Full frame rules
Everlast66: A lot of comments below explain why A7 II is inferior to the D750, 14bit, proper PDAF, blah, blah, blah and why it shouldn't be leading, but let's see why the results are what they are.
In real life enthusiasts outnumber professional photographers at a ratio of maybe 10:1.While it is perfectly appropriate and expected for a professional photographer to turn up at an assignment with a couple or more DSLRs +lenses (perhaps with an assistant) and this will look reassuring for the client,in the hands of an enthusiast in a non-professional situation these will look intrusive/offending and make him/her look like a geek at best, but even a stalker or perv.
The advantage of mirror-less cameras is not only the smaller size and weight, but more so the FRIENDLIER look and feel and un-intrusiveness. People react much better to mirror-less cameras, behave more naturally, or even don't notice at all.
@Everlast: You are right. For me the A7II and A7R (maybe the II) are the best with just a few lenses (the Loxias, the 55/1.8 and the upcoming 28/2) and that is it, and I would be happy because it represents a setup, which is light, non-intrusive and compact. But this is really an expensive setup (and not a standalone system, far from it) and if I invest this much I do care about RAW quality and compression effects.
Marty4650: Lets be honest. Most of the people who voted in that poll never touched ANY of the cameras they voted for. Perhaps a few did, but most didn't.
And absolutely no one has tested them all. Not even Dpreview had done that, and they have a staff of fifteen people.
So this poll is pretty much a popularity contest. We just voted for the camera we thought was the "most significant of the year" based on what we knew about it from reading various reviews and looking at the spec sheets.
Once you understand that point, then all the claims that a camera wasn't available for sale long enough, or wasn't available in all markets, becomes meaningless.
A7 MII review, with many references to the D750:http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/01/19/review-sony-a7-mark-ii/
kadardr: Makes more sense than the GM1.
That is also the reason: bigger handles better (I mean small is better than minuscule)
Makes more sense than the GM1.
kadardr: Fujifilm X-A1/A2 with a Zeiss Touit lens is as good as a Leica X. With a kit lens its like an X Vario. May be better. But no one buys Leica for image quality so whatever.
On Leica lenses I have no personal experience. Although as example the tests from the German site Photozone on XF 23mm F1.4R and Summicron 35mm f/2 ASPHhttp://www.photozone.de/leicam/837-summicron35asph?start=2http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/868-fuji23f14?start=2For me X-A1/2 has the best sensor from all Fuji cameras, and kitted with the XF 23mm F1.4R and a Touit 1.8/32 would be a killer (and not cheap) pocket rocket.
Fujifilm X-A1/A2 with a Zeiss Touit lens is as good as a Leica X. With a kit lens its like an X Vario. May be better. But no one buys Leica for image quality so whatever.
There is difference between FF and APS-C in use, which was not mentioned in the article. FF cameras has better high ISO performance and better DR. In general FF DR is one stop better than DR of APS-C cameras. High ISO can be 2-2.5 stop better with FF (ISO 12800 is good with FF, but APS-C can show the same quality at ISO 3200 at best). FF sensors can show less chroma noise in deep shadows, when elevated.The color sensitivity/depth is better at least one stop favoring FF. Better subject isolation you can get with FF size. In general, bokeh is function of absolute and not relative focal length, absolute and not relative aperture setting and the subject distance. With APS-C cameras you can have the same image quality if you know, what you are doing, but you need more light. APS-C may give you better reach, smaller lenses for the same angle of view, and generally less total weight of gear.
kadardr: Difference between FF and APS-C:In favor of FF:One stop better DR. ISO 12800 with FF is fine, ISO 6400 with APS-C can be rescued if you have to.Less than one stop better color sensitivity/depth. Better subject isolation (bokeh is function of absolute not relative focal length, absolute and not relative aperture setting and subject distance.In favor of APS-C: better reach (300mm FF lens = 450mm relative focal length in APS-C). In other words smaller lenses/focal length for the same angle of view.That is all. FF and APS-C can coexist. A combo of Canon 7DMII/6D or Nikon D400/D750 (just a dream) are very viable options with well selected 5-8 lenses altogether (by combo). These are missing sorely from the article.
@SirSeth: Please refer to Ming Thein's blog before you make up on your dream combos.
There are arguments in favor of both, as above. This tool myth is attractive for some, but without explanation it is worthless. Watchmakers and railway constructors use different sized screwdrivers. There is a place for large format technical cameras too. It is not a comfortability decision but a necessity decision if you are pro.
Difference between FF and APS-C:In favor of FF:One stop better DR. ISO 12800 with FF is fine, ISO 6400 with APS-C can be rescued if you have to.Less than one stop better color sensitivity/depth. Better subject isolation (bokeh is function of absolute not relative focal length, absolute and not relative aperture setting and subject distance.In favor of APS-C: better reach (300mm FF lens = 450mm relative focal length in APS-C). In other words smaller lenses/focal length for the same angle of view.That is all. FF and APS-C can coexist. A combo of Canon 7DMII/6D or Nikon D400/D750 (just a dream) are very viable options with well selected 5-8 lenses altogether (by combo). These are missing sorely from the article.
If it was up to the meticulous flawseekers, no camera would be sold at all. Light leak, shuttershock, cooked raw, flarebands, light orbs you name the rest. There was no major camera launch without major countercampaign (FUD). Rest assured the D750 issue will also go away (one way or the other). Nikon historically did not handle these well by trying to create nonissue from the issue and vice versa. IMO this D750 issue is a nonissue, and whoever experience this banding as a serious hindrance in their creative process should return it, and use some flare oriented camera instead. The community should also have to find a way to say no to shills in general.
What do you think about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LynWn0DvdO0&feature=youtu.be
This is the D750 dark band/shading issue. Personally I think it is not a special problem and/or irrelevant.
davids8560: I would like to own this camera, and also some very nice lenses to go with it, too.
Your wish is called D810.
En Trance: Also, if I rest my camera on a good tripod at the beach, 1/4000 does not cut it due to the wind alone. (Especially with a tele lens) After that, I begin to think of exposure. Why is Nikon limiting their shutter speed so severely?
With film cameras diffraction was not a real issue. F22, F32 was fine
If you are seriously into the 645Z, the must read review is this:http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/27/review-the-pentax-645z-part-i/which is in three parts actually. Some additional info is this:http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/12/08/the-format-matters-but-not-in-the-way-you-might-think/#more-9198
Serious Sam: Since the previous A7 II thread has quiet down, I decided to write this here.
Just read another detail review from another site, some key points
1) The 5 axis IBIS will only work on lens that provide "Focus Distance information" which mean most FE and E mount lens. The other lens will run with only 3 Axis result to only 1-2 stop IBIS not 4.5.
2) IQ has not change much. that is expected as its the same processor. if you want improved noise performance you can almost forget about it.
3) The PDAF .....still sucks at 2.5 FPS. If you are looking to do a lot of action shots. This is not for you.
Got to go party now....more on this later :-)
The bigger sensor needs much more efficient IBIS than the one quarter of its size m43 sensor. Therefore Oly will beat Sony in this regard. I rather consider this iteration as just a correction of the faults of the first one.
In my understanding it may work for static subjects only. Am I right?
locke_fc: Impressive camera indeed, and certainly ahead of anything Canon has to offer (and I'm a 6D owner).
Still, I don't get the fuss about the dynamic range and shadow recovery ability. My almost 5 year-old Pentax K-x, which had one of the first iterations of these amazing Sony sensors, was already capable of such impressive feats. We've known for ages what these sensors can do, are we going to make a fuss about it every time a new camera with a Sony sensor comes out?
You can do the same with D4, D4s, Df sensor for sure.
Many live through an AHA EXPERIENCE here. Me too. Possibly my next camera will be a Samsung NX1 and not a Canon? Looks like it.