All the Sony shills on this board love calling Fuji cameras the 'poor man's Leica', but I am really failing to see how such a comparison is remotely analogous. Anyone who knows anything about cameras will agree that the X-Pro series is the spiritual successor to the Contax G system.
>Rangefinder 'style' body with offset viewfinder, featuring superb build quality, aesthetics and ergonomics.
> OVF that isn't a true rangefinder, and relies on autofocus instead, showing parallax compensation.
> Superb array of native lenses with third party offerings limited simply because they would be inferior to the natives (Even Zeiss themselves)
> Makes a real mockery of Leica products, and has converted thousands of SLR users to a system more focused on pure photography.
> Autofocus and max shutter speeds slow on first model (G1, X-Pro1), vastly improved on successor (G2, X-Pro2)
>>2832465
Sony shill stop starting shit.
>more sony flasflagger garbage
this is just so much noise
enough
they will never make you an Artisan(tm)
just stop
>>2832465
Your arguments are invalid, Contax is fool frame :^)
Help make /p/ better. Do not reply .jpg
>>2832465
I wrote a similar response in another thread, and then saw this one, so I'll do a shorter version here.
Basically, the things that really made Leica appeal as an alternative to an SLR system were size and weight, glass, a quiet shutter, and solid metal build quality and straightforward interface. Fuji cameras tick those exact same boxes. The RF was just a way to facilitate the real strengths of the camera, and was really an inferior way of composing and focusing as compared to an SLR. Fuji uses digital tech to do what Leica did with the RF, but in every other way the cameras appeal to exactly the same kinds of shooters and fill the same niche.
>>2832465
fuji's X mount lenses are expensive as all hell plus their professional service is non-existent. it's strictly a hobbyist camera used by those with a chip on their shoulder
>>2832796
>their professional service is non-existent.
http://www.fujifilm.ca/support/x_series/support.html
>>2832465
Fuji is doing good things. Not quite "there," but going in the right direction.
>>2832796
>fuji's X mount lenses are expensive
I don't get this meme. They're much cheaper than Nikon or Canon glass of comparable quality. (Fuji's 35/1.4 equivalent costs about the same as a Sigma Art 35, which is less than half of what a Nikkor goes for, for example.)
>>2835024
>I don't get this meme. They're much cheaper than Nikon or Canon glass of comparable quality. (Fuji's 35/1.4 equivalent costs about the same as a Sigma Art 35, which is less than half of what a Nikkor goes for, for example.)
He's probably comparing it to Nkon's old lenses and used ones. My digital SLR system is nikon and I only buy used lenses.
>>2832796
I had to send my X100s for repair and it was by far the most pleasant customer service experience I've had with a camera company. This is coming from someone who owns both Canon and Nikon bodies + lenses and gets them serviced once or twice a year.
>>2832796
there is just too much lie in this post
>>2835024
Except you'll never use that 35mm as a 35mm on anything: the field of view on toy cameras like these is the one of a 50mm on kb, therefore you really want to compare them with other canikon 50 1.4s, which can be had new for peanuts.
Yes, all the new memecams have a way overpriced lens lineup and even worse used market.
>>2836255
>Except you'll never use that 35mm as a 35mm on anything
Wh... what?
He's saying the 35mm EQUIVALENT, (which is the 23mm f/1.4)
For a 50mm equivalent, you get the 35mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2, which can be had for about $500 and $400 USD, respectively.
You're also comparing fuji's top of the line lenses with Canon's bottom of the line lenses. There's a lot more to a lens than just aperture, and fuji's lenses perform excellently. They're also not prone to failure like all of Canon's 50s below the f/1.2
>>2836255
>memecams
Fuji must be a really good and funny "meme" to have lasted this long, then.
You must also be new to /p/ considering we talk about Fuji quite a bit.
I'd say the most talked about cameras on /p/ are Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax, and the Ricoh GR specifically.
>>2836260
>He's saying the 35mm EQUIVALENT
He didn't.
>For a 50mm equivalent, you get the 35mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2, which can be had for about $500 and $400 USD, respectively.
While on Canon/Nikon/probably pentax too you can get a 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 for about $300 and $100 new, respectively.
>You're also comparing fuji's top of the line lenses with Canon's bottom of the line lenses. There's a lot more to a lens than just aperture, and fuji's lenses perform excellently. They're also not prone to failure like all of Canon's 50s below the f/1.2
lol
>>2836474
>He didn't.
He literally did
See:
>>2835024
>Fuji's 35/1.4 equivalent costs about the same as a Sigma Art 35,
>While on Canon/Nikon/probably pentax too you can get a 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 for about $300 and $100 new, respectively.
The Fuji 35s are better. The Canons both fall apart and break on a regular basis. no experience with the Nikons. Hell, the Fuji 35 f/2 is even weather sealed.
>lol
Oh good point.
>>2836479
>He literally did
Sorry, my bad.
>The Fuji 35s are better. The Canons both fall apart and break on a regular basis. no experience with the Nikons.
I sold about 30 of nikon's 50mm 1.4 af and ai and you could basically use them as hockey pucks
>Hell, the Fuji 35 f/2 is even weather sealed.
You care too much about marketing tricks.
>Oh good point.
Pretty much.
>>2836491
>Calls weather sealing a marketing trick
>Extols the ability to use a lens like a hockey puck.
How about image quality, focus accuracy and speed, overall size and weight. Things that actually matter to people?
>>2836493
>Calls weather sealing a marketing trick
Because it is, on those cheap lenses, and if you actually had some experience instead of just looking at ads and charts in front of your screen, you'd know you can slap basically anything on a body with some seals and go shoot in bad weather.
>Extols the ability to use a lens like a hockey puck.
You have no experience with Nikon gear and I simply told you how they are, It is not a Nikon ad. See the difference now?
>How about image quality, focus accuracy and speed, overall size and weight. Things that actually matter to people?
C'mon.
>>2836509
>You have no experience with Nikon gear and I simply told you how they are, It is not a Nikon ad. See the difference now?
That guy isn't me.
They're different systems. They're different lenses, with different markets and different production runs. They're going to have different prices.
Fuji has a very small selection of "low end budget" lenses
This is because the XF lenses are all meant to be their "pro line" where the XC is meant to be their "nifty fifty" level lenses. They're building out their pro lenses before going for budget lenses because what new kid is going to buy a budget system when there aren't any pros who can use it? Clearly it's shit. (Not really, it's really because most amateurs on a budget don't buy anything besides the kit lens anyways)
In a five year old lens ecosystem, there's going to be a lack of a full overlap of different tiers. They're just now starting to double up and offer different levels at the same focal length.
So, if you're comparing the cheapest kit you can buy in Fuji, versus the cheapest kit you can buy in Canon or Nikon, yes, Fuji is higher.
However, if you compare the price of the results and quality, Fuji comes out, at worst, right in line.
If you want to invite some embarassing comparisons for Fuji, you can even state:
Look at the price of Canon/Nikon's top of the line kit, and compare it against Fuji's top of the line kit. Look how much less expensive Fuji is!
(but then you start to sound like E-M1 faggot)
>>2836520
>They're different systems. They're different lenses, with different markets and different production runs. They're going to have different prices.
Exactly, you finally get those are different systems, but you still don't get what's behind it and the respective pros and cons: all those cuet :3 lil shiny cameras aim to be sold to girls or individuals who basically think the same way as a 15 years old girl, as all those brands who put out new systems in these recent years didn't even manage to challenge the pro and amateur markets of canikon (which sadly killed all the rest of competition) before and still don't (ie they lost the war and now they aren't even trying).
They're just finding other idiots to sell their crap, hence their lil "jewels" in a lens lineup that doesn't even include a single decent cannon, which they may build only a couple as a show maybe, as they don't have a userbase to sell them to: they aren't building a "pro" lineup to sell afterward crap to amateurs, they aren't building a pro line at all.
As I said, they're just aiming at little girls with money to milk or individuals who basically think the same way as a 15 years old girl: it's like you just don't want to see what they put on their catalog and styling, they don't even have care about your made up price/performance ratio, it's just not even their point.
>>2836549
Wow, that turned childish and retarded really abruptly.
>>2836551
I really don't get people who identify themselves with a product or brand so much that they get all crazy with an urge to slam the door behind them or shitpost in a relatively calm discussion like this when confronted with reality, but I get it's easier to make them good customers... Could be a question of hormones maybe.
>>2836549
>> Fuji is shit cos 15 year old girls. K.
As someone who shoots full time and makes my income using photography I am tectonically a 'pro' even though that term is silly to me.
Sony and Fuji systems are capable of doing most of my paid work and ever since owning the XT1 my Canon rig comes out to less and less. It still has a few advantages but they are slowly bridging the gap. Going to get the 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8 equivalents next if they work as well as the few times I've rented them only thing holding me to Canon is a fast 16-35 i know about the F4 from Fuji but it's just too slow for event's and weddings.
Change is coming this is the future. APSC makes much more sense for a camera that has to be moved around a lot, smaller lenses, smaller body and 80% of the IQ and soon medium format is going to come way down in price, Sony and Fuji are planning a system. So that covers studio and other pro markets.
I really hope they add leaf shutters into the Fuji lenses I've rented a phase one a few times and the leaf lenses make me wet haha.
>>2836585
I'm thinking about selling my canon 5d mark 3 and my small lense collection, which is not much but i do have the tamron 70-200mm 2.8 vc.
I'm thinking if I should go for the xt1 or the fuji pro cameras. Any recommendation?
>>2836585
But you could also work as a Photographer with a phone camera or be an amateur who collected some camera bodies on the shelf of his room for the sake of this discussion, it still will not change the facts.
Also, I'll believe what merely are your your hopes for the future when I'll see commitment from the mirrorless manufacturers and gear on the shelves already.
Not that it will make sense given the real world advantages and trade-offs, but whatever.
>>2836601
If its replacing your 5D get the XT2 (will be out in a few months) or the XPRO2.
If its going to be used side by side the XT1, XT10, XE2 are all great.
It really depends on what you use your camera for, the 5Diii is a stunning work horse.
4x5 or bust
>>2836614
If this is an option, I agree with it.
Though I replaced my 5Dmk2 with an X-T1 and was very happy to have done so.
If getting the older camera allows you to get better lenses, however, I think that's the way to go. The newer "pro" lenses are phenominal, and while the older cheaper primes are very good optically, they can have issues with AF speed and noise, or other quirks that aren't really present in the pro-zooms (or the 90mm, 35mm f/2, etc.)
>>2836614
Yeah it's great, but I'd like a smaller and discrete camera.
The XT2 sounds cool, but someone offered me a XT1 cheap (don't know how cheap) when the XT2 comes out, and wondering if I should go for it and buy some of the cool fuji lenses for the rest of the money.
>>2836585
Are the leaf shutters just a fetish for you or do you actually have a use for them on the X system?
Can you give source on the Sony/Fuji collaboration you mentioned?
>>2836260
Yes, this is exactly what I said. I meant the 23 1.4.
I've looked at my key lenses, and the Fuji equivalents are either cheaper or are similarly priced. This is true of my Sigma Art 35 (23 1.4), my 50 1.4 (35 1.4) and my 70-200 (50-140.) The only place Nikon wins is with my 20 2.8, which is substantially cheaper than the 14 2.8. Obviously I'll take a hit replacing my Rokinon 85 1.4, which is a great lens but doesn't really fit into the pricing structure, and the 50-140 can fill its gap pretty well for the time being anyway.
>>2836585
I'm in a similar situation to you, and hoping that Fuji can replace my Nikon system. I do most of my shooting with a 35 prime and a 70-200, so I can be up and running with Fuji pretty quickly.
>>2836698
Its not a collaboration, both companies are rumoured to be coming out with MF aimed at adorable mirrorless MF and Sony already make MF sensors for a few big names.
>>2836698
It's fantastic for work with flash.
Lots of MF lenses have it built into the lens, letting you use portable lights at crazy speeds wide open during the day
there's a deal on B&H right now for the X-pro1 with the 27mm f2.8 and an sd card for $700 burger bucks, I just picked one up for keeping on me at all times, i've been lusting after that camera for years now
