tedolf: Well, I will say it since no one else will. While I like retro styled cameras as much as anyone, it must be admitted that Fuji's film SLRs were never good looking cameras, unlike the Olympus OM models. So aping an ugly SLR does not make for an attractive MILC. Next, the very small Fuji bodies, e.g. XA-1, and this one make the lenses look huge.
The analog control system is nice though. This is Fuji's strong point.
Every camera without a grip for the right hand looks like a hip flask with a lens mount. Leica M bodies are the worst.
Douglas F Watt: How does it get to be so big at just slightly wider (11mm vs the 12mm of the Nikon), while the Nikon is 2.8 and it's f4? Don't get that one . . . .
(Only) The entrance pupil is f4.0. It's located in the middle of the lens. The other lens elements do not count. The front elements can be as large as the manufacturer wants them to be. Just look at the vintage Nikon 13mm f5.6. It's only f5.6, but the lens is way larger than the 11-24mm f4 or the 14-24mm f2.8.
Neil Schofield: Looks like a very good camera, however for the reviewer to state that the 5D lll AF system is behind the times
I don't think so
It's a feature rarely useful in practice. For example if you shoot people, you want them to look or move towards the center of the frame. If your subject looks or moves in the wrong direction (towards the left or right border), the photo is useless. You can see this on page 8 of your review in the twelve shot (test) sequence. It's nice that the camera can identify the eye and track it, but the composition in all the shots is not good. You always have to align the camera manually for the best composition. And then the AF field (or AF group) stays the same all the time. I think it's far more important to have as many as possible AF fields than to have face detection and a tracking feature. Plus it's very important to have cross type AF fields as close to the corners as possible. The D750 is better than the 5D3, but personally I would pick the 5D3 over the D750 just for having cross type AF fields where I need them. The AF future however is mirrorless. The winner is probably Sony.
For 78k I get two sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.
nerd2: So basically equivalent to MF 20mm f5.6 for FF?
2.1 is about (not exactly) 1/8th stop slower than 2.0. If t2.1 is in this case f2.8 (almost a full stop of transmission), then yes. The FF equivalent would be a 20mm t4.36.
In the next video Holly explains how to dry your eqipment without a microwave.
AbrasiveReducer: Nikon has repeatedly said they will focus on high profit margin items so no surprise there. But this business of converting dollars to Sterling at 1:1 puzzles me.
Does anyone how much profit a single lens generates when sold for 12k? Canon and Nikon need more competitors. Imagine a car manufacturer wants 30-50 percent more money for next version of a current car model. Noboby would buy it.
Very impressive MTF chart:
DWM: "While large, the D4s' viewfinder still falls short of Canon flagship EOS 1D X as well as the less expensive 5D Mark III."
How about "The size of the viewfinder is quite large, and in use is essentially indistinguishable from the high end Canons." (Which is clearly the case).
The Canon-centric comparisons get tiresome after a while.
Is that round button an AF-Stop button?
"Horizontical" ftw! :-)
vodanh1982: Wow. the 75mm f/1.8 is the sharpest m43 lens and Sigma made it.
The Sigma 35mm f1.4 is just the sharpest 35mm lens. All macro lenses and all supertele primes are a lot sharper.
A lens without AF is like a car without power steering. It works, but in 2013 nobody will buy it.
Water should look like water and not like jello.
The final image looks like a GIF with just 256 colors.
About: "No seriously high-end gear."
Do you only mean the gear shown in image that enters the competition or the gear the entry was taken with as well?
The last time a website felt so slow, was when people used acoustic couplers.
What about boats man-powered by women?
Add 50 more!
Do you want just the head or the complete animal?