Ruy Penalva: I don't understand why Zeiss insist on doing MF lens. Wake up Zeiss!
Clearly, these lenses weren't made for me.
It wouldn't be a problem except that they don't make any lenses for me. I suppose I could buy their A-mount 135mm and a converter, but alternately, they could just make an e-mount, maybe?
Comments on DP Review crack me up sometimes. When someone posts a stunning image, about half the comments are about the camera. When someone posts an image to illustrate a camera feature, we write in with questions about the subject.
When someone posts a photo that simply could not be taken (at all) with traditional cameras, someone will write in to claim it could have been taken with their camera phone.
Indoor sports pics are about the most demanding thing you can do with a camera, unless you are using it to hammer in your tent stakes. The need to focus fast in low light reduces most cameras to tears. Freezing the action (or shooting handheld) with a boatload of pixels leaves the tears blurry and black-and-white..
Delta 3200 (35mm) film used to have a nice gritty look to it. You could push it to 6400, and it wasn't great, but still had more texture and "feel" than almost any digital. Not so any more. The high ISO files you published had a lot more to work with than even high-ISO film.
Now I want an 810. It is out of my price range for an "armature" photographer, but nice to know it can jump through hoops when needed. Thanks for the article.
I don't even understand how camera companies are able to lose money. The markup is huge, and they come out with new products every 20 days or so.
Canon and Nikon make a pretty reliable profit even in a down market, but everyone else breaks even. I don't get it. It costs them a couple of hundred dollars to make a product that they are selling for a thousand.
Where is all the money going? Those commercials with Ashton Kutcher must cost a lot more than I thought.
I hope DPR will do a complete review of this soon. If the tracking AF really is good enough for sports, then Fuji nailed this one.
JWest: Great to see Samsung getting the recognition they deserve. Their NX system ticks all the major boxes - a great quality APS-C sensor, fantastic ergonomics, and a remarkable range of glass. It's always been mystifying to me that they don't get a lot more attention.
Samsung has the manufacturing and technical ability to dig into the market share of Nikon and Canon if they want to. As it is, they are putting big sensors in small packages, which is a pretty good start, but hurts Sony and Oly more than Canon and Nikon.
The problem so far is that they don't make any revolutionary cameras. Each model (so far) is basically a Sony with a few improvements.
I am looking forward to seeing how the NX30 matches up with the next round of Sony cameras. It sounds like the NX30 might be the camera to beat this year.
Bjorn_L: How is this the first weather resistant superzoom? The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 has been out for 4 months and is also sealed.
I think Fuji has discovered over the years that it is better to make a marketing claim that is not technically true than to let others make the claim.
If you do a Google search for "world's fastest autoocus" (for example), it turns up a bunch of Fuji marketing claims. People who read the footnotes discover it is only for certain lighting conditions, with certain features turned off. But many people never read the footnotes.
Similarly, Fuji can make the claim that they made the first weatherproof superzoom, knowing that they can argue over the definition of "super" easier than they can admit that Sony beat them to the market. And if the customer ends up happy with the camera, then it won't matter.
Still, I wish DP Review would at least make an attempt to comment on press releases, rather than just running them word-for-word. If Fuji made a claim like "better picture quality than Canon", odds are that DP Review would not publish the press release.
If Fuji said "first APSC fixed lens compact", odds are that DP Review would correct the error.
It is unclear to me if this claim is technically true. It would be helpful if the experts would shed some light on it.
All of them take good pictures. The differences come down to usability, depth of field, autofocus and so on. I carry around a Sony RX100 because I like the size and autofocus speed, and am willing to give up the rest.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of autofocus speed and accuracy. I am told the X100S is blazing fast and that the Ricoh is not too shabby. The Sony gets good reviews, but some people claim it gets distrated too easily. As far as the other cameras in the class, I couldn't even start to guess.
Nothing is worse than carrying a pocket camera around all day and coming home with 100 pictures that focused on the trees behind your subject.
Munene: I need some straight advice, please: GX7 or XE2?
Background: I used to shoot with my Leica M6. I do mostly street photography. I love my GF1, but am ready to upgrade. Two issues: I do not like the way the light meter reads in GF1 (or I use it wrong), why not a match like the old days (needle, diodes)? I don't know if the exposure is correct until I press the shutter? Again, this could be me. The XE2 has a shutter dial on the camera, but how does this affect reading the light meter inside the viewfinder? THIS IS A BIG ISSUE.
So, GX7 or XE2? I am not too concerned with video or wifi or whatever, just good images. Does the fuji sensor trump the 4/3, end of conversation? I sometimes enlarge to 20X24. My old Leica (and Canon FTb), I have prints 4' X 6'! Both are awesome (not really planning more, I used to print at a lab).
Unfortunately I cannot find a store that carries both for me to look at (or even one of them, where I live).
Here is what I shoot: www.visualquotations.comThank you!
If you are going to shoot with the kit lens, you might like the Fuji better. The kit lens is faster, and has better color. If you hate the Fuji color (I can't tell the difference, but some people can), or if you are going to be using fast primes for most of your work, you might like the Panny better. The Panasonic 25mm 1.4, in particular, is an amazing lens, and easily stands up to the Fuji 35mm 1.4. (Maybe beats it.)
The Panasonic touchscreen is also very good, and there are some features (like interval shooting) that show up on the Panasonic (I think) that are not available on the Fuji without quite a bit of tinkering.
Unless I am mistaken, I think the Panasonic is also something like $500 cheaper. So you could save your money and spend it on that lens. This might seem like an odd compromise, but it really isn't: A good lens will still be a good lens ten years from now, while a 2013 camera will be sold, replaced, broken, or trashed within five years (on average).
Although digital camera life spans are getting longer, very few people are still using the same camera they were in 2008.
groucher: This is a classic compromise - a fully featured camera (except for video) in a retro body. A shrink wrapped but cluttered D4. I'm hoping that this is the first in a series of Dfs and that eventually we'll have a Dfm with no rear screen, no PAS and no wired or wireless connectivity - a true uncluttered digital FM (or FE).
Underneath all the controls, thumbwheels and displays the Fd looks pretty good.
Or I could just buy an FE.
Toccata47: The only point that matters is autofocus speed...I may have missed it, but I didn't see any commentary on this.
@brownie314: I have the same situation. I have a very low rate of keepers for a variety of reasons, but usually it is because the camera (my NEX5, for example) failed to focus. Almost any kid can give you a low "hit" rate, but special needs kids even more so.
All cameras are a compromise, and I frequently have to wait for the reviews to let me know how much AF speed I am giving up to gain a weight advantage.
rdz: tautological??? WOW! DP REVIEW Vocab class is now in session. Bueller? Bueller? Not only do we get the absolute pinnacle of camera reviewing expertise we also get the word for the day. My dictionary is smokin'.
Ha. I live in Florida. Using big words here is like showing a card trick to a dog.
jhinkey: At first glance this seems silly, but upon thinking what I use an AW camera for it makes some sense. My current AW camera is a Panasonic TS3 which has already failed me on vacation one time (after using it twice) and was replaced under warranty (second vacation it worked fine). In general it makes just OK pictures and the battery life sucks, especially if using video at all. Nikon equivalent is no better.
So having a large-ish sensored Nikon system that I can take kayaking, snorkeling, canoeing, swimming, etc. and not have to worry about it seems great. Just not sure of the cost - especially since the lenses are not stabilized which seems like a real requirement when bobbing up and down in the surf or in a kayak or . . . .
HA Raw: I looked up some samples from the DP review of each, and the D800 completely buries the V1 at every ISO.
The color is similar at 6400, but only in JPG. In Raw, the chroma noise on the V1 is overwhelming. The resolution on the D800 is outstanding, even at 6400, while the V1 is only usable for telephone-size screens.
I admit that a lot of people are obsessed with sharpness, and miss out on the artistic look that can be obtained from the V1. In addition, the V1 might deliver better images for hacks like me, because of the blazing fast AF. (Also, since it is smaller, I might actually have it with me, if I bought one.)
But for sharpness, dynamic range, color, and low-light capability, the D800 is hard to beat. If your V1 works better, then there is a chance that your D800 needs service.
AS far as HA RAW claiming the ISO 6400 will be better than the D800, I can't imagine that will be true. (No matter how much you like grain...)
I have not used either, so I can't say for sure, but there are some laws of physics to deal with. Also, about a hundred thousand camera reviews from people who know a lot about image quality.
Faster AF, maybe.
I think your comment was exactly right. This is a great camera for people who occasionally drop their camera. I, for one, never plan to drop the camera, so I rarely have the waterproof housing on when it happens.
Deardorff: 14 degrees? ABOVE zero???
That is not cold. They are claiming it won't freeze up in the cold so why isn't it good to 30 below which is what our winters generally hit when bad weather comes in.
Sounds nice, but I already use my gear in sub zero temps with good success.
I always thought "freeze proof" was an odd spec anyway. The thing that goes bad at 20 degrees (on my cameras, at least) is the battery life.
For my money, they could have just put a telephone in the RX100.
It will be fun to play with, though. You could walk around with the camera in one hand and your phone in the other, and never actually look where you are going, except by turning your hand.
I can just imagine people walking around using their phone as a periscope.
AngryCorgi: Shoulda titled this "Wolf in Cheap Clothing?"...that EVF doesn't belong on any even remotely serious camera. I was really hoping for a little less compromise (not the 2.4M EVF but maybe something in the 1-1.4M dot range), but this thing belongs on a P&S (see LVF1), not on an ILC.
Maybe they meant "a sheep in wolf's clothing." The sensors in the NEX have been great for several years. It is the AF (and particularly C-AF) that is troublesome.
Sony's solution: Dress up an NEX sensor so that it looks like it might have great C-AF.
oselimg: Some of you constant whiners and whingers...there will never ever be a camera with a "talent" button.
I heard the new Sony full frame NEX is going to have a "talent" setting. I can't wait to fire that up and go take pictures of people's feet.
leschnyhan: Yeah, okay it doesn't have a mic input. On the one hand, most people who are trying to get really excellent audio would use a separate digital audio recorder anyway. But on the other hand--it seems like putting a mic input on the camera would be pretty straightforward, and a shoe-mounted mic would be useful on occasion.
The basic design reminds me a lot of the NEX-6 and NEX-7, and the feature set seems pretty similar to NEX-6 except that the Sony has a physically larger sensor that should translate to better image quality. (And has consequences for depth of field, too.) The one thing that keeps me away from MFT cameras is the MFT part.
And they're asking $999 for this thing? When an NEX-6 is currently available brand new for $798?
I like the NEX-6, but I always had trouble with focus speed and accuracy, particularly in low light. If Panny can beat the Sony in AF, then it might be worth the extra money, particularly for people who use the camera with kids, indoor sports, and that sort of thing.
I wish DPR would go back and finish the review of the EOS M. It has been about a year, and Canon even finally got around to fixing the firmware. A review of that camera might give us a good idea how well Canon has figured out hybrid AF.