RStyga: Fujifilm, you'd better take your time. It's far, far better to delay, a few months even, and get it right than rush to release a potentially problematic product.
EthanP99, 'as good as the a6300' in what ways? Does the a6300 have hybrid viewfinder, faster shutter/flash-sync, more direct dials/controls, etc.? Sure, the a6300 is cheaper and can do certain things better than the xpro2 (like video) but it's not outright better.
flipmac: So the trend of not putting touch lcd and evf in a mirrorless body continues for Sony, eh? I actually expected that although I don't get why. Also, I didn't expect Sony to put IBIS in this model.
But at a $1000 price level, it should have 1/8000 shutter, faster flash sync, improved ergonomics, more dials, etc. The better body material as well as higher EVF are welcome upgrades but are to be expected. Even with the improvement on sensor, AF, etc. I don't see why its body MSRP is $200 more than the KIT MSRP of the A6000.
billyf, those two have the things I mentioned that this doesn't, like 1/8000 shutter and 1/250. Same for the GX7/GX8, EM5mkII, etc. As well as the other stuff mentioned by others that it lakes (IBIS, touchscreen, etc.). Once you crack $1000, you expect these things. Didn't it is not powerful, it certainly is in some aspects like AF but the price, especially when compared to it's previous iteration doesn't really make sense.
SwedishPhoto, of course I mean what I said, a touch lcd + EVF. Not a touch-enabled viewfinder. Ever since NEX-7, to NEX-6 and so on, Sony didn't put both, even thought NEX-5N, etc. have touch screen.
So the trend of not putting touch lcd and evf in a mirrorless body continues for Sony, eh? I actually expected that although I don't get why. Also, I didn't expect Sony to put IBIS in this model.
photoshack: It is confusing to me why they would have an Ethernet port versus build in fast wireless. If this camera is a sport shooter rig, tethering makes little sense anyway right? While tethered to Ethernet may be useful to map hotfolders easily, just seems like Wifi would be more useful.
@Deliverator: they made a hole through the magnesium body for the ethener port, they can do the same for the wi-fi module. Also, the wi-fi module itself doesn't need to be outside the metal body, just the antenna wires that can wrap around the body sandwiched between the metal chassis and rubber/plastic case.
@tr573: a built-in module and an external adapter will use the same protocol to talk to your device. The feature it provides will be the same regardless the wi-fi module is inside or outside the adapter; the difference would be in signal strength.
That said, WFT-E8A adapter allows ONLY file transfers. My built-in wi-fi allows full control of camera as well.
RingoMan: Well, the 34 mm equivalent is correct. The f stops are never part of this as an f stop is based on focal length devided by lens opening. Not sure why anyone would write this silly mistake.
You contradict yourself. Initially you said "The sensitivity of the sensors varies with the size of the sensor" and now, you're just echoing what I've said. Thanks.
If the wi-fi connection is unreliable, then use the fast USB3.0 connection that it has.
The sole purpose of this approach is to sell the pro a $600 wi-fi adapter. I guess the thinking would be: "sure, it's only 10% more."
Funny, my camera costs me less than $600 and it has wi-fi built-in. That said, it's not rare for a pro-level gear to leave out common features we come to expect.
I find it odd that Canon opted to put in an ethernet port and making wi-fi optional via a $600 adapter, as opposed to having built-in wi-fi (direct) for wireless transfer/control out of the box, especially it already has a USB3.0 port - meaning it's somewhat redundant.
But then again, I don't think this camera is aimed to someone like me.
"The sensitivity of the sensors varies with the size of the sensor"
Wrong. The sensor sensitivity is purely dictated by the pixel/photosite size and sensor technology.
If you crop a FF photo to a quarter (roughly 4/3 size), do you get 4 times the noise all of a sudden? Similarly, if you make 4 sensors out of one FF sensor and take a photo with any of one of them at the same exposure settings as the original FF sensor (and using the same lens), would there be anymore noise from the smaller sensors?
callaesthetics: If i put a full frame 300 f4 lens with an adapter on the Olympus i get the same image and exposure correct? And it only uses a small image circle from the full frame lens, the Olympus is engineered so that it uses only a image circle made for m43 sensor, so why are the lens the same size? Shouldn't this lens be smaller?
Ya...the Canon 300/4 IS has been around for almost 20yrs (came out in '97) and I guess since the Oly one has more fancy elements inside it. Anyway, a comparison between the 2 lenses mounted on a m4/3 body would be interesting.
As 88SAL says, it's a 300mm lens and so it will be similar in size to another 300 F/4 as the diameter of the entrance pupil will be same (75mm). That said, this has an FoV similar to a 600mm lens on FF. How big is that?
Howard: Honest question: What is the advantage of this camera over the Sony A6000?
Don't forget magnesium body and touchscreen. I don't why Sony still don't have a Nex/Alpha body with EVF and touchscreen.
Don Sata: The lens is too big, what's the point of making a fixed focal length compact with that huge lens?
That lens is so big, the bag for it has a hole for the lens to stick out: http://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-Q/Accessories/Q-Camera-accessories/Day-Bag
Kidding aside, it could be have been smaller but at less than 4" deep for the FF lens+camera, it's not that bad really.
Pros:"Reasonably small, light body for a DSLR at this level"
Cons:"Camera is bulky when compared to mirrorless rivals"
have another one for you fellas, to make it even greater joke of a review:
Cons:Camera is even more bulkier when compared to point & shoot rivals
Keep up the good work!Nick
"Camera is even more bulkier when compared to point & shoot rivals"
The keyword is "rivals" ("mirrorless rivals", which means similar IQ, performance, controls, and feature set. Actually, some mirrorless have better features, like faster liveview (obviously), articulated touch screen, better video and so on all in a smaller and lighter package.
Believe it or not, companies making these so called "mirrorless rivals" are targeting the same consumers and I'm pretty some a portion of these consumers put some kind of value in compactness; hence, the negative point about it's bulkiness.
bernardly: Nearly everyone is assuming that further miniaturization of both the APS-C and FF DSLR is impossible. I do not believe this is the case. The DSLR concept has so much more potential. What I do believe is that Canon and Nikon have been very conservative and lazy in their R&D efforts. There are a number of possible improvements: sensor based image stabilization will greatly reduce the size and cost of DSLR lenses; radical miniaturization and integration of internal camera components as in smartphones; optical viewfinder with transparent digital overlay including a histogram based on an advanced next generation meter. A true next generation DSLR should be the size of a Nikon Fm3a or FM2 with no need to ape the idiosyncratic design details of old film cameras. The Sony A7 cameras are great innovations—make no mistake. Their allure is that they reproduce the size and shape of classic SLR cameras. Sony is lighting a fire under the Canon and Nikon behemoth.
"So lens stabilization is a better approach - which is why Canon and Nikon use it"
The cynical part of me thinks that it's more about being able to sell the new and improved (and expensive) VR/IS lenses to replace the "obsolete" non-stabilized lenses lenses people already had. DSLR's from Sony, Olympus and Pentax had IBIS and they were/are useful.
Ben O Connor: Cheapest set achieved for landscape photographers (architecture, various engineering, etc.)
EM-5II + 10,5 F O.95 Voightlander+ Dead steady tripod!
Total of 2.500€, worth every dime.
If no m4/3 lens can out resolve the 16MP sensor, then Olympus wouldn't have bother with 40MP high res mode, and we wouldn't see any tests showing 4000lw/ph or comparisons with 36MP D810:
nerd2: So MF 20mm 1.8 equivalent for $1250 and 586gr? Nikon 20mm 1.8g weighs 357gr, has AF, costs $500 less....
Nerd2, it's not hard to understand.
The physical focal length affects the f-number, which affects exposure. What you say keep saying are FoV and DoF which don't affect exposure at all.
If DoF affects exposure, then small sensor cameras (e.g. phones) would require insanely bright lens or extremely high ISO to shoot pretty much any scene without under exposing.
What's your speculation based on?
There are samples/tests out there comparing the high-res mode of the E-M5mkII against the D810 where the Olympus able to match the 36MP FF camera.
Mister Roboto: Ok we get it, you like the crappy iPhone when there are tons of better smartphones( hello Nokia, Panasonic, Samsung) with camera or simply a real and dedicated camera. =D
And haters gonna hate.
Why so many Android users hate iPhone with a passion (see all them comments below)?
I myself haven't own an iPhone since the iPhone4 and have had 3 Android phones since then but I wouldn't mind an iPhone6.
That said, they're just devices and not worth getting worked up on.
Snikt228: This camera seems pretty big for what it is to me. The EM5 II with 12-40 2.8 is very nearly the exact same size and weight as an A7 with 24-70 f4, and that's comparing 2X crop to FF, huge difference.
Comparing those 2 cameras with small primes I think the A7 is actually even shorter or the same size
@sensibill "would be some way to grade the amount of pixel well volume and rate of photons read per site occurring per image capture"
OR... look at the sample photos. Better yet, try the camera your self ;-)
I don't know why f-stop is so hard to understand. F-stop, which is basically light intensity, is the same across format otherwise the number will be meaningless. Obviously, f/2.8 FF lens will collect more photons as it should since it is feeding a bigger sensor, but the light intensity is the same as a f/2.8 APS-C and f/2.8 m4/3. Mount the f/2.8 FF lens on a smaller format (without speedbooster) and it'll still be f/2.8.
Put it another way, paint a wall with a bucket of paint, then paint another wall with twice the surface area with 2 buckets of the same paint. Which wall would have a more vibrant colour? Same even though the bigger wall would have more total paint on it.