LFPCPH: Will Fuji make it fullframe ???
1. You don't change the design specs if you're getting "higher than expected orders" for the current design.2. You can't suddenly change the sensor size with only a month increase in release date and no support for a new mount....so no. No FF. At least not for the xpro2.
Yanko Kitanov: This video is outrageously awful.
Good resolution and colors.
Terrible drum rehearsal sound - confess who of you guys is trying to play or likes someone trying to play the drums.... ;)
Even worse constant camera shaking
The worst of all - the curve or the contrast setting used that makes the video look really poor and terrible. You shot with much higher than needed contrast or using some S-curve in really challenging DR conditions for a video - often more than 30% of the frame are blown highlights and blown shadows.
You could do much better sample video obviously. I would be really upset with this "anti-marketing" if I was Fuji or Amazon - this video is not making them sell more X-Pro2 but less...
I might have liked it if I'd never seen the original Star Wars...and I was 10 ;)Not so much edgy as bitterly disappointed. (Spoiler alert to the 2 people on the planet who haven't yet seen it)I've watched the orginal so many times that I know it word for word so when I watched TFA there were no suprises. I was predicting every scene because it was the same movie (just swap some of the characters around). About half way through I was looking at my watch wondering how much longer it would take but of course I knew exactly how long it was becasue they were up to Death star (sorry Starkiller Base) destroys [insert planet name here]...Rant over ;)
Finally someone agrees with me :D I was feelinig pretty lonely on the "I hate The Force Awakens" facebook page ;)
That's very true but I think it's the director who says "hey I want a gritty, shaky camera look for this film", which is why I picked Speilberg. I don't recall any of his movies having the motion-sickness inducing camera shake :DJJ Abrams on the otherhand would say that that footage is too stable and to shake it up a bit more ;)
haha that's true :DAll I was trying to say was that within it's limits, this vid shows a few things that are imporved between generations and some of the things that haven't (If you know what the old quailty was like). For people new to considering Fuji, I concede that it might not be as helpful.Fuji has never aimed their camera's at videographers but it's probably good enough for casual clips. Serious videographers are probably better served looking elsewhere.
I think the video is purely to represent the improvements from the last generation of x-cams...namely, rolling shutter, moire (both of which look much improved), the tendancy to re-aquire focus in a very obvious focus raking (still there -DPR called it "focus wobble") etc...I'm sure if they gave the camera to Steven Speilberg, there would have been a much better vid ;)
@0.30s a bus drives by. I assume that the front of the bus is actually sloping and we are not seeing a rolling shutter effect. I didn't see any evidence of RS at any other point in the video. If so then this looks pretty promising. I wonder what this means for the electronic shutter in stills mode and fast moving objects.
nicoboston: The potential issue with organic components is lifespan. Ho long these sensors will last?Whole Foods will love them, though.
@maxnimoyou lost me as soon as you said shells and bone, neither of which are organic. They are prodominantly calcium that is deposited by living cells. As for the longevity of wood, that depends on the conditions that occur after being cut from the tree. Wood quickly decomposes unless preserved by drying or other process. Fossilised wood isn't wood at all but mineral deposit that leach in over time and replaces the organic matter.
We don't know the longevity of the organic sensor because organic chemistry is a lot more complicated than "natural good, man-made bad".
@maxnimo, I'm not sure what you mean... both wood and plastic are organic (Carbon and Hydrogen based).
Brian Isaman: Something tells me we are going to see endless articles about the A6300 from DPR staff. Get ready for the hyperbole.
Dale Baskin wrote: A few weeks ago it was Nikon. Then it was Fujifilm. Now it's Sony. Kind of interesting how the 'endless articles' seem to coincide with product launches. Possibly a correlation? Me thinks yes.
Nonsense! The two are totally unrelated! ;)
Rishi Sanyal: his is really weird - does anyone see what looks like double images in the out of focus areas with the 35L II, [here](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr202_0=canon_ef_35_1p4_usm_ii&attr202_1=canon_35_1p4&attr202_2=canon_ef_35_1p4_usm_ii&attr202_3=sigma_35_1p4&attr203_0=1.4&attr203_1=1.4&attr203_2=1.4&attr203_3=1.4&normalization=full&widget=295&x=0.4338051061297219&y=43.38571449999995)? Not present in the original 35L or the Sigma 35 Art... Is this odd, or unexpected? Does anyone know what might cause this? TIA.
This is why I'd ultimately like to have a controlled scene with a lot of depth and detail at many focal planes to assess focus 'fall-off' and bokeh.
Thanks JACS, I know what spherical aberation is (in theory- as a ray diagram) but I never knew how to identify it in a real image.
JakeB: Much-needed article that will clearly beckon in an era of civility, sanity, and reasoned debate at dpreview.
Except for Sony users, of course.
They're the worst.
Don't forget the Canon crowd...and Nikon...and OMG Fuji...and Olympus...and if I hear anymore from Panasonic... and Leica..and....
tedolf: This whole argument is a little bit specious. When we say "all cameras today are good" we are specifically referring to image quality. And that is true. Once we got to about 12mp and decent ISO 1600 you could print pretty much anything.
Now the rest of the article makes a reasonable point. Today's interchangeable lens cameras still vary dramatically in features and lens selection. That is what new photographers should be considering, because when it comes to image quality by and large, all IL cameras are good today.
Yes, if the only selection criteria is the ability to print 16x20", then there are plenty of choises out there.
Marty4650: Richard, if they are "all good" then we really don't need a camera review site.
I think there are plenty of "not so good" cameras. You just don't ever review those here.
I agree with you to a point but I think it depends on where the individual draws the line on what is good and what isn't. Otherwise we would either all go out right now and buy a D5 or all of us would never buy a camera again and stick with a cameraphone.Photographers are as varied as the camera's that are available.
HB1969: "One of the most witless arguments I regularly see is: ‘it won’t improve your photography – Ansel Adams would get better photos using an iPhone.’ (And it’s always Ansel Adams, isn’t it?)."
I'm OUTRAGED by this comment!! ...sometimes its Henri Cartier-Bresson :p
Great minds think alike :DActually I was surprised that nobody made that joke before me :)
Click4hope: No, sometimes it is Henri Cartier-Bresson.
But he might welly eschew the approximately 28mm equivalent FOV lens in most cell phones. Actually I wonder whether we might be wiser to start from the lens or lenses and then decide whether the cameras and sensors that attach to them are up to snuff for our needs.
"nothing new under the sun"
Yeah!! stealing my lines ;)
Neodp: "LOL. So all image quality is the same?"
No it isnt' but most casual shooters wouldn't take full advantage of the increase in IQ. This is why smartphones as camera's are so popular. It's because for many people that IQ is good enough.
"One of the most witless arguments I regularly see is: ‘it won’t improve your photography – Ansel Adams would get better photos using an iPhone.’ (And it’s always Ansel Adams, isn’t it?)."
import onto phone, edit, export back to desktop...wouldn't it just be easier to have a photoshop plug-in?
That's the thing, I do see it in the other lenses (though not as pronounced) but I might not be looking at the phenomenon that you're trying to point out.