Speculation: how about a full frame Fuji camera with M-mount?

Ok, this is not a rumors, just a speculation based on the latest post from Brandon Remler (who works for Fujifilm USA):

"Leica can have the 24 x 36 arena and stay around $10,000 (with 35 2.0 lens) vs the APS-C X100 at $1200. (Did you know the Leica M-lens mount is not a proprietary mount and thus anyone can make a mount to use their lenses? (I think at least - correct me if wrong- thanks) I've seen it on the Minolta CLE - Hexar-RF, Cosina, Rollei 35RF and Zeiss Ikon, and they sure do have a bunch of neat lenses over the past 55+ years, see list way down since 1954)."

and then later in the post:

"When the X100 has a little brother (Sept 1) and it yearns for a big brother, the decisions will be even tougher!"

Fuji X100's big brother? M-mount? I hope this is more than just a speculation!

BTW, there is a long list of Leica lenses at the end of Brandon's post.

This entry was posted in Fuji and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Hiplnsdrftr

    I’d be fine with an all black X100.

    • MJr

      It could use bit stronger form also, too much careful bumps ‘n curves. Corners need to say ‘YEaaah that’s right look at Me, im 90 degrees with a subtle 2mm radius for touching pleasure, oh yeah this is where x ends, and y begins hells yeah like it or hate it don’t care!’, is what a proper corner would say, not these silly curves come on man, it’s like a song with 10 minute fade-out, show some confidence, just end it ! Leica knows how. Either go full curve, or full edge, no confusion.

  • Disiderio

    Can’t wait to see Fuji blow Leica out of the water.

    FYI Fuji, firmware upgrade please for x100. 🙂

  • Axel

    I can’t believe Voigtlander hasn’t jumped into this market. D3A/D3M/D4A/D4M

    • MJr

      If i had the cash, would’ve bought Voigtlander and force them to do it. Literally dreamed about that lol

    • TBW

      cosina (owners of the voigtlander brand) did make a digital rangefinder – the first of its kind actually, in the body of the Bessa R2A, it was the EPSON R-D1. at the time high end in everything but not being full frame, 6mb. thats the 2nd time that cosina/voigtlander have forced decisions on leica, the 1st was when they released the Bessa R in 1990, the 1st rangefinder to have TTL, then suddenly the M6 is rereleased with TTL.

      • MJr

        the crop factor really ruins the fun imo. prime lenses are made to be just that, prime, one single angle to prime perfection, so without that what have you got.. some lousy crop without the originally intended characteristics. plus, i like them wide-angles.

        • WT21

          Exactly how I’ve been feeling. Playing around with these lenses on the various mirrorless crops, and it does just that — it crops out much of the character of the lenses. We really need an affordable FF mirrorless option with M mount. It’s not “cheap” but it should be cheaper than Leica, who clearly charges a 100% premium for the red dot (see their rebadging of Panny point and shoots)

        • Obviously you’re not a large format shooter…

          The only real problem with DX format is that most systems haven’t developed their lens line. Nikon has too few DX lenses and only 2 of them could be considered professional quality. I used to be a full frame snob until I got a Pentax, their DA and DA* Limiteds made me all but forget about 24×36. The only thing I miss is the greater DoF control. Actual image quality IMO hasn’t suffered. The K-5’s sensor is much more impressive than what I used to use, a 5D Mark II, which has no dynamic range and too much noise.

      • tub33

        The Bessa R was released in 2000, not 1990 and I believe the M6 TTL came out in 1998 which was before the Bessa R. That said, I own a Bessa R and old Leica IIIf.

  • NiknWontRepairMyGray

    Why limit this hypothetical FF Fuji to M-mount only? why not make the mount modular (like the Ricoh GXR mount- minus the built in sensor) so that all kinds of lens can be used with the appropriate mount module?

    What Fuji needs to do is to build gears and electronics into these modules so that the body can control the aperture, and maybe even autofocus too.

    Fuji can then sell these modules in non-proprietary mounts and let third-party or chinese knock-off company to sell module that has proprietary mount (Nikkor F/Canon EF?). I’m pretty sure they can reverse engineer the AF code and allows it to autofocus with the module.

    I guarantee this FF camera will sell like hotcakes since everyone can just use their existing lense in whatever mount it is. All they need is the mount module. Plus Fuji won’t have to worry about designing and releasing a wide range of lenses for this FF camera. DO IT FUJIFILM!!

    • z

      The modular is utterly stupid. They cost almost as much as whole new camera and sometimes more, they are bulky, big and heavy, and they are ugly.

      If fuji ever make FF mirrorless, just make sure flange is shorter than M-mount. I don’ care what kind of mount is that but as long it gives AF to the newer photogs that will use kit lens and the flexibility of choosing any kind of lens due to the flexible flange distance and the diameter is big enough and FF, isn’t it just perfect? Having every single lens on earth to choose from.

      • NiknWontRepairMyGray

        Ricoh’s module is bulky and expensive because it has an embedded sensor. Who said fuji needs to go this route?

        Having a mount with big enough diameter and a short flange distance is not enough to allow every lenses to be compatible with the body. All camera brand have different aperture control mechanism and different electronic contacts position, so a module is needed that goes between the lens and the body. Unless you’re content with using a ring adapter (like what people do with canon’s EF mount) and using the aperture ring to control it manually.

        • El Aura

          What is the difference between a modular mount and a mount adaptor? I cannot see any,

          • NiknWontRepairMyGray

            modular mount is a word i made up lol. A simple mount adapter ring (the sort you would use to mount different brand lens onto Canon’s ef mount) cannot control the lens’ aperture. You have to manually rotate the aperture ring and do stop down metering.

            If you want the body to have control over the aperture (or AF) you’d need a mechanical interface that goes between the body and the lens. I call this a mount module. It is modular because all camera brand use slightly different aperture control so you’d need a different interface for each different type. That’s all.

          • El Aura

            So, all those Nikon-to-EOS mount adaptors that allow you to control the f-stop with G lenses (Nikon lenses without a physical aperture ring) are in fact modular mounts?
            And the 43-to-m43 mount adaptors that even allow AF (in addition to aperture control) are also actually modular mounts?

          • NiknWontRepairMyGray

            El aura, you’re not very bright aren’t you? read my post again, I’m talking about the camera body having direct aperture control, with any types of lenses.

            Canon’s camera body does not have direct aperture control with those Nikon-Eos adaptors (for Nikon G or D lenses). You’d still have to control them manually.

            Are there any adapters that allows 43/m43 camera to use nikon F or Canon ef lense (or any other type of lenses) with full aperture control and AF? nope, don’t think so.

            No point in talking with you. You’re only trying to be smart with your nit-picking with words lol. You’ve failed miserably grasshopper, now move along….

          • El Aura

            “I’m talking about the camera body having direct aperture control, with any types of lenses.”

            What you want is a mount adaptor that allows this. Really, if third-party lens manufacturers can reverse-engineer the camera-lens protocol to provide aperture control, AF, distance information and more, there is no reason they could not create a mount adaptor that let’s you autofocus Nikon lenses on a Panasonic body (let alone the simpler aperture control). You don’t need a special camera, although camera manufacturers might have it easier to create such mount adaptors since they know at least the camera side of the protocol.

            What I criticised in your post was the notion:
            (a) that only the camera manufacturer could provide modules or adaptors that allow for communication between the camera and a third-party lenses
            (b) and that adaptors that provide such functionality would have to connect to the camera by something not being a lens mount (and thus would need to be called modules)

            Can you provide some arguments why either (a) or (b), or both, would be true? You have not in three replies so far, thus I highly doubt that you have any arguments to support your opinions (which you dressed up as facts).

          • NiknWontRepairMyGray

            Crikey, here we go again…

            a)When did I said ONLY camera manufacturers could provide these modules??? read my first post, I even suggest that chinese knock off company could offer some of them.

            b) The majority of lens out now have MECHANICAL aperture control. Now how many time do I have to mention this: for the body to control the lens’ aperture, it’d have to do it mechanically using levers, gears, etc. Each different lens mount would require a different mechanism since they don’t all work the same. And like I said, I just simply call these mechanical adapters, “modules”. If you got your pantie in a bunch because I used that word instead of “adaptors”, then I feel sorry for you.

            btw, the flange focal distance of a m43 system and an average FF system is over 20mm (i.e. an FF lens adaptor can be 20mm thick). This could be thick enough to incorporate a mechanism to control the aperture lever (and I’m talking about in camera body control, not those with levers you move with your finger). The differences in flange distance between FF cameras are not so big (e.g. Leica M9 is 37mm, Canon FD is 42mm). I haven’t seen any one incorporating these mechanism into m43 adapters that are over 20mm thick. It’s hard to see how anyone could incorporate it into an adapter that is only 5mm think. Thus, I was suggesting that Fuji’s hypothetical FF body have its mount interchangeable and modular (similar to Ricoh’s but minus the embedded sensor). This way, the module might be big enough to incorporate the aperture control mechanism,…and heck, maybe even a focus motor (alot of Sony/Minolta, Nikon and legendary Pentax lenses still rely on an inbody motor.)

          • El Aura

            Except that the Leica M mount flange distance is 27.8 mm not 37 mm, ie, instead of 5 mm to FD you have 14 mm. And Nikon F-mount is 44 mm, thus you have 16 mm. That should be enough for a simple lever to activate the aperture.

          • NiknWontRepairMyGray

            It’s not as simple as you’d think. You should read up on how much trouble leica’s engineer had to go through just to adapt a digital sensor onto their M mount. They eventually had to add almost 9mm to the flange distance (37mm on the M9) and still, there are still flaws with the latest M9. I doubt Fuji can do SIGNIFICANTLY better to decrease the distance towards the original length.

            The aperture control mechanism is unlikely to be a “simple lever”. Nearly every company places their lens’ aperture lever in different positions, with some lever moving in the reverse direction. Keep in mind these are small and high precision mechanism, so the more gears and levers you add to it, the harder it gets. If it is so simple, why aren’t we seeing loads of these adapters (with in body aperture control) for m43 mount that are 20mm+ thick? you also forgot the autofocus motor or atleast some sort of adapter gears to drive the AF motorless lenses.

            This is why I suggest incorporating all these gears, levers (maybe an AF motor too) and the mount itself into a single module. You’d then have a lot more space to fit all these things. The only thing that connects the camera body to these modules would be electronic contacts. This was only a suggestion, I don’t know why you have such a big issue with it lol.

          • El Aura

            “You should read up on how much trouble leica’s engineer had to go through just to adapt a digital sensor onto their M mount. They eventually had to add almost 9mm to the flange distance (37mm on the M9)”
            The whole depth of the Leica M9 is 37 mm (http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_m9p) since sensor and display have a thickness of more than zero the flange distance cannot be 37 mm. You don’t do yourself any favours by insisting it has a different flange distance that the film-era M cameras.

          • NiknWontRepairMyGray

            Ok I stand corrected with the 9mm comment, my memory was playing up. But tell me, how are you going to incorporate all those mechanical levers, autofocus gears into a ring adaptor that is 14mm-16mm thick? and how wide would this adapter be? and what ever it is, I’d called it a “module” including a mount, you call it an adapter without the mount. No big deal. What ever floats your boat. Just move along already, you’re being way too obsessive now.

          • El Aura

            I happen to own a Sigma 1.4x tele converter for Nikon F-mount with a feed-through for the mechanical aperture lever and the screw-drive AF. It has a thickness (mount to mount) of 16.7 mm. Trimming that design to 14.2 or 16.2 mm should be feasible.

            I think the main point where we disagree is not terminology but that shipping a camera with a fixed M-mount would make it impossible to create an adaptor for Nikon and Canon lenses that allows full control of their capabilities (out of that disagreement comes the use of different terminology).

            And I would argue that screw-drive AF is unlikely to be ever incorporated into a mirrorless camera (I know Sony does it with their adaptor but not in the camera itself, they want to keep the camera as small and light as possible). Canon is all screw-drive-less and Nikon is moving fast in that direction. And CD-AF with a slow screw-drive (and adaptors + low space mean a slower drive) is never going to be a pleasant experience.

      • WT21

        Buying various Fuji cameras (X100 now the X10) is not much more (and actually less in some ways) than buying the Ricoh modular system, is getting you the same results (an APS-C sensor for one use, and 2/3 sensor for another) AND is giving you multiple bodies, so you don’t have to switch modules, and you can even have a camera carried by your friend (as opposed to a worthless module, without the back).

        The Ricoh concept is welcome as a concept, and for pushing the envelope, but it’s not economically (or sensically) practical.

  • Luke

    never ever fuji will be so “stupid” and let other brands make the money with the glass. if a bigger brother will come, fuji will announce some lenses with it.

    • No, never ever. They never did it with the S1 Pro, S2 Pro, S3 Pro and heaven forbid the S4Pro. No; perish the thought.

      However for the sake of argument if they do ‘change their minds’, then M-mount would be a good choice. Non proprietary, good quality lenses and also compatible with Contax RF and LTM with adapters.

      • Sorry typo, the S5 Pro. My mate Ricky never owned and cherished his S5 and the Nikon lenses that it didn’t mount, nor his SB flashes which didn’t communicate perfectly with the non-existent S5.

      • NiknWontRepairMyGray

        You read my mind well. The S5 pro was exactly what I had in mind. That body sold well (and is still in demand today) and it’s sensor was cutting edge for its time.

        Fuji should do the same now, put all its resources on developing a great body with a great sensor. But instead of just using nikon’s F mount (or M mount), they should allow their body to use a variety of mounts.

        imho, I don’t think fuji has enough resources to design and release enough lenses and accessories for consumers to feel confident enough to buy into their system.

        Like what Dan said about Sony, with their deep pocket and assistance from zeiss and minolta engineers, Sony still struggle to release enough lenses to satisfy its customers. Fujifilm will do worse. Best way is to use other brand’s lenses.

        • El Aura

          “But instead of just using nikon’s F mount (or M mount), they should allow their body to use a variety of mounts.”

          One does not exclude the other. What would stop them from adding contacts to the M mount and then provide an adaptor that allows mounting Nikon lenses with full control (aperture, AF)?

  • Dan

    @Luke: They might, think about how much time it took Sony to make those NEX-lenses. NEX cameras are great, but the glass not so great. Fuji has a history of using somebody else mount (remember Nikon F mount ) with a bit of tweaking from them. The fact is, i don’t think they’ll make a FF camera, you can’t make a FF camera keeping the costs low, and if they make it and charge 4000$ for it, who will ever buy ?

    My humble opinion is that X-1000 (?) will be a APS-C camera, more like nex-7, and probably X-2000 will be a FF one. But this is pure speculations, will have to wait till spring ’12 for the real deal.

    • pavel

      “….you can’t make a FF camera keeping the costs low, and if they make it and charge 4000$ for it, who will ever buy ?”

      You mean like Nikon D700, Canon 5D II, Sony 900, and 850 don’t exist? And these are much more complicated cameras with more metal, glass and electronics inside.
      Making FF Fuji is definitely possible under $2000. The question is why would they go so low when the only competition is Leica, 3-4x more expensive.

      • El Aura

        Economies of scale. Leica sells about 15 000 M9s per year. Canon and Nikon likely sell ten times as much (of their D700s and 5DIIs) if not more. And they share a lot of other development costs with other cameras (D700 with D300 and D3 series, 5DII with 1DsIII and original 5D).
        Fuji will not get the same sales numbers as Nikon and Canon (which eg have a huge AF lens catalogue and installed base) and it cannot share that much with other cameras it is selling.

  • Just A Thought

    Would prefer on with Contax mount so that one could use the Nikon rangefinder lenses. Or Leica Screw mount – lots of glass at prices much lower than M glass. If you can afford nice M glass, then you can afford a Leica body. If you can afford only a Fuji instead of a Leica, then I suspect you may have a harder time being able to afford nice M glass. Fuji’s traditional market is consumers of low hanging fruit. Leica is in an entirely different market segment.

    • Choice in Contax RF lenses is very mited. Basically the 35 is not usable (will hit
      sensor/shutter, then there is the wonderful Sonnar 50ies (2.0 or 1.5) and the 85. Available as genuine Zeiss or Russian copy. While I absolutely love the Sonnar and its copies, I don’t think one or two great vintage lenses is enough reason to create a

      On the other hand: As you say, Leica Screwmount stuff is relatively cheap, has been
      made in Germany, Japan and the former Soviet Union for decades, and is compatible
      with Leica M.

      If you make a camera Leica M, you can use screwmount lenses with the help of
      a small, cheap ($10 for the cheap chinese ones) and does not limit functionality in
      any way. In fact when the M system was new, Leica itself sold M lenses that were
      in fact screwmounts with included adapters.

      • Just A Thought

        GREAT reply – very informative. I’d forgotten about the Leica Screw to M adapter. I also dd not know that full functionality remained when using that adapter, That option expands the number lenses one coould use. The Russian gear of days gone by was very well built (none of this plastic fantastic stuff) and often to German optical formulas. It;s kinda curious that the Russian/Ukrainian rangefinder manufacturers never produced a digital camera (that I am aware of). I’d love a digital Zorki or Fed rangefinder, but would gladly settle for a Fuji with M mount and an eBay Leica Screw to M adapter as you had suggested…

  • sflxn

    Under $3k and with the Sony 24MP FF sensor, I’m there! However, I don’t think this will happen. Leica is having extreme difficulties making enough lenses for M9 owners. Fuji wouldn’t make a camera that you can’t buy lenses for. Well, Fuji can make lenses, you say? And guess who will want to buy them? M9 owners who can’t find Leica lenses.

    Anyway, M mount lenses will never happen for Fuji interchangeable.

    • Cosina makes very fine M mount lenses branded as Zeiss ZM and Voigtländer.
      Fuji could either have these lenses rebranded as Fujinon, sell them directly, or
      leave this up to customers.

      There is certainly no shortage in M compatible lenses. These have been made for decades, millions of them around.

      Even Leica lenses are not that hard to come by, if there is a shortage, I assume it
      is more or less just for a few exotics. I can most certainly walk into my local (Austrian) photo shop and buy a new M mount Leica lens without any problems. Not at cheap mail order grey market discount pricies though. Not that I would want to 😉

  • Thomas

    The Hasselblad X-Pan is a Fuji, Hasselblad H-system lenses are from Fuji, too. So it‘s not, that Fuji just servers the consumer market. I think they will not just make a body for the Leica lenses.
    With the X100 the market got awake and sees (hopefully) what consumers want. In the future there will be M-mount digital rangefinders, means lenses from Bessa, Konica, Zeiss a Leica will find their use on it. I just wished the Contax G system would be still alive.
    But there are a little too much rumors out there. Let‘s enjoy the X100 now and not already hope for something newer, better, bigger.

  • TaoTeJared

    I would love to see a reemergence of a Fuji style Contax G1/G2. M-mount or newer AF mount even if it was DX. Just f/1.4-2.0 primes please.

    • Craig


  • That would be great ! Whatever you can say, M-lenses are the best in the world in 35mm arena.. exploiting them natively on a camera which is not expensive as M9/M10 (or MX ?) would be really wonderful.

  • Fujifan

    Why can’t all the companies come together and come out with only a standard mount in respect of a new generation of cameras for the benefit of all the consumers? Then, the consumer would have all wide choices od lens. All lense will be able to auto focus.

  • Seb

    Leica M mount was proprietary, but fall in public domain (in the nineties i think, minolta had an arrangement with leica)

    An m39 mount would be a nonsense, M mount was created to be the continuity, and so achieve a backward compatibility with M39 with a focus flange one mm shorter (to permit the use of adaptor) and same rangefinder coupling.

  • FullFrame Fuji!

    By going FullFrame and using the M mount, almost any other lens can be adapted to the new system. Not to mention the use of great Leica and Voigtlander M lenses. Fuji makes some pretty good lenses in the Fujinon line, too. The Fuji EBC coating is still one of the best out there.

    Do it Fuji! Give us something like Focus Peaking that Sony uses on the NEX and you have my money!!!

  • I just say WAW!. :-O 8-> @-)

  • Huggs

    I wouldn’t be surprised if a new M mount camera is coming out. Leica has been increasing prices on their lenses and plans of increasing production with new facilities. If a camera company made an affordable M cam right now, ~hotcakes! Oh, whatever happened to that RD-1 successor rumor that was floating about awhile back?

    • Huggs

      Someone needs to make a digital version of the Minolta CLE. Right? Get on that!

  • Brian Richman

    Just for a moment… How about an FF Fuji with a Nikon F mount… All speculation…

    • F-Mount is a SLR mount, very diferent from a rangefinder mount, even bouth are on 35mm sensors. 😛

  • fants

    I’ve been wanting a relatively high-production (i.e. not the what, 1000 copies they did before) of the R-D1 for a while…but an X100-style FF M-mount camera? Amazing. The hybrid viewfinder would be amazing on a digital rangefinder…OVF with infinite parallax-adjusted frameline possibilities and some sort of digital implementation of a rangefinder patch (perhaps just a small superimposed segment of the actual frame along with focus peaking?), EVF that behaves like a normal EVF, plus the aforementioned focus peaking. It’d be brilliant! And totally doable under $2000 (though I wouldn’t expect it to actually cost so little).

    And for those worrying about the availability/expense of Leica glass…most of the CV M lenses out there are worthy performers (35mm f/1.2, anyone?), and dramatically cheaper than their Leica counterparts.

    • +1000

      • MJr

        $ ? yeah 2000 is prolly not gonna cut it indeed 😉

        • I ‘d pay 3 grand easy. Thing thing SHOULDN’T be cheap if we want it up to pro standards. But it also doesn’t have to be Leica (Seal) stupid expensive.

  • cb

    Why do they spare Leica?

  • Kolame

    How about everyone just writes down his dream camera and tries to interpret Fuji into building it?
    Guess what? Let’s wait. Why should anyone use Nikon RF-mount? It’s dead. Leica M is the only option making sense. LTM is perfectly usable on it as well and everything stays compact. F-Mount wouldn’t.

    I believe, creating a 35mm-compact-camera, as the M9, isn’t to easy. There is a big difference between APS-C and 35mm. Even Leica has problems (reddish corners and so on)… So I believe, Cosina could just not make it. And everything below 35mm is kind of stupid for M-lenses, imho.

  • Dreaming about a fuji/sony collaboration full frame camera with leica glass in front of it…

    Sony: EVF technology, Screen, Focus peeking
    Fujifilm: Hybridviewfinder, Designe,
    Fujisony collaboration: Sensor design

    + a Ricoh userinterface

    Dream on…

    • Zaph

      Don’t Sony actually source their EVFs from Samsung?

      • sorry i dont know…
        but if thats true then my dream will include the samsung evf… im really wondering to see how the nex-7 evf is!!!


  • Nathan

    $10,000? C’mon, that’s just silly. $4500 would be a lot more likely for such a thing from Fuji. You don’t get to go up 9,000 dollars for a larger sensor, as we know that those sensors cost something like 700 dollars to make and 400 dollars of additional electronics at best.
    The real reason full-frame digital cameras cost 2-5k is build quality for the body. Machining a magnesium alloy frame, adding water seals, etc adds most of the cost and is why a D700 costs so much less than a D3s.

  • Jodiah Jacobs

    Holy Crap!

  • Don’t get me wrong, I YEARN for an “everyman” M mount Full Frame camera.

    But Fuji has the resources and the skill to just make their own line of lenses that easily compete with the culty Leica lenses. In fact, they do now. The 23mm F2 for example that I’m enjoying so much. And the X-Pan 30, 45, and 90 were outstanding. Just the fact that they cover an X-Pan frame make them “better” than any ridiculous Leica lens.

    So I really just can’t see this happening. I want it to happen, but if it does it’ll be from Voigtlander.

    There are more problems with this too, lookl the work Leica has to do to make it feasable. All those offset micro lenses AND they really do need to be coded to correct the images. That’s why lenses like the Voigtlander 21mm Color-Skopar is beautiful on film and terrible on the M9.

    • Ishouldbeshooting

      Exactly, to do wide angle right Fuji would have to make a sensor and lenses from scratch (as they’ve done with the x100). It’s an opportunity, really; Leica had to be backwards compatible. And Fuji doesn’t care that we all have 50 years of M glass, they want to make money like any business does. A new mount with lenses, with an M adapter option, would make good business sense.

  • Ishouldbeshooting

    Or use their extant xpan mount.

  • I think there is a better chance for an APS-C Fuji camera with a M-mount, like the M8. Imagine the X100 with a M-mount. Full frame will be too risky and expensive at that point.

    • MG

      fuji, make it ASP-H and I’m in
      make it FF and I’m selling all my nikon gear.

      • Me, too. I want small, light, high quality make, good lenses. Nikon have the latter, but in all of their good cameras, there is no contender. Horrid options in the ‘professional’ segment which means heavy and large, and massive lenses.

  • I Should Be Shooting

    Right, and they’re basically tooled for it. I’d buy two in a heartbeat 😉

  • I Should Be Shooting

    But hopefully they’d design some wide angles that would work well with the sensor. I have a VC 15 that needs a new home.

  • I welcome any new pro-quality digital camera under $2,000 that will accept my M lenses. I’m excited about the Sony NEX-7, but I can’t expect a client to take me seriously with that little thing. If Fuji made an M clone, I would absolutely buy it.

  • jerl

    As much as I don’t like spending money on new equipment (especially new systems), if Fuji came up with one of these, I’d be strongly tempted to buy one. There are a lot of compact, high quality wide lenses that just aren’t available on other systems, especially not all these new mirrorless ones. The wide lenses that do exist tend to be quite large. Crop frame m-mount doesn’t cut it either, because now your field of view aren’t as wide as they can be, but you still pay the price for it (ie. lens aperture, cost, size).

  • Charli

    I’m ever worn every body and friend about Fuji.When The Fujifilm going to do full frame. that’s time off at many full frame camera before….!!!

  • I just like the helpful info you provide on your articles.

    I’ll bookmark your blog and test again here regularly.
    I am fairly certain I will learn a lot of new stuff proper right
    here! Best of luck for the next!

  • Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your website?
    My website is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my users would certainly benefit from some of
    the information you present here. Please let me know if this ok with you.

  • It’s truly very difficult in this full of activity life to listen news on Television, therefore
    I just use web for that reason, and take the latest news.

  • It’s appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy.
    I have read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you some interesting
    things or suggestions. Maybe you could write next articles referring to this article.
    I want to read more things about it!

  • Its like you read my mind! You seem to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something.
    I think that you can do with a few pics to drive the
    message home a little bit, but other than that,
    this is magnificent blog. A great read. I’ll definitely be back.

  • Aw, this was an incredibly good post. Spending some time
    and actual effort to generate a very good article… but what can I
    say… I procrastinate a lot and don’t seem to get nearly anything done.

  • Hi there this is kind of of off topic but I was wanting to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have
    to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding expertise so
    I wanted to get advice from someone with experience.
    Any help would be enormously appreciated!

  • An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto
    a colleague who had been doing a little homework on this.
    And he in fact bought me lunch due to the fact that I stumbled upon it for him…
    lol. So let me reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending time to discuss this matter here
    on your web page.

  • Back to top