Rick Knepper: I voted for medium format. I would think anyone who has inspected a RAW from this format in recent years and are not blind would have to admit that the IQ is unparalleled by any sensor smaller. Of course, there are many valid reasons to reject MF: price & other costs, capabilities such as high ISO, fps, or portability, and the poor man's complaint: file size.
That makes two of us... while many seems to disagree, affordable relatively compact 50MP fixed-lens camera would be a killer. I think they can build it, just holding it back until they can sell more of their conventional cameras.
alkaabi: i beg to differ; I don't see what is so significant in this show. all old technology in new cases. We where expecting big news; such as new Medium format camera from sony with fixed lens. or new advancement in lens technology or size. or new Leica M (yeh yeh there was new Ms that no one will buy). I mean, nothing, zilch, just another show that adds nothing.
True, I don't like their IQ enough. And what should I use within a price range of less than 5000 USD, might I ask? I think you assume everybody can cash out 10000 on a camera. So many of the users ARE forced to buy APS-C or FF. If Sony or Fuji could come up with an affordable mirror less fixed lens camera THAT would be big news. I feel strange I have to explain it, it's not so hard to understand.
It appears Sony and Fuji will hold up the medium format mirrorless for a few more years, forcing more people buy their lower end stuff.
a "little" quiet? or the most quiet? as in sleepy boring...
pookipichu: I'm hoping for mirrorless medium format with 56 x 42mm sensor (or at least 53.9 x 40.4mm). It would revolutionize medium format and it's not technologically unfeasible. Build it and the buyers will come.
If the price is right, I'm talking about QUEUES in front of camera stores.
Unfortunately they opt to extend this period so that we have to continue buying their smaller sensor cameras for a while more. It would create queues in front of camera stores if they made an affordable, fixed-lens version and a more pro interchangeable-lens version. It is feasible, but marketing strategy stops them from doing it, I guess.
Where is the affordable medium format mirrorless?
I rate the first picture +18.
tom43: Very weak performance of ALL companies for the world’s leading imaging fair. Two boring DSLRs from Nikon and Canon, nothing from Sony, an over-priced Zeiss lens, no new Sigma ART lens, no new Software from Adobe (LR 6?)....
It is boring indeed. I too expected more.
princewolf: I could never get used to the idea of carrying an expensive camera upside down, may be it's just me...
Ummm...yes, they pretty much do, as long as it's a good fit.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's okay if people are happy this way (upside down), but obviously I did not manufacture the camera so I have no idea if this has an adverse effect on the mechanism or not. I may be just paranoid.
I could never get used to the idea of carrying an expensive camera upside down, may be it's just me...
Now that it's out of the hands of the original Kodak, there is some chance it might actually be good. Bad memories about digital Kodaks before.
I'm thinking of buying one. I like Putin...
DPR has been doing the right thing using ladies' hands for a change now...
VF is sexier than LCD, period.
As a black x-100 owner, I'm crazy jaleous!!
This is about as good as it gets with this sensor size. And it IS good.
Those of us who still can't see x10 on the shelves can download the firmware and feel as if we have it... fantasy world.
princewolf: Thank you very much for this Dr. Fossum. I was very excited to see you around in dpreview, and it's our chance and privilege. Several points;
-"Force of marketing..." is one of the best quotes I have ever heard, it explains a lot of things going on in technology driven industries.
-The UDTV with 33 MP, if it were available today, could make photography pretty much a thing of the past, considering that still digital photos today have so much resolution advantage over HDTV, but again there would always be a cheaper 60MP still image taker for any 33MP video camera!
-I suspect viewing a 33MP video at 60fps would be quite challenging for the brain. There is no doubt about the advantage in image quality, but some neural problems may arise but I guess it's too early-and certainly not for me to pass judgement on.
Finally, I would like to ask if you could recommend a "for dummies" type resource for understanding the deeper electronics of current photography technology?
-Most people live below their eyes' resolution capability all their lives, and some people who just start wearing glasses have difficulty adjusting to the clarity. In fact, optometrists prescribe less than perfect numbers on purpose because brain can have difficulty absorbing all the details. I'm talking about long term effects, and unless you are a neurologist Uaru, your guess is as good as mine.
-With a videocam with 32 MP output resolution shooting at 60 fps-oh yeah, I would be worried! Even if some frames were interpolated, a 30 fps shooting with 32 MP each would allow me to pick the best frame. Of course other adjustments such as ISO speed, aperture control, shutter speed etc would still be necessary, but hey--they can incorporate all these into video if they make a 32MP@60fps videocam. In any case, for any 32MP videocam there would still be a photo camera with at least twice the resolution, so the point is moot.