Max Iso: Im glad to see what's considered portable is changing. If 1050g is good enough, we wont have to listen to the "DSLRs" are too heavy mantra anymore...
Yes.... many of us agree 1" represents the middle ground, in terms of IQ, sensor size, and relative body size and form factor.
Achiron: 1051g "compact" for hiking? Pretty ridiculous. "E-PL7"+"75-300"+"12-50" will cost roughly 1600$ and weigh same as the RX10III (and ultimately take less space) while giving results ten times better.
Change lens much in the field? Like hauling around more bags. If your PRIMARY goal is to enjoy your hiking, the more versatile your camera and less fiddling you have to do, the better. Plus much wildlife or changing lighting conditions don't wait for you to change lens.
Pretty impressive that Fuji gives such extensive updates. I'm glad that I decided to reinvest in the system.
Ozonation: Not sure how this really distinguishes itself from a Fuji XPro2 with a 23mm f1.4, other than costing 1.5X to 2X as much. Sure, IQ might be a bit better, but the Fuji is no slouch, plus you get more controls and lens options.
Yes and no. Just looking at the physical setup of the Leica, it seems approximately the same size and perhaps weight as an XPro1/XPro2 with 23mm f1.4 mounted on it. In other words, you get similar shooting ability in a similar package; it's just with the Fuji you have the added capability of changing lens.
Not sure how this really distinguishes itself from a Fuji XPro2 with a 23mm f1.4, other than costing 1.5X to 2X as much. Sure, IQ might be a bit better, but the Fuji is no slouch, plus you get more controls and lens options.
Markie77: I think it's absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable that in 2016, an expensive, chunky camera that costs around $1600 to only have mediocre/below par video quality with the excuse of "it's meant to be a photo camera". Think about it, there is simply no excuse for this. This is simply incompetence by the designers. Think about this, my iPhone 6 Plus is much cheaper than the Xpro2, much much thinner and lighter, has much better video quality and silky smooth stabilization. With a MUCH smaller sensor it manages to produce video that looks much better than the Xpro2. And video is just ONE function in my smartphone, it is capable of thousands of other functions via millions of other apps. A dedicated camera like the Xpro2 only has 2 core functions, take photos and shoot video. And out of these two core functions, it can't even do one of them right, it's just sad.
I don't hear any excuses from Apple (or any other smartphone manufacturer) justifying video quality with the excuse of "it's meant to be a phone only".... Yet camera manufacturers' fanboys come up with ridiculous excuses to make themselves feel better about the large amount of money they spent for products which are simply not up to date with today's expectations.
I watch this video and I'm comforted by the fact that my much cheaper iPhone 6 Plus takes much better quality and smoother, shake free video than this camera. Its a lot lighter, super thin, fits in my pocket, goes with me everywhere. After I take video I can cut, edit, and apply filters immediately and share with the world within minutes. It makes me laugh when someone defends a $1600 "camera" and it's pathetic video capabilities.
Fair enough... but I - and I suspect many others here - simply don't care much for video.
LEGACYMOMENTSPHOTOGRAPHY: I remember the time when a camera was a still camera and a video camera was for video. great that you can on a still camera now, but i dont need video.
wish they would make simple just still cameras and lower the price, i love my canon 20D its a camera without the extra stuff i dont need. imaging if the used a 20D body with a 7D mark II sensor. You would get a good strong body and good images in a no frills to modern standards body. I am happy still using my 20D/30D though. seems they keep cramming stuff in to keep the prices high. Unlike computer which have gone down in price, cameras still remain quite expensive for the higher end ones.
Yes. Good manual controls, BIG buttons, great viewfinder, and a few choice options are I want most of the time. I prefer to do most changes in post processing.
A few years ago, I would have been really excited. But my aging D3s still pumps out amazing photos. Sure the resolution could be higher, but it will do for indoor sports.
I guess Nikon products aren't really, well, exciting anymore. It's more of the same, and while that means great image quality, it also means a big, heavy design, with some oddities that don't make much more sense anymore. Like.. you still need an external wifi adapter? It's 2015 people. Could the body not be made a bit more compact for improved ergonomics? A swivel back screen would be great for those odd angle shots. A built in flash for the occasional fill flash needs would be great, rather than lugging around a separate flash. Maybe some of these will creep in, but I haven't invested in Nikon heavily in about 3 years now, and have switched partially to m4/3 cameras. Other than sports, they do a fantastic job at half the weight and size.
Good article, and it speaks to the point of how we get so stuck on our gear. I'm not saying we should buy junk, but after a certain price point, it probably matters less what you're carrying and instead more on what you're going to do with it.
I'm going on a photo trip shortly, and the organizer asked each of us to pick our top 10 past photos. We'll do a group critique the first night we're on location to get us primed to shoot for the rest of the trip.
I looked at the photos and surprise - all 10 photos come from different cameras. In fact, most did *not* come from my Nikon FX gear. Some came from my old D300, some from a Fuji XE-1, some from a point and shoot Olympus. I really wasn't expecting such a mix.
So, I guess the oft repeated adage is true - the best camera is the one you're willing to take with you. And make sure you know how to use it....
Peter Bendheim: Some of you people who are actually complaining about the Fuji update saying it should have been nailed from the start are really just a bunch of over indulged, consumerist spoil brats. Fuji at least continually improve their products. This release was in all probability stuff that Fuji have learnt between the XT1 and the XT10. And pro user feedback. And Fuji has improved an already excellent product.
Honestly some of you should really just grow up somewhat. And have some gratitude.
This is a camera forum. Hands down, of all the forums I visit, photography seems to elicit some of the most immature, obnoxious, trollish comments I've ever seen. Don't know why. There are a lot of great posters and helpful people here, but some people...meh, they have way too much time on their hands.
Am I missing something here? Wasn't this camera released... like... ages ago? If it is, I bought it for my wife this past Christmas. Not a pro level camera, but great for what she needs.
There was a recent article in Luminous Landscape where the photographer decided to go with a M4/3 system for long range photos and a Leica medium format for short range and landscape photos and thought it worked much better. Given his experiences, he argued that hauling, clamping, and constantly connecting was just too much trouble, and that a M4/3 allow far more flexibility and comfort.
... not that I'm personally going on a photo safari any time soon (although I'd like to... )
What a bunch of complainers on this forum! Have ANY of you even tried the camera yet? It's barely in anybody's hands and practically the whole lot of you (with some exceptions) have dismissed it. How about a parallel? Nobody asked for a minivan 30 years ago and many thought it would die a quick death but it become one of the most useful vehicle configurations ever.
For some of us who travel and value compactness, even a small dSLR is too much. I love my D3s for sports and high impact occasions, but there is a reason why technology is designed for different scenarios. I can see something like the Nikon 1 being very handy.
THINK about it people...