noirdesir: Maybe one should add that this differs from 4K video not only that focus changes between frames (and changes over a subject-dependent range determined by the camera) but also that it is using whatever shutter speed a user would have selected if this were a normal still shot and not the 1/30-ish any normal video uses.
I'm not thinking of frame rate, I'm thinking of shutter speed which by definition has be equal or smaller than the frame rate but shouldn't deviate too much from it. In the parlance of 'degrees', my guess was a shutter speed that is usually set to something close to a 270 degree shutter and that it should not go below 180 degree to avoid too large a gap between motion blur streams. But a little bit of googling revealed that 180 degree and not 270 degree is the most commonly used shutter speed.
All of which is largely irrelevant to my argument. Which is that (a) common frame rates for video are 24, 30 and sometimes 60 fps, (b) when following standard rules (180 degree rule), the frame rate dictates the shutter speed, and (c) the resulting common shutter speed is around 1/48 to 1/60 s (which is not very far from my 1/30-ish statement) which is most of the time noticeably slower than what would be used in still photography.
Maybe one should add that this differs from 4K video not only that focus changes between frames (and changes over a subject-dependent range determined by the camera) but also that it is using whatever shutter speed a user would have selected if this were a normal still shot and not the 1/30-ish any normal video uses.
Sigma82: I thought the Leica T had a 16mpx sensor, not 24. Am O wrong?
We fully agree, my point was to show to DPreview that they didn't check what they had written along (and what was in their camera database).
PeaceKeeper: Some cameras left out, others stuffed into this price range when they are clearly below it...
The last round-up included cameras above that range when accounting for a lens. This one includes cameras whose body only price is WELL below the range. And where the heck is the D750?
These things lose their meaningfulness if they are not using an accurate and fair means of sorting. It seems very much like you have "bumped" some cameras up in weight class, just to make your article more interesting.
Do you really believe what you are saying? That DPreview is stating very clearly that it is using MSRP (at launch) and then consciously breaking that rule (for no real reason)? That DPreview is intentionally lying on something they know will be found out in no time?
I don't know how somebody could think that DPreview would be so stupid, except ... well, for the obvious reason.
Jim Salvas: With the recent price drop, the E-M1 should have been included in the previous camera group. It's now under $1,000.
I'm pretty sure one of the DPreview guys commented in one of the roundups that they selected MSRP at launch as this shows in which price bracket the manufacturer wanted to position the camera.
It has a 16 MP sensor. DPreview itself says so on almost all its entries:http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0841642984/leica-t-and-lenses-herald-arrival-of-mirrorless-t-systemhttp://www.dpreview.com/articles/2481937230/solid-metal-creating-the-leica-thttp://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-t-typ701http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0020908300/unboxing-leica-t-you-won-t-believe-what-happens-at-the-endhttp://www.dpreview.com/articles/3333806476/leica-t-typ-701-real-world-samples-gallery-updatedhttp://www.dpreview.com/articles/8921497093/leica-t-shooting-experiencehttp://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs?subcategoryId=slrs&sort=Chronological&view=Grid
smozes: I guess the limitations of the medium dictate this sort of "body MSRP roundup", whereas a more helpful survey would have tried to assemble a realistic system.
In a system where online resellers might show you a different price depending on the time of day, a 'realistic' system is equally arbitrary.
Aroart: The Nikon d750 is in this price zone , wonder why t hey did not include it...
If I got a penny every time somebody asked why camera X is not included because she or he didn't get the memo that the groupings were based on MSRP at launch, I'd be very rich.
I think DPreview should have put up a floating message, like in license agreements, where the reader has to acknowledge that she or he has understood that the MSRP was used to select the cameras for each group.
One more commenter that didn't read the fine print which explains that the groupings were based on MSRP (body only) at launch. And didn't read the 50+ comments which discussed this aspect so far.
Also one more commenter who assumes malice ('bumped cameras to make article more interesting') where external factors are the actual reason. Why do so many people assume a conspiracy and foul play when something happens they don't have an immediate explanation for. Lots of stuff happens without a guiding hand being responsible for every aspect. It's called coincidence showing up in a system that is bit more complex where things depend on more than one factor.
Since DPreview based their categorisation on MSRP at launch, this is irrelevant.
Tower: Its surprise only got sRGB colour space. What they are doing?
As I said and as OrdinarilyInordinate said:"sRGB only applies to the JPEG"
When you shoot 8-bit (which JPEG is by definition, and sRGB only applies to the JPEG), sRGB is normally the better choice.
The only reason I can figure out for such a desperate announcement is the Leica SL. Which must worry Nikon more than I thought.
Unfortunately, the announcement (giving a name, D5, and fact to become the next top-level again), confirms a sad thing: Nikon still does not innovate. If I had $7000 to spend for a next body, the SL suddenly looks rather tempting after this announcement ;)
Yeah, Nikon is really worried about people switching to a camera with one native lens. Or even possibly two native lenses by the time the D5 actually ships. Because we know that people that spend 5k+ on a camera mainly stick with the kit zoom.
Impulses: Five picks out of nine choices? Were the comments on previous picks that scathing? ;)
Cameras will only get 'greater' as the price goes up.
mmarian: It appears to be a great lens based on the specs. But quite honestly I never fully understood the so called MF hype because tyey are not MF. The MF term comes from past times. The MF term described the size of image on 120mm size roll film. All cameras which were using that film were called MEDIUM FORMAT cameras. The size of the MF was either 6cmx4.5cm or precisely 56x42.5mm ( such as Mamyi 645) or 6cmx6cm (Hasselblad ) which was 56x56mm or 6cmx7cm which was 56x68mm (Mamyia 67). These days however for some obscure reason anything larger than 35mm FF sensor is called MF. Why, I do not understand. The only sensor I know which trully represents the smallest of what used to be a genuine MF is the PhaseOne 80MP back with sensor size only slightly smaler than 56x42.5mm. Everything else is just a bit of BS and marketing jargon and it has nothing to do with true MF as we knew it. Anyway, this new lens just prompted me to have a bit of a winge but that is not to take anything from the fact that this should be a great lens even for the times when we might actually see a true MF size sensors and cameras for afordable prices.
There is merit in grouping things. In the second half of the last century we had:- Subminiature cameras ('Kleinstbildkameras' in German): Minox 8x11 mm, type 110 (13×17 mm), Kodak Diskfilm (8x10 mm), 16 mm (Rollei 12x16 mm)- 135 film ('Kleinbild' in German)- Medium format (most of which was using the 6 cm roll film)- Large format, 4x5" to 8x10"- 'Ultra large' format, larger than 8x10"
You see the pattern? Extra small, small, medium, large, extra large
If 56mm x 42mm is MF, what is 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, and 6x9 then?
Ok, so what should we call stuff that is larger than FF? Large format? And what should we call the Hasselblad and Phase One systems which a) sell sensors/cameras that are for all practical purposes almost exactly 56 x 42.5 mm, b) have lenses (and lens mounts/mirror boxes) for that format (where b) applies to Pentax as well)?
MF format always described more than one format (you listed the different versions yourself, leaving out 6x8 and 6x9). And while it for practical reasons was all based on 70 mm film, the term 'medium format' wasn't based on the use of 70 mm film, it simply described everything between 24x36 mm (which in German was called 'Kleinbild' or 'small frame') and 4x5", aka smaller than 'large format'.
The Pentax 645D & 645Z still fit that general attribute of being larger than FF. They use lenses (and lens mounts/flange distances) sized for what you called true MF. Unless you want to create acronyms for every sensor size, MF is a good umbrella term.
Combatmedic870: Hopefully soon we will see, compact 1" sensor Compacts with a fast 24-120/140 lenses (I'm talking about you fuji x40!!)
G7 X with 24-100 mm f/1.8-2.8 isn't good enough?
jwhig: You say in the introduction that "the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 use a slightly smaller Micro Four Thirds chip." Surely there is no such thing as a Micro Four Thirds chip. It is Four Thirds and the "Micro" part refers only to the lens mount.
And I though 4/3 is a type of mount.
Abu Mahendra: Ricoh: APSC 16MP, 28/2.8 eq lens, $550Fuji X100T: APSC 16MP, 35/2 eq lens, $1,300Canon M3: APSC 24MP, 35/2 eq lens, $830
I'll take the Canon (or 28MP Samsung NX500 with 20mm prime), thanks...
The lower price of the Canon is certainly partly due to the lower costs Canon has (though that the price is significantly below the MSRP is due to soft demand). But the higher price of the Fuji is also partly due to the fact that people still buy it at that price which means they must see something in it that they don't see in the Canon. And the hybrid viewfinder is the most obvious difference.