Magical colours. That's what matters.
OK, it's good for action as well. Exceptionally good.
Normally I wouldn't by a 28mm fixed lens camera. It's too wide for a lot of what I shoot, and cropping in post isn't the answer; I'd rather see the essence of what I'm after in the viewfinder. But the game changer here is Leica's digital crop; even at 50mm you end up with an 8mp file, enough for most purposes. I could live with that.
I'd have liked to have seen more landscape shots in the gallery, using jpeg. DNG files "adjusted to taste" create more questions than they answer.
Thought with the GX7 you could still use lens-based IS in those lenses which had it? This review implies that only in-body IS is available.
Sigh. After a couple of years of shooting with the Nikon Df I still don't understand the sly digs at it. It's fine.
Bet one of these appears in the forthcoming Nikon Dm.
RichRMA: "I still believe the OVF is (cough, cough) FAR better than any new-fangled EVF thing!"
OVFs give you a great view of what you are taking. An EVF potentially gives you a good view of what the result will be. Unfortunately, EVFs rarely give an accurate view of what the result will be. Yet. One day they may. Currently it's all down to personal preference. I feel more comfortable with an OVF.
Just wondering, are we going to get a proper review of the Pentax 645Z, complete with example snaps?
NCB: I have a Df. Love it. It's exactly the sort of controls I want to use, and the output's great. Don't understand DPR's remarks about duplication; there are more typical DSLR controls there if you want to use them, but you don't have to. A film camera user would take to the Df in an instant.
It's never a camera for everyone; other cameras do some things better. However, compare for a moment your example output for the Df and the A7RII. To me the Df's output is magic; the A7RII's is crude. I respect the A7RII for what it does, but for quality real-world output I'd look to Nikon, Canon, or indeed Pentax.
electro: you may be right about the slower AF, and some of the other points (although not the IQ). But whether those matter depends on what sort of shooting you do. I shoot landscapes and take my time over the shots. The Df is fine for that.
I think you and DPR are missing the point. And the point about the Df is not that it's some retro nostalgic gimmick. It's that it offers a different sort of shooting experience, and one that works. Yes it's the same sort of thing had with film cameras, but there's nothing wrong with that. The Df is valid for today.
The Fuji T1 offers a similar experience to the Df, yet DPR gave that rave reviews. Somehow DPR seems determined to find imperfections in the Df experience, with the placing of controls for example. An experienced film shooter would have no trouble at all with the Df; the controls are fine.
I have a Df. Love it. It's exactly the sort of controls I want to use, and the output's great. Don't understand DPR's remarks about duplication; there are more typical DSLR controls there if you want to use them, but you don't have to. A film camera user would take to the Df in an instant.
Entry-level full-frame cameras? Come on, you're pulling our legs. There's no such thing. Entry-level???
People who buy full frame are (nearly all) experienced photographers who have a good idea of what they want. Budget may come into it, but so do others things like size and weight, and that's before you get onto the particular things like the characteristics of the output they're looking for. And budget is as likely to be as concerned about cost of available lenses, possible more, as it is for the cost of the body.
Should people really be thinking in terms of, just to give one example, trying out a D610 before they move on to a D750 or a D810. Nope, and they won't be. Other things will govern which of those three, again just sticking with Nikon as an example, they choose.
Wow!!! Nikon has a large chunk of the high end professional market (Canon has the other large chunk). Nikon keeps those customers informed of where it's heading, with a simple basic announcement. Makes sense. What else do you expect?
And cyber-space gets clogged with hysterical claims of the end for Nikon. You wish. How sad can some people get?
QizmoGeek: I have owned the A600, SL1, D3300, D5300 (mentioned a few times in the discussion string), X-T10 not to mention the prior versions of the EOS M, Rebel and Lumix noted in this review roundup. I happily sold my A6000 after having it about a week. Why? Basically, the a6000 is way over-hyped in my opinion and really lacks image quality. I have a pocket RX100ii which provides higher image quality than the A6000, hands down. Most of the cam's on this list also beat the A6000 in IQ. It is, however, great for videos (if you don't need a mic). I'm currently shooting the X-T10. It'i my first Fuji and I am totally surprised with the image quality. It blows the a6000 (an most on this list) out of the water (clarity) and in low-light has no issues with IQ when high ISO is needed. If you are looking for a video cam that takes good pics, go with Lumix or Sony. If you are looking for a camera that takes great photos, you might want to try the Fuji X-T10. It's fun to shoot with as well.
A very good point about the A6000. In fact, most reviews of it said that the jpegs were poor, being way overprocessed. Now of course there will be some who argue that a "serious" photographer should be using RAW and primes anyway. To me this is nonsense; this isn't what this review is supposed to be about. The whole point about ILCs is that they are flexible; if you can't shoot jpegs and use a zoom to get good results then it's not a good camera.
anthony mazzeri: This is a new camera review site but to be honest, the best value in this price category is probably not a new camera at all but an older pro-model.
I'd like to see a value/performance comparison between the new models versus a used full frame D700 on ebay for around the USD$800 range. I suspect the main feature difference of the newer cameras is really just video and smaller size, otherwise I can't see how any of them could be recommended over a FF DSLR for IQ at the same price.
Some of these cameras can be found NEW way below the MSRP. That's where you start to get good value.
The reason the a5100 shouldn't get it is that, as you pointed out, it lacks a load of stuff such as a viewfinder that the a6000 offers, and indeed so do other cameras which are on your list.
Pity the Nikon P610 wasn't included in the main review. It would have been worthwhile seeing how it stacked up against the Canon SX60S, on paper a very similar camera, and indeed against the Nikon's own P900, offering much the same but in a distinctly more portable body.
Great idea. Now for somebody else to do the same at a much more affordable price. We've had the Nikon A; how about a Nikon M?
NCB: I hate these "here's the jpeg; now see what you can get from the raw file" examples. Totally ignores the fact that a couple of simple tweaks in Elements can dramatically improve what you get out of the jpeg.
But if you're going to do a comparison between jpeg and raw then the comparison needs to be valid. Untweeked jpeg versus tweeked raw isn't valid.
I hate these "here's the jpeg; now see what you can get from the raw file" examples. Totally ignores the fact that a couple of simple tweaks in Elements can dramatically improve what you get out of the jpeg.
Great natural colours. Were these all taken with the Standard picture control?
I don't see the problem with two cameras offering the same sensor but different features. Nikon has been doing it, successfully, for years; look at the D3xxx, D5xxx and D7xxxx series. The key to that is offering different bodies with different facilities. By and large the image quality produced by those bodies is the same; it's a question of how you produce those images and other related issues.