1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

An Interesting First Look

Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by Learning, Jun 9, 2022.

  1. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Andy Westlake correctly states "Fujifilm has identified a gap in its camera line-up, and pulled out all the stops to create the X-H2S ..."
    He might have added that Fujifilm has also identified a gap in Nikon's Z line-up.:)
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Fuji-x-forum has been going crazy about the X-H2 of which there was expected to be two versions announced in May. September is now expected for the high resolution version. It will be interesting to read the reviews of the shipped versions rather than the pre-release versions. Especially against Canon R and Nikon Z. Apparently there is a company I’d never heard of, Fringer, who make full-auto adaptors that enable full use of Canon EF and Nikon lenses on Fuji X.
  3. Fen

    Fen The Destroyer

    Now that's interesting... never heard of them either so going off to google as I've got the Nikon 'Holy Trinity' and would love to use them on my Fuji X-T2

    Edit: £350 - Here's a link - https://www.fringeradapter.com/nikon-f-to-fujifilm-x
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2022
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    The adaptors seem much recommended (by Fuji-X-forum members) as supporting all lens functions. If I’d learned of them earlier I could be using my Canon 100-400 on my X-H1 and saved the cost of the Fuji 100-400. Roll on the AP review of the X-H2s vs the Canon R cameras.
  5. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    I'm not suddenly going off to buy a Fuji on the information given so far. But I was one of those D200 and D300 owners who hoped for the Nikon D400 that never came. I even bought a D800 in frustration. Then Nikon came up with the D500 in 2016. Fortunately my brace of D500 are brilliant and it is only GAS that makes me consider a mirror-less camera. I am not disparaging the D800. The D800 is a brilliant camera for many uses including landscape ,architecture, portraiture and still life.
    I enjoy using D500. I would still like to use a DX camera with the functionality of the Z9. I have reached the age of thinking " You can't take it with you, and what I don't take with me goes to first cousins once removed".
    There cannot be a review against an equivalent Nikon Z camera. Nikon don't have one. That was the point of my original post.
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Ah well. Nikon is a mystery to me. I was just trying to be inclusive.
    Learning likes this.
  7. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I treat reviews of new cameras with caution - however 'state of the art' they are, they are probably obsolete when they go on sale because the next model is already being tested somewhere.
    I'm much more interested in the (rare) articles in which somebody has being using a camera for a year or two and has had time to thoroughly test its reliability and build quality.
  8. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I agree there is a gap in Nikon’s Z series lineup but, between the D300s and the D500 Nikon pretty much ignored the professional user who wanted a DX (cropped sensor) camera. Since the D5/D500 that trend has continued, there was no refresh when the D6 was introduced and there is no professional user Z series DX body.

    It appears that Nikon have abandoned the professionals who want smaller cameras and Fuji have happily filled the gap. Nice has pretty much decided that all future professional cameras will be FX (full frame) I’m happy using FX bodies for now but lugging two top of the range FX bodies, with fast lenses, around gets tiring after a few hours. Nikon’s attitude to smaller sensors isn’t encouraging.

    The idea of using my Nikon lenses on a Fuji body has its attractions.
  9. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Fuji are criticised by not having a large range of long lenses. So what. If a manufacturer provides the lenses that I want to buy then that is fine.
    I am not a professional but like nice toys. D500 still fulfils that desire. But. But should Nikon produce a Z replacement to the D500 I will be tempted.
    What proportion of 'professional cameras' are bought by or for professionals?
  10. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    That is an interesting question. The next question is how many professionals buy other than top of the range models.
    Many areas of professional work do not need all the bells and whistles.

    However I suspect it would not be possible to support the design and manufacture top of the Range models, based on Professional purchases alone.
  11. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    There are two basic markets. Business to business and business to consumer. The products are all available to either market. The majors (Canon, Nikon, now Sony) target both, with full frame being their main B2B product. Fuji has been developing a B2B in the “almost medium” format sector. Now perhaps it is going to try with the APS-C sector. For sport and wildlife there are advantages in the crop format. If there is interest then the longer primes will come. At the moment there is the 200 F2 and matched teleconverters. The new 150-600 looks interesting. Canon and Nikon existing fast primes can be used with adaptors - which is probably how they would be used on new Canon/Nikon mirrorless bodies anyway so, if the new Fuji bodies are good enough, the market entry might not be so difficult.
  12. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    For many end uses APS is more than good enough. Especially for online stills and video. It is also good enough for the diminishing press print market. A surprising number of fashion photographer are happy to use Fuji APS.
    And they have distinct reach advantages in wild life and sport.

    However a professional can never be sure of the end use to which his images may be put, and Full Frame has distinct advantages for use at larger sizes. And for fine detail. However in some respects MF has that covered.

    Most professionals are probably best covered by having a range of Formats to hand.
    In the past that was probably, 35mm,medium format and Large format.
    Today that might include APs, FF, and MF. Though other specialist equipment like drones and camera traps might also be required. The modern professional photographers role has also become more and more extended into video / on line world.
  13. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Indeed, which is probably why the “professional” models don’t have the bells and whistles. I have had most of the Nikon pro cameras from F4 to D4 and none of them have scene modes, built in flash or, until the D4, video.

    I have to agree with your later point that most professionals are best covered by having multiple formats.
  14. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I was not even considering. Scene modes and the like as bells an whistles, as I never ever use them. Worse still they clutter up the menus.

    However you do not need a waterproof camera to use in a studio. Nor out of this word ISO, but it would be nice to have a global shutter that could sync at all speeds. Different tasks need different feature sets.
  15. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I suggest that a coffee proof camera might be useful in the studio. No, there is no need for ISO numbers looking like a lottery win, most of the time, nor is there any need for blisteringly fast AF in the studio but making a different camera for each application set wouldn't be economically viable. Hence manufacturers pile features into their products to make them as flexible, and desirable, as possible. I have no experience of Fuji, Sony, Canon or Panasonic cameras but with Nikon it appears that the different ranges are built to a price point and the capabilities expand somewhat with price. The argument being that the chip/s have the capability so adding the feature costs very little.

    Back to the earlier question, the sale of consumer models keeps the manufacturers name visible but I have no idea what makes the profit, probably lenses as manufacturers try hard to get the lens to body ratio up.
  16. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    The advantage of B2C is that (potentially) there are an awful lot of consumers. The risk is they change their allegiance e.g from cameras to phones.

    B2B services run wider than just providing cameras/lenses for sale. Canon, and I expect Nikon also, run an equipment support service (CPN).

    In which division the money is made will be commercially sensitive data.
  17. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Ah! A drone.

    The APS X H2S surprisingly light enough to be carried by a serious yet still smallish drone.

    I hope @daft_biker likes those videos.
    daft_biker likes this.
  18. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    I did, thanks.
    Learning likes this.

Share This Page