Not that fuji cares, but my attitude toward the whole thing has turned into "Well F you then, I don't want your stupid camera" lol.
I had the x100f and really enjoyed it. For its intended use it was perfect. Sold it for the V. But that became hard to get and I refused to pay more than msrp.
Came along the vi and I canceled my pre-order when I realized it'd be the same wait.
To me, there's no reason to wait half a year for any camera. Not with so many options now available.
It's just not that special (to me) . If it were available now I might get it. But I'm not sitting around on a waiting list for it.
I'm not missing out on any photos because I don't have it. To me this is just an 'extra' fun to have camera that would only come with me on certain occasions. I enjoy to many other focal lengths
rantercsr wrote:
Not that fuji cares, but my attitude toward the whole thing has turned into "Well F you then, I don't want your stupid camera" lol.
I had the x100f and really enjoyed it. For its intended use it was perfect. Sold it for the V. But that became hard to get and I refused to pay more than msrp.
Came along the vi and I canceled my pre-order when I realized it'd be the same wait.
To me, there's no reason to wait half a year for any camera. Not with so many options now available.
It's just not that special (to me) . If it were available now I might get it. But I'm not sitting around on a waiting list for it.
I'm not missing out on any photos because I don't have it. To me this is just an 'extra' fun to have camera that would only come with me on certain occasions. I enjoy to many other focal lengths ...Show more →
I can understand this sentiment. The Fuji system works well for me, but there are so many great options out there today, and this is not a good look for any company.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Wow, pre-order a camera just a few days after it's available and then wait almost a year to receive it! I'm not sure who's to blame, but it's definitely a bad outcome for the consumer.
These wait times are nuts, and they are even worse combined with all of the other examples of Fujifilm’s inability to actually deliver products. They make some fine gear, but…
… when I checked a while back about half of the GFX system lenses were listed as unavailable on the Fujifilm web site.
… cameras disappear with little or no information, and product lines are left hanging — see the XPro line.
… wait times for man products (not just the X100vi) have been extremely long. I waited something like a year to have an order for the 27mm f/2.8 filled. (Fortunately, I still had the previous model.) Reportedly it is still hard to get a XT5.
Some initial product shortages should be no surprise. This happens with new products from almost every camera company when new models arrive and demand initially surpasses the company's ability to produce and deliver. These delays might be weeks or occasionally a month or so.
But here we continue to see products that simply aren’t available, sometimes for many months or a year, and they are not just the new, hot products.
What is strange is that Fujifilm should be able to solve this. And if they did they could take advantage of a whole lot of public interest in their products. And if they did that they could grow market share. What explains this? I don’t know the answe, but it looks like there are critical problems with production and planning.
They are simply copying Leica without understanding the brainwashing of M shooters that allows for such manufacturing ineptitude. Fuji is truly nothing special in the larger market if they cannot deliver products. Luckily for the GFX side, Hasselblad lenses are impossible to procure so Fuji waits are short by comparison.
RoamingScott wrote:
They are simply copying Leica without understanding the brainwashing of M shooters that allows for such manufacturing ineptitude. Fuji is truly nothing special in the larger market if they cannot deliver products. Luckily for the GFX side, Hasselblad lenses are impossible to procure so Fuji waits are short by comparison.
I've been waiting months for my X100VI and probably have at least two more months based on my dealer's rate of receiving cameras. I ordered it because I like having a viewfinder (which eliminated the GRIIIx) and wanted something smaller than a Q3 to carry with at least a 35mm lens (and the RX1R iii seems like wishful thinking at this point). But I'm still very concerned that I won't be entirely happy with the image quality since the SL3 with either the APO 35 or 75 is usually what I shoot. Clearly not a small camera solution, though.
If you are expecting APO image quality out of this, just cancel your pre-order.
saxguy wrote:
I've been waiting months for my X100VI and probably have at least two more months based on my dealer's rate of receiving cameras. I ordered it because I like having a viewfinder (which eliminated the GRIIIx) and wanted something smaller than a Q3 to carry with at least a 35mm lens (and the RX1R iii seems like wishful thinking at this point). But I'm still very concerned that I won't be entirely happy with the image quality since the SL3 with either the APO 35 or 75 is usually what I shoot. Clearly not a small camera solution, though.
It would be funny if Fuji is practicing a customer-facing inversion of the famous Toyota "Just In Time" system. The theory would be that they wouldn't have surplus merchandise or idle manufacturing capacity as long as they limit production runs to lower levels. In this scenario, they would have to believe that they lose less from shortage-caused non sales than from overproduction/surplus merchandise costs.
Keith B. wrote:
It would be funny if Fuji is practicing a customer-facing inversion of the famous Toyota "Just In Time" system. The theory would be that they wouldn't have surplus merchandise or idle manufacturing capacity as long as they limit production runs to lower levels. In this scenario, they would have to believe that they lose less from shortage-caused non sales than from overproduction/surplus merchandise costs.
It's obvious this is a choice by Fuji. Other brands don't have issues producing more units of equally popular items. This choice, among others by Fuji, makes me very bearish on the brand in the long term. They don't seem to have their finger on the pulse of what their own user base wants, let alone how to grow that base.
I've been in manufacturing for almost 35 years. Never have I experienced a company intentionally producing far below consumer demand. Sure, sometimes trailing demand by a small amount to keep demand high can be a good strategy. But nobody wants year long back orders and that is a missed opportunity for Fuji. Despite what people seem to think about Fuji, its not a small company. Even with the Imaging division, there are many other application that are likely more profitable than consumer cameras. Look at Olympus, they are killing it in medical endoscopes to the point where they dumped cameras to focus on an area with higher profits. My point is that like most companies, different products compete for resources. It sounds like the move to China for assembly is most likely a contract manufacturer rather than a division of Fuji. That was likely done because Fuji didn't have the internal resources to do it. So an increase in production needs resources from Fuji, room for expansion at their CM, and increased deliveries for all the components. Even increasing production of a simple plastic part could take 6-9 months if new tooling is required. Not to mention the 40mp sensor shared with a growing number of Fuji cameras. I would expect that sensor manufacturing is highly automated at Sony. It probably takes 1-2 years for a doubling of output to occur and then probably requires some volume guarantees for sustained deliveries. What happens if Sony releases a cheaper, better RX1 next month? I'm sure at some point Fuji has experienced unwanted cameras on the shelf that they had to dump at a loss. Pretty much all companies of any size practice Just In Time, or Lean Manufacturing which reduces inventories of components until they are needed. So increasing production of the whole, is only as fast as the slowest piece. Also, keep in mind that margins in consumer electronics is not very high. Its not like they can just throw money at the problem and make up for it in sales. On top of all these challenges, I've found Japanese business culture to be pretty conservative. Technically very good, but they don't jump around reacting to the latest, greatest information very quickly.
RoamingScott wrote:
If you are expecting APO image quality out of this, just cancel your pre-order.
Definitely not expecting APO level, no. I had the Q3 and RX1Rii as well. Some reviewers have stated that the lens wasn't that sharp on the X100IV, but the images I've seen don't seem to illustrate that. I'm going to be using it for mostly travel and digital posting. My SL3 is for more critical photography.
saxguy wrote:
Definitely not expecting APO level, no. I had the Q3 and RX1Rii as well. Some reviewers have stated that the lens wasn't that sharp on the X100IV, but the images I've seen don't seem to illustrate that. I'm going to be using it for mostly travel and digital posting. My SL3 is for more critical photography.
My experience with the X100VI is that it's plenty sharp for casual photos and if you're sharing on social media, it's still nicer than an iPhone photo. However, if you're picky about image quality, you're definitely giving up some of it by taking it out vs the Leica Q3 as the next size up camera. Within the Fuji universe of lenses, its image quality is probably comparable to one of their f2 lineup of lenses.
I found the image quality to be pretty good for people photos - not too sharp while still capturing good detail but it's not great for landscapes or any situation where you want critical sharpness.
I've never wanted for more sharpness than the X100V/VI provides...EXCEPT! at F2 at MFD. Just bumping to 2.2 solves this issue though, very similar to the X 23/2 prime.
tzhang4284 wrote:
My experience with the X100VI is that it's plenty sharp for casual photos and if you're sharing on social media, it's still nicer than an iPhone photo. However, if you're picky about image quality, you're definitely giving up some of it by taking it out vs the Leica Q3 as the next size up camera. Within the Fuji universe of lenses, its image quality is probably comparable to one of their f2 lineup of lenses.
I found the image quality to be pretty good for people photos - not too sharp while still capturing good detail but it's not great for landscapes or any situation where you want critical sharpness....Show more →
Comparing the X100VI to the Leica Q3 isn't a fair comparison. The Q3 is a $6000 camera with one of the best lenses in their stable and it has a 60 MP sensor.
TENOG wrote:
Comparing the X100VI to the Leica Q3 isn't a fair comparison. The Q3 is a $6000 camera with one of the best lenses in their stable and it has a 60 MP sensor.
Small point, perhaps, but I think you are accurately making that case that you cannot “equate” the two cameras, not that the cannot be “compared.”
You can usefully “compare” them, though hopefully by considering their objective performances pluses and minuses for particular use cases. In such a comparison there are cases in which either might be the better choice.
TENOG wrote:
Comparing the X100VI to the Leica Q3 isn't a fair comparison. The Q3 is a $6000 camera with one of the best lenses in their stable and it has a 60 MP sensor.
I agree, it's not a fair comparison in the context of image quality. On the Q3, the lens is sharper across the entire frame, and the sensor has much higher resolving power with less noise. The lenses are also not the same focal length. Everything from barrel distortion to out-of-focus areas is going to render differently between the two cameras.
I've used the X100V for a few years now; there are things I dislike about the camera but image sharpness is not one of them.
Plenty of websites have full size crops of X100V files to help people determine whether the images are acceptably sharp for whatever use the photographer has in mind.
Op was asking about image quality and not value for the money so it's a valid comparison as a reference point especially if he's used the Q3, can afford both cameras and only wants to bring one camera at a time.
As for sharpness being good enough, I think everyone has their own tolerances on what's good enough but the differences are there if you're looking for it.
The X100VI certainly has a size benefit going for it so it's not a clear win for the Q3 either.
TENOG wrote:
Comparing the X100VI to the Leica Q3 isn't a fair comparison. The Q3 is a $6000 camera with one of the best lenses in their stable and it has a 60 MP sensor.
Having owned the Q3, I can choose to ask for pros and cons to the X100VI. I understand the limitations. The Q3 is not pocketable by any sense of the word. My SL3 with an APO Summicron-SL lens attached is bigger than the Q3, yes - but not so much bigger that it makes any major practical difference for real world use over the Q3. Yes, the lens on the Q3 is great - but my use case for my Leica or the X100VI are different. For the X100VI I'm looking for something easy to carry that gives me the flexibility of using good images straight out of the camera. As mentioned previously, if I'm doing any serious projects I'm still grabbing my SL3/APO kit.
I bailed on Fuji, in part, based on the lack of inventory. I'm very happy using my older Nikon DSLRs, both for the optical finders and the best value per dollar I've seen here on the FM buy-sell forum.
What I don't understand is when developing a new product they must have an idea on how many units they think will sell in the first 6 months and based on that don't release them until they manufacture at least that amount. I find it hard to believe that the extra money received from not having to discount the price due to high demand is more than orders cancelled or customers that never accepted the preorders.
Not to mention camera store salesman pushing customers away from fuji towards something they can actually make a sale on. 2% of $100 is better than 10% on $0.
campy wrote:
What I don't understand is when developing a new product they must have an idea on how many units they think will sell in the first 6 months and based on that don't release them until they manufacture at least that amount. I find it hard to believe that the extra money received from not having to discount the price due to high demand is more than orders cancelled or customers that never accepted the preorders.
Not to mention camera store salesman pushing customers away from fuji towards something they can actually make a sale on. 2% of $100 is better than 10% on $0. ...Show more →
No one really seems to know quite what the issue is with Fujifilm’s ongoing problems matching supply to demand — which is a polite way of saying “being unable to deliver products in an expected and reasonable way.”
Fujifilm has a lot of positive energy going for it, and this has been true since they introduced their modern aps-c digital cameras and then expanded those offerings. Their introduction fo a competitive and lower-cost miniMF system has also been a big plus. (Yes, I know that Fujifilm has a history that goes back much farther than this.)
But their supply/inventory issues have been an unfortunate drag on the goodwill that their products have otherwise created. All companies have such issues from time to time, but usually not to the extent we’ve seen with Fujifilm.
