HBowman: EPIC FAIL IS EPIC !
>> a score of 81.. no matter how much griping DP has about a camera, it usually comes up with a score near or above 80... <<
Agree. A rating system that only uses it's top 25% of the scale is kind of wasted.I guess Amazon's ownership also doesn't like popular cameras receiving low scores. Would pretty much hurt the sales. Financial interests and honest opinions usually don't go well together.
Not aimed at the Nikon Df, but meant as a general statement.
Juck: Nice, but Alpha 7 is much better.
@ sandy b:
If you only see a point in mirrorless systems because of their higher potential of smaller size, than I agree that adapting lenses on a A7(R) doesn't really make much sense compared to DSLRs. I don't really care that much for the size advantage, but absolutely love the possibility of using any lens I want on the Sony. My menzioned Nikkors, some excellent glas from Canon, Pentax and Olympus (like the "legendary" OM 90/2.0 that is awesome on the A7R). Moreover I simply don't want the whole fuss with mirrorboxes back again. I adjusted so many focus inconsistencies, changed focussing screnns to be able to use high speed glass and so on. I'm just too hooked on the advantages of mirrorless systems. And for the cases I really care about smaller size, I can use native lenses, although not that many up to now. ;)
That said, I'm not of the opinion that mirrorless is the solution for everything and better than DSLRs like a Df, D800 or whatever. They just fit me better, that's all.
The adapter + camera isn't any bulkier than the Df body itself - else the lens won't fit.
Losing EXIF information when adapting lenses? Yes, but who cares about those once the picture is on the wall? In case you don't mainly take pictures but prefer logging EXIF files instead, that sure is a problem.
The system is completely new, so no surprise there are only few native lenses yet. Anyway, you can use every single Nikon F mount lens too on the Sonys. Additionally to the ones from Canon, Pentax, etc. - in case you don't need AF, of course. ;)
My Nikkor 50/1.2 or Nikkor 14-24 work like a charm on this 36 MP "Sony crap". Thanks to the high quality LiveView function on the Sony, shooting landscapes is even significantly less fuss than on the rather mediocre display and LiveView implementation of the D800...
No doubt the Nikon DSLRs also have their strong points. Be it a Df , D800 or whatever. But so do the Sonys. Calling them crap simply shows you've never really used what you judge.
bigdaddave: Yes I'm sure it's very nice and fun to use, but even that one picture of the dark haired woman shows the camera's severe limitation, a fixed semi-wideangle. It's nowhere near the best focal length for that shot and is already distorting her image
Quite how you can all blub over a camera with such limitation in 2013 is beyond me.
>> My G1X will spit on this [...] <<
Ok, now I see where you are coming from. "My camera is better than your sucking camera" and all that sort of immature face off.Not interested in that lower kind of discussions. Conversation ended.
Because a APS-C camera with a fast zoom lens of the same optical quality would have to be a lot bigger than this combo and that would completely destroy the point of the X100(s)?
There are already enough possible alternatives with optional fast zoom lenses. Just get one of those.
chris96326: Focus Peaking (apparently m4/3 lenses only??)Better Grip and button spacingPhase Focus (apparently legacy 4/3 lenses only)More buttons (but in a different arrangement, why?)Keeping the tilt screen -- no lousy swivel, selfies are for amatuers
Looks like a market winner and a great evolution camera on paper. Sample images on this sight are nothing to write home about. I will sit this one out and wait for the GX-7 to ship.
I am more interested in the new lens to compete with Panny's 12-35mm.
>> I don't understand. Vertical means the subject is where? In front of the camera? Soo... you need to see the LCD when the subject is in the front of the camera. Hmmm... sounds like a selfie to me... <<
As others already pointed out, a vertical shooting position (= portrait orientation) has nothing to do with selfies. I don't want to swivel the display in order to see it while looking at it from in front of the camera. I want to be able to tilt it when the camera is in portrait orientation just the way I can tilt it now in landscape orientation.This can be extremely helpful for macros, landscapes on a tripod and a whole lot of other scenes on portrait orientation.
Walsh_uk: Wish it had a fuji sensor then it would be perfect..
No. I also use (and enjoy) the Fujis, but I'd prefer them having usual Bayer-layouts instead of X-Trans.
>> Keeping the tilt screen -- no lousy swivel, selfies are for amatuers <<
Vertical shooting positions are also only for amateurs?
Joe Talks Photo Gear: I would to see fewer characters available for commenting. Maybe 100. Like, get to the point and don't beat us over the head with your superior knowledge, negativism, trolling, attacks or/boorish behavior. Do that. Thanks.
I guess that kind of overreacting insults is a perfect example of those personal attacks you were talking about?.Well, each to his own...
"I would to see fewer characters available for commenting. Maybe 100. Like, get to the point and don'". - that's exactly how far I read your comment, when it suddenly reached the 100 character limit...And it actually worked out perfectly as your own "superior knowledge behaviour" got filtered out! ;)
Way too noisy pictures. That's where we land thanks to the MP-race - one pixel is too much!
steelhead3: looks like a nex clone with a smaller sensor, sort of like a pentax Q
Whatever you take, take less of it...
Seeing is believing...
Debankur Mukherjee: Sigma has hardly been able to produce any lens better then Nikkor.......so whats the big news......I don't think this lens will perform exceptional from any aspect.......
*cough* e.g. Sigma 35/1.4 *cough*
Rod McD: I'm with rondom below in thinking that the "FF equivalent DOF" thing is getting out of hand if that's the key goal of lens' design. We do need to give this lens the benefit of the doubt - it's innovative and it may be very good. OTOH I'm a bit dubious about ultra fast lenses. Everyone bangs on about maximum aperture like it's some kind of religion, but they often fail to acknowledge the downsides....... Fast lenses may have more curvature of field, soft corners wide open, vignette more and flare more. And they're sometimes diffraction limited at an earlier aperture than their slower counterparts. And they're larger. And they cost a lot more. Too bad if you're looking for portability, classic even sharp performance and performance at small apertures. For my interests of landscape and travel, some of the sacrifices for lens speed just aren't worth it.
>> And they're sometimes diffraction limited at an earlier aperture than their slower counterparts. <<
Why? When stopping down the lens to a given aperture, the resulting opening has the same size as with slower lenses. And it's the size of the aperture opening generating diffraction effects.
KL Matt: A 2MP full-frame DSLR - now that would be a popular camera.
>> You're right, not for pixel-counting amateurs, but for the medium format using professional <<
Well, actually the medium format professionals prefered sticking to pixel-counting and moved up to 80+ MP digibacks. I hardly think 2 MP would be too compelling for their uses... ;)
rhlpetrus: Well, I don't see the "great jpeg" IQ that DPR sees. There's a definite softening of detail even at base ISO, compared to the other cameras included. RAW is even worse. Am I the only one seeing it that way?
>> First thing I’m going to do is buy a X-E1 and see for myself if it deserves the same score my RX1 received…very anxious to conduct my own review comparisons of these two cameras. <<
Scores across different camera categories ARE NOT comparable. People just see some numbers and they're set.
Anyway, have fun with those two cameras.
Simon Zeev: About the #1: I am sorry for the children, but every military operation can be collateral damages including non involved civilians. Don't forget that the HAMAS terrorists are also civilians and they deserve every bullet.No one saw us running to the shelter at 2:30 am and we don't publish our dead's pictures. Not even the mother of 4 that was killed in the street by a palestinian rocket . In those days of the 2012 conflyct they shoot more than 1000 rockets on Israeli cities.The difference is that when Israel shoots they are collateral damages.Palestinians shoot to kill civilians.
Please stop your propaganda of good vs evil. It's no better than Mr. Hansen's, except he gets paid for doing so.Dead people are dead people, no matter where they come from.
By the way, how about focusing on those poor slave workers at Foxconn for the next "charity infomercial" taken with iPhones sponsored by those oh so caring folks at Apple?
Pictures of people jumping from the roof would work out great with a dramatic instagram vignette in black and white.
KimGreenspan: Wow, some of these comments are just flat out ignorant. Why the need to be so judgmental? The focus should not be on the photo equipment. Watts of Love (a charity) approached Kevin and he agreed to take time away from his family, his business, his life, to fly halfway around the planet so that he could help to change the lives of other people. People who don't have any electricity, no light after dark, and after Kevin's visit they will have a source of light. They don't have any photographs at all, and after this they will have one. A physical memory to look back on years from now, show their children, grandchildren, etc, something they never had before. Try to just put that into perspective for a second.... I think it's a beautiful thing that Kevin and this organization are doing.
No one is saying that mobile is the same or better than dslr. The fact is that mobile photography has become a relevant medium, and many people find it fun and more accessible than a dslr. I think too many people are trying to turn this into something it's not.
You are a great person, Kevin! Safe travels, and I can't wait to see the photos from this amazing experience. XO
>> No one is saying that mobile is the same or better than dslr. <<
Actually, the article states just that - the pictures with the iPhone turned out better than the ones taken with a "DSLR", and they even show a direct comparison.
While I agree on the advantages of a "stealth factor" for some situations (posed weddings not being one of them), I don't agree on having to trim down to a phone in order to get that effect.