23
Feb
2013

CameraDiner (Fuji UK interview / X20-X100s): Fujirumors-reader Amnon won “question of the week” contest

As promised, Paul of CameraDiner printed the questions you posted at Fujirumors here and asked some of them to Theo from Fujifilm UK. Take a look at the video to see if Theo answered to your question.

One of your questions was also chosen the “question of the week“. This means that Amnon won the VisibleDust prize asking:

What happened to the 18-72 lens that initially appeared in the lens road-map and replaced with the 18-55? Were there technical issues, cost issues, weight issues that led to the scale-back?

[Update: Thanks for contacting me via email Amnon... your email wasn't a fake] I tried to contact you, Amnon, via email, but it seems that you put a fake email account in the FR-contact form. Therefore I’m asking you to contact me at fujirumor@gmail.com. To make sure that you are the Amnon I’m looking for, please write in your email the fake email account you entered in the FR-contact form in the comments.

That’s all… look at the video, and see if your question is one of those chosen by Paul from CameraDiner (youtube channel)!

Follow Me
  • Freddy

    Any chance you could post a transcript of the interesting questions?

    • Tim

      Towards the end they show mockups of the next interchange lens including 27, 23 (rather larger than 35) and long zoom and wide zoom. And perhaps the long prime 56.

      The 27 looks really nice.

      There was no information if the 23 will have the same useful functionality as the 14 (manual focus, dof markers) and also information on the drive motor.

      • MJr

        Sure the 23/1.4 is larger. It’s a 35mm equivalent FoV and still F1.4. :) I think it’s the very first 35 equiv this fast for apsc isn’t it ? Well there is the Zeiss 24/1.8 for NEX which is of similar size. And on a apsc dslr you’re just out of luck, unless you’re willing to dig deep into your wallet for a 24/1.4, which surely is even bigger. :/

        Didn’t look like the 23 has the Manual Focus feature from the 14mm, which is too bad, but not really a surprise. It’s much easier and useful on a superwide, actually using the DoF scale i mean. But i agree it’d be a great addition anyway for plenty other reasons. Particularly for focusing on still subjects through the EVF or LCD, which is simply more fun doing manually, but indeed only if it focuses responsively, especially if the xpro xe successors are going to have that split-screen/peaking feature as well.

        • Tim

          Although I’m sure it will be a great lens … the X100s has all of that now, except for the F1.4 (its 2.0). You know, if the X100s came in black …

  • David Cartier

    Great Camera Diner show, as usual – however, troubling at minute 41 –

    Question: “The technology that’s been built into this (X 100s) with phase detection on the sensor – is that ever likely to end up on a camera with interchangeable lenses?”

    Theo: “There is that potential … hmmm… that’s been discussed… but nothing has been finalized…”

    Disingenuous in the extreme or outright Pinocchio?

    • MJr

      Hmm interesting. I guess all that means is that he can’t say anything about it, not to hurt sales of the current versions. If you ask me, there’s no way they would leave out such useful innovation. They obviously spend a lot of time on it if you’ve read the x story site. Particularly the split-screen focusing is unique to Fuji which i’m sure they’ve patented. It’d be crazy not to use it the only place they can and should: the xpro and xe successors. :)

    • kuishinbou

      Yeah, it is annoying that he brushed that question off, though I understand they are trying to retain sales on the current versions. They would be beyond stupid to not introduce the new sensor and features in upgrades to the x-E1/x-pro1 soon, as those features would likely make the x-series cameras unquestionably better than any NEX series or M4/3 cameras, including the overrated OM-D. Once they overcome the weaknesses in AF and raw conversion options, and have a full range of high quality lenses, the X-series cameras will undoubtedly be the best cameras below full frame. However, if they wait too long, there may be something better, and they will lose out again on obtaining their true potential in market share…I, for one, am only going to wait until this summer or early Fall, as I have been waiting too long already. I wish they had a road map for camera bodies!

      • John

        IF they introduce the split image-function on their system camera’s I think they make it only usable with the x-lenses. Otherwise it will hurt their lens-sales, because the split image is perfect for old manual lenses. Just like focuspeaking.

        I haven’t watch the whole video in detail, but is it correct that nobody ask wether the focus peaking will be introduce on their system-camera? Maybe this question is “censored” in advance…..

        No problem with such a company-strategy (like Olympus), but at least be honest about it!!: don’t give as the “”Magnified View we think is a better way for manual focus”"-shit!

        • Kuishinbou

          If they introduce the split image function on their system cameras, it should be usable with any lens, as it is straight off the sensor. And, they would want to make it usable with manual focus lenses, such as Zeiss or Leica, as it would increase sales significantly. Although I am looking forward to the hybrid AF system, for better AF performance, many people with old manual focus lenses will likely choose a Fuji over a Leica if they have those features; and especially if they resolve the RAW conversion issues.

          They did discuss introducing the new sensor and features in an interchangeable lens camera system, but the rep from Fuji just brushed it off as if they have just been discussing it and that there have been no finalized plans as of yet. However, I highly doubt that is the case, because if they wait another year or so, they will have missed the boat again. There will be a full frame NEX next year, and perhaps others, so if Fuji wants to maximize sales, they should introduce those features in upgrades to the X-E1/X Pro 1 now. If they do, they would likely be the best cameras below full frame, based on the current market. If they don’t, they will lose in potential market share, as the X-E1, though great in many ways, has fallen short in potential ~ still poor AF, no minimum shutter speed setting in auto ISO, and mediocre manual focusing control. And, to be honest, the X-E1 is not a new camera, it is just a modification of the X-Pro 1, which was introduced a year ago. So upgrades for those cameras, which really are beta-like (though fantastic in many ways), are necessary. If they introduce the upgrades this summer or early fall, I will likely buy one. But, if they wait past then, I am sure there will be other fantastic options, which may or may not attract my attention instead ~ a full frame mirrorless camera with efficient and accurate AF and interchangeable lenses would be hard to beat, though I love the manual controls, retro style, and lack of AA filter in the Fuji X-series…

      • David Cartier

        Don’t underestimate OM-D – though lacking in direct manual control and the X-trans benefits, it runs circles around the X-E1 in terms of electronic control.

        • Kuishinbou

          Yes, it has some awesome features, it may run circles around the X-E1, and there are some great lenses for it, but it doesn’t compare with respect to image quality, and it lacks in depth of field control (by 1 stop). Within the next few years, I highly doubt there will be a need for such a small sensor. M4/3 did open the door, so they do deserve a lot of credit. But, I wouldn’t want a sensor smaller than APS-C, especially considering APS-C is already a compromise. That said, we can enjoy taking photos with whatever camera we have; and a great camera doesn’t make a great photographer, or even a good one for that matter…

  • http://Www.spacepirations.com Amnon Govrin

    Cool, getting a freebie :-)
    However in the early days the lens map showed the 18-72 not in addition to the 18-55 but instead of it. That makes the response to my question odd, implying that both were planned originally.