Ummm. The reviewer spends a lot of time talking about how hazy low-contrast lenses don't work so well, and concludes third-party lenses would not be a good choice for critical work.
Well, hazy low-contrast lenses are not good choices for critical work!
But what about the SMC 35mm f2 he says is great? Why wouldn't it be fine for critical work? The review doesn't say, other than ergonomic quibbles.
I mean, no one would use a 17mm Vivitar (I had one once) on a $1700 camera for critical work! (Playing around is another matter).
blacklion: God, please, kill PC sockets! 3.5mm audio jack is perfectly fine!
PC sockets are not very secure
tomtom50: Modern cameras have three basic settings, Aperture, Shutter, and ISO. Three dials, each with an A setting, gives you all eight permutations all the way from auto everything to total manual, with no need to illuminate a screen. And the new Fuji finishes it our with exposure compensation.
This is the first digital camera I could happily use 'dark' only using the LCD for review and few screen overlays in the finder.
From the photos it looks like Fuji has built the camera Nikon claimed they were making.
Meaning the camera is not glowing when you want to be inconspicuous.
photogeek: You can thank the stubborn US consumer for the resurgence of these viewfinder humps and huge camera bodies. Folks seem to think that if the camera is not the size of their head, and it doesn't hurt their neck, the image quality has to be worse somehow.
Personally, I think Sony NEX (models with a viewfinder) offer the ideal form factor right now. They're about as small and light as they can physically be without sacrificing the hand grip, tilting screen and built in flash. And that's the proper way to do it, now that we're not constrained by the the size of the prism and mirror box.
I agree about size, but Sony could learn about user interface from Fuji.
Modern cameras have three basic settings, Aperture, Shutter, and ISO. Three dials, each with an A setting, gives you all eight permutations all the way from auto everything to total manual, with no need to illuminate a screen. And the new Fuji finishes it our with exposure compensation.
Now that Sony owns part of Olympus they are helping Olympus sell the Stylus 1 by over-pricing the RX10. Very neighborly of them.
The normalization feature is really nice. I would recommend a red and a green fur patch rather than two green patches top better show weakness in the red channel.
Also it would be nice if the settings showed aperture and shutter speed as well as lens used. That allows comparing exposure without downloading the entire file and comparing exif data.
tomtom50: That Fuji refuses to release the algorithms they use in-camera amazes me. I won't buy from a company that so disregards the needs of their users.
I stand corrected.
Where did you read that Fuji released the algorithms?
That Fuji refuses to release the algorithms they use in-camera amazes me. I won't buy from a company that so disregards the needs of their users.
bzanchet: Great first impressions! I'm really looking forward for this camera, it should be a great 2nd camera for me, specially for the size (who carries a DSLR for a party concerned about DOF?), lenses and Olympus Jpegs. Even with the smaller sensor, I believe it will be better than Canon S100, like the Pentax Q.
Today's 1/2.3" is yesterdays 1/1.7", upper Dxomark 46 - 48. The newest 1/1.7" sensors are now in the 50s, coming up against the Nikon 1" sensors. The RX100 1" sensor beats the last generation m43, and so on. I don't know when it will stop, but the 1/2.3" Q and SX50 have IQ good enough for at least some enthusiasts.
I see no reason the XZ-10 cannot be as good as the S90 / S95 except with a faster lens, and that is darn good. It will not beat the RX100, but it is a lot cheaper.
FF DSLR same size as Olympus OM-1.
tomtom50: The DPR review seems to omit two important consideration; I hope they can add them.
- The real benchmark to work against is the current hybrid AF champion, the Nikon 1. According to its reviews it manages to achieve dslr level focus tracking in good light, beating all other mirrorless cameras in this regard. Since focus tracking is the main wonderfulness of PDAF, isn't that the comparison that should be made?
- Does viewfinder shooting have a Hybrid mode that is a bit slower but finishes the main PDAF action with a little CDAF trim? It might be a bit slower, but it would sidestep calibration issues. If Canon did not take advantage of this it merits a mention as a lost opportunity. (perhaps I missed it in the review)
I have heard people use the Nikon 1 with the FT-1 adapter and the 85mm f1.4 with good results. You can hardly get more critical than that.
I understand the point that bigger mirrorless are closer to the 650D because they are... Bigger. But comparing a DSLR against a mirrorless is comparing apples and oranges already. For the 650D apple the closer is the Nikon 1 orange because they share a key feature - on-sensor AF.
I did not know that the Nikon 1 uses either PDAF or CDAF, but not both. Thanks , Bart.
On reflection that makes sense. On-sensor PDAF does not have the flapping mirror/mechanized PDAF that DSLRs have. On-sensor PDAF just has less to be miscalibrated, so a CDAF trim is perhaps not needed.
My question would be: what is it about the Canon on-sensor PDAF that requires a CDAF trim where Nikon does not? Perhaps a critical patent Nikon is not licensing?
The DPR review seems to omit two important consideration; I hope they can add them.
The changes to the lenses might also be aimed at performing better with contrast detection AF. That helps to bridge to mirrorless and helps hybrid AF
dynax7d: When I used the studio shot comparison tool, to me the Nokia 808 resolved more detail than the best Canon and Nikon dslr cameras! Compact cameras were not even close.How is that possible?
At ISO 50, the Nikon 800e way outresolves the Nokia in the studio comparison tool.
At ISO 1600 it is not far from the Canon S100. In bright light it captures more detail than some dslrs. It fits in a phone.
Perhaps Nokia should produce a tiny camera based on the same sensor. Make the lens a bit bigger and a stop faster. It would still be the tiniest P&S out there, and the faster lens would take the high ISO performance to high-end P&S levels in a far smaller package.
Jefftan: Although sensor is much smaller than NEX (about 1/3 size) it is:
and the NEX sensor is not. May help overcome some IQ loss to sensor size
It is like a larger sensor S100. Same width and height and 10mm thicker. Lens that is fast wide and slow at tele.
2.8x sensor area, 1.7X pixels, Dxomark ISO will likely be 250-300.
Like many here I would have preferred 10MP to get the extra ISO since the lens is pretty slow except at wide angle. How often do we print 13x19? How often do we zoom in in indifferent light?
Very nice overall, but pricy.
The Canon EF mount is over 20 years old, so the patents have expired. Sony could produce a similar Canon EF 'LAC-EA2' adapter with the translucent mirror and full PDAF.
So why doesn't Sony do it?
The only reasons I can think of is that Sony feels it violates some business norm, or that Canon and Sony have enough IP cross-licensing that Sony cannot irritate Canon so deeply.
Unlike Sony, Conurus probably could not do a translucent mirror adapter without a huge R&D budget and might face issues with Sony patents.
The section on mirrorless focus tracking weakness is good, but the Nikon 1 is enough of an exception with its DSLR-level focus tracking that it deserves a special mention.
Also, since the article is aimed a new comers the depth of focus is worth a photo or two. Basically m43 and APS-C will have DSLR-like depth of focus, and the Nikon 1 will be more like a compact.
Some people like shallow depth of focus, others prefer it deep, but the pictures you get will be very different, enough so to make it worth a mention.