03-17-2024, 11:47 PM
I think Fuji is in a tricky spot but their marketing has been awesome.
Instead of emphasizing pure tech, they are marketing the system as "modern retro" - which is certainly smart.
I'd say that for many consumers, cameras also represent a bit of nostalgia - as opposed to smartphones - reminiscent of a time when things were slower and more focused on the artistic part rather than just taking a snapshot. And Fuji cameras are providing this "good feeling".
e.g. If we look at the camera design neutrally, the top dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation are just poorly placed regarding ergonomics. And the positioning of the front dial isn't ideal either. But this doesn't matter, of course, if people just want it this way. For the others, there's the X-Hx series, which targets professionals instead. So that's the other smart move by Fujifilm - they are using essentially the very same underlying tech for different target audiences. As far as AF goes, I'm fairly happy with the X-H2 but it's not as good as Sony's.
The retro thingy also benefited their lens lineup, especially their prime lenses. There's the discussion that modern lenses do feel too "clinical," and most Fujinons don't. However, in terms of sheer hard numbers, their lenses aren't really special. The best are keeping up with the state of the art but there's also a whole lot that isn't. And their zoom lenses are generally nothing to write home about really.
I'd say Fuji is a place to "feel" good but not necessarily to "be" good. But then, photography is about feelings. As long as it feels good, it's good enough, really.
Conversely, Sony—probably even more so than Canon and Nikon—is about "clinical" performance - and they aren't even overly shy to stress this.
Nikon is probably a bit of a middle ground. I'm not sure how to classify Canon at this point. I suppose they are the most narcissist ;-) if that's a thing for a company.
Instead of emphasizing pure tech, they are marketing the system as "modern retro" - which is certainly smart.
I'd say that for many consumers, cameras also represent a bit of nostalgia - as opposed to smartphones - reminiscent of a time when things were slower and more focused on the artistic part rather than just taking a snapshot. And Fuji cameras are providing this "good feeling".
e.g. If we look at the camera design neutrally, the top dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation are just poorly placed regarding ergonomics. And the positioning of the front dial isn't ideal either. But this doesn't matter, of course, if people just want it this way. For the others, there's the X-Hx series, which targets professionals instead. So that's the other smart move by Fujifilm - they are using essentially the very same underlying tech for different target audiences. As far as AF goes, I'm fairly happy with the X-H2 but it's not as good as Sony's.
The retro thingy also benefited their lens lineup, especially their prime lenses. There's the discussion that modern lenses do feel too "clinical," and most Fujinons don't. However, in terms of sheer hard numbers, their lenses aren't really special. The best are keeping up with the state of the art but there's also a whole lot that isn't. And their zoom lenses are generally nothing to write home about really.
I'd say Fuji is a place to "feel" good but not necessarily to "be" good. But then, photography is about feelings. As long as it feels good, it's good enough, really.
Conversely, Sony—probably even more so than Canon and Nikon—is about "clinical" performance - and they aren't even overly shy to stress this.
Nikon is probably a bit of a middle ground. I'm not sure how to classify Canon at this point. I suppose they are the most narcissist ;-) if that's a thing for a company.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji