Talk:Fujifilm X series

X Series or X-series?
Fujifilm refers to this family of cameras as X Series without the hyphen, and I'm wondering if this article should do the same. Currently it uses almost every form you can think of - X-Series, X-series, X series - so it would make sense to standardise on one of them. The problem here is that the article itself is called Fujifilm X-series - so should we change the name of the article or change the article references? (If the former, how does one do that anyway?!) VagrantDarter (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 one external links on Fujifilm X-series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120309145541/http://www.fujifilm.eu:80/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/ to http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120912030316/http://www.fujifilm.eu:80/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/fujinon-xf14mmf28-r/ to http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/fujinon-xf14mmf28-r/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121121051925/http://www.fujifilm.eu:80/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/fujinon-xf18mmf2-r/ to http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/fujinon-xf18mmf2-r/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121121051243/http://www.fujifilm.eu:80/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/fujinon-xf60mmf24-r-macro/ to http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/fujinon-xf60mmf24-r-macro/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120911142344/http://www.fujifilm.eu:80/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/fujinon-xf18-55mmf28-4-r-lm-ois/ to http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/fujinon-xf18-55mmf28-4-r-lm-ois/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150724160946/http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/fujinon-xf55-200mmf35-48-r-lm-ois/ to http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/fujinon-xf55-200mmf35-48-r-lm-ois/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130607222620/http://lenses.zeiss.com:80/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/touit/touit2812.html to http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/touit/touit2812.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130617210011/http://lenses.zeiss.com:80/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/touit/touit1832.html to http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/touit/touit1832.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121208013653/http://www.rokinon.com:80/product.php?id=195 to http://www.rokinon.com/product.php?id=195
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120802234510/http://www.fujifilm.eu:80/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/wide-conversion-lens-wcl-x100/ to http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/digital-cameras/pro-enthusiast/model/wide-conversion-lens-wcl-x100/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fujifilm X-series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/64hALKVYX?url=http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n120110.html to http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n120110.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Basic Errors
The article says: "The X series itself is not characterized by a single common sensor size, technology or a lens format, but rather the emphasis on the controls needed by an advanced digital camera user.[opinion]"

This is untrue. All X series are APS sized sensors. Fuji has a second range of cameras using medium format sized sensors, and they are the GFX series.

The article says "The Fujifilm X series of digital cameras consists of Fujifilm's high-end digital cameras"

This is untrue. The GFX are the high end offerings for professional photographers, and are significantly higher resolution and more expensive.

This article badly needs to be re-written. As it stands it is simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's unclear what you're asking for here in this thread. Couldn't you have corrected these things with less typing than it took complain about it? Is there something else you need before you can proceed? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, maybe it's better to have held off. Some discontinued X series cameras used 2/3" sensors, not APS-C, such as X20, XQ1 XQ2, XF1, X10, X30, and XS1. It might be true to say that the current lineup only uses the APS-C, but it's fair to say that the entire X series is not characterized by a single sensor, lens format or specific technology. You could characterize it as the controls, or just an exercise in branding. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Multiple timeline representations
I've recently started working on cleaning up this article. My first task was to add third party sources, so that the article doesn't rely so heavily on citations from Fujifilm itself. I've completed this effort and removed the "Independent Sources" maintenance template.

The next big issue I see is that the article contains two representations of the model timeline; three if you count the one contained in the template transcluded at the bottom. They're slightly different, but I'm not sure they're sufficiently so to warrant maintaining both. Another issue is that the first one is getting to be too wide to display correctly on a typical screen.

Before I get rid of one or the other, I wanted to see if we could reach consensus on which format (if either) is deemed more useful/ accessible, or if there is a cogent reason that I'm overlooking to maintain both.

&mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You are right, two different representations for all the camera models is too much. I like the first representation with the colors, because it shows very clearly the different generations and sensor models. On the other side, the second representation contains some additional information that is useful. Because both representations will only get wider on the page, as more camera models get released, I would like to propose a new representation.
 * The new representation could be some kind of 90 degrees rotation of the previous ones. So the years are represented in the vertical axis, and the different camera types are in the horizontal axis. In the horizontal axis we can show the different series (X, X Pro, X-H, X-T, GFX, X-A, XF, X-S, XQ, X-M and X-E) grouped together per market segment(Professional, Enthusiast and Entry-Level) and Lens type (Fixed, X mount and G mount). Then we can divide in sensor format, also in the horizontal direction below the series information, and provide the viewfinder details. From then on to the bottom we can show the camera models in a vertical way.
 * I would like to hear what you think about this idea. Of course it is quite a big task to get the new representation working, and maybe we can slim down on the amount of information to keep the table containable, but I think it will be more future proof this way
 * &mdash;Deraedemaekers (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I created a mockup of the table in Template talk:Fujifilm X-series digital cameras. Can someone with more experience of tables see if it is possible to finish the work?
 * --Deraedemaekers (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your new vertically aligned table looks like it has promise, but before we get too deep into defining a solution, it might be useful to define what we want to communicate. A timeline typically has time along the X-axis, so before we stand that convention on its head (or its side), lets make sure the outcome is strong enough to buck that trend.
 * For example, for the purposes of this article, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to include the GFX models. It seems like the table you're envisioning, might actually be a potential replacement for the one contained in Template:Fujifilm X-series digital cameras.
 * To take a step back, I'd be interested in understanding what information you see as being conveyed by the Cameras by year of introduction table that isn't encompassed in the table above it? The only thing I can see is the type of viewfinder, but I don't think that justifies the duplication, nor is really critical to the presentation.
 * Is there any other data about these cameras that should be included? Could the hierarchical categorization in the Camera chronology table (the colorful one) be streamlined? Those initial columns are taking up a lot of horizontal space. Maybe what we need to do is add a section in the article that defines what the varies X series lines are (e.g. X-Pro features a hybrid viewfinder and interchangeable lens in a rangefinder form factor, X100 features a hybrid viewfinder and fixed lens in a rangefinder style, X-T is a DSLR-style with an electronic viewfinder, etc.) Then, once we have those categories defined, we can just use those categories in the table.
 * Before we reinvent the wheel, I've got to think that some of these questions have been encountered and addressed previously. Perhaps we need to look to other articles for examples we might be able to leverage.
 * &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's nice to have just one table. Having 2 (+1 at the bottom), seems to be redundant, not unless if the table doesn't look like that in the bottom, but in this case, it is. I looked into Canon's page, their approach is a table for naming scheme, and another for release date. Nikon is doing a list. Micro 4/3 is doing a spec table. Sony is doing a detailed spec. Lumix is doing a different approach.
 * &mdash; RigorImpossible (talk)


 * I'm glad we're all on the same page with eliminating the second table. Like you, I took a bit of a look around at other brands both in and outside of the photography sphere and didn't come across anything that struck me as a perfect solution to apply to this article, but there are some ideas that we could probably incorporate.
 * As a stopgap I tweaked the existing Camera chronology table to allow it to fit on the page.
 * &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I looked at the different pages for other brands of cameras, and maybe we can adapt the Fujifilm X series template a little bit to fit our needs, and make it more similar to the ones from Nikon and Canon. I don't think the viewfinder information needs to be in the template timeline, but that information can be placed in the sections about the different X series camera lines. We can replace the current timeline with the updated template timeline. This way we only need to maintain the Fujifilm X series template timeline. The second table can be dropped easy, I don't think there is a need for it. Do you think it is necessary to include the Class information in the timeline?
 * For the direction of the Fujifilm X series template, after some extra time to think about it, I would prefer to keep the time in the horizontal direction. This is uniform with the templates from other brands. Also the Fujifilm GFX series needs to be dropped from the timeline, and a new timeline for this series needs to be created on its own page.
 * — Deraedemaekers (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I kinda like having the single Fujifilm X series template timeline that includes both the X and G series, so my inclination would be to leave that one as is. Although I appreciated the idea of splitting it so that it can be transcluded, I don't see a clean way that can be done without making big structural changes that would make that timeline less useful. I would lean toward leaving that one as is and just producing a separate streamlined single timeline in this article. Really, Fuji is only introducing a handful of new bodies each year, so it doesn't take that much to maintain it.
 * &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, I'm not a fan of the transclusion of the Fujifilm X & G series template into this article. Among the reasons I dislike this solution:
 * 1) The same table is  already transcluded in the footer section.
 * 2) This table includes the G series which is not covered by this article (but is appropriate to appear in this template IMO)
 * 3) Transcluding the  table in collapsed form doesn't appear to serve any purpose. I'd rather have the table (limited to actual X series models) appear in expanded form by default.

I get being bold but the whole reason I raised these questions in this talk page is that so we could reach a consensus before we institute the changes upon which we've agreed. Implementing poorly considered "solutions" strikes me as counterproductive. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I took a crack at adding brief definitions of the various X series "lines" in the X series model lines section. These were basically just quick off-the-cuff breakdowns. I need to go back and find and add sources as well as add the small-sensor models. I just wanted to get it started; I'm open to feedback or any edits that you feel are warranted. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I re-added a simplified version of the original chronology table using the model line designations which I defined. I also excised the duplicative chronology table and re-ordered the contents of the article somewhat for clarity. I still need to add some additional sources, but I think the article is becoming much more informative and useful. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

After further reflection, putting the "model line" designations into the table didn't add anything, since that information can be intuited by the model name. Also, having the rows in the table in chronological order similarly didn't add value. So, I broke the lines into fixed vs. interchangeable lens categories and reordered the rows into order by where they fall in the series in terms of quality/ price.

The "new" table comes almost full circle from the original, but I think the order of the groupings makes more sense, first by sensor size, then by lens type. Please let me know what you think. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)