Early indications show that Fuji have taken on the challenge of the megapixel race with their new medium format mirrorless camera with a medium format size sensor. Reading the initial reports this Fuji model is set to stir not only the medium format market,but may temp 35mm high mega pixel camera users also.
Come on Nikon your are definitely starting to lag behind.We may be loyal customers, but not forever, if other manufactures advance their technology and you do nothing.
Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
Sigma also has a great strategy. They make great lenses and invest the profit in improving their Foveon cameras.
About Nikon strategy I can only say that I don't know what it is. Hope it will change and that the latest reports of a new strategy proves to be true.
I will never be loyal to a large company but in the camera world you choose a mount and you don't really want to change. One reason that I usually prefer Sigma lenses is that you can actually change the mount. If Nikon shows a clear strategy I would probably be more inclined to buy Nikon lenses.
So, I agree, come on Nikon!
For Fuji it makes sense, because Nikon, Canon and Sony have FX locked down and they current max format was APS-C. Fuji also needs something different, because they attract buyers from a small niche, and i don't see that changing with the move to medium format, with a $8k body. Fuji has a good strategy for selling to the small niche they have, no doubt about it. Not so sure about future proof, profit hasn't really been there for them. Luckily for them the company sells more than cameras, because the camera business has been shedding money for years, it's a hobby for them, which is good for consumers since they make great cameras/lenses.
Fuji made DSLR's for a while, all rebadged Nikon bodies with custom Fuji sensors. They left the DSLR market back in the mid-2000s, and returned to the higher end with the X100 and X-Pro 1 a few years back.
There is simply no meaningful reason to go larger format for most subject matter.
For a large sensor tele lens the elements close to the camera body must be larger because the image circle needs to be bigger.
So, I think an mf tele lense needs to be slightly larger than an fx tele lens. Please correct me if you disagree (optics is not super easy).
There are many possibilities for a long mf lense: 800/5.6, 800/8, 1000/8. Pf technology would be very useful.
Below are images of an mf 600/4 lens. You can see that it is thicker but not that much bigger than fx 600/4. Also, Pentax 67 is a much larger sensor than what is in Fuji GFX 50S.
I am unconvinced that MF is the great panacea for photogs without a wide selection of T/S lenses to take advantage of the best apertures from sharpest lens and give architectural photogs and landscapers the ability to tilt for max DOF and to correct converging lines. And if Nikon brings a 50MP or better camera with improved DR, what is the sense in dumping FF gear?. I also am unconvinced that MF camera will be an economic home run for makers (Hasselblad may be the exception with its light and sleek x1d-50 which looks to have immediate high demand). Diglloyd's examples with the new Hasselblad clearly show a distinctive look and improved accutance compared to FF). It is a sexy, svelt offering with in combination with 50MP, is at first blush, quite enticing for some shooters. Will it be too fragile for outdoor work? - enter Fuji GTX as outdoor workhorse purportedly. It seems to me that few moved to Pentax MF though priced about where the GFX is sitting. So how much better than Pentax MF.
And what about the weight of the GFX with 3-4 lenses? I am close to tapped out with a F810 and 4 lenses with gitzo tripod. Isnt the main purpose of and demand for mirrorless to lose some weight?
This desire for the GTX seems to be a somewhat irrational exuberance for the new hyped product. I admit I could be wrong.
I saw a shot from the shoot and the detail and DR were extraordinary. I shot a few similar shots with my D810 and the difference was obvious.
But that market was growing then. They appear to gave been successful in this niche until competitors started to innovate for which they never responded again.
So how do you stay profitable in a condensing environment? In part by being innovative, eliminating some competitors (probably unlikely for a while) and in the immediate short term by raising prices. If their own history is an indicator, without exciting innovation, even if their presentation is tardy to the market, I would say they will be forced to sell assets or close. Can they change their culture to innovate more quickly? Sigma ceo says it takes 2 years to bring a new lens concept into production. Like the auto industry, Nikon will need to cut their own time line or face elimination in the race.
I am unconvinced their is enough in MF sales for Nikon to worry too much due to MF price point. How many can/will cough up $10k+ for a new system? Their delay in reacting with strong FF innovation, however, a business culture holdover from cultural from their past wont fly in this market. They need to think and act like a series of small, facile and well capitalized cutting edge businesses bringing a range of new products to the market. That may be unrealizable given their history. Sorry for deviating so far from the main topic.
At least Fuji is doing what is necessary to survive.
Interesting what is said about the Fuji by Lloyd C. I think Fuji's colours can be a bit love 'em or hate 'em. They are not really my thing. The Hassie is more interesting to me: I think they have worked hard on giving good tonal transition and are more to my taste, having seen the output. i do wonder about the touchscreen's practicality in the great outdoors though? I like the knobs and dials of the Fuji. All in all I agree with Flip that its maybe time to wait a few months. Any longer and I think I could be tempted by the Hasselblad -- especially if they keep sharpening up the camera with good firmware upgrades as per the first release.