Fuji versus Nikon. It's not a contest of performance or image quality but one of aesthetics and brand positioning.

On the one hand we have the venerable maker of traditional DSLRs in the form of Nikon. Their once rectangular and hard cornered bodies converted like the conversion of automobile designs; from the sleek lines of the 1960's to the boring and aesthetically non-starting, rounded, aerodynamic shapes of the 1980's and beyond. Think: Mid-1980's Ford Taurus.

On the other hand one of the flagship representatives (and current pop star) of the mirrorless world, the Fuji XT-2. A clear design reference to the early days of mirrored cameras, visually, but endowed with a technological change that seems to be resonating more and more with aficionados and purists in the photographic world. The XT-2 reminds me so much of the generic SLRs of the 1970's; like the Rollei SLRs and even the Konicas.

But they are apt examples of the two factions currently warring against each other for the affections and $$$ of today's camera consumers. It's an interesting point in the history of camera design and marketing.

I watched this Summer as Nikon launched one camera that none of us will buy and a few other models that many traditionalists will consider. The first camera is the D5. It does one thing well and one thing only. It focuses quickly. Not necessarily with pinpoint accuracy, out of the box, but there is a built in app that automatically calibrates Nikon lenses to enable them to achieve focus. Seems a bit sad that a multi-thousand dollar camera and multi-thousand dollar lenses from the same company are unable to focus as accurately as their own grandfather lenses from previous decades, but there you have it.

No doubt that the $6500 Nikon D5 is nicely finished and is probably built to a withstand lots of wear and tear. I am sure the shutter is tested for a high number of actuations. But in all other regards it's a body that doesn't buy you better levels of image quality than you might be able to achieve with any number of camera bodies at half, a quarter or even 20% of its selling price. Who is this camera aimed at? For all practical purposes it is aimed only at sports and action photographers. There are better sensors for the fans of ultimate image quality = even within Nikon's own line. The resolution is a bit light for studio and landscape photographers and the weight is a quick impediment to dedicated street photographers and documentarians.

The technical attribute that makes this camera a non-starter for me is it's antiquated viewing system. Yes, I am certain that its optical, pentaprism finder is unequalled in clarity and transparency. I am sure it is a joy to use to look at the world in as close a condition as our human eyes see the world. But to my mind a camera finder needs to do more. The age of optical finders is dimming and being replaced by electronic viewfinders, and we seem to have hit the tipping point in the acceptance of that realization for a large plurality of serious photographers; professionals included.

I doubt Nikon anticipates selling very many of these cameras. The Olympics are over and more normal photographic life goes on. Too heavy for anything but a work camera and too limited for the kind of work that most of us end up doing. For $6500 the most thrilling thing this camera does, in my book, is to get some 3,800 exposures per battery charge. That may become its claim to fame as it slips into the stream of history.

The Fuji XT2 is, in some ways, the antithesis of the D5. At $1,600 it's near the high end of the price range for APS-C mirrorless cameras but nearer the middle/bottom of the range if you are also considering APS-C DSLRs like the Nikon D500 or the 7Dmk2 from Canon. The XT2 is not engineered to withstand infinite abuse. The frame rates with full AF are not as fast as the big Nikon but, in fact, for the average shooter the Fuji XT-2 brings a lot more to the party.

Being a traditional DSLR camera with an optical finder the D5 will definitely take a back seat when it comes to shooting video. No zebras, no focus magnification, no EVF imaging, and no in-body image stabilization. Wanna use it for video in bright light? Get a big Loupe for the rear screen or get an external monitor. But you probably won't bother since there are much better video solutions out there offering 4K video and all the video niceties for half the price and less. Just Google the Sony A7rii or the A7sii. Or even an RX10iii....

The Fuji XT-2 is the first Fuji still camera that jumps into video feet first. It features image magnification until you start recording. While you are recording video you still have access to focus peaking. The one thing that is twingy is the idea that you must buy the battery grip in order to be able to monitor sound via headphones. A minor gripe since the body and battery grips together are still far less than half the price of the D5.

The Fuji XT-2 seems to check all the right boxes for people who are moving to APS-C, EVF-enabled cameras. The range of lenses is expanding and each of the lenses introduced so far is well regarded. There are a number of fast primes which is like catnip to the older generation of shooters. The EVF moves the camera into the future along with the full range of Sony mirror-free cameras. This allows for continuous live view and all the digital trimmings such as film emulations that you can see as you shoot and zebras, as well as focus peaking (which is very, very practical when shooting with manual lenses).

The black and white and color film emulations resonate with a generation immersed in Instagram filters. The sensor in the camera is said to be wonderful in terms of color and tonality. It feels good in many people's hands and doesn't quickly become burdensome.

But what Fuji has done is to position the brand correctly for a contemporary market whereas Nikon is still branding their cameras to appeal to a newspaper procurement department from 1995. Every time I hear about how brilliantly tough and resilient the Nikon pro bodies are I remember watching journalists from the last century rushing around the sidelines of sporting events with three big, motor drive Nikons around their necks and over their shoulders. One body always had the cool, wide angle lens on the front; one had the short zoom and the third had the long zoom. As the photojournalists ran the cameras bang, bang, banged together with a disturbing cadence. You could watch little parts of the camera bodies fall off as the photographers allowed them to slam into each other like those little metal balls on swings that people used to buy for their desktops....There were five or six one inch metal balls at hung in a row from a little wooden frame and if you pulled up one ball, released it and let it slam into the row of balls the energy would transfer to the ball at the opposite end and it would bounce up. That's what the photojournalists' cameras spent their lives doing. So, of course, they had to be built to take the abuse.

But the abuse was usually a side effect of the cameras not being owned by the staff photographers but by the newspapers or the magazine they worked for. If one broke they could ask for, and receive, a replacement at no cost to the themselves.

With the exception of people working spot news, and pros working high dollar sporting events (one tenth of one percent of working photographers), this "trio camera necklace" of destruction is not the working modality of most present day photographers, be they pros or serious amateurs. Most of us are using one camera at a time or using them in a less frenetic fashion when we do use multiple cameras. We care for them better because we own the cameras and we own the responsibility for their potential demise.

Fuji seems to understand that the market has changed and the branding of cameras has changed. The emphasis is no longer prioritized in this descending order, a la Nikon: 1. Indestructibility 2. super fast focus acquisition 3. dedication to optical view finders 4. Giant, grippable surfaces 5. Image quality 6. Filter and film emulation enhancements 7. Usable 4K video. 

Most of us understand that indestructibility is relatively meaningless when most of us will upgrade to demonstrably better imaging cameras in two to three years. The toll for bullet proof build quality is insanely high given that most (non-sport shooting) professionals and serious amateurs are never going to get near the MTBF of their camera's shutters before the camera is a fondly remembered relic relegated to Ebay.

Most of us require a higher degree of accuracy in our focus than raw speed of acquisition. An ever growing number of us are adamant that we want the feedback and information provided by great EVFs and that we're never going back to what are becoming vestigial optical viewfinders.

We've mostly voted with our wallets against bigger, heavier cameras because the entire cohort of people buying serious, single intention cameras are aging and not willing to over-burden their shoulders and lower backs in the service of camera portage.

The bottom line is that Nikon is still marketing the machine. The specs. The robustness of materials while paying passing lip service to the idea of creativity, pleasant design and ultimate usability. This emphasis on horsepower or clock speed is lost on consumers who have come to expect their technical toys to operate with transparency. Nikon has bypassed the narrative of art and the "magic" of the sensor to keep addressing the concerns of a previous generation: the ability to pound on nails with the camera and not have the camera fail. Thick sheet metal in the new world of bluetooth interconnection. (An analogy for both cars and cameras). This is sad given their ancient history of telling photographer success stories in their marketing...

Fuji is not selling their new camera on the basis of its alloy frame (that's now considered a standard feature for entry to a certain market) nor are they focusing on the life cycle of the camera or its ability to withstand careless battering. No, they are looking at much more urbane and urban audiences and aiming their branding toward the things a new generation is more interested in: How beautiful is the rendering of the X-tran sensor? (implication: it has magic power to make your images more beautiful than other cameras used under similar situations). The size and design of the body is less intrusive and burdensome, as are many of the lenses. It's a camera that one could carry with them throughout a walk in a city without the size and weight becoming an unnecessary burden or something that's big enough to attract unwanted attention.

Nikon is selling a tool while Fuji is selling a companion. A good looking a affable companion.
Stripped down to their essence the cameras do basically the same thing. They use modified Sony sensors to make photographs with the aid of their own branded lenses. But the nut of it is how we've been manipulated to perceive the difference between the whole Nikon line and the smaller Fuji line of X cameras. Again, one is a tool for production while the other is an (affordable) near Luxe item that infers from its design and positioning that it is for people more interested in true art than just rote documentation. A Mini Cooper versus a Ford Edge.

One can easily see that Fuji is attempting to nestle into a space not unlike Leica's; almost handmade machines but at a lower price point. A status symbol in the manner of automatic watches in a world of quartz watches with batteries.

Branding is so much more powerful that actual feature sets or modalities of use. We assess our purchases not in a quantitative fashion but a qualitative fashion that employs subjective measures of the relative value of design versus function.

The reality is that a good photographer can take good photographs with either camera. One line will enjoy increasing success while the other line will show declining success. The momentum toward mirrorless cameras, and cameras of smaller size, has less to do with consumer comparisons between the cameras than the power of blogger, reviewer, magazine etc. prejudices to push consumer preferences in one direction or the other.

Right now there is one company that is clearly winning the branding and marketing wars and that is Fuji. Most of us have never pitted a similar Fuji lens and a Nikon or Canon lens of similar price and spec against one another and so we cannot seriously state that one is better than the other (other than anecdotally). But the mythology of the marketplace as created by iterative marketing and opinion maker propaganda has us salivating about the idea of owning the prime, Fuji lenses; even though they have a limited track record in the market. And far fewer user samples at full size are available.

The same is true in the video market when it comes to differences in Sony A7Sii cameras and offering from all the other makers. The untested consensus is that the Sony is the one to beat, even though some cameras like the Panasonic GH4 and the more expensive Sony A7Rii best the A7ii in some important technical video parameters.

At this point most of the differences between the two categories (mirror-free and traditional DSLR) of cameras boil down to whether or not one wants an EVF versus an OVF and then, whose branding messages you ultimately decide fit your personality or your self-image.

Since this is inarguably the case I would state that Nikon needs to change the hell out of their marketing and branding to make their cameras magical companions instead of cold tools while prospective Fuji buyers should re-apprise their lust for the XT-2 and re-direct said avarice toward the X-Pro-2 which more clearly fits the brand driven desire for elegant design and "best friend" status.

Of all the cameras in the market today I am most drawn to the design aesthetics of the Fuji X-Pro-2. So much so that I don't care if its video is crap or its battery only last for 15 minutes, it's a beautifully done camera. I may be relatively immune though to their particular branding since the joy I feel when handling one fades quickly and my longer term affinity/relationship with the mirror-free cameras from Sony reasserts itself.

At this point in the current cycle of higher end cameras we've begun to attain imaging equivalence across brands and are now engaged solely in a war of creating product personalities through the magic of advertising and paid testimonials. The reliance on increasingly irrelevant pro "thumbs up" in the service of Nikon is becoming downright embarrassing while the understated "we're like Leica only cheaper and sexier" seems to be working out well for Fuji. Sony just hums along selling cameras because they work well and have exotic feature sets that make people happy and productive.... at least that's what their marketing insinuates to me.

Finally, I want to take this opportunity to disagree with those who believe that the success of single intention cameras (those unencumbered by phones) is in making them more and more connected. I beta tested the "ultimate" connected camera in the form of the Samsung Galaxy NX in 2013. You could connect with wi-fi or cell network. Or bluetooth. Or morse code. It ran full on Android Jelly Bean. In every instance the parts dedicated to connection ruined the intimate attachment of the user to the camera and killed its embrace. Get a life. Meet friends for coffee and show them your photos.

Match your camera to your imaging needs, and the way you enjoy working, not necessarily by what rare ingredients were used in its construction or how well the lines of the camera complement your outfits and ancillary wardrobe.

Sexiest camera in my studio today? Probably the little a6300. It's just cute.


Kirk Tuck, Photographer/Writer said...

I am available, for an outrageous consulting fee, to help Nikon repair their ill crafted branding and renew their place in the pantheon of camera makers. I am the only one who can do it. I can Make Nikon Great Again. It will be the best. Believe me.

Tom Judd said...

Probably taken with a Sony, despite the content of your thoughtful essay, but the photo accompanying it has gorgeous color and lighting. Beautiful!

Kirk Tuck, Photographer/Writer said...

Hmmm. If I recall correctly it was taken at a workshop I was teaching. I'm pretty sure it was done with a Canon camera. Maybe the 5D2. That and the 100mm f2.0.

Govis said...

"Seems a bit sad that a multi-thousand dollar camera and multi-thousand dollar lenses from the same company are unable to focus as accurately as their own grandfather lenses from previous decades, but there you have it."

Highly unlikely that this capacity has changed. If anything, it's likely better now than before. The difference is pixel peeping and focus errors becoming more visible.

Willie said...

The last paragraph made me laugh.
There is always at least one person beating that drum.
According to amolitor (as you know) dipshit kinda describes those folk.

Get a coffee and show the photos - gold

Anonymous said...

The real problem with the D5 is that the core audience cn get 99% of its performance with older cameras like the D3 or D3S or D4.

It's a boring evolution.

amolitor said...

The D5 is a halo product! It's not really intended to make money (although it might, I suppose).

It's the 911 turbo S that sells all those boxsters.

Is it the right halo product to excite the right market? Hell if I know! It's not at all clear that the market would have permitted Nikon to do Fuji's thing. Markets are funny things. If Nikon had performed every one of Fuji's moves three months ahead of Fuji, it's possible it would not have worked out anyways, because of the market's expectations for Nikon.

That sounds like a cop out, an excuse for failure, 'well, the market wouldn't let me' but it's still a real thing.

Dano said...

Nikon lost my respect when they quit making the outstanding Nikkormat. My question are you going to start using Fuji.

Kirk Tuck, Photographer/Writer said...

Hi Daniel, I'm certainly not planning on it. I'm very happy with all of my Sony cameras and assorted lenses. I don't think the Fujis add anything besides a different "fashion look" to what I have now. Nikon lost my business when I had infinite troubles getting lenses to focus correctly with several D810 bodies and lots of time spent doing micro adjustments.

Kirk Tuck, Photographer/Writer said...

Andrew, A wise professor of business from Wharton School told me that once a company is in decline it is never rescued by the current management team. We'll know that some of the failing camera companies have a chance when they replace their senior management...

Dave Jenkins said...

I am somewhat drawn to the X-Pro-1/2. What about them turned you off?

Kirk Tuck, Photographer/Writer said...

Dave, I love the styling of those two bodies but the X-pro-1 was a bit of an interface disaster and had firmware issues every time I tried it. The last straw was not having a diopter for the finder. Well, that and the pokey focus. The model 2 seems much, much better but no better than the Sony cameras I already own and no where near the sheer performance of the A7Rii. Not in the ballpark. To be fair I have not handled the model 2. Few have. But once you've shot with A7rii cameras it's hard to retrograde. Not ready to walk away from the fun and investment I have sunk into the Sonys. You want to play with a great camera? If you have a big budget try the A7rii with great glass on the front. More modest budget? I never feel underwhelmed by the a6300.

John Camp said...

I think you're right when you say Nikon won't sell a lot of the D5 bodies, but I don't think they expected to. I think what they expected was to provide the best possible body/lens combination to a small subset of pros who need what they offer; you're not part of that subset. No magazine, video screen or newspaper needs more resolution than the D5 provides, and all of those news outlets need cameras that can be banged around a bit and can take a lot of travel wear. Be interesting to see how many pro shooters on NFL sidelines show up with Fujis...I'm not a Nikon fanboy (I do own a D800, but almost always go with my Panasonics now) but I'm not so certain as a lot of writers that Nikon is wallowing in an abyss of ignorance. I guess we shall know in 20 years or so...

John Camp

Gary said...

I enjoyed your description of sideline sports photographers all carrying three big rigs and their cameras banging into each other as they jostled for position. I also appreciate your observation that marketing counts for most differentiation between camera lines today. On the other hand, build quality and durability mean something to the enthusiast who does not plan to replace his or her camera every three years no matter what. Somehow my Nikon D600 with its metal Tokina short zoom lens fell out of my Domke bag from waist level and dropped upon an asphalt road. No damage to either camera or lens, although the UV filter was smashed. Would a Sony or a Fuji have performed as well?

Ti@go said...

Funny that you mention the body style of the X-Pro-1/2 compared to the X-T1/2 or other DSLR like bodies. The truth that for a long time, mirrorless didnt have DSLR like bodies, except some panasonic lines, the ones more targeted to video. The rest, all of mirrorless was what we called rangedinder body. The pens, the panys GFs, sony's nex-6/7 etc.

But only when the OMDs appeared, did the mirrorless exploded. I dont know if it was cause of the camera style, the DSLR style, or if it was something else, but advnced amateurs and some pros (and many bloggers) noticed it and associated it with professional, cause of the body style. After that, we got the XT bodies, that were also a hit for fuji. Again, dont know if it was the shape, or the price, or that it worked better than the previous models, less quirks, less bugs, etc, but it was also associated as a more pro camera. And at that point, even sony had all of the A7x line in a DSLR look. Probably to atract all the A mount sony photographers, or for what ever reason.

Today, DSLR body is still associated to PRO photography, while mirrorless is more associated to hobby.

BTW, as you, I prefer the rangefinder body. Not cause of aesthetic reasons, I have a Sony nex-6 and thinking on moving to a 6300. I dont find them cute, hahaha, as you, but I love the rangefinder style a lot more than the DSLR style,.

On another note, I dont trust people when they cannot define what they like about a camera, and say things like, its magic, you have to use it to understand, makes me work slower, and all the BS it is used to justify just an emotional/nostalgic response to a camera.

Peter Wright said...

As someone who mainly uses Leica digital cameras and Olympus for those things (zoom, long tele) that Leica doesn't do, I was very interested in the new Fujis. I had a play with the X-T2 and X-Pro2 with lenses last Friday, and was very impressed. I never bother with image quality comparisons now, as every maker has solved this problem (just like in the old film days when the same film went into any camera.) It is now all about ergonomics and usability. The Fujis are the closest cameras to Leica (or the old film SLRs) and just about perfect to hold and use for what I do. The fuji rep told me that they even make an adaptor for my Leica lenses that will allow the camera to better use the Leica lenses. I am very tempted to replace my Olympus items with Fuji.

neopavlik said...

Still shooting and enjoying my Nikon D600, I'm even starting to kick the tires on its video. Its hard to spend the +$1500 to upgrade to a D810 but as prices drop I'll think about it.

Fuji : there are rumors that they will put out an affordable Medium Format Mirror-less camera and that could make me jump to them. Until that happens the digital cameras they put out are neat but I've already invested in Nikon and finally have most/all of the lenses I've been lusting after in the F mount.

Sherwood McLernon said...

Damn, you write a persuasive, interesting blog:)

Kirk Tuck, Photographer/Writer said...

John Camp, I am certain Nikon knows how to make all the different stuff that would appeal to the markets but I am almost as certain that the plug at the end of the funnel is their marketing team. It's hard to shift gears. It's hard to kill one segment to enrich another segment. I understand the role of the D5 as a halo product but it's the whole demographic misfocus of the positioning that makes their situation tough right now.

Kodak, Polaroid, Wang, HP, were all corporations filled with very, very smart people who, through hubris or some other blind spot, helped to keep these companies from continuing to succeed....

Don't underestimate the massive damage that can come from poor branding and product positioning. And the inability to listen to the market instead of internal numbers.

Del Bomberger said...

Just want to say how much I enjoyed this article. Starting out as a crime scene photographer out of college, my career plans kind of drifted as a few years of that was enough for a lifetime-kind of killed the joy of photography for me. I have friends who were with UPI, Reuters, etc. and I'm always "shocked" as the amateur I have become at their relative disinterest in equipment discussions, and pride of ownership. For many of us our cameras are our prized possessions and we treat them as such-at least until the siren song of the next new thing comes along. For me that would be the Medium Format Fuji, I'm salivating over having come to believe that my XPan II was my favorite all-time camera. Keep up the good work.

Dave Jenkins said...

I'm kinda on the fence. Don't know where I'll jump next. Or if I'll jump at all. Looking at the Fujis and the Sony A7ii (in anticipation of which I've been buying up Olympus OM lenses), and waiting to see what the new Canon mirrorless will be like.

Oly EM5s work for my current book project. The image quality is certainly more than good enough. But I never feel that I can quite trust their reliability. When I go on a trip to work on the book, I may make most or all of the photos with the Olys, but you can bet that my Canon 6D is sitting in the car.

Even though the 6D is the smallest and lightest of the full-frame DSLRs, the body and two or three lenses are more than I prefer to carry around. But it is utterly reliable. You can bet that if I go on a very long trip and can take only one camera, it will be the 6D.

Mark the tog said...

You wrote the post that I think about every day.

Your words were far more enjoyable to read than the grumbly chatter in my head.

The technical was solved years ago. Now we can focus on fun.

Bassman said...

I think most people buy cameras to solve a problem: they want to be able to show someone (perhaps themselves, perhaps someone else) an image. As simply as easy as possible.

Nikon (and others), on the other hand, think they're trying to solve a different problem: make the best camera and lenses you can at each price point, without cannibalizing the sales of the next more expensive camera/lens - which leads to feature constraint ungrounded in manufacturing cost constraints. And mostly ignores the first problem.

This explains why cell phones take more images than all other cameras - it's far far easier to show someone that image than with any other type of camera.

It explains why mirrorless ILCs are eating into mirrored ILCs - features like size/weight, EVF, lack of PDAF calibration requirements, etc. make it easier to take the (better than cell phone quality) Image.

It also explains why some pros (those who don't specialize, but need a wide range of capabilities) are locked into CaNikon: the range
of lenses, bodies and accessories make it easier for them to do their jobs than fighting some of the limitations of other mounts (tilt/shift, extreme telephoto, ability to lock onto fast-moving targets). But as you say, this is an ever shrinking customer base.

Noons said...

"Make Nikon Great Again"? Where did I hear something like that? :)
You are now guilty of making me laugh out loud in the middle of the office, early morning!
Everyone looked at me with the "what's that idiot laughing about again?" face!
Anyways, entirely agree with this one. BTW: good to have you back!

I moved away to m4/3 in 2010 and never regretted it. The whole optical viewfinder thing is an incredibly archaic solution that has no place in this day and age. It's at the core of so many focusing problems over the years, it begs disbelief CaNikon are still hell bent over it!
Still use my D200 occasionally. Mostly because combined with 3 SB600s its handling of flash photography is second to none. Oly still has to learn a thing or two about handling flash photography as well.
Still, their EM5M2 handles 6400ISO without breaking a sweat so flash likely is not needed anymore. I am in awe at how good the EM5M2 is for astro photography: I've pushed it to 12600 and still got very good images!

But I'm getting ever more curious about the Sony mirrorless range. I can see an A6300 in my near future. And the A7R2 might very well be the next target!

In a way I'm happy I never invested a lot in m4/3 lenses: most of mine are adapted Nikkors or Canon FD lenses which work as good with the new gear as they did way back then. Fast sports AF is waaaaay low in my list of priorities. And how else could I try such marvelous old lenses as the Nikkor 105/2.5 or the Canon FD200/2.8?

Craig Yuill said...

You may not think much of the Ford Taurus-inspired look of the Nikons but at least they weren't styled after the AMC Pacer. I too like the look of the look of the XT-1 and -2, which remind me of the Contax RTS, a truly handsome camera.

Styling aside, where I think Nikon has really dropped the ball is in video. Unlike their newer Canon counterparts, the Nikon DSLRs cannot AF worth squat while video clips are being captured. I shot some stills and video clips of my kids one day using my Nikon V1 mirrorless camera. The next day I did the same with my D7000 DSLR. The V1 was a delight to use for video work. The D7000 not so much. Sadly, it appears that Nikon is abandoning their 1 Series line, which has had so much unrealized potential as a potent stills/video hybrid system.

burn said...

I shot Nikon DSLRs for years (d100, d70, d200, d700) then I quit taking paid work for a while and sold off all my digital gear to fund some large format film work. When I bought an x100s it just felt "right" to me, and quickly got an xpro1. I have since moved up to the xpro2 and can say as someone that has used pretty much every Fuji body (except the new XT2 and the ones lacking VFs) that it is tons better than the previous generation. I think Fuji has really nailed a certain market segment, people prefer a certain working method. I don't need off camera TTL, I don't need 4k video, I don't need pro-sports level AF, and I don't 50mp. Fuji just gets out of my way and lets me make photos, I trust the autoISO/WB more than I ever did my Nikon's and 9/10 the film simulations have done most of my post-production work. If you had asked me in 2009 if I would ever deliver an in-camera jpg to a client I would have laughed at you. To be honest in 2016 everyone makes excellent cameras so the choice on what gear to own has never been more academical as it is now.

Kirk Tuck, Photographer/Writer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Fuji isn't just about aesthetics and branding. Prejudice seems to run through all of these X vs Y threads. Fine, if you prefer one thing to another, just get on with it and leave others to theirs.

Fuji captured both my head (aka wallet) and my heart, with great IQ, 'traditional' ergonomics and that feeling you get from using a camera again (after 40 years of DSLR plastics), instead of a computer that takes pictures. If that's a retrograde step from full-frame / DSLR I'll take it happily.

You're obviously besotted with Sony Kirk, but my prejudiced view of Sony (and the A7s in particular) is like that of Tesla or Lexus - brilliant technology that fundamentally lacks soul... or for want of another analogy, like using a CNC engineering machine as opposed to traditional hand tools.