Lapkonium: Do photographers who use copied gear have a moral right to prevent copying of their work? I'd say no.
Then no one has copyright for their photos. All camera gear is derived from what came before. The Yongnuo isn't a copy. It is optically similar but not identical, just as most double gauss 50mm lenses are very similar but slightly different.
The founding fathers felt patents should expire because after a while copying is good for all of us.
tomtom50: I think Richard Butler goes off-track when he understates the usefulness of APS-C lenses on FF bodies.
The 36MP sensor has a completely useful 16MP APS-C crop. The FF sensor doesn't make the body much larger (Isn't an a7R smaller than an E-M1?).
So as soon as 36MP FF sensor prices drop enough so the price isn't enormous FF bodies make all the sense in the world. For a long time many claimed FF sensors would always cost way more, but do we still believe that as FF bodies edge ever closer to the magic $999 body price?
Butler makes the case that buying FF lenses before you have a FF body distorts decisions. Correct. But how about the opposite: buying (smaller, lighter, cheaper) APS-C lenses that you will happily use on FF makes a lot of sense, and it is an upgrade path rather than a big jump.
Exactly. That is the point nerd2 made, that ff sensor size is less demanding on lenses to achieve a given image quality.
Carlos Loff: When the budget is limited it makes sense to go for an FF Camera and just buy our most precious Fixed Focal Lenth lens, not spending loads of money on a whole array of new lenses
What I just can´t understand, and would like somebody to explain it to me, is how an affordable FFs, like the D750 for example - affordable yet costing quite a bit - How can they need to limit shutter and flash sync speed to make them affordable ?
My question is about spec-price, I could buy an affordable FF and be happy without 1/8000 and 250 sync, but should´t ANY "affordable" option like that cost much less than what a D750 costs ?
I repeat, is not about the need of those specs is about the relation spec-price
Shouldn´t ANY camera, nowadays, that costs more than 2.000€, have something so simple as 1/8000 and 250 sync ? Or are these specs so expensive on an FF that to be "affordable" must be ditched aside ?
Ahh Carlos. You are thinking it just cannot be true that key features cost all that much. And you are right.
Certain features are kept off of lower cameras not because of cost, but because the manufacturer calculates their omission forces people up-line.
For example you can buy a Pentax K-500 with kit lens for $470.
It is weather-sealed. It goes 8 frames per second. It has a real glass pentaprism and not a dark tunnely pentamirror. You have to pay over a grand to get all that in a Canon or a Nikon.
Pentax is desperate for market share so they have to entice even low-end buyers. Canon and Nikon want to keep key features to the (more profitable) midline.
I think nerd2's point holds ignoring equivalence and looking just at budget, especially for those who like adapting older lenses.
If you buy an a7 with the kit 28-70 for a good price (I recall occasional dips to $1300) you are getting picture quality and low-light ability that can be matched in APS-C only using the best equipment. You are at about the same cost as an a6000 with the 16-70, and I'll bet the a7 has the image quality edge.
But your options from there! As nerd2 points out you do not need such a good (or modern) lens to use 24MP on a big sensor. And the body allows a stop higher ISO, so you don't need such fast lenses. This is ignoring fancy equivalence concepts about DOF, etc, and just remembering the crude fact that lines per mm can be lower when you have more millimeters!
I think Richard Butler goes off-track when he understates the usefulness of APS-C lenses on FF bodies.
Cane: A lot of things seem 'difficult to say'.
"I wonder how many more years they need to analyze D300S customers."
Until those customers go away.
DenWil: I thought he was very polite and realistic.
DX was the result of a need for a price point that no longer exists. Why drag it out?
Mirrorless has no appeal for many, is being manufactured by companies that are not exactly doing Apple like business with their products, and is not yet fully realized as a format. Unlike say, Leica's rangefinders, ML is a niche product at this point with no cachet. It weighs less, does some things well and nothing better than a FF DSLR.
4K has yet to prove its viability in the marketplace. It is by no means common in household TVs or computers and unless there is a significant price drop for new products in 2015 it could easily go the way of 3-D, not because the picture isn't great, but because the general buying public simply fails to come on board. 4K doesn't register as being necessary.
All due respect but gear heads are not representative of the general public or working pros and Nikon gets that. Chatter does not equal sales or profits.
"DX was the result of a need for a price point that no longer exists. Why drag it out?"
You mean the under $1000 price point? Where Nikon sells the most DSLRs?
jonathanj: "Samsung is certainly an ambitious company, and its efforts have paid off with a global mirrorless market share that only falls behind Sony. "
I'd be very interested to see the source for this.... I mean, I'm a happy samsung user with 3 cameras and half a dozen lenses purchased - I think the products are great, but I don't know anyone else who uses them (other than on this site), and I've seen maybe 2 dozen samsung mirrorless cameras over the last 3 years. I would never have thought that samsung is outselling olympus, panasonic, and fuji? Genuinely astonished if this is the case!
Agreed. I hope DPR fixes this. Nex & m43 are biggest sellers, Nikon, Samsung, Fuji all somewhere behind.
"a global mirrorless market share that only falls behind Sony" Anyone know the source on this? What I've seen is Samsung has 50% or so in Korea and single digit market share everywhere else.
FuhTeng: I'm sorry, I'm rather missing the point (I already have the camera's big brother in the a6000) - it's only $100 less but doesn't have a mode dial (my in-laws poor little P&S has that!), nor an EVF, or the extra control dial, and it has a weaker flash.
I think the touch-screen's a nice addition, however.
I'm also confused by having a zoom control on the body. I'm sure it will work fine with the kit, but isn't that going to be confusing once someone puts on anything but the kit or the SELP18105? I think those are the only two E-mount PZs.
The NEX 3n had this and it was convenient with the 16-50. But it wasn't well implemented. If you accidentally hit it with another lens the camera throws a warning you have to dismiss rather than doing nothing at all.
It also had no function in playback. Most P&S cameras use the zoom lever to zoom in and out, or it could be frame advance maintaining magnification, which the 3n lacked entirely.
In short, it is a nice feature and I hope Sony did a better job programming it than they did on the 3n.
petemod: This lens is almost as slow as EOS M camera sales.
Hey, I bought an EOS-M too. $379 for camera, 22mm f2 pancake, 18-55 zoom, and flash.
Price low enough and you can move product.
9.6% (Japan) market share for a mirrorless line that is being dumped (Japan prices were even lower than US!) is not exactly a big seller.
Damo83: High-end optical performance, eh?
Actually all three EF-M lenses are very good. As are the STM EF-S lenses. Canon has lately been putting out the sharpest low-end lenses
quezra: Finally the tele lens! Now where's the EVF and grip to use it properly?
Well... The EVF needs an EVF socket
Hephaestus: Plastic mount. Not mentioned in the release, and not mentioned by dpreview, but it is plastic mount (and metal body). Rather strange decision - the remaining three EOS M lenses have metal mounts.
The body looks like metal, but maybe plastic made to visually match the earlier M lenses?
The M was introduced as a premium product, but did not sell that way! Canon is smart to lower build cost to hit a lower price point.
Full Frame BSI. Yah
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.