Fuji SLR forum on Dpreview is dying

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 15, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks. Used to encompass only a
    couple hours like current, more robust forums. Pretty soon, like the
    Kodak SLR forum. Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of
    changeable lens camera.
     
    RichA, Jul 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:05:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks. Used to encompass only a
    >couple hours like current, more robust forums. Pretty soon, like the
    >Kodak SLR forum. Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of
    >changeable lens camera.



    Why? Fujifilm will only do what they can be sure is going to be
    profitable. The company doesn't have the vast resources needed to
    develop a new range of interchangeable-lens cameras and lenses, and
    has no further interest in fitting Nikon bodies with 6.1 MP Fuji
    sensors that are now well out of date.

    What killed off the Fujifilm S series of DSLRs was initially the Canon
    EOS 5D, which offered 12 MP and full frame against the 6.1 MP of the
    Fujifilm Pro S3, and finally the Nikon D700 which offered the very low
    noise 12 MP sensor of the Nikon D3 at a very competitive price and
    came close to the dynamic range of the S5.

    Sales of the S5 plummeted after the D700 was introduced. Remaining
    stocks of the S5 were sold off at very deeply discounted prices. Who
    wants a Nikon-mount DSLR with a 6.1 MP DX-cropped sensor giving an
    interpolated 12 MP output when you can buy a Nikon DSLR with a genuine
    12 MP sensor that has outstanding low light performance? A tiny
    improvement in dynamic range (the S5 is still the best) won't override
    the arguments for full frame and the incredibly low noise of the D700.

    So with the S series DSLRs, Fujifilm backed the wrong horse. Fujifilm
    also backed the wrong horse with the F series point and shoot compact
    digicams; sales have dwindled to near zero and most camera stores
    don't even stock them. Yes, they had significant advantages in the
    form of lower noise and the ability to shoot at high ISOs, but too few
    people wanted to buy them. The megapixel race saw to it that much of
    their low noise advantage was lost by cramming in too many pixels.

    So Fujifilm is probably happy enough as it is, making poor quality
    small-sensor digcams that compete in the market with all the other
    brands of poor quality small-sensor digcams.

    There is also Fujifilm's manufacture of high quality Hasselblad
    digital SLR bodies and lenses. A very profitable activity, no doubt.
     
    Bruce, Jul 15, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 15, 5:04 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:05:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks.  Used to encompass only a
    > >couple hours like current, more robust forums.  Pretty soon, like the
    > >Kodak SLR forum.  Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of
    > >changeable lens camera.

    >
    > Why?  Fujifilm will only do what they can be sure is going to be
    > profitable.  The company doesn't have the vast resources needed to
    > develop a new range of interchangeable-lens cameras and lenses, and
    > has no further interest in fitting Nikon bodies with 6.1 MP Fuji
    > sensors that are now well out of date.
    >
    > What killed off the Fujifilm S series of DSLRs was initially the Canon
    > EOS 5D, which offered 12 MP and full frame against the 6.1 MP of the
    > Fujifilm Pro S3, and finally the Nikon D700 which offered the very low
    > noise 12 MP sensor of the Nikon D3 at a very competitive price and
    > came close to the dynamic range of the S5.  
    >
    > Sales of the S5 plummeted after the D700 was introduced.  Remaining
    > stocks of the S5 were sold off at very deeply discounted prices.


    Interestingly, the D200 which came out at the same time and has the
    same body sells for about $500 used, while the S-5 goes for around
    $800-1000.00. But lets not pretend Fuji couldn't find a market for a
    changeable lens camera not based on their using a Nikon body.
     
    RichA, Jul 15, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 05:12:26 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >On Jul 15, 5:04 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:05:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks.  Used to encompass only a
    >> >couple hours like current, more robust forums.  Pretty soon, like the
    >> >Kodak SLR forum.  Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of
    >> >changeable lens camera.

    >>
    >> Why?  Fujifilm will only do what they can be sure is going to be
    >> profitable.  The company doesn't have the vast resources needed to
    >> develop a new range of interchangeable-lens cameras and lenses, and
    >> has no further interest in fitting Nikon bodies with 6.1 MP Fuji
    >> sensors that are now well out of date.
    >>
    >> What killed off the Fujifilm S series of DSLRs was initially the Canon
    >> EOS 5D, which offered 12 MP and full frame against the 6.1 MP of the
    >> Fujifilm Pro S3, and finally the Nikon D700 which offered the very low
    >> noise 12 MP sensor of the Nikon D3 at a very competitive price and
    >> came close to the dynamic range of the S5.  
    >>
    >> Sales of the S5 plummeted after the D700 was introduced.  Remaining
    >> stocks of the S5 were sold off at very deeply discounted prices.

    >
    >Interestingly, the D200 which came out at the same time and has the
    >same body sells for about $500 used,




    The D200 was a lot cheaper than the S-5 when both were new.


    >while the S-5 goes for around
    >$800-1000.00.



    You could pick up new S5 bodies for far less than that after they were
    discontinued.


    >But lets not pretend Fuji couldn't find a market for a
    >changeable lens camera not based on their using a Nikon body.



    Three negatives in a sentence? Doesn't not make no sense. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jul 15, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 15/07/2010 3:05 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks. Used to encompass only a
    > couple hours like current, more robust forums. Pretty soon, like the
    > Kodak SLR forum. Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of
    > changeable lens camera.


    Fujifilm is about 3x the size (revenue) of Nikon, almost as large as Canon.
    In the end, perhaps they've observed from their activities in all areas,
    that in many cases market players in position #1 and #2 can make good
    money, and in position #3 and less, you end up selling on price, or if
    you're lucky, cater to a small niche with low volume but good margins,
    always at risk that a major player would one day decide to attack and
    take that niche position.
    If they've guessed the cost of Sony's attempt to get to #2, looked at
    the success of that investment, then they can probably find better areas
    in which to invest.
    IIRC they're still working on "organic CMOS" sensor technology.
     
    Me, Jul 15, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 15, 6:38 pm, Me <> wrote:
    > On 15/07/2010 3:05 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >
    > > Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks.  Used to encompass only a
    > > couple hours like current, more robust forums.  Pretty soon, like the
    > > Kodak SLR forum.  Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of
    > > changeable lens camera.

    >
    > Fujifilm is about 3x the size (revenue) of Nikon, almost as large as Canon.
    > In the end, perhaps they've observed from their activities in all areas,
    > that in many cases market players in position #1 and #2 can make good
    > money, and in position #3 and less, you end up selling on price, or if
    > you're lucky, cater to a small niche with low volume but good margins,
    > always at risk that a major player would one day decide to attack and
    > take that niche position.
    > If they've guessed the cost of Sony's attempt to get to #2, looked at
    > the success of that investment, then they can probably find better areas
    > in which to invest.
    > IIRC they're still working on "organic CMOS" sensor technology.


    Then why stay in the field at all? Why keep making hulking plastic
    superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off?
     
    Rich, Jul 16, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 16, 7:28 pm, Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN! <>
    wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Jul 15, 6:38 pm, Me <> wrote:
    > >> On 15/07/2010 3:05 p.m., RichA wrote:

    >
    > >> > Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks.  Used to encompass only a
    > >> > couple hours like current, more robust forums.  Pretty soon, like the
    > >> > Kodak SLR forum.  Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of
    > >> > changeable lens camera.

    >
    > >> Fujifilm is about 3x the size (revenue) of Nikon, almost as large as Canon.
    > >> In the end, perhaps they've observed from their activities in all areas,
    > >> that in many cases market players in position #1 and #2 can make good
    > >> money, and in position #3 and less, you end up selling on price, or if
    > >> you're lucky, cater to a small niche with low volume but good margins,
    > >> always at risk that a major player would one day decide to attack and
    > >> take that niche position.
    > >> If they've guessed the cost of Sony's attempt to get to #2, looked at
    > >> the success of that investment, then they can probably find better areas
    > >> in which to invest.
    > >> IIRC they're still working on "organic CMOS" sensor technology.

    >
    > >Then why stay in the field at all?  Why keep making hulking plastic
    > >superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off?

    >
    > <http://dpreview.com/reviews/q110superzoomgroup/>
    >
    > "Compact Camera Group Test:
    > SLR-like 'super zoom' cameras
    >
    > It's now more than a year since we published our last superzoom group test
    > and despite the hype surrounding mirrorless system cameras such as Micro
    > Four Thirds or the Sony NEX, and the fact that entry level DSLRs are
    > becoming more and more affordable, superzoom cameras are as popular with
    > consumers as ever. It is easy to see why. The combination of a large zoom
    > range from wideangle to super telephoto, DSLR-like ergonomics and an
    > attractive price point guarantee that these cameras appeal to a very broad
    > audience."
    >
    > [note that the derogatory "P&S" term is not used, a term first popularized
    > by insecure DSLR-Trolls on USENET.]


    As long as the cameras have a flash set on automatic. I know those
    baseball stadiums get a bit dark at night.
     
    Rich, Jul 17, 2010
    #7
  8. On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:55:54 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >On Jul 16, 7:28 pm, Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN! <>
    >wrote:
    >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >On Jul 15, 6:38 pm, Me <> wrote:
    >> >> On 15/07/2010 3:05 p.m., RichA wrote:

    >>
    >> >> > Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks.  Used to encompass only a
    >> >> > couple hours like current, more robust forums.  Pretty soon, like the
    >> >> > Kodak SLR forum.  Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of
    >> >> > changeable lens camera.

    >>
    >> >> Fujifilm is about 3x the size (revenue) of Nikon, almost as large as Canon.
    >> >> In the end, perhaps they've observed from their activities in all areas,
    >> >> that in many cases market players in position #1 and #2 can make good
    >> >> money, and in position #3 and less, you end up selling on price, or if
    >> >> you're lucky, cater to a small niche with low volume but good margins,
    >> >> always at risk that a major player would one day decide to attack and
    >> >> take that niche position.
    >> >> If they've guessed the cost of Sony's attempt to get to #2, looked at
    >> >> the success of that investment, then they can probably find better areas
    >> >> in which to invest.
    >> >> IIRC they're still working on "organic CMOS" sensor technology.

    >>
    >> >Then why stay in the field at all?  Why keep making hulking plastic
    >> >superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off?

    >>
    >> <http://dpreview.com/reviews/q110superzoomgroup/>
    >>
    >> "Compact Camera Group Test:
    >> SLR-like 'super zoom' cameras
    >>
    >> It's now more than a year since we published our last superzoom group test
    >> and despite the hype surrounding mirrorless system cameras such as Micro
    >> Four Thirds or the Sony NEX, and the fact that entry level DSLRs are
    >> becoming more and more affordable, superzoom cameras are as popular with
    >> consumers as ever. It is easy to see why. The combination of a large zoom
    >> range from wideangle to super telephoto, DSLR-like ergonomics and an
    >> attractive price point guarantee that these cameras appeal to a very broad
    >> audience."
    >>
    >> [note that the derogatory "P&S" term is not used, a term first popularized
    >> by insecure DSLR-Trolls on USENET.]

    >
    >As long as the cameras have a flash set on automatic. I know those
    >baseball stadiums get a bit dark at night.


    As long as you knew anything at all about the cameras that you incessantly
    lie about. Many of them cannot fire the flash unless it is manually opened.

    How many of those flashes going off in a stadium are owned by DSLR owners
    as ridiculously stupid as you are? They have the same built-in flash
    systems as all compact and superzoom cameras. Judging by the quality of
    intellect that promotes DSLRs, I'd say most of the flashes going off in
    stadiums are coming from idiot DSLR owners as fuckingly dumb as yourself.
     
    Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN!, Jul 17, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    wrote:
    >
    >Then why stay in the field at all? Why keep making hulking plastic
    >superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off?



    Because they sell well and are profitable.

    And they haven't been "killed off" by anything.
     
    Bruce, Jul 17, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    SMS Guest

    On 16/07/10 3:45 PM, Rich wrote:

    > Then why stay in the field at all? Why keep making hulking plastic
    > superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off?


    The superzooms are highly profitable. The manufacturing cost is very
    low. For D-SLRs they're making big money on lenses and accessories, but
    the cameras are more costly to manufacturer with the larger sensors,
    lens mounts, mirrors, optical viewfinders, and shutters.

    The person who chooses a relatively large superzoom over a relatively
    lard D-SLR typically does not understand anything about the physics of
    sensors, optics, focusing systems, dynamic range, viewfinders, or
    photography in general, and they don't want to learn either. They may be
    disappointed with their equipment in terms of lag times and low light
    performance, but they don't understand the reasons that they're
    disappointed, and they've spent a lot less money than a D-SLR buyer. Our
    favorite troll is ample proof of this.

    As one Reagan official said (at the time Reagan was trying to get rid of
    the Consumer Products Safety Commission), 'Imperfect products should be
    available because consumers have different preferences for defect
    avoidance.'
     
    SMS, Jul 17, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 17, 8:50 am, SMS <> wrote:
    > On 16/07/10 3:45 PM, Rich wrote:
    >
    > > Then why stay in the field at all?  Why keep making hulking plastic
    > > superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off?

    >
    > The superzooms are highly profitable. The manufacturing cost is very
    > low. For D-SLRs they're making big money on lenses and accessories, but
    > the cameras are more costly to manufacturer with the larger sensors,
    > lens mounts, mirrors, optical viewfinders, and shutters.
    >
    > The person who chooses a relatively large superzoom over a relatively
    > lard D-SLR typically does not understand anything about the physics of
    > sensors, optics, focusing systems, dynamic range, viewfinders, or
    > photography in general, and they don't want to learn either. They may be
    > disappointed with their equipment in terms of lag times and low light
    > performance, but they don't understand the reasons that they're
    > disappointed, and they've spent a lot less money than a D-SLR buyer. Our
    > favorite troll is ample proof of this.


    We don't know about how profitable they are. Assembly is probably the
    single most costly part of a camera today (aside from perhaps the
    sensor and prism in a DSLR) and it seems to be a superzoom P&S might
    cost even more than a DSLR to assemble.

    > As one Reagan official said (at the time Reagan was trying to get rid of
    > the Consumer Products Safety Commission), 'Imperfect products should be
    > available because consumers have different preferences for defect
    > avoidance.'


    With Walmart and the Chinese, you have all the inferior, defective
    products you can handle. And you buy them willingly.
     
    Rich, Jul 17, 2010
    #11
  12. On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 05:50:14 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >On 16/07/10 3:45 PM, Rich wrote:
    >
    >> Then why stay in the field at all? Why keep making hulking plastic
    >> superzoom P&S's that the DSLR has just about killed off?

    >
    >The superzooms are highly profitable. The manufacturing cost is very
    >low. For D-SLRs they're making big money on lenses and accessories, but
    >the cameras are more costly to manufacturer with the larger sensors,
    >lens mounts, mirrors, optical viewfinders, and shutters.
    >
    >The person who chooses a relatively large superzoom over a relatively
    >lard D-SLR typically does not understand anything about the physics of
    >sensors,


    Like you don't. Sensors are more dependent on newer forms of technology
    than size. Newer technology is always used in compact and superzoom cameras
    3-4 years before they ever make it to larger sensor cameras.


    > optics,


    Like you don't. Due to the smaller sensor in these cameras they excel at
    macrophotography for their longer DOF available. Due to the smaller sensor
    size much larger apertures are available at longer focal lengths (precisely
    what the professional wildlife photographer requires) than any that can
    ever be made available for DSLR glass. Due to the smaller optics sizes,
    they are and must be figured to diffraction-limited precision. The very
    best optics that can exist. Unlike DSLR glass that is only sharp at one
    aperture, and rarely if ever will DSLR glass afford pixel-level detail
    resolution, which is common on smaller sensors matched to finer optics.

    > focusing systems,


    We are all too aware of focusing systems and the benefits of each. Phase
    focusing might be faster, but it's highly inaccurate. Contrast detection is
    precise. I'd much rather walk away with 90 out of 100 images properly
    focused than 10 out of 1000.

    >dynamic range,


    See above about sensor technology. One of my smaller sensor cameras has a
    dynamic range of 10.3 EV steps. That's 3-4 more EV steps of dynamic range
    than film. That's more than anyone needs.

    > viewfinders,


    Yes, you don't realize that electronic viewfinders are much more reliable,
    versatile, and useful. They can display a real-time shutter-speed preview.
    You can zoom into the pixels for accurate focusing. You can tell in
    real-time if your image has the proper white-balance and exposure, BEFORE
    you press the shutter, not after. The uses for an EVF and LCD are immense.
    They can also be used to frame and focus in light levels so low that an
    optical viewfinder has become totally useless long ago. There's so much you
    don't know about them because YOU'VE NEVER USED THEM.

    > or photography in general,


    Like you don't. Because you don't even own ONE camera. We've proved that
    time and time again.

    >and they don't want to learn either.


    Like you don't. Being the incessant pretend photographer troll that you
    are, you won't even buy a camera to find out just how wrong you've been all
    your life.

    > They may be
    >disappointed with their equipment in terms of lag times


    Lag times in compact and superzoom cameras are now even shorter than in
    DSLRs because they don't have to move those cumbersome mirrors and loudly
    slapping, image jarring, mechanical contraptions out of the way.

    > and low light
    >performance,


    My superzoom cameras can image stars down to magnitude 9.2. The human eye,
    on a good night of seeing, can only detect stars down to magnitude 6.0, 6.5
    if in the mountains away from all light pollution.

    > but they don't understand the reasons that they're
    >disappointed, and they've spent a lot less money than a D-SLR buyer. Our
    >favorite troll is ample proof of this.


    You being the main demented role-playing pretend photographer troll around
    here.

    How's that computer controlled geyser that you helped to install in
    Yellowstone? Been back there yet to work on it?

    <http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>

    If anyone wants to see just how fuckingly psychotic that you are and how
    much you like to role-play online in your imaginary world, that's a fun
    read.

    LOL!
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jul 17, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    SMS Guest

    On 17/07/10 6:51 AM, Rich wrote:

    > We don't know about how profitable they are. Assembly is probably the
    > single most costly part of a camera today (aside from perhaps the
    > sensor and prism in a DSLR) and it seems to be a superzoom P&S might
    > cost even more than a DSLR to assemble.


    I doubt it. You do have the additional assembly time of the lens, but
    you don't have the mechanical assembly of viewfinders or shutters (if
    they lack a mechanical shutter). The cameras are all assembled in very
    low wage countries.
     
    SMS, Jul 18, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, SMS <> wrote:
    > On 17/07/10 6:51 AM, Rich wrote:
    >
    > > We don't know about how profitable they are.  Assembly is probably the
    > > single most costly part of a camera today (aside from perhaps the
    > > sensor and prism in a DSLR) and it seems to be a superzoom P&S might
    > > cost even more than a DSLR to assemble.

    >
    > I doubt it. You do have the additional assembly time of the lens, but
    > you don't have the mechanical assembly of viewfinders or shutters (if
    > they lack a mechanical shutter). The cameras are all assembled in very
    > low wage countries.


    Fuji is infuriating. Their top superzoom P&S is bigger than entry
    level DSLRs. Couple it with the TINY sensor, and it screams, "waste
    of space, weight and dollars."
     
    Rich, Jul 19, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    SMS Guest

    On 18/07/10 8:58 PM, Rich wrote:
    > On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, SMS<> wrote:
    >> On 17/07/10 6:51 AM, Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>> We don't know about how profitable they are. Assembly is probably the
    >>> single most costly part of a camera today (aside from perhaps the
    >>> sensor and prism in a DSLR) and it seems to be a superzoom P&S might
    >>> cost even more than a DSLR to assemble.

    >>
    >> I doubt it. You do have the additional assembly time of the lens, but
    >> you don't have the mechanical assembly of viewfinders or shutters (if
    >> they lack a mechanical shutter). The cameras are all assembled in very
    >> low wage countries.

    >
    > Fuji is infuriating. Their top superzoom P&S is bigger than entry
    > level DSLRs. Couple it with the TINY sensor, and it screams, "waste
    > of space, weight and dollars."


    No, you get a larger quantity of camera for your money. There are buyers
    that believe that bigger is always better.
     
    SMS, Jul 19, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    zulu Guest

    > You being the main demented role-playing pretend photographer troll around
    > here.


    have to take pictures to be photographer troll. you just troll part
    not photographer part. read lots talk lots anger lots pictures none.

    where LOL! Outing Trolls is FUN! Better Info Truman photos?
     
    zulu, Jul 19, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    RichA wrote:
    >
    > Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks. Used to encompass only a
    > couple hours like current, more robust forums. Pretty soon, like the
    > Kodak SLR forum. Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of
    > changeable lens camera.



    No, it's time for Fuji to introduce a disposable DSLR! Coupling
    that, with aggressive price-cutting tactics, will undermine both
    Nikon and Canon, alike.

    Hmmm...sounds familiar, does it not?

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jul 20, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Me wrote:
    >
    > On 15/07/2010 3:05 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > > Front page messages stretch back 2 weeks. Used to encompass only a
    > > couple hours like current, more robust forums. Pretty soon, like the
    > > Kodak SLR forum. Time for Fuji to step-up and produce some kind of
    > > changeable lens camera.

    >
    > Fujifilm is about 3x the size (revenue) of Nikon, almost as large as Canon.
    > In the end, perhaps they've observed from their activities in all areas,
    > that in many cases market players in position #1 and #2 can make good
    > money, and in position #3 and less, you end up selling on price, or if
    > you're lucky, cater to a small niche with low volume but good margins,
    > always at risk that a major player would one day decide to attack and
    > take that niche position.
    > If they've guessed the cost of Sony's attempt to get to #2, looked at
    > the success of that investment, then they can probably find better areas
    > in which to invest.
    > IIRC they're still working on "organic CMOS" sensor technology.



    My online research revealed that Fuji has far surpassed Kodak, in
    terms of revenue. When did this occur?

    I'm somewhat puzzled, as Fuji seems to have done an even worse job
    of transitioning from film to digital, than Kodak has.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jul 20, 2010
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. S.

    dpreview Forum Poll 20D Firmware Update

    S., Oct 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    329
    Chuck
    Oct 6, 2004
  2. fuji s9000 test on dpreview!

    , Oct 31, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    424
    David J Taylor
    Nov 2, 2005
  3. ob1cnob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    368
    ob1cnob
    Mar 30, 2006
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    257
    Bruce
    Jul 29, 2010
  5. Bruce

    Re: Dpreview; Canon forums dying

    Bruce, Jul 6, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    303
    RichA
    Jul 7, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page