Don Sata: Well IQ wise this camera outperforms both Nikon's D7200 and Samsung's NX1 in the studio scene and compares very well against Nikon's D750. Even when processed with ACR. Let's wait an see how it fares against the Nikon D500.
Both Samsung and Toshiba use copper wiring too. They started doing it before Sony.
BigOne: "All cameras are great, but that doesn't make choosing one any easier" - that's illogical. All cameras are AND that doesn't make choosing one any easier. Those two statements compliment each other not contradict. DUH! Yet another brilliant editing from DPR. When will Bezos spend some of his record winning salary on you?
No, not difficult at all. If every camera is great, then there are no significant differences between them, and therefore I can just choose anyone. It's flawed reasoning, but I can certainly imagine someone thinking along those lines. Anyway, the mere possibility of thinking that way, means that the sentence you quoted is not illogical.
Bueche: The studio scen (raw files) is very 'soft' compared to Nikon D7200 and Pentax K-3 II. Even Canon 70D, with its 20MP, does much better than X-Pro II.
What we are comparing here, is how these raw files are converted by ACR using the standard settings. Arguably, it doesn't represent the best IQ you can get from any of those cameras. But finding the optimal conversion settings for every single camera, would make life a lot more complicated for review sites like DPR and IR.
Kubilay: Competition is only for professional photographers. Who is the professional photographer? Is there any clear definition of professional photographers?
If you earn your living by taking photos, then you're a professional photographer. Taking photos is part of your profession. If you're a hobby photographer, then, by definition, you're not a professional.
The statements can be seen as contradictory, if you expect that choosing a camera will be easy, since there are so many great ones to choose from.
Neodp: I pulled no punches below so...
1. Fuji is not the worse offender. I'd like to think they are competitive.
2. The cameras are beautiful.
3. Good innovations.
I just hate no one puts it all together, comprehensively. I'm trying to figure out why? But I know; lowering the bar (or raising prices) is not the way.
To all makers I am saying... MAKE A BETTER CAMERA. That's the job.
To be fair, they ARE making better cameras. Many cameras today have capabilities and features we could only dream of 10 years ago. I don't think we've ever had so many great options available at the same time as we have today.Most people probably have more to gain by developing their photographic eye and technique, than by constantly upgrading their equipment in the pursuit of that elusive perfect camera.
But still, I understand your wish for a camera that "puts it all together". Sometimes it seems like the manufacturers deliberately take something away every time they give us something new. But maybe that's because they make cameras to be sold at a pre-determined price level, and with a pre-determined profit margin, forcing them to pick and mix features in a (sometimes) sub-optimal way?
Peiasdf: They need Audi Design to come out with a camera that looks like a Panasonic?
BTW, this appears to be the first Leica camera that actually have non-fashion use.
Why do people keep bringing up Panasonic? This is not a rebranded Panasonic, and it doesn't really look like a Panasonic, either.
The Name is Bond: For these supposedly 'Pro' cameras, there is a decided lack of pro features. At last the XP2 has dual SD slots, but does it have RGB histogram? It's a bizarre absence on all the previous models. And that's in addition to the reported fragility of the lenses that unlike real pro lenses, and despite the price and the metal, are easily damaged by a slight knock.
I think the word 'Pro' is arguably a fraud.
And let's not forget the plastic skin textures at higher ISOs that could not be switched off and which could only be of use to those looking for a thick layer of foundation without the hassle. Ie, young females. 'Pro' indeed. Hrmphh.
True, but what I meant was that there are no regulations, or even general consensus, for the very meaning of the term 'Pro', other than that equipment labeled as such should fit the requirements of professionals.But exactly what features, what level of performance, IQ or build quality, must a camera have to fit those requirements? That depends on who you ask, doesn't it?And the manufacturers have their own set of criteria for cameras they market as 'Pro'. Are those the same for, say Nikon and Fujifilm? Probably not.
Most ridiculous of all, are comments like "the sensor is 90% of the camera" or "it has an inferior sensor, so it's a crappy camera". Some people are even talking about switching systems as soon as a competitor has a newer sensor!
Such comments might make sense to people who spend more time at the computer, pixel-peeping images (often from cameras they don't own), than they do out in the real world, actually using their cameras and enjoying photography. But for the rest of us (hopefully, most of us), there are so much more to a camera. Things that actually make it a fun experience to take photos (not just looking at them afterwards), or, if you're a working professional, makes it easier for you to get those shots that earn you a living.
KonstantinosK: We've been shouting for years for a waterproof large sensor compact and the first firm to come out with one is... Leica? Oh, the irony. I just hope this will drive other manufacturers to make one with a more affordable price. APSC would be wonderful but a 1" sensor could be enough.
Yes, fair points, but to say that those companies are indifferent to the sector, while Sony isn't, when in fact they have done more for that sector than Sony has so far, is stretching the truth a bit, I think.You talk about Sony's potential to accomplish something, but what have they actually done, and what are their plans?
papa natas: What...??!!Wasn't there suppose to have first the Panasonic version of this camera?
'Made in Germany' means that the final product is assembled there. Most tech companies nowadays source some of their components from other companies, and perhaps manufacture parts or sub-assemblies in other countries, but the country where the final assembly takes place usually is regarded as the country of origin. Otherwise, the text might have to read "Made in Germany, Portugal, USA, Thailand, China and Japan", or something equally ridiculous.
Anyway, I think Johan Borg's point was, that this is not a rebranded Panasonic camera, but a camera designed and assembled by Leica.
MirkoK: too much PS on most imagesbut this is what photgraphy is about these days, right?
It depends on your view of what photography is. Is it just a way to capture a moment of reality, or is it the raw material for creating a work of art? You could see a photo as a sketch from which to create a 'painting', and then it's just as meaningless to complain about post-processing, as it is in the case of a Rembrandt painting. But of course, if the post-processing distracts you from the subject and composition of the photo, then the artist didn't succeed.
LJ - Eljot: What is Project 21? I mean if that does not specifically means "Man standing in the water, looking straight to the camera, a net over the shoulder and a ray in one hand" I don't get it why it is a winner.
The thing is, these kind of competitions aren't primarily about technical details, or doing things 'by the book'. Indeed, many photographic masterpieces could have been improved with respect to composition, exposure or focus, but they have that unique expression or aesthetical quality that makes them special. It could be the subject, the story it tells, the timing of the photographer, the atmosphere or mood of the photo, the colour tones or something more intangible.
When it comes to artistic, as opposed to technical, qualities, either you see it or you don't. In this case, obviously the judges saw something special in this photo. I don't see it myself, it's a good but not great photo IMHO, but due to the subjective nature of art, I see no point in questioning the judges' choice.
justmeMN: The last time Thom Hogan estimated Japan ILC market share, he put Fujifilm dead last, behind Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax, and Panasonic.
In mirrorless-centric Japan, he put their ILC market share at a whopping 4.1%.
He didn't estimate anything, he reported the numbers from BCN, and they supposedly get their data from Japanese retailers. Anyway, Japan might not be Fuji's strongest market.
Dash29: I wouldn't consider any of those models better than my Sony Nex 6 for travel.
I think a bit more thought could have gone into the choice.
"But do you think the average consumer understands that?"
I'd think that most people who have spent a little time reading camera reviews, or checking out manufacturers' product sites, would be familiar with this common usage. Therefore, I'm surprised that some people seems to have been confused by the title of this article. It was pretty clear what was meant, I think.
"Canon, Oly Fuji and Pentax feel indifferent for the sector, so the most probable is that something will come from Sony."
All of those companies have current waterproof camera models, while Sony has none (unless the latest TX model hasn't been discontinued yet). So how is Sony less indifferent for the sector?
Thoughts: No, Barnaby you may have got it wrong.
Fuji want to be the top three camera maker.and Sony have always made it clear they want to be the top two camera maker.
So take one of the current top two off the list? perhaps?
But globally, as of Oct 2015, Canon still had 43% of the interchangeable lens camera market, Nikon 31%, and Sony 14%. That leaves 12% for Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, Ricoh, Samsung and Leica.These numbers were reported by Thom Hogan. I don't know his source, but there's no reason to believe that he just made them up.
0MitchAG: To the Editor:Thank you a lot for these interviews. The Fuji execs are always open and very honest. Their understanding of the market and photographers is very admirable and they are passionately committed to the course. Some points about the writing though (in the hope that the quality of writing never devolves to the low standard set by another certain photography website...):
When the text is in brackets mid sentence, does that mean the Fuji guys just stopped talking? Your bracket modifications need some work ("But when small camera systems [achieve parity] they’ll start to buy into smaller systems.") - without the bracketing, it's hard to believe he actually said such fragmented sentences considering his English is otherwise very good. Is that really a direct quote or a mistake? Another ambiguity: "So a print popping out the side of a camera is a [novelty] for them."Also, mind your proof-reading: "that area is not an are we’re [interested in] pursuing."
As stated, the text has been edited for clarity. Whenever the editor has changed the exact wording, the replacement words are put in brackets. This is a common practice.
It's not a fraud, since there are no regulations for the use of 'Pro' in product names. It's just marketing.
jonny1976: in addiction....1900 dollar against 900.....for a 2% of performance...practically every canon camera and lenses cast 1000 more than competition, and most of the time the difference is leveled by a sensor who is by far subpar to competition.
How can the difference be levelled by the sensor? Canon sensors mainly lag behind in DR at low ISOs (and many photographers aren't bothered by this), not in any qualities that would negate the optical qualities of the lenses.