I have been a long-time reader of various forums (such as dpreview.com/forum/Fuji SLR talk) devoted to reviewing and commenting on digital SLR cameras, including Fuji DSLRs. I am an unabashed fan-boy of their digital SLRs. Let me say it: there is nothing on the market today that can actually replace it for--what to me--matters most about image quality: dynamic range, esp. in the highlights, and most particularly for skin tones / portrait photographers (including, of course, wedding photographers).
Yes, we know Nikon and Sony have both pushed the envelope, and the "answer" could be the D3x. Except for obvious reasons: price and size. Perhaps there will be a lower cost body that uses the same sensor. But so far, according to DXO's database, no other camera (apart from a couple of very recent medium format back) approach the Fuji's d-range.
Lest you think I have not tried the other brands, indeed I have -- extensively. I'm a professional photographer and also a photography coach, so I see output from cameras that I myself don't own. I have owned several recent Nikon models. I shoot only RAW (as do my students) and I am adept at image-processing and extracting the best performance from a camera (prior to 'going digital' I scanned film and have been using a digital workflow for more than 10 years).
Clearly, Fuji has missed the product cycle for an S5 replacement and by all 'net accounts appears done with DSLRs. There are rumors they may be looking at a 4/3 camera, which makes sense (these small sensors are even MORE d-range challenged than APS or 'full frame.). While a Fuji 4/3 camera with their sensor technology would be attractive, I think, their history of making competitive also-ran cameras gives me pause. Now, if they could do a digital XPAN or p/s with medium format sensor, as they did in the film category in the 90s, they would have something unique. But a 4/3 camera with the Fuji sensor, still, would be better than nothing from them. While 4/3 has a strong attraction, it is not a replacement for traditional SLR, particularly one that uses Nikon mount lenses, such as the Fuji pro cameras.
I think we have to admit that Fuji is a very strange company on the PR front. They seem only to communicate through new product releases; they seem to have exactly zero sense of audience, and (from what I can tell) no interest in the professional market--though one does not know until the next camera appears. Why they would choose this strategy is anyone's guess, but mine is that cameras simply are not of great interest to this giant company. Also, in their home market they still sell a lot of film (as they do world-wide). Nevertheless, the wall of stone is thick.
OK - so what is a photographer accustomed to the wonderful Fuji image quality to do? Obviously, the Nikon D700 / D300s are alternatives. But are they really?
Speaking for myself, I wasn't persuaded to go digital until I bought and started using a Fuji S2. I took a long time to get even my toes in the way, because nearly every digital image I look at just screamed out 'digital' - usually because of the tonal roll off from mid to highlights.
I'm a people and event photographer. Canon, Nikon, et al, digital cameras have greatly affected the average 'look' of portraits because of their limited dynamic range. I realize this is a bold, sweep statement, and I acknowledge the many exceptions. More importantly, I acknowledge that mine is a very narrow and somewhat technically grounded quibble, and that whether one uses Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, or some other brand has no bearing on the quality of one's photographs as photographs--that is, their strength and communication as images.
But for those who have experience working with film, particularly color negative and black and white, or have spent hours working in the darkroom to make a fine print, the issues of tonal scale cannot be ignored.
Much has been made of the "extra" headroom of the Fuji RAW file, as though 'if you really need it, you have it' (read: if you're technique is sloppy or you want to recover badly overexposed images you can'). What's missed here is that without the extra headroom, the tonal scale from mid to highlight, to the point of blow out, is significantly different. This difference affects the "look" of skin by causing slightly exaggerated highlights below the level of true highlight and a subtle but clear shift in color. Because the Fuji holds detail and retains color above the threshold of almost all other sensors, skin tones appear natural both in the mid and upper tones. I have tested this extensively, and I'm certain many of you on this forum have seen this phenomena. Look at any number of examples of commercial portrait work (they're everywhere if you have your limited d-range glassed on) and you can see the effects I'm talking about.
I've used several Nikon digital SLR cameras (and own one) -- which, I should add, perform much better than the corresponding Fuji model, in terms of speed -- and from my forum readings have been encouraged that my 'obsession' with Fuji image quality is just that: an exaggeration on my part of the importance of the Fuji d-range capability, and that with more careful technique I could do just as well with the Nikon.
Indeed, there are things to recommend the Nikon, and I like the image quality of the D300 / D700, even consumer cameras have good color--in my opinion. But the extent to which they (easily) lose highly detail, and more importantly, show the kinds of tonal limitations with skin tones, makes them mostly unacceptable, to me at least. I realize I may be thoroughly flamed for this statement, but that's my belief. Nikon has dealt with the upper tonal range limitations of its cameras through a combination of clever work-arounds, such as improved signal processing (reducing noise to make the sensors more underexposure tolerant), bending the tonal scale (so that clipping appears to be more gradual), and improving response in the upper mid-tones. Nikon image quality, truly is excellent for many subjects, but the highlight limitations are still quite evident--though one can work around these to a degree by using the old bw technique of exposing for the shadows (to get detail) and developing (processing) for the highlights (in essence, applying a reverse "S" in processing).
So, here's how I see it: at one point in time, Fuji assessed the market and concluded they had enough customers to justify developing a pro camera. They wanted to be players in the newly emerging DSLR marketplace, and while others had a bigger footprint in the camera market, generally, it was a new day because of the paradigm shift from film.
Over the next several models, Fuji's place in the market held steady or shrunk. I would argue that while the new cameras (S3, S5) were good they weren't compelling enough to customers who did not appreciate the unique imaging potential of their technology. On this forum and elsewhere those who come late to Fuji find these cameras a discovery if not a revelation, but Fuji itself has not done enough to make the cameras competitive in other areas (esp. speed). More importantly, they have done a miserable job marketing the product.
In truth, we (Fujistas) would be in a much better place if some other company had the technology and was genuinely interested in the camera market; Fuji simply appears not to be.
Here is my thought: what if we could present Fuji with a special kind of petition from the customer base? I have in mind a unique proposition:
Members of this forum who are interested in the next generation Fuji DSLR consider whether you would be willing to buy sight unseen, the next Fuji pro camera. To be clear: this is NOT a blank check to Fuji to make anything, at any price. Not all.
However, it is an earnest and realistic proposition, as follows (full list of specs TBD by interested parties): build us a camera similar to the S5 in build quality and features, but with a 24x36 sensor and performance characteristics at least 25% better than the S5 (this is still a FAR cry from Nikon's pro camera performance). Price it within 25-35% (higher) than the equivalent Nikon MSRP (so, we're talking $3500-4000), and we, the undersigned will buy it upon release. Oh, and don't forget about the AA filter -- ease up!
I think it is important to give Fuji both a sense of the interest and size of its customer and would-be customer base as well as a modest technical target. Clearly, the Dxxx platform has been out long enough for Nikon to reached economies of scale and thus to make this shell cost-effective for Fuji to purchase (no, we DON'T want them going their own way with a DSLR design). So, it's in everyone's interest to help Fuji think in terms of a modest upgrade to the S5, not a wish-list camera.
Speaking for myself, a full frame S5 with reduced AA filter sharpening and current Nikon AF would be a 'dream' camera. I would be fine with 12-18 MP, it doesn't really matter. Icing is welcome but not required.
To me, the need for a new Fuji pro camera is a critical element in my work as a digital practitioner. Would I care if some other company met or surpassed Fuji's handling of highlights and d-range? Not at all! But I don't see much true development occurring in this area, and I worry that in the current economy manufacturers are trying to get maximum longevity out of existing technology. Indeed, I would like nothing more than to see some newer sensor technology developed along the Foveon line of thinking with Fuji's d-range and Nikon's low noise, maybe packaged both in SLR and rangefinder form factors. But unfortunately, the dynamics of the industry will probably not allow that to happen.
In the meantime, the best alternative is from Fuji, and I believe 'the base' needs to take an aggressive stance with the mother ship: let's create a petition and write them on open letter. I think if we can bring them thousands of ready-to-buy prospects, they will consider (come, and they will build it).
Thanks for giving this your consideration.
Joshua Daniels