blink667: Curious about the coming competition between the D750 and Sony A7II which has in-body stabilization and is $1000 cheaper with a 28-70mm.
The New 24-120/4 which is part of the $2999 kit that is $1000 more than the A7ii kit.
The A7II has a less useful mediocre lens that goes to F/5.6 while the D750 has a wider range focal length, highly rated F/4 lens.
You could get a less useful F/4 zoom for the A7ii too, but it adds that $1000 to even things out it still can't complete with the Nikon's more useful range.
btw, the D750 shoots better video. The A7ii video is similar to the old Nikon D600 with lots of moire, aliasing and softness.
turvyT: D750 looks wonderful until you compare it in lab test section with Pentax 645z. Then, image quality wise, D750 looks just like one more of the pack. I know that IQ only doesn't say much about usability, but the difference is impressive.
RadPhoto obviously makes more sense than turvyT. Also, in most cases the D750 wins because any picture is better than no picture.
The a7II video looks similar to my old D600. Nikon significantly improved it for the D750. In a couple more years when Sony has more useful native lenses for the A7II (no portrait, no macro, no 200mm+, no F/2.8 zooms, etc.) it might be about to compete. Heck, Nikon even has hundreds of legacy lenses that AF without the need a $350 adapter.
645z, $8000 for the body only and no good lenses for taking action pictures or other types that 95% of people shoot. F/44 for macros is not too appealing either. :)
Sonyshine: An impressive new DSLR from Nikon. I hope they can translate some of this tech into a smaller mirrorless body - that would be cool!
Mirrorless would be nice, but once you add the SLT adapter and a decent lens to an A7ii the size difference is not much help. The lenses are still the same size and the over all kit ends up virtually the same too.Nikon already focuses fast and reliably with hundreds and hundreds of lenses which mean no need to pay for all those adapters.
The D750 looks to be an excellent camera. For the masses it would make a much better camera than some current competitors that do not focus nearly as reliably or do not have more than few native lenses. At a time when some cameras are targeting a niche, this one is a great all around solution. The score is well deserved
sierranvin: Read this carefully, checked the samples, and I am feeling so happy to have an a7R, a Sony-Zeiss 55mm f1.8, and a full wallet!
I have Nikon which actually focuses properly AND an even more full wallet. :D Still, the 645Z is for those who want the better IQ.
ashokvashisht: 6 Sony, 4 Nikon's and 2 Canons in the list. The world of full frame is changing ? :)
The problem with you analogy is all the Sony's complete against each other and are limited in major areas such as focusing. For example, any soccer mom will be happier with the results form an older D610 with its less expensive lenses.
jennyrae: Olympus successfully reinvented hdr mode and renamed it sensor shift. Seriously, a 3 picture bracket shot would still be better. This sensor shift design is more of gimmick. It is still in reality 16mp natively and being marketed as 40mp by virtue of stacking which is in a way somehow similar to what is now commonly known as hdr mode in cameras.
Correct, Olympus Medical Division successfully implemented this while ago creating very high resolution images from very tiny lower resolution cameras.
AKH: Maybe start making a sensor that is on par with the best APS-C sensors 😊
In reality smaller sensors do have and advantage when accounting for size. This is why the RX100/FZ1000 sesnor is so good and why the E-M1 sensor is able to almost equal APS sensors for DR at most ISOs. APS will always have the size advantage but in practice it is not quite the expected 2/3rds of a stop all the time. Technology such as this would vault the 4/3 sensor in to the better FF territory (in some situations) while retaining the much small and shorter lens sizes.
Reilly Diefenbach: The D3300 with kit lens kills this nice little camera at $350 less. Can't carry a one pound camera? Really?
Yeah, I didn't know the D3300 offered 4K video. I bet it keeps a moving subject in focus really well too! I can't wait to get one and slip it into my jacket pocket.....oh wait...the D3300 with lens is HUGE (especially depth) compared to the LX100. I guess you didn't know 156mm is bigger than 55mm (by almost 3X).http://camerasize.com/compact/#509.36,569,ha,t
SulfurousBeast: Anyone watch the video? The Panasonic guy Matt Fraser? Calls the sensor as "micro four thirds" . huh! Thought he should know better. Does not matter in getting the point across, but still an employee and spokesperson should know better and that too from the company that pioneered four thirds standards.
Actually, that's a good point.
Souciantmag: I'm absolutely in agreement that the LX100 looks like a great camera. But the praise lavished on it in this review is irritating, particularly the best of the best rhetoric. The 12MP sensor issue is a big problem. Not that we need megapixels, but for such a costly camera, with a great lense, it's a huge drawback. A Sony A6000 would be a better bargain. I say this being a big fan of Lumix cameras.
The A6000 comes with a smaller aperture lens (even in FF terms) and lesser video. The LX100 out of the box should provide better IQ and video, plus more features such as a silent shutter. You can add lenses to the A6000, but then the price and size quickly escalate. There is no way to get 4K video though.
limlh: A good compact apsc mirrorless is not much bigger than this and offers better controls, more DR and lower noise.
A6000 has no IS so video without a tripod or monopod would be near unmatchable. The LX100 offers 4K video which is significantly better than anything the Sony can offer.IMHO The LX100 is a better all around camera for the price due to the video, silent shutter and faster zoom.
tom1234567: Your post starts ( Panasonic's Lumix DMC-LX100 turned a lot of heads )NOT as many heads as the Samsung NX1 i would thinkbut that camera may not get the same headlines or praise as the you no which cameras !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it also does excellent 4k video better than GH4 from what I read, and you can copy the video straight of the S.D Card you can not do that with the Panasonic,
Tom, no. Maybe you are thinking of the A7s which needs a $2000 external recorder.
Bad news Tom you are incorrect.With the GH4 you can copy video straight from the SD card, but with the NX1 you run in to severe issues. Not much supports the Nx1 codec so you you are forced to transcode in order to see it or edit it. In the future that will change, but for now is is very frustrating.
Supply and demand. Plain and simple. There is a demand for this. A company is going to profit from providing a solution.
ProfHankD: Really a very impressive camera, especially for video -- which seems to be where u4/3 shines. However, the JPEGs don't seem to be as good as the raw would allow them to be, and even raw resolution per pixel isn't awesome... perhaps this is using a heavier anti-alias filter than most cameras? The still image IQ is definitely down a couple of notches from a much cheaper Sony A6000 (which DPReview rated 5% lower), especially for JPEGs, and the price-competitive A7 blows it away.
The A7 grip gave my hand a cramp. Too small for the big lenses. My D600 is even better.
The gh4 is not for everyone and the a7 is a good camera, but the gh4 focuses faster, has faster fps, has a nicer grip, more custom settings, better video, imho better weather sealing, silent shutter (like a7s) and on and on. It is the more capable camera for most, but as you point out, not all.