3 ms·

If you're a photographer you'll be needing maybe 5 controls: ISO Aperture shutter speed Metering mode Autofocus point placement Shutter and aperture might

If you're a photographer you'll be needing maybe 5 controls: ISO Aperture shutter speed Metering mode Autofocus point placement Shutter and aperture might be automated away with different shooting mode. Even on Canons which I don't use often, I can bend it to my will, even if the buttons are in a "funny" place. I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. Everything else is literally noise. The nikon d800, and canon or sony equivalent is the same price point. Not only that its full frame you can use real lens, but you get deep depth of field.

rplst8 10y ago
> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. A repackaged phone sensor??? I think you need to take another look at Fujifilm's APS-C sensor tech and image quality.
rodgerd 10y ago
> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. One of the more spectacularly ignorant and stupid things I've read on HN, which is saying a lot. > but you get deep depth of field. Oh, right you don't actually know what you're talking about, you're just parroting talking points you read somewhere.
- KaiserPro 10y ago
  It is as they say, hyperbole. Of course aps-c isn't a phone sensor, because making a monolith lens thin enough isn't worth it. (a lenticular array, maybe. But then who outside of VFX wants light field pictures?) You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Smaller sensor for the same focal length yields a wider depth of field. Yadda yadda field of view. This is why the stock lens 35 mm, because its about the same field of view as 50mm lens on a 35 mm sensor. (or why medium formats have ~80mm lens) However, of course I'm just parroting that "from else where". Yup, no sir, no first hand experience at all.
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    > It is as they say, hyperbole. Was it a social experiment, as well? > You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Yes, but it doesn't make it deeper on larger sensors, which is what you asserted.
lb1lf 10y ago
For most of the history of photography, you only had two (and a half) of those five at your disposal - shutter and aperture, the half being iso, which you effectively changed by using different films or pushing/pulling the exposure. As others have already stated, the Fujis score big in UX - I'd like to add that their lenses are second to none. As a long-term luddite (I own two digital cameras (A Nikon DSLR and a Fuji X100), but most of my shooting is done using either Fuji or Leica analog cameras), IMHO the camera is secondary - it is merely a light-tight box where you affix a lens at one end and the film at the other - the lenses are what matters. Fuji makes some wonderful lenses. Resolution is awesome, contrast excellent and colour rendition best-in-business for those who care (I don't, I am colour blind - the last point is just parroting) - all in a (for the current mirrorless crop) in a very compact package (my GX680 lenses are somewhat less portable). Fuji's current range can probably be accurately described as photographer's cameras - they've, just like Leica, distilled photography to its essentials and made their way to the front of that niche. Kudos!
- KaiserPro 10y ago
  Gotcha. Now this is an argument that I was expecting. I was very seriously looking at the x100 when it came out. Precisely because it was styled to be a manual rangefinder. I tried it, but I just didn't like the compromises. It felt like the rangefinder was a bit of a gimmick. The manual focus grid was non existent. I loved that it was compact, but the quality wasn't quite up to the full frame, similar priced breatheren. The only argument for it was the weight and compactness, which to me didn't matter all that much. What I really wanted was a CCD insert for my olympus rangefinder (35 rd, poor man's noisy leica) However I suspect that ship has sailed.
  - lb1lf 10y ago
    -Agreed on the X100; I tried one (An -s)for a few weeks, but found myself constantly comparing it to a 'real' rangefinder, probably not fair to the poor little thing, which IMHO is an excellent little camera, though a bit lacking in the manual focus department. I've found - to my surprise - that I much prefer Sony's focus peaking when it comes to digital manual focus aids. It is responsive, accurate and much less obtrusive than I initially thought it would be. Still no beating a proper rangefinder, though (IMHO). Oh well. It is my day off, it is lovely autumn weather outside and I've got a few rolls of Tri-X and Portra to expose. (In the Texas Leica - google the Fujica G690BL for a chuckle if you're not familiar with it) Would love a CCD insert too, btw. :)
jrockway 10y ago
> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. It's 21.3 iPhone 6 sensors. (Full frame is about 2 APS-C sensors.) > Not only that its full frame you can use real lens, but you get deep depth of field. Technically, cropping has absolutely nothing to do with depth of field. It's a depth-of-field to angle-of-view you're thinking about.
- KaiserPro 10y ago
  Depth of field is directly tied to focal length. The smaller the sensor, the smaller the focal length. Smaller focal length means deeper depth of field (ie more of the subject is in focus at a given f stop)

rplst8 10y ago

> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. A repackaged phone sensor??? I think you need to take another look at Fujifilm's APS-C sensor tech and image quality.

rodgerd 10y ago

> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. One of the more spectacularly ignorant and stupid things I've read on HN, which is saying a lot. > but you get deep depth of field. Oh, right you don't actually know what you're talking about, you're just parroting talking points you read somewhere.

KaiserPro 10y ago
It is as they say, hyperbole. Of course aps-c isn't a phone sensor, because making a monolith lens thin enough isn't worth it. (a lenticular array, maybe. But then who outside of VFX wants light field pictures?) You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Smaller sensor for the same focal length yields a wider depth of field. Yadda yadda field of view. This is why the stock lens 35 mm, because its about the same field of view as 50mm lens on a 35 mm sensor. (or why medium formats have ~80mm lens) However, of course I'm just parroting that "from else where". Yup, no sir, no first hand experience at all.
- rodgerd 10y ago
  > It is as they say, hyperbole. Was it a social experiment, as well? > You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Yes, but it doesn't make it deeper on larger sensors, which is what you asserted.

lb1lf 10y ago

For most of the history of photography, you only had two (and a half) of those five at your disposal - shutter and aperture, the half being iso, which you effectively changed by using different films or pushing/pulling the exposure. As others have already stated, the Fujis score big in UX - I'd like to add that their lenses are second to none. As a long-term luddite (I own two digital cameras (A Nikon DSLR and a Fuji X100), but most of my shooting is done using either Fuji or Leica analog cameras), IMHO the camera is secondary - it is merely a light-tight box where you affix a lens at one end and the film at the other - the lenses are what matters. Fuji makes some wonderful lenses. Resolution is awesome, contrast excellent and colour rendition best-in-business for those who care (I don't, I am colour blind - the last point is just parroting) - all in a (for the current mirrorless crop) in a very compact package (my GX680 lenses are somewhat less portable). Fuji's current range can probably be accurately described as photographer's cameras - they've, just like Leica, distilled photography to its essentials and made their way to the front of that niche. Kudos!

KaiserPro 10y ago
Gotcha. Now this is an argument that I was expecting. I was very seriously looking at the x100 when it came out. Precisely because it was styled to be a manual rangefinder. I tried it, but I just didn't like the compromises. It felt like the rangefinder was a bit of a gimmick. The manual focus grid was non existent. I loved that it was compact, but the quality wasn't quite up to the full frame, similar priced breatheren. The only argument for it was the weight and compactness, which to me didn't matter all that much. What I really wanted was a CCD insert for my olympus rangefinder (35 rd, poor man's noisy leica) However I suspect that ship has sailed.
- lb1lf 10y ago
  -Agreed on the X100; I tried one (An -s)for a few weeks, but found myself constantly comparing it to a 'real' rangefinder, probably not fair to the poor little thing, which IMHO is an excellent little camera, though a bit lacking in the manual focus department. I've found - to my surprise - that I much prefer Sony's focus peaking when it comes to digital manual focus aids. It is responsive, accurate and much less obtrusive than I initially thought it would be. Still no beating a proper rangefinder, though (IMHO). Oh well. It is my day off, it is lovely autumn weather outside and I've got a few rolls of Tri-X and Portra to expose. (In the Texas Leica - google the Fujica G690BL for a chuckle if you're not familiar with it) Would love a CCD insert too, btw. :)

jrockway 10y ago

> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. It's 21.3 iPhone 6 sensors. (Full frame is about 2 APS-C sensors.) > Not only that its full frame you can use real lens, but you get deep depth of field. Technically, cropping has absolutely nothing to do with depth of field. It's a depth-of-field to angle-of-view you're thinking about.

KaiserPro 10y ago
Depth of field is directly tied to focal length. The smaller the sensor, the smaller the focal length. Smaller focal length means deeper depth of field (ie more of the subject is in focus at a given f stop)