James Booba: A cam at this price point, advertised as the ultimate movie machine with worst video quality then the cheapest inhouse model? 2014 with no 4K? Sorry doesn't work for me.
I own a D5300. I haven't tried a D600, D800, GH4 or this new D810.
My D5300 has a very clunky interface and behavior.
What Andrew says here is not to be taken lightly.
For best video - The GH4 probably wins, with Sony A7s breathing down its neck.
For best stills - I believe the D810 would take the honor, despite the (possible) usability quirks, which I hope are now more or less fixed. What's sure is that it handles much better than my D5300, but at a costly sum.
Considering the fact that I would probably never shoot higher than ISO6400, this brings me to the conclusion that any of these cameras is a good choice for high-quality stills. I would probably even go with a Canon 6D, as it has a pretty good balance between IQ, resolution (20MP), and file sizes.
They forget to mention the fps when shooting 14bit RAW.I heard that the burst can last up to 26 RAW shots, then slows down.
To me, that is the more important metric.And we'll just have to wait for good comparisons to judge IQ.
Also, they don't mention if only the first shot gets AF, or the entire burst of shots gets AF.
I see two major flaws here:
1. Small capacity battery, which can barely last a few hours.
2. No internal UHD recording, so with the added bulk (and cost) of an external recorder - it kinda beats the purpose of creating a small FF camera.
Obviously, Sony doesn't want the A7s to eat on sales of it's more "professional" line of video cameras, so they had to handicap it. Typical...
OK. I just tried it on Windows 7 x64 with 24GB RAM.It is so frustratingly slow, that I think they should just quit and give Adobe the information to the Focus point and other "secret" metadata.Then we can all use ACR / LR, and be happy with it.
Eric Glam: I've had the D5300 with Nikon 35mm f/1.8G lens for a few months now.I agree with every word in this review.
The still & video quality is very good.But the camera is so frustrating to use and handle, that it takes away the fun and joy of shooting photos. The lack of touch capability, the lack of real aperture control in LiveView, the sluggishness of the LCD when zooming to check focus, the complicated menu, the missing dial - all of these make the camera very hard to use.
One other thing that this review neglected to mention is the fact that the D5300 is almost useless with fast glass, when using the viewfinder. In this review they mainly used the kit lenses which go to f/3.5 max. My lens opens up to f/1.8, and let me tell you - the focus point is never where I intended it to be when I use the viewfinder, even stopped down to f/4.0.
Well, I can understand the selection of 9 points AF.But why AF-C? I don't want the camera to continuously focus.
Also, in AF-C mode, the AF illuminator cannot be enabled (menu a3), and I do want to use it, otherwise the camera cannot auto-focus in dark environments.
Focus point is OK with the LCD screen (LiveView) - that's when the camera uses CDAF, slow as snails but works. With the viewfinder, it uses PDAF, which is faster of course, but completely misses the target I focus on. I even went to the store to replace the lens, thinking I might get a lens that better matches my camera, but to no avail. Focusing using the viewfinder still misses the target.
And Nikon chose to NOT include AF Fine-Tune with this model, so I'm stuck with a Nikon lens that can't focus properly with the D5300's viewfinder.Also, Nikon included a faster processor in the D5300 than the D7100, yet they made it slower so it doesn't cannibalize the sales of its older brother. What the hell?
I've had the D5300 with Nikon 35mm f/1.8G lens for a few months now.I agree with every word in this review.
Am I the only one to notice that the RAW files are processed, meaning they are not truly RAW? it seems Fuji is doing some sort of Chroma Noise reduction, and even a bit of Luma noise reduction.I hate it when manufacturers do that. It's just plain cheating.
On a positive note, the skin tones produced by the XE-2 seem very natural, with the correct mix of reds, yellows & browns.
I just bought the D5300 a few days ago along with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G.
It's horrible with the Viewfinder!! I can't get a decent sharp shot.
Everything's sharp with Live-View, but it's so slow and cumbersome...not to mention the slow frame-rate when zooming-in to check focus.
Please Nikon, add AF Fine-Tuning via Firmware upgrade.It's really killing me to use the Viewfinder and get out-of-focus results.
Just to make things clear:- I have 20-20 perfect vision and do NOT wear glasses.- Diopter is in correct position where I can see the guide lines clearly.- I'm using AF-S and Single Center Point focus.- I've tested this combo in all apertures, alternating between Live-View and Viewfinder.
The Viewfinder shots are ALWAYS LESS SHARP.I'm just so disappointed & frustrated.
And Yes, I'm well aware the Viewfinder only uses PDAF, and Live-View uses the more accurate CDAF (yet much slower).
I couldn't Afford the D7100, which has AF Fine-Tuning, and now I'm starting to regret it.
Eric Glam: (continued)
I want a 1920x1080 120Hz LCD, with iPhone-like touch experience and 3-axis hinges.
I wanna see USB3.0 & HDMI 2.0.
I want fast cards, like CFast, or even an M.2 NGFF SSD.
I wanna see choice of stills formats. Let the user select which one he/she prefers:Uncompressed RAW - ARW & DNG.Compressed - JPEG, Microsoft JPEG-XR & Google WEBP.
I guess I expected too much.
Right on all points, Tord.
Eric Glam: The battery says it all.These A7/A7R cameras can not seriously be considered "Pro".My old Sony A100 has a much higher capacity battery and would last longer than this pathetic excuse (1Ah NEX battery).
I was expecting Sony to innovate and come up with "drool-worthy" cameras. I'm sorely disappointed, as I don't see any innovation here.
I want image quality in high-ISO & low-light situations that'd be better than the Nikon D4.
I was expecting high-grade video features, such as internal 10bit 4-2-2 sampling & 2.5K resolution which will down-sample to 1080p beautifully . They don't.At the very least - they should have included a 1.2Mbps standard for all FullHD FPS options, and 2.1Mbps for all 1440p options:
2560x1440p, 60fps @ 126Mbps2560x1440p, 23.976fps @ 50Mbps1920x1080p, 60fps @ 72Mbps1920x1080p, 23.976fps @28Mbps
Would also be nice to have other FPS options, such as 24.0fps, 25fps, 29.97fps, 30fps, 48fps & 50fps.
Would love to be involved in R&D.Cameras & lenses are a thing that's really dear to my heart. Seriously.And I expected Sony to be more serious. Perhaps they will come out with a A99 replacement that would feature some things on my list. Let's wait & see.
The battery says it all.These A7/A7R cameras can not seriously be considered "Pro".My old Sony A100 has a much higher capacity battery and would last longer than this pathetic excuse (1Ah NEX battery).
Comparing the RAW files very closely (ISO 3200, ISO 6400), it looks to me like the NEX-6 and GX7 have exactly the same IQ.
Love it! Has an erotic and tempting feel to it.
So the XZ-10 has a smaller sensor than the previous XZ-2?
Why are the RAW files not really RAW? They seem to contain Noise reduction.Is that normal?
1. 27x18mm Foveon sensor, no AA filter, 5400x3600 3:2 (19.4MP on each layer). 1.33 crop factor.2. CFast or half-mSATA storage media. 150MB/s minimum sequential write.3. 3Ah battery that can last for 1000 shots or 3Hr of video.4. Weather sealed body.5. One fixed lens (like Sony RX1, Fuji X100). X10 motorized zoom, f/1.8 throughout zoom range. 24-240mm range.6. WiFi A/B/G/N with 2.4GHz and 5GHz.7. USB3.0 port8. 120Hz 3.5" LCD with 800nits brightness. Fully articulated like the Sony A99. iPhone-grade multi-touch capability with touch focus and touch shutter.9. Video: 2560x1440p60 and 1920x1080p72, All-I, 72Mbps, 4:2:210. Stills: DNG RAW, 10fps with AF between shots.
Though the photos submitted here were OoC JPEGs, I think I can draw a few conclusions.
1. It doesn't match the Nikon D4 and Canon 1D-X at high ISOs.
2. The lens, though supposedly good, is a limiting factor. I always need zoom!! There are many situations where you simply can't get close, and a zoom must be used. I wish the lens was 35-70mm f/2.0, for x2 zoom. This is really the bare minimum to justify buying a camera with a non-removable lens.
3. I wish it had an articulating LCD, like in the A77 and A99.
4. USB3.0 would have been more adequate in this day and age.
5. The price is a problem. Well, the price is always a problem, but for the RX1, Sony should have aimed for a lower target price.