sensai: Nice camera design. Will wait for the successor though...
People with no money or no need always wait for the next model...
bawbaw: comparing the raws of all the fuji marque bodies... there is nothing in here to justify going from the x-pro to this
How about not going from X-Pro1 to X-T1 but getting both? T-X1 is faster, much better with longer lenses which require EVF to work at all, etc, but X-Pro1 still has that certain feel I like with normal and wide-angle lenses. With 56 and 55-200mm lenses X-T1 is clearly better. That is why I have both (and X100s).
ethwit: I have been using X100 for the last few years. I wish it focused better/quicker, I wished it had interchangeable lenses, etc. This camera ( X-T1) improves on all of the features of my X100, except.... the optical viewfinder. I find the electronic viewfinder does not come close to true optics. Not in the bright sun light. It's a a compromise. Thus, I will keep using my X100 until Fuji comes up with an X-T1 OVF. I have a feeling i will not have to wait very long.
Those without the money or real need always wait for the next model.
Raist3d: If I was a Pro Landscape Photographer, as in selling big prints, etc. of landscapes and having a nice cash flow I would totally go for this.
I tried the first camera before this one and it is quite amazing. Pentax has a long history of medium format 645 film series, and this one supports all those lenses too.
"More pixels, better prints/files" does not hold true anymore. Many, if not most landscape photographs can be stitched from several frames, and carrying a smaller camera and doing stitching might produce just as good photographs, and maybe more of them as the system would be easier to carry around and take to places where bigger/heavier cameras can not go.
This new Pentax is undoubtedly a great camera, but considering cost, size, weight etc of the system it might not be ideal for all modern style landscape photography. FF cameras also have new state-of-the-art lenses like Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art series, which are better than anything available for MF, which levels the playing field also.
justmeMN: It would be nice if Pentax could find a way to recapture their Glory Years. I don't know what their market share was, but in the Film Era they were a strong, mainstream, brand. Now, they are a fairly obscure brand.
Asahi Pentax was a teenager photographer's dream camera in sixties-seventies, but in late seventies Canon and Nikon both pulled ahead.
It they could capture number one spot again would be nice, because that would mean they would have to better both Canon and Nikon in a big way. And thinking how good those brands are now, wow!
tabloid: I would be interested if it was mirror-less.
In my opinion thats the future.
I suppose the huge base of existing lenses which fit this new camera weighs more than the slight volume reduction gained from making it mirrorless, needing a whole set of new lenses to make it useful.
In the long run, maybe, but it is a bigger step than camera makers counting their pennies are willing to make. Market for MF is small, after all.
iae aa eia: Haha! Come on! A normal lens is 55mm?! I remember that used to be wideangle and normal 70mm. Alright, the digital doesn't need to be bind to film era sizes, but do you really consider a decent step up going from 43mm to 55mm? That's ridiculous to me. Alright, the camera is awesome, the system too, it's a size other brands use in their digital-era "medium" format, and I can't afford one, it's just that it's even a smaller step than from an APS to an FF!
55m normal lens is perfectly normal normal for that size sensor. Think before posting.
jaaboucher: Is anyone else skeptical about all of these video cameras coming out at NAB with jaw dropping specs and low prices? Something this perfect seeming must be too good to be true.
Camera body is cheap, but decent lenses for this is another matter altogether...
Electronic hadrware prices are falling so fast that the only thing that still costs something is the lens. Prices of those (good ones) are not falling, alas.
A similar thing was done about 25 years ago in a museum (in Boston?) with a huge Polaroid camera, originally built for reproducing artwork. Faces were photographed in 9 sections on 40x80" polaroid material. Camera was actually a closet with 2 lab technicians inside developing the sheet, wearing infrared goggles.
The resulting photo was 120" by 240" in size (3 by 6 meters). If we assume lens resolution of 40 line pairs per mm the resulting composite was about 120 GPix in size (theoretical, about half of that in practice). Even that is 50 times better than this new approach.
aris14: C'mon lazy guys... Learn how to post process a pic...
RAW or not, the idea is to expose different parts of the picture longer/more than other parts. That can not be simulated in post using just one frame.
Well, if the RAW file either has blown highlights or nothing in the shadows, no amount of post processing is going to help. If this system allows differing exposures for different parts of the picture things are easier and actually possible in post.
RodluvanII: A medium format sensor (60x60mm) is more than 4x times larger than a 35mm sensor, or 3.7x larger in the case of a 645-sensor. Not "almost twice the physical size".
So called FF sensors are the same size as 135 frame at 36x24mm, give or take a few tenths of a millimeter. So what are you after?
Alphoid: I'm wondering how much the 0.77x crop factor does for you, relative to economies of scale and the type of engineering that goes into a modern, high-end mass-produced dSLR.
I'd love to see an actual, objective comparison to a D800 with a nice Zeiss lens, a Sigma 35mm f/1.4, or similar. 35mm lenses have come a long ways since the days when I last saw someone compare MF to FF.
I hear all about the magic of MF, but I wonder if at this point, it is still real or just psychosomatic.
Me too. Actually best 135 lenses have always been sharper than MF lenses. In the old times MF ruled, but the film sizes were 6x6 to 6x9 at that time, much bigger than 135, so the lenses needed not be as good. Now there has been a lot going on in 135 lenses (Zeiss Otus, Sigma Art series), but nothing much at the MF side.
I would not be surprised at all if D800e would produce just as good a file.
I am certain somebody will do this comparison soon.
SF Photo Gal: With 36 MP FF now available, I wonder if the need for this kind of beast really exists?
MF lenses have never been as sharp as the best 135 lenses, now even more so with Zeiss Otus and new Sigma offerings. After all the sensor in this camera is not all that much bigger than a FF sensor. Long time ago shooting 6x7 evened things out a bit more.
DR: Nikon D800 has 14 stops of dynamic range.
My educated guess would be that D800e and this new Hasselblad, both with the sharpest lenses available, would be quite equal all in all at low ISO at least. At high ISO I have no idea, but betting on Nikon.
RStyga: A new brick on the block. I can't see this DSLR having much marketing success outside the professional photographer's community.
These pro bodies are perfect size for working hands...
They sell them to the pros, and also by truckloads to newly rich hobbyists in China.
ThomasSwitzerland: I am still a loyal customer of Nikon. But this uninspiring D4s confirms my move. Step by step I get rid of those old world huge cameras. They seem to me like dinosaurs from the past.
I do not want to bash because I believe in Nikon’s excellent sensors’ computer code and ergonomics. I also had the Canon FF cameras with L-lenses. I sold them at very good prices some time ago. I questioned more and more to hike in the mountains with those “tons” of black cases with a huge backpack limiting moves and fun.
Now I still got the D5200 – pros will smile – and mirrorless; and wait for the next generation of cellphone/integrated cameras to migrate to. It’s like with the stock markets. Buy early and sell into the last waves.
In a couple of years, no one can imagine that we took photos with those huge, heavy, and strange looking cameras.
Sometimes it is decision point to liberate. Less load is more joy. More joy and dedication produce better pictures.
Think about pioneer photographers with 8x10" and even bigger glass plates, huge cameras and a DARKROOM carried by mules to prepare and develop those wet plates each time they wanted a snap a picture...
fcimbar: I wish I could afford any of the FX cameras, no matter the name and brand. Those who have : stop complaining about trivial differences and prices; and start enjoying them !
So true. D4 and D800s are by far the best general tools I have had the privilege to use in almost 50 years of photography and 35 years of professional carrier. There are almost as good ones like Canon D1x and smaller reportage tools like Fujifilm X-series, the photographer makes the difference, not the small technical differences between makes and models.
pbrandt3: AS the D4s has a new chip, it would be good to see the picture quality differences between the two 16mp D4 & D4s and the D800 @ 36mp
I have both D4 and D800e. For daily photography I prefer D4 even though it is bigger, but it has better ergonomics and vertical grip. 16 MPix are enough for practically everything, and the focus speed and high ISO performance are great.
For "artsy stuff" like studio portraits and landscape with tripod out comes the D800e. And as a backup if two bodies are needed sometimes.
I also have the new Fujifilm X-T1 which is wonderful, but it is not an action camera as the body is too small for good ergonomics and the buttons are too small. Great for stealthy reportage, hiking etc, though.
elefteriadis alexandros: -Good for Nikon keep the Megapixel down, that give breath to improve DR which remain the big problem for digital photography.-I wait for the test in that DR department and keep my breath...
I have not scanned much film, but already 12 years ago I had a 135 provia slide scanned at 60 MPix resolution and compared that to a digital file from EOS-1D, 4.7 MPix. Both were shot with the same lens and framing. Guess what, equal resolution in details...
And I did shoot film for 25 years before that, from 135 to 6x9. Never looked back after getting DSLRs.