TheWhiteDog: Shocking! The 2 most expensive cameras are the ones to buy!
I think the correct word would be a price that is 'multiples' of that of the lesser cameras. Or if you want to be a bit more loose with your definitions: 'almost an order of magnitude' ($600 vs $4500).
john Clinch: I don't suppose Fuji will mind too much. Surely in terms of actually sales the X100T must be the leader here. The x100 sort of defines the sector
There must a few people who are prepared to loose out on ergonomics and pay for wall size printing potential. But most people will surely not expect their carry around camera to need 42Mp or cost that much
It seems a bit like a car review magazine concluding that a Ferraro is faster than a 3 series BMW. It is, but most people will happily save cash and go for practicality
Size and cost-wise the FF cameras are in a different class than the APS-C ones. And for the APS-C ones, the X100T and the GR II are also in rather different size classes. Add to that that both the Q and the RX1 II are very good cameras and you could easily recommend four different cameras. But selecting four cameras out of a six camera line-up seems not very discriminatory.
Ouch, no Leica X, maybe they can bring out a Q-inspired version at Photokina that gains them entry into the next roundup.
maboleth: If it doesn't come with the selfie stick, I won't buy it.
But do you hold a monopod at a 45º angle with the camera two feet away from you (as you would do with a selfie stick)?
Try holding a 2.1 kg camera on a selfie stick ...
futurewah: "The Tamron 85mm F1.8 claims the title of the world's first fast-aperture 85mm lens with stabilization." - Err, wasn't that the Zeiss Batis FE 85mm f/1.8?
Ok, let's add 'DSLR' to that first claim.
ThatCamFan: A driverless car? I will NEVER buy one.
So you only buy cars that come with a driver?
netrex: Is this similar to just doing multi exposure to one raw file as you could with most other Pentax cameras? (except the sensor shift of course). I used to do that when I had Pentax to get more dynamic range, and it worked very well for the same shots you could do normal HDR where you bracket shots. It's the same basically, but in one raw file. Looked natural right away, and pretty much developed the same way we do raw files from only one exposure.
Yes, it is similar to doing multi-exposure. The difference is that combining it with sensor shift adds (colour) resolution. Another difference is that standard multi-exposure results in a raw file every raw converter can open (maybe the default noise reduction might be a bit off). A multi-exposure with sensor shifting requires the raw converter to recognise this and skip the de-mosaic step (and adjust sharpening and other automatic adjustments to the fact that no interpolation was carried out).
dpthoughts: I see two odd things which I dislike.
no 1. it is meaningless to compare a 4-exposure mode like pixelshift to an 1-exposure mode like single-shot in the D810. If you compare properly, you would do it against a series of four consecutive shots, which are merged in photoshop, with or without the help of an action to automate this.
Then, the alleged noise advantage of pixel shift would be what it is: void ;)
no 2. The K-1 steals its dynamic range advantage by means of cheating (doing denoising on raws). Evidence: the ratio between luminance noise and chroma noise appears to be shifted in favour for choma noise. If the firmware doesn't do any denoising, then this ratio must always be constant (due to maths).
This is a plausible explanation, why the K-1 will do so well on reviews, w/o having received a new miracle sensor from Sony. Sony wouldn't give such to Ricoh, so that Ricoh's cams appeared as cheaper and better than Sonys own ;) that never happened, of course.
How many raw converters support the stacked raw files of the K-1?
TwoMetreBill: Were the K-1 an all electronic camera with a global sensor (IE mirrorless and no mechanical shutter) then I'd switch from Olympus. The improvements are significant but not sufficient. This could be considered pixel shift version 2, waiting for version 3.
Many if not most mirrorless cameras have mechanical shutters.
TrueAmateur: I hope some knowledgeable readers can help me understand "pushing shadows". If I brighten the dark areas of an image without affecting the bright areas (using Shadow slider?), wouldn't the midtone range get squashed so that two adjacent midtone pixels that used to be slightly different now become identical? That is a loss of midtone detail. But if I brighten only the dark area, some distant pixels that should be different will become identical; the image would lose faithfulness and acquire that dreamy dizzy HDR look. As long as we have only 256 levels for each colour, pushing shadows exacts a cost in image quality. Am I missing something here? Thank you!
Yes, you are squishing the mid-tones but that is unavoidable if you want to fit a high DR scene into the output DR range of your monitor (let alone a print). To counter this several strategies are employed:1) Applying an S-shaped tone curve which squishes things at the bottom and top of the DR and stretches the mid-tones (actually, every photo already has an S-curve applied automatically during raw conversion, otherwise its mid-tones would look too flat, even films had the own S-shaped tone curve built-in)2) If you are truly shooting in low light and don't have any important bright highlights, you can shift the whole tone curve to the right, ie, clipping you non-existant highlights.3) Applying high DR tone-mapping where the image is divided into multiple parts and brightness is lifted separately in each area, essentially doing a localised version of (2).
User5107457950: Did they forget Nikon DL series, but put Sony rx100 mk1, old 4 years? Also 1 inch sensor, for wide and standard lenses f1.8-2.8.....
The DL cameras haven't shipped yet, even no pre-production units for journalists. Reviewing purely based on specs wouldn't be of two much use.
ThePhilips: I wonder in how many more roundups the Pana TZ100 would show up.
Sometimes a camera can fit into more than one category. Here being (a) compact and (b) having 200+ mm equiv..
69camaroSS: I am not sure why you would get an RX 10 over a Sony A6000 + Tamron 18-200mm (24-300). It would have better image quality and the crop factor advantage would make up for the slower lens. And you have the option of upgrading later.
Marty4650: I think there is some confusion as to what a "long zoom camera" is. If the 8.3X and 10X zooms belong in this group, then maybe the 25X zooms need to be in another group.
I realize 8.3X was once considered "long zoom" but that was back in 2004. Today, long zoom means "30X, 40X, 50X and more."
DPR has assembled a group of 5 SLR styled "bridge cameras" and 1 compact travel zoom camera of various zoom ratios, and called them "long zoom camera." The only things they really have in common is they have sensors 1.0 inch or larger, and they all "cost a lot."
You mean what they have in common is better IQ (thanks to the 1" sensor) than other 'long' zoom cameras.
jimrpdx: It's always weird when reviewer-defined series overlap. It's hard to consider one of these without including a small ILC that can do very similar things yet swap in a different lens when the need arises. Especially when some of these are $700 and more.
It's almost inevitable that any series overlap. If you were to include, eg, the GM1 than one ask why not also the GM5 and then why not the GF8 and then why not the E-PL7 and then why not the PEN-F and then why not the GX80 and then why not the GX8 and then why not OM-D E-M10, and I could go on forever.
Mat268: Maybe it is a stupid question, but why isn't the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 III in the roundup? Is it too new? It seems on paper to be the travel camera I was waiting for for a long time.
I think the key reason is that this comparison is titled "compact" enthusiast zoom cameras. The various RX10 versions, the Panasonic FZ1000 and the Canon G3 X (as well as the not yet shipping Nikon DL24-500) are a step up in size and thus not included in this roundup.
What might be also of interest are so-called sling-type camera 'straps'. They differ from conventional straps in that the whole strap part touching your body stays fixed in space (and thus can be contoured and padded to achieve a great fit) while the camera can slide up and down the front part of the sling. When in rest, the camera also hangs automatically to your side instead of in front of you.
Examples are the Luma Loop and various BlackRapid straps:https://luma-labs.com/products/loop3http://www.blackrapid.com/products/straps
photofisher: Fuji just discontinued its x30 and xq2 today.
Photorumors linked to the official Fuji site (Japanese-only): http://fujifilm.jp/personal/digitalcamera/oldproducts.html
Google translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ffujifilm.jp%2Fpersonal%2Fdigitalcamera%2Foldproducts.html
Vegetable Police: I wonder if there will ever be a full frame fixed lens zoom camera similar to these? Even if it's not that small, I would love something like that ;)
In photography we tend to count things in stops or more generally in relative terms. APS-C is 3.2x larger than 1" and FF is only 2.3x larger than APS-C. That is what counts as APS-C being closer to FF than to 1".
Or if you want it in stops: APS-C is 1.2 stops below FF but 1.7 stops above 1". Heck, the comparison graph at the beginning of this article has a y-axis labelled with stops. For a given f-stop, APS-C would be more than halfway the distance between 1" and FF on that graph.