Cal22: I like the line of lenses, especially the primes the high aperture and the handling of which are meant to be reminiscent of great moments in the history of photography. Most likely we'll see a 16mm to be added in the months to come.
Unfortunately, the rangefinder style camera is not to my liking, it's too inconvenient for a left-eye photographer. And since there's no EVF attachable to an M1 or A1 I'm still standing on the sidelines.
I use the xe1 with my left eye. No problem, except your nose rubs the screen.In fact it is slightly easier than a traditional dslr because now my hand at the shutter is farther away.
PixelMover: Am I the only one here who thinks the X-T1 body looks a lot like to old Contax RTS III (but a lot smaller, obviously...)
Yes with its wide pseudo pentaprism it has that lovely Contax vibe to it. I liked those cameras, even bought a cheap 139 model with 50mm planar one day, as an extraCamera.
bossa: I was hoping for a mirrorless version to get the size down to a D800 or D4 but they've stuck to the previous format.
Remember the Fuji 6x45 rangefinders? I have an autofocus one (looks like a giant film compact) and earlier there were manual focus ones. Really fantastic results and so portable.Imagine a near exact same camera with the big sensor in it, that would be awesome!
I have the XE-1 which is ergonomically the same, the XE-2 is mainly better regarding AF-speed which is indeed average on the XE-1.I find it a very nice travel camera. Typically I just take the 35mm f1.4, I also have the standard zoom which is good as well but the 35 is truly impressive.Historically on my Nikon D200 I always shot raw and then spent time finetuning in photoshop. I found that unless the light is really difficult, the XE-1's jpg quality is very nice. I typically set the camera on "velvia" (saturated) colours when traveling, I like that people look a bit healthier on holdiay snaps than they look in reality!My D200, while a bit antique, is stil a nice camera in the lower ISO range, and it is built very sturdily. However for travel the XE-1 has won my heart.I also like the old-fashioned controls, I don't have to browse through menu's, in essence I shoot with it like with my vintage Nikon F3.
Allen Yang: I can't understand why people would buy Fuji SLRs since it doesn't have as many lens as Canon or Nikon system. In addition, its camera bodies are much less competitive than Canon or Nikon cameras.
For johnnedanger: in general I do agree. I have both Fuji and Nikon, these days I mainly use the xe-1 with the great 35mm f1.4 lens. Excellent pictures. However!At my wedding pictures were taken with a Nikon D4 and some version of Canon 5D, and a friend also used my fuji. All 3 cameras produced very nice pictures, but I have to admit that the rendering of a full frame sensor is still better than the fuji's aps size. The image has more depth, 3 dimensionality to it. Mind, i love my fuji esp for travel and at 1.4 the lens has nice bokeh but I have to admit that those heavy full frame dslrs are not outdone just yet.
Kaelis: PhaseOne... I'm still waiting for a Full Frame you know, don't take the same road as Pentax please, I'm tired of waiting for bigger sensors !
Indeed, say a 4000x4000 pixel sensor in the classic 6x6 format. 16 megapixels with likely excellent high iso performance. That would be cool.
With its relatively wide "pentaprism" hump and all dials top plate, it looks a bit like those lovely Contax SLRs of the film days.
Considering the size of the images it produces, can we consider the Fuji Instax 90 as a medium format film camera?
All in all a rather attractive device if instant print results are important.
tallguy600: Got the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for just $200 more before Christmas.This Nikon lens looks uninspiring by comparison so the image quality better be good I'm thinking.
I have the Sigma 35mm f1.4 for APS sensors and I was always disappointed with its perfomance at 1.4.I'd rather have a lens that starts good at f1.8
tornwald: I am betting this will be able to compete with the Zeiss Otus. For a lot less money
That is probably wishful thinking. The price difference has a reason, it's not just marketing.Anyway, both you and I are assuming now. I am curious for the test results as well.
Interesting proposition: more than sufficient resolution and no low pass filter. Couple it with a good lens and you should have a convincing camera for most amateurs.
This could be a very good development. I have good experience with the venerable 35mm f2 which is nice but O can imagine that it may not be up to scratch for the D800.
During the Kickstarter campaign, the lens was available for $300 which is the max I would pay for it, as it is cool but limited use. Now, if you subscribe to the Lomo newsletters you will see that nearly every week they discount something for up to 25% or even 30%, so it is good to subscribe to them.
FoveonPureView: Pay ONLY (!) DOUBLE (!!) the price of the 16MP Df and buy a 40 MP MEDIUM FORMAT Pentax 645D instead. Nuff said.
As I wrote above, I like medium format but the Pentax is quite simply a pear compared to the Nikon's apple. Yes the resolution is high and that wonderful MF look is nice, but the DF will be far more at ease making action pictures or evening pictures.
What a strange comment. Mind, I love medium format cameras (I still shoot film mf cameras), but they are totally NOT suitable for the kind of photography that the DF will excel at.
Holger Drallmeyer: Oh give me a break now. There is just absolutely no point in emulating film. It's like making Filet Mignon out of chuck eye. Get a film camera and shoot some film if you like the look of it.
I use it irregularly since v1, and mainly for black and white. I find that digital black and white sometimes looks too clean, depending on the topic. The simulated grain that Filmpack injects looks very believable, reminding me of my darkroom days, it does not look like a basic filter. The grain can really improve the atmosphere of a picture. Just don't overuse it.
rick decker: I will stick with panos..not because I am philosophically opposed...just because it is another piece of hw/sw to deal with. I don't do any video to speak of so that doesn't matter.
So... why do you reply then?
It is lovely conspirational thinking that Nikon does everything to break 3rd party compatility when bringing out new cameras. If that were the case, old AF Nikkors would also have problems. But specifically on the DF they will work with full satisfaction.Fact is, pure and simple, Sigma reverse engineered the lens/camera interface and did so imperfectly. Otherwise these lenses would still work. Note that not all Sigma lenses have issues, if Nikon were really conspiring than all those other Sigma's, Tamrons, Tokinas would have problems as well - and as I mentioned older Nikkors too.The question should rather be: is a camera manufacturer obliged to open source it's camera/lens interface specs so that reverse engineering is not necessary? legally, oviously not. Morally? I don't think so either.
Tom_A: I used the same lens on my D200 and was always disappointed with it. IT was simply not sharp enough at 1.4 - why buy 1.4 lens if it is not reasonably sharp then. Perhaps it was a focus issue, I now realise. I had a much better experience with their EX10-20mm lens, slow aperture but good results.
Sorry the above was meant as a reply to another post.
Patco: Dear Nikon,
Please exert less effort on engineering 3rd party incompatibilities, and more effort on creating a high-end DX D300 replacement.
Very strange comment. A camera brand has no responsibility towards third party makers, they can evolve their cameras without informing these companies. Companies like Sigma etc have always been reverse engineering lens interfaces which was of course much simpler in the good old days of manual focus film cameras. Personally since I alsmost completely switched to Nikon lenses I have only good experience: quality and compatibility. I was recently tempted by a Samyang 35mm f1.4 to put on a recently acquired Nikon F3 film camera but it was so big that I stayed with a Nikon 35mm f2 AF lens on it.