Too bad Fuji didn't join m4/3

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by dhazeghi, Feb 10, 2013.

  1. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    I've never been particularly excited about Fuji's faux-rangefinder X series (styling, ergonomics, and workflow all seem like a step away from what I'm used to). Prime lenses aren't my thing either.

    So imagine when I saw Photozone's review of their 18-55/2.8-4.0 OIS lens and saw that for around half the price they get a lens nearly comparable to the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 in capabilities, and at least as good optically?

    It's particularly notable that the Fuji is actually a tad smaller than the Panasonic, while offering the m4/3 equivalent of a 14-42/2.2-3.2.

    IMO it's really too bad that Fuji didn't join m4/3. They would have offered an interesting alternative for the rangefinder afficionados (there seem to be a lot around here) and a welcome push to Panasonic (and Olympus) to up their game on the lens front.
     
  2. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
    Auto focus in my experience is not nearly as good withe the Fuji as with an OM-D and 12-35mm. I updated XE-1 firmaware to 1.4 (the latest as of Friday anyways) and it's still not great. I do not currently have an OM-D body but I was able to compare auto focus speed back to back with Nex-5N and the 16-50mm pancake zoom. Focus speed outdoors, in low-light, at the wide and long end...well the 5N just wipes the Fuji all up and down the floor (not for IQ though). The Fuji 18-55mm is very, very nice for IQ, Raw files look very very nice.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Counter-point is that Fuji is creating good quality & great priced zooms to draw people away from Micro Four Thirds to their system. :smile:

    And it appears to have worked well enough for Amin to create another forum..:biggrin:.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The real question to be asking

    If they did join m4/3 if the above would still be true?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I agree! The more brands that are part of m4/3 the better. Fuji is one of the leaders in the digital world and they could have added much. Sadly too many think that bigger is better. There are some advantages to APS and FF but for most photography needs m4/3 gives more than enough.
     
  6. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    Before the OM-D sensor, M43 was seriously lagging. I think from here on out, with Sony providing sensors and M43 with a solid lens line-up, I wouldn't be surprised if we will see another major player.
     
  7. elavon

    elavon Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 1, 2012
    Tel Aviv Israel
    Ehud
    I do not think that this lens should be compared with the P12-35 i think it should be compared with the P14-45 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict.
    The P12-35 has constant aperture and it focal length is wider and shorter then the Fuji.
    The P14-45 is a bit longer and half a stop slower but as wide in the low end. In this case I think that we got a similar offer from Panasonic at about half the price.:smile:
     
  8. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    That's too bad. Still, I do remember when AF with Olympus m4/3 bodies was a problem, so hopefully this is something that will improve over time.

    Hadn't noticed that!

    You're suggesting that there might be something inherent to the X Pro system allowing for relatively small, high-quality lenses, that couldn't be replicated for m4/3? I can't really think of anything that would have that effect, but I suppose it is possible.

    Sorry, but I can't agree on that. The 14-45 on m4/3 is at nearly a 2 stop disadvantage at the long end compared to the Fuji 18-55 on the X series. As such, the lenses wouldn't serve the same uses to me (the Panasonic is confined to good light, the Fuji not).

    The 12-35 on the other hand fits the same niche. It has at most a 1/3 stop advantage in low light over the Fuji, making the constant-vs-variable aperture discussion moot to me. The range is trickier but the difference in aspect ratio (3:2 vs. 4:3) makes the gap at the wide end less significant than the numbers suggest, at least for landscape shooting.
     
  9. LovinTheEP2

    LovinTheEP2 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    619
    Feb 15, 2011
    Toronto
    Why is it to bad? All the Fugi's have serious flaws or poor development in key areas that linit their sales greatly. They'd create a camera that we'd as a community would need a backup camera as well, whereas with the om-d line and new pens, you have uncompromized camera body and lens. It obviously makes no sense for a manufacturer to do both a m43 and APS camera so let them have at it as they are.

    APS is still a better option if clean high ISO (above 3200) is an important factor or higher MP for larger format printing. Since Fuji is more geared to towards absolute IQ then size, makes sense to be developing APS.

    I for one, don't think they wouldn't add much to the m43 community. That said, I like some of their offerings but like Sigma, can't justify a purchase yet.
     
  10. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Then there's the unique Fuji X-Trans sensor that is clearly a Fuji preference - Which IMHO is a good thing (sensor diversity) :smile:
     
    • Like Like x 4
  11. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    I.E., their unique X-Trans sensor mated with an APS-C sized sensor. You're absolutely correct - size is not the primary concern for Fuji :smile:
     
  12. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    I've used Fujinon lenses in the past and I'm not at all surprised they've made a fantastic lens here, but I too don't think it matches the Panasonic (focal length/variable aperture). Panasonic have priced the lens to suit what they think the market will bear. If Olympus or Sigma were to release one the price of the Panasonic would fall.

    As for being m4/3 I'm glad they aren't. Mirrorless is still young. We need different approaches so we can weed out what does and doesn't work. It's the area in cameras with real imagination and innovation. Everyone being on the same path stifles that.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I'm not sure what Fuji would get out of being part of m43. They have always done things a bit differently than anyone else (remember the original SuperCCD?) I believe Fuji makes their own sensors and lenses and I think their approach to cameras is very different from what Panasonic and Olympus do in that they appeal to a really specific group (photo enthusiasts that have a certain nostalgia for film cameras). The cameras may not be perfect but I admire Fuji for being willing to be different. I look at them much the way I look at Apple. They're making themselves into a premium brand and want to control the experience top to bottom making the user experience very consistent for their products. The whole banding issue with some Panasonic lenses and the E-M5 is less likely to happen in a closed loop and based on the popularity of Fuji's offerings (at least the X cameras) they are doing something right. I think if and when the manage to solve their AF issues they will start turning a lot of heads.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. elavon

    elavon Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 1, 2012
    Tel Aviv Israel
    Ehud
    dhazeghi the Fuji f/4 lens is only one stop faster then 5.6 while 2.8 is also 1 stop faster then 4. I still think that the difference in pricing is justified for all. The Fuji lens sits in the middle between the P14-45 and the P12-35 in term of performance. In any case there is no direct competition between this 3 lenses.
     
  15. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    I've always liked Fuji's colors especially in OOC jpegs, I used several Fuji super zoom bridge cameras before moving to :43:. I probably would have been here sooner had they joined the :43: standard. :cool:
     
  16. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I don't think that making themselves into a premium brand and using a µ4/3 mount is mutually exclusive. What Leica is to 35mm film cameras, Fuji could be to µ4/3.

    I, for one, would probably purchase a Fuji platform camera if my lenses could be used on a Fuji camera. I think many here who haven't tried a Fuji, would also take a bite of Fuji. Just for a taste, if, the lenses/bodies were compatible. I think µ4/3 represents the kind of purchaser/thinker/photographer/market that would buy a Fuji in lieu of a Canon or Nikon. This forum and nearly all of us in this forum, are potential Fuji owners. Even though I own Oly, it is very easy for me to buy Panasonic. Those who own Panasonic, I think it is equally easy for them to buy Olympus. But it is very difficult for me to buy Fuji because everything is different. Perhaps, lenses are so profitable that the only way Fuji survives is through pocketing all the revenues for a unique Fuji mount lens. But this is all speculating on what if's.

    The bottom line is that Fuji is a very small company with very limited resources. (So small I believe, the only reason Fuji has an AF system inferior to Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic ... is because of limited resources.) The µ4/3 marketplace would have raised their camera sales but probably lowered their lens sales.
     
  17. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    FWIW they were one of the companies that considered helping Olympus out before Sony stepped in. I'd be curious to see if they really are that much smaller.

    I looked it up Olympus and Fuji are similar sized companies. The assertion that Fuji would be an option for you if you could use your m43 lenses is valid...for you. But, there are a good many folks on m43 that have more than one system despite them not sharing lenses. At one time I kept three systems. Yes it would be convenient but if the product is good enough it can overcome that. The E-M5 would be just as great a camera even if it couldn't use Panasonic lenses.

    My point of my first post was to point out that Fuji could be just choosing to go there own way. The tremendous success Apple has had ( they were not always the behemoth they are now) has taught companies that maintaining a closed ecosystem has it's benefits. Being part if a consortium like m43 has advantages but also it's challenges. It can dilute the brand as well. I can see how a company might choose to go their own way.
     
  18. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I had a friend, a commercial photog that had a Fuji which used a Nikon mount. It had a great sensor, but when he had problems with the camera, Fuji never answered their phone and he had a terrible time getting Fuji to respond. His revelation was that Fuji just wasn't big enough to take care of the needs of a professional client. Right or wrong, that's what I based my assumption and again that was quite a few years ago. Just wondering, did you compare company to company or just the camera divisions?

    I think the Apple model is a bit of an anomaly. Sony first had VHS, sold it to JVC (IIRC) and Sony marketed Betamax as a sole sourced product. Beta was much better than VHS but failed because because JVC licensed everybody else in the world to used VHS. Essentially, the better format failed because it was crushed by shear market volume of those using VHS.

    Again, this is all just speculation. I also maintain multiple systems, but I find life much simpler and easier under one umbrella format. Horses for courses, YMMV.

    G
     
  19. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    What really interests me is the next generation of bodies past the X-Pro1 and XE-1. So much so that I've seriously considered buying one prime lens for *that upcoming* body now..:smile:
     
  20. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    PS- A small company, like Apple way back when they were on the brink, can afford to be aggressive and an extremely innovative with their products. They become pirates as they haven't much to lose and can only increase their marketshare by taking it away from others, usually the Big Boys in their big, comfortable ships with a rudder which barely works. The Big Boys cannot be very aggressive because they are protecting what they have and appealing to the needs/desires of the majority of their customer base.

    Sorta a cyclic thing, Apple went from a pirate to a cruse liner and now they are very busy trying to hold onto what they have than taking booty away from someone else.

    Gary

    PS- More speculative gibberish.
    G