Thom Hogan (right) has just produced a flurry of Fujifilm camera reviews—how he churns this stuff out so quickly astonishes me—but the article you ought to see if you're in the Fuji camp is called "Rounding Up the Fujifilm XF Cameras." It's his overall summary of Fuji's current product lineup, setting aside and omitting the X-Pro2.

As usual, he's very interested in the marketing and business angles, and his comments about APS-C's shrinking "niche" are trenchant. The camera market has been volatile lately and his summary of the changing boundaries are as good as I've encountered.

He makes a number of specific statements that I'd like to comment on. I'll add those later today, in an Update—you can go to the source and read the article for yourself first.

Probably best to hold your comments till the Update appears, so I'll close the comments to this post this morning and open them up again later this afternoon. If you have your own reactions to Thom's article, hold that thought.

Mike

UPDATE late Wednesday evening:

1. Thom's basic premise has to do with what he calls "camera squeeze." There are $1k smartphone cameras on the low end nipping at the heels of 1"-sensor cameras, and full-frame (FF) cameras coming down in price from above to compete with high-end APS-C models. This means there's a narrower window for APS-C cameras to fit while keeping them "right priced." Within that window, he feels, there's not as much room as there used to be to spread out the number of models that Fuji has. Remembering that he's excluding the X-Pro2 from his discussion, that means there are six Fuji models between $400 and $1,300, and he thinks that's too many. He thinks there ought to be more like four, with the "two inner points...curved slightly more towards the lower boundary (e.g. US$500, US$700, US$900, US$1250)."

My comment: That sounds perfectly reasonable, although I don't know why he picked $500 when the X-T100 he likes so much costs just $400 right now. I just have one thought...that since there probably isn't going to be a successor to the unpopular X-H1, mainly because any camera I like gets orphaned (*cough* GX8), I suggest that the $1,250 spot go to an "X-T4" that's a merging and a melding of the current X-T3 with the X-H1.

(I assume the X-Pro2 can continue to be priced above his range because it's so well differentiated from anyone else's offering. Nobody else has anything like the X-Pro2.)

2. Thom also says [the italics are his], "(To Fujifilm: one reason the X-H1 underperformed is the lens lineup. At the high APS-C level, Fujifilm just doesn't have the extensive telephoto lens lineup that's necessary to fully attract wildlife and sports shooters.)"

My comment: I'm on shaky ground when I say this, because I'm not a telephoto shooter (although I'm very much looking forward to wringing out my new-to-me 100–400mm). But I really don't think Fuji should chase that market. Those lenses are very expensive to make, and aren't sports and wildlife shooters why Canon and Nikon keep their high-end APS-C DSLRs around? So people with long FF tele lenses can get more effective reach?

Frankly, I don't know why all ultra-long tele guys aren't shooting Micro 4/3, but then as I say long telephoto is not my bag and never has been, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

3. When Thom is talking about Fuji differentiating its products and finding "ways to stand out," he says that "key among them is the size/weight thing."

My comment: This matches my own personal experience as a consumer. I like small, light cameras, and I experienced a bit of a personal dilemma when my desire for IBIS collided with the relatively hefty size of the X-H1. I'm going to accommodate to the X-H1, but "accommodate" is the word for it—I'd like it better if it were the size of the X-T3. Yeah, I know all the arguments about why that supposedly isn't possible, but I really do feel like the Panasonic G9 and the Fuji X-H1 just shouldn't be bigger than the Sony A7III. They're not big cameras and anybody could get used to them, but I think Thom is right about the size and weight being key. Those "Fujicrons" loom really large for me among the reasons why I like Fuji.

4. I'm going to risk quoting a rather long section here (Thom reads TOP at least sometimes, so if he objects I can change this). I'll truncate the bullet points so as not to pirate too much of his material.

"Thus, if you're a serious general purpose APS-C shooter, I'd say that today Fujifilm is your best choice. [Bold text his.] That's because:

In the DSLR world, Canon (EF-S) and Nikon (DX) basically went 'all consumer,' and mostly serve up low-cost convenience cameras and lenses. [...]

In the Canon mirrorless APS-C world (EOS M), the emphasis seems to be on very compact cameras with modest build quality, and again only with consumer convenience lens choices. [...]

In the Sony mirrorless APS-C world (E mount), you have one basic camera that has been updated into four (A6000, A6300, A6400, A6500), and you may not like that camera design at all. Lens choice originally looked like it would fill out, but Sony abandoned that work to produce more full frame lenses.... [...]

"So what it really boils down to is this: are you a serious APS-C shooter?

"I'm not sure what would define you as such a photographer any more, unfortunately."

My comment: It's curious, but that guy is me. The only thought I have to contribute under this heading is that Thom writes under the basic assumption (which may reflect objective market research for all I know, but still) that buyers would naturally choose FF if they could. [John Camp put this better in his featured partial comment, below.]

Speaking just as a camera user, I don't share that assumption. I've repeatedly used FF cameras and repeatedly been underwhelmed. I just don't see a clear enough differentiation in the results to make it worth my while to spend more money and carry bigger lenses. (Consider this. Those lenses are 630g vs. 300g and $1,598 vs. $899. I have the one I want. [See also the picture by Ben Jacobsen linked by Matt in his featured partial comment below.]) Maybe I just don't value the properties in pictures that makes others prefer FF; after all, I made the same decision in the film era, shooting 35mm after repeatedly trying medium format. Granted, other people have other requirements. Or maybe there's such a kneejerk correlation of "bigger" with "better" in the general population that FF is preferred even among people who can't actually distinguish the differences in the pictures or the equipment. But if I personally were given the choice of a $1,250 "X-T4" with IBIS and a $1,250 Canon RP, and they both had all the same equivalent angle-of-view lenses available, I'm pretty sure I would still prefer Fuji.

Fuji's lenses would be smaller and cheaper—but that's not the only reason. It's possible it boils down to being a cultural thing: the Japanese tend to be charmed by exquisite, small, gem-like objects, and Americans drive enormous four-door pickup trucks as personal conveyances. We like big; they like small. I probably just come down on the side of Japanese aesthetics in that regard is all.

—MJ

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Amazon.com • Amazon UK • Amazon Canada

Amazon Germany • B&H Photo • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)

Featured Comments from:

Matt (partial comment): "Thom claims Fuji's top cameras are almost as big and heavy as full frame cameras. Coming from Canon and Nikon full frame, I disagree. Even Fuji's bigger lenses, like the 10–24mm ƒ/4 OIS, are nowhere near as cumbersome as Nikon's 16–35mm ƒ/4 VR. Just look at this picture and tell yourself the two systems have the same heft.

[...]

"What Tom underrates is the strength of the Fujifilm system as a whole, in particular the appeal of Fuji's small yet very capable lenses. With Canon, Nikon and Sony APS-C cameras, you have either low-quality consumer lenses or big full-frame lenses. They offer almost no quality APS-C lenses, unlike Fujifilm. If you add the size, weight and cost of full frame lenses, you cannot claim that full frame trumps Fuji in terms of bulk and price. I'd even be happy to pay a bit more for the same quality output in a smaller, lighter package!"

beuler (partial comment): "Bigger sensors and bigger lenses output higher resolution (spatial and chromatic). I take this as fact. The majority of FF users will never use all the resolution available to them, but they value owning it nonetheless. This phenomenon mirrors the SUV syndrome closely. You might say the Japanese value owning only what they can use, while Americans value owning as much as they can afford."

John Camp (partial comment): "I think Thom makes a fundamental mistake in his overall argument, and that is, he assumes that most people still pay a lot of attention to sensor size. A person like Ctein, who could said to be quite persnickety about print quality, finds a good deal of satisfaction in a Micro 4/3 print, as do other persnickety people. So I think photo enthusiasts are no longer as focused on sensor size as they once were, but rather on other things. Fuji, for example, is its own ecology. It's like Leica. They're different. You either want what the Fuji or Leica cameras offer, or you don't, and it's not about the sensor."

Matthew (partial comment): "Over the past ten years I've become one of those older guys standing behind the counter in a local camera store, and the shopping emphasis has shifted substantially over that time. Image quality, and its sensor size association, is no longer the defining factor in the hobby of camera-choosing. They're all good, so design and suitability become deciding factors. We're past the time of the 'Best Camera,' and instead look for what will serve each individual photographer the best."

John Krumm (partial comment): "These days I don't pick cameras by sensor size (or at least, it's way down on the list). To me it comes down to how the camera feels, how it works, how the images look I get out of the camera, and what lenses are available (do I like them). Most important is this: does the camera make me want to pick it up and use it a lot? Sensor size is more of an afterthought."

MikeK (partial comment): "I think, broadly speaking at least, that a fair proportion of people would opt to go FF if there was only a minor price difference."

Nat Young (partial comment): "I respect Thom and read his blog, but he seems to have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to photographic hobbyists. Hobbyists aren't gearheads, as they don't necessarily want the latest and greatest. However, like gearheads, they find equipment part of the fun. They enjoy the process of tinkering around with lenses and cameras, as well as the images they produce. For the hobbyist, the smaller formats are a dream."

Paul Amyes: "Theoretically, long-lens shooters like myself should be flocking to Micro 4/3. My experience has been that using Micro 4/3 for bird photography has been very mixed. I like the compact size of my E-M1 and G85 with the Panasonic 100–400mm; what I don’t like is the noise when shooting at ISO 3200 which is quite often with small birds in the understory of the forest. It is a very delicate balance with removing noise and maintaining fine feather detail.

"This year I finally broke down and dug the the old Canon 6D out of the back of the cupboard and bought a copy of the Sigma 150–600 Contemporary. What a difference! It’s not all beer and skittles though. I miss the light weight, the EVF with prechimping, and focus points to the edges of the frame. I’m now waiting to see if Canon can make a well specified full frame mirrorless camera."