Jon Ragnarsson: Why doesn't Pentax make a mirrorless 645? That would be a truly unique camera and sure to make a few heads turn.
right, a mirrorless on the base of the 6x45 Fuji, the Pentacon 6, or Mamyia 7, that would be the hammer. Mamyia made a camera of that kind, the ZD, they abondoned the project because US Mamyia representative boycotted it and refused to sell it in the US. It was classic VF, but quiet compact.
icexe: Dear Hasselblad,
Please, just stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.
the quatro could become a runner, reduce the size of the lens and put an android phone into it. The shape and body size fits.
JapanAntoine: Difficult to get your hands on the X-T1 at CP+ ??You should have come to the Fuji showroom in Roppongi (Tokyo): they have 4 in permanent demonstration that you can play with, featuring the 10-24 f4 OIS, the 56mm f1.2 and the 16-55mm zoom.No queue :-)
doesn't surprise me that there is no queue. After the results I have seen of that camera, i would not even go there.
whtchocla7e: High-iso RAW's look mushy as heck. Even the Nkon D3200 beats this thing in detail retention..
it looks like Fuji has taken an option on the ancient Sony Bionz engine. Already at 800 iso the shots look water paint like and show a lot of loss in details.
look that picture in full size:
look at every detail on it, the people, their cloth, the walls of the brown building, the trees left of the number 9, the wall over this number 9, the top of the church's bell tower. Once yous see this and study the details on this photo, you will lose any interest in this camera and Fuji's x-trans trash sensor. This photo is a watercolor painting, and most others are as well. Even at base ISO it is to my eyes a disaster.
fotokram: I'm a little surprised, better disappointed by the image quality and the colours especially at high iso's and low light in the raw-files. The 'red' ist not red, it's more 'orange'. Even the X-E2 seems to be better in that point. Were the files taken with a pre-production X-T1? Well, the rest of the cam seems very desirable!
get the full size shots at photographyblog.com and look at them in full size, it is really disappointing. Sorry Fuji, trash the crappy X-Trans junk sensor.
TXforester: With lenses faster that f2.8, why would Fuji have a top shutter speed of 1/4000 and the lowest ISO in raw of 200? You are stuck stuck at f2.8 in bright sunlight unless you add at least a one stop ND filter. At least with film you can stick in a roll of slow film to make up for lower top shutter speeds. :) Other than that, the camera looks good to me.
Note that I blame Sony with the new a6000 joke for the same reason, same as Nikon with the DF. They can do 1/8000th in the A7 FF and dslr models, but are not able to do it in the APS-C cameras. I am often stuck with the NEX-7 and without ND filter, many shots can not be taken. 1/4000th is really not enough.
make vacation in any country in oriental and north African Sahara belt, you will see where 1/4000 leads you. You need 1/8000 at 5.6 if you shoot in Tunisia in summer. With my medium format and maximum speed of 1/1000th I used lenses that could close to 32, and this gave me still a lot of problems, at 21 Asa film. 1/4000 on a modern camera is ridiculous, if GX7 can go with double shutter, silent at 1/3000 and curtain at 1/8000, other companies could offer the same comfort. GX7 is even cheaper than this camera from Fuji. Today, there is only one excuse to 1/4000 and that is low end camera material, and for that price, Fuji could have done better. On the end, you pay just a 600$ more for the viewfinder and the body design, on the sensor side and in performance it does the same as the models lower in price. To me, make this camera at reasonable price without that crappy x-trans sensor and 1/8000 and we are in business.
DesertCat: While there is a "bigger is better" mentality in the U.S. that hurts N1 sales, what these Nikon execs don't appear to include in their thinking is that the Nikon 1 V2 is sold at a more competitive price point in Asia. Through using kakaku.com a person can find out that that the V2 with basic kit lens has been selling for $450-525 in Japan since at least September 2013. Since December, Canadians have been able to get that camera for $450-500 from a few retailers. In the U.S., where Nikon's strict enforcement of the Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) makes it so all retailers sell the camera for the same price, the V2+kit lens is still being sold for the $896 price tag that it had when it was released in November 2012.
In the section on development and profitability one exec said, "The last thing we should be doing is asking our customers to carry the burden with their spending money." Sure doesn't feel that way with the V2 in the United States. Gee why are sales low in U.S. again?
N1 system has 2 major disadvantages. Compared to sensor size, the camera is to large, the V1 was ok in size but still too high. The V2 is an impossible scrambled mixture thing made of a Sony Nex and parts of an F3. Then the second thing is pricing. When V1 was sold under 350$, they sold like candy. That says it all. Same happens with Nikon compact apsc system, compare pricing of Sony's RX100, Ricoh's GR, and you know where to go.I always wonder what made people run so fast and frequent towards Fuji's 100 fixed lens series cameras, they where horribly expensive.
dervish_candela: - will there be a successor to D300s?- our comment is no comment
- will you do any missimg DX lenses?- no comment
- where's roadmap?- who cares, just buy our carp
- name one reason I should not go fuji - they haven't figured the phase AF yet, phew
- will you ever answer a question with something that is not a piece of useless blah-blah?- we can definitely promise you big innovation in ways we deliver our noncommittal commentary of no comment
I do not agree, at least he said that Fuji should trash the x-trans sensor, that was a brilliant idea.
With a 20 mpix Sony or the new 179 point pdaf 24 mpix, and 1/8000th, the X-T1 has been the camera I look for. In the A6000 Sony made the same 1/4000 mistake. Only the GX7 has it all, and that is the way I will go soon.
Antahkarana: I wrote the President of Nikon Japan last year about their lack of focus and direction. Namely, the 1 system being a flop in North America can be attributed to their "cheap" design (e.g. V2) and lack of interchangeability with other system cameras (e.g. micro 4/3 group). Who wants to be forced into purchasing Nikon glass at high prices?
Another dpreview reader commented that the 1 system sells much cheaper in Japan. I have to concur. The 1 system needs to be sold at a 40-50% discount in North America to generate sales.
My wish is that Canikon both come to their senses and join the micro 4/3 group to help make it a secondary standard to full-frame/APS-C. It would be great if one could purchase a Nikon micro 4/3 body and put an Olympus/Panasonic/Sigma lens on it or vice-versa.
Fuji's roadmap, new product-line, and recent comments to dpreview readers have convinced me to stop buying Nikon... I will be an avid Fuji user from now on.
(Fyi, I never received a reply from Nikon...)
The 1 system sold like fresh cookies when the price felt under 350$ for a V1 kit.
I have no problem with any Gillette system or any other brand, being a Rabbi, I have a 1 1/2 foot beard.
Antahkarana: Nikon is sorely mistaken that people will not buy a smaller system camera in North America. Maybe our consumers lack the knowledge that micro 4/3 is capable of excellent results.
Since I was a young child, I have used Nikon cameras. The 35mm film cameras were the right size and build for comfortable use. They responded instantaneously when one pressed the shutter. The lenses were immaculate and solid (not plasticky). The lenses were smaller (not filled with ultrasonic silentwave motors and circuits). They were manual focus but they worked great and were sharp. I still admire them when I look at my old cameras. Nikon was still king of the hill...
I see that due to the size of cameras nowadays, 35mm/full-frame will be more and more for pros. They are willing to carry lots of gear around to get the shot.
Amateurs and pros both want small, light, and powerful. Micro 4/3, APS-C, and full-frame OLED are able to deliver the goods...
who will buy a 1 incher for 1200$ when we can buy just any NEX kit for that price. Sony's RX10 is a fanatstic camera, but at 1200$, it hardly sells in big amounts when you consider the A6000 to be 800$ for an ILS kit. When the V1kit felt down to 350$, they sold like burgers at noon. Nikon wonders why the mirrorless does not sells, Sony don't.
Vlad S: They are very good at telling nothing.
we call that politics
alcaher: nikon executives!! stop taking pictures with your FF cameras at events, gyms, trade shows or churches and Go Outdoors for a week, give a love for nature, wildlife, evolving animals and creatures at long distance like birds.... and when you want to take serveral pictures per second of it, believe me you will find yourselve with no camera available on your current FF/DX lineup.
Canon is #1 right now, but with the D400 you will be king of the world!!!!!!
i doesn't matter who is king of the sleeping team, Canon or Nikon, who cares? development and progress are elsewhere anyway.
sixtiesphotographer: My thoughts are that the earthquake/nuclear disaster, followed by the SE Asia tsunamis, really disrupted Nikon's DX plans.
Although I have no DX equipment, I believe Nikon will come out with a D400 and more DX lenses this year. If you don't see them by Photokina, then there won't be much, if anything, for high-end DX offerings.
Also, I'm sure Nikon thinks the D800 is the D700's successor. To me, it's not: I'd take the existing D700, make it take two SD cards and bump the sensor to 18-20MP, otherwise keep it as is.
I agree with you, a DF style camera with relocated commands on top, better ergonomy, correct AF system, 1/8000th but with 28 mpix would be a great deal. With actual possibilities we had a good low light response and a better camera all over, despite still being a heavy brick.
For me, dslr has no sense anymore. There will be always a class of people who want that and one who need that. But all those who still use some share Nikon"s view with the bigger the better. For most people today a camera should be light and an object not anyone sees right away, for others the camera is the object that makes people see them, and still many put an importance to this show off mania. The bigger the better, well, let's then believe it, same as a D400, we can only live with hope, even if myself do not wait for any dslr to come anymore.
whyamihere: I'm sure I don't speak for the average American consumer, but having owned m4/3 cameras & lenses before trading it all in for a DSLR, I can say there's more to it than 'the camera looks the part'. With the exception of m4/3, few mirrorless systems have a lens catalog on par with most DSLR cameras. This is to be expected with the age of most mirrorless systems, but it does give one pause before investing. The main advantage I saw in mirrorless was compactness, but that gets thrown out the instant most zoom or telephoto lenses come into play, or in the case of some of the particularly large, bulky camera models that have been released lately. There's also the value proposition. For example, I see more value & versatility in a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens for a full-frame or an APS-C DSLR than most available mirrorless equivalents. I also don't see value in most mirrorless cameras with similar asking prices of DSLR's that don't deliver at least the same image quality. There, a logical answer.
Your statement on lenses is nonsense. There is no "hole" so far in the lens park that Sony offers, except very high speed primes. But since you can use them manually with adapters and manually focus as fast and in many situations even faster as with AF, your statement is obsolete. DSLR and mirrorless have only one thing in common and that is that they make pictures. But, there is nothing the one does that the other can't with a few rare exceptions where a dslr is an advantage. For more then 95% of what one considers to be a must and what one can do with a camera, dslr's are just a burden in weight and beyond that have no major advantage.
I worry about the negative trend in DSLR that we've seen recently and about how that will develop. Market conditions worry me most of all.
Makes sense, but nothing happens. In the mean time the only mirrorless in a correct sensor format that make the match are from Sony, followed by the 4/3 plot.
Greynerd: A more advanced Sony noise reduction system should scare even the most strong hearted person. Often it is akin to pouring water over the dots in printed output. I often wish my Sony TV would just leave the poorer picture quality alone rather than often turning it in to an even bigger mess.They up the nominal image resolution then have to scrub it to try and clean it up.
There is no watercolor effedct in the new rework Bionz engine. The pictures, even at 25000 ISO are not blotchy, what surprises me.
Joachim Gerstl: That's one big mirror less camera! But I think it's due to the fact the lady holding it has extremely small hands. The should ask my colleague from the Lebanon to hold it. He could let a Canon 1DX look small.
it is 1/10 of a millimeter larger than NEX6/7
love_them_all: So Sony is dropping the touch screen along with the NEX name?
if we wait a few month more, you will buy a user manual at Sony and you will get the camera for free with it.
Zeisschen: This looks like a very well designed digital camera. Together with the new Fuji and M43 offerings this year marks the end of the APS-C DSLR.
mirrorless is for the big boys that do not want to be seen, DSLR's are for the small boys that are afraid that nobody sees them, and the hell knows how many of those exist on this earth. DSLR will die, maybe, but not tomorrow, believe me.