straylightrun: Come on Sony, get your **** together!
"since Fuji uses Sony sensors as base, it's very likely the next generation of X100/XE/X-Pro/X-T1 will be using the 24mp sensor from the A6000."
Yup, hope it'll be the flagship 24 Mpixel sensor (A6000, D3300, D5300 etc.), not the considerably lower-quality, more noisy 20 Mpixel one in the A5000 / A3000.
photo nuts: Hoping they'll release a 150 mm macro lens
"Hoping they'll release a 150 mm macro lens"
BTW, even inexpensive lens-less (that is, ones that just increase the flange distance) macro adapters work pretty well with current lens. I've posted a quick review of some of them to http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54070303
RFC1925: Next stop: stabilized body.
That is the only reason I haven't switched yet (a decent video implementation would help too).
I'd love in-body stabilization too. The lack of IIS is the sole reason for my sticking with zoom lens (most importantly, the 18-55, albeit will definitely consider the 16-55 2.8 if and only if it's at least as good as the 18-55 optically) and not having purchased the 35 f/1.4.
The majority of my handheld museum / low light shots made with the 18-55 (at 18mm) at 1/4s (using the EVF all the time) have turned out to be excellent and blur-free. That would have been impossible with any non-stabilized prime lens at 28mm equiv, let alone longer FL's.
Any info on why it's been removed from the AppStore? Just was going to purchase and thoroughly test it.
dzukela: I feel sorry for those users…
""Why?" Android + F3.1-6.3 combo. Worst from both worlds."
Lolz. WRT Android, you certainly don't know what you're speaking about. Or, just don't want to learn anything more complicated than iOS or Windows Phone.
brownie314: I'll take this camera with a 1" sensor from NX mini and a fixed 10mm f/2.5 lens. Please.
Exactly. We Nokia 808 users have all been doing the same - an Android-based, large-sensor camera with a non-zoom (prime) lens.
grumpycat: who will buy this thing???
"Like I said, If you like peripheral distortion and don't care about vertical being vertical then there's nothing wrong with an UWA."
A lot of people shoot with UWA lens just to make use of this distortion. It lets for some very attractive / strange shots. (The above-linked E-mount thread also have a lot of shots emphasizing / based on the distortion itself.)
"Not having UWA hasn't hurt consumer camera sales that I can see."
Let me disagree. A month ago, I had to select a mount system. (Finaly, I've gone for Fuji X because of the excellent IQ of both the body and the lenses.) I've seriously considered all systems (even those of Samsung) except for Canon's because of the, currently, substandard crop sensor tech. The system's having UWA lens was one of my main points (Fuji has the native 10-24 and, via adapters, can make use of all the others, most importantly, the Sigma 8-16, which, with the Nikon mount, allows for setting the aperture via the adapter.)
"I don't think having wider than 27mm is really all that important. "
YOU don't think. A lot of happy UWA users think otherwise. Even the mount system-specific DPR forums are full of discussions of UWA lens. Just an example: "How to convince my partner about the benefits of SEL 10-18mm compared to kit 16-50mm? " at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3684944 , full of examples of UWA goodies.
"The point is you are not "limited" to either a mechanical or electronic shutter, you can choose with the 1 series."
So can you with the Pana cameras I've listed even between every single shot.
" I have to smile when I hear comments such as the one from Menneisyys about the "more versatile" other cameras. I've yet to see more versatile cameras than the V1,2,3 series."
Let's see. Where are the UWA lenses for the Nikon 1 mount? UWA is one aspect of being versatile. _ALL_ other systems have decent UWA lenses (sometimes even more than one native lens) starting at 15mm equiv or less. The Nikon 1 system?
And what about the IQ? Every single current large-sensor camera beats the Nikon 1 WRT noise performance.
Don't take me wrong: I am more than aware of the strengths (most importantly, AF speed) of this system. I just consider it waaay overpriced and I can put up with far slower AF in exchange for vastly(!!) better IQ in every single respect. This is why I've gone for a Fuji X-E1...
Greg Gebhardt: SMALL SENSOR is a deal killer
Nope, it's not being "small" that is the problem - after all, some recent, decent cameras (RX10, all RX100's, FZ1000) also have a 1" sensor. It's delivering significantly worse noise performance that is.
And, of course, the ridiculous price of the entire set...
"Want to do some time lapse photos without exceeding the shutter life of your dSLR? How about a selectable mechanical or electronic shutter? "
You can do the same (full electronic shutter) on several other, cheaper and/or more versatile and, in all cases, significantly better-IQ cameras: GX7, GM1, GH3, GH4 etc.
The automatic DR is really poor. I'd, for quick shooting, prefer it to work the same way as does the one in Pana's GM1 or Fuji's all X-system cameras - that is, intelligent scene examination and using the most suitable one.
I guarantee both the GM1 and the Fuji cameras would have chosen the, in that scene, best DR increase approach (that of very high, in this case).
This is a nuisance as you'll always end up having to manually choose this before shooting and can't really trust the body to make the right, most optimal decision.
Excerpt from the article: "you start to expect more from the 1" sensor when larger sensor cameras with better lens options are available for less money (Sony a6000, Olympus OM-D E-M10)"
I would definitely put it in another way: "even the (otherwise, lens-wise, not very good) A6000 has (generally) better lens selection, let alone the, in this regard, much superior systems like m43 (or Fuji X, for that matter)."
The biggest problem with Sony's cameras is the lack of decent, moderately-priced zooms. Absolutely no direct equivalents of the Pana 12-32 kit zoom or any of Fuji's cheap-but-great kit lens (16-50, 18-55).
Miwok: Very nice camera.Too bad than Fuji doesn't offer lenses at reasonable price..
The kit lenses are more than reasonably priced. And you can always use the new, very cheap but having great IQ XC lenses on the E2.
Eugene232: IMO Fuji is too overpriced
Their current models - sure. Their previous ones, most of them delivering exactly the same IQ (but, obviously, not the same AF speed)? Nope - they have excellent price/performance ratio. This is why I've gone myself for Fuji with an X-E1 double-kit (18-55 + 50-230 for 750 euros), actually.
Smearing is awful even at base ISO. In no way a contest to the Nokia 808 WRT plain still IQ.
I *really* hope Samsung comes out with a Nokia 808-alike - with a huge sensor and great (prime) lens. Just another branch of their Zoom / Camera series, with photo buffs wanting a prime-"only", large-sensor, high-end phone-based camera would be a killer. The current lineup (unless you do need zoom)? Not so much, regrettably.
All in all, I won't ditch my Nokia 808 for the S5. The 808 is a perfect non-smart (I in no way use the Net on it, particularly not for browsing - the Achilles' heel of Symbian) phone for me. And, when better IQ is needed, I take my Fuji X-E1...
Lab D: Pretty obvious why they dropped the price.I am sure all the owners planning on ebaying these to get the wider range lens and 4K on the FZ1000 are really upset now knowing their camera just lost $300 in value. Since it can't compete for video nor for sports and wildlife due to the short lens and slower focusing, I am guessing used prices will drop even more.
"Most"? Just don't forget we Europeans don't have access to most of those sites / sales...
The Name is Bond: Do the X-pro1 and XE-1 firmwares introduce the XE2 and XT1 plastic skin at high ISO 'feature'?
Conversely, do the Xe2 and xt-1 firmwares fix the plastic skin issue?
Also, I was wondering if the XP1 lockup bug was ever fixed; where you have to switch off and then on again every now and then.
"Ignore the lowly, whiney JPEG shooter."
Well, actually, a lot of us Fuji users use JPEG much-much more frequently than would do the same on other systems (for example Sony). Fuji's JPEG's are (on everything except their X-Trans II sensors) are GREAT and, in general, RAW's don't offer much advantage over OOC JPEG's.
This is why E-X2 / T-X1 users are asking Fuji for fixing the plasticky face problem introduced by the latest Fuji cameras' different DSP - and everybody else (with older or lower-end cameras) are afraid of the new algorithm to be (back)ported to those "old" / cheap systems.
WilliamJ: It looks promising and the first samples are not bad at all. If one can mount an Olympus or a Panasonic lens on this body, it could be a hit. Something has to be clarified though: the sensor is said to be a Cmos BSI... No typo included ?
Besides, we have to get some more samples particulary in reasonably high ISO (800-6400) and to test this camera IBIS to know whether the camera can really compete against japanese products.If it was the case, it would be a little revolution, although I suspect most of the important technologies integrated in this Kodak body are more or less of japanese origin. Am I wrong ?
"X-E1 looks much better than X-A1 as X-A1 is ALL Plastic build (but well build), also X-E1 has build in EVF."
Yup, now that the E1 is offered with record rebates, it's a no-brainer to prefer it to the A1 (or, for that matter, the M1). After all, while it doesn't have Wi-Fi (which is still severely crippled in the A1/M1) and "only" has a lower-res LCD screen,
- it has an EVF- offered with the (at least brightness- and build quality-wise, superior) 18-55 lens in most cases (note: the above UK rebate I've linked to offered the E1 with the 16-50 lens). The M1/A1 kits aren't offered with this lens.
This is why I myself went for the e1 + 18-55 + 50-230 double kit for 749 euros (+17 euros s&h from Austria to Finland).
Bob Meyer: Budget in features and quality perhaps, but not so budget in price. Both Olympus and Panasonic offer better deals in m43.
And, unfortunately, the magic in the Kodak name has long since evaporated. No one took Kodak seriously as a camera manufacturer since the demise of the Instamatic. Even old folks won't buy a camera just because it says Kodak on the front.
"Budget in features and quality perhaps, but not so budget in price. Both Olympus and Panasonic offer better deals in m43. "
Yup, the $599 RRP is plain ridiculous. However, for $300...$350 at most, assuming the IBIS isn't bad, it can be a better choice than even the E-PM2 - after all, it has a significantly wider+longer kit zoom lens.