webber15: More bashing of the fuji autofocus (continuous)...a tired argument now...I own the xt10,,and do bif's...the fuji wipes the floor with the oly em5 I had and is easily comparable to the pentax k20d and 300mm f4...
Webber Webber Webber... Oh Webber. Just...
Oliver Bedford: Funny. Each new Sony camera overwhelms us with ever increasing, almost incredible specs, but at the same time every camera is more and more boring. I mean: 61 or 425 or 867 focus points, does anybody care? At the end it's only the personal shooting experience that matters.
Boring is a good word. They've really suckled the character out of their crop bodies.
pixelMario: Just wondering... The ones that are bitching about lack of lenses for aps-c, aren't the sigma primes a good choice ? the 19/30/60mm ones for E-mount?
If I would jump on the sony mirrorless train those would be the 3 and only lenses I would get (probably) + an adapter for more specific lenses.
The Sigma image quality is very highly regarded, especially for the price. For me personally, 2.8 and no IS was off-putting, and I'm not especially interested in those focal lengths. Basically they're a bit too niche to solve the Sony lens deficit problem.
For me a huge problem is the lack of good longer zooms. And no I don't want to adapt one or use FE because I got this system to be compact.
Thanks to all the entrants - found this challenge extremely interesting, and great motivation to stop being lazy and ignoring my RAW files!
robbinsbox: yawn..more lens pls
Well, to some extent... given the existence of the Batis 85 I don't think anyone would say the new 85 was essential, even as a 1.4.
I struggle to be civil to people who point out that there are plenty of large expensive FF lenses for the people who chose a crop camera specifically because they wanted compact, affordable lenses.
Clint009: No touch screen? That is a gadget, it would cost more otherwise. In winter? Not useful at all.
But to get the camera silent that is a big plus. Mainly with Expandable up to ISO 51200 for stills and up to ISO 25600 for movies. It will be more discreet for shooting in low light.I don’t do any video at all. Not useful for me.So the A6000 is very fine with my usage.
Oh stop. It costs about $10 in hardware and some people find it incredibly useful for af point selection, especially where there is no joystick.
You can just turn it off if you don't want it, why in Christ's name would having a cheap extra feature that many people legitimately benefit from bother you.
I think this is exciting for everyone except those people more on the prosumer-end trying to use the Sony E APSC system as their primary kit.
If you've got access to other system lenses and can afford to adapt them, and don't mind the size, you're fine. If this body is a backup to that other system/FE then this body will be a fantastic update.
If you're a kit lens user then the blazing af should help you shoot kids/cats, plus 4k and 120fps are very nice to have.
If you bought into the system hoping to have a compact kit bag with a great body and matched compact lenses covering wide angle to wildlife-tele, this new body does absolutely nothing to help your somewhat failed investment.
Androole: No touchscreen, no IBIS, no weather sealing.
Copper wiring should make for a much better performing sensor (probably up to D5500 or X-Pro 2 performance). AF and Live View sounds great. 4K is significant.
It looks like a very solid technical update, but I can't help but feeling underwhelmed. Very little ergonomic improvement, or expansion of the usage envelope, which was realistically the only areas that the A6000 fell down (aside from lens lineup).
This is a very strong competitor for something like a Panasonic G7 or E-M10 II. It's not really in the same playground as an Samsung NX1 (RIP), Panasonic GX8, or likely a forthcoming Olympus E-M1 Mk. II.
All that would be fine, but when you're charging $1000 body only, you're under harsh scrutiny, and your old camera is looking like a much, much better value.
Alpha - I'm tired of hearing people talk about adapted lenses being the answer. Relying on adapted solutions adds size and cost. It's a wonderful option to have but for God's sake get your native lineup sorted too.
FodgeandDurn: You could buy two GX8's for the price of this. Of course that comparison only gets you so far with such different lens lineups, but still. The GX8 is a pretty serious flagship rangefinder, I'm struggling to say that this camera isn't hugely overpriced.
Thanks for the insightful replies, certainly wasn't intending to troll. Just musing on the fact that while the Fuji is clearly a fantastic camera with a unique selling point, it has very capable competition at half the price.
Both cameras are large, handsomely retro range-finders, both with brand new sensors not available elsewhere yet. They each have good manual controls, weather sealing, and even incredibly similar dimensions: http://camerasize.com/compare/#650,629
I would agree that the Fuji is worth more, but as someone without an investment in either system the pricing of the GX8 looks exciting, while the pricing of the Fuji looks intimidating. Both systems have lenses I'd love to own.
Of course if the Fuji sits in a 'luxury' bracket then this discussion is somewhat moot. And I suspect it does. Whether that makes it worth twice a GX8 or D7200 etc is an interesting question.
(Also I would dispute the idea that the GX8 is for video geeks, for one thing it has no headphone jack).
You could buy two GX8's for the price of this. Of course that comparison only gets you so far with such different lens lineups, but still. The GX8 is a pretty serious flagship rangefinder, I'm struggling to say that this camera isn't hugely overpriced.
VENTURE-STAR: I wish I could see some obvious advantages over the Canon G7X or a similar Sony camera, but I can't. The price of the X70 is too high for what it has to offer. The build quality suggested by the pictures looks okay rather than outstanding and the controls appear to be badly positioned. As for the teleconverter this really seems like a pointless gimmick that will degrade quality.
Some people are going to like this camera and perhaps it should be judged by the results it produces and the product's reliability, but it's unlikely to sell in big numbers and is certainly not for me.
If we're talking about light handling the fact that the Sony sensor is years newer has a part to play. People (such as lonelyspeck.com) have used the Sony 1" to produce some amazing astro photos, for example.
I'm sure there are advantages to Fuji's fixed lens, even when combined with an old sensor, but for many the added versatility and baked-in viewfinder on the Sony are hard to ignore. Much less charming camera of course. I'd feel much more inspired to shoot with an X70.
If I were desperate for a 28mm 2.8 I'd just get an older GR.
Don Diafragma: People who complain about this camera and its specifications have no understanding of whom is interested in it and to whom this camera is aimed at.
Yes, complainers, its not for you - Its not YOUR type of camera and its NOT aimed at you if specifications is ALL that you care for.
This is a dedicated camera for dedicated photographers that value the art of photography instead of valuing the use of a computer that takes pictures.
If you do not understand the uniqueness of this camera then indeed it does not make sense to you. It also never will.
Honestly, reading complaints about complainers is 100% as tedious as reading repeated complaints.
BigG30: Dear entire photo community - let me save you the bother: "it doesn't have <INSERT FEATURES HERE>" followed by "not for me".
The same boring things internet armchair experts say about a piece of camera equipment they'll never own. As a Fuji owner, this is an excellent incremental update and I expect the X-T2 to be just as superb. I've also looked at the ouput images from the Xpro-2 and this is everything anyone who prints ~100cm wide will ever need.
In all honesty, while I sympathize to some extent, I've always seen the people who complain about the complainers as part of the problem not the solution.
Your posts are just as tedious to read as the complaints, and there are already several such examples in this thread alone.
Frank_BR: Interestingly, the Nikon D500 has just been released, but in several important specifications it is surpassed by the Sony A77 II, which was launched nearly two years ago. For example:A77II x D500----------------1) 12fps x 10fps2) 24MP x 21MP3) Fully x Partially articulated LCD 4) Yes x No built-in flash5) 640g x 860g6) $1199 x $1997
Before someone raises the issues of build quality and reliability, remember that both cameras have magnesium bodies and are weather-sealed. There are no reports about serious problems of reliability for the A77II and nobody knows about the D500 reliability yet.
Vitruvius, you use AF as an example of something you love about the A77II, but neutral reviews (too many of them to point at bias) almost universally agree that Sony's AF is behind Nikon. Nikon's 3D tracking, which is exactly the sort of feature that will sell this body to professionals, is often praised as leading the industry.
If the Sony's tracking is great for you then good for you, but you are going against the grain of fairly established gospel.
To make a flawed analogy: the Mercedes ML has far more bells and whistles than a Land Rover Defender, almost every component is decades newer. It is far more comfortable and it has things like in-built WiFi. Yet armies and farmers don't buy Mercedes MLs, they buy the Land Rover Defender, though it has a similar price and no fancy electronics. It does a few things these professionals need, and it does them better than anything else. Nikon D500 go figure. Perceived modernity isn't everything when you're using something to do a job.
What davev8 said.
I think if you can't see the big differences, or don't think they are important, then you will be extremely happy with the A77ii or something like a D7200 or Pentax K3ii.
For some people a 200 shot vs 20 shot buffer is part of a package that is well worth $1000 more. For those people this camera will be great. If that doesn't make sense to you don't sweat it, shooting friends and landscapes doesn't need 200 continuous shots so enjoy the extra lens you can afford.
But some people really do need those small (or big, for them) differences. The fact that you quoted fps without mentioning the buffer depth kinda says it all (not supposed to sound patronising).
deep7: "..with an equivalent maximum aperture of F8 and F12.6 on the 200mm and 800mm equivalent ends". One of the true advantages of m4/3 over larger formats - particularly at very long focal lengths, the extra depth of field is very welcome!
Well also you're talking about the very highest resolution DSLR's here. Someone weighing up the purchase of a GX8 is not going to be comparing it to a 5DS, at most they will be comparing to a 6D/D610 etc, which have much less dense sensors.
For someone on a $2000 budget who wants to shoot wildlife at a distance this is still a compelling option, and still has a reach advantage. You'd have to spend $0000s on top of that in body and lenses to negate the M4/3 reach advantage.
You're talking about spending far more money and carrying a far bulkier kit just so you can crop and end up with basically the same format result. I understand your point on an academic level, but in real life the fact that you can crop into a super hi-res DSLR frame doesn't really mean much.
RaghavBaijal: As a Sony A6000 owner, I feel jealous of this lens. Even Fuji has an upcoming 400mm lens. While Sony, is totally silent... Nothing over 200mm... Nothing...
I'm a Sony E crop user with a growing interest in wildlife photography. I've got some photos with the 55-210 that I'm OK with, but I'd like something much better soon. That lens is also horribly slow to focus.
I also love long exposure night-shots which the MFT system is pretty unsuited to. But this lens has made the system very tempting.
On a side note I also like the Fuji system, but while they have better quality zooms they don't offer any more reach.
I can see myself owning two systems soon, and currently Sony E crop doesn't look like one of them. Which is a shame.
Lovely idea. Can imagine having a lot of fun with this. I can also imagine it being used in film schools to get students used to shooting film.
However, that price. Fuji Instax has been a runaway success because it is so cheap it's a spontaneous purchase.
I'd really like to see Kodak do well, I'd even like one of these, but no way am I spending that much on it.
tasad: This house - architecturally and historically - has nothing to dowith a "victorian house"... It's a 16th-century cottage.
I have to say, as an English native that did leap out at me like a sore thumb - that house is quite ancient. But it's a nice shot regardless, and I guess it would have been inhabited during the 1800's...