Skinnerrr: Why on earth would you not include Fujifilm here?!
The X-T1's MSRP is $1299, so it's in the next roundup.
raimundo gaby: It is clear to me the camera DPR used for these tests is way off. Please look at the Imaging Resource files and also look at these photos from Steve Huff:http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/11/19/sony-rx1r-mark-ii-detail-test-shots-with-crops/The camera is amazing. I have the RX1 from the beginning, and it is the BEST camera I have ever had. I expect the RX1r II to be even more glorious.
I'm not sure how you would draw that conclusion from the images provided at that link.
Only one of those images might demonstrate curvature of field and, without the full resolution image, some idea of the shooting distance and much finer detail near the corners, it's impossible to know.
We will be looking into whether our unit it performing correctly but none of those images help with that.
mxx: A question about white screen backgrounds: Doesn't it consume more power than a black background? Especially when screens keep on getting bigger?
@rgibbons - no, the brightness setting usually changes the brightness of the back light (assuming LCD technology), which has a big impact on battery usage.
However, the back light is on regardless of whether the screen is showing black pixels or white ones, so there's no huge difference between black-on-white or white-on-black page design. (White on black may be more efficient on emitting OLED screens, though, since black pixels don't use power).
justmeMN: I don't know how well it works, but 4K Photo sounds like an interesting concept.
It works pretty well, especially the implementation on the most recent models. We wrote [a short article about it](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0087942697/panasonic-4k-photo-reaches-to-grab-stills-from-video-dream) when reviewing the G7.
technomad: "Introduces on-sensor phase detection AF". Lazy and ignorant writing - Olympus would be rather surprised by that statement
The Nikon 1 might have been the first ILC to offer on-sensor PDAF (I don't know), but there were [two Fujifilm compacts](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2151234617/fujifilmpd) around a year earlier.
They're the earliest examples I can think of.
Chris Crevasse: Would this field-curvature blurriness be resolved by placing the focus point on your subject when your subject is at the edge of the frame? And because focus and recompose tends to shift the focus point, would the focus and recompose method resolve the RX1 lens's field curvature issue when center focus is locked on a subject, then the frame is recomposed to place the subject at the edge of the frame?
Given how shallow the depth-of-field is/can be on the RX1R II, I wouldn't suggest focus and recomposing.
However, given the camera's focus has a contrast-detection aspect, it should be able to perfectly focus an off-centre subject. And yes, that is highly likely to give a sharper result at the focused point than you're seeing here.
mpgxsvcd: What is the point of a really expensive fixed lens camera that has a really bad lens on it? It is almost like they glued a “Kit” lens on this camera and charged more for it.
Steelhead: bear in mind that the shooting distance varies with focal length: we have to shoot wider lenses closer-up (it's part of the reason we built our new, much larger test scene).
mpgxsvcd: How close was the test scene to the camera? I guess I am having a hard time picturing how close it was to the test image. If it really was that close to the test image and this doesn't represent real world use of the camera at all, why bother posting the test images?
Couldn't you have just posted that because of the nature of this camera's fixed wide angle lens the test scenario was not indicative of its real world performance? Sometimes there is such a thing as too much information. Especially when that information is of no real world use.
mpgxsvcd - because there are plenty of things other than corner sharpness that can be determined from the test scene.
AbrasiveReducer: These guides are great for someone who has to have a camera right now. But if there ever was a year when next year's models seemed worth waiting for, this has to be it. Unless you want a Coolpix A.
Hasn't that always been true?
m3: Oh boy! Did anyone say film? Dreaming aloud here; if it's thin enough and flexible how about going the whole hog and put sprocket holes on either side. At last a real digital M3 ...
It's still a film that's coated onto a silicon chip, I'm afraid.
I think you have a very odd idea of what a 'bad lens' looks like.
The RX1R II has a very compact 35mm F2 lens that mounts immediately next to the sensor. Oddly enough, that means there's some curvature of field, when shot relatively close-up, which is made more apparent because of the camera's resolution.
However, think about the kinds of shots you might want to take with it and think about whether you necessarily need super-sharp corners. (And don't forget that an off-centre subject is likely to be much sharper than the off-centre regions of our flat and centrally-focused test chart).
I've shot quite a lot with the original RX1 and the last thing I'd choose to criticise is the lens.
Don't over-interpret our test scene.
With respect, you've not only selectively quoted the first part of a sentence, but you've also edited the fragment you've repeated.
The full quote would be:
"The a7R II also introduces *disruptive* on-sensor phase detection AF, with the widest coverage of any full-frame camera, precise focus on eyes, professional AF results in video, and the ability to focus non-native lenses."
It's stating that this implementation is disruptive and then explains why.
Also, why would Olympus be surprised by that statement? Off the top of my head, I think it was Fujifilm that first introduced on-sensor PDAF.
Mike FL: If you want buy a $1000 cam with noticeable better IQ than Nikon D7200, buying SONY A7.
Nikon D7200 and SONY A7 are more less the same price, but A7 was less than $1000 for a while last year @$899 while SONY was building its FF user base.
If you want buy a cam with more less the same IQ as Nikon D7200 but half price, buying an refurb Nikon D7100.
If you like sub-frame sensor cam, you will not go wrong with D7100, D7200, or next year's D7300 as far as I can see.
These roundups are based on MSRP, not street price. Street price is more variable, over time (especially with end-of-life models), whereas MSRP gives some impression of where the camera was intended to sit within a manufacturer's lineup and the market as a whole.
LJ - Eljot: And again: Press the OK-Button on an Olympus Camera and look what you get:
(appx. 30s search) This camera is 7 years old. It is still essentially the same, but you get the menue as an overlay to your live view image. I have allways liked it. The actual menu is something you will allmost never use on an Olympus camera. Only to costomize it.
We're aware of the Olympus Super Control Panel, but there are too many of the camera's key settings and useful features that are deep in the menus, that it's fair to point out that the cost of the really impressive level of customization is rather daunting menus.
Cihangir Gzey: When we check specifications, we only see dimensions of the camera (excluding the kit lens). However as many people buying those MILC cameras will buy them together with the kit lens (and mostly use them with the kit lens), it would be better to include "depth including the kit lens" would be a very useful information for the buyer (actually it is an important buying decision parameter). I was also amazed to see UNKNOWN in the place of Image Stabilisation for G7. What do you think Richard Butler?
I'll go and fix the G7 entry. We probably aren't in a position to add the kit lens depth information (though it's a good idea), because we sometimes have to add cameras to the database before production examples have been supplied, so the information isn't available.
b craw: I'm certainly not going to take things to the level of grease wrestling over conclusions derived in a subjective analysis...
Under 'cons' for Samsung NX500: "plasticky"-it has an aluminum top plate, the rest polycarbonate. By comparison, the Sony A6000 (an otherwise well-featured and great performing camera) feels like it is constructed from plastic milk containers. Yet, "plasticky" is not listed in the cons for it. Add in "good ergonomics" listed for the A6000 (and not for the widely-regarded ergonomically superior NX500) and I'm a bit baffled.
We're better at our jobs with our readers holding us to account.
Have a good evening.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, I meant the text about the a6000 on the final page is character-for-character the same.
Overall, though, I'm going to take nandbytes sage advice and step back from this.
I admire your commitment and am always pleased to encounter someone who loves their camera so much. I hope that, in turn, you appreciate how difficult it is to differentiate and select in a category with so many good cameras.
DF58: So why all this emphasis on "Full Frame" as the "end-point" format to aim for?
FF is just "equivalent to 35mm film". When 35mm film was introduced it was the equivalent of 1/1.7" (or something of that size) when compared to previous "plate", "half-plate" etc. cameras.
All formats are mere points on a continuum. Surely aspiring to a particular point (for the sake of saying "I'm on FF") is a bit silly?
The article explicitly states that the idea of full frame being an end-point is a fallacy.
rwol1970: What does a 36x24mm have a crop factor of 1? Just because Oskar Barnack used standard available film when designing a small camera?
Because 35mm was a dominant format for long enough that when digital photography started using other sensor sizes, virtually all (if not all) manufacturers kept using it as a reference point. Quoting focal lengths by reference to the 35mm format is the absolute standard.
Andrea - All reviews are inherently subjective. And, since it's impossible to make an objective measurement of qualities such as 'handling,' a fully objective score would be meaningless. Despite this, our scoring algorithm is heavy weighted towards the objective measurements we make. Even the subjective aspects are carefully benchmarked against one another, to maximise consistency.
We do everything we can to take an even-handed approach and I'm being pretty open about the process by which we work. At the point you start using loaded terms such as 'undeclared omissions and strong biases,' despite not having made a case for either, it's pretty clear that we've passed the point of constructive discussion.
I've looked back through the change logs and compared the current version of the text to the one that was present at the point of publication. There's not a single character's difference in the Sony section of the final page, so I don't know where you encountered that text.