it Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fujifilm, etc., is they are typically filled
: with the brand faithful and new converts. Usually there is much gushing
: over the latest and greatest, and group condemnation of anyone pointing
: a finger at the slightest flaws, much like a Trump rally.

The "official" Canon forum is not like that, particularly. It's a moderated
forum, and most of the traffic is discussion of new developments, helping each
other solve specific problems, and answering questions from newbies. Feel free
to look in; you don't have to be a Canon user. For context, you'll find me
over there as "RobertTheFat".

: With my recent move to the Fujifilm X-System I have had my share to
: read from the gushing faithful, and from balanced reviewers. I have no
: doubt that the M5 is a superb example of an APS-C MILC, but to call it
: "a quantum leap" (an awful phrase)

Yes, I have a math and physics background, so I understand what "quantum"
really means. Forgive me for lapsing into the vernacular.

: in APS-C mirrorless sounds too much: like marketing hype, and especially
: in a market which includes the X-Pro2 and the X-T2.

The M-5's "quantum leap" is that, unlike its predecessors, it finally has a
built-in eye-level EVF. Its major advantage, besides its APS-C sensor, is that
with a relatively inexpensive adapter it accepts every Canon DSLR lens ever
made. This matters a lot, because a) walking away from an existing set of
lenses is an expensive proposition, and b) Canon's best lenses are as good as
any.

: I am seeing examples of work from numerous professional photographers
: who have made either the switch from DSLR to mirrorless, or who are
: adding mirrorless to their kit because the performance and IQ is at a level
: where the product, be it from a Sony Alpha, Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2, or
: now Canon M5 meets their standards.

I don't question your observation of that trend, but I haven't seen it myself.
The Canon community seems mostly satisfied with DSLRs and to be taking a "wait
and see" attitude towards mirrorless. And with the exception of some wildlife
photographers, most Canon-using pros are firmly in the FF camp.

Bob

On 2016-10-02 05:33:49 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 17:22:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2016-10-01 21:05:51 +0000, Robert Coe said:
:
: On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 08:50:30 -0700, Savageduck

: wrote:
: : On 2016-10-01 15:00:45 +0000, Robert Coe said:
: :
: : Is the FF arena significantly more competitive than the APS-C arena?
: : I would have thought not, especially now that Canon, already
very strong
: : with the 7D Mk II, appears to have achieved a quantum leap in APS-C
: : mirrorless.
: :
: : How is the 7D Mk II a "quantum leap" in APS-C mirrorless? Especially
: : considering that the 7D Mk II is a DSLR not a mirrorless.
:
: The M-5, not the 7D2. Sorry, I should have made that clear. I've
gotten used
: to the Canon Forum, where everyone is presumed to know about all recent
: developments in the Canon world. The sentence should have read,
"... already
: very strong with the 7D Mk II, appears to have achieved, with the M-5, a
: quantum leap in APS-C mirrorless."
:
: The problem with any particular camera manufacturer centric forum, be
: it Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fujifilm, etc., is they are typically filled
: with the brand faithful and new converts. Usually there is much gushing
: over the latest and greatest, and group condemnation of anyone pointing
: a finger at the slightest flaws, much like a Trump rally.

The "official" Canon forum is not like that, particularly. It's a moderated
forum, and most of the traffic is discussion of new developments, helping each
other solve specific problems, and answering questions from newbies. Feel free
to look in; you don't have to be a Canon user. For context, you'll find me
over there as "RobertTheFat".

: With my recent move to the Fujifilm X-System I have had my share to
: read from the gushing faithful, and from balanced reviewers. I have no
: doubt that the M5 is a superb example of an APS-C MILC, but to call it
: "a quantum leap" (an awful phrase)

Yes, I have a math and physics background, so I understand what "quantum"
really means. Forgive me for lapsing into the vernacular.

: in APS-C mirrorless sounds too much: like marketing hype, and especially
: in a market which includes the X-Pro2 and the X-T2.

The M-5's "quantum leap" is that, unlike its predecessors, it finally has a
built-in eye-level EVF.

The eye level EVF is something that Fujifilm has had for some four
years now, along with the hybrid OVF/EVF in the X-Pro1 & X-Pro2, and
their EVF has been improved with releases of new cameras and firmware
updates. I really enjoy having an AVF as it truly gives you a WYSIWYG
view when it comes to making exposure adjustment, or when using full
manual.

Its major advantage, besides its APS-C sensor, is that
with a relatively inexpensive adapter it accepts every Canon DSLR lens ever
made. This matters a lot, because a) walking away from an existing set of
lenses is an expensive proposition, and b) Canon's best lenses are as good as
any.

As far as glass and legacy glass goes, it is tough for any manufacturer
to compete with Canon or Nikon. I have a fair amount of Nikon glass,
and I am slowly acquiring Fujinon glass (which so far has prove to be
very good) to fit my needs. Their lens road map is slowly filling out
with lenses from the FX14mm to the FX100-400mm, and more to come. Zeiss
builds 4 X-mount lenses to add to the choices, and then there are
X-mount adaptors for M-mount, Nikon F/G mount, and Canon lenses.

: I am seeing examples of work from numerous professional photographers
: who have made either the switch from DSLR to mirrorless, or who are
: adding mirrorless to their kit because the performance and IQ is at a level
: where the product, be it from a Sony Alpha, Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2, or
: now Canon M5 meets their standards.

I don't question your observation of that trend, but I haven't seen it myself.
The Canon community seems mostly satisfied with DSLRs and to be taking a "wait
and see" attitude towards mirrorless. And with the exception of some wildlife
photographers, most Canon-using pros are firmly in the FF camp.

Bob

Personally, not being a pro, and not having a wallet without a spending
limit, I really can't justify a move to FF with the added expense of
appropriate glass which is in many cases far more costly than some of
those FF DSLR bodies. So for now I will stick to APS-C as it meets most
demands I challenge it with.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DSF3516.jpg
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-10-02 06:12:07 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-10-02 05:33:49 +0000, Robert Coe said:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 17:22:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2016-10-01 21:05:51 +0000, Robert Coe said:
: On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 08:50:30 -0700, Savageduck

: wrote:
: : On 2016-10-01 15:00:45 +0000, Robert Coe said:
: : Is the FF arena significantly more competitive than the APS-C arena?
: : I would have thought not, especially now that Canon, already
very strong
: : with the 7D Mk II, appears to have achieved a quantum leap in APS-C
: : mirrorless.
: :
: : How is the 7D Mk II a "quantum leap" in APS-C mirrorless? Especially
: : considering that the 7D Mk II is a DSLR not a mirrorless.
:
: The M-5, not the 7D2. Sorry, I should have made that clear. I've
gotten used
: to the Canon Forum, where everyone is presumed to know about all recent
: developments in the Canon world. The sentence should have read,
"... already
: very strong with the 7D Mk II, appears to have achieved, with the M-5, a
: quantum leap in APS-C mirrorless."
:
: The problem with any particular camera manufacturer centric forum, be
: it Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fujifilm, etc., is they are typically filled
: with the brand faithful and new converts. Usually there is much gushing
: over the latest and greatest, and group condemnation of anyone pointing
: a finger at the slightest flaws, much like a Trump rally.

The "official" Canon forum is not like that, particularly. It's a moderated
forum, and most of the traffic is discussion of new developments, helping each
other solve specific problems, and answering questions from newbies. Feel free
to look in; you don't have to be a Canon user. For context, you'll find me
over there as "RobertTheFat".

: With my recent move to the Fujifilm X-System I have had my share to
: read from the gushing faithful, and from balanced reviewers. I have no
: doubt that the M5 is a superb example of an APS-C MILC, but to call it
: "a quantum leap" (an awful phrase)

Yes, I have a math and physics background, so I understand what "quantum"
really means. Forgive me for lapsing into the vernacular.

: in APS-C mirrorless sounds too much: like marketing hype, and especially
: in a market which includes the X-Pro2 and the X-T2.

The M-5's "quantum leap" is that, unlike its predecessors, it finally has a
built-in eye-level EVF.

The eye level EVF is something that Fujifilm has had for some four
years now, along with the hybrid OVF/EVF in the X-Pro1 & X-Pro2, and
their EVF has been improved with releases of new cameras and firmware
updates. I really enjoy having an AVF as it truly gives you a WYSIWYG
view when it comes to making exposure adjustment, or when using full
manual.

....er, that is EVF not AVF.

Its major advantage, besides its APS-C sensor, is that
with a relatively inexpensive adapter it accepts every Canon DSLR lens ever
made. This matters a lot, because a) walking away from an existing set of
lenses is an expensive proposition, and b) Canon's best lenses are as good as
any.

As far as glass and legacy glass goes, it is tough for any manufacturer
to compete with Canon or Nikon. I have a fair amount of Nikon glass,
and I am slowly acquiring Fujinon glass (which so far has prove to be
very good) to fit my needs. Their lens road map is slowly filling out
with lenses from the FX14mm to the FX100-400mm, and more to come. Zeiss
builds 4 X-mount lenses to add to the choices, and then there are
X-mount adaptors for M-mount, Nikon F/G mount, and Canon lenses.

: I am seeing examples of work from numerous professional photographers
: who have made either the switch from DSLR to mirrorless, or who are
: adding mirrorless to their kit because the performance and IQ is at a level
: where the product, be it from a Sony Alpha, Fujifilm X-Pro2 or X-T2, or
: now Canon M5 meets their standards.

I don't question your observation of that trend, but I haven't seen it myself.
The Canon community seems mostly satisfied with DSLRs and to be taking a "wait
and see" attitude towards mirrorless. And with the exception of some wildlife
photographers, most Canon-using pros are firmly in the FF camp.

Bob

Personally, not being a pro, and not having a wallet without a spending
limit, I really can't justify a move to FF with the added expense of
appropriate glass which is in many cases far more costly than some of
those FF DSLR bodies. So for now I will stick to APS-C as it meets most
demands I challenge it with.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DSF3516.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-10-01 19:48, Me wrote:
On 02/10/2016 09:48, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2016-10-01 16:23, Me wrote:
On 02/10/2016 06:05, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2016-09-19 20:21, Me wrote:
On 20/09/2016 11:53, Savageduck wrote:

Remember, Fuji aready makes the Hassy MF lenses, so the develoment
costs
are somewhat minimized.

The announced Fuji lenses don't match up with Hasselblad's lineup, nor [1]
do they have integral leaf shutters, nor do they need to cover medium
format (645) image area, the Fuji "medium format" is "crop-format 645"
(~33x44mm).

You do know that Hasselblad consider these Fujinon made lenses to be at
least equal and often better than the Zeiss lenses of the
(now-called) V
era?

Leaf shutters sole real advantage in the day of slower (1/60 - 1/125
shutter speeds) was in studio work where you want strobe with a 1/500
shutter speed.

Now, many high end DSLR's sport 1/250 or better shutter speeds
rendering
that issue pretty moot - especially with low noise performance at
higher
ISO's than the film days of yore.

Indeed leaf shutters at large apertures do not expose the film as
evenly
as FP shutters.

And finally, most leaf shutters are limited to 1/1000 .. 1/500 at all
times ... a far cry from the necessities of a lot of photography these
days.

Hasselbad H6 with HC lenses sync at 1/2000 (yes I know what you'll

Nice distraction from the principal question: quality of Fujinon lenses.

Where was quality of fujinon lenses a "principal question"?

In the post I replied to. See [1] Above.

Thread drift seemed to have led this way from savageduck's assertion
that development costs for the Fuji lenses may be minimised because they
make lenses for Hasselblad.

Hasselblad pick their lens maker and impose/negotiate a spec. I don't
think cost is the issue, but perhaps Zeiss are pricey compared to
Fujinon for a given technical spec.


If you have those new lenses. Sure. Even pros think thrice about
purchasing the latest lens. IAC, the shutter system is limited to
1/2000 which is not all that great. Still, for the larger sensor and
available lower sensitivity (64), it's fine for it's intended purpose:
high end artistic, documentary and commercial photography. (Not limited
to the studio at all).

I doubt 1/2000 fastest speed with base ISO 64 would often be a practical
limitation. With base ISO 100 and fast lenses, I don't think I've used
1/4000 (unless I've done something dumb like leaving ISO set set high) -
let alone 1/8000. OTOH I don't usually use a camera in full sunlight in
the middle of the day.

Agree. My Maxxum 9 will hapilly shoot to 1/12,000 - used it once on
some sunsets.

OTOH, shooting in sunlight can easily be done stopped down as well...



probably say, but whatever).
I tend to think of MF Digital as studio cameras.

Not at all. OTOH a pro FF DSLR is more than adequate for most field
work that used to be done with 6x6's. (Short of massive pixel
landscapes and other specialties using scanning backs and panaorama
stitchers).

FF is a priceerformance "sweet spot"

Not sure about that. What I'm sure about is that it is more than
adequate for professional use in a lot of advertising, editorial,
fashion, etc. Indeed, professional magazine articles have been done
with far, far less.


--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.