I was not aware DPR, or the photographic community in general, had begun evaluating camera equipment on the basis of whether the user, or subjective audience, is instantly elevated to being a better photographer simply by holding/using or viewing images taken with said equipment... O.oAn image does not need to awe its audience in subject, composition, or creative lighting in order to represent a technical example of what the equipment is capable of providing. These are 'real-world' shots after all, that means just like the bulk of your 'real-world' shots sitting on 'your' computer there are any number of images that would not impress anyone photographically..Just as one can strip a nut with a $75 wrench, someone else can get the job done with a $5 pair of pliers - the tool is being evaluated here, not the wielder... Enough already.
Gottschalk: I'm confused. I keep reading about the stunning high ISO of the Fuji's but I just don't see it. The pic above at ISO 800 and her hair is totally smeared from NR. I keep comparing iso 3200 pics to my E-M5 and I really don't see less noise...
Stop trolling..The shot was at f2 and her shirt across the front of the shoulders is the plane of focus.. Holding the umbrella the way she is brings her shoulders just ahead of her eyes, and hair - nothing more than a slightly missed focus.Try comparing your m5 to the airplane at 6400 on page three  if you want to see how poorly your m5 compares to one of the best..
jtan163: What's going on with that blue wall? The top edge is very fuzzy or aliased?I don't think it is focus per se, because the bottle and the bottom edge of the blue are similarly sharp, but the top blue edge is ....eeek!Is my spacial perception failing me or is there something odd here?
Focal plane.. the top of the blue wall and the closest portion of the cement at the bottom are oof being much closer to the camera than the bottles, which were the focal point.
Ed/Chicago: On that singer sewing machine, what does that 3014 stand for? Is that a model number?
It is 301A, and it is the model number... circa e1950s.. the A designates it was manufactured in their Anderson, NC factory.
JFBee: I wish a Nikon Df was built like this. Maybe they get inspired by Fuji, who got the dials ergonomics right. Let's hope AF performance will match that of a DLSR.
Just about anyone with reasonable experience using Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Contax, etc film bodies 'know'... and can show/explain it to you..The grip does not have to be a wax-form of the human hand to be comfortable or ergonomic - matter of fact even that would be uncomfortable to many users - it simply needs to place things under your fingers without too much manipulation.My old film bodies are very comfortable to use, have the shutter release on top of the body, and all one need do is naturally curve the index finger over the film advance lever.. I can assure you it is comfortable unless you have very very small hands..For reference purposes, a body like this does not hang from your fingered grip, it rests on the lower portion of your palm, placing your hand in a more upright angle than modern dslr bodies, and in that position your index finger is in a more vertical position (naturally) easily able to curve over the exposure compensation dial to reach the shutter button.
lorenzo de medici: This looks like a great camera. I don't like the current trend of putting old fashioned round dials on the tops of cameras. The old round dials 30 years ago were mechanical devices. These are just pointless imitations, all the workings are electronic. Ergonomics should take priority over fashion in a serious camera. I can easily adjust aperture, ISO, shutter speed, exposure compensation, metering, and focus mode on my Nikon D600 without taking my eye from the viewfinder. And there are no odd bumps between my finger and the shutter button.
On the contrary - to both.The dedicated dials and wheels provide pro-level shooting access without the size and expense of pro-level bodies. If you do not need/want/prefer to change settings then these body styles are simply not for you.. They do offer access to fully automatic modes though, so instead of complaining about the control access - just do not use them.
Holy fusion Batman! Fuji has built a digital film camera!!It looks/functions similar to my old Canon AE and Nikon FE series bodies (with grip hump added) - provides mirrorless lens flexibility (along with quality system lenses) - and while I would prefer a traditional split prism EVF mode for manual focusing this implementation looks to be the most functional non-optical iteration by anyone so far (assuming it can be used quickly) - provides all shooting functions without having to enter a menu (beyond initial set up if needed) - and does not require any button/dial combinations to change settings. All in a package that includes Fuji's great image quality and noise performance...For the 'always take with me' body, Fujifilm is probably going to get a good bit of my $$.
Does not leave me wanting for anything but the 'may never see' and 'not possibles'.
Retzius: I can't believe this is actually listed as a negative:
"Tools for shooting with third party lenses need improvement"
OK, lets be fair. Next time you post a Nikon review, I want to see "Tools for shooting with Canon lenses needs implementation" as a negative point.
Docking Sony for not giving you a full featured tool set for shooting with non-Sony lenses is just ludicrous and down-right biased. I don't see Nikon and Canon going out of their way to implement 3rd party hardware. To the contrary, Nikon releases firmware updates to hinder it!
Also 'being fair' we have to acknowledge the two things none of the mirrorless bodies are able/willing to provide in this configuration. The first is a design limitation - a MIRROR and optical viewfinder..... and the second is more of a financial issue, and that is electronic support for other manufacturers electronic lenses.. So while Sony may not be currently offering leading support 3rd party lenses, the reality is that no manufacturer will probably ever be able to, or willing to, offer the support needed.. =/
As long as we are 'being fair' one of the primary applications of a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera would be the ability to use 3rd party lenses due to no limitation of lens to sensor distance.. It is a completely valid point to weight in its evaluation, especially when you consider that other mirrorless manufacturers 'do' provide adaptation specifically for 3rd party lenses..Why it is a negative in the case of Sony is because Sony thinks itself big enough that they don't 'need' 3rd party lens use, they are sorely mistaken.. This would however be the exact same thinking we would see from Nikon and Canon - but those two companies actually could validate that logic, Sony cannot.Therefore "Tools for shooting with third party lenses need improvement" is a factor that many purchasers 'will' be considering...
jenbenn: Hm if a look at the green felt in the test scene the disadvantages of the x-trans sensor in the x-m1 and x-e2 compared to the x-a1 becomes very obvious. Both JPGS and RAWs of the x-e2 and the x-m1 are much softer compared to the corresponding files from the x-a1. So far I thought that the x-trans softness was a raw converter problem. From the test scene it appears however that even Fuji hasn't found a proper way to process the x-trans data for their in-camera jpgs!
Fuji as much as I love your cameras, please, drop that stupid xtrans colour filter array.In reality images created from bayer sensors (which include an anti alising filter) are much sharper. The noise advantage often attributed to x-trans is not real as it comes at the expense of softer files. Sorry but the same can be achieved with a proper raw converter and some noise reduction.
You know not what you speak of..Your looking at the difference in raw converter (w/ raw files) and base jpg settings (w/ ooc jpgs) NOT the difference in sensors. The X-Trans sensors have better iso performance and detail resolve than comparable bayer array sensors, period.Will that be the case forever, probably not, but is the reality atm. One would hope that manufacturers will get back to designing sensors with more concern in ISO performance rather than super high mp that you have to throw away (downsampling) but it is likely that it won't happen until some proverbial threshold is reached in mp..
You won't find it on DPR but you can find plenty of other sources that process X-Trans raw files with different apps than Adobe that show more of what the sensors can do.. Just because Adobe products are the most used doesn't mean they are the best to use - if you have trouble grasping that simple concept you probably should not be publicly voicing your criticisms of the products.
wkay: I'd really like to know how you get your bugs to sit still for 10 minutes while you setup the tripod in their faces, compose, and take 11 shots..
heh.. you can also use the machine gun method, especially if you plan to do a little bit of cropping in the final image. In that you simply take a series of shots at your cameras top fps rate while you slowly turn the focus ring, lol.Not the best method for absolute critical sharpness, especially if your camera body vibrates too much, but in stacking you have lots of room to make small adjustments.(Need to be on a tripod of course.)
Timmbits: " it’s better to change the focal point by moving the lens physically back and forth rather than using the focus ring"
I am curious as to how to do this...
I'm imagining my camera on a tripod, and I have to move it by a fraction of a millimeter... how does that work?
Didn't want to leave you with the wrong impression, or have you think that rails are the only/best way.-Ideally- you would look for a macro lens that does not 'focus breath' (change its magnification) though many lenses people use do. The author mentions the Canon MP-E 65 which is a fantastic lens though big heavy and expensive. One of its benefits though is that it does not change its magnification through short adjustments unless you wrack the focus from min to max, and even then it isn't much. That allows you to simply bump the focus ring a little, capture an image, bump it a little further, capture another image etc. That will result in a series of images that are the same magnification (distance) on the sensor - only differing in what is in focus from front to back of the subject.
Timmbits,There are numerous styles of rails that will mount to your tripod, to which your camera mounts to the rails, allowing you to slide your camera forward/back in small increments (typically marked in millimeters.)That would allow you to keep the same focal length of the lens while moving the focal plane forward or back for each image needed.
MP Burke: I think that the interest in photographing animals in the field is the ability to capture behaviour, such as fighting, feeding and mating.Going out when the insect is at its coldest and immobile prevents such behaviour being observed.The dragonfly in the photograph is not identified and indeed could be difficult to identify, since the view does not show the top of the abdomen or thorax where many characteristic markings are likely to be. Some may regard the image as novel or attractive, but it says little about what the insect is and nothing about what it does, so I do not regard it as being particularly useful nature photography.It should be said that if people become fixated on stacking and want a static subject there are many pinned specimens already in museum collections. Some invertebrates are in decline: no need to kill them. Finally many small animals have been photographed using the scanning electron microscope, with higher DOF and resolution than optical can provide.
Forget the article, there are many aspects of photography in general you do not appear to fully understand.If I were to put it in the same 'black and white' context you have shared, there would be two types of photographers:1 - Those that use photography as a tool for creative expression and/or interpretation.2 - Others similar to yourself primarily interested in 'cataloging' everything around them through photography.
There is no right/wrong either way - just a different usage.
In contrast to your assertion however, I would dare say that most viewers and photographers looking at the dragonfly image noticed the symmetry, colors, fragile nature of its wings, etc and were not concerned what specific variety of its species it belongs to. It is simply a moment frozen in time that we are able to capture, study, enjoy, and at times even compose the perspective to produce imagery that is interesting/pleasing to look at.
SiliconVoid: Little value in these news updates until ACR produces higher levels of detail than is already achievable in the jpg files. We know there is more detail there than ACR can process or the jpg files would not already be beyond what many other cameras deliver with their raw files.How about showing what Fuji's raw converter does - its not like 'everyone' uses ACR to process their raw files, regardless of whether they use LR to process their output. How about DxO, CaptureOne, and several others that process Fuji files better than ACR. Though that would show the level of superiority the X-Trans sensor has over the 'end-of-life' Bayer designs, and we wouldn't want to do that to Sony and Toshiba now would we... =)
I understand the popularity of ACR/LR, and therefore the underlying interest, though as it cannot process any higher levels of detail than Fuji's own jpg engine it is still of little relevance until it does..DPReview has mentioned numerous times though no attempts are made to tweak processing, choosing instead to maintain a level of uniformity in processing so there is some relevance to other sensors. I have tweaked ACR output of the X-Pro1 that surpasses results shown by DPReview. Unless DPReview is going to do the same it lessens the relevance of comparison given that the X-Trans is completely different.Not trying to be combative btw, I am aware of the time needed to find the best tweak for each sensor versus an established 'average' setting. I am just stating an observation that 'updating' results that still show false softness and overall lack of image detail is doing little but degrading interest in what represents one of the few real evolutionary technologies in this industry.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Beautiful camera but raws are way too soft compared to the other cameras. What's the excuse this time? Not depth of field again, I expect...
-Undisclosed Fujifilm processing engine...
Not sure why Fuji feels the need to keep it a secret when they can see it is negatively impacting the perception of the sensor.. O.o
Little value in these news updates until ACR produces higher levels of detail than is already achievable in the jpg files. We know there is more detail there than ACR can process or the jpg files would not already be beyond what many other cameras deliver with their raw files.How about showing what Fuji's raw converter does - its not like 'everyone' uses ACR to process their raw files, regardless of whether they use LR to process their output. How about DxO, CaptureOne, and several others that process Fuji files better than ACR. Though that would show the level of superiority the X-Trans sensor has over the 'end-of-life' Bayer designs, and we wouldn't want to do that to Sony and Toshiba now would we... =)
Not sure why we are worrying about low-pass filters and occasional areas of detail only visible/beneficial at ISO100 and above f/3.5. The bigger issue is the approach Nikon is taking and resulting image quality they try to market to the consumers just to have an 'edge' in the MP race no one is running except Nikon. The "grain" that is introduced due to signal amplification (seen as low as ISO400!!) is a step backwards in digital photography evolution, and is only accepted by some because they just want Nikon to be the best, be in the lead, and a considerable more who are just ignorant of what it should be.It has gotten to the same point graphics cards did 5-10 years ago where manufacturers tweaked their hardware to run benchmark tests (DxO in this arena) but yield no real benefit in the real world. As some have noticed here, the Pentax outperforms the D7100 in almost every area - but certainly in lower noise and retention of detail which gets destroyed by the "grain" in the D7100.
I try to keep up with this kind of stuff, not sure how this announcement got past me.. BUT in having recently visited the Hasselblad website, the new Lunar is nothing more than an NEX-6/7 with fancy trim... Damn!!, I was hoping for a cropped MF sensor, lol, which would have been a 35mm sensor - /sigh..
Oh well.... Who will be first with a 'real' interchangeable lens mirrorless body????****A 35mm digital body!****
Oh, sorry.. I was referring to the whinny-ass comments, not the camera….
Why do we have to hear from the gadgetographers every time a new camera is announced? Does a camera have to have more mp and speech recognition to be of benefit? Do we need 36mp to get great 2-8mp downsampled images? Is high-mp high-gain noise ok because it can look like 'grain'? The industry does not need film-like 'grain' at ISO-640 so some gadgetographers can have more mp - especially when 95% of everything they produce ends up a ~2mp image on a computer screen.Why do people complain what the newest model 'needs' when they are not even capable of using the camera they have...?
What we - need - is better performance from current technology.We need ISO-100 IQ up to ISO-6400.We need less expensive better quality lenses.We need people to stop buying these toys and force the manufacturers back to producing the most efficient, capable, digital photography tools they can for a reasonable price.