Raist3d: I must say fuji came out with this in record time. Doing new hardware revisions is not easy. I am assuming new x10s are heading to retail as we speak?
Just occurred to me when I read your post - will the new X10s be easily distinguishable somehow from the originals, either by a suffix to the serial no. or some obvious indication on the packaging?
If Fuji provides a swapout-upgrade for existing X10 owners they deseve the absolute maximum props for dealing with this by actually *fixing* it insead of fobbing people off with firmware band-aids and unworkable work-arounds.
If they *don't*, well... this might just create a flaming-torch-and-pitchfork-wielding mob of justifiably infuriated X10 owners.
Which will they choose???
Once again, "no good deed goes unpunished"!
Rubenski: I sympathize with the 'other' brands and mostly they offer great value for what they ask but you'll never get the best results. If you can afford it buy the best, you'll feel much better with every shot!
In this particular case, this is "the best" - by definition, since neither Nikon nor Canon have seen fit to put VR/IS in their f/2.8 standard zooms. One can only hope it's optically up to snuff. Even if it only gets *really* good from f/4 on up (throughout the range), I would still seriously consider this lens as the VR ought to be good for at least 3 stops which would make it far more useful (for what I shoot) than a "perfect" 2.8 zoom with no IS. YMMV, of course...
designdef: This may be a great camera but... it is badly let down by it's 'retro-rangefinder' styling. What is it with the Japanese? Designers are being churned out of educational establishments by the million and all Fujifilm can come up with is more 'I wanna look like a Leica'. This has just go to stop, put your faith in new and talented designers, stop churning out this retro rubbish, create a product that is worthy of the technology inside! (please:)
You mean like Pentax did with the K-01? (cough-cough)
scott_mcleod: Slightly OT but is it safe to assume that since you're using the new 85/1.8G for the still-life shots, a full test of this lens is coming (soon)? The published MTFs are just unreal for a $500 lens...
Thanks for the detailed D4 info - I look forward to the full review even though I'm not in the market for one!
Awesome - thanks! IMO, DPR lens reviews present what you really need to know to make buying decisions - without getting any weird/unpleasant surprises - in a very usable way.
Slightly OT but is it safe to assume that since you're using the new 85/1.8G for the still-life shots, a full test of this lens is coming (soon)? The published MTFs are just unreal for a $500 lens...
With the new sensor, and if the lenses are as good as the previous versions (i.e. very, very good), the DP2 M could very well be on my shopping list for a carry-everwhere camera, provided the speed is at least comparable to an "average" compact (and the price is not outrageous). I hope the much greater amount of data to be processed off the 15.4MP chip hasn't made it worse... 45mm was always one of my favourite FLs!
kbphotography: Ahhh, why only 6 FPS! 8 frames to match the 7d would have been a much desired upgrade. This might be a decision killer for me.
For certain specific applications, more fps *is* better (even 1 or 2 more). I shoot fast-accelerating rockets and if I could afford a 1DX that would be even better than the 8fps of the 7D. With these things, a lot can happen in 1/6 of a second...www.pbase.com/smcleod965/rockets&page=all
scott_mcleod: $500 too expensive, 1fps too slow (at least you can shoot for 3 seconds)
I was *so* hyped that this could replace both my 7D and D700... so much for that idea... :(
I upgraded from a D300 to a 7D to get access to Canon's excellent medium-tele lenses, 26% more resolution and more fps without the added bulk and weight of a $500 grip.
If the original specs (6.9fps - almost the speed of the 7D) had been true, and if the image quality turned out to be at least equal to the D700 in low-light, the 5DIII *would* have been a good replacement for both cameras (the 200/2.8L would get me the same image magnification as the 135/2L on the 7D). What's so hard to understand about wanting to consolidate two cameras with different mounts into just one? Is it also hard to swallow that the price seems a *bit* OTT compared to the (slow) D800?
And why is it so difficult to believe I have gear from 2 manufacturers? Not everyone who isn't going into spasms of ecstasy over the 5DIII is a troll... sheesh...
It would be nice if every hotshoe-mounted accessory for Canon bodies (not just flashes) had a built-in AF-assist lamp instead of that awful strobe (or for bodies without a flash)
$500 too expensive, 1fps too slow (at least you can shoot for 3 seconds)
Percival Merriwether: Don't worry, Adobe will come out with the "Fuji Big White Blob Remover" tool in their next version of Photoshop.
Or an emoticon... or something equally useless
Marty4650: I suppose this will kill the popular and often expressed theory that Dpreview shills for camera makers.
It sure looks like they are trying very hard to be objective and to provide the most accurate information they can.
I'd like to think so too but conspiracy theorists are pretty hard-core - they'll just spin it to "Ah-HA! I *knew* that Canon/Nikon were trying to torpedo Fuji! Now we have PROOF!!!" and similar lines of utter BS :(
So are these new lenses only going to be available in silver *or* black, depending on model, but not both (like the silver-only 45/1.8)? Considering the (questionable) color range of the PEN bodies, this just seens weird...
philo123: So Guys Nikon has put a 36MP FF sensor in the D800 and just a 16MP in the D4 and which model is aimed at the pros? Hmmm.....Smells of marketing hype to me for the prosumer/enthusiast market. Looking at the replies here it looks like a good picture has yet to be taken because we've never had a 36MP sensor. Keep your money in your pockets and buy good glass as that's what really counts.
Nikon obviously disagrees about lenses... otherwise why would they show so many pics of the D800 with the 24-120 f/4 VR attached? Kiss your 36MP goodbye ;)
backayonder: How much for your old D700?
A lot less than I would have got last week :(
Could it be the new Aptina MT9H004 sensor rather thna the Sony one? 4.78um pitch, 4,928 x 3,280 = 23.56mm x 15.68mm, 16.16MP with HD capability (though the MT9H004 can shoot at 1080p30)? I guess we won't know until further details get released... this module is not even on the Ricoh site page for the GXR yet!
Paulo Macedo: HD Camera developed by NHK Japan, nicknamed the SS-HDTV camera...you said Nikon D3s...quit the BS!!
They're *time-lapse* movies made from stills (as the captions on the NASA site says). If you click on the links to individual frames you will see the original resolution was... 4256 x 2832 - the same as a D3s. How about that! Some of the daytime stuff at the bottom of the page has an original res of 4288 x 2848 so I assume they used a D300 or D300s for those.
scott_mcleod: Before anyone gets too excited you'd all better read this (all of it):
I shall say no more... (except a thanks to Thom Hogan for pointing this out in his blog)
BTW Canon is legally obliged to roll over for the h.264 codec, as is everyone else held hostage by these guys. I recall reading somewhere that at least one DSLR maker was looking at creating their own codec to get around this (can't remember which one). Intellectual property is one thing but the video codec game is a license to print money IMO.
You don't see people being sued for selling prints made from JFIF-encoded files, do you?