munro harrap: More programmed obsolescence. That big screen-do Fuji supply a weatherproof jacket that is non-scratch??Why doesn't the screen turn in towards the body for protection when not in use?The focus point selection on a Nikon 7100 only works when using MANUAL focus, like the D800, so this Fuji is no different .
I shall wait until it is full-frame with the same pixel density in the same-sized body with a screen that wont get wrecked (how about a screen cover, Fuji?).
All these cameras lack screen protection so obviously there is a programmed obsolescence cabal at work here, broken only by Sony's full-frame, slow as ditchwater also unprotected model.
Reviewers need to use stuff , not just repeat the company handouts, please. In practice these things are pigs to use.An R1 is superior except for noiseand RAW speed- it has an inbuilt 24-120mm lens as good as the fujis', and you can turn off the screen which is protectable. And it is silent plus 0.007sec lag prefocussed.
I'm guessing you own an Alpa?
BigBearSteve60: The specs say that its lens-mount is "Fujifilm-X"; so that means it's not built on a NIKON chassis?
@Yabbokie,Fuji have always had better glass than Nikon. They just have never had as large a system.Fuji used Nikon bodies because it was an inexpensive way to get into the DSLR game when the costs and risk was very high. Nikon cut them off and Fuji bided their time until they could see the how the landscape was sorting itself out.
Seems like they are in tune with what people want.
kadardr: From a manufacturing point of view a mirrorless camera must be cheaper to produce than a DSLR (fewer parts, lesser complexity). From a cost perspective a mirrorless camera should be sold cheaper than a DSLR. Mirrorless producers should also invest into concept and product PR, what they do at full extent and it shows in the prices. For their asking price Fujifilm gotta give supreme quality and sublime product support for life, and they really try their best (with moderate success so far).What I am emphasizing here is that please wait until prices get reasonable, because the reserve in launch prices must be high.
No matter what price is put on a camera there is some self-anointed marketing/engineering/economic genius that says the price is too high.First, how are you so sure what their cost structure is? What do you know about the sales volume? What is your authority to dictate their profit level? Also, what stops them from asking any price they want?
If they sell all they can at that price then they will make more delightful cameras for us. If they don't, maybe they will start selling sewing machines or something.
JaimeA: Consider this: David (nuts about photography) and I had a talk last night. The inconspicuous Fuji X-M1 sells today for $700 (with the good kit 16-50 lens $800). (I am very happy with this camera.) The new X-T1 costs $1,300 (with the top-rated 18-55 lens $1,700); almost double the price. The sensor size, MP count and engine are the same in both and will produce the same results at any given time. Essentially, it is the same camera with new clothes. Of course there are some hyped improvements here and there, but do you really need them? Will they noticeably improve your shooting? He’s got a point there.
Reducing the virtues of one product versus another to a couple of simple metrics completely misses the point. As 57even points out there are a huge range of attributes of a product that makes one more appealing than another. The controls, feel and EVF of the XT-1 are what many have been clamoring for.
If you came to photography after the ascendance of viewfinder-free digital photography it most likely will not interest you but those who long for a control system that was an update of classic controls then this will likely be very interesting.
Waldman Jordaan: Very nice indeed. Not for me though - I refuse to purchase a camera without it having a built-in flash.
Also Fuji - when will we see 4:3 aspect ratio in the X-series ILC cameras? Surely it is only a firmware update away? A large percentage of people need 4:3 aspect, so why not?
Crop tool is useful to get 4:3. You still end up with more file than m43.
ZoranHR: I think design should represent time in wich product is created instead to imitate past. Imagine arhitecture that still creates renaissance style churches.
I have and shoot with Fujifilm x1oo and Ricoh GR. Ricoh is just much easier to operate. Anytime. Regardless Fuji's "practical" appeal of controls I m convinced in practice that past should stay in past. Usage of past designs now is a bit silly unleast to say and I dont agree with some of you who say this design is more handy.
Form follows function. The controls actually ARE usefully placed and thought out. Change just so we can surf Byzantine menu formats is not progress.As for architecture you are clearly not paying attention to the modernist re-hashes popping up all over the place.
Fuji demonstrates again its commitment to continual improvement of existing models. For me this practice is one of the best "features" that Fuji has to offer the photographer.
Kirppu: Hey camera manufacturers one tip to prevent these after sell ripoffs. But the grip there in the first place. A camera should have a grip they are not smartphones.
Its an option. Some of us don't want grips.
clicstudio: ... And another year went by and DPR still hasn't bother to review the 2 flagship Canon and Nikon cameras...
B&H reviews can be helpful except that so many are written by people clearly too inexperienced to know how to evaluate the kit they have. Breathless exclamations of joy written ten minutes after the opening of the box does not constitute a valid review.
Peter Gregg: What a difference a day makes. The new images are representative of what I expect - and was hoping for - from this lens. It is pro level and the results certainly look like it. It seems on par in quality with the 85L II by eyeballing these images. Having both lenses in hand would confirm it, or show the deficiencies. The advantage of the 4/3 system is equal light as full frame with a little deeper range in depth of field. For most folks this is an advantage making full frame a disadvantage because of the razor thin depth of field. For most purposes this is a big plus, except for those that are looking for an ultra thin range in their DOF envelope.
"This M43 vs FF arguments don't mean anything. I want to see Portraits at low light, all taken at F1.2. Otherwise there is absolutely no point for this lens."
Believe it or not we bought lenses in the 70's that were this fast and low light was where we used them but generally not for portraits. Indoor sports were how we used these lenses and we WANTED more DOF.
It would be nice to see a lens manufacturer get away from petal shaped hoods on its prime lenses and provide a design that optimizes shading.The petal design is helpful for zooms but is a style affectation on primes.
Boerseuntjie: JK Imaging is just a shady Chinese copycat company with a shiny Kodak name.http://www.photocounter.com.au/2013/kodak-camera-licence-to-unknown-start-up/
This is what happens when a historic brand falls upon hard times. Best to avert ones eyes to avoid mutual shame.
peevee1: People deciding US prices for Panasonic lenses are simply incompetent. 45/2.8 macro for $900, 12-35/2.8 for $1,300, 35-100/2.8 for $1,500, now this one for $1,600? They are simply counting up, expecting higher profits with higher prices, like there is no competition out there?Somebody, please teach them about price-demand curves.
Actually they do know their demand curve it's just that you don't like being not in lured in their demographic.
ThePhilips: > Samyang T-S 24mm f/3.5 ED AS UMC
As far as I have understood, m43 users already given up on getting a WA TS lens... And Sony system has just got one.
24mm on APS-C is not too useful for most architectural photography and arguably even less useful on m43
Jogger: Its a bit weird to call this a "general-purpose zoom" esp. for FF users. I use my FF for specific tasks and use appropriate lenses for each task. Using a general purpose lens means you get less than optimal results and performance for whatever you are shooting.
For "general purpose" photography i just use my RX100/10 combo.
So carrying two cameras is more convenient than one?
stupidisanart: Anyone else have an issue with fuji with reliability?
I found their compacts to be very reliable and provided great images to boot. The real problem was finding dealers.
Richt2000: Surely the A7R is the remaining (and real) gear of the year.... ?
I have FF cameras. They ain't all that...
Picturenaut: We still have 3 vintage Nikon FM-2's in service, and one was used recently at -40 °C in Siberia, because it doesn't fail in frost... The more I think about this Df thing the less I like it. It is simply fake , like a pseudo cuckoo clock with an electronic clockwork. Hipsters, of course, will love it like wearing fake glasses. I mean, this Df thing has AF! And there's no film winder. So you never experience the way of shooting you had with such a full mechanical SLR. I don't think that the old days of film shooting were better, no, but a digital camera should be made looking into the future, not the past.
Plus, I don't think that Nikon today is able to meet the quality of the old FM series anymore. Our D300 died before reaching 90.000 shutter actuations (repair would be too expensive), and it falls literally into pieces after only 4-5 yrs use in rough environment. Our oldest FM-2 is more than 20 yrs old and still perfect.
I think we have to realize that to sustain sales volumes needed in today's electronics, they have to be cheaply made and stylish. While I think Nikon Canon et al. still aim for the highest quality, there are real compromises in lifespan with an all electronic platform.
chooflaki: I have been using the DF for two days now. Great IQ and state of the art manual focus. Does eveything else it should do. I didn't know ugly could be so beautiful. Looks like I will be becoming a hipster.
Before AF we had VFs optimized for fast MF. Now they are optimized for brightness. I have not seen the Df but if they had a VF similar to an F3 it would be great MF tool.
Marcelobtp: Well, in good light D800 and A7r as D610 and A7 are pretty simillar. The Sonys jpegs are much punchier, i think they are better, with more detail without halos, very good improvement with the engine. I see Nikons doing better with the reds, I guess sony is over saturating it. At low light i' cant say if it is about white balance but the Sony one seems to be much more oranges, maybe color shift, this is very evident on skin tones. The raw files i guess is about the same, but seems that D800 is orange too now, much more than Sonys, D610 is better, very interesting, because this probably the problem that D610 firmware was correcting.About noise and moire the noise is about equal on both the diference is about sharpening color saturation and contrast, they just make noise more visible on Sonys. My conclusion is: Sony now is doing an overall better job than Nikon on this comparison.
So what we are saying is that the IQ differences are actually quite small and the real reason to choose the Sony would be its form factor and the ability to use adapted lenses AND the promise of lenses to come.