LBJ2: "which offers a fast maximum aperture of F2.8 throughout its zoom range"
Applying the crop factor, is this new lens really an equivalent f2.8 "throughout its zoom range" or is it really equivalent to 24-83mm f4.2 ?
Even if you don't agree, we are mostly in the same boat: I subscribe to all the points you just listed. All I want to add is that you don't even have to learn the theory: Just look at the results of different systems that represent your type of photography and pick the system you like best. Nowadays, the difference in IQ is so little in most applications that for most people sensor size - and its theory ;-) - is irrelevant.
"...and therefore it would affect noise levels in the end."I know, but in real-world application, sensor efficiency reduces this effect.My advice: Skip the theory and pick the system that gives you best package of features and IQ that is suitable for YOUR type of photography. Sensor size nowadays has lost a lot of its importance in this respect.And still the useless discussions in forums will continue forever.
Silvarum, like in all these discussions, your points are only valid in theory, as for practical purposes equivalence is also a result of optical performance and sensor efficency.The whole discussion about equivalence is mostly of academic nature and doesn't help for buying decisions
baggy1: So this weighs more & is a lot more expensive than my Nikon 24-85 VR which can sit on an already small & light Nikon d750 which also has the benefit of full frame & mind blowing AF & incredible flash system.I don't get all the Fuji love in.Can someone enlighten me?
Nerd2, because for most people, more dof with fast apertures is welcome with a zoom lens.
BeaverTerror: Perplexed about the lack of OIS, given that the wide angle 10-24mm has it. There is now one less compelling reason to purchase this lens over the much faster primes.
Timmbits, you already know the Samsung is better? If so, go and buy it!
grasscatcher: The ZS50 is beginning to look like the pinnacle of a 30x pocketable. Yes, it has a small sensor, but the camera is SO easy to drop in a pocket and go, and you still have enthusiast-oriented controls, RAW, EVF, etc.
Yes, you get better IQ with larger sensor, but not 30x zoom (cropping can only go so far). Not too many pocketable cameras with larger sensor yet (LX100, RX100x, G7X, GM1/5, V1?...) and definitely none with the zoom capacity.
Looks like the perfect hiking camera...
A good 10x is enough for me. I'd rather recommend Olympus Stylus 1, especially if this is your only camera.
zsedcft: Still a couple of generations from fully baked. OSS is huge, but when it gets a 50MP+ sensor, 2 fast SD slots and autofocus that can keep up with a DSLR, it will be a Nikon Dx00 killer. Card failures are rare, but I just can't afford to loose hundreds of photos because there is no redundancy. Until they fix that, this camera is going to be a hard sell for professionals. Also, why no 4k?
How many of your lenses really give you 50mp on 35mm sensors?Large prints don't need huge mp counts.
sierranvin: Why oh why does Sony so consistently fail to offer a model with all the premium features in ONE ELITE PACKAGE??? What happened to the 36MP sensor from the a7R? Why do they add these nice new features, then drop the sensor back down to 24MP??? Is the Sony corporate culture programmed to always earn a B+, never an A?
sierra:Because only dummies still run the MP-race?
exapixel:How many lenses do you own that really are capable of resolving 36MP?
Absolutic: Well you guys seems to have a preproduction unit. Is AF better with 55FE? What's your first impressions about AF, Dpreview? I am mostly interested in whether single AF acquisition is better. Also low light use, it went from EV 0 on A7 to EV (-1) on A7 II, is it slightly better in low light?? Also, Is shutter sound same as on A7 or quieter?
Absolutic, maybe, you should try a different technique then?
Second card slot, ok, but what kind of professional needs 50MP+?
alexzn: Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.
#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...
Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.
HowaboutRAW:You misunderstood: It is you, who is insecure. You are so disturbed by this image, that you feel the need to call it "sexualized". There's no need to enjoy this image "privately", as it is totally fine for public viewing.
How many times more are you going to miss the point, that this picture is totally appropriate for this site? You won't succeed in imposing your odd point of view on the visitors of this forum.
"is a highly sexualized image"No, it's not. Maybe, you should ask your wife, if you still feel insecure about it.And don't be afraid, she will not accuse you of looking at soft porn.
HowaboutRAW: did #1 really have to be cliché softcore?
HowaboutRAW:You really seem to have an issue with this from my perspective, but I accept that you have different standards on depicting women.
And btw: There's nothing to defend for me. If I want to look at porn, I simply do it. My wife is smart enough to handle this. ;-)
@HowaboutRAW:Don't know where you live, but in Europe a cleavage like this is not considered "softporn" - even in an office.Had you called the pose "sexy", then I could agree, although I consider it more "relaxed" than sexy.And even if it was "nude photography", why should it not be on a site about photography?
(unknown member): What's up with horizontal websites? I liked #1 (and the other photos of course) and I clicked to see the photographer's website to see what else is there but the site requires horizontal scrolling to see the photos, I couldn't use it so I just left without seeing anything... I think photographers who create horizontal websites miss a lot of visitors. Nobody can use a horizontal website. Why don't they make their websites vertical as every website should be?
If arrow keys and scroll wheel are difficult to use for you, maybe you should try a touch pad? There even are keyboards with integrated pads on the right hand side.There also is an extension for Firefox that allows scrolling in any direction by pressing ALT and moving the mouse. You may check if Chrome offers something similar.
Whats your problem? The site works fine for me and shows classy photos.Do you use an old browser?
Softporn? You have a very strong imagination!I see a beautiful young woman in a fashionable, low cut blouse.She could even wear it in an office without problems.There is nothing falling out as there is only a hint of curves visible. Nice pic and totally adequate for this site, imo.
Very sad.I have a motor-zoom flash unit from Metz that I bought for my Olympus C-5050 in the year 2003. Together with an adapter it gave me true TTL capability.
It still works like new.
Just a Photographer: Its not going that well with 4/3 at the moment.Hope they'll be able to come up with a game changer.
Many people looking for a small system are now looking towards Fuji due to their APS sensor, retro look and more or less same weight and AF performance.
The Fujis have excellent lenses, too, but they are larger and heavier. Their handling can also be quite irritating. Their sensors show very little noise but are not as sharp as m43.As a system I'd still take m43, because it offers much more flexibility.
JohnEwing: "Reached out to" is pathetic. "Contacted" is perfectly adequate: this is a technical site, not a charitable institution.
She usually writes fiction. This may be an explanation for that funny choice of expression.