Fujifilm should go full frame

[Andrew Reid]

It's time

https://www.eoshd.com/news/why-its-time-for-fujifilm-to-go-full-frame/

And a full frame X100 without the RX1 III or Leica Q price tags would be fabulous thank you.

[MrSMW]

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

And a full frame X100 without the RX1 III or Leica Q price tags would be fabulous thank you

Yes it would, especially if it was high megapixel to allow extensive cropping either in camera or in post.

The RF100 came so close for me other than the f4 lens. An f2.8 would have swung it for me but high MP sensors are a good thing IMO.

I built my career off Nikon and then Fuji so have a soft spot for them both so like to see them do well.

Also, I prefer rangefinderesque style bodies over SLR style humped blocks and whilst L Mount has them in Leica and Sigma flavour, I wish the old Panasonic Pony of Hope would ride into town on one. The Fuji X Pro2 was the camera I probably owned the longest and shot the most work on.

[Andrew Reid]

The GFX 100 RF has a great sensor but it's a bit pointless to have a sensor size advantage only to shoot at F4 max.

The sensor size advantage = better low light, a more shallow depth of field, more character from the lens - all of that F4 works against.

And the sensor size of the 100 RF comes with a big premium. So you're paying quite a lot extra for no advantage.

Much better to have a full frame + F2 combo unless you really need 100 megapixel - but then who wants such a large sensor only to crop down to Micro Four Thirds framing?

My beloved GFX 100 is at its best when you can ignore all the slow Fuji lenses and put a Minolta MD 50mm F1.4 on there.

[ND64]

Business wise, its way easier for them to make lower priced MF body than start a FF body from scratch and face 3 giants right out of the gate. Also it sends a wrong message to their customers: "both APSC and MF we pushed all these years, aren't best choices, either in image quality or practicality". 

[John Matthews]

40 minutes ago, ND64 said:

Business wise, its way easier for them to make lower priced MF body than start a FF body from scratch and face 3 giants right out of the gate. Also it sends a wrong message to their customers: "both APSC and MF we pushed all these years, aren't best choices, either in image quality or practicality". 

That would make more sense than starting a whole new lens system IMO. Just make a body in the $2500 range and loads of people will come in. Add to it a fast f2 prime that isn't gigantic (I'm ok with in-camera software corrections) and I think it would be way cheaper than making and marketing a new system. There's already so much confusion for the limited number of consumers left buying cameras.

I would say a FF point and shoot would make more sense for them. It would also sell really well IMO.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Much better to have a full frame + F2 combo unless you really need 100 megapixel

Indeed which was why for stills anyway, my 3 most recent cameras have been; S1R 47mp, A7RV 61mp and now S1RII 44mp.

I do wish Panny had gone with/been able to use the 61mp sensor from the Sony also used in the Leica SL3 because those 15mp do allow a fair bit more cropping, but hey ho.

I have mine set up for Hybrid Zoom and whatever they call the the equivalent for zooms at the 1.4x crop setting so something like my 28-70 becomes a 28-98 and a 50mm f1.8, a 70 and that’s a really good option to have in camera at a flick of a switch.

For next season, I am probably going to pick up the Sigma 28-105mm f2.8 as a ‘one & done’ for stills because with hybrid mode engaged, it becomes almost a 150mm lens and allows me to do away with switching to an even bigger and heavier 70-200 and that is a big deal.

24-70 + 70-200 vs 28-105(-147)=

A. No lens swaps

B. More range in a single lens

C. Less weight than a 70-200 and less than 1/2 the weight compared with the duo

D. Costs less

I don’t think there is a Fuji equivalent so it would be a lens pairing again and medium format for me is now dead unless we ever see something like an f2.8 RF, but I’d prefer to see a fixed lens S1RII rangefinderesque body a la Q3.

[EduPortas]

22 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's time

https://www.eoshd.com/news/why-its-time-for-fujifilm-to-go-full-frame/

And a full frame X100 without the RX1 III or Leica Q price tags would be fabulous thank you.

Yes, just a one shot fixed-lens model in the X100 body or similar.

Any other strategy would confuse their own customer base. Right now, they have some very clear buyer differentiation in the extremely expensive MF and the fragmented APS-C lines.

So a FF body makes sense but only as a curiosity for the deep-pocketed aficionado.

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

I'm still on the other side of this one.  My most used lens while traveling on my GFX 100 II (and previously on my GFX 100) is the 32-64/4. Except when Etosha NP, where it was the 500/5.6 (sometimes with the teleconverter).  Most used apertures on the 32-64/4 are all in the f/5.6-11 range.  There aren't a lot of landscapes where I need to be at f/2.8 or faster and for environmental photos of myself or my partner (or both of us together) in places, the phone does fine - and if I do take it with the real camera, shooting at f/2 will definitely let somebody know that we were in a place with certain abstract impressionist colors seeming like a meadow or forest or lake behind us.

For an upcoming trip to Thailand where I'd like to travel lighter since we're moving around a lot, sleeping on trains, etc, I'm currently giving a lot of thought to just bringing the 50/3.5 and trying single lens life.  I'm eager for the day when the GFX 100RF is a lot less expensive on the used market.