Any body remember the early Fujifilm DSLR cameras based on Nikon bodies, S3-Pro S5-Pro IS.Pro etc.
Apparently they were highly revered amongst the studio portrait photographers and still being used today by some. I really don't know much about them but its a bit of early Fuji camera history, They are now quite collectable if you can find a good one.
Early Fujifilm/Finepix DSLR cameras
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am
- bfitzgerald
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm
Re: Early Fujifilm/Finepix DSLR cameras
Tried one once long time ago, for it's day impressive DR
Super CCD a previous version of the EXR type sensor small photosites for the highlight capture. Shares a lot in common processing with the X10 I have, ie 12mp isn't really that great, works best as a 6mp camera (still enough IMO for portrait/wedding shooters etc subject to not going mad cropping)
Not sure I'd see much point buying one these days unless you like the tonality (Fuji tend to be good here). Much prefer these sensors v the modern Xtrans stuff, just can't warm to it at all. Not really many advantages over bayer and some obvious drawbacks in processing IMO.
I'd say even the A77 will near match the Fuji for DR, and probably best it for low light easily even though that's not a camera famous for it's low light ability. So a Nikon shooter could get a D7100/7200 and kinda get better overall performance, albeit in a slightly less robust body. I wish Fuji did more of those, but they're now into the X mount stuff. They seem to be doing OK with that, wish they'd ditch that Xtrans sensor I might be interested if they did. I liked the EXR/Super CCD stuff they'd also have more resolution to play with say a 24mp down to 12mp, the DR would probably be amazing and beat out FF cameras today.
Super CCD a previous version of the EXR type sensor small photosites for the highlight capture. Shares a lot in common processing with the X10 I have, ie 12mp isn't really that great, works best as a 6mp camera (still enough IMO for portrait/wedding shooters etc subject to not going mad cropping)
Not sure I'd see much point buying one these days unless you like the tonality (Fuji tend to be good here). Much prefer these sensors v the modern Xtrans stuff, just can't warm to it at all. Not really many advantages over bayer and some obvious drawbacks in processing IMO.
I'd say even the A77 will near match the Fuji for DR, and probably best it for low light easily even though that's not a camera famous for it's low light ability. So a Nikon shooter could get a D7100/7200 and kinda get better overall performance, albeit in a slightly less robust body. I wish Fuji did more of those, but they're now into the X mount stuff. They seem to be doing OK with that, wish they'd ditch that Xtrans sensor I might be interested if they did. I liked the EXR/Super CCD stuff they'd also have more resolution to play with say a 24mp down to 12mp, the DR would probably be amazing and beat out FF cameras today.
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am
Re: Early Fujifilm/Finepix DSLR cameras
I thought the early Olympus DSLR's fitted with Kodak CCD sensors exhibited nicer colour and balance very much like Ektachrome, Not very high MP and was noisy above ISO 1600. I had some friends years ago have a studio shoot of the family, all on a S5 Pro, they were superb pictures all under studio lighting and flash. I wish I had never sold my X10. I did some landscape work on my X10 I have yet to come near the colour quality, may be my early Olympus E510 10mp that had a CMOS sensor the 400 even nicer with a CCD sensor
- bfitzgerald
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm
Re: Early Fujifilm/Finepix DSLR cameras
I still have the X10 I Might pass it on to someone in the future but it's quite good, even today. Very decent for macro not quite 1:1, not too far off though. Always liked the images from it and still do. I won't write Fuji off if they do different things in the future, X mount etc. Cost of the system is a bit rich for my tastes, that could change with increased third party support.
At the time nothing could touch the S5 for DR, it was way out ahead at the cost of really having to shoot 6mp v 12mp. I suppose if they did a new sensor say 24mp on APS-C with EXR/Super CCD sensors, they'd get stick for having only a real "12mp" camera. As I say though the DR is quite good these days, on crop and full frame - perhaps the market for it isn't there. On the other hand looking at what phones can no do, I'm amazed at how well the processing is on the pixel, low light and DR. It's strange camera makers mostly ignore it
There is a long debate about CMOS v CCD sensors
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015 ... os-part-1/
At the time nothing could touch the S5 for DR, it was way out ahead at the cost of really having to shoot 6mp v 12mp. I suppose if they did a new sensor say 24mp on APS-C with EXR/Super CCD sensors, they'd get stick for having only a real "12mp" camera. As I say though the DR is quite good these days, on crop and full frame - perhaps the market for it isn't there. On the other hand looking at what phones can no do, I'm amazed at how well the processing is on the pixel, low light and DR. It's strange camera makers mostly ignore it
There is a long debate about CMOS v CCD sensors
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015 ... os-part-1/
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am
Re: Early Fujifilm/Finepix DSLR cameras
Fuji at one point was a system I nearly moved over to, but Sony and Canon got in the way of that decision. As you remember I love my Jpegs and no camera came near Fuji for Jpeg quality, may be Olympus does,
Fuji seem to have priced themselves into a higher price bracket, even at the budget end of the range is not cheap. There is no doubting they make fine lenses but again pricy and there is a lack of 3rd party options. The X10 sensor and processor should have remained with future models obviously higher Pixel count. One wonders why Fuji switched to the XTrans sensor, I guess they had their reasons.
Fuji seem to have priced themselves into a higher price bracket, even at the budget end of the range is not cheap. There is no doubting they make fine lenses but again pricy and there is a lack of 3rd party options. The X10 sensor and processor should have remained with future models obviously higher Pixel count. One wonders why Fuji switched to the XTrans sensor, I guess they had their reasons.
- bfitzgerald
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm
Re: Early Fujifilm/Finepix DSLR cameras
I still keep my eyes open with Fuij, they are different and sometimes interesting.
They use bayer in their MF GFX, I think the whole moire thing is overblown the Xtrans can also give false colours in some situations too.
Let's put it like this, I don't find Xtrans adds to the appeal for me personally.
X mount is IMO a bit rich on prices. There are more third party offerings coming out, I'd forget about Tamron/Sigma their days of affordable lenses are over. Viltrox are an option maybe, or mix in some of those manual focus lenses. I have tested a few and some of them are quite good if you don't mind manual everything. For vintage lenses I can't help but think you're better off playing around with full frame
XS-10 looked pretty good until I found out it has the same low power battery, and they took the electronic first curtain out! So mechanical or full electronic - that's not good for some situations where shutter shock can be an issue or where the electronic shutter isn't quick enough.
The only thing that could keep me with Sony is if they get more bodies working with the LAEA5, not that I'd buy one - it would give options down the road if needed. So far the miserable support and "silence" - I'll be honest if I got fair prices for the stuff I have I'd be long gone from Sony and using Canikon
I can't see myself buying into an APS-C system again from scratch - that's Fuji's problem. If they had more appealing prices on bodies/lenses I'd have no problems giving them serious consideration. Fuji do have a nice out of camera look, always have even the X10
They use bayer in their MF GFX, I think the whole moire thing is overblown the Xtrans can also give false colours in some situations too.
Let's put it like this, I don't find Xtrans adds to the appeal for me personally.
X mount is IMO a bit rich on prices. There are more third party offerings coming out, I'd forget about Tamron/Sigma their days of affordable lenses are over. Viltrox are an option maybe, or mix in some of those manual focus lenses. I have tested a few and some of them are quite good if you don't mind manual everything. For vintage lenses I can't help but think you're better off playing around with full frame
XS-10 looked pretty good until I found out it has the same low power battery, and they took the electronic first curtain out! So mechanical or full electronic - that's not good for some situations where shutter shock can be an issue or where the electronic shutter isn't quick enough.
The only thing that could keep me with Sony is if they get more bodies working with the LAEA5, not that I'd buy one - it would give options down the road if needed. So far the miserable support and "silence" - I'll be honest if I got fair prices for the stuff I have I'd be long gone from Sony and using Canikon
I can't see myself buying into an APS-C system again from scratch - that's Fuji's problem. If they had more appealing prices on bodies/lenses I'd have no problems giving them serious consideration. Fuji do have a nice out of camera look, always have even the X10
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am
Re: Early Fujifilm/Finepix DSLR cameras
Agreed, with most of what you say, I have not equalled the Jpgs out of my old X10. not sure what Fuji's thinking is regards sensors. What ever brand of camera you look at, none are perfect in one way or another, they never tick every box. There is always the Fuji used market, if its worth chasing.
Sony come close for number of boxes ticked but we now have a defunct cropped A mount system. I guess there will be some bargains coming up on the used market. The big box that Sony never ticked for me was no user control over noise filters, why, didn't they trust us or what. I shall keep my A58 because it does everything I tell it to and might look out for more used lenses but they need to be real cheap or not worth getting. Changing systems is a huge step financially and there's always the buy in haste regret at leisure problems and I've been there a couple of times. I'm very happy with my Canon M5, its compact, easy to use and takes cracking pictures, poor lens choice though. If I went over to Fuji and yes I have thought about it for a couple years, everything will have to go leaving room for a Fuji system only, is the hassle worth it.
Sony come close for number of boxes ticked but we now have a defunct cropped A mount system. I guess there will be some bargains coming up on the used market. The big box that Sony never ticked for me was no user control over noise filters, why, didn't they trust us or what. I shall keep my A58 because it does everything I tell it to and might look out for more used lenses but they need to be real cheap or not worth getting. Changing systems is a huge step financially and there's always the buy in haste regret at leisure problems and I've been there a couple of times. I'm very happy with my Canon M5, its compact, easy to use and takes cracking pictures, poor lens choice though. If I went over to Fuji and yes I have thought about it for a couple years, everything will have to go leaving room for a Fuji system only, is the hassle worth it.
- bfitzgerald
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm
Re: Early Fujifilm/Finepix DSLR cameras
That's the conundrum!
The NR changed on Sony, can't say I was particularly happy with it on the A57/77 and earlier cameras. Didn't get enough control, and even at the lowest settings hardly any difference. The A99 changed, a lot with the jpegs - for the first time the NR makes a huge difference. All I can say is I'm happy to shoot jpeg on that camera low or high ISO. I set it to NR "low", that seems the best balance between detail/NR and not having chroma noise. Off has some colour noise, so might work if people want to tweak in post a bit.
A6300 also seems quite good in jpeg, similar results with the settings as the A99
I'm trading in my A77 and some crop lenses as I got sick of time wasters/tyre kickers and others!
The a99 only works for me, mostly because I already had built up a system on mainly full frame lenses. It isn't a cheap camera used, yet within reach for most/many. If you look at what's around Mirrorless full frame it seems quite a good deal.
The Z5 looked interesting until I read reports about dodgy AF in dim light and ultra noisy/flickering EVF in low light - enough for me to want to avoid that one. I've not tried one perhaps I might one day to see if that's true. Canon RP is good value, yet hobbled with the DR challenged sensor and not great latitude, no IS in body.
These are not enough to entice me to switch
Likewise Sony don't have anything I want at the price I want to pay. If I'm going to use an E mount FF body with the LAEA4 (and that's about the only choice you have). A1/7RIV both are too expensive and I have no interest even if someone stuff an envelope full of cash covering the cost - I'd just put the money in the bank and save it!
It's not worth paying £1600 for a camera which is going to give me 2.5fps for AF and 15 point AF - and that's what you get. Sensor is better v the A99, still the difference isn't justified in the asking price. I need something that can handle a bit of action and the A99 fits that bill just fine. A7iii is almost 4 years old, if it replaces the ancient A7ii which it should do at a knock down price - fine maybe it would be worth a look later on even with the compromises. Assuming Sony have fixed their "shutter" problems
I've sort of given up the notion of being able to abandon A Mount. It isn't that different for F Mount and EOS users either. I know plenty of people struggling to shift gear - bodies and lenses. Used market is saturated with SLR era stuff - unless you start going crazy low things just don't sell that well. Some of the vintage Minolta lenses, are worth almost nothing used - you're only likely to get rid of some bundling them with a body or something. I tried local sites/eBay - very slow to move. Some things will sell... full frame bodies seem more likely to get buyers, some select lenses will move.
I was looking at an XT2 as a video and review camera and just use the adapter for playing around/test shots. I couldn't find one at a price I wanted to pay. In the end I got the A6300 for about €450, which today looks like quite a good deal (12 month warranty from photo dealer)
Prices on bodies have gone up even used, maybe it's this "global chip shortage". I don't want to spend €600+ odd on a second hand crop body camera which is mostly used for review stuff/shots. Mirrorless prices are not that good, even used. Bodies and lenses, often not that much cheaper than new.
Maybe that will change over time, right now I just don't see the attraction unless you've Richard Branson style funds and you just desperately want to spend it!
I was out again yesterday doing a lens test. Dingle, big tourist spot lot of people around. Spot the camera!
I saw 2 people using a camera one was a Nikon and one Canon both SLR's. No mirrorless in sight, sometimes I do see the odd one, not often though.
10 years ago every other person would have a camera, many compacts, often I saw consumer level DSLR's out there and the odd high end one. Things have changed hugely, so a few over excited YouTubers isn't enough to convince me that it is worth investing what would be a substantial cash outlay on
a new swanky MILC. Perhaps the camera industry might wake up to what the real world is, people have mostly moved on from cameras
The NR changed on Sony, can't say I was particularly happy with it on the A57/77 and earlier cameras. Didn't get enough control, and even at the lowest settings hardly any difference. The A99 changed, a lot with the jpegs - for the first time the NR makes a huge difference. All I can say is I'm happy to shoot jpeg on that camera low or high ISO. I set it to NR "low", that seems the best balance between detail/NR and not having chroma noise. Off has some colour noise, so might work if people want to tweak in post a bit.
A6300 also seems quite good in jpeg, similar results with the settings as the A99
I'm trading in my A77 and some crop lenses as I got sick of time wasters/tyre kickers and others!
The a99 only works for me, mostly because I already had built up a system on mainly full frame lenses. It isn't a cheap camera used, yet within reach for most/many. If you look at what's around Mirrorless full frame it seems quite a good deal.
The Z5 looked interesting until I read reports about dodgy AF in dim light and ultra noisy/flickering EVF in low light - enough for me to want to avoid that one. I've not tried one perhaps I might one day to see if that's true. Canon RP is good value, yet hobbled with the DR challenged sensor and not great latitude, no IS in body.
These are not enough to entice me to switch
Likewise Sony don't have anything I want at the price I want to pay. If I'm going to use an E mount FF body with the LAEA4 (and that's about the only choice you have). A1/7RIV both are too expensive and I have no interest even if someone stuff an envelope full of cash covering the cost - I'd just put the money in the bank and save it!
It's not worth paying £1600 for a camera which is going to give me 2.5fps for AF and 15 point AF - and that's what you get. Sensor is better v the A99, still the difference isn't justified in the asking price. I need something that can handle a bit of action and the A99 fits that bill just fine. A7iii is almost 4 years old, if it replaces the ancient A7ii which it should do at a knock down price - fine maybe it would be worth a look later on even with the compromises. Assuming Sony have fixed their "shutter" problems
I've sort of given up the notion of being able to abandon A Mount. It isn't that different for F Mount and EOS users either. I know plenty of people struggling to shift gear - bodies and lenses. Used market is saturated with SLR era stuff - unless you start going crazy low things just don't sell that well. Some of the vintage Minolta lenses, are worth almost nothing used - you're only likely to get rid of some bundling them with a body or something. I tried local sites/eBay - very slow to move. Some things will sell... full frame bodies seem more likely to get buyers, some select lenses will move.
I was looking at an XT2 as a video and review camera and just use the adapter for playing around/test shots. I couldn't find one at a price I wanted to pay. In the end I got the A6300 for about €450, which today looks like quite a good deal (12 month warranty from photo dealer)
Prices on bodies have gone up even used, maybe it's this "global chip shortage". I don't want to spend €600+ odd on a second hand crop body camera which is mostly used for review stuff/shots. Mirrorless prices are not that good, even used. Bodies and lenses, often not that much cheaper than new.
Maybe that will change over time, right now I just don't see the attraction unless you've Richard Branson style funds and you just desperately want to spend it!
I was out again yesterday doing a lens test. Dingle, big tourist spot lot of people around. Spot the camera!
I saw 2 people using a camera one was a Nikon and one Canon both SLR's. No mirrorless in sight, sometimes I do see the odd one, not often though.
10 years ago every other person would have a camera, many compacts, often I saw consumer level DSLR's out there and the odd high end one. Things have changed hugely, so a few over excited YouTubers isn't enough to convince me that it is worth investing what would be a substantial cash outlay on
a new swanky MILC. Perhaps the camera industry might wake up to what the real world is, people have mostly moved on from cameras
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am
Re: Early Fujifilm/Finepix DSLR cameras
It looks like the A99 is a keeper, I suspect it ticks a lot of boxes for you and I can see why, my A58 is also a keeper, but I do need to sell off all the lenses and get just a more versatile do it all lens, but must have a reasonable performance, either Sony or 3rd party, any ideas. I was thinking of a Sigma 17-70 ? I recently let my Panasonic GX7 go with the 12-32 Panny lens, very popular camera for the Videographers.
My Canon M5 ticks most of the boxes for handling and small and light weight plus its easy to use the menu and takes cracking pictures.
As much as I admire the Fuji system I cannot justify the costs.
I made my mind up ages ago not to go down the E Mount route, I would rather stick with a A58. I have always had a love/hate relationship with Sony SLT cameras.
Ironically my most go to camera is the Panasonic FZ330 bridge, it has never let me down and takes excellent pictures. I suspect the constant f/2.8 Leica zoom plays a part. Having a small sensor does not seem to effect the picture quality at low ISO settings
I usually check out who is using what on holidays, Bruges in Belgium is good for this as you see many far East tourists, most seem to be using smart phones now but also compacts or small bridge cameras, DSLR's not so much. US tourists seem to be the ones with DSLR's mostly.
My Canon M5 ticks most of the boxes for handling and small and light weight plus its easy to use the menu and takes cracking pictures.
As much as I admire the Fuji system I cannot justify the costs.
I made my mind up ages ago not to go down the E Mount route, I would rather stick with a A58. I have always had a love/hate relationship with Sony SLT cameras.
Ironically my most go to camera is the Panasonic FZ330 bridge, it has never let me down and takes excellent pictures. I suspect the constant f/2.8 Leica zoom plays a part. Having a small sensor does not seem to effect the picture quality at low ISO settings
I usually check out who is using what on holidays, Bruges in Belgium is good for this as you see many far East tourists, most seem to be using smart phones now but also compacts or small bridge cameras, DSLR's not so much. US tourists seem to be the ones with DSLR's mostly.
- bfitzgerald
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm
Re: Early Fujifilm/Finepix DSLR cameras
Different people want various things. To me the "small size" doesn't make that much difference.
The a99 just unlocks the FF lenses I have to be what they were designed for. Not that I minded APS-C at the time FF lenses telephoto doesn't bother me, it's the wide end you lose - hence you end up getting a few crop lenses to cover that. At the time I paid £599 for the A77, which was quite a good price brand new from Park Cameras (in 2014). That was way down on the £1100 release price. A77 is an alright camera for that price, but to me it wasn't a £1000+ one - mostly because the SLT compromised the sensor performance. DR is fine it was the low light that took a hit. I could work around it with faster lenses and tweaking the exposure, camera just doesn't meter well for low light and that compounds the problem. That was also the reason it got a bad rap for low light/high ISO noise. A77ii didn't change that much, a bit but not significantly better.
A99 takes a hit too, it just gets away with it much better because the sensor is newer and full frame. It also meters better and the jpegs are much better
I was never a fan of the SLT, I felt it was premature and not a good idea to slap a mirror in the light path. Sony should IMO have just done OVF cameras but worked the live view like Canon did with their dual pixel. As usual with Sony you don't get a choice, just what they want to do.
Same with E Mount, no variation in body designs at all really, rinse/repeat and if you don't like it tough luck!
E Mount isn't a viable system for me (native), I could just as well look at anything else out there. The A6300 exists only because it's cheap ish and does decent video, and the electronic shutter is useful for static shots I do on products/macro etc. I wouldn't buy system lenses for it, I do sometimes get third party items sent and the odd lens to test. I can't test this stuff on A Mount nor any SLR mount - for that need a MILC is a requirement. Doesn't really matter what is is, though at least I get some compatibility with A Mount. Lack of stead shot is a major downer - but I'm not willing to pay A6500/6600 prices with a body style I can't warm to.
Over time I might end up offloading the A6300 when I get bored with it, and maybe I might try something else. If the right something comes along, maybe that might transition me slowly to a different system. Problem remains of cost of a new system and being able to get rid of A Mount stuff - not exactly been flying out the door. Makes more sense to continue using what I have, and the video/test part doesn't have to be Sony related, I could shove lenses on any MILC body, albeit with manual focus etc. If I didn't do videos/reviews I wouldn't have a MILC. Let's see if this new A7IV will work on the LAEA5
If you like the Canon why not stick with it? I wouldn't move to Fuji, even used it's kinda pricey I think for an APS-C system
The a99 just unlocks the FF lenses I have to be what they were designed for. Not that I minded APS-C at the time FF lenses telephoto doesn't bother me, it's the wide end you lose - hence you end up getting a few crop lenses to cover that. At the time I paid £599 for the A77, which was quite a good price brand new from Park Cameras (in 2014). That was way down on the £1100 release price. A77 is an alright camera for that price, but to me it wasn't a £1000+ one - mostly because the SLT compromised the sensor performance. DR is fine it was the low light that took a hit. I could work around it with faster lenses and tweaking the exposure, camera just doesn't meter well for low light and that compounds the problem. That was also the reason it got a bad rap for low light/high ISO noise. A77ii didn't change that much, a bit but not significantly better.
A99 takes a hit too, it just gets away with it much better because the sensor is newer and full frame. It also meters better and the jpegs are much better
I was never a fan of the SLT, I felt it was premature and not a good idea to slap a mirror in the light path. Sony should IMO have just done OVF cameras but worked the live view like Canon did with their dual pixel. As usual with Sony you don't get a choice, just what they want to do.
Same with E Mount, no variation in body designs at all really, rinse/repeat and if you don't like it tough luck!
E Mount isn't a viable system for me (native), I could just as well look at anything else out there. The A6300 exists only because it's cheap ish and does decent video, and the electronic shutter is useful for static shots I do on products/macro etc. I wouldn't buy system lenses for it, I do sometimes get third party items sent and the odd lens to test. I can't test this stuff on A Mount nor any SLR mount - for that need a MILC is a requirement. Doesn't really matter what is is, though at least I get some compatibility with A Mount. Lack of stead shot is a major downer - but I'm not willing to pay A6500/6600 prices with a body style I can't warm to.
Over time I might end up offloading the A6300 when I get bored with it, and maybe I might try something else. If the right something comes along, maybe that might transition me slowly to a different system. Problem remains of cost of a new system and being able to get rid of A Mount stuff - not exactly been flying out the door. Makes more sense to continue using what I have, and the video/test part doesn't have to be Sony related, I could shove lenses on any MILC body, albeit with manual focus etc. If I didn't do videos/reviews I wouldn't have a MILC. Let's see if this new A7IV will work on the LAEA5
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
If you like the Canon why not stick with it? I wouldn't move to Fuji, even used it's kinda pricey I think for an APS-C system
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests