To continue loving video games, their programming while doing & improving my professional photography, punish the guilty, reward the good, educate kids and fight for all that is good. :-)
Marty4650: If their policy has been "to make cameras compact" since 1936, then someone must explain the Olympus E3 (2007) and E5 (2010).
Those two cameras were just as big and heavy as a Canon 5D with a sensor 1/4th the size.
@tkbslc - it does when the System itself was promoted as small. Your flagship *better* be still small. Olympus tried to compete with Canikon on their terms and we can see where original 4/3rds is today. They wised up for m4/3rds - notice the EM1 is not too big, they stopped short of one stop on the Pro zooms (i..e not make them F2.0 and too big) which was another mistake they did in 4/3rds.
Yes, this was one of the key things that costed 4/3rds itse existence. Good to see Olympus knows what they want now and they are doing rather well.
You read my mind :-)
Ok, where is Lightroom 6.0? ;-)
Donnie G: I'll be out this St. Patrick's Day weekend earning a few thousand dollars taking pictures with my crappy old Canon DSLRs. You know, the ones with the crummy sensors, huge and heavy bodies, lenses and those obsolete OVFs. When I'm counting my money on Monday I'll try not to give in to the temptation to slap myself silly for making my customers settle for photos that were not taken with an EVF and 14 DR sensor equipped compact, lightweight, mirrorless camera. I suppose, much like Canon, I haven't learned anything from the other camera manufacturers either. :))
Not sure what your point is. I mean, here are others making thousands of dollars not using Canon equipment.
Thoughts R Us: There is this myth that Canon has failed to innovate.
Is this true? Well, they came out with Dual Pixel AF, which is a big deal and pretty fantastic. Expect to see that on more of their lineup. They came out with the 7d ii which has the AF of their flaship model, their best metering, anti flicker mode, world class weather sealing, all for less than $2000. It's a mini 1DX, and to get these features at this price point to me is pretty innovative. They have come out with amazing lenses, all of which are class leading. No one does a better 24-70, or 70-200. Their 100-400 L II is amazing. Their new 11-24 sets new standards for an ultra wide angle zoom lens. The little 40 mm pancake is a great lens and a bargain. Their 100 L macro is best in class. And on and on with their lenses.
To me all of this represents innovation.
Canon has innovated, it's just the critics have chosen to stick with one measure of sensor performance and forget the rest.
He said Fuji lenses. As in Fujifilm- as a good example. Fuji film lenses are excellent.
Nice, would have loved to know the context of the kiss though (were they friends, friendly kiss or partner/lovers). But that's another point and different from the photograph/moment.
Shot #2 is simply ****STUNNING****
I wish a question was asked about future GR plans and how it was doing. Looking at Imaging Resource's interview, looks like the GR has been constantly selling rather well!
Oh and of course, Pentax Q questions...
PatMann: Best of luck to Fujifilm on addressing these issues. The lens lineup is stellar - no other APS-C system comes close. But AF and resolution do need to be addressed. If Nikon produces a pro APS-C camera to replace the D300s, they need to bring lenses with it to sell it. If they do, I will probably stay with Nikon. If not, Fujifilm is the first place I will look for my future primary camera system. I can't afford the $ or the overall system weight and bulk to go whole-hog full-frame.
audio- I think it's a fair point that you explain on the claim of the OP. I just thought the reasons you gave didn't read very strong to me. Having more lenses doesn't make the system better by itself, particularly if many of those lenses are copies of focal lengths and only a certain tier is good.
Mike Sandman: It's very refreshing to read so many un-hedged, direct statements from a camera company executive. Thanks, dPreview, for asking the questions, and thanks Fuji, for answering them forthrightly. Mr. Iida even acknowledged Samsung. This kind of thinking is responsible for Fuji's successful transition from film to digital vs. Kodak's failure.
It would be very nice (and quite a surprise) to see an equally frank set of answers from Nikon or Canon about how their cameras stack up against the competitors.
At least as far as the Nikon 1 system is concerned, Nikon doesn't seem to listen to their customers.
And what about all the people that have been waiting/asking for a D300 successor?
JDThomas: Even Fuji can admit the AF isn't on par with the SLR. Something it's Fuji-fans refuse to do.
Sure. :-) Like I also ever claimed such thing :-) Keep making it up. When someone is scared of ghosts they sure see them everywhere.
I think you are making things up. I have also owned Fuji and I don't see everyone claiming that the AF is as fast as a DSLR. You will always get extreme fanboys in any brand making impossible claims. If you want to count only the hits and not everyone- who also acknowledged the AF is not as fast as a DSLR, well, that's your choice.
J A C S: " We think that our 16MP X-Trans sensor delivers a higher effective resolution than conventional Bayer 16MP sensors ..."
LOL! This guy would make a very successful used car salesman!
Completely disagree with the statement Xtrans doesn't yield higher resolution. Use a proper raw converter and it does.
The Fuji lens line up is pretty decent. You don't need many copies of lens ranges that aren't very good. The Fuji lenses are all pretty decent.
Mateus1: Fuji bring these for X-E3:
• 24MP Bayer filter (keep X-Trans for X-T/X-Pro)• Weather sealed and dust proof• bigger EVF (but not the body) with higher rate• -3EV focusing (at least -2EV) for low light focusing• faster and more PDAF points + Group-Area AF Mode + fast manual AF point selection• useful AF-C + 8 fps at least• big dedicated Back-AF button placed near thumb!• better placed and bigger AE lock button• improved DR • not cheated ISO (clean 6400iso)• all buttons customable (and bigger than now)• 1/6000s at least• 1/250s X-Sync• +/- 1/3s braketing• tilt LCD (for low/high level shooting)• ND filters in body• add NR setting to OFF• allow stupid "Blur Warning" mark turn OFF• add TIFF file saving from RAW in camera RAW converter (why only to 8-bit JPEG?)• Bring smaller primes like 35/2 WR - so next 23/2 WR, 56/2WR, 85/2.8WR and 16/2 WR. Small primes will make your RF type mirrorless a perfect tool for dynamic, street and discreet shooting.
No, I want Xtrans for X-E3. Bayer should be used only in the low end XA series.
ipecaca- I second your suggestion. That article opened my eyes.
I think it raises the question of whether the OP claim is accurate after all :-)
name here: Fuji needs to work with Adobe to improve Lightroom's raw conversions.
Until Lightroom starts producing a fair output with X-trans sensors, no X-trans camera for me (that's why I purchased X-A1, which has no X-trans).
Heres two tips for you: Use the LightRoom Fuji profiles *and* set the detail slides to 80% or higher like 100%. It brings details and not artifacts like Bayer sensors. I was surprised by this- there was an article by a landscape photographer on it. Try it out and LR all of a sudden becomes far more viable.
What really shocked me of the entire interview is how Iida talked in a candid way positively about competitors. That also shows confidence in what they are doing.
To everyone pointing out 4k/UHD- aha! I missed that. Good point. How to go to video if the sensor tech is not easy to scale.
Yeah I am having a hard time seeing this happen now.