I think that critique is spot on. The camera I had the most self confident control of and which I loved was a Leica M3. Second was an Olympus OM4T, which was also pretty simple to use. I think most people don't have a clue about most of the features of current cameras. Many of the more self confident shooters set them up like an old aperture priority film camera and just shoot that way and most of the rest just put it in auto or program. On the other hand people who make the effort are taking much nicer photos with higher image quality because of more capable cameras in my opinion.
What is it with the sound? I can barely hear it with the volume turned all the way up.
A camera with an optional add on viewfinder is not a serious camera. It is just a big point if you can see it and shoot.
I wonder whether Lens Rentals has ever tested a single lens 10 times and gotten variation?
Ooh. New market for counterfeit boxes on ebay. How easy that will be.
Phil Askey: Great round-up but you missed out my personal favourite (and often used), the Leica Tabletop tripod, not as flexible certainly but amazingly well built.
Mine has an engraved script Leitz on it instead of the red dot and the feet have more like resilient socks instead of the clunky shoes. Vintage about 1975.
Thank you for creating the original of this site.
jwkphoto: I keep in my camera bag a Leitz Table Top tripod I bought in 1969. I've used it hundreds of times and made many of my best photos with it. It still works perfectly!
Me too. The lack of deterioration seems almost magical. Not light though 1 ½ lbs with the large ball head. Occasionally it has worked against my chest.
Lovely looking camera. I have gotten spoiled by grips and zoom lenses, but I used an M3 for 20 years without either.
Eric Glam: Nice camera, but not for me, I'm afraid...
1. LCD doesn't tilt/swivel - very important for various situations
2. Being stuck on a single focal length is VERY limiting (I should know, I only have a 35mm f/1.8G Nikon lens).
3. Something is very wrong with the way the Q renders Reds - it's like the RED slider was pushed to the left in LightRoom, but here it happens in-camera.
4. In these modern times, I need good video as well. They should have offered at least 2560p @ 60fps. Hey, they don't even mention bitrates, so no go for video here.
5. No headphone jack and no Mic jack. Important stuff for video which sadly is missing here.
6. Compared the studio shot (in RAW, low light) to the D750. The D750 takes the cake.
7. Sony RX2 just around the corner!!
8. PRICE. 'Nuf said.
If the RX2 gets a viewfinder, perhaps it can be taken seriously.
Kind of disappointing. Look at the green foliage. The Nikon looks like green fog. Not sure what is going on there. Even at base ISO. I suspect the Sony looks superior because of higher default sharpening on the JPEG. Seem like dpreview could devise a sharpening target so that all their test cameras could be adjusted to the same actual sharpening before a comparison is made.
win39: Sorry, can't hear it the volume is so low. Don't you check these things?
Thanks. Can hear it now. Nice little video.
Sorry, can't hear it the volume is so low. Don't you check these things?
willemd nl: The x-e2 has the same sensor, same processor and is just a few months older. Yes, it's a different formfactor and different price, but it's kinda lame they deliberately don't update the x-e2 to what it's technically capable of. Ah well, just hoping and dreaming. ;)
There have been rumors that the X-E2 is end of life and its replacement is the X-T10 which will be announced this month and will have all these improvements. It could be said that this FW update is just to allow the focus in the X-T1 not to be bettered by the new lesser model.
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.