Horses for courses.Both are excellent in their respective niches. Carping that one is obviously better than another is a futile exercise as there will be users of both cameras that will make magic and a lot who will make rubbish.
No mention made of Feisol's ridiculous rubber feet. They come off at the first use and unless you are very careful are immediately lost. Despite having threaded ends, no thought is given to providing threaded rubber feet. Nor does the distributor seem to think it is a problem.
lbpix: Excellent set of lenses from Fuji. However I just need them to bring in a tilt shift before I dump my Nikon kit completely. Fuji - please take note!
The Samyang tests poorly and would not be the choice for the user looking for the high quality its competitors deliver.
kwa_photo: I do love how Fuji is about as open and transparent as they can be to help their users make informed decisions. It enhances loyalty to the brand IMO.
@Dorkington, Is it? Leica still uses its M mount on a FF sensor.Also, Fuji seems to be making such a great line of nice fast primes the opportunity to miss shots with a low DOF is easily available on APS-C. :)
The Name is Bond: For wedding photographers, that should have been a 16-55 F2 lens.
Sigma's lens, while quite a feat, is still a far cry from the range you are looking at.
Still waiting for the guys who say they hate the name "drone"
JanMatthys: This should be a very popular camera with parents videotaping their kids at baseball, soccer, football games etc. Being able to record 4k video at 30fps, with continuous AF and picking out individual 8mp Stills for print up to 8x10! for $900? Wow, great set of features for sure
Still capture form 4K is a real advantage. However, expecting sharp images from any action may be optimistic.
Wubslin: I owned a Panasonic camera once and it made me give up photography.
I used to adhere to the "no camera heritage" faith for a long time but I have to admit that consumer electronic companies such as Panasonic and Sony are producing cameras that give the "heritage" brands some real competition.
Biological_Viewfinder: This review is nothing new at all.
I have purchased Panasonic cameras because of DPR reviews, and EVERY SINGLE TIME I WAS EXTREMELY DISSAPOINTED.
I'm never going to fall for it again.
I have owned cameras from many manufacturers including Panasonic and have been happy with all my choices. Any dissatisfaction would stem from:1. Inadequate research and actually handling the camera.2. Poor reliability of the product.
In this internet age option 1 is far more common.
Oh! the joyful buzz of the photo drone...
Amnon G: 8MP frames from a video creates a whole new capability of extracting the best photo out of a video instead of continuous shooting. This could be very handy for many things, from sports to kids to animals.
I could see weddings shot this way. Oh, I guess they already are with 50Ds and a heavy finger.
racin06: I’m an experienced RC airplane and helicopter pilot/enthusiast. I want to clarify the legalities of performing aerial photography with multi-rotor RC helicopters (MRRCH)…I hate the term “drone.” There is no license required to fly a MRRCH as a hobby or for not-for-profit. Currently, it is only illegal if you are flying MRH commercially and/or for pay. Now, even though you may be conducting aerial photography as a hobby or for not-for-profit, there are still rules that must be followed to fly RC aircraft in a safe manner. I strongly encourage visiting the Academy of Model Aeronautics (http://www.modelaircraft.org), which is the sanctioning body for the RC aircraft hobby. These RC aircraft are not toys and command respect and proper training to learn to fly. Anyway, below is a rent video of my flying my electric-powered 87” Sbach 300 RC airplane. This is a fantastic hobby!
Touchy aren't we?To the vast public they will always be drones no matter what you want call them. Saying "my MRRCH took a dump "will elicit a blank stare.
Drone sounds way cooler.
GRUBERND: it would be amazingly helpful if manufacturers - and if not, then dpreview - would start listing the flashsync speed on these cameras as a default spec. for some it is still a very important difference if the camera can sync at 1/500 or faster with any flash or only with pseudo highspeed techniques commonly referred to as FP-sync.or did i miss something somewhere and the real sync-speed is mentioned somewhere?
Historianx is correct on all his points.
They both use leaf shutters and thus sync at all speeds up to their max. This is not a "rumor". Leaf shutters just do that.
Panasonic also offers an electronic shutter that goes to 1/16000 but you cannot use flash with the electronic shutter at all.
Another fact not "rumor".
David Eichler: Regarding the Canon 16-35mm F:4 IS, I think there are a substantial number of people, myself included, who will find the IS more useful for handheld, low-light still photography than the extra stop of the F:2.8, non-IS, version, and not only for completely static subjects. In particular, I think that event photographers and photojournalists who do a lot of low light photography will welcome the IS.
Also, as some have already mentioned, Canon's MTF chart suggests that this lens may have significantly higher image quality than either the 17-40mm or the 16-35mm F:2.8, both of which are good performers for what they do (assuming you get a good copy), but leave something to be desired with regard to edge performance. Of course Canon's MTF curves are theoretical and only part of the story with regard to image quality, but they are useful for comparison purposes.
Now, if I can just get a good copy of the lens to try. Canon's quality control is not great and I find too much misalignment.
My biggest gripe with the whole lens purchasing adventure is the need to get a "good" copy.QC should be a given.
When Nikon came out with their 14-24 they were able to wipe the floor with the Canon 16 2.8 much to the disgust of many Canon shooters. If their 16s were bad copies or just optically inferior is not clear. What was clear was that they switched to Nikon.
JKP: Has enyone figured out, what specifically Nikon means when that say D800E has effects of AA filter 'canceled', while 810 has it entirely left out? What is the difference between the two cameras?
In the D800E they had an OLPF and then an "inverse" OLPF to to bring it back. I am not reading the literature but that is the concept IIR.
peevee1: $589? Good luck to Tamron, they are not going to sell anything at this price, Pana HD 14-140 WITH stabilization is $399, the new Pana 14-140 (with even better stabilization) and Oly 14-150 are about $600.
It is probably the kind of price to quickly take half off and call it a sale. In Japan it is 26,000 yen according to 43rumors, about $250.
How could it be smaller? The optical formula is probably identical to its competitors and limited by physics. Why is there so much magical thinking regarding optics?
As with all the third party mtgs. the MSRP is always a lot higher than street price.
It is tempting to give DPP another try but LR has so many features that I can't get elsewhere such as the brush adjustments and the perspective correction that I can't see any advantage in doing so.The notion of slightly better color is a poor incentive given the ability to fine tune LR.
Juandante: Still no FF Fuji ?
Fuji has created arguably the best APS-C system around.
If FF is a must for you there are three systems out there for you. Just don't come back whining about size, mirror slap and the size and expense of their lenses.