PetaPixel published an interesting article today entitled Camera Makers Are Increasingly Happy to Trade Image Quality for Other Benefits by Jaron Schneider. I found it fascinating, particularly in light of my Let’s talk Fujifilm AF article that I published a little over a week ago. When I typed that post, I hadn’t considered that there might be an actual cost to image quality in order to produce blazing fast cameras with extraordinarily exceptional autofocus.
In my article, I said, “Fujifilm’s autofocus is very good—fantastic, actually. However, Sony and Canon (and arguably Nikon) have a bit more fantastic autofocus system than Fujifilm (as you’d expect). I really don’t understand the complaints about Fujifilm’s autofocus. It is like complaining that a Corvette isn’t a Maserati, and calling the Corvette garbage because it isn’t more like a Maserati. If you want a Maserati, buy a Maserati! Otherwise, appreciate that you have a Corvette.”
PetaPixel’s article essential states that the big three camera makers—Canon, Nikon, and Sony (a.k.a. Canikony)—are chasing faster camera processing, improved autofocus, and increased video specs at the expense of pure image quality. It might be that they’re so focused (pun intended) on those things that improving image quality for still photographs just isn’t a priority, so it remains stagnate from one model to the next. Perhaps they simply feel that image quality has neared the ceiling for the current tech, so there’s no need to push things further. On the other hand, the tech they’re using in some cameras to achieve speed plus autofocus and video specs is actually detrimental to image quality, particularly for dynamic range and high-ISO noise.
I’ve never even been inside of a Maserati or Corvette, but perhaps the Corvette, while not as fast or agile as the Maserati, offers a more comfortable ride for significantly less money, while still delivering a thrill. No camera is perfect, and each has advantages and disadvantages—what I can say for certain is that I’d choose a “Corvette” camera over a “Maserati” any day of the week. And I’m glad that Fujifilm is not compromising still image quality in pursuit of speed and specs. Jaron wrote, “One company that is finding its products suddenly becoming more compelling because of this: Fujifilm.”
I hope that Fujifilm doesn’t cave in to the negativity by some who would prefer that they simply become a part of the Canikony brands (Canikonyfilm?). In my opinion, Fujifilm should continue to blaze their own trail, and not concern themselves too much with what the other brands are doing. They need to continue to produce compelling cameras—trendworthy and timeless products—and do more to communicate with potential customers why their unique approach is desirable and maybe even preferable.
I really don’t want Fujifilm to pursue a path that leads to reduced image quality. Those who appreciate image quality above technical specs and extreme performance will turn to—and have already been turning to—Fujifilm as the Canikony brands ignore them. Those who prefer speed and specs above all else have three brands to choose from—for certain those things sell cameras (or else they wouldn’t be doing it), but those who actually need it are a very small percentage of the total customers. Most of those who buy those cameras do so because of marketing or hype or FOMO; however, they don’t need a “Maserati” by any stretch, and would be quite happy with a “Corvette” instead.
What is your opinion? Should Fujifilm give up some image quality in order to make faster cameras like Canon, Nikon, and Sony have been doing? Or should Fujifilm work more towards improvements in image quality instead? Comment below with your opinions!
Brand wise I think Fuji have their niche and it helps separate them from the high end press pack cameras like the Nikon Z8 / Z9 and Canon equivalent (my experience is Nikon / Fuji). The press guys need the speed and accuracy. Fuji I think can steer their brand with their sights on Leica – something to aim at if never equalling, but great for the consumer wanting quality images.
Replying to the article not Pete. Fuji can’t afford to give up image quality. Its all ready a APSC camera which a lot of people think has inferior image quality(Im not saying that as Im happy with my XT3 as far as image quality. Fuji isn’t as fast as the major brands and never will be…they aren’t on the same playing field so why compare them or put Fuji in that category? Why get faster with inferior autofocus? Any Photographer who really needs speed would NEVER use Fuji anyways so whats the point? Fuji is fine where it is…just needs to CATCH up with the major brands as far as autofocus and build a better app. Fuji has different bodies for different people, Range Finders, Single focal length cameras, XS-20 which is a perfect parent camera, vintage styling…great! concentrate on updating a lot of their lenses! The Fujicrons should be updated. The 16-55 and 70-140 should be updated etc. Just have their apps and functions perform like they are supposed to. Thats the way to keep their consumers happy.
Your reply is actually much more insightful than the article, which can basically be summed up as “other cameras have better AF? Well, I don’t even want a better AF. “ Fujifilm cameras are great because they are cheaper, fun to use and good enough for most people.
I don’t better AF at the expense of IQ. That’s what the Canikony brands are doing (according to PetaPixel). I’m glad that Fujifilm is not.
I don’t necessarily agree with the statement “any photographer who really needs speed would never use Fujifilm” because a lot of people do so very successfully. It simply requires a little more skill from the photographer and not a complete reliance on the camera as a crutch. With a little practice, the AF quickly becomes a non-issue. It’s just that people don’t want to put in a little work or look inward to realize what the real issue is.
I think that the “press guys” are a pretty small total of all buyers (but they often have a lot to spend on gear). Most people don’t have any need for that kind of “speed and accuracy” but will buy because they “think” they do… GAS, FOMO, and such. Thanks for the input!
For me, image quality is paramount. I don’t want to accept more noise so to have more sensitivity.
Super high sensitivity was never a priority with film. And film produced exquisite photographs.
I continue to strive for exquisite photos
I concur fully with you 🤜🤛
Me too DR and image quality are paramount 👍👌
No trade off here!
I agree. I definitely don’t want Fujifilm to follow the path that the others are currently treading.
Indeed very interesting article from PetaPixel and yours also.
The conclusion of Jaron’s article is quite clear, of course not giving the name of Fujifilm : if you want dynamic range, optimum image quality there is only one way to go !!!
Aka for Jaron: go to Fujifilm (I assume GFX).
Futhermore, today FujiRumors shared Fujifilm Q1 FY2024 financial results which have a strong sales boost +33,8%!
And from latest X Summit Event and the rest, Fujifilm strategy is still so far around optimum image quality.
This is reassuring for me, as I do not care a (digital) bit of video. Never used on any of my Fujifilm cameras to the expectation of so far of just 5 very short videos done with my X-T5! Extra good SOOC results by the way with Eterna.
But if already I do not want to sit in front my computer for long hours for RAW still post-processing, video editing is definitely not my cup of tea!
While the market is shrinking, it is moving strongly toward video, taking in account the shift of young generations doing only videos / social medias.
And indeed no camera is perfect.
Fujifilm is going on video but I think should be in smart way : aka for cinema professionals where Fujifilm produce already their excellent and well known / used cine lenses. The GFX 100S II is of big interest by Hollywood pros and some are thinking to replace IMAX film with this camera for example.
So a lot of potential there.
The new gold mine ?
For the rest Canikony + Panasonic are producing already good cameras for still/video with according specs.
I feel (annoyed again) like it’s now video / AF specs taking over the MP counts of the last decades…
Hence a definite NO for me as long Fujifilm user. NO way to trade DR and image quality over the rest! Fujifilm shouldn’t lost its core soul and where it comes from! It has a lot of potential to grow and compete strongly over the trio like Fujifilm quickly done with the GFX system.
As film sims being recognised now, the confortable niche markets where Fujifilm is in and latest profits, I think they will not change / trade fortunately.
As wrote very well FujiRumors in his article, I fully concur they should more strongly focus on delivering their products, resolve the huge back orders and provided stable firmwares with an expended team!
If they do that, it would be as wrote FujiRumors just amazing!
So crossed-fingers Fujifilm is / will not chase marketing gooses!
Yeah, the current trend seems to be speed/specs and not IQ… perhaps these camera makers believe they have reached the ceiling for IQ with current tech, so speed/specs is all they have to focus on? I’m not sure.
Fujifilm went to the 40mp sensor to chase image quality versus high ISO noise. It’s not a huge difference, but it’s real compared to the 26mp models, and indeed my 24mp X-H1 outperforms later models in low light noise, by a noticeable margin. Not a large one, and of course newer cameras are faster/better in other ways, but it’s still there. I stayed with Fuji for extra years because of the X-Trans III colors and low chroma noise.
Back to the subject at hand however.. Fuji’s AF isn’t as good as others. And it’s enough not-as-good to be an issue in demanding situations. Not the daylight, f8 and be there pics in this article (except for the baseball one, that’s pretty spectacular for any system) but for low light concerts and club photography. Where my Fujis would often flail, the Zf just hooks and holds.
I disagree with the first paragraph. https://fujixweekly.com/2022/11/28/making-the-fujifilm-x-t5-make-a-lot-of-noise-testing-high-iso-on-x-trans-v/
Like I said in my other reply, my wife does theater photography, and in some extremely demanding situations, her X-T4 + 56mm f/1.2 combo does extremely well. Would the Zf do better? Probably. Canikony brands have (and should have.. see the article) a better AF system, but the X-T4 is working really well, so I don’t think it would have a very meaningful affect for her.
Comments in PetaPixel are no less interesting than the article itself.
I usually avoid the comments, just because there are often a lot of trolls (not just on PetaPixel, but also on a lot of other websites… even Fujirumors), which greatly degrades the experience, I think. Now I’ll have to go back and read them….
I suppose I am crazy. I recently sold most of my autofocus Fujifilm lenses, and replaced them with M-mount manual-focus Voigtlanders, which I use on a GFX50R, cropped down to 1:1 (or 33x33mm out of the full 33x44mm sensor) to remove vignetting. Or on an Xpro-2, which crops in even more. Or on a monochrome converted Fujifilm X-H1. Crazy.
I also sold most of my Nikon lenses, both F and Z mount. Another set of F-mount manual-focus Voigtlanders has replaced Nikkors in the 28-90mm range, for use on my last FF dslr, a Df, and my only FF mirrorless Nikon, a Zf. I already had a few manual operation Laowa and Samyang/Rokinon ultra-wides cover the wide end.
Yes, I still have a few autofocus lenses for birding and ballet dancers and such, and a separate set of gear for Infrared and full-spectrum work, but most of my street and landscape and everyday photography has gone back to manual focus and full manual mode camera operation. No video, thank you. It is a beautiful art, but it is not mine.
So I have some very nice 21st century cameras and a mid-20th century work process. It’s nice not to need auto-focus again.
Welcome to the craziness Larry !
I love your manual setup 👌
Myself recently, I went back buying nice (and cheap now) in beautiful conditions Nikkor AI lenses so to go with GFX adaptor I found for my GFX50R and the Fotodiox Tilt/Shift adaptor for my X cameras.
Another way of shooting.
Totally concur with you 🤜🤛👍🖖
Absolutely! Those are the Nikkors I didn’t sell. 20mm and 28mm, macro’s, and my trusty 180mm ED. You go!
Congratulations Larry to have kept them 👌👏
I’ve just picked over the last few days 2 Nikkor AI in beautiful conditions: a 50/1.8 Mark III and a 200/4.
They just rock with no vignetting on my GFX 50R with the adoptor.
And they are light!
Focus are still smooth and a bit damped, so quite easy to achieve good manual focus 😀
At the time of writing I’m heading to test my ‘new’ 50/1.8 during a nightshot session.
I will certainly blow out to the ISO too 😉😁
Very cool! Now I will be testing my old Nikkors for coverage on the GFX50R. I also have an adapter for Nikon F to GFX, but I have been testing the other direction so far, from Leica-M to Nikon Z (which works great by the way). With the Voigtlanders it seems that it is very much the higher the focal length, the wider the image circle. 50mm lenses are on the edge for full frame 33×44 while 90mm are way past full wide open. 15mm does not make the FF grade at all and needs to be cropped to 1:1. The others are in between, so 1:1 is safe, which is fine with me, since I always wanted a square format camera like an old Hasselblad anyway. And now I have a whole other family of MF lenses to check out!!!
Thanks Larry.
Very cool for you too!
Wishing you then good testing of your Nikkor.
For the Nikkor F on GFX, I’ve seen that the coverage is just fine from +-50mm and above, as expected.
So no issue at all with my 50/1.8 and my 200/4.
On the other hand my 28/2.8 is not covering at all!
Nearly giving a fisheye effect!
Thus forcing me to use the 35mm option, which works just fine. And OK with that (Thanks Fuji for the option by the way).
Furthermore, my Nikkor 28mm has been selected to be used more with my Fotodiox Tilt / Shift for my Fuji X mount cameras anyway, where it is more than OK in tilt-shift (up to the extreme) for the required extra circle coverage.
I must say I’m a bit disappointed though with the TT Artisan 90/1.25 for example. Lens which produce a gorgeous rendering at a cheap price. But its GFX mount does barely make full coverage (if you use the hood you’ve gone vignetting in most light conditions). Considering its price, I’more than OK compared to alternatives. Well known issue too.
So the Nikkor are finally more fun and lighter to use (+ much much less expensive seconhand nowadays).
With all that, IQ wise (which is our main subject here out of AF), I’m not complaining at all! Just great results, all the way up to high ISO and the tremendous DR that offer the GFX. What else? 😉
Not crazy at all! I personally like using manual lenses.
Oh, and even a 1:1 cropped image from a 33x44mm sensor gives a 39mp large sensor file. The output from a GFX50R using quality FF primary lenses (such as Voigtlander, Zeiss, Leica) gives super IQ without the size or weight of GFX lenses.
Fuji is amazing as it is and like it was said above, the app can get better, X raw studio could be it’s own app but other than that they produce incredible image quality and you don’t even need a Leica. I tried one and prefer Fuji, that said something… So yeah keep doing what you’re doing and make more of that X100VI goodness that’s available or even smaller. WE LOVE IT
I am a little surprised that Fujifilm hasn’t introduced a mobile X RAW Studio app that works wirelessly with the camera. Maybe that’s something they’ve been working on, I have no idea, but it definitely seems like something that should happen.
Yes and no.
I think it certainly makes sense to have some cameras which make this speed-for-quality trade-off. There are a lot of folks who want hybrid cameras, great at video, with peak AF performance. But it’s also important to have those which don’t. That’s somewhat the premise of the split between the X-H2 and the X-H2s. Even for stills, there are times that high speed and more accurate AF will pay dividends for final results.
But when Canon lowers the image quality of the mark ii R5 for speed, the best option for a Canon landscape photography is the *old* model of the camera, or to switch systems. There are going to be some photographers who prefer to maximize IQ at the cost of speed. That’s basically the one camera in the line they shouldn’t dip the IQ with. R6 is a hybrid video camera, R3 and R1 are sports/action cameras which probably ought to prioritize speed. But with the high-res cameras like the R5, putting IQ and dynamic range first makes sense.
I wonder if (for example) Canon feels they have neared the ceiling for IQ with their current tech, so in order to offer something new and exciting to attract buyers, speed is the path of least resistance. I can’t image that the people who actually “need” it are a very large percentage of customers, but GAS and FOMO can generate a lot of sales. This is, of course, speculation, and nothing more.
I’m not into sports/action and wildlife hence for me to trade in image quality for speed is a huge loss.
I appreciate the input!
Well, 10 year ago I used DSLR and shoot with single point AF all the time and still doing this. Of course, I would love to have a reliable AF (both continuous and single point). At the moment I would prefer better user experience more kaizen from Fuji.
If people need fast AF and burst rates, they can take other brands. To be honest, I have a temptation to buy Nikon Zf, even though, I’ve tried it in a store and it’s UX is worse in many small ways than Fuji.
I have tried and sold several non-retro Fujifilm cameras. Most recently, the X-H2s was a fabulous camera, if you like psam, but i could never bring myself to like it, so I sold it and got a slightly inferior but much more likable X-T5 instead. I have a lot of Nikon gear that does jobs the Fuji cameras are not as good at (super telephotos and ultra-wides), so I have a few Nikon cameras left, and the Zf is easily my favorite. I also have a Df and a Zfc, all retro style bodies, so you can see where I’m coming from. None are up Fujifilm’s best retro cameras in style or handling, but they are the only other-brand alternative. So if you need or like Nikon for some uses, give it a second look. It may grow on you. Better than a psam Fuji!
Well, I have X-T5 and yeah, in terms of handling and using it’s great. I’m just pondering about FF or even MF camera. But it’s not a task in hand, and it’s highly likely I’ll buy GFX, be ause of Fuji colors.
Zf is a decent camera, the problem is that I heviky rely on film simulation and SOOC photos, as I don’t ha e time to work with RAW files. And Nikon doesn’t have such community at the moment.
From what I have read and seen online, the X-T5 holds its own against—and even sometimes bests—the Nikon Zf in a lot of ways. People seem to be attracted to the Zf either (and simply) because it is “full frame” and/or because they have compatible glass already—the second one is probably the stronger reason.
I am happy to see Fujifilm spend more energy lately on Kaizen, and I hope that the trend continues well into the future.
I worked in audiophile (high end) stereo equipment for years and my ex boss used to say it’s not only the chips, it’s what you do with them. Same goes for cameras, IQ is what we’re all after
Great point!
Ritchie- will all due respect I think this article is kind of generalizing into error from the other (not that the PetaPixel article makes the general statement that clear).
For example: Sony gave up some image quality on the A9iii. Nikon did some on the Z6iii (note that after ISO 800 they didn’t). Keep in mind these cameras are also FF so when the Z6iii loses some DR/image quality, it’s still delivering about above what Fuji is doing with APSC overall (taking out Fuji color science for JPEGs for a second).
But most importantly, – Sony for years had phenomenal AF without giving up image quality in several other models. This goes from the A6700 to some of the other FF camera models they have. Another example is the A7Cii/A7Cr.
So what is going on is that Canikony are doing *some specific camera models* where going a bit faster is ultimately more important (sports and other time critical events), while they still have other camera models that are quite quite competent in AF and did not pursue the same engineering design choice of sacrificing the image quality.
The interpretation in this article would be correct if manufacturers ONLY pursued those kind of models but they don’t.
The PetaPixel article strongly insinuates that at the very least the Canikony brands have sent IQ improvements to the back of the bus to sit next to Napoleon Dynamite. AF improvements have been in the front seat for years now, and very little R&D resources have been dedicated to IQ improvements from the Canikony brands. Additionally, in some cases, some specific camera models have worse IQ as a result of pursuing improvements to AF. I’m glad that Fujifilm has not been following this trend, personally, and I hope they don’t.