Black Box: The thing that REALLY irritates me (just imho) is the tooting of this camera's "future-proofing" on almost every page of this otherwise very good test.
4k is barely on the horizon. The technical requirements are enormous. Receivers, cards, storage, televisions. Not even all cables (!) are able to pump up 100Mbs! Which means a 4k-ready home-cinema will be a pretty healthy investment which, in this economy, may never come at all. It'll take a few years for 4k to catch on (if it ever does at all). This camera will be out of production by March and obsolete by next summer.
What is all the obsolete stuff? Sounds like a cellphone addict. Cameras are usable for a long time.
Kurt_K: Some folks here may be scoffing at the alarmists, but I think wildlife photographers are going to need to have a very serious discussion about the ethics of using drones in their work. And I think that those who can't see the potential impact of drones on wildlife are either very naive or very short-sighted, or perhaps both.
They aren't using helicopters to shoot wolves from. PROVE that the drones are problem.
RichRMA: Did a liberal ever live who didn't want to ban, regulate, prohibit, control, oversee, observe, meddle with EVERYTHING IN SIGHT?
I'm not religious. Another liberal trait, thinking anyone who disagrees with them is cut from the same cloth. IMO, no one has demonstrated the drones pose any kind of threat, physical or psychological to the birds and it's just another example of knee-jerk pseudo-environmentalist mentality from people who probably never set foot outside whatever big city they live in.
Most look like the variations on the same base, generic Chinese tripod and head. If you go on Alibaba, you can buy these things and if you buy 100 of them, they silk-screen your company name on it.
sghound: i wonder if this is more of a failure or the DF?
Difference is, a lot of people wanted a retro, and no one I know or heard from said, "I want a Nikon mirror-less but with a small sensor."
It's a modern liberal thing to want to ban or regulate something without any facts to support such a demand. Classical liberals in the late 1800's were the opposite, demanding freedom first.
steelhead3: A fun exhibition...I do wonder why the British are so enthralled with the past?
Yes, who cares about history?
Did a liberal ever live who didn't want to ban, regulate, prohibit, control, oversee, observe, meddle with EVERYTHING IN SIGHT?
fmian: Why would people be moving around so much within a studio?Surely an assistant with a boom pole would do the same job..
And c'mon... this tech must REALLY be designed for the military right?
Or security services, much like "face detection" was.
Leica liked the Soviets. They put out something about 4-5 years ago celebrating the Evil Empire.
The really bad thing about this is that Nikon has poured resources into a mirror-less that should have had the same sensor as the DX DSLR's.
m4/3rds it ain't. Are we sure the effective C-AF isn't just huge, inherent DOF?
I liked the first Pentax Q that had a sensor this size because it produced pretty good low ISO images, had a terrific build quality (unlike later plastic Q's) and had interchangeable lenses so you could do all kinds of experiments with it. But this seems like just another SZ P&S.
When Adobe goes bankrupt, or is bought, as all companies eventually do/are, NONE of this will hold. You'll lose the deals and/or whatever you have stored on their cloud. Hopefully, you'll get a few minutes warning to download before the end but don't count on it. The "cloud" is a curse.
I think the first time I saw this kind of mount design, it was called "isostatic" and was on a telescope in the 1970's.
According to some reports, their film is inconsistent. How does it compare to Fuji's?
This is where you thank the optical gods for the polarizer.
George Veltchev: Come on guys ... the 'studio comparison' reveals that this 1' sensor battles with the noise as early as ISO200 ( just look the shadows at this settings ) ..ISO200 I am talking about !!!! WOW ...and on top of that this mediocre Leica lens is as soft as a poppy marshmallow on a hotplate, killing the detail even in the center of the frame, never mind the corners ... take it to the beach in summer, between 10:00am and 2:00pm, keep the ISO at 125 and you'll be happy as a scamp with new white leather shoes...... not bad for a lovely tight package with the modest $900 I guess !
Well, you could get a DSLR with one of the 18-200mm lenses, and then downsize the shot at the 400mm equivalent and compare them. It'll never match the larger sensor at higher ISO's but it would be interesting to see how the image compares to the DSLR at lower ISO's.
JJ Rodin: Of course once again - Full Framed is really 35x26mm, as there is NO such thing as 'Full Framed'.
Full Frame to a medium Format user is NOT 35x26mm, nor to an IMax Film user. A bit of an arrogant label!
Just a MASSIVELY misused word 'Full Frame', except in a court of law, then it is 'fully framed', CONVICT !! ;)
Why the surprise? It's based on an ancient film format and only exists now because the "big two" makers wanted backward compatibility for their old lenses. The 3:2 format is also ancient and backward, not utilizing the lenses image circle as well as 4:3 and more often cropped on the sides so there is always loss.
F/1.2 is interesting. If I shoot a scene with a 2x crop sensor and a FF sensor at the same ISO and shutter speed, the image illumination in the camera is the same. Now, what a physically larger pixel does with that light is different. The "well" in the larger pixel is larger and can hold more photons than the smaller pixel so the pixel density of the sensor obviously impacts the image, most noticeably when it comes to noise. In the past, a larger pixel also meant a noticeably wider dynamic range, less "bleed" into adjacent pixels when the well was filled. Scientific CCD's still use very large pixels, compared to consumer cameras.