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?
peevee1: Wait, "DJI Phantom"? Isn't it a flying platform for Go Pro?
They have a new model with its own camera.
The Nikon 1 V2 with 10-100 lens and one inch sensor seems to be the camera you can't find to compare the Sony with. It will also show what a hulking brute the Sony is.
Good question. We are missing something here. In a side by side comparison of features this camera with its options is little more capable than the V2, just in the speed department and hopefully sharper in the sensor department. Yet it is hundreds of dollars more expensive, larger, heavier. You can't modularize the viewfinder and the handgrip with out making it larger. To believe Nikon the whole point of the Nikon 1 was smallness of both camera and lenses. They have just thrown that out the window. And what is the deal in the US of having to buy it with a lens I already have?I agree with Reichmann that at this point in time no camera worthy of being taken seriously does not have a built in viewfinder. What Nikon should have done was to smooth out the finder hump, put it in the corner and build a smaller version of the X-E2.
Did I miss the evaluation of the LCD for seeing? Most any LCD is fine in the permanent twilight of the Pacific Northwest, but without a real viewfinder those of us in the sunnier parts of the world would like to know how useful the LCD might be. Not black in the sun like so many?
I think that if that were true you would not recognize your own pictures.