Deliverator: Digitalloyd, after looking at the sample photos stated:
"Never before have I seen per pixel quality this good, from any camera.".[including medium format]
High praise, indeed.
So you have to join in to prove that you can do it to? I don't get the logic. And besides, I don't own a Pentax.
Are you really that insecure?
57even: I would love to see the Pentax brand survive, knowing that a lot of the old Pentax engineers still work there and have continued to try and put their unique creative DNA into the brand. Having owned several Pentax cameras since the original *istD, it would be tragic to see that disappear.
They have been somewhat stymied in the past by disinterested management at Hoya and venture capitalists, and finally seem to have found a sympathetic home at Ricoh, which is great. By all accounts, their old QC issues which led to my defection are a thing of the past.
Having said that, this offering is clearly aimed at existing Pentax users. I can't see Nikon and Canon users defecting to Pentax. The only direction of migration for existing FF DSLR users seems to be in the mirrorless direction.
This may not matter to Pentax. If they can sell this camera, and the 645Z, at a profit, and stem the declining sales of APSC DSLRs in general, then these products will probably be regarded as a success.
Yes, but this is more about preserving market share and preventing defection to other brands.
In terms of attracting new users, market penetration, brand and marketing budget all mitigate against them. This is not a criticism of the brand, just the realities of consumerism.
To be honest, I was very happy (and still am) with APSC. The bigger growing segment is mid-size mirrorless, and the D500 is on back order everywhere.
I am not sure this is Pentax's most efficient market share strategy, but the product margins and lens sales will probably offset that in a limited business model.
I could say the same about my new Bosch power drill, but I don't sit and admire it. I don't own a 'sexy' car either, but one that is extremely utilitarian. I have also owned lots of Nikons.
It's not a criticism, just an observation.
Digilloyd needs to get some perspective, and possibly a life.
"D810 Nikon. (which isn't ugly)"
Yeah, it is. It's an amorphous black lump. It's a good tool, but in the style department, it's a flatbed truck.
I would love to see the Pentax brand survive, knowing that a lot of the old Pentax engineers still work there and have continued to try and put their unique creative DNA into the brand. Having owned several Pentax cameras since the original *istD, it would be tragic to see that disappear.
pjbw127: X-Pro3. I have used tilting screens since 2006.I can't live without this feature.(Dear Fujifilm: It doesn't have to swivel though my 2006 camera's does!)
Because its a different market to the XT1, XT10 and X70... duh!
jaxson: Well done Fuji.
Pentax take note! You should be leading this field, with years of prior experience in sensor stabilisation, but instead you've thrown that away and delivered that god aweful 'Movie SR'.
One simply can't ignore video capabilities in todays DSLRs or mirrorless devices.
That's funny, I've managed to ignore it completely.
Amazing how some people construe this as a negative.
rurikw: So if they can solve the problems with heat and longevity and put this stuff into our cameras there will be only one more problem to solve? How to get rid of Bayer interpolation without the drawbacks of the Foveon sensor?
It won't matter.
The sensor is 10X more sensitive (ie has 10X the photosite capacity). That means you can make pixels far smaller.
Combining pixels in camera in 2X2 or 3X3 grids would give each pixel a full colour readout with very low noise and no need for interpolation.
Kiril Karaatanasov: Is something wrong with my monitor or this Fuji is indeed worse than D5500 and A6000 by wide margin??? Noise is worse, detail is less IQ is just NOT THERE AT ALL
Yes, there is something wrong with your monitor. Is it a Sony?
nicolaiecostel: I don't think that the images are horrible, as some are saying, I just think that they aren't that good.
I expected better DR OOC from a Fuji sensor, but it seems that even with a little PP, you can't get away from the fact that this is a 24 Mp crop sensor camera.
I find the latitude to be rather small and noise creeps in easily when pushing the shadows, a la D300 or some older camera.
The ISO is quite good, I wouldn't expect a clean ISO6400 or 12800 from a crop camera anyways.
What I find bad is the color, especially the white balance. It' too cold outside and too warm inside and in artificial light. Even the PP'd outside shots are still too cold, unrealistic.
Some shots are fairly soft, due to the lens, the ISO400 shot under the bridge is toast from the PP. I feel that this is not a camera I would be confortable shooting with since I shoot manual and I have to PP a lot to get the exact look I want.
But if you're in the market for a top Fuji, you don't have much choice.
How on earth can you judge DR from a shot with a default tone curve?
Maybe, but on all camera review sites there is often a big disconnect between what people actually need, and the specifications of a camera that is reviewed. It's very easy to get camera envy for 42 megapixel cameras, but unless you print images at a decent size, it's a lot of money for no gain.
If people can relate their needs accurately to a camera's specifications, then it makes sense to choose according to those needs, but the biggest reason for wanting some feature seems to amount to the fact that some other camera has it, not that it's particularly useful or necessary given the intended usage.
It also gives rise to a permanent level of dissatisfaction, because some other camera is always better in some respect. On the other hand, it may not be fun to use, which - if you take pictures as a hobby - is far more important.
I met Toshihisa Iida, along with Dave Hobby and Zack Arias at a Fuji event in London a few years ago. The auditorium was full, and this was before the XT1 was even announced. Afterwards, some of us piled into a nearby pub basement for a chat with the speakers.
Toshihisa was enthusiastic, candid, funny, and extremely fluent in English. No doubting the commitment to the brand and its future, or their determination to follow a different path.
They were surprised by the reception to the X100, but it highlighted a core market that everyone was ignoring in the race to have the broadest appeal.
For those that love Fuji cameras, there is no competition. For those that don't, there are many alternatives. Fuji had no intention of ignoring their core customer base, even as they worked on diversifying the range and expanding their appeal. With the XT, XE, XA and Xpro, and a well planned lens range, they have done so. Now it is just a matter of refinement.
57even: Here is an interesting thought.
If they had invented mirrorless cameras first, would anyone be bothering to patent a camera with a mechanical mirror, a bunch of prisms, a secondary mirror, and a separate AF sensor...?
While it's true that mirrorless can't quite match SOME of the best DSLRs for sports shooting, yet, DSLRs are more or less at a standstill in terms of development. They are already extremely refined to the point of being about as good as they can possibly be for their respective price bracket.
Mirrorless is barely out of nappies as a digital format. It has a lot of development potential and is moving as fast as EVF and sensor AF technology can forge ahead. Be interesting to be here in another 5 years and see what this guide says then... ;-)
I guess you should try them for yourself. I have owned several DSLRs and only two MILCs. The latter are far more accurate and consistent, whatever the scene. Neither are current generation either. That matters to me.
Some DSLRs, and only the top ones, have an edge over the best MILCs when it comes to tracking at changing distances, but when was the last time you tried a consumer SLR? They suck.
As far as tracking lateral movement, MILCs are already just about there, and far better in most respects than most consumer DSLRs. That only took around 5 years.
In a few years, the top end of the range will catch up to Canon 1Ds and Nikon D4s. As for the stop motion issue, refresh rates are getting better too, and at least you don't have the mirror blackout.
Burst speed is already higher, moreso in some cases.
Besides, I don't shoot fast sports for a living, so I don't really care. I worry far more about accuracy. I can get enough keepers for most motion-based shooting to get by.
Interesting. Matrix meters only maintain focus lock on the subject, something they have been doing for quite a while so its hardly an innovation. However, MILCs have a lot more AF sensors across more of the frame and do this rather better on the whole.
As for low light sensitivity and predictive AF, they have already matched a D7000 for speed. On the other hand, the D7000 had more complaints about AF accuracy that any other I can remember. Until the D800 possibly. Or the Canon 5Dmk2. Or...
And they all assume their cheap plastic Rebel will focus like a 1Ds.
The cameras you see on the touchlines of NFL games also have better AF than 95% of other DSLRs. Mirrorless has already caught up with most of them.
Nor do those cameras on the touchlines have better AF than they did 8 years ago. In another five years, they will still have the same AF and mirrorless will probably have overtaken them.
What will your reasoning be then?
The D7200 is based on an AF system first seen in the D3 and D300 in 2008 and not fundamentally changed since.
So where is the 'new' technology? It still has all the issues inherent in an indirect focus system and is just a refinement of previous technology going back far longer than that.