AbrasiveReducer: The Japanese and Fuji in particular might take a lesson from the relative simplicity of this camera. Electronics, by nature, invite feature creep--like 17 speaker surround systems. But certain basic ideas just work, especially if you go with your strengths. I remember trying to push Leica SLRs when everybody wanted a rangefinder camera.
@Don presumably Fuji could remove the CFA from the X-T1, re-tune it and sell it at a higher price?
Felix11: I don't follow the logic of this:
"The lack of colored filters increases the amount of light that reaches the photodiodes compared to a filtered sensor,"
..makes sense so far, but then ...
"and thus the lowest ISO setting the camera offers is ISO 320"
Firstly, to avoid confusion, does 'lowest' ISO setting mean small value, less sensitive, closer to 100? Yes? Good!
In that case shouldn't the lowest setting be less than competitor cameras?e.g. 200 ISO is a common lowest value on APS-C models, and 100 ISO on full frame models.
If more light is able to get to the sensor due to the benefit of not having a CFA then a less sensitive setting (i.e. lower) should be required to avoid over exposure.
Please explain :-)
Thanks everybody. That makes sense now.
The sensor is the same as in other competitor cameras and would, in those models, be sold with the camera having a min. ISO setting of 200, however since the lack of CFA allows more light to reach the sensor in the Leica the min. ISO is 320.
It's just strange that you often see people wishing that certain cameras, say Fuji X-T1, had a min ISO setting of 100 instead of 200 so that it would not be necessary to use a filter in bright sunlight etc.
Whereas full frame models often do have lower min. ISO values than contemporaneous APS-C models.
It threw me that this new Leica is 'worse' in this sense.
I don't follow the logic of this:
justmeMN: Judging by the retro styling, Fujifilm doesn't want young people buying their cameras.
"Judging by the retro styling, Fujifilm doesn't want young people buying their cameras." << And who can blame them?
Felix11: "Both lenses, as we might expect, are manual focus only"
I wasn't expecting that, I am disappointed as I thought the Sony FE lens range was about to get significantly better.
Why did DPR expect that I would know they were manual focus?
Yes, there's always an exception .... Touit.
"Both lenses, as we might expect, are manual focus only"
@DPReview "at well over half the price" did you mean "at considerably less than half the price"?
tlinn: The very interesting discussion of "equivalent" aperture on page 1 left me with a question. I totally understand that f/2.8 on a smaller sensor provides less control over DOF than the same aperture on a larger sensor. But Jeff seems to state that there is also a difference in the amount of light let in. Is he simply stating the obvious—that more photons are allowed through the larger opening thereby improving image quality? If so, am I correct in assuming that the conversion table of equivalent apertures only seeks to account for the difference in DOF?
this graph is fantastic and I would love to see the concept extended so we could compare different cameras and lens. Say A7 with lesnes to X-t1 with lenses.
In my opinion whenever you (DPR) talk about equivalent aperture you always stress DOF and downplay or ignore total light.
Surely photography is about capturing light and minimizing false data (i.e. noise) and equivalent aperture is the over-riding factor. Saying that F2=F2=F2 completely ignores this.
please can you say a word on the auto focus performance (single shot, low light if possible) better than X-E2 or same? As good as what other camera (with which lens)?
This is a nice surprise!
I was expecting (based on Fuji's past performance) that there would be an update for the X-Pro1 in January/February when the new high end models were released. But this is an early Christmas present. :-)
tkbslc: You guys know this is really f4.9 on Medium format, right?
The point is that a good fast lens on M43 or APS-C can completely eliminate the advantage that "Full Frame".
The Panasonic 25mm F1.4 on a modern sensor M43 body will perform as well in light gathering and DOF as a 50mm F2.8 lens on any full frame body ever made.
Which is why the 35mm F2.8 Carl Zeiss announced for the Sony A7 is disappointing, indeed nearly pointless.
However the Carl Zeiss 24-70 F4 will be equivalent to 12-35 F2.0 on, say, the E-M1. Nice!
Is Sigma likely to start producing lenses like this (and the 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM) in the new Sony FE mount for the A7?
If they did would we expect all features to work? ie. OIS, AF etc?
Or is it more likely that I would need to buy a Canon to FE adapter and a Canon mount version of this Sigma lens (and use MF)?
Sorry to hijack the thread to talk about Sony :-)
DPR, since apparently Olympus includes an 'anti-shock' feature (1/8 second delay before capture) to work around this problem, it would be useful for us normal users if you could comment on whether this works and what the downside is.Thanks
Marijus: HmmSONY NEX--6 78% - Silver award.Fujifilm X-M1 77% - GOLD award.Can you explain why?Price is almost the same.NEX-6 has viewfinde, Fuji - doesn't;
I would hope that they are not treating the X-M1 and the Nex-6 in the same class of camera since one has built in EVF.
Sony NEX-6 £600 is excellent value high end device competing with X-E1, E-M5, GX7 etc.
X-M1 £680 is a mid range device competing with NEX-5, E-PL5 etc.
The only justification for the higher price is the faster lenses available for the Fuji. Tough sell!
One of the easiest tests with this scene (that I have found so far) is the details on the coins and the hair.
Unfortunately both of these appear only once.
What distance is the camera from the scene?
In full screen mode I think you could usefully reduce the percentage of the screen given to the whole scene and increase the area given to the comparisons.
I notice that in the page header Reviews > Studio Comparison Tool still links to the old version.
It seems to me that this new scene is going to result in a decline in the sales of expensive ILCs since it is much hareder to find differences between cameras than it used to be.
I think that this is an upshot of it being more of a real world test. That is to say, to most people the detail of the second hand on a watch shot from 12 inches is not very important!
I'll just nip out and buy a Sony DSC RX100 II
Artpt: First and foremost....thank you DPReview for the first look with sample and photo comparision...
To resolve the chatter of image quality and sensor size, could an image survey be posted that had your comparison tool photo but blank with camera information..
Only ISO categories are labeled. Then a handful of cameras available to vote on to guess which camera produced which image....the results would be a percentage of who guessed what right...or wrong....
It would be fun and I am sure it would convince some viewers that at our current level of technology, image quality may not be so easy to relate to the camera.....
Just a thought....
I think this tool is fantastic.
But I am concerned that the the difference between all the cameras eg. E-M1 and 5D Mark 3 is so minimal.
Is that an accurate reflection of reality or is the leading us astray?
Also:1. I am not certain the green fuzzy stuff is much use - certainly having so much of it!2. If the writing on the three cards was different on each card you wouldn't learn it of by heart in a single comparison session :-)3. My favourite spot on the old test scene was inside the box looking at the cotton reels. There doesn't seem to be a similar low light area here.4. Who is the man in the old fashioned print?
markgv: With the release of the new Pentax K-50, the Pentax K-30 for under $500 is an incredible amount of quality camera for the price.
From the DPR review of the Pentax K5 II:"slow autofocus was a concern with the K-5, and we found AF to be just about right with the K-5 II, and really quite good in low light"
Sounds to me like they should have selected the K5 II ($983) !
Valterj: In this list many good cameras are not included: Sony NEX-5R, Samsung cameras, ...
In the title : "Best DSLRs and ILCs for less than $1000"
Why did you include Olympus OM-D E-M5: $1299 with 12-50mm kit lens
And Fuji cameras like Fujifilm X-E1 16.3MP $799.00 are not included in this list...
It would have been much better to have stuck to $1000 including a lens and not put the OM-D.
However, once the rule was broken then not including the Gold award winning Fujifilm X-E1 (body $799, with kit zoom $1,199) in the gap between the $1000 and $1299 models was just bad service to anybody who actually uses the article for it's stated purpose.
They have to release that at the top end first and then move it down the range otherwise they will canabilize their sales