Opticallimits

Full Version: Fujifilm lens roadmap 2014 (update)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
It lists two new lenses:

- a 90mm f/2

- a 16mm f/1.4

 

Seems as if Fuji is enjoying themselves in the high speed arena.

They do take their products seriously, unlike Nikon i.e. which don't have high speed wide angle in DX. On the other side, DSLR and APS-C is going to become history anyway, when a manufacturer focuses more on FF.

Quote:They do take their products seriously, unlike Nikon i.e. which don't have high speed wide angle in DX. On the other side, DSLR and APS-C is going to become history anyway, when a manufacturer focuses more on FF.
 

I don't believe so.

For the foreseeable future, I don't see why FF would dominate the market.

Sure, the IQ and DOF is a bit better. However, we have long past the point of "good enough". When you look at the IQ you get from a cell phone, it's sufficient for most people out there (believe it or not).

Sony's 1 inch sensor today has very high IQ for its size. In good lighting I challenge anyone to truly see the different between a RX100 III and FF at a reasonable print size (say A4).

 

Now, the larger the sensor, the larger the lenses. This is physics. Not everybody wants to carry large lenses for no visible IQ improvement. How many people truly print big? Very very few. Most people look at pictures on their screen and very often they're downsized.

 

Overall MF gear will always be larger and heavier than FF which will be larger and heavier than APS-C, etc.

 

If anything, I believe the future is in non interchangeable cameras: small sensor with super zoom lenses and DOF applied in post-processing. Tech will be so good that even a small 1/1.7 sensor will provide fantastic IQ (not now, not tomorrow, but in several years certainly). The software will be so good that it will apply blurring after the shot and people won't be able to tell the difference with the real thing.

I'm sure it's bound to happen.

Sorry, thxbb12, I meant that in a different way but didn't express that properly: I think, Nikon focuses more on FX and on CX (or how's the form factor of the 1 series called?) than on DX. I don't see FF dominating the market, either. And as many people I see snapping pictures with an iPad... it looks a bit odd, but on that screen each person can compose a nice image. Which will be good enough for a lot of purposes.

 

The point is, "in good lighting" each webcam produces "good enough" pictures. And I'm not interested in just "sufficient" pictures, as I always like to see details, optically produced narrow DoF and lowlight pictures. Even if I'm not constantly putting new wallpapers of my own pictures to the rooms I live and work in - to me it feels different doing portraits with a real "camera only, no phone, no internet, no games, no music, no books" device. And to the people I'm taking photographs of, too. I wouldn't miss the overdose of software gimmicks, but I would miss the feeling and weight of a nice lens. Those tiny µ4/3 lenses are no toys, I know - but in my hands they do feel like. Can't help, I need two hands full.  :unsure:

Quote:Sorry, thxbb12, I meant that in a different way but didn't express that properly: I think, Nikon focuses more on FX and on CX (or how's the form factor of the 1 series called?) than on DX. I don't see FF dominating the market, either. And as many people I see snapping pictures with an iPad... it looks a bit odd, but on that screen each person can compose a nice image. Which will be good enough for a lot of purposes.

 

The point is, "in good lighting" each webcam produces "good enough" pictures. And I'm not interested in just "sufficient" pictures, as I always like to see details, optically produced narrow DoF and lowlight pictures. Even if I'm not constantly putting new wallpapers of my own pictures to the rooms I live and work in - to me it feels different doing portraits with a real "camera only, no phone, no internet, no games, no music, no books" device. And to the people I'm taking photographs of, too. I wouldn't miss the overdose of software gimmicks, but I would miss the feeling and weight of a nice lens. Those tiny µ4/3 lenses are no toys, I know - but in my hands they do feel like. Can't help, I need two hands full.  :unsure:
 

I understand some people like larger cameras in their hands. A camera needs to be at least sufficiently large to feature good ergonomics. However, I think most DSLRs are way bigger than necessary from an ergonomics point of view. I'd go for a DSLR larger than a Pentax K5 for instance.

As far as I'm concerned the E-M1 is the perfect size - granted I have skinny fingers.

However, I still think very small systems can be very interesting, even if means compromising a bit. I'm thinking of the E-M10 for instance. Along the 12mm, 17mm and 45mm it makes for an extremely compact and light set, while being very capable. You can even make it even smaller with a couple of pancakes: 14mm, 20mm and 45mm

Size of hands and placing of the controls are two aspects of ergonomics - but if the user interface of the software is poorly designed, all this knobs won't help much. Nikon clearly has some space to improve... I once took the effort and put the menus of the D800 together in a spread sheet to get an overview about the different banks.

 

Normal configuration has 116 rows, extended configuration about 300 (if I count one row for each possible setting)

 

116 × 4 = 464 possible config settings, 300 × 4 = 1200 possible extended config settings. Not counting the all-day ones like white balance, AF mode... To me it seems each demand of enough professionals will be fullfilled somehow, no matter how small brains people like me have available sides their normal job. Alright professional cams might be used by fulltime photographers, but even them need some brain capacity for apps, business structures and social behavior...

 

The user settings of the "prosumer" models do have less parameters, but really, who can possibly know such fat setup stuff? The D810 has maybe 15-20% more stuff to set up. It's a great camera and I like it - but I doubt very much, those quantities of switches and adjustments couldn't be handled in an easier way. It's a miracle how I ever got a single picture out of my old Contax...

It's a strange world!

  Even with APSc  I  go through all the hassle of producing great quality pics, squinting at the screen @ 100% making sure the image is tack sharp to the corners, produce a PSD image whilst keeping the RAW and the Jpg  now all at around 130Mbs feeling proud of myself and then compress it down to 1-2 Mbs to post it on flickr/ facebook or on a forum. I'm sure whole loads of people do the same, printing out maybe thirty odd prints a year and double stocking most of their shots (50,000) on two 4Tb hard drives just in case one day they will be asked for a  20X30" print. This is probably the story of most amateur shooters, the screen has become the photo and the passing of the family album is becoming a bi-annual occurrence, if that.

 

  Why the preamble? because apart from pros earning a living and really needing the extra quality I think most amateurs after having lugged FF gear round for a year or two that weighs a ton will have had their fill of it and will be back looking for gear that fits in better with everyday life, in short I think in a few years the FF bubble will burst.