Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji X-100 Series

Fuji X-100 Series This forum is for fans of the rangefinder retrostyled Fuji X Series of digital cameras.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Pics on the new Fuji Mirrorless Rangefinder-like Camera LEAKED !!!
Old 11-15-2011   #1
Kiyatkin
Registered User
 
Kiyatkin is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 90
Pics on the new Fuji Mirrorless Rangefinder-like Camera LEAKED !!!

Here
__________________
Some of my photos here:
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #2
Kiyatkin
Registered User
 
Kiyatkin is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Posts: 90
Looks promising. I wish Fuji great success for trying to fill a missing segment in the camera market!
__________________
Some of my photos here:
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #3
Alowisney
Registered User
 
Alowisney's Avatar
 
Alowisney is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Macon, GA
Age: 44
Posts: 182
They're saying it looks full frame. That could be VERY interesting!
__________________
My blog
My Facebook
My Tumblr
My Flickr
My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #4
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
That's nice, but...why a new mount? Aren't there enough mounts? Yes, to buy new lenses. But given how they dazzle people with first offerings lately only to dumb them down later (e.g. Lumix GF1 --yes, not Fuji...it's an example...-- and X100), how will they expect people to marry into the mount system?

If it's full-frame, they could use Nikon's mount (they already do for their Sx dSLRs) and then offer their own prime lineup, or do what Panasonic and Olympus have done for the 4/3 and m4/3 systems.


EDIT: oh, duh...the flange blah blah is of course shorter. So of course Nikon's mount (the SLR one) is out of the question --except, of course, via an adapter. Given that M-mount and LTM lenses are all manual-focus...I can see how that would not be the key for an autofocus camera. Hopefully you could adapt M-mount.

BTW, I'm sure the tech in the shots handling the camera will be getting a mighty earful...unless they're in on it.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio

Last edited by Gabriel M.A. : 11-15-2011 at 06:30.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #5
noimmunity
scratch my niche
 
noimmunity's Avatar
 
noimmunity is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lyon/Taipei
Age: 56
Posts: 3,113
Anybody up for Carly Simon's "Anticipation"?
__________________
jon 小強


flickr
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #6
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,288
18/2 (pancake), 35/1.4, 60(aperture unknown, but might be f/2), equivalent to 28,50,90 respectively.

It will be Contax G reborn onto an APS-C sensor, with better VF.


-

It's a G instead of M(as X100 is closer to a Hexar instead of a CLE, something absolutely clear from day 1), so if you don't mind, please stop plaguing every thread regarding this system with "why not M-mount" quibbles. Thanks a lot...
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #7
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 67
Posts: 12,451
.... where are those Fuji Guy's when one need's them?
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #8
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,881
Great...it's looking promising... basically a X100 with interchangable AF lenses. I, for one, do not want a Leica M clone. Let the complaining about no m mount begin!
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #9
JohnTF
Registered User
 
JohnTF's Avatar
 
JohnTF is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Home is Cleveland, Summers often Europe, Winters often Mexico.
Posts: 2,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlich View Post
18/2 (pancake), 35/1.4, 60(aperture unknown, but might be f/2), equivalent to 28,50,90 respectively.

It will be Contax G reborn onto an APS-C sensor, with better VF.


-

It's a G instead of M(as X100 is closer to a Hexar instead of a CLE, something absolutely clear from day 1), so if you don't mind, please stop plaguing every thread regarding this system with "why not M-mount" quibbles. Thanks a lot...
From your lips to Fuji's ears-- would have to buy another camera, now if I could find a digital home for the G lenses---

Regards, John
__________________
To capture some of this -- I suppose that's lyricism.

Josef Sudek
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #10
bensyverson
Registered User
 
bensyverson is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: chicago
Posts: 629
To the people who will be wondering "why a new lens mount," the reason is probably money. You can't just build a new camera with a Canon mount, because there are patents associated with it. So to use the mount you need to license it, which would undoubtedly be more expensive than designing your own.

Besides, the options for Fuji were slim. The Micro 4/3 system has a smaller sensor than they wanted to use. The Sony E mount would work, but would have been expensive (the license is only free for "manufacturers of lenses and mount adaptors"). The M mount is manual focus, needs to support legacy lenses which aren't designed for digital, and they would need to design a few M lenses that could pass scrutiny with the M crowd.

If you think it through, they had only one option: DIY.
__________________
me on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #11
bensyverson
Registered User
 
bensyverson is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: chicago
Posts: 629
By the way, it will be smaller than full frame. Most likely APS-C. Their press release mentions that the resolution and noise "can rival the 35mm full size sensor," which clearly indicates that it's not FF.
__________________
me on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #12
Arjay
Time Traveller
 
Arjay's Avatar
 
Arjay is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 69
Posts: 798
I'd be very surprised if the camera has a zoom OVF. VF eyepiece and front lens are on the same optical axis (see pics #4 & #6). The X10's zoom VF has then on different optical axes to accomodate for axis offset due to the use of prisms.

But it looks like the new camera will have a hybrid VF like that of the X100.
__________________
FujiFilm X100, Fuji X-Pro 1, Konica Hexar RF, Hexanon & CV glass & Nikon Coolscan V ... plus a big, bad DSLR

My RFF Gallery, My Flickr, My Ipernity, all presenting different bodies of work
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #13
bigeye
Registered User
 
bigeye's Avatar
 
bigeye is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 1,182
Now we're talking!
__________________
I bought a new camera. It's so advanced you don't even need it. - Steven Wright
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #14
NazgulKing
Registered User
 
NazgulKing is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 202
The only problem is historically, Fuji has a rather short attention span, and trying a new mount might be good in the short run, but hell knows if they will maintain it at all costs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #15
totifoto
Registered User
 
totifoto's Avatar
 
totifoto is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Iceland
Posts: 510
I was gonna say "Nice" but got this message....."The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters."

So I´ll try again.

Nice
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #16
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by bensyverson View Post
Besides, the options for Fuji were slim. The Micro 4/3 system has a smaller sensor than they wanted to use. The Sony E mount would work, but would have been expensive (the license is only free for "manufacturers of lenses and mount adaptors"). The M mount is manual focus, needs to support legacy lenses which aren't designed for digital, and they would need to design a few M lenses that could pass scrutiny with the M crowd.

If you think it through, they had only one option: DIY.
Not really true, to my way of thinking: M mount patent ran out in '98, so it's free to use. They could introduce their own electronic coupling that would permit legacy lenses to mount, while allowing newer Fuji lenses to do modern automagical things.

The reason for the new mount is there's no financial incentive for them to have their camera mount old M-glass. How many photographers out there really care about that? How many of those photographers will want to buy the Fuji? What fraction of a percent of the market is that they're giving up, in favor of selling their own lenses to the broader public?

It will be interesting if an M adapter is possible, of course.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #17
bensyverson
Registered User
 
bensyverson is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: chicago
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by hteasley View Post
The reason for the new mount is there's no financial incentive for them to have their camera mount old M-glass.
Right, that was my main point. It may be possible to build autofocus contacts into the M mount, but it would be more costly than a custom mount, and why would you do it in the first place? So you could make a few RF enthusiasts happy for 5 seconds before they start complaining that their Elmar performs better on an M9?
__________________
me on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #18
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson's Avatar
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,848
Ah, they do keep moving the cheese, don't they. lol
__________________
______________________________________________
"There is something rather sad about a truckload of caviar"

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...0&ppuser=28005
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #19
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by bensyverson View Post
So you could make a few RF enthusiasts happy for 5 seconds before they start complaining that their Elmar performs better on an M9?
Exactly... or so those who don't want to buy the M8 or M9 can complain about how we still don't have a proper mechanical rangefinder solution for their expensive M glass.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #20
v_roma
Registered User
 
v_roma is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by NazgulKing View Post
The only problem is historically, Fuji has a rather short attention span, and trying a new mount might be good in the short run, but hell knows if they will maintain it at all costs.
Even if they only produced those three lenses, I don't think it would be a bad package at all. Plus, adapaters will flood the market shortly after the camera is released allowing you to use a multitude of other lenses, I think?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #21
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
 
tbarker13's Avatar
 
tbarker13 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,669
This looks like it could be fun. Wonder how long it takes to go from this to the market.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #22
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by NazgulKing View Post
The only problem is historically, Fuji has a rather short attention span, and trying a new mount might be good in the short run, but hell knows if they will maintain it at all costs.
That is my main concern.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #23
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by v_roma View Post
Even if they only produced those three lenses, I don't think it would be a bad package at all.
Exactly...
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #24
FranZ
Registered User
 
FranZ's Avatar
 
FranZ is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 142
Just don't get it.
They are talking about both FF ánd APS-C.

FF = FF and not APS-C!
__________________
Regards,

FranZ


'The question is not what you look at, but what you see' - Thoreau

Sony A7R3, RX1Rm2, RX100M6 & a lot of fun
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #25
bensyverson
Registered User
 
bensyverson is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: chicago
Posts: 629
No, they're saying their APS-C performance will be as good or better than FF performance. They're not doing FF.
__________________
me on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #26
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,027
Not to worry! A few minutes after the camera is put on the store shelves, the M-to-Fuji adapters will show up on eBay.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X-H1; X-Pro1; XF10; Polaroid 250 (waiting for an 'art' project)

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #27
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by bensyverson View Post
Right, that was my main point. It may be possible to build autofocus contacts into the M mount, but it would be more costly than a custom mount, and why would you do it in the first place?
That reasoning was what I was questioning. I'm not entirely certain that it would be more expensive: your only given reason for added expense was licensing costs of using someone else's design, and I was pointing out that the M mount carries no license cost at all.

Why would designing a new mount be cheaper than a modified M-mount? Surely using the M-mount as a base solves *some* engineering questions already....

I agree there are good reasons for them to not do M-mount, but "more expensive to design than starting from scratch" is not a reason I am on board with. There's a ton I don't know about this, of course, so if there's something I'm not seeing, I'm way open to correction.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #28
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 881
I think it's safe to assume one of the lenses will be a variation of the 23/2 from the X100.

If it shapes up nicely, I see myself buying in - a X100-style body with 21/35/50 equivalent lenses would be ideal for me. A M9 is always tempting, but for my way of working I don't know that an EVF and decent AF is any worse than a traditional RF for speed and accuracy.

Last edited by celluloidprop : 11-15-2011 at 10:10. Reason: added 'equivalent'
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #29
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by celluloidprop View Post
I think it's safe to assume one of the lenses will be a variation of the 23/2 from the X100.

If it shapes up nicely, I see myself buying in - a X100-style body with 21/35/50 lenses would be ideal for me. A M9 is always tempting, but for my way of working I don't know that an EVF and decent AF is any worse than a traditional RF for speed and accuracy.

If there ever will be one, it'll be announced very late; the X100's only advantage then would be size and cost. Its leaf shutter as well maybe, for we're not sure if the new system will be using a focal plane shutter.

I have always been wondering why the X100 has a 35mm equivalent lens - judging from the Fuji custom if they produce a fixed lens series it'll be a 40-50ish first then a wide version with 28mm (or equivalent). Now this interchangeable system has made the reason clear.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #30
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlich View Post
I have always been wondering why the X100 has a 35mm equivalent lens - judging from the Fuji custom if they produce a fixed lens series it'll be a 40-50ish first then a wide version with 28mm (or equivalent). Now this interchangeable system has made the reason clear.
I'd think 35mm is the best compromise lens out there. For some 28mm is too wide and for some 50mm is too narrow. If you are a user of the 28 or 50mm, you can adapt to the 35mm a bit easier than vise-versa. Also, remember this is really a 23mm lens adapted to be a 35mm lens on a APS-C sensor... could be the reason they didn't go 28mm.

Last edited by jsrockit : 11-15-2011 at 10:11.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #31
hxpham
Registered User
 
hxpham is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 109
I hope they move the back button AF switch to where the back wheel is, because the position of it [the AF button] is really awkward as it is now.
__________________
tumblr | flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #32
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlich View Post
If there ever will be one, it'll be announced very late; the X100's only advantage then would be size and cost. Its leaf shutter as well maybe, for we're not sure if the new system will be using a focal plane shutter.
This whole thing looks like it's a long ways away from formal announcement. There's a good chance it will replace the X100 entirely, or that it will be expensive enough that the X100 will remain in place as a budget option (or for people who only want/need a single focal length).
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #33
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by celluloidprop View Post
This whole thing looks like it's a long ways away from formal announcement. There's a good chance it will replace the X100 entirely, or that it will be expensive enough that the X100 will remain in place as a budget option (or for people who only want/need a single focal length).
Formal announcement is Feb 2012.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #34
Rogier
Rogier Willems
 
Rogier's Avatar
 
Rogier is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 1,185
Just dump al the gimmicks, display's etc.
Give me a full frame sensor with a great dynamic range and low noise. I don't care how much pixels there are.
__________________
Smiles across the wires,


Rogier Willems


http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogierwillems/

http://www.scooter-it.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #35
bensyverson
Registered User
 
bensyverson is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: chicago
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by hteasley View Post
I agree there are good reasons for them to not do M-mount, but "more expensive to design than starting from scratch" is not a reason I am on board with. There's a ton I don't know about this, of course, so if there's something I'm not seeing, I'm way open to correction.
It's always more expensive to produce a backward-compatible system rather than starting from scratch, because you need to design, verify and test against the legacy equipment. But the M system would be particularly expensive...
  • Legacy M lenses often have oblique ray angles, requiring a different microlens array configuration than the more telecentric modern designs. Fuji would have to spend time researching and creating a compromise MLA that wouldn't be optimal for either set of lenses.
  • Bench testing would mean purchasing multiple copies of a wide range of M lenses. A non-trivial cost, even for a large company. Especially if they want built-in correction profiles for each major lens (which would be a must, given the above compromise).
  • Fuji would either have to decide to make "M-Auto" lenses mechanically incompatible with the standard M mount, or spend time and money testing them on other bodies.
__________________
me on flickr

Last edited by bensyverson : 11-15-2011 at 10:54.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #36
georadu
Registered User
 
georadu is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Galati/Romania
Age: 34
Posts: 13
Hi,

Can someone make a 3d model out of those distorted images. I have the X100 and this piece of news is very interesting.

Oh, and, hi to all guys, I'm new here.

George
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #37
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
 
Griffin's Avatar
 
Griffin is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 495
These are strange times when one can get so excited about a shutter speed dial on a new digital camera. This must rank as the golden era of still photography, considering the variety of gear out there..
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #38
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
'Rangefinder-like'

Or as we say in English,

'Point and shoot autofocus with manual override and an optical viewfinder'.

Gosh! How original!

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #39
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 881
Rangefinder-like - small(er) bodies and lenses, quieter, more inconspicuous.

I'm not sure it's fair to call anything with a EVF a 'point and shoot.' Performance aside, is there anything conceptually different between SLR phase-detection autofocus and mirrorless contrast-detection? You hold it up to your eye and decide what you want to focus on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2011   #40
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by celluloidprop View Post
Rangefinder-like - small(er) bodies and lenses, quieter, more inconspicuous.

I'm not sure it's fair to call anything with a EVF a 'point and shoot.' Performance aside, is there anything conceptually different between SLR phase-detection autofocus and mirrorless contrast-detection? You hold it up to your eye and decide what you want to focus on.
So which reasonably versatile digi-cams aren't 'rangefinder-like' by that definition?

Edit: or alternatively, "call it an SLR with the mirror box taken out". It's as close to a small SLR as to a true rangefinder. By all means call it compact, quiet, inconspicuous. But I've had a TLR like that (Tessina) and several point-and-shots.

Cheers,

R.

Last edited by Roger Hicks : 11-15-2011 at 12:25. Reason: Afterthought
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:27.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.