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. And even lossly compressed RAW on a 36MP camera targeting pro looking for quality (elsewhere they wont need 36MP).
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). And your raw won't be real raw?
Is it a middle-end $300 compact camera? or a toy for hipster?My first owned DSLR, Nikon D70 could do better in many areas!!!
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?
harold1968: hey, with all this stuff, soon my Leica R5 is going to look modern again ...Perhaps I should have some flared jeans ready ....
Have to be Jordache
Bangers and Mash: Being from the old school, I love all this retro styling. Olympus got the old SLR ball rolling, then we hear from Nikon, Sony and now Fuji -- did I miss anyone? So who's next in line? Love to hear from Canon with a digital A-1 perhaps. Shame Minolta isn't around anymore. I started out in Photography with the old Minolta SRT-101. Boy would I have loved to see a digital version of that.
They already learned from Nikon's mistakes: It has the shutter, aperture and program mode selectors sorted correctly. Oh, and it has (on most lenses) an aperture dial.
And even if it is expensive, it won't cost $3k USD.
Press Correspondent: Nikon is not as dumb as it seems: baby boomers are entering the nostalgic age. They've taken enough pictures already, they just need to hold something familiar that they can still recognize. 16 mp? Oh, my... Some may need new reading glasses.
I agree with T3. I would be much more enthusiastic about a mirror-less incarnation of the Df. Particularly if it was priced like the A7.
antoin: I'm sorry but this camera does not deserve a DPreview score of 81%. Using the DPreview compare tool and adding the Pentax K01, I can see that the DF has approx. 30% more "value" compared to the K01 -that's 30% more bang for buck. I bought a new K01 at a reduced price of AU$299. Compared to the DFit has shake reduction,full hd movies, inbuilt flash, albeit the K01 is an APS-C format compared to the full frame Df. The Dxomark sensor score for the K01 is 79, which puts it near the top of the APS-C rankings.Yet DPReview gave it a score of 69%, and comparing that figure to the 81% for the Df, well its a bit of a joke. Regarding the Df - "Disappointing AF performance drops off in moderate light", I would imagine this would be a deal breaker if you are trying to get the most out of its excellent sensor in low light situations.
MayaTlab0: For some reason, while I believe the X-E1/X-E2/X-pro 1 got faster minimum shutter speeds in auto ISO, the X100s didn't and remains stuck at 1/125.
Might have something to do with the fact that you can't put a long lens on an X100. It will probably happen at some point. X100 also uses a different shutter so it might not be as simple as copying the code over.