Peiasdf: Where do you rest your thumb? Also, 17.5mm eyepoint is pretty bad. NEX-7 have 23mm and people already have problem using it.
I am certain your extensive perusal of specs trumps real world experience.I am still waiting for the site that publishes only spec pages so we can "objectively" heap praise or scorn on the latest products.
Richard Ettinger: nice design. would love it if it were APS-C. MFT not so much.
In addition, I do own a 5Dmk3 and a selection of the older 12MP MFT Olys and I can say that the IQ does not fall far short of the Canon. Moreover, I do portraiture in addition to architechture and I have no problem in achieving a shallow DOF in a portrait if needed. The inability of people to use their gear is a poor excuse to to buy new gear in the hopes that it will magically transform their poor techniques by overlaying a shallow DOF on a picture not worth taking.
Even at FF the only meaningful difference today is DOF, a profoundly over-hyped aspect of photography that applies to a frantically small segment of photographs comprised largely of "look how cool this bokeh is" photos of desktops, leaves on trees and the like.The fact is that MFT has IQ that equals APS-C and FF in pretty much all aspects of real photography (prints-even billboards, web, and publication). Where it falls short is in the pixel peeping at 1600% that seems to be the province of people that were never really thinking about taking photos in the first place.
Not too late considering few are in the hands of the public. Now the wait lists will be longer.
Photomonkey: Sure is satisfying to see such spirited discussions about art. Thought no one cared. ;)
@chj, I noticed there was a lot of reference to the art and its quality or lack thereof. As for the money, you now know what makes the big bucks.
Lots of sanctimony here. Unwarranted IMO, as Fuji has demonstrated a largely uncompromising approach to the design and construction of its lens line.
The intro of slower zooms allows them to deliver more compact lenses while still delivering quality that exceeds the competition both in IQ and construction. Moreover they deliver them at a good price. Thus delivering the holy grail of hobbyists: price and quality.
For you whiners, we await your independent designs of f2.8 zooms built with anything other than fantasy.
Sure is satisfying to see such spirited discussions about art. Thought no one cared. ;)
I am not sure how many have clicked through to look at all the images but almost none of them will be familiar to photo enthusiasts even the Steichen image ( an arguably prominent photographer to enthusiasts) is unfamiliar.
It clearly illustrates that the art market is not the photo market. Content, scale and the standing of the artist and his or her marketing team are the key determinants of value/price.This is a world entirely alien to the enthusiast, and though seemingly stupid, outrageous, foolish or whatever, it is one that moves a lot of money and pays a lot of people good sums.
HarryLally: Who on earth is Andreas Gursky. What pretentious twaddle.
The art market is a business like any other. There is a belief system that supports the economic model. Just as gold has its mythology of value, so does art.
(unknown member): True photojournalism has to maintain very strict standards to avoid accusations of sensationalism or deception that invariably arise if anything other than white balance of a photo is corrected. So now we're to believe that the public wants to see Instagram shots from random bystanders in a newspaper? Instagram filters alter reality to the point that the photo can no longer be called unaltered or realistic or anything other than an artistic interpretation, and people with smartphones usually get snapshots.Perhaps photojournalists do need to innovate, but the true responsibility for innovation sits squarely in the laps of a paper's management. Maybe enough papers will cut the wrong things that those who stick to their guns and find novel ways to monetize their product, both hard copy and their online presence, will have all the demand coming from people not willing to put up with the excessive sacrifice of journalistic quality and integrity the other organizations will be guilty of.
Why will they complain? They aren't reading anyway.
mpgxsvcd: Most novice users think they need a 1200mm zoom lens. What they will actually need is a 20mm F2.8 lens and a good pair of walking shoes.
Pictures at the seashore might be compromised by the limit of the walking bit.
Tape5: All this superzoom stuff is a bit passe even for those who wish to photograph things they cannot see.
One monkey finds a fresh branch to grab and all the monkeys in the forest jump on it until it snaps.
If the branch doesn't snap, in a few years we will have 5-12000000 superzooms.
DPR should do an image comparison against the 120,000 dollar Canon 1200mm/5.6.
The difference will be visible but for the buyer the discount for the hand holdable version will outweigh the Canon. Also 1200mm is always handy when you need it.
smatty: But all these wonderful improvements and extra features aside, I am now puzzled even more why there is still no update for minimum shutter speed control in Auto ISO?
Why is this a long implemented feature on the X10, X20, X100 and X100S, yet it is still omitted in the X-"PRO" 1???
Pros use manual ;)
dave gaines: There's no comparison to those outstanding lenses mentioned in the review, the Olympus 14-35 mm f/2 or the longer 35-100 mm f/2. Literally no comparsion to the Olympus 14-35 or 35-100, partially because DxO Mark has not tested these two very sharp, fast lenses from Olympus, one in nearly the same mid-range zoom, 28-70 mm EFL.What's up DxO Mark? Test these two lenses. There's a new, improved Olympus DSLR on the way by year's end.
Whether you like them or not the lenses you reference are not available for APS-C and are woefully slow on m4/3. The new SLR you are hoping for is unlikely to be 4/3 but an updated m4/3. Oh, the price is sure to upset the penny pinchers in these parts.
Fast, High IQ lens. Great addition for a wedding and event shooter.
The aperture will aid in low light focus and sharpness PLUS the slight advantage in more DOF in APS-C means that there will be more keepers. A very important lens for anyone wanting low light capabilities. The IQ justifies the price. More sharp pictures to show the client/spouse. What is not to like?
PK24X36NOW: So, for almost as much money as a 24-70 f2.8 FF lens, you get a 27-55 f 2.8 "equivalent" that is almost as wide, longer, and heavier as compared with a 24-70 f2.8 FF. Taking into account that you STILL need additional lenses to cover the same range as a 24-70 f2.8 FF lens, Sigma has successfully shown that you'll probably spend more than the price differential between an APS-C body and a FF body trying to assemble a full set of lenses with the same range and equivalent noise capability (I won't say image quality, since it won't be equivalent in other respects more than likely) for APS-C, and that you'll likely have MORE weight to carry around based on the lens size/weight that will be necessary. Plus, of course, you'll still be stuck with a lousy APS-C viewfinder.
Thanks for making the decision to move to FF seem that much smarter, Sigma!
I can see you got your tech pundit credentials in a frantic week long study of foolish internet tropes. Congratulations on your Troll level 1 certification.
Beautiful job and an ingenious approach. Here is a person actually doing something creative. Kudos.
Trollshavethebestcandy: Nice!Soon we will just make up our own idea of the perfect camera and build ourselves. Web designers turned 3D printer coders for hire.
Better than whining blindly at manufacturers.
Photomonkey: Sounds great but the proof is in the pictures. I do believe that the operational improvements (if they are as good as advertised) will be a huge step forward.
While the current APS-C sensor in the 7D lags behind the competition it hardly falls into the dogmeat category. Other than pixel peeing and extreme PP abuse the files are every bit as good as anything out there. I shoot FF Canon and my friends shoot FF Nikon and we cannot see the difference between them.
Sounds great but the proof is in the pictures. I do believe that the operational improvements (if they are as good as advertised) will be a huge step forward.