DPReview Enthusiast Camera Recommendation

[Mike Farley]

Thom Hogan has just written a post which puts the DSLR vs CSC debate into perspective. Canon's and Nikon's longstanding duopoly has created a vast legacy which means that existing owners are locked in to the respective makes and both have a substantial range of lenses which none of the current CSC offerings can match. That is driving the continuing sale of DSLR cameras and lenses, but what seems to be happening is that a number of users are also buying into CSC systems for when walking around with a heavy bag of gear is not desirable. As the range of lenses and other equipment expands, sooner or later there will be a tipping point in favour of CSCs, but I suspect that the change will be a gradual one.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/why ... gh-to.html

[davidc]

I think the bigger test will come about when canon/nikon release CSCs that are actually halfway decent - the EOS M supports all those lenses, for example, but is a turkey of a camera by all accounts. If there is ever a good CSC that will support the lenses that are out there it'll test those theories, until then it seems the quality vs convenience seems to still be the sticking point.

[Mike Farley]

The EOS M-2 is supposed to be a better camera than its predecessor, but will not be coming to Europe or the US because sales of the original model were disappointing. In the main that was due to poor AF performance, subsequently improved with a firmware update, and lack of Canon's support for EOS-M lenses. Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy. Mind you, with its currrent sales volumes of DSLRs, Canon has little need of a mirrorless system and to me EOS-M always looked like dipping a toe in the water to guage the temperature.

According to Thom Hogan who has links with the firm, Nikon has an ingenious solution to allow legacy lenses to be used on a mirrorless system, but he gave no details and it is unclear when we will see it. The answers will no doubt come when Nikon's DSLR sales dip below an unacceptable level and the threat from the mirrorless brigade becomes more tangible. If EOS-M is Canon's definitive approach, then it will be relying on adapters for those with legacy glass. That said, the company does not have so much invested in EOS-M that it cannot change its mind and go with something else.

[davidc]

I saw an article, though can't remember where, that Fuji's boss went on record saying he WANTS Canon & NIkon to take CSCs seriously as until they do, they'll be confined to a niche market. His reasoning was when the big players think they are worthwhile then people will sit up and take notice but until then they're more of a fringe option.

[Mike Farley]

I saw an article, though can't remember where, that Fuji's boss went on record saying he WANTS Canon & NIkon to take CSCs seriously as until they do, they'll be confined to a niche market. His reasoning was when the big players think they are worthwhile then people will sit up and take notice but until then they're more of a fringe option.

That makes a lot of sense. Meanwhile, CSC sales are falling faster than those of DSLRs in the UK and elsewhere, so the buying public are not seeing the worth of smaller, lighter cameras and opt for something from the big two instead. Most CSC sales are in Asia, where the EOS M-2 is being sold, so any change could originate there first.

Frankly, though, with regards to Fuji, perhaps people are waiting to see it announce a product that has all the required functions and performance at the point of release rather than having these added later through firmware updates. When I first saw the X-Pro 1, it immediately struck me as a beta product where development was incomplete and despite all of Fuji's updates and I still don't think it is there yet. Fuji does receive praise for loyalty to its customers, even releasing a major firmware update for the discontinued X100, but it is not actually adding anything which cameras from other manufacturers do not already have.

[Mike Farley]

Michael Reichmann has now chimed in with an article at Luminous Landscape in which he hardly seems to have a good word for any of the manufacturers. Olympus and Fuji fare best, although as Reichmann says, much of that is due to having no legacy products to protect. He praises Fuji for its regular firmware upgrades, but as I noted previously, to an extent this is smoke and mirrors. Unlike other manufacturers, Fuji has consistently been content to release products which do not exploit the full potential of the hardware at the time of launch. A friend bought a X100 when it was first available and quickly became frustrated by its failure to focus accurately. Fuji assured him that it was aware of the problem and would fix it in a firmware upgrade, but he did not keep the camera long enough to find out if it did. Despite being a new system, in as many years Fuji has produced three different versions of its fly by wire lens controls for its X range of interchangeable lens cameras. How did that happen? Nor does Reichmann mention the complicated menu system of the OM-D cameras. The E-M5 is the only model where I have seen a DPReview article devoted to explaining to confused owners how to configure their purchase.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essay ... hing.shtml

[davidc]

Shame your friend didn't hold onto the x100 (or get the x100s) as it's quite the camera! I don't think the fuji thing is smoke and mirrors to be honest, rather just a canny approach to business. Release a product that does work and is competitive, make it better with firmware. That's in contrast to the canon approach for instance where the magic lantern chaps have done the same themselves but canon steadfastly refuse to bother. I think Fuji are one of the best out there right now and a serious option (the xt1 turned even my head). I don't think it's necessarily fair to describe them as a beta product, I've used all the camera mentioned and they certainly don't feel incomplete!

[Mike Farley]

As ever, we will have to agree to disagree.

When the X-Pro 1 came out in 2012 it caused a lot of excitement and was first shown publicly anywhere in the world at Focus on Imaging. Going up to Birmingham on the train with a friend, I predicted that it would be a well made camera, but that the AF would be slow, which indeed turned out to be the case. Fuji has been issuing firmware updates for the AF system and other functions ever since, but at launch the camera did not feel like it was quite ready. Much the same as the X100 in other words.

Then there is the X-E1, which just over a year after release was superceded by the X-E2. Basically, it was the same camera, but with over 60 improvements and arguably what the X-E1 should have been. I would agree that the X-T1 looks good in principle and should be the pinnacle of what Fuji has achieved with the X range, but the company's track record to date would make me cautious if I were seriously considering a purchase.

I do not doubt Fuji's innovation, nor its commitment to ongoing improvement of existing products, both of which are to be welcomed. The reason why Canon et al are not constantly updating firmware is that everything functions more or less as it should from the outset and most firmware updates are merely bug fixes. That is not something which Fuji could reasonably claim as things stand at the moment. In essence, Fuji is making a virtue out of a necessity and, in your case certainly, has succeeded with this ploy.

The Magic Lantern enhancements are something of a side issue. Standardisation of components to reduce costs means that cameras have functionality which for marketing reasons manufacturers do not intend to be incorporated in a given model and Magic Lantern is exploiting this. There is one example of Canon adding functionality after the fact with its major update for the 7D, which I suspect was marketing driven to maintain the competitiveness of an aging camera. It does not explain why Canon did not fully exploit the hardware's capabilities from the start, but other than providing the reassurance of having the latest firmware, I did not find that it made any real difference to the way the camera performed or how I used it.

[davidc]

I assume that by not making real differences you only mean the canon firmware update and not the slew of features magic lantern unlocks? I've found magic lantern to be extremely useful and the kind of stuff they are pulling out of the 5d3/5d is impressive too. Definitely worth trying, focus peaking for one is great and I like the time lapse function too.

[Mike Farley]

I assume that by not making real differences you only mean the canon firmware update and not the slew of features magic lantern unlocks? I've found magic lantern to be extremely useful and the kind of stuff they are pulling out of the 5d3/5d is impressive too. Definitely worth trying, focus peaking for one is great and I like the time lapse function too.

For me, the official Canon 7D upgrade to add new features was a non event. The main feature which it added was in camera Raw conversion, but that is not a feature which I have ever used. I tried it once, was amazed by the almost instantaneous speed with which a JPEG was produced - much, much quicker in comparison even with a powerful PC.

I agree that it is frustrating that Canon and others do not fully exploit the capabilities of the hardware. There probably any number of reasons. If you want a function, no doubt they would prefer you to pay for it either with the purchase of additional equipment or a more expensive camera. It also provides scope for new features in future models. That happens in other technology based products, of course. My last three cars have all been from the same manufacturer and the samemodel series, yet each has had equipment as standard that would have been options on its predecessor.