qwertyasdf: Despite Fuji's reputation, and their target audience, I have to say Fuji makes one of the worst feeling cameras, the plastic on the X-T1 simply feels yuck!
I have the X-E1 and X-A1, both feels very plasticy and they actually are (which to me is a good thing though, becoz of the light weight).
I don't mind plastic, in fact, I love it for the light weight, but heck, when I tried the X-T1 in the store, the texture just made me feel yuck! My other cameras like E-PM2 and EOSM are plastic too, but the plastic feels waayyyy wayyy more pleasant.
Despite Fuji's reputation, and their target audience, I have to say Fuji makes one of the worst feeling cameras, the plastic on the X-T1 simply feels yuck!
2x TC on 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 gives 800mm @ f11.2, if this qualifies as bringing 1219 to a system, I might as well stack five 2x TCs on a Canon 1200mm and and bring 8,246,337,208,320mm to the EF system, on a crop body.
Ayoh: Why do you perpetuate the marking non-sense of equivalent focal length? It is only supporting the misleading statements of the manufacturer. What is this reference full-frame camera which defines the "equivalent" focal length? For example, when cropped to APS-C, the canon 5Ds with a 400mm lens would give you approximately the same resolution as a 400mm lens on the fuji Xpro2 due to similar pixel pitch. Similarly when both use 2X converters. The key parameters are lens actual focal length, pixel pitch and number of pixels. The "equivalent focal length" is a deceptive marketing gimmick which you should know better not to keep using.
NO, it's not a gimmick, it's necessary.Let's say if I have a 4mm lens, how do you know if it's the world's first rectilinear 4mm super-duper ultra wide angle lens, or it's just a crappy 28mm equivalent lens on a crappy P&S?!
Omexis: It would have been nice if one person shot both cameras and compared them instead of two people giving their views.
Even better if they switch cameras half-way.They say they are reviewers and not pros, they really should have done that.......
Mirrorless having better lateral tracking?! What is that?! I guess if the subject is moving laterally, you can see the AF points moving excitingly on the screen, but the AF is doing absolutely nothing .___________.
coloR blinD: .
I love to see NX1 live n kicking debate ....nobody knows exactly what went wrong with Samsung !.
Nobody knows, i used their nx100 or nx200, not particularly good, but Sonys at that time were about the same. (but the Panasonics at the time were very good)
I guess if they didnt launch stupid pr campaigns to bash DSLRs, DSLR users would feel much easier trying them out
But we will never know.
If Samsung can provide a "cosmetic upgrade" and put a Canon stick on top, they will sell loads.
qwertyasdf: Decent pictures, but honestly, they are easy targets, many bikes were moving parallel to the frame, and they have distinct shapes and patterns. I'd say an entry level DSLR can do the same with the same lens, only lower FPS
If you want to be taxing on the AF, shoot a dog (I always do it, and the AF always jumps to the collar rather than the eyes)
What's wrong with the 80D, I think it's AF is at least comparable to the 1st gen 7D
Decent pictures, but honestly, they are easy targets, many bikes were moving parallel to the frame, and they have distinct shapes and patterns. I'd say an entry level DSLR can do the same with the same lens, only lower FPS
sh10453: Excessively overpriced. Hundreds, if not thousands, of military grade jackets similar to this one, probably even more resistant to water, on eBay for $50 to $70.Columbia Gear makes rugged, waterproof jackets too for around $50.
Interesting, but do you know if they are very heavy compared to ordinary jackets?
You have to be in the right place.....at the wrong time.
How does the "super macro" mode work?! Nonetheless, me think this is actually a huge step. Manufacturers had long only provided 1x macro lens, (except the MP-E n Laowa), i always questioned, why stop there?!
I hope we will see native 1.5x or 2x macro lenses in the future.
qwertyasdf: Bash Canon all you want, but they are the only manufacturer that can make lightweight lenses with the highest optical quality.
Of all the EF-M lenses, all are desirable, that's why the original EOS-M is my most used body, it's always besides me in my waist bag. For the times I need shallow DOF or better DR, I take out the 6D from my camera bag. For times I need to use legacy lenses, I reluctantly take out the A7r (I hate it).
Yes, I hv owned the 40mm XS, truly amazing. But then they are not as light or as cheap as the Canons, nor does Pentax have a small mirrorless (the Q is dead).Olympus was also exceptional at making small and high quality glass, but only in the film era.
Donald B: what is the point of a 28mm macro lens, the designer obviously has never shot macro before.
I think it's a conscious decision, since for the LED to be effective, it has to be very close to the subject, a longer lens would render the LED useless.
It won't work for bugs, but for static subjects, the focal length is not a major concern.
Bash Canon all you want, but they are the only manufacturer that can make lightweight lenses with the highest optical quality.
jnd: For static scenes the pixel shift is great. People say also for landscapes but with that amount of detail what about moving leaves, waves and reflections in water and such? How fast does it capture during pixel shift?
ISO 6400 in pixel shift mode looks so smooth compared to standard shutter, it's like magic, great improvement.
It would need more than 4x the exposure time, especially during very fast shutter speeds. The E-shutter may take more time than the actual shutter speed. (Okay, can someone help me explain the technical details :P )
qwertyasdf: I think ISO / noise performance advantage of pixel shift is merely theoretical. I can't think of a case which the stillness of the scene could afford you to use pixel-shift, but at the same time, you need high ISO.
@samhainIf you can use pixel-shift, it means that the subject and camera are both stationary, there's also no need to use high ISO in the first place.
Puljak: Dpreview, what was the purpose of making this test public once you realised that the lens was subpar? Your comment about the lens is now buried deep inside this comments section, and people are left to judge the results of a new camera on the basis of inconclusive data.
You could have at least left a comment at the top of the page that the test will be revisited once you receive a good copy of the lens.
Yes, DPR is not doing the K-1 justice!