mas54: I see lenses only for other cameras, not their own. Are there actually lenses for these new cameras?
Ignorance is bliss.
Sigma makes some superb lenses, and many very good ones.
Bueche: Design is clearly not one of Sigma's strengths.
I think it is a great looking camera. Not sure what your issue is.
Kevin Purcell: The Sigma claim that the three layers are blue, green and red is just not true. It's marketing BS along with the 39MPx claim.
The probablility of a photon being absorbed in the top layer is highest for the blue, next most light for greenish and least likely for the red but all three do get some absortion in that layer. It's a desaturated bluish cyan.
In the middle layer a lot of the blue has been filtered (but not all) so that middle layer is a desaturated greenish yellow (some blue, some red and mostly green). The bottom layer is orangish red (mostly red, a little green and a very little blue).
To get to real RGB primaries you have to stick these (noisy) signal though a color matrix to remove the crosstalk between the colors (giving even noisier RGB signal out).
This is the major reason for Foeveon sensors poor high ISO performance (noise goes up quicker than you'd expect) and poor color fidelity (because your original primaries aren't very good).
Wow, not even on the market and already dismissed by The Experts. Although I hate to be self-referential, I feel I know what I am talking about... As I have posted elsewhere, "The Issue" here is how well it works, both in the hand and in terms of images. Sigma has been reasonably forthright, I believe, and as I have said elsewhere, in its recent comparisons to Bayer MP sensor counts, so when it says "39 MP" equivalent, suppose that is true? That would be pretty good in a small camera. Indeed, in any camera. And I have friends that know cameras, so I must know.
Minolta4Life: Take a review for what it's worth. Most of my reviews are not from using the product, but reviewing the specs, and/or appearance of an item if I'm dumbfounded by its looks (like that ugly Hasselblad makeover of the Sony Nex). I think most people fall in this category, being most of us don't have the means to test each camera that is pushed to market. I feel i am pretty camera savy. I shot Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Sony and Sigma over the years. I can pretty well determine the rain from the pee on my leg. Stop peeing on my leg, and I will give you rave reviews, i.e. Sony RX100II (all i ever want was a hotshoe), and Olympus OM-D (that would be my pretty wife that was also a freak in the bed). Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, stop giving us new nomenclature with meaningless upgrades.
tomface? What's your problem with that? You mean you actually want people to use a product before writing a review? Don't you think that's too much work and too hard? How about if someone just handled it in a store? Why isn't that enough? Maybe two minutes of fondling is all that is needed? But why even require that much? We all know how good a camera just by the name and specs anyway. Why let facts get in the way of our opinions?
ZhanMInG12: No macro ability at this focal range? Making it to 0.5x wouldn't really hurt, right?
Yes. This is a traditional approach, and not a bad one. I still have the Contax G2 and lenses. As for distance scale? What's all the whining about?
pixel_peeper: There's no bite to any of the pictures I have seen from the XPro-1, with the same random-array sensor as the X-E1s. They all look as if they've been shot at f22. I put it down to the sensor, which appears to give significantly inferior resolution to equivalent Bayer-array cameras.
There are few if any cameras that can do better than the DP2M, in both sharpness and color, and the Fuji cannot, at base ISO and possibly up to ISO400. From what I have seen ISOs above 400 are functional, but not excellent. The DP2M images are astounding., but sharpening has to be done gently. The DP2M is simply not as versatile as the new Fuji. The lens on the DP2M is also excellent. I am in the market for a new single camera, and it is an interesting time.
Years ago, when I bought my Contax G2, there were innumerable posts about the superiority of the Leica by folks who had never used the G2 and didn't much like or trust auto-focus, and who truly believed that all things Leica were better than anything Contax.
My Fiji GA645 is a superb and fun MF camera, with an excellent lens.
It is completely misguided to even suggest that somehow Fuji doesn't know how to make excellent cameras and lenses, or that Fuji FILM doesn't know sharpness and colors, just as much as Leica, Hasselblad, Schneider, not to mention Canon and Nikon, etc.
The Fuji reminds me a lot of the Contax G2, in terms of size and shape and appearance, and innovation. The jpg images seem superb. I assume that after a while the RAW processing techniques will catch up to the sensor output.
For people who want to focus manually, it seems clear that the XPro is designed mainly to be used on AF. So if you are "Old School' maybe new isn't for you.