kewlguy: I'm sure the X70 is a good camera but these samples are just ugly. Many not well exposed, not carefully taken photos. Pity, maybe because it's not a sony, no oh Wow kinda thing ;)
Nahh, I stand corrected. If they want to show high iso performance, at least find real low light situation. Who underexposes and shoots high iso in broad daylight? At least repeat the same scene from iso200 to iso800 for the sake of comparison. Lenstip, photozone, all take better sample shots, they just don't provide the raw, too bad.
@Greynerd - those photos look like normal circumstances - if you never shoot with other than a mobile phone.
bubblyboo: Looks like the A6300 scared both Nikon and Fuji./s
Why would d500 and Xpro2 be afraid of a toy from just another division of PSP maker?
heypek: to me fuji-customers have to wait two years to get their fuji-camera complete with things other Producers had alredy done long time ago... think!
Of course many fanboys prefer the Sony way - upgrade the firmware with the new camera altogether...
drivecancel: You can also pocket the X100 which has a VF so would still be my choice over these cameras.
It is indeed funny to walk around with a D5 in your pocket, don't you think?
gbdz: There is nothing wrong with the picture quality, so it seems.The question is why would anybody buy this camera when the pocketable Sony is so clearly superior in all possible aspects?
Which sony? Maybe the specs mean nothing to some people LOL
I'm sure the X70 is a good camera but these samples are just ugly. Many not well exposed, not carefully taken photos. Pity, maybe because it's not a sony, no oh Wow kinda thing ;)
gil: The A6000 is already a killer for hummingbird BIFs (short distances up to 20 feet) and this one improves on the AF. The possibilities are exciting but the cost is not (gear + collateral costs of making the wife receptive to the purchase).
If you throw well, you could easily kill the bird from 20ft, yes.
BPD7: Too bad their lens lineup SUCKS.
I'll stick to my Fuji with amazing lenses
Exactly my thought, too
Robert Holloway: Maybe it's me and this is not a comment about the Sigma. I just don't see the need for 20mm f1.4 . Can someone explain where this lens would have a real practical use. Astrophotography? Not really something I'd think of for portraits. landscapes at f1.4? Thanks!
I was tricked by adobe, I guess. I purchased the stand alone LR6, installed it on 2 computers, then my son needs a LR so I thought why not subscribe the CC? After I subscribed the CC, adobe blends both LR6 and CC into one. So I ended up paying twice and still have only two computers with LR...
Leica is more a living fossil than the pandas.
$1200. Expensive toy
I don't get the rich russian heritage thing, I thought the original design was by Zeiss? There are copies of 50/2 and 50/1.5 from russia, doesn't make them russian heritage ;)
Marksphoto: Screw this, how difficult is it to make af lenses?
I own a helios 55/2.0 lens and I tried it on 5d mk2, super sharp lens, great contrast, but I think I paid $5 for it at the flea market... I would never have paid $10 for it because there is no af.
right, esp because you can get a sharp AF lens for $10.
Nice samples, but we can see some decentering on image 42. Even at f/8 the right frame is visibly softer with more purple fringing.
GabrielZ: After getting used to all those stratospheric prices for Leica's new camera models lately, this looks reasonably priced for what you get!
Compared to SL, very reasonably priced :)
kisvakoncl: OMG!"I feel a great disturbance in the Force....as if millions of Canonian fanboys suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.."
As a canon user, I'm excited with the new Nikons. It will put more pressure on Canon to release something competitive.
NOw that this sensor size has become the new full frame, next we will see m4/3 sensors getting its way into barbie camera!
Thomas Traub: Aparture of 1.2 does not make sense in portrait-photography, because you get hardly both eyes sharp, if one eye is only 2 cm behind the other .. even with my 85/1,8 on my D610 the faces have to be parallel to the camera (although you get a great bokeh)
Nikon compared to Fuji:
D 7200 + 50/1,4 = 1.045 g weight and 1.264 €Xt1 + 56/1,2 = 845 g weight and 2.198 €
even with the 58/1,4 the 7200 is only slightly heavyer and cheaper than the Fuji-combo.
And Fuji does not have the advanced-light-system.Nikon has much more lenses, accessories and flashes....
The Xt1/10 are nice cameras but the equipment is not as lightweight as the difference of the weight of the bodies make believe.
If Fuji would offer cheap lenses with 1,8 (as Nikon does) the whole equipment would be much cheaper and lighter and than they would have an advantage in price and weight.
But with the very expensive and heavy lenses Fuji is no option for me.
But I'll keep it in my eye :-)
Nikkor 58/1.4? really? Clearly you never tried the Fuji 56/1.2. Of course some will say portraits don't have to be sharp wide open as an excuse to the crappy 1.4 performance by the Nikkor :)