Boss of Sony: The existence of this product shows how anal photographers can be. Nobody will notice the difference between B&W photos taken with this camera and those taken with another camera/lens of similar quality. Even if they did notice a difference, that difference would not be important to anyone. Photos in general are hardly important anyway. It's all just anal retentiveness.
Have a look at the samples.
22codfish: For that money, I would prefer the Pentax 645Z
Juck, have you seen the samples? You would not so quickly dismiss the camera then.
The sample images on the photo blog are excellent. Loved the detail and creamy tonality in the picture of the middle ages man.I shot and enlarged lots of bw in my pure film days (those superb results from a rolleiflex!), now i still regularly use film for bw. And even on my iphone I like to use hipstamatic with Akira "lens" and Nike AO "film" which gives often surprisingly good results.
All this to say that yes, I would be happy using this camera. We have currently other priorities in the family but I wouls be considering one in a year or so.
nicolaru: Hi FogdeanDurn.It is a 23mm F2. 23 X 1.5 = 34.5mm
JACS, I now see the point you want to make about shot noise. obviously the bigger a pixel is (and usually FR sensors will have bigger pixels than APS sensors), the more photons fall on a pixel, which would lead to less influence of poisson noise. Fine, this demonstrates that for high quality available light pictures you cannot beat a bigger sensor. But I don't agree that you can translate that into a simple 1.5x aperture equivalence.Aso, in the case of DOF, I checked dofmaster.com . On a distance of 2 meters the 23mm lens on APS film at f2 has DOF from 1.69 to 2.46m; a 35mm lens on 35mm film at 2m needs to be at f4 (not f3 !) to have a similar DOF (1.68 to 2.48m).
FodgeandDurn: Apologies for putting this here instead of the 'report issues' button wherever that is - the intro says this has a "23mm f/2 lens". This actually got me excited, but unfortunately it is an error. If you've divided 35 x 1.5 to give some 35mm equivalence wouldn't it be 50mm equiv?
Richard, light gathering equivalence is absolutely irrelevant. The important thing is that it is f2. Obviously bigger lenses for bigger sensors have more glass and will let more light through at the same aperture, but this is totally unimportant since the light needs to fall on a bigger sensor. If you use a hand held light meter, and it tells you that say f2 at 1/125 is correct then that is what you set, independent of your sensor/film size. In no way at all should you care about an imagined f3 equivalence.If it were possible put a 24mm f2 full format lens on the fuji then it would still be the same exposure, the light falling next to the sensor would be wasted (or more practically, likely slightly degrade the image quality because of reflections)In no way does any "aperture equivalence of f3" have any practical implication.The only area where it is important is DOF. You may have the view of a traditional 35mm lens, but you have the DOF of a 23mm lens at that aperture and distance.
Look I will try to explain it one last time before I give up. Take this fuji,, a full frame camera, a good old Mamiya 7 (which has an image size of more than 4 times that of a full frame camera), and a lunasix handheld meter.Set all of them to iso 100 and point them to a wall (to do away with aspect ratio differences). Assuming that all meters are correctly calibrated they will all give the same result. it is not as if when you meter with the fuji 1/60 at f2 that on the nikon you have to set 1/60 at f3 and on the mamiya 1/60 at f5.6. That is pure rubbish.f2 is f2.
The only area to look for equivalency is depth of field. DOF is dependent on the physical focal length. Hence the fuji's 23mm at f2 will have more DOF than a FF 35mm lens at f2. There are tables where you can see DOF equivalene depending on distance of the subject, it is not simply a 1.5 factor.
a 23mm lens with a traditional 35mm equivalent angel of view, and a normal f2 aperture where you don't need to do any conversion for, indeed that is correct
JAQS you are also absolutely wrong. it is f2. f2 is independent of sensor size. read my post:
Proof: remember handheld light meters? You set iso, point it and find combinations of aperture and shutter speed. These light meters work with absolutely ANY kind of film or sensor size. If your light meter tells you: f125 at f2, then the fuji will make good pictures with that setting. You do NOT need to set it to f3 for a correctly exposed picture.
termix you are absolutely wrong.It is f2. No conversion needed.Proof: remember handheld light meters? You set iso, point it and find combinations of aperture and shutter speed. These light meters work with absolutely ANY kind of film or sensor size. If your light meter tells you: f125 at f2, then the fuji will make good pictures with that setting.
A fun overview but how many voters have real hands on experiencewith the products they voted for?
Tom_A: More interesting is the recently introduced Lomo with 120 film. In itself a rather cool entry to medium format cameras, and portable as well, but it is as expensive as a 2nd hand MF Fuji rangefinder...
Gentlemen, it is indeed the recent Lomo 120 I was referring to, not the Lubitel. The Lomo 120 has glass lenses, but it it still expensive for what you get compared to Wye's Fuji. BTW, I have the non-zoom GA645, an awesome travel medium format camera.Now I did buy Lomography's Belair 6x12 camera with the optional glass Zenith lens as it is so extreme without easily available 2nd hand alternatives at the price, and it is indeed capable of good results if you keep your mind to it and if you use a tripod, and especially if you make certain not to cause vibrations when pressing the shutter (an unfortunate design error puts the shutter release at the front where the lens is).I also bought their rebranded Horizon 202 camera (the variant with full manual control), and that one is truly a superb thing, a panoramic camera with a rotating lens and capable of excellent results. Really fun to take on holiday next to a normal dslr.
I tried the 6 Plus in the shop and I was impressed by the image quality and well controlled noise. Considering that the best camera is the one that you have with you, with the 6 Plus in your pocket you can shoot quite acceptable pictures at all those occasions you don't have your "proper" gear with you. I will likely upgrade from my 4S to the 6 Plus. It won't replace my Fuji, but I am curious to compare the image quality with my old Nikon D200+35mm lens - this was a great camera but it is now obsolete. I still expect the Nikon to have better skin colour, yet in general it wouldn't surprise me if the iPhone were able to hold its own.
More interesting is the recently introduced Lomo with 120 film. In itself a rather cool entry to medium format cameras, and portable as well, but it is as expensive as a 2nd hand MF Fuji rangefinder...
A very good series !It reminds me a bit of the work of Edward Burtinsky.
marc petzold: There is a way strong demand for the latest RX100 III iteration, and even dpreview wouldn't say "GOLD AWARD" soon i'd say so - because i can hardly remember any other compact digicam here on dpr which collected that muchcomments into a short time period - and i'm a silent reader here on dpr since 2001! just couldn't decide all these years to register to the forums earlier. :-)
Besides that, we *might* see way strong competition for the RX100M3 into the near future (think about Lumix LX8, it's rumored to have 4k video recording capabilities, or wait & see about Fujifilm X30, Nikon P8000 soon) but Sony is really to applaud for making such great IQ inside a very small package - now even with a way good EVF (for it's class)
I think in terms of IQ - the G1X II Canon is simply no match - sure, it does have a APS-C sensor instead of 1" like all RX100 iterations, but Sony madea way good job with it's processing engine - and, after all: you can't have D4SIQ inside a camera that small! :-)
These are interesting times. Unless someone needs a compact camera right now (as in, the old one is broken), then it is better to wait a few more weeks and see how the X30 and LX8 will measure up.As an aside, I still have and enjoy the LX5. I can see myself upgrading to one of the above cameras, esp. since I sometimes like to film with it and the new ones are quite a bit better for that.
Fresh, interesting "fabricated landscapes". A good idea, well executed. I was less impressed by the people pictures. They were very lomography-like. Spontaneous, but no interest for me.
Tom_A: I understand that not all improvements could be applied to an XE-1 firmware, but it would be good to see at least the focus peak color change feature in the XE-1.
Considering their history, I expect a new firmware for our nice XE1 as well. Currently the focus peak is difficult to discern in the EVF, I hope that a colour change would help.The performance improvements may be too linked to the hardware of the XE2 to be backwards compatible but the feature improvements might work on the XE1.
The samples definitely look good enough. It would be interesting to compare side by side to an 85mm f1.8 on a full frame camera which I expect would have similar DOF wide open.
I understand that not all improvements could be applied to an XE-1 firmware, but it would be good to see at least the focus peak color change feature in the XE-1.
Maklike Tier: What I don't quite understand, is that if there is only two manufacturers of sensors, then how is this Leica body any different to any other 16Mp APSC sensored body? Does Leica have some crazy proprietary knowledge in regards to how to 'get the best out of' any given sensor, or is it all really about the Leica glass? I will admit though the work they've done on the GUI is outstanding from what I've seen. So incredibly intuitive and fast to change. Only thing really lacking is the ability to do multiple custom set-ups which I think would be the proverbial icing. If I was a GUI designer I'd be sending my resume to all the majors right about now. I expect there's some red faces and crapped undies in their design departments......
I don't know who made the sensor of this camera, but it is well known that the (reputedly capable) M sensor is designed and made in Europe, so that one is not a Canon or Sony sensor. The M sensor was designed by a Belgian company (Cmosis) whose usual market is the professional world and sensors for sattelites etc, and it was made in France. It would not surprise me if the new T camera has the same source for its sensor.