oscarvdvelde: Medium format used to be 56x42mm or larger. Perhaps 44x33 mm should be called "fuller frame"?
(Really though, such questions are academic, the area of amateurs' arguments. Decent pros just look for the tools that best meet their needs and budgets.)
Amen to that. Most people who use Hasselblads nowadays (and Leica Ss, come to that) seem to be doing so because they're afraid the prestige clients won't hire them if they don't - and to be fair, often that's true. Workaday pros of my acquaintance are going for Canon/Nikon fullframe for the mission-critical prestige work they'd previously have done on a 'blad, and Fuji Xs or Olympus E-Ms for the ex-35mm stuff.
LEGACYMOMENTSPHOTOGRAPHY: I remember the time when a camera was a still camera and a video camera was for video. great that you can on a still camera now, but i dont need video.
wish they would make simple just still cameras and lower the price, i love my canon 20D its a camera without the extra stuff i dont need. imaging if the used a 20D body with a 7D mark II sensor. You would get a good strong body and good images in a no frills to modern standards body. I am happy still using my 20D/30D though. seems they keep cramming stuff in to keep the prices high. Unlike computer which have gone down in price, cameras still remain quite expensive for the higher end ones.
"I think the problem with a digital Nikon FM is it's the photographic equivalent of 'suppose they gave a war and nobody came'. The one experiment with a more basic DSLR - the Nikon Df - took a lot of time to gain traction and arguably has never made its expected mark."
The reason the Df didn't fly is exactly what's being expressed in this thread - it wasn't basic enough and it was nothing like the FM. Everyone wanted a Digital FM and what they got was a hobbled D800, squeezed into an FM suit with all the buttons straining. It was a bloody awful idea. No wonder only a dozen hipsters bought one.
The Fuji XT1 is pretty much exactly what the Df / Digital FM should have been - nigh-on the same size as the original FM with simple, basic controls and a quiet shutter. All it needs now is decent video and I'm making the jump.
justinbacle: The thing is that no one reviewed the X-T1 after the firmware updates, which is a shame because the video mode is very close to the one in the X-PRO2.
Amusing video anyways :)
Really? AFAIK there are no actual *quality* improvements in the new firmware, just a better range of frame rates and the ability to use manual exposure.
I'd like it to be so, because I really want to jump ship to Fuji, but I'm not seeing any improvement yet, either in theory or practice.
KonstantinosK: Now if only Ricoh could find a way to include a EVF without altering the design and the size (at least not by much)....
peterwr: "... it’s nice if you want to be extra discrete ..."
Discreet. Discrete means separate, discreet means inconspicuous.
Happy to help. :-)
"... it’s nice if you want to be extra discrete ..."
D200_4me: This new body is good for people that like to use small prime lenses, but I was always more happy with the E-M1 body compared to the E-M5 I had before it. Slap a 12-40 f/2.8 or bigger lens on the PEN F and it's not going to be so comfy or nice looking. I'd rather have the functionality of this new camera, but in a more ergonomic body (a grip you can actually hold). I am SO over the 'look how tiny this new camera is' fad.
Looks like Olympus themselves make one:
justmeMN: "we do think that at the point of launch, the PEN-F is priced rather high." -DPR
The price is even higher, if you insist on actually using a lens. :-)
(The price is body-only.)
"The price is even higher, if you insist on actually using a lens. :-) "
Lenses are for wimps. It was a few inches of tin foil and a pin in my day. :-)
thoth22: These new cameras from Olympus and Fuji are very compelling. I'll take one of each please.
If Olympus and Fuji bring out a 20MP EM1 and a 20MP XT1 simultaneously, I will die of Toxic Option Syndrome.
cpt kent: Quite possibly the most despised camera on the internet at the moment. Seems to rub everybody the wrong way, at least one way.
I thought that was the Leica Monochrom? :-P
peterwr: Well I won't be getting one for three reasons:
1. It's far too big;
2. It doesn't do *everything* a Nikon D4 does; and
3. It costs more than £100.
Epic fail, Olympus.
* Just thought I'd pre-empt the haters... ;-)
D'oh! *Slaps self* :-)
Thomas Richter: Nice. But why a dedicated color/art dial and still no dedicated ISO dial? (Same applies to almost all cameras in the market; I just don't get it. Even PASM is less important to me. I mean; for that retro type of feeling I want focus on the essentials: shutter, aperture, ISO; visible, with imprinted numbers on the dials, not necessarily re-configurable; always at the same place; is it so hard?)Also, pricing it twice as much as the X-E2s might be a bit steep.
"I think on the film original the "art" dial was actually the shutter speed dial (and apertures were set via a dial around the lens)."
Scroll down about four screens.
Jon H Laake: 1. How do you move single focus point around viewscreen? (this is a major turn-off in my ep-5)
2. Is the B/W option a true monchrome mode in RAW?
"2. Is the B/W option a true monchrome mode in RAW?"
Not sure quite what you mean by this, but if you mean is it possible to get a raw file that doesn't carry any colour information (like the Leica Monochrom), I'd say no. The raw file contains all the data that comes straight off the chip, and the chip has a colour filter array in front of it, so there's colour information there regardless. You'd still have to desaturate or use the channel mixer in Photoshop/Camera RAW to get a monochrome picture. AFAIK, that applies to all cameras apart from the Monochrom and other specialist monochrome cameras.
It'd be nice if more manufacturers offered a monochrome-only option, though.
Uh, Thorgrem? I was joking.
But seriously, this looks like an excellent second camera for M1/M5 owners and street shooters. And 20MP too - it's about time.
Bring on the 20MP M1...
Well I won't be getting one for three reasons:
Lee Jay: This is why I have SLRs. They do everything well. Great ergonomics, great viewfinder, great autofocus, great speed, great responsiveness, great flexibility, great image quality. Every other type of camera is a sacrifice. For example, picking on the first camera mentioned in the article, the A6000 has the worst ergonomics of any camera I've ever held and also has a terrible viewfinder.
Great weight, great size... ;-)
Each to his own, I guess.
I use the clip-on OVF with my GR and it works fine. Not 100% accurate, obviously, but after a few experiments, I soon got my eye in. And if I really need it to be pocketable, I just unclip the OVF and pop it in its natty little storage bag.
God, this camera rocks.
Don Sata: "Because of 35mm film, they’re convinced that sensors should be [this format]. But it’s not true. Now, you can shoot detailed images [on the X-Pro2] at ISO 3200. In the film age, the maximum ISO was 400-800."
I do believe that focusing exclusively on APS format is a smart move: Nikon and Canon's APS specific lens line really sucks not to mention Sony's. I was always happy with the size and convenience of an APS DSLR and I was very happy to discover the extra convenience of a mirrorless APS system with a line of very compact lenses.
As an art director I have never needed a 24 megapixel image for my work... a few years ago 24 megapixels were MF territory and it was more than enough for anything.
<< APS-C seems to be the sweet spot when it comes down to system weight, IQ and cost of ownership. >>
Agreed. My take on this is that APS-C is the new 35mm (except it's much better) and "Full-Frame" is the modern equivalent of medium format. As for medium format itself, well, I don't know anybody who's using MF digital now apart from pros who already have an MF system and/or have very picky, wealthy clients to impress.
HAE: I also like to add that while the x100 was was the beginning of Fuji success and was retro looking, I see no point in pushing retro at the expense of ergonomics. I would like to see a proper grip on some of Fuji cameras (the x-t series is a good candidate for that). Many of us buy their cameras because they have created a nice system and seemed committed to grow it, not because they look like a boxy design created 50 years ago.
Actually, I like the XT1's shallow grip - it makes it handle more like a Leica and it's light enough that you don't need a deep grip. And if you do, Fuji make add-on grips in a couple of different sizes.
Grips are difficult to get right; a given grip will only be optimal for one size of hand. I love the Nikon 7200, but the grip is just that bit too shallow and close to the lens that I find it really uncomfortable. The Canon 5D, on the other hand, has a really comfy grip but I wouldn't buy one because the thing is so ruddy heavy.
A light camera with a shallow grip and add-ons to balance with bigger lenses is the perfect compromise, IMHO.