why has this brand been on suicide watch all of the sudden[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height960Scene Capture TypeStandard
Uhh... Did you even look at their financials? 2% growth in a shrinking market is better than Canikon are doing, frankly. Instax prints money, X and GFX are gaining traction, and the fact that they're still selling film at all is a pretty good sign.
the film simulations are worse than those standalone apps that make your photo look like film
>>3477549are they really? I have considered getting one of their cameras that can do film simulation for proof shooting when deciding what film stocks to use. Whats so bad about it?
>>3480226No, they're not. They're actually really good. People just trolling for a reaction because they're bored sony users that can't muster up the courage to go outside and shoot.
>>3480227Would you say it would be worth it in my use-case? they seem to be pretty small and light from what I can tell, I would love something that would pair well as a B cam when I go shooting with fijifilm stocks to easily get a similar look to match with my scans without having to waste film for less important shots.
>>3480227>>3480226They're not accurate to film stocks but look very nice if simply taken as profiles rather than "film simulations"That anon is a clueless filmfag who cares more about the simulations "looking like film" for clout than he does about whether or not they look good from an aesthetic standpoint.You can safely ignore such a clown, honk honk.
>>3480229The Acros film simulation is really good and I'd say mostly accurate to the film stock. Fuji include Acros and normal Monochrome simulations, when you switch between the two you can tell what they were going for with Acros as it really tries to mimic that "look" the film stock had. Anyway it's all academic in the end, of course nothing can replicate film fully in digital but the film simulations do a pretty good job for what they are and work as a nice starting point for editing a RAW too. Anybody serious will always tinker away regardless of how accurate Fuji can get. T. X-T2 user
>>3480232>Anybody autistic will always tinker away regardless of how accurate Fuji can get. fixed that for you
>>3477535Their non-instant film department is on suicide watch because it's obvious that the higher ups consider them a cannibal product to their digital line and wants to coax the Japanese film shooters to quit and move over, hence the price hike. Japanese film consumers are almost a captive audience because Kodak, Ilford etc. are very expensive there, plus some Japanese labs do not want to process Kodak films.
>>3480285you don't actually understand how business works
>>3480290Not that guy, but you don't actually understand how Japan works
>>3480301funny you said that even though i haven't even provided a conjecture>Not that guysureplease tell us more about japan's secret insider knowledge mr. english teachermaybe read a book some time, to learn what actual cannibalization is or how market shares work yeah?
>>3480306I've got a useless degree in Japanese sociology, never underestimate how stupid Japanese corporations can be. Fujifilm themselves have stated in the past that they want to entice film holdouts into the X system. Imported film stocks have protectionist/racketeer prices so Fujifilm can do whatever the hell they want and still come out cheaper. For example, a propack of Porta 800 in 120 goes for ¥8,000-10,000. The 400 is around ¥6,000 but you can get Fuji 400H all day long for ¥4,000.And yeah, some labs won't touch anything except basic Fujifilm. And most of the people still shooting film are fossils who would rather buy Japanese anyway.A few weeks ago I found a camera shop that was frozen in time. They had beat-up old gear from the 70s and 80s, priced delusionally. I'm talking like an F4 with the worst Cosina-made kitlens Nikon ever shat out for over ¥50,000 and there wasn't a single digital camera or piece of modern equipment in there. Yet it was full of ancient seniors just buying film and bullshitting about the old days. Those are the people keeping film alive over here, not young, spry, not-gonna-die hipsters like other places. That generation isn't going to be around much longer and the international film market is much less profitable.
I want to buy the Fuji XT3 but the lack of IBIS is making me not want it. Would lens stabilization be enough?
>>3482581No. Just take a tripod if you have to expose longer than 1/2000. At least this works for me.
>>3480226No they aren't. I've owned both an X Pro 1 and an X100F, and they're the only two cameras I never bothered shooting RAW with. The film emulations don't exactly match the original stocks of course, but if you treat them like color profiles and just apply minor editing in post it makes for a really fun shooting experience.
Film simulations that are unequivocally and unironically worse than Instagram filtersLiterally just put your raws into vsco lmao
>>3480330>it was full of ancient seniors...bullshitting about the old days>not young, spry, not-gonna-die hipstersthat's because there aren't any young people. your sociology degree shouldn't have made that a surprise.
>>3480227>>3482589I'm seriously considering picking up an X100S as an EDC and shooting entirely film sim JPGs. The colors are so delicious and soft. The metal body with the analog dials seems so uncluttered.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2500Image Height1667Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2016:11:30 11:48:25Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800
>>3482725I'm sorry but these "film" simulations are terrible. If the algorithm made it really look like film then OK. They aren't even trying. Just hire the people from vsco.
>>3480226>>3477549I think the film simulations are utter memes. I only like the acros one because its cool to literally shoot in black and white
>>3480229It’s just bullshit that they will claim to have film simulations and put the filters to film stocks of their OWN COMPANY and then have them not even look right at all. They’ve had years to correct it, so what the fuck? If theyre not going to be true to their own fucking film just call them color profiles, not film sims.I guess you must think im a faggot for expecting something that I paid for
>>3482587>longer than 1/2000what the fuck?>>3482581Are you a stillfag or videofag?Im a stillfag and upgrading from X-T1 to X-T3 was a fantastic decision for me. The difference in color rendering alone blew my socks off. I dont do video (but want to start) if you are so worried about IBIS just get a gimble; now you have something that will give you IBIS for any camera ever that you get in the future. XT-3’s video stats are quite good.
>>348022790% of this board is bored sony users who don't take pictures and argue about muh sensor size and muh lenses and have no pictures to show for it.
sage shitty gear thread
>>3483089>They’ve had years to correct it, so what the fuck? If theyre not going to be true to their own fucking film just call them color profiles, not film sims.It's not about being *incapable* of making convincing simulations. They just think their market, primarily digital-only shooters and a small percentage that has very passing experience with film, would prefer what they've done with the profiles than actually emulating film faithfully.They're probably right. And what better way to name your profiles, than famous film stocks that you already have the copyright for and are recognisable?Sucks for people actually liking film, but those are not their target demographic.
>>3483120I mean Fuji's new "MF" camera just came out so Sony sensorlets, when will they learn?