scott_mcleod: Why would Fuji do this?
- no viewfinder (so you have to hold it at arms' length) - 1-stop slower lens than the X100 - same generic 28mm FOV as a phone - no IS...
If it was a couple of hundred $ cheaper and used a standard Bayer sensor then I could almost see the sense in it. Almost.
When I was a teenager I could see a screen held up close. Not any more. But the main point is that having to hold it away from your body greatly increases the risk of shake. Add in the slower lens and you can see where I was going with this.
The 28mm comment was not a bash on phones as such - just that it's one less thing to differentiate it from what everyone already has in their pocket (unlike the X100!) and therefore one fewer selling point in favor of buying a dedicated camera. Also a FOV shared by Ricoh and Nikon (remember the Coolpix A fire-sale prices?)
I probably worded my comment badly due to my intense disappointment at the time... (FWIW I rather the Leica Q had a 35 or 50mm FOV, but that camera would be way out of my price range).
Why would Fuji do this?
The Squire: This is the new low-light king - Excellent control of chroma noise, even at high ISOs.
Control of CA could be a worthwhile reason to use contrast-enhancing filters with this camera, just like with B&W film, but for somewhat different reasons (as long as you know what the lens is doing!). But that would kill the sensitivity advantage of not having a CFA...
Martin.au: What's with the dinky little tripod mount?
I was just thinking the same thing. It looks like it's... struggling...
Just a thought... maybe the visible-light performance is somehow severely compromised (even with a filter) and the "usage agreement" says you won't put non-IR photos from the Ricoh flagship on the net because people who don't know any better might think the 645 is terrible?
Otherwise it's utterly ludicrous (the conditions, not the camera)
marc petzold: Now please Sony, give us this uncompressed Mode (or even better: lossless compressed 14-bit RAW mode) for the now "old" A7, A7R & A7S. So everybody would be happy - thanks a lot, Sony.
This seriously makes me want to grab an original A7 while they're on sale here for just over a grand. I have a Novoflex adapter gathering dust for my collection of Minolta MD lenses. The EVF of the A7x series will probably be the closest I can get to the fun of using a MF film SLR with a really great finder, only digital... Please, Sony!
scott_mcleod: In-lens IS or IBIS. Either way. Maybe a bit better in the corners but 35mm EFOV is just right for this type of camera IMO, and stabilization would extend the available-light shooting ability tremendously. 28 is too wide, especially when you only have 16MP for cropping (if you need less wide, that is).
If they could make a less expensive Bayer version that'd be sweet (not holding my breath for that one!). Otherwise, don't mess with the formula, please!
@ rjx: I have taken plenty of shots with the Canon 35mm IS on FF at ISO 3200-6400, f/2 and 1/10s or slower. I don't know about you but I sure can't hold a camera steady at those speeds (tripod or monopod would be dangerous in this location so hand-holding only)
In-lens IS or IBIS. Either way. Maybe a bit better in the corners but 35mm EFOV is just right for this type of camera IMO, and stabilization would extend the available-light shooting ability tremendously. 28 is too wide, especially when you only have 16MP for cropping (if you need less wide, that is).
J A C S: 1. Very misleading graph (the 1st one). The vertical axis should start from 0.
2. "DxO does something similar in their 'Print' mode display of their data; however, that levels the playing field a bit much to an output of 8MP, [...]"
It does not. They show 2.4 EV difference at 8mp, you compute 2.5.
Re point #1 - I thought the same thing, and remember seeing exactly this technique in a classic book called "How to Lie with Statistics" back when I was in high school...
scott_mcleod: Maybe I'm imagining things, but the intro (and most of the review) seems very cagily worded - almost damning with faint praise - and includes some rather odd statements, such as, "a camera where you don't have to think about whether it has a mirror or not" (really? This is "a thing" now?) and "16MP isn't exactly cutting-edge at this point" (are there any m4/3 cams with more, at any price?). As for using "try" three times on the first page... how does it "try not to be mirrorless" any more than the E-M10? Or am I missing some critical difference in the form factor? (the hand-grip makes it "less mirrorless", perhaps?)
Seems like a very good camera to me. I almost get the feeling that the reviewer would like it better if it had a Samsung-style smartphone-like interface (kill me now, please) and is maybe selling potential buyers short in this respect.
BTW, it's "eke", not "eek"...
Fair enough with the MP comparison to APS-C. Maybe I was extra-sensitive to the way this review was written because I've been really looking forward to seeing how the G7 stacked up. A return to more direct external controls is something I am a big fan of - I enjoy using my old G2 for that exact reason.
Shame about the shutter shock, though. I wonder how much more a better-damped mechanical shutter would add to the price? Assuming there is one that would overcome the problem in such a lightweight body. It does seem strange that this is an issue when there's no reflex mirror "flapping around"! I would assume the mirror assembly would have more inertia than the shutter, but it doesn't seem to affect small DSLRs, even though APS-C shutters have more distance to travel...
Maybe I'm imagining things, but the intro (and most of the review) seems very cagily worded - almost damning with faint praise - and includes some rather odd statements, such as, "a camera where you don't have to think about whether it has a mirror or not" (really? This is "a thing" now?) and "16MP isn't exactly cutting-edge at this point" (are there any m4/3 cams with more, at any price?). As for using "try" three times on the first page... how does it "try not to be mirrorless" any more than the E-M10? Or am I missing some critical difference in the form factor? (the hand-grip makes it "less mirrorless", perhaps?)
mjordan1: Please, please! No more reference to "fluorine" coatings. Fluorine is a gas at room temperature and very reactive. The coatings used are " fluoride" coatings e.g. calcium/magnesium fluoride, both of which are ionic compounds and not elements like fluorine.
I believe it's actually a fluorinated polysiloxane, but the specific details of the functional group/s are probably proprietary. FWIW.
rb59020: Here we go again, another Zeiss bashing session. Most of the readers here would have no problem blowing $800-$1000 on an unlocked iPhone5s that will be obsolete in six months.
What did you people do before the F3AF came out in '83? OMG! It's not autofocus! How am I supposed to take a photo without autofocus!?!
Forgetting about the price for a moment...
35mm manual-focus SLRs had large bright high-mag VFs with screens that made focusing a fast lens a snap (maybe not so much with wides but still...)
More of an issue (IMO) is that the Otus 55 weighs about a kilo (just under in F-mount, just over in EOS), making it heavier than a D800/5DIII (compare the 50/1.2 AIS Nikkor at 360g or the 1.4 at 249g). How is anyone supposed to hand-hold a setup like that and *accurately* focus at f/1.4 with the dodgy focusing screens in DSLRs? Solution: use LV and a tripod. The run'n'gun spontaneity and all-round usefulness that made the fast 50mm FL popular just went right out the window.
I think this an extremely specialized lens that just happens to have a "normal" FF focal length, rather than being the ultimate incarnation of the standard lens (somewhat like the 50/0.7, just not as extreme), hence much of the confusion.
DanCee: I recall my first digital Fuji Finepix A110, 1.3MP focus free, 20sec 15fps no audio video.. and memory was so expensive...very limited but was fun that time :)Too bad it's gone... would be a nice collection to have
My first digicam was a Finepix A101 (also 1.3MP focus-free). It ate batteries and was unpredictably slow (or not) to write an image. The XD cards (terrible idea) were small in capacity and very expensive. The colors were really great though, and the JPG compression was very minimal so overall IQ was better than you might expect from the specs, and the macro mode was better (sharper) than the standard mode. I got it as a Christmas present in 2001 and it saw me through until 2005 (including photographing the 2004 transit of Venus) when it was retired in favour of a short-lived (drowned) Canon A95. But I still have it and it still works!
Henry Falkner: In 1997 I bought an ES-1000 digital pocket camera. Later research showed it was made by Chinon, who I remember as a maker of Super-8 consumer-type Cine cameras in the 1960ies. The ES-1000 had a fixed lens, an optical tunnel view-finder and no LCD. Maximum resolution was 493x373 pixels. Pictures downloaded via RS232 cable to a PC. It had no external memory. The saving grace was, the Lithium battery lasted for ages, and contrast and saturation was better than I could get from scanning 5x7 inch 35mm camera prints.
Chinon! Now there's a name I haven't heard in years... I remember seeing the glossy and impressive-looking ads for the CP-5 SLR in Pop Photo (showing my age now!)
What, no camo/safari green?
f/2.8 and no VR = showstopper (for my uses). 1/2000 shutter, but nothing about a built-in ND filter?
This sounds like a potentially great idea that has enough things "up" with it to drive a lot of potential purchasers away. Like how the OVF costs more than the Oly/Panny/Sony add-on EVFs, for example, and I agree wholeheartedly with other posts that a 35mm EFOV lens would have more appeal.
Gothmoth: i hope it kills the overpriced EF 35mm f2.
Why would anyone *hope* such a thing?
The 35/2 has IS and costs less (though the "street" price of the Sigma may be lower). It's one stop slower in *theoretical* light-gathering/action-stopping power but the 4-stop IS makes it usable in 3EV less light (I say theoretical because the vignetting is unknown for the Canon)
Personally I think competition (and choice) is a good thing; why you do not is beyond me.
"One big question here is why you'd choose the 24-70mm f/4 over the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, which may be 7 years old, but offers a more versatile zoom range at a current street price around £850 / €900."
One word: *corners*
I just bought and almost immediately returned a 24-105L because the corners were shockingly bad all the way from 24-50mm. In its defense it *was* sharp on center, even wide open, but got rather soft and "dreamy" at 105mm. If I want "soft and dreamy" I'll shoot a 50-year-old Russian RF lens. And yes, I did my research - I wasn't expecting miracles but I wasn't expecting total, illegible mush 1/3 of the way into the frame either. The 15-85IS on a 7D killed the 24-105/5DIII in every way.
If the new 24-70L IS is sharp into the corners wide open (and f/4 is not *really* very wide open...) it will be worth every cent. Ditto for the new 35/2 IS - I can't wait to get my hands on one of these - if it performs like the new 24 & 28 IS lenses it will be a winner, IMO.
diforbes: Is there lens correction support for Panasonic and Olympus MFT lenses yet?
@R Butler - yeah, but precisely because of that, you can't turn it off! CA correction is fine, but distortion correction is always destructive (though in the case of the Panny 20/1.7 a lot less than I expected). It would be nice to at least have the option; in some instances the distortion may be unnoticeable but the improvement in edge sharpness won't be... or to choose some intermediate value. There are plenty of reasons why I think the "embedded" lens profiles are a bad idea. Other than that Lr rocks!