Linerider: Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why cant manufactures make a 14-150mm (21-225mm) for APS-C cameras? This would be a great range and very versatile.Why do all manufactures feel the need to start at 28mm?Is this just marketing to force us to by more lenses?
It could be done, but it would be absolutely huge. The wider you go, the less the zoom you can achieve for the same size. (Note how on FF a 16-35 is roughly the same size as a 24-70). Also overcoming distortion becomes much harder.
But the biggest reason is - they want you to buy more lenses. If Canon had made a 20-60 FF I'd have bought that and used it for 99% of my shots, instead I had to buy two lenses. They're running a business after all.
Ayoh: Pretty impressive. It is much better specified on all accounts than its rivals and costs less than 1/3 the price. Why would anyone buy a $30k Hasselblad or PhaseOne?
Because if you're making enough money you're paying high tax, so you buy a Hasselblad and write it all off against your tax, and in effect pay nothing.
kinglau711: WOW not able to bring a single real innovation in two years !
Even incapable of adding a GPS, WIFI or a viewfinder as large as the 5D Mark III and 1DX.
And still no USB 3 even
I thoroughly recommend his autobiography, which is really too short as he just touches on some many fascinating topics: not least how poor, violent and unpoliced much of London was in his youth, giving the lie to the idea of an idyllic crime-free past so beloved of politicians. On which note, it was a travesty that Thatcher banned him from going to the Falklands, the one war he really wanted to document. Perhaps some of the flag waving might have been a bit more muted had he gone and we been able to reflect on his record of events.
ConanFuji: There's too many x cameras. Can someone provide a gist????
I've never used a Nex so I can't say. My hunch would be that the the Fuji would be better at high ISO and would have a more film-like quality, I bought one because though I love micro 4/3rds cameras they never seemed to have the depth and realism of my old canon 5D II, and Fuji seem to manage that in a much smaller body - and their lenses are highly regarded for the beauty of the image.
If there's a downside of the earlier Fuji cameras it's that their auto-focus is poor by modern standards - image quality has always been their ambition over handling, ever since their first DLSR years ago. It's no problem for me shooting portraits, but no good for difficult moving subjects or very poor light.
However - the X-T1 is supposed to solve that and have very good autofocus! So I await the review eagerly to find out. We will see...
They have 3 current APS-C, interchangeable lens cameras.
X-Pro1 - Chunky rangefinder style, hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder on the left of the camera. No built in flash. Nice camera, but viewfinder not for everyone as lenses partially obscure view, so try before buy.X-E2 (replaced XE1)- smaller, rangefinder 'look' and built in flash. Electronic viewfinder on left of camera. Not as 'pro', but newer design and slightly faster operation.X-T1 - new today. SLR style with viewfinder bump. Electronic viewfinder. No built in flash but a plug in one.
Other X cameras are compacts and either fixed lens like the X100s (replaced the X100), or have non-interchangeable zooms and smaller sensors like the X20 (replaced X10).
So if it has a 1 or 2 code, it's a large sensor interchangeable lensIf it has a 100 code, it's a large sensor fixed lensIf it has a 10 or 20, it's a small sensor, non-interchangeable zoom compact.
Miserere: Does the X-T1 ignore the Min Shutter Speed in Auto ISO once the top ISO has been reached? The other X cameras do this and I consider it a huge fault. If you set a limit on the minimum shutter speed, then the camera should respect it, even if it means the shot will be underexposed.
Also, in Manual Focus mode, can you choose the size of the focus assist window? In other X cameras, if using the AFL button for Auto Focus, you are limited to a very large AF area, whilst in AF mode you can choose much smaller sizes of the AF area. I also consider this a big fault which no other camera company is guilty of; only Fuji.
Agree on the first point. And why my X-Pro 1 will choose ISO 800 and shutter speed of 1/2000 when I set default sensitivity to ISO 200 is beyond me. It's such a simple piece of logic to write, and still they get it wrong.
azlearner: Is this the new Fuji's flagship or the X-PRO1 is still the one?Thanks.
Fuji Rumours was suggesting an X-Pro 2 would be announced as an ongoing project this year but not released till 2015, as Fuji are wanting it to be a major step forward. Could be pure hot air, but I'd say this will be their product leader for some time to come - they've been moving slowly and carefully since they came into the came.
Seems like DPReview would save themselves a lot of grief with a very slight redesign: clearly separate the scoring from the 'medal'.
Put the score chart BEFORE the 'final word'.Then in 'final word', spell out in the last paragraph (as they *sometimes* do) exactly why they chose bronze, silver or gold. Indeed I would expand the final word to a longer subjective insight, and put it and the medal on a different page altogether, entirely distinct from the objective testing.
Constantly reiterating the methodology in reply to antagonistic comments - or relying on the comments of others to do so - must be the least efficient way to justify their thinking, while causing the most antagonism.
Shame that Lightroom still has one of the worst UIs ever designed. I'd use Bridge (suitably customised) over it any day, but I guess my Adobe days are numbered either way. Unless the cloud idea bombs and they get some decent management in to rescue what is still potentially a great product.
If everyone on demos wore cameras would save a lot of lies being endlessly repeated by the media. The police can't stop everyone filming them, and camera wearers would have to behave themselves too.
benny_wong: at the widest end of sony RX100 you will get a 28mm @F1.8, or if you want a APSC sensor size can grab a NEX3n+20mm F2.8 pancakefail Nikon...
The lens on the GX1 is terrible as is the RX100 at its widest. You can't possibly make a judgement until you see the quality of the lens on this camera.
Just to balance up those who don't like 28mm, for me it's absolutely the length I would want for a camera like this. I do a lot of event stuff, where a small camera is a boon, and have always found 28mm just perfect. True, 2.8 is a stop or two less than we'd all like, but high ISO is so much cleaner these days, I've no doubt this camera will be far better at 6400 than the cameras I was using at 1600 seven years ago. QUALITY of lens is more important than ultimate speed - we'll just have to wait and see if it's any good.
If they're going to go the Sigma route and launch a few of these, 20/28/42 would be so much more useful TO ME than 24/35/50 - three lengths I've never liked or used since I first picked up a camera 25 years ago, so I for one am happy-ish to see this. You may differ - and that's ok - choice and variety are good things.
How foolish of me. I expected a hundred of the usual comments on how the winner didn't deserve to win because blah blah blah. Instead it's a litany of ignorant bigotry disguised as pseudo-political posturing. I thought this was a digital photography website; I was clearly wrong. I think we need to update Godwin's Law.
Timmbits: I see an admission that MFT can't quite compete with APSC,and the only reason they don't offer larger sensor cameras is marketing and the target market of the Panasonic brand: "Maybe we should have a premium model, maybe with bigger sensor. However, that takes engineering resources and you have to worry about price and the extra quality it will offer people - if we can sell 100,000 or 200,000, we will make it,' says Uematsu."
You've taken it out of context - he's talking about a premium model compact with a larger sensor than a normal compact, to compete with smartphones.
JRApprentice: In relation to the Panasonic ZS20 you state
" Image quality is decent, but not outstanding. If you'd prefer better images, with fewer bells and whistles, the ZS20's 'younger brother' the ZS15, is worth a look. "
What on earth is a camera with an inferior image quality to its "younger brother" doing in a recommended list of cameras?? Or have we got to the state where "bells and whistles" matter more than IQ? I bought the ZS15 because it has the same, much praised, sensor as the FZ150 and the IQ of the ZS20 was known to be rubbish.
Come on Dpreview, you can do better than this.
Image quality is not the prime consideration for me, or indeed anyone shooting things other than still life, architecture etc. What must matter first, is getting the shot. If a camera is so slow in operation or has a UI that is so poor you miss the shot altogether then all the image quality in the world is meaningless.
As an owner/former owner of an G6, G10, S90, S95, LX5 and a few I've forgotten... I have to say my XZ-1 is the best camera I've ever owned. It's not just the beauty and ease of the design, (it's far more fun to use than my 5D II) nor the speed of the lens - it's the quality of the lens.
I looked at the RX100, but aside from the high price and the lack of viewfinder option, the lens quality at the edges was significantly inferior compared to the XZ - as DPreview's test shots demonstrate all too readily. So I'm delighted that the XZ-2 stuck with a class leading lens, rather than trying for headline figures but poorer optics.
The LX7 looks tempting and should be on this list, but I see no reason to upgrade for another generation of upgrades yet. Noise and lens length and speed are not the whole story, not by a long shot.
jj74e: "legendary in-depth reviews"
lol. not that i'm saying dpreview's reviews aren't good. but legendary? eh...
Legendary - like dragons and fairies, we've heard of them but nobody's seen one for years
Dafffid: Suggestion 2
You should consider adding two new categories:Canon v Nikon Talk & Canikon v the Rest Talk - separating the endless warfare and trolling from the rest of discussions. Such threads will never disappear, and sometimes are useful and even funny, but if they were kept in their own space, they might be more welcome. Nearly every dpreview reader I studied photography with at Uni gave up on the forums long ago, tired of the chanting from the terraces.
It's not provoking them, they're there already. But it's allowing those who enjoy such debates (and there clearly are many who enjoy it, or they wouldn't keep on doing it), to enjoy themselves away from other discussions. It's a bit like licensing boxing, but not allowing people to punch each other in the bar. If it carries on in a designated area, you can just leave that area well alone without feeling the need to avoid the forums altogether.
The ability to move threads from one forum to another. The voting should include a Move option, with posters requesting a thread to be moved to another forum (which they specify in the comments).