I really think that if the are going to update older cameras they should at least update the Pro, particularly since they're keeping the Pro 2 on ice. Throw us a bone already.
Nick Payne: From the conclusion: "The G7 X's lens has a much longer reach than the LX100, the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100, and Canon's own PowerShot G1 X Mark II."
This sentence is plainly wrong. The G1X MkII has a longer reach: the G7X has a 24-100 equivalent lens, G1X MkII a 24-120.
Splendic, Actually at a given distance from a subject, compression is equivalent across all focal lengths. The reason you get more compression with a longer lens is because you're farther from your subject, not because of the focal length.
Roland Karlsson: We are not all living in America ...
We are not all having the same exact interests either. Read and comment on stories that matter to you. Easy.
SaltLakeGuy: I'm still trying to figure out why it is that the results they are getting vs. what I'm getting are near worlds apart. I'm using a X-T1 which is quite similar optically and electronically. Perhaps it's because they are using what I'm considering to be the unacceptable processing option of Adobe product. I have it (both Photoshop and Lightroom-the latest ones) and neither produce acceptable results for my fussy eyes in either Jpeg or Raw. Now on the other hand PhotoNinja produces a file I've found not only significantly exceeds a EM1 Olympus output but even a Canon's 6D output. Go figure. So as I say I have no idea what THEY are doing but glad I'm not doing it their way. The X-T1 files are ROCKIN in detail and lack of artifacts or false color.
Aperture is one of the best for x-trans. Limited market though
Richard Murdey: Newbie: "Oh no, dials!"Intermediate: "Yeah! Dials!"Advanced: "Whatever..."
Even advanced users are entitled to a preference.
kewlguy: For such an extensive review, why hasn't DPR tried other RAW converters for Fuji? Clearly ACR is the worst of all for processing X-Trans files including X20/X10. There are Iridient Developer, C1 Pro, PhotoNinja, and others. Of course, from the review I could see DPR loves OOC JPG too much.
@ SF Photo Gal
Video is not a key feature for the intended market of any of the X Series cameras, and particularly the 3 top tier models.
fyi, you replied to the wrong thread.
Mike Sandman: Nice review - thank you. I have an NEX-6 and am thinking about switching. After this review, still thinking... One thing the review may have covered but which I missed -- how do you change the shooting mode (Aperture preferred, speed preferred, etc).? There doesn't seem to be a dial for this.
It is a nice implementation of PASM with manual controls.
SF Photo Gal: Not that I care really, but curious how the X-E2 gets a score of 80 and Gold, yet the GX7 received a 78 and Silver; the GX7 was criticized for having only a 2 axis IBIS and none for video, yet the X-E2 doesn't have IBIS at all; GX7 has a tilting touch screen and the X-E2 is fixed and no touch feature; GX7 has far superior video and seems the IQ is about the same, and they seem to be in the same "class" so what's up with that?
Well there is this thing called sensor size...
This article, and the comments that follow it, illustrate the perils of overgeneralization. For example there are Tall people, and Short people, each falling on opposite sides of an arbitrary, or arithmetic norm. Clearly this kind of analysis does not leave room for the majority of us, falling somewhere between two extremes.
iAPX: Long viewfinder blackout timeLonger-than-average startup timesCamera 'locks up' while buffer is clearing after continuous shootingOverly sensitive eye sensor (also stays active when screen is tilted)short battery life
So you don't see your subject while shooting, you shoot too late, your camera won't be able to shoot when necessary, display may stop working, you will not have enough autonomy and you will need to buy an optional charger and battery. Single memory card slot (no backup!)? Wifi without live view (as I have on my Panasocnic LF1/Leica C) ?
Is it a middle-end $300 compact camera? or a toy for hipster?
This camera isn't really for capturing "the instant" . There are other types of photography, you know. This camera is very well suited to many of them. Much more so than a pocketable point and shoot.
quezra: Ah, DPR... the contortions you have twisted yourself into to explain why you wasted so much time on JPEGs on the A7 then wrote them off on the A7r are just delightful. :) I am also glad you guys got a crash course in legacy lens usage c/o Roger Cicala. Thumbs up to Mr Cicala!
People buying this to shoot jpeg are probably not going to notice any issues.
Lng0004: Correction: NEX has always been Alpha. It was Sony Alpha NEX.
"dubbed Bionz X"
Not everyone reads every Sony review, so I say keep it in all of them. It is a silly name, no reason not to mention it.
cheetah43: Is it acceptable to tolerate a noisy and shaky shutter in this day and age? What happened to the shutter technology of 50-60 years ago?
I don't think that means what you think it means...
By pew pew (18 min ago)"its called physics less mass more inertia"
Percival Merriwether: Photography is about vision, and whether the photographer achieves this vision in-camera or with post-processing is largely irrelevant. I commend Elena Shumilova for her work.
montygm: Nice shots and lighting. But very heavily photoshopped. Lots of vignetting, fogging and blurring added. The two shots on her Flickr page towards the end shows two completely different shots with dust particles floating in the air…if you look closely the dust specks are in the same position in both. I have no problem with using Photoshop, it's a necessary evil with digital cameras these days…however I find it rather dishonest when the photographer downplays the use of it and pretends it is "natural".
Photoshop and other similar programs expand the palette of those with the vision and skill to leverage the tech. There is nothing realistic about any photograph. They are all partial and imperfect representations of reality. The real question is, what is art?
digiart: Nikon should be taking notes... This seems to be a gem of a camera. The right mix of analog and digital. Retro style camera done right.
I mostly agree with your assessment of the relative merits of the two systems.
One thing that is different about the fuji approach is that the lenses were designed for this type of camera. Because (most) XF lenses have aperture rings with an auto setting, there is no need for a mode dial.
Matt1645f4: Can we start talking about a cameras ability to take still images, rather than any inability or poor video mode? This Camera screams out its Photographic ability, So stop bitching and moaning about video!!
I'm not a movie shooter but it is clear that there is as much capacity for thoughtful artistic expression in movies as there is in stills. More so today than ever, and certainly more than in the earlier days of emulsion imaging.
Nobody here speaks for Ansel Adams. He didn't have the tools that we take for granted, so there is no point in guessing what he might have done with them.
Rawmeister: Everything depends on that 50-140 f2.8 vapourware.One day we'll see what's up with this system.
Fuji has executed 100% on their roadmap to date. Where the have diverged, it has been to upgrade specs. (56mm from 1.4 to 1.2, weather resist on upcoming zooms).
There is no credible justification for any skepticism with regard to the lens roadmap.
munro harrap: More programmed obsolescence. That big screen-do Fuji supply a weatherproof jacket that is non-scratch??Why doesn't the screen turn in towards the body for protection when not in use?The focus point selection on a Nikon 7100 only works when using MANUAL focus, like the D800, so this Fuji is no different .
I shall wait until it is full-frame with the same pixel density in the same-sized body with a screen that wont get wrecked (how about a screen cover, Fuji?).
All these cameras lack screen protection so obviously there is a programmed obsolescence cabal at work here, broken only by Sony's full-frame, slow as ditchwater also unprotected model.
Reviewers need to use stuff , not just repeat the company handouts, please. In practice these things are pigs to use.An R1 is superior except for noiseand RAW speed- it has an inbuilt 24-120mm lens as good as the fujis', and you can turn off the screen which is protectable. And it is silent plus 0.007sec lag prefocussed.
Somebody needs to eat more fiber...
Photographer Jonathan: A really nice camera, BUT, every new camera should have a touch screen, and it should be articulating so you can angle it for portraits not just landscape, and for actual photo shoots, it is a must to have a focus point that can be moved in one step, nice and fast, not two steps, and 8000 shutter would of been nice also, and a higher flash sync speed, and a popup flash, I could keep going if a wanted to, but this camera is really nice, now if Canon would make one the same, with there regular lens mount that takes my ff glass, that would be great, but I might have to buy this new fuji along with the 56 f1.2 lens, and the 35 f1.4,,,,,, I am sick of waiting for Canon, and Nikon slightly missed the boat with the DF, it should've been more like this fuji Xt1, ( real digital fusion ) with electronic view finder, focus peaking, video, touch flip screen, 4 years in the making so they could leave out all the new technology, doesn't make sense, go Fuji, kick Nikon and Canon's ass
A touch screen is antithetical to the design criteria for this camera.
People who want chunky knobs generally don't want virtual, contextual touch-sensitive controls.
It wouldn't necessarily hurt the experience but Fuji was probably wise to save that r&d for a x-M1 form factor.