Under The Sun: Perhaps because most of their latest higher end digital cameras were simply minor updates. Just look at the x100 series, if you are happy and owned both the x100 or x100s, upgrading to the x100t will only give you some some minor ergonomic improvements. The sensor is still the same and the autofocus still sluggish.
@ Mike FL.
You may or may not be correct regarding the Sony sensor used by Fuji, but what is more important is what they do with it. Uniquely, they don't deploy a standard Bayer filter array, but use one specific to them, and then they dispense with the AA filter. So one may expect this to perform differently to a Sony. And, IMO, it does. I've recently acquired an X-Pro 1 with obviously a "dated" sensor, but I am really pleased with its IQ and which I prefer over my Nex 5N, albeit I still like the IQ of the 5N, and the Fuji can still give the higher resolution of my A7 a run for its money.
All this is very subjective of course, and I can even put up with the somewhat leisurely focusing speed of the Fuji as this doesn't impact on my type of imaging. In fact, the Fuji has slowed me down even more and made me think more about what I am about to shoot. Apart from incorporating AF, I find I am using it more like my M6!
It has already been posted below, the quality is good enough for those for whom it will be good enough. For the rest, not, but how many actually engage in macro work and for which they have an expensive macro lens or bellows, and ring flash?
It definitely isn't for me, but if it gives pleasure to some, why not?
How on earth did sports photographers manage before AF? Experience and good technique and not having to rely on fancy electronics still produced the goods.
Narcosynthesis: If I want a camera for sports, I buy an appropriate one - a 1Dx or D4, 7DII, etc.
If I want a small video camera to bolt to my helmet I buy a GoPro.
If I want a 'compact' camera to carry on holiday I look to micro four thirds or Fuji x.
If I want something high resolution for portraiture or landscape, I look to something like a 7rII or 5Ds.
You have to pick the right tool for the job, and in this case the 7rII isn't really one designed for this purpose. For the jobs it was really aimed at on the other hand, it is one of the best out there...
These are the very points that need to be made about which camera to buy/use. :D) No point in slating a camera because it can't do something it isn't designed to do or, more specifically, because you've just purchased it and then found out. Doh.
DPFranz: I guess I just don't know what a good photo is. I find the winning photo mildly pleasant. But if I had shot it, I'm not sure I would have even kept it. Kudos to the winner though, surely a great honor.
This is the issue with all photo competitions. The winning entry is the one the Judge(s) like. A different Judging panel would in all probability have chosen something else. I think I would have. Any image which, to me, uses the cheap trick of a slow shutter speed to make moving water like cotton wool, would be automatically rejected. It is so passe.
Valentinian: This Leica EVF seems so good that all the Leica manual focus M lenses can be used like one could use them on the Leica M rangefinder
Not quite. The eye is very good at comparing which is why a well set up rangefinder will normally give faster focusing than when trying to visually check whether an image is at the best focus point, or slightly off. Photographers with less than perfect vision will have problems. And the problem is exacerbated with wide angle lenses.
SteB: The size and weight of this mirrorless camera seems unnecessary. It is heavier than a Canon 6D or Nikon D750, and nearly as heavy as a Canon 5D mkIII. The standard "kit" zoom is considerably heavier than 70-200mm f4 zoom with IS, and only a bit lighter than some 70/80-200mm f2.8 zooms. This despite it only having a maximum aperture of f4 at 90mm. I just cannot understand making a mirrorless camera and lenses that are bigger and heavier than an equivalent FF DSLR and it's lenses. Especially as it doesn't have IBIS.
Good point about the lack of IBIS. Leica refers to R users now being able to use their lenses again, but unlike using them on the latest Sony with IBIS, they are still constricted to having no image stabilisation. Ignoring handling differences, using the SL body with R lenses only makes sense if the IQ is superior to the best Sony. I have 5 R lenses, but would I buy the SL to use them, or a Sony with IBIS? On the basis of this single argument, price is a major factor much in favour of the Sony. As for IQ, we'll have to wait and see.
I'm not a professional photographer, but can a true professional answer:
Is 24mp enough? Is its size and weight (considerable for a mirrorless camera) worth moving away from a top end dslr?
In a nascent camera, will the wait for native lenses from Leica be a big deterrent when the big guns already have an extensive lens line up? This is always the argument when a new system is launched. Remember the comments when Sony launched its A7 series? Will the "pull" of Leica be enough to persuade people to move to them?
Professionals need to make a living from their gear. So the IQ of the SL will be an important factor, given how much an SL outfit will hit their bank balance. How much better will it have to be to draw them?
Marb67: I am in a good position as I am replacing my Nikon D200 which has served me well. I need a good enough video facility to afford me short clips to sell as stock (not so interested in 4K at this stage). I have thought long and hard between the Nikon D750 and the D810, especially as the prices are so good at the moment. I know the 2 cameras are the best DSLR's for video at the moment and image quality is excellent. Now the A7R ll has been thrown into the ring I have wondered about this but some things put me off:
1) The huge price2) Lack of lens choices/High cost of native3) Noise issue/hot pixel4) Overheating video mode5) General flaky unreliability of the software in the camera.6) Many poor reviews on B&H7) Poor Raw files8) Massively large files.9) Poor battery life
@ marb67. I see that you are a Canon user already. In this review it refers to Sony being able to use Canon lenses, re-read para. 4 above. And it would appear to be as good at focusing as the original Canon. Now if this is true, potential buyers don't have to worry about the paucity of native lenses in focal lengths not already covered by Sony/Zeiss, buy Canon.
Zoner Studio Pro 17 doesn't get mentioned in the same breath as others, but is worthy of consideration. I moved to Zoner when I had been using Lightroom right from its inception up to v.3.6 as I much preferred its user interface.
Regarding the RAW module, this can link to DNG which you first download and then in settings set it to run within Zonar. Interestingly, this option is switchable, so you can still use its inbuilt converter if you wish, and it does NOT physical convert the original image, which remains as is.
It is available on a 30 day free trial if anyone is interested.
Stan Wong Photography: My biggest issue with the FZ200 is the bundled software for processing RAW images, SILKYPIX Developer Studio. Its interface is a little slow but the deal breaker for me is that the user must make adjustments one image at a time. And with these tiny sensors, I have to play with the noise reduction setting on all images.
In contrast, with Canon's bundled Digital Photo Professional, I could make the same adjustments to a group of images together.
IMO, this is critical for efficient work flow.
Batch processing is certainly very useful. I have the full-blown version of Silkypix which I use for those images from my FZ200 which I consider the best, as I've found Silkypix does seem to provide the best conversions, especially relating to noise reduction. The software, though, is both wonderful and weird at the same time!
However, I mainly use Zoner Photo Studio 17 which will batch convert any number of images using my preset parameters. Whether this would meet your requirements in other areas only you could say, but it is available as a 30 day trial.
Well said. The criticisms have mainly stemmmed from a minority of professional photographers or technical review sites who give me the impression they have all the answers in the search for the Holy Grail. Then the internet bloggers go on high alert, and as you say, the herd follows.
And what makes me laugh, if it weren't a serious matter enough, is all the fuss over Sony's 11+7 RAW (which I have to confess is utterly meaningless to me) arose because someone took a 31 minute (!) exposure of star trails, and found the proverbial needle in a haystack. So if star trails are your forte, by all means don't buy a Sony. However, for the rest of us judge the camera on how it suits your particular shooting style/habits. Be your own man, or woman, and stand by your own assessment, not what someone else says you should avoid.
I suppose I'm now going to be attacked for supposedly being a Sony fanboy.
No, I don't own the A7RII, but I believe I covered your response in my post by suggesting the camera be judged on one's own shooting style habits. Naturally, if one's needs fall outside the Sony's operating envelope, then don't use it. But for many others, it doesn't pose any problems for them. Are they wrong?
And with respect, your reply shows the usual ignorance of someone who knows better. You know absolutely nothing about my skills as a photographer of 56 years standing, and yet you presume so much.
HenryDS61: I was looking at getting the X-E2 second hand on E-bay, but with X-Pro2 coming soon the X-Pro1, brand new, with two beautiful prime lenses and the gorgeous full leather case is available at a no-brainer price of £649 in the UK.My wife bought me this unbeatable package as a present for our 30th anniversary! What a wife? (love you so much Fee X).
The camera IQ is amazing, handling is fantastic, build quality is superb, (not a plastic part in sight, more than can be said for a comparatively priced CanNikon DSLR). I take it everywhere with me, it's small light and always at hand.If like me you don't have the time or the money to buy an X-pro2 and if you don't just want the latest, buy what is still, (for me at least) the greatest camera bargain going. My advice is grab one before it's gone!
I've spotted this incredible 2 lens offer here in the UK as well. Very tempting, but the 28mm f2.8 would be a nothing focal length for me, too close to the 18mm. Fortunately, I found a mint outfit from a London Leica dealer whom I've dealt with before so I know the quality of his used equipment, and this kit comprises of the f2/18mm and the very desirable f1.4/35mm.
Several years ago I was out walking with my M6/f1.7 35mm Voigtlander Ultron in a Leica ERC. I fell awkwardly off a kerb and in doing so the case hit the road with an almighty thump.
The lenshood was badly distorted with the impact energy distorting the lens helicoid so it became virtually impossible to focus. Also, the thread of the camera retaining screw in the case had been bent making it very difficult to unscrew to get the camera out of the case.
As for the M6 itself, it suffered no damage whatsoever. The rangefinder was still in perfect alignment and subsequent tests showed the lens flange was also perfectly aligned. It is still going strong today. Lessons learned: Leica M3's built like tanks, ERC's offer virtually no protection, the human body is more easily damaged!
futile32: I always get this the wrong way round so correct me if I'm wrong, but "4:1 macro" would mean 4x life? Should it be "1:4 macro" ?
It will become clearer if you view the ratio as a fraction. "4:1" thus becomes "4/1" i.e. four times life size, and "1:4" becomes "1/4", or one quarter life size.
So your interpretation is correct, and the reviewer is wrong.
CameraLabTester: Counterfeit goods are rampantly produce in countries where copyrights and trademark ownership are not protected.
Now, where in the World could that country be?
Is there such a place?
I understand your tongue in cheek comment. That place does exist, and most know where it is. In fact, the motor manufacturer BMW actually sought redress in that country's courts against the manufacturer of a look alike car. To the normal viewer, the vehicle was identical to the BMW original, but BMW lost. Most know that this country is no respecter of copyright, in fact they believe in the opposite, the right to copy!
andix: Sadly this is a big warning signal for buyers about the real costs of such products and how big brands get away with markups of 300% and more. Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone counterfeit in the least, but the whole story still leaves me wondering - if the manufacturing price for a speedlite is about $40 and pirates still make a profit selling it for $100, why are we paying $600 for the real deal? You know, kind of how like Hasselblad is selling the same Sony for triple the money.
I suspect greed and GAS are a lethal combination. For our wallets, that is.
And of course Canon owners expect Canon to guarantee and service their products for some time after purchase. For this, Canon (and other reputable manufacturers) will have service centres located in the countries in which their products are sold. This costs money which the fakers don't meet. Try getting your Yonguno serviced, in say, the UK. Forget it.
I do agree that own brand batteries can be extortionate in price, especially as there are established battery brands, such as Duracell and Energiser, who can often provide compatible batteries at significantly less cost. These will be every bit as good as the original. And look at Leica's pricing for its battery for the Q camera. Identical to a Panasonic battery, but at a huge mark-up.
valenttin: First guilt is on the Canon shoulders... They contract with a China/Taiwan/Singapore/Philippine/etc company one thousand products. The company made two thousand using exactly the same components, made in the same place, with the same workers. They was very nice to make some physic differences between products. Greed cost so much... I use Metz, always made in Germany!
Strictly speaking, Metz is not bankrupt, but insolvent. This simply means its income is less than its expenditure, and over a short term can be managed. It is only at the point where income becomes irretrievably less than expenditure, that a company will file for bankruptcy when it can no longer meet its financial obligations.
A company that is insolvent can continue to operate whilst it sorts itself out, which is what Metz is trying to do. So the company may well survive as a slimmed down version.
ConanFujiX: One day someone will copyright the air that we need to breathe.
Well, sort of, already in some cities where vehicle users are charged for entering certain zones on the basis of discouraging them to pollute the air. So if you can't copyright it, Governments can tax you for polluting it.