whyamihere: I like the adorable grumpiness and lack of awareness of the anti-selfie, anti-social media crowd. It's as if nobody in the history of the world ever photographed (or painted, or sketched) a self-portrait, published that picture in a public location for all to see (like an art gallery, or an online portfolio), or shared their photos with friends and family (photo albums, 35mm slide shows).
It's not narcissism. It's the same thing as before, just in a form you're all uncomfortable with because you don't know how it works.
First of all, thanks for self-implicating, Marty. That saves me lots of time and character space.
Apparently you haven't been subjected to enough 'vapid, uninspiring, and boring' self portraits that pass themselves off as 'fine art'. I suggest avoiding being involved in art history or becoming a gallery collections organizer. Lots of bland stuff out there.
I'd also argue that it's more than drunk teenaged girls who take selfies or people taking pictures of their latte who post to social media (your stereotype is behind the times). You should go to an amusement park and see how many families are taking selfies. A selfie capable camera just replaces the unwieldy camera on a tripod with a long cable release, self timer, or remote, or passing your expensive photographic investment off to a complete stranger. (Or, worse yet, figuring out who's not in the photo while they take the picture with their phone.)
In any case, who are you to judge what people photograph and how they display it?
I like the adorable grumpiness and lack of awareness of the anti-selfie, anti-social media crowd. It's as if nobody in the history of the world ever photographed (or painted, or sketched) a self-portrait, published that picture in a public location for all to see (like an art gallery, or an online portfolio), or shared their photos with friends and family (photo albums, 35mm slide shows).
BobFoster: A few years ago my friend and I each purchased D80's. The next year Nikon discontinued this model and stopped manufacturing batteries. Now we have cameras that are useless paper weights. Nikon is a company that doesn't give a ....... about it's customers. They do this on purpose so as to make you buy the next model over and over again.
I know how you feel, Bob. I was midway through a photoshoot when Nikon officially discontinued the D7000. My camera instantly went from a working photographic device to a completely useless lump of plastic, mag-alloy, and silicon. I had to tell the model to go home because I had to upgrade to a new camera.
Damn you, Nikon!
farhadvm: hi dear folks i wonder why the iso performance and image quality is much lower than canon 6D according to what im seeing in the iso tests here??? im a nikon user but this confuses me why Nikon D610 wins over Canon 6D in image quality compare. i wanna start astrophotography so should i change to canon?
Not sure what part of the scene you're looking at that makes you think the Canon 6D is magnificently better than the Nikon D610. Looking at the RAW files, they're both neck-and-neck through ISO 6400, with neither really having a sizable advantage.
If you shoot Nikon now, I don't see enough difference here to warrant changing out hundreds - if not thousands - of dollars of equipment just to obtain an absolutely tiny difference in image quality. There are plenty of photographers who successfully use older, and technically 'inferior' cameras to do astrophotography.
I think you'll be fine with what you have.
whyamihere: The most popular complaints appear to be:
"It's heavy and big!" I'm not sure what you were expecting out of a f/2.8 zoom made mostly of metal and glass. It's about the same size and weight as most other f/2.8 APS-C zooms out there.
"If I attach this lens to my Fuji camera, it's no longer the ultimate travel camera!" Unless you lost all of your other lenses, you can still mount them to your camera when you travel.
"It has no IS!" Most zooms of this type don't, either.
"But the Canon and Samsung lenses have IS!" Those lenses also have inconsistent optics. Which is more important to you: IQ or IS?
"It's overpriced!" Except it costs roughly the same as the competition.
I don't own Fuji gear, but, come on, these arguments are pretty weak.
Just another Canon shooter: Sure I can. There's mathematical formulas that explain how 'equivalency' only means something to DoF. If two lenses for different formats have the same FoV (85mm on 35mm, and 56mm on APS-C), and they have equal apertures relative to the focal length (f/1.2), as well as the same shutter speed and sensitivity, you will invariably get the same exposure. The lone exception would be DoF. Speaking of...
Nerd2: If we assume the specs for each lens are correct and we do the math based off of those measurements, the total DoF difference should be a whopping 0.4 inches. Oooh, how different!
Cheng Bao: My point is equivalent lenses for other formats and systems do not feature IS, and counting IBIS as lens IS is a false equivalency. If Canikon can get away with selling a 24-70mm f/2.8 for $2,000 without IS, we can forgive Fuji for not including it at $1,200. If a pro can make do without it, I'm sure you can learn to do so, as well.
HFLM: I take it you're not into math or physics, because everything you just said is nonsense.
Assume we have a Canon 85mm f/1.2 on a full-frame body, and we had the FoV equivalent Fuji 56mm f/1.2 on a compatible body, and we set the ISO and shutter speed exactly the same on both cameras. If we pointed them at the same subject and pushed the shutter button on both, we'd essentially get the same image.
Part of the 'equivalency' argument that most people miss is the formula by which f-stops are measured. None of that changes just because the format of the lens or sensor does.
Sensor technology being fair and equal (which is where SNR actually comes into play, because, y'know, sensor signal), and barring slight differences in DoF, a 16-50mm f/2.8 APS-C lens is very much comparable to a 24-70mm f/2.8 35mm lens.
"It's only an f/4.2 lens!" Unless this lens defies physics in some way, it's an f/2.8 lens. Yes, I've read several 'equivalence' articles, and most end with the following sentiment: 'Why are we even talking about this nonsense, anyway? Oh, yeah, forum trolls.'
"The Canon 17-55 and the Samsung 16-50 are awesome!" If I were looking for a zoom that can shoot images with cross-frame sharpness wide open, I wouldn't exactly consider either of these.
"If you look at other formats and count IBIS, Fuji should have IS!" Well, if we look at all formats: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Sigma, all have 24-70mm lenses without IS. Sony, Pentax, and Nikon, have no IS on their 16-50/17-55mm. The Olympus 12-40mm has no IS (and most Panasonic bodies don't have IBIS). No medium format zoom has IS. However, if we count IBIS, then any lens I attach has IS, regardless of who makes it and what lens mount it was made for... because, y'know, adapters.
The most popular complaints appear to be:
"First shown as a prototype at the 2010 Canon Expo..."
Someone should have realized bringing this product to market was a bad idea roughly around the time that phrase went into the press release... or long before that.
The CS100 is emblematic of Canon's technology development problem: It was maybe a good idea 5 years ago, but, for whatever reason, it's being released now.
Terry Breedlove: I don't see the attraction to the XT1 anymore. The Sony is just as small but with a bigger sensor and IBIS. Better ISO, better DOF and adapted FF lenses stay what they are meant to be. The Sony does lack in native lenses but I can remember when the Fuji's had the same issue. So for Mirrorless cameras you want small go with MFT. You want high iq go with Sony.
As far as 'adapted FF lenses stay the way they were meant to be':
Congratulations, you've bought into a meaningless mentality that states 35mm film equivalent is the gold standard for how all other formats are compared! You may also hate: Medium format, where you have to do all sorts of math to figure out what focal length to use to approximate different FOV's! 50's are wide angle! 80mm is normal! As well as other things that don't really matter!
Seriously, of all the things you could trot out to defend your camera of choice...
It's not that Sony's FE lens selection is small or will remain that way for long. Sony's problem is the FE lens lineup is weird. There are several overlapping products (two standard zooms, two 35's), as well as several gaps (no 85mm portrait lens).
From what I can tell by the DPR comparisons, the IQ of the Sony A7 & A7 II is a tad worse than the X-T1, and is notably worse than a Nikon equipped with the same 24MP sensor. Sensor size does not always dictate IQ. Also, the difference in DOF between FF and APS-C isn't *that* different.
Sony's approach to camera design appears to be throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks, and they 'fix' things by constantly replacing products before they've been on the market for a year (maybe they'll fix the loud mechanical shutter with the A7 III?). Fuji at least addresses things with firmware updates, and most of their products make sense and include changes that reflect customer feedback.
I can't wait to see the results of this year's 'Readers Poll of Products They've Never Used But Have Deep-Seated Opinions On'!
No, that's unfair... that doesn't sufficiently encompass everyone on DPR. This is also the 'Readers Poll of Products They Are Temporarily Happy With Until The Next Shiny Thing Comes Along and Buyer's Remorse or Gear Acquisition Syndrome Kicks In'.
Either way, feel free to self-implicate.
whyamihere: As much as the a7 series interests me, here's what's holding me back:
The lens mount: Sigma's president put it best when he mentioned in recent interviews that a full-frame sensor needs something bigger than E-Mount, which was designed for APS-C. Essentially, Sony is fighting physics in an effort to crank out workable lens designs, especially zooms (which are all f4 or 3.5-5.6, at this point).
Battery life: This is more of an issue with mirrorless, in general, but the a7 series is among the worst. Not having to buy different batteries is nice and all, but when it works to the detriment of functionality, it's not a good thing.
That noisy shutter: The quietest mechanical shutter on any a7 is louder than the loudest DSLR or mirrorless I've ever used, and the electronic shutter is only a work around if you don't shoot objects in motion with wider apertures.
Sony has moved mirrorless forward with the a7, but they've also kneecapped themselves with silly design/engineering decisions.
Troj: I stand corrected on the mount size. My apologies for not spending more time comparing the differences.
However, I would still contend that, due to the flange distance and the size of the sensor in an a7 camera, producing a constant zoom wider than f/4 without it being significantly bulkier (to the point of being unwieldy when mated with the camera) is a significant challenge that Sony will have great difficulty overcoming. I'm less concerned how the combinations look than how they feel in the hand, and I can't get past the idea that a theoretical 24-70 f/2.8 would probably outweigh the camera it's attached to and be absolutely awkward to handle. Buying a massive superzoom or a long telephoto prime comes with the expectation that the lens will be gigantic. However, the same can't be said regarding a normal zoom, or even a short-to-medium telephoto zoom.
LWanTeD: The phenomena of using an electronic shutter for fast moving subjects at wider apertures is usually seen as either ghosting/smearing or warping of the recorded image (akin to rolling shutter).
Troj & Sam147: Perhaps I should have clarified that I meant native lenses. (I tend not to consider adapted lenses. People can go on about them all they like, but I would argue most purchasers are looking for native solutions.) The handful of fast primes aside, the FE zoom range is looking rather sad, and, should they ever put out a 24-70 or 70-200 f/2.8, they'd be massive and bulbous compared to the camera. Speaking towards flange distance, if you look at the design of the 24-70 or 70-200 f/4 vs a Canon or Nikon equivalent, you'll notice the elements for the Sony lens put quite a bit of distance between the sensor plane and the rear element. This mount was designed for APS-C, and it just so happens that you could make full frame lenses if you finagle things correctly and are okay with awkwardly huge lenses.
Sam D: I'd rather have a slightly bulkier camera with a bigger lens mount, but that's just me.
As much as the a7 series interests me, here's what's holding me back:
As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).
"There is no advantage to crop sensors when the development is the same, which is to say they are the same sensor fabrication but cut to different sizes. As technology and manufacture gets better yields improve and get cheaper, so larger sensors can be made more cheaply."
Nope. Sensors are made on silicon wafers, and larger format sensors are prone to higher defect rates because of their size. That doesn't get better with time or manufacturing process.
" Cropping 'in camera' rather than being limited to a crop sensor that has been physically 'cut' to the smaller size offers exactly the same thing."
Um, what? Cropping down in a D610 from full frame to DX is a difference of 14MP.
"A lot of people say that the gap is closing between sensor sizes in terms of IQ (absolutely false, the gap is the same but all are getting better)"
SNR is improving faster on smaller sensors. Aside from the A7R and some Canon sensors, most full frame sensors don't have as much an advantage over APS-C.
Precisely when did DoF become the only thing that mattered in photography? The pro full frame photographers I know hardly shoot wide open, and, when they do, it's not for DoF. Rather, it's for the light gathering capability.
I'll admit, there was a brief time where shallow DoF was all I wanted. After a while, I realized it's a cheap trick people rely on to make their photos seems as if they're better than they are. Pros use shallow DoF sparingly and only when it adds something useful to their composition.
Nikon turned to full frame because they were running out of tricks to attract new customers. They also used to say, "Nobody needs more than [insert low resolution here]," right up until they went off and made a bunch of cameras with high resolutions.
samsamsamsam: Please compare by yourself and do not believe the propaganda. That Canon Sensors are so bad.The Canon 5d m3 (ISO 50) has less noise then the a7 and more DR and more DR then A7s, only the a7r is better in Noise and DR. Tip, You have to look in the highlights.Show me that I am not right. just look at the RAW test images in PS.I dont anderstand that everybody say that Canon Sensor is so bad. What bad is about Canon is the Pixelcount only 22 and no Pro Mirrorless. But for more Pixel you need better lenses and less Shutter shake and so on. But I hope they will make it soon.
You're quickly degrading from 'had some semblance of a possible theory' into 'wild unfounded conspiracy theory' (or 'trippy public performance art', depending on what you're really going for).
I know what I see in Lightroom, which is practically interchangeable with Photoshop in terms of RAW processing. It's not that nobody else but you knows how to develop a RAW file or manipulate a tonal curve. Flat out, by objective and subjective evaluation, Canon isn't as good as their competitors when it comes to overall sensor performance.
Canon sensors aren't that bad. They just aren't as great as Canon likes to think they are. Then again, I tend to look beyond a single ISO that's not within a camera's natural range to make comparisons.
The RAW files I have from the Canon gear I've rented or owned in the past just aren't as malleable as those from their competitors. Banging on about default DR is one thing, but being able to recover detail from otherwise-blown highlights or crushed shadows - or even being able to adjust DR in post production to help improve upon the DR tone curves - is something entirely different. Again, Canon isn't outright awful in this respect. Their competitors just happen to be better.