sneakyracer: Man, Fuji is such a great company and this interview exemplifies that. Toshihisa Iida was open, candid and forthcoming. Huge contrast compared to the Canon (Chuck Westfall) interview which seemed staged and where he basically was walking on eggshells.
The flipside of that argument is that not mentioning equivalence (except when it suits them, i.e., focal length) allows manufacturers to essentially con prospective buyers.
PeaceKeeper, no one is saying f/2.8 is not f/2.8. They are just pointing out that an f/2.8 lens on a smaller sensor does not perform as well as an f/2.8 lens on a larger sensor; neither in DoF terms nor in light gathering ability. The only equal factor is that the exposure parameters, all else being equal, should be the same for the same brightness image.
Pritzl: I think a couple of images could have used IS. I'm seeing what looks like motion blur at 100% on some of them.
Agreed. Given the size of the lens, I was quite surprised they opted out of IS. I think any lens longer than 60mm equiv. needs IS as standard.
I think a couple of images could have used IS. I'm seeing what looks like motion blur at 100% on some of them.
12345ccr: the cut in half joke gets a tad repetitive after the 4th time...
I suspect they're taking a shot at how repetitive the cut-in-half theme was at CP+.
Ooooh! Look how small my camera is... and yet it is full frame! WOW! I can have my cake and eat it too... Huh... Why are the lenses so large? Physics? What's that?
Pritzl: It seems Canon, more than any other manufacturer, is constantly second-guessed by everyone and their dog. This either means they really suck at what they do, or, being top-of-the-hill really does rub people the wrong way; even their customers.
Like I said, maybe Canon really suck at camera development - at least recently. They are criticized regardless of what they do and only sell cameras because people are sheep. Then again, maybe not...
It seems Canon, more than any other manufacturer, is constantly second-guessed by everyone and their dog. This either means they really suck at what they do, or, being top-of-the-hill really does rub people the wrong way; even their customers.
mntncougar: The real question is... Will the autofocus using the viewfinder work properly, unlike the 70D. I got 2 - original and replacement - and sent them both bacck because they weren't anywhere near as sharp as my T4i with the same lens and settings. And that is at F stops above 2.8!
Are you sure it wasn't a case of mismatched lens/body: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
Jun2: 750D has no servo AF. Really, $750 camera doesn't have that.
So are the movie features, so? This is nothing new to Canon or any other manufacturer. Product differentiation strategies can often times appear very cynical.
Now that T6s is a really good Rebel. Not sure what the point is of the T6i at only $100 cheaper though.
In Live View, not in general.
Astrid A: Just a thought. How come nothing in the testing procedure is the same when you look up the "auto focus" sections of the 70D and the 7D mk II. Would be interesting to see the 70D:s tests beeing performed on the 7D II, especially since the conventional AF of the 70D seems to be surprisingly inaccutate, and inconsistent.
All standard phase detect systems show this same inaccuracy/inconsistency you lament. If the body and lens are matched perfectly, or you micro-adjust to match them, then the inconsistency goes away. It's just that this is the first DSLR with phase detect on the sensor that illustrates just how much better phase detect AF calculations on the sensor are.
Every DSLR ever produced will have this same problem.
Pritzl: How can the blind lead the blind? That lame attempt at "testing" the 7D mark II's AF and his inability to admit his errors or accept input do not bode well for him as a teacher. He should stick to his tupperware.
I was not hurt. It would be foolish to let an Internet post affect my life so. I did not even mind the test being flawed - everyone makes mistakes.
What I did find alarming was an incredible intransigence and inability to admit the flaws in the test which were evident for all to see. That, to me, does not make for good teaching credentials.
How can the blind lead the blind? That lame attempt at "testing" the 7D mark II's AF and his inability to admit his errors or accept input do not bode well for him as a teacher. He should stick to his tupperware.
Horshack: Wow, Nikon issued a release indicating they were looking at the issue only weeks after it was first discovered and now they've announced a planned fix before they even have the full logistics worked out. This is an incredibly fast response and a drastic turnaround vs how they were handling issues just a year ago. Kudos to Nikon. Let's hope this represents a new era in customer support for Nikon customers.
Agreed. They may have botched it in the past but learning from your mistakes is always commendable.
WalPhoto: Hehe, I "upgraded" from FF to MFT :-D! And I feel totally happy, shooting with much more love and joy, like 30 years ago on film; I never felt that joy with digital being it D30/10D/5D until I've got the EM5. The whole idea "upgrading towards FF" is BS - why not "MF" or even "LF"? Why to stop at FF? I don't print larger than A2 on my 3880 from EM5, so MFT is more than adequate. Much better invested money is for lenses, books, courses, lightning etc. - one should "upgrade" the skills and not the HW. I watched recently Dean Collins' DVDs and I "upgraded" my understanding about photography much more than ever changing cameras - DPR should definitely point the readers to sources like that.
"Yes, everyone can make their own choices. I just pointed out that FF system being large and heavy is not true."
Nerd2, are you serious? Don't you think those 2 sentences contradict each other? You need to tack on "for me." at the end of the second sentence for your post to make sense.
Yes it is my choice. I never thought it wasn't.
FF price and size is prohibitive for others. I know it is for me. As the article states, it's a personal decision. Richard, justifiably in my opinion, just questioned the strategy of buying larger, heavier, more expensive and often inappropriate (FL-wise) lenses because you think some day you will move from APS-C to FF.
nfarrar: I just don't agree with the general premise. All things being equal a bigger sensor makes better images. Generally speaking better dynamic range, more vibrant color and better bokeh. Its more about physics. As an investment FF lenses are gold. I agree that APS-C lenses can be a little bit smaller and lighters. I own the Samsung NX 16-50mm and 50-150mm S Lenses. They are smaller and lighter than Nikon G equivalents. That being said I'm locked. I was willing to make that deal for the features of the NX1 but if I was going to Nikon/Canon the equation changes in in favor of FF. With Sony E/FE it's a different altogether.
Reading on the internet is a dying art. :P