For on tripod shooting it is hard to improve on a wireless remote(Nikon 1) for ease of use or the versatility of a remote control wifi phone app that also lets you change settings and view your subject on the phone and trip the shutter remotely(Fuji).
Nikon could jump on this by bringing out a D300 successor that is mirrorless, half the size, with a new mount and an adaptor for the old mount. Then convert all the rest of the DX cameras to mirrorless and start bringing out a complete line up of lenses to the new mount. They have already shown that they know how to build a mirrorless that focuses better than the best efforts of the competition with the N1. But they won't, because they compete with Canon and they have not done it.
Really? A woman can't crouch without ridicule? Sexist pigs is the phrase that comes to mind. Are these comments by all the guys who are afraid their camera bag choice might look like a purse?
Very nice video. It gives a view of camera capability that never really comes through in a written review. Impressive photos. Makes we wonder about the wisdom of migrating to Fuji from Sony. Well done. Thanks.
hman60: Need our advice. Going to Antartica with two teens. I am not a pro photographer but enjoy trying. And much of the nuanced discussion around DSLRs goes beyond me. That said I have a D700 and a D200 with Nikon 24-70 2.8, 70-300 4.5-5.6, and a Tamron 12-24 4 for the D700 and a 18-70 3.5-4.5 for the D200. Not sure whether getting a new camera body (e.g. D750) makes sense. Considering getting the 200-400. But also wondering whether a teleconverter would be good enough. Any advice would be appreciated - especially since each teen (older) wants a camera in hand given the nature of the trip.
I would get the D750 for all the improvements due to modernity. You have good lenses. Get it soon and practice, practice, practice. The 200-400 is impossibly big and heavy for hand holding. Tripods don't work on ships and inflatable boats and they sink in deep snow. Get the superb new 80-400.
fotopix2021: I am content with full frame because it offers good control over depth of field. APS-C needs lenses to be a stop faster to give similar control, and Micro Four Thirds two stops faster. Sadly, this means that people who are spending a lot of money on f/0.95 lenses for Micro Four Thirds are only getting the same control over depth of field as owners of f/1.9 full frame lenses. Not exactly what they were hoping for, I expect.
If control over depth of field is not important to you, or is something you don't really understand, you will probably be perfectly happy with smaller-than-full-frame sensors.
Narrow depth of field is nice for certain kinds of pictures, but if your main interest, like a lot of us, is landscape, travel and a little bit of macro photography narrow depth of field is a problem that has to be fought all the time especially now that F11 softens images even on full frame. Back in the large format day Ansel Adams' club was called F64 which underscores the need for wide It is perfectly easy to blur the background when you need it with APS-C and the "something you don't understand" remark is arrogant and lacks understanding itself.
Thoughtful and interesting article and largely right I think. I am amazed at the anecdotal evidence on the Fuji forum for people like me who tired of waiting for a successor to the D300S and went full frame and then bought a Fuji X-T1. Amazing the number of people who sold their full frame "upgrade" before they bought their APS-C mirrorless "upgrade", especially considering the cost. In this case a bigger, heavier, optically improved camera with a new set of lenses was not an upgrade for many and Nikon has lost them to another manufacturer which has given them what they wanted, an upgraded APS-C camera.
The LX100 is a hulking brute compared to the GM5. If you are truly interested in compact that is the comparison that should be made.
I like the larger sensor, but at such a sacrifice in size. I think the GM-5 is lots more attractive as a small, high quality camera.
It is embarrassingly shiny. This looks like the cheap lenses of my youth, like Exactas, while the Leicas and Contarexes were lovely satin chrome, all over.
E.J.: Put a Sony 24mp APS-C Bayer sensor in that X-T1 Platinum and I'm all in on the system, hook line and sinker, lenses and all. For me and what I do, there is zero advantage to the X-trans and in some ways it is a disadvantage. The X-T1, to me, is the most photographer friendly digital camera ever built from a controls standpoint.
Please stop. Sony does not make APS-C sensors. The C stands for Canon. The Canon sensor is smaller and has a 1.6 multiplier. Sony, Fujfilm, and Nikon all use APS sensors.
Pritzl: Dang it! You guys missed the most significant question: X-Trans RAW processing support by 3rd party software. JPEGs are nice, but until RAW processing (particularly in Lightroom) becomes completely hassle-free, it's hard to accept Fuji X-Trans for your only camera. Any chance for a follow-up?
That comparison used ACR 7.4 as the latest. It is up to version 8.6 now. Without a new comparison there is no conclusion that can be reached. No need to be mired in the past.
AbrasiveReducer: With such cool cameras and so many of them, it's amazing they aren't doing better than they are. And it's a shame, because unlike, say, Sony, Fuji has been in imaging for a very long time.
Not a Sony fan, but really you are ignoring the swallowing up of Konica-Minolta by Sony which produced the early models of the "Sony" cameras. So they both have been in imaging a very long time.
Sir Nick of High Point: Sweet! Part of me wishes that they would delete the LCD screen. The whole Leica philosophy involves keeping your head up and eyes peeled, not buried in a useless tiny screen.
Or they could copy the Fuji XT1 and just turn off the LCD which is easily reawakened for the menu purpose by a press of the menu button.
What if the monkey were a person instead, who snatched up the camera and made images of commercial value? I think it would be easier to say the guy who just owned the camera did not own the copyright. Certainly it might be a very difficult court case. It is not simple. The problem is that we have a tradition of thousands of years of exploiting animals for commercial gain. Taking the monkey's creation as your own is no different than taking a rhino horn for its imagined Viagra like properties and claiming the result as your own.
Beautiful images, Barney.
Petzval lenses are the give away lenses included with the very cheapest telescopes.
Center of the Earth? Seriously?
Wow. What a beautiful set of "test shots". I would be proud to have any of them in my portfolio.
Shield3: I'll hang onto my Panasonic LX-7 for now. It was under $250 ("used" warehouse Amazon (was BNIB), has a slightly smaller sensor (1/1.7") but a brighter lens (F/1.4 @ 24mm) and shoots 1080p @ 60FPS and 720p @ 120FPS.Why Canon chose to leave off at least 1080p60 on a $800 camera is mind-boggling.
Slightly smaller sensor? How about less than ¼ the size?