3 ms·

I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. However, Fuji is becoming the Apple of cameras for consumers, and frankly their audience is happy to

I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. However, Fuji is becoming the Apple of cameras for consumers, and frankly their audience is happy to pay a bit more for a camera that fits the aesthetic they want while still being high quality and reputable. If I was a pro, I'd be shooting Canon or Nikon, I don't think the Fujifilm line is worth switching to given that the slight benefits of a mirrorless don't make up for the drawbacks for pros, but I know many pros are very successful with them, so what do I know. That being said, I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted.

rplst8 10y ago
> I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. > I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted. I don't know how you can rectify those two statements. P.S. Leica is the Apple of the photography world.
- yesimahuman 10y ago
  Leica is leica, there's not really an analog in the tech world. I can't remember the last time I dropped $10k on a starter computer system or device, Apple or otherwise (which would be a Lieca M body with Leica glass today). Fujifilm price points are much more Apple-like.
  - lb1lf 10y ago
    Leica, IMHO, is pretty much the Rolex of the camera world. While arguably 'the best' if you choose your criteria narrowly enough, their strongest selling point nowadays is the Veblen factor - they are seen as something special, the pinnacle, the yardstick competitors are measured against. Same goes for Rolex - while making excellent watches, there's hardly any denying that the competition is just as competent at a vastly less unreasonable price point. (Full disclosure - I am a long-time Leica enthusiast, but I've long abandoned their cameras for (to me) more sensible options - I use a Zeiss Ikon ZM (Made by Cosina) with Leica lenses. The ZM is more rugged, arguably has a better rangefinder and is less idiosyncratic than any Leica body. Just try loading a film in an ZM versus a Leica, for starters)

rplst8 10y ago

> I own an X-E2S and I think that model is even over priced. > I love my Fujifilm and take it everywhere. It's a leica without leica cost, and that's exactly what I wanted. I don't know how you can rectify those two statements. P.S. Leica is the Apple of the photography world.

yesimahuman 10y ago
Leica is leica, there's not really an analog in the tech world. I can't remember the last time I dropped $10k on a starter computer system or device, Apple or otherwise (which would be a Lieca M body with Leica glass today). Fujifilm price points are much more Apple-like.
- lb1lf 10y ago
  Leica, IMHO, is pretty much the Rolex of the camera world. While arguably 'the best' if you choose your criteria narrowly enough, their strongest selling point nowadays is the Veblen factor - they are seen as something special, the pinnacle, the yardstick competitors are measured against. Same goes for Rolex - while making excellent watches, there's hardly any denying that the competition is just as competent at a vastly less unreasonable price point. (Full disclosure - I am a long-time Leica enthusiast, but I've long abandoned their cameras for (to me) more sensible options - I use a Zeiss Ikon ZM (Made by Cosina) with Leica lenses. The ZM is more rugged, arguably has a better rangefinder and is less idiosyncratic than any Leica body. Just try loading a film in an ZM versus a Leica, for starters)