Ultan: So at a bit less than double the price of the Pentax 645z, you get the same size sensor, no camera, half the frames per second, and about 8 stops lower maximum ISO. Oh, and less than half the pixels on the screen.
Or for the same price as the Hasselblad, you can get a Pentax with better engineering, better metering, better autofocus, better low-light performance, beter proceesor, better ergonomics, everything integrated SLR-style, and two or three new lenses designed for digital.
Wait, let me think about this....
It also offers Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. The Pentax doesn't.
Stanchung: 15K huh. :/
Well, considering that they were charging $6K for a re-badged Sony NEX camera with a fancy wooden handle, this is definitely better than that.
Lab D: Pretty obvious why they dropped the price.I am sure all the owners planning on ebaying these to get the wider range lens and 4K on the FZ1000 are really upset now knowing their camera just lost $300 in value. Since it can't compete for video nor for sports and wildlife due to the short lens and slower focusing, I am guessing used prices will drop even more.
Most of the folks that bought the RX10 camera bought it when Adorama, Samy's and others were selling them as "Open Box" specials for $939 about a month after it came out.
I just couldn't rationalize $1200 for this, when I could get a V2 kit from Canada for under $450 all inclusive. And unlike the V3, I can still use the Viewfinder if I need to use a flash. But either one of these are quite a bit better ergonomically than the V1, or any J or S-series cameras.
Richard Franiec: Nothing can tame boundless love for Fuji cameras and prevent 84 point (balanced) score to happen, even this:
"One point we do have to make is that the X-T1 is nowhere near as good a movie camera as it is for shooting stills. Manual control is limited, and video image quality is unusually poor. It's OK for casual use, but if high quality video is high on your list of priorities, you'll probably want to look elsewhere."
Well if video was not part of the rating, this camera's score would probably be pushing 90. Clearly, the video score matters, but no way is it of equal weight as the still image score, because most folks don't use video, and many of those that do don't take it seriously. And if you do, well both Sony and Panasonic have better products for you. Basically, for the 75% or more of us who don't care at all about video, this is probably the best camera DPR has tested. For me personally, the only reason I'm not going to drop my Micro 4/3 gear and get this is the size of the entire kit including lenses compared to my E-PL5 and it's mainly tiny set of lenses.
BTW Richard, don't get upset just because this is one of the diminshingly small batch of new cameras that won't need the benefit of one of your aftermarket grips.
My problem with the Calumet store in San Diego (actually Escondido) was that they never carried any current gear. They sold some Micro 4/3 and Fuji mirror-less gear, but it was always older gear. They were selling an Olympus E-P3 for list price long after it had been replaced by the E-P5 and was being cleared out elsewhere for half price or lower.
vFunct: If you look at the videos on the Nikon site, it looks like this product is targeted exactly for professional outdoor sports shooters. The new 70-300mm lens is equivalent to 800mm, which is terrific for outdoor arenas, AND the size is much smaller than the equivalent 35mm setup.
This really is a very specific target market.
It could be the 2nd camera for any outdoor pro shooter, as well. Really for anyone that needed that 800mm range in a small package + high-speed sport frame rates.
I'm sort of surprised that Nikon went for such a high-end target. They're basically replacing a $20k D4s + 800mm lens combo with a $2k package.
I agree, this camera and the new long lens is ideal for outdoor sports photography and birds and wildlife, if the IQ of a full frame system is not needed. The problem is, this camera system seems to be intentionally crippled for just about anything else. It needs a fast wide angle and a couple of decent speed shorter zooms to be a more well rounded system - but then, the D3xxx and D5xxx series DSLRs would come under canibalization - and Nikon is trying so hard to prevent that that they have crippled the 1 system.
dougjgreen1: I wouldn't buy any Hasselblad that doesn't have a polished wood grip
I have used Hasselblads back when they used film, and in those days, Hassie made their own cameras, they didn't outsource them and re-brand them (with polished wood grips at a $5K markup).
gerard boulanger: Relatively "affordable". 14 stops DR is a little disappointment.
The best Nikon and Sony full 35mm frame cameras are already slightly above 14 EV of DR, and they can be gotten for $2-6K So I imagine someone considering dropping $20 Large for this might have hoped for maybe slightly better than that.
I wouldn't buy any Hasselblad that doesn't have a polished wood grip
michelowski: Now if they made a multishot A7r, that might be something...
Yes, but the Hassie Stellar does have a polished wooden grip, for less than a $5K adder
I can't wait for my $6000 A7 with a polished cherrywood grip
I was going to buy an A7, but it's way too cheap and I want a polished wood grip with it. When can I expect my Hassie?
AdamLeszko: It's a strange product for me, considering having XZ-2 as an option. The only advantage of new Stylus 1 is of course the range of zoom - that is out of question. But, XZ-2 has much faster lens wide open and even faster at it's long end (eq 112mm). This means it's simply much better from wide open until 112mm than new Stylus 1. So the price difference ($400+) is only for the range and actually light drop. Now, second thing is of course the VF, but this can be attached to XZ-2 as extra accessory (VF-2 with same resolution is about $200) and then the proce difference drops but is still significant. More over, IMO, removable VF is a pro, since when I dont need it, the camera becomes significantly smaller and still pockatable, while Stylus 1 is far from pockatable one. Simply no reason for me to buy it over XZ-2
IMHO, you underestimate the usefulness of the viewfinder. That being said, I'd prefer an camera with the EVF the XZ-2s shorter, but faster lens, for a price point smack in between the Stylus 1 and the XZ-2
DIDEA: Wow, gutted. I'm looking for an entry level camera and what do I get? Two recommendations near EUR800. That's pretty much useless for me. Enry level should mean exactly that; very few people have the money to spend 800 on something to enter a hobby or niche. I guess the handful of words on the X-A1 is all I get to go on.
Actually, the Olympus E-PM2 will give you what you need, for half the price of the Fujifilm.
Nikon saved the Micro 4/3 consortium the trouble of suing them.
This kind of garbage makes me glad that I bailed on Nikon for Micro 4/3 earlier this year.
I recommend others do the same.
I coulda sworn this was the new Hasselblad
Yes, it's photoshop, but, to be fair, Photoshop is the primary CAD tool that Hassie's design team relies upon nowadays.
dougjgreen1: My main issue with this list is that right now, the Panasonic Lumix G5 is a better deal than the G6, because its available for roughly half the price, and it's around 90% the same camera.
But I get the fact that it's politically incorrect on a gear site like this to recommend a camera that's on end of life clearance over the model that is replacing it.
Well, perhaps the video on the G6 is noticeably better, but I don't shoot video at all, and as a still camera, the G5 is extremely close to the G6 in capability. To me, the difference between the G5 and G6 would be worth something on the order of $150-200 tops. But that's just me, and I'm quite happy with the G5 body I picked up a month ago for less than $290.