Fuji's S3, a mistake?

They push it as a pro camera, make the body integral
with an obligatory battery base, but I'm wondering if
they'd have sold many more if they'd put it in a
"prosumer" DSLR body (like a 20D or Minolta 7D)
and charged a great deal less for it? This camera
costs $3000 for the body in Canada, then you need to buy
a Nikon lens. Did Fuji intend that it not become a
consumer camera at all but instead positioned it as
a cheaper alternative to the top of the line Canon
and Nikon cameras?
I can't help thinking it would be an attractive choice with
a smaller body and a smaller price.

"RichA" wrote in message
...
They push it as a pro camera, make the body integral
with an obligatory battery base, but I'm wondering if
they'd have sold many more if they'd put it in a
"prosumer" DSLR body (like a 20D or Minolta 7D)
and charged a great deal less for it? This camera
costs $3000 for the body in Canada, then you need to buy
a Nikon lens. Did Fuji intend that it not become a
consumer camera at all but instead positioned it as
a cheaper alternative to the top of the line Canon
and Nikon cameras?
I can't help thinking it would be an attractive choice with
a smaller body and a smaller price.

A 1Ds MkII would be a more attractive camera in a smaller size with a
smaller price, too. Fuji, in my opinion, did it right, indeed positioning
themselves as an alternative to the Nikon pro cameras, at a lower price.
Especially to photographers who have some investment in a Nikon system.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

RichA wrote:

and charged a great deal less for it? This camera
costs $3000 for the body in Canada, then you need to buy
a Nikon lens. Did Fuji intend that it not become a
consumer camera at all but instead positioned it as
a cheaper alternative to the top of the line Canon
and Nikon cameras?
I can't help thinking it would be an attractive choice with
a smaller body and a smaller price.

The key thing with the S2 and S3 (and some other Fujifilm cameras) is
the sensor design that provides for a wider dynamic range reaching into
the highlights for more detail. (By 1 to 2 stops if I understand
correctly). This is where it counts: how much light can you record with
detail. Perhaps Fujifilm could sell this sensor to ... K-M for a pro
Maxxum 9D... that would be very nice!

It's also aimed at pros who already have Nikon glass. So a fantastic
combination.

The S3 body is otherwise not very inspiring being based on the "not
quite there" F80.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"RichA" wrote in message
...
They push it as a pro camera, make the body integral
with an obligatory battery base, but I'm wondering if
they'd have sold many more if they'd put it in a
"prosumer" DSLR body (like a 20D or Minolta 7D)
and charged a great deal less for it? This camera
costs $3000 for the body in Canada, then you need to buy
a Nikon lens. Did Fuji intend that it not become a
consumer camera at all but instead positioned it as
a cheaper alternative to the top of the line Canon
and Nikon cameras?
I can't help thinking it would be an attractive choice with
a smaller body and a smaller price.

I love mine, but working with a D1x everyday by comparison the plastic body
does worry me a little. And only a little though. Also I generally find that
things that have "Pro" or "Quality" in the name tend not to be!!

Up until now the plastic body is the only thing I can fault with my S3 - but
then if it had been made of magnesium alloy I doubt I could have afforded
it.

Craig.

It's one of the only cameras reviewed on dpreview.com that has their
poorest rating, "Above Average." It would be hard to find a reason to
buy the S3 rather then the D2x or the D70. Once you're spending that
much money, you may as well go all the way to an D2x, or settle for the
D70.

A 1Ds MkII would be a more attractive camera in a smaller size with a
smaller price, too. Fuji, in my opinion, did it right, indeed positioning
themselves as an alternative to the Nikon pro cameras, at a lower price.
Especially to photographers who have some investment in a Nikon system.


The 1DMk2 would be nice in a 'amateur' body, giving the equivalent of the
EOS3 which had the features, and some improvements of the EOS1/N in the
film world.

On 8 Jun 2005 09:32:57 -0700, Scharf-DCA wrote:
It's one of the only cameras reviewed on dpreview.com that has their
poorest rating, "Above Average."

Kinda makes one wonder just what the heck they mean by "average".

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

Anything worse than "Above Average" probably just doesn't get the
review published, or ever done in the first place, i.e. "this is too
horrible to bother reviewing."

I had to look very hard to find any camera that had a rating of below
"Recommended."

A good place to start when looking for a camera, is to limit your
search to "Highly Recommended."

Scharf-DCA wrote:

A good place to start when looking for a camera, is to limit your
search to "Highly Recommended."

For once we agree.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/koni...a7d/page26.asp



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On 8 Jun 2005 13:33:45 -0700, "Scharf-DCA"
wrote:

Anything worse than "Above Average" probably just doesn't get the
review published, or ever done in the first place, i.e. "this is too
horrible to bother reviewing."

I had to look very hard to find any camera that had a rating of below
"Recommended."

A good place to start when looking for a camera, is to limit your
search to "Highly Recommended."

I guess it depends on your criteria. It produces some pretty amazing
images.