Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fuji' started by drd1135, Jan 3, 2014.
or so they claim.
Ugly. I was really hoping Fuji wouldn't do the "me too!" of "Let's make mirrorless look like a DSLR! That'll make people buy it!"
I much prefer the "Let's make it look like a Leica! That'll make people buy it!" -- lol
They already make Leica look alikes :smile:
I know. Look at my sig, lol. But that's where they should stay. Making something look like a fugly camera that only looks like it does because it HAS too doesn't impress me. The prism hump is useless gingerbread. It's like the fake plastic applique wood on a fake "woody" station wagon. I can stand it up to a point -- like I expect that crap from Olympus. But FUJI?
But then, I also predicted that the retro autos wouldn't last either.
Definitely not a fan!
I don't think it's bad to put the EVF in a "hump". I have an EM5 and like the way it feels. The new Nikon and this Fuji have gone a bit steampunk, IMHO. Maybe in brass :tongue: As cameras get better and there is no real improvement to offer to most people, looks may really start to be a deciding factor, like cars.
Wait a dang minute. Are you saying that the Wagon Queen Family Truckster is not a stylish automobile?
Please don't tell me the Jeep Wagoneers (more recent full size) used fake wood. I always wanted one!
I read somewhere that the Fuji photo is likely a fake as their is a viewfinder switch (but no OVF).
I think Fuji or Olympus' genuine-imitation black leather (or is it shark skin) on silver look may be more analogous to your fake woody argument, John. :tongue: The center mounted viewfinder isn't as nice looking as a rangefinder to me, but there have to be some reasons that Olympus and Sony are going this way other than trying to win on DSLR style?
Oh no! I would never put down the Truckster -- it's a classic...
It's a fad this "SLR-ness" and it will pass because when you get right down to it, it's fake and useless and doesn't advance the cause of mirrorless.
I wonder if the "SLR" form factor will completely go away, however. For example, the Panasonic G series is modern but has a central EVF hump. Why is the rangefinder style any better? If you want a central EVF and not have it interfere with the LCD, you need a hump.
My center EVF cameras have worked a lot better for me outdoors in sunlight than Lefty EVF cameras have, so I guess I will just take the hit on style points.
Make note: do not leave a Nikon Df and a Fujifilm X-E1 or X-E2 alone together in a room, because this is their lovechild.
Yes, but you don't need an Egyptian pyramid in the middle to house a pentaprism -- there isn't one. And the Panasonics have just enough hump for the viewfinder. It still looks dumb and I thought so on my E-M5 as well but I ignored it. Now I don't have to, lol.
"Love child! Always second best. Love child! Different from the rest!"
I'm pretty sure that is just a bad fake. Oh God, I hope so. I'm kinda OK with some of the retro designs, but that one is straight up ugly.
On a side note, "woodies" as in station wagons with wood on the side have not been ACTUAL wood since the 40s. I have owned a few from the 60s. They use "wood grain" decals, just like some of the Chrysler minivans and Jeeps (and overenthusiastic retro loving PT Cruisers owners).
Whether the hump is necessary and houses a mirror or not is beside the point. If it looks good.....it's OK. It's all personal taste. To me the Oly looks pretty good. That FUji looks like an abomination. Still unsure about the Nikon with those pneumatic controls
Oh my, that thing is a real mess isn't it? But only marginally worse (IMHO) than the Df or most amorphous plastic blob cameras... If I was back in the market for a Fuji and the performance is better enough than the XE2, I probably wouldn't NOT get it because of the looks (nor the Df if that ticked my camera wants/needs), but then again I might actually avoid it for its looks. Because most ugly cameras don't shout "Look at ME!" quite as loud and are pretty easily ignored. This one, like that one Pentax was making for a short while (and I think has killed - what was that, the K01???) really insist on being seen. And I sort of resent that in a camera, which sole purpose is to be doing the looking, not being looked at!
If this is even remotely true (it looks fake) what is up with the obnoxious branding on the front of the hump???
And they did that without Photoshop! Classic.
Looks faked to me.
Noooooooooooooooooo.... Make it go away....
Sent from another Galaxy
that's quite spectacularly awkward looking, isn't it? Particularly the viewfinder hump and the way the hot shoe sticks out from it. I'm with Ray in thinking that the looks of a camera aren't a deciding factor in my purchasing decision (although not attracting attention is always a bonus). However, I know that Fuji have sold a lot of these cameras based on their looks (even if it's just to advertising agencies looking to add a retro touch to their own ad photos by having the model hold one ), and I find it hard to believe they'd put such an ugly camera on the market.
Other than that: weathersealed camera + fuji lenses and image quality... I like!
There are plenty of comments at the bottom of the thread on the rumours site suggesting that the "photos" have been drawn on and rendered by a computer. When you look carefully, they do look a bit false. Happily…