J Parker: This might be the best interview of this type I've ever read. The fact that Fujifilm draws on the expertise of an engineer who helped develop its Provia and Velvia films is an advantage that very few camera companies can claim (thank you Barnaby for asking that question!).
I use primarily Sony Nex and Panasonic mirrorless cameras -- but for my most important portrait work, the Fujifilms still have no peer. The Fujifilm portraits are the only ones where my clients continuously ask what camera was used to take them. They're the only cameras I have where I've never needed to shoot RAW (or post process at all) to get outstanding images, saving me tons of time to shoot more pictures instead of sitting behind a computer. I ended up giving away two Nikon DSLRs -- the Fujifilm's color rendition is just that good.
Thanks DPReview for the insightful interview.
Agree. Remarkably candid compared to many other manufacturer interviews, which come-off as overly cautious and defensive.
samfan: Well if they can pull off a 16mm , why wouldn't they rather make a decent 16-100 or something?
All these superzooms are rather tiring. 'Either get a crappy megazoom or deal with prime lenses' seems to be a message of the day. What happened to good zooms with moderate range and moderate speed? Not pushing the envelope much lately.
Agree. While we have 16-80, 16-85, 16-105, and 15-85(?) already, they are not 'super' zooms. Superzooms are 10X and up. So 16-160mm, would make a better compromise s-zoom than 16-300mm!
Franz Weber: I wish they would also develop such a lens equivalent for micro four thirds: 12-225mm would be nice
Or even 12-120mm would be fantastic. There enough 14- XXmm zooms in the Micro 4/3 space now. Fortunately, some 12-XXmm have started to come on the market recently.
This focal range has to give in to some optical compromises. Handy? Yes. Low distortion & 'sharp' ? We'll see. I would have preferred a 16-180mm (or 15-140mm?) with potentially smaller size & higher IQ for the same price. The 16mm end is the seller on this one, so it should do well.
We know ''Super' zooms often require chromatic aberration, distortion, vignetting and contrast corrections, and bodies do not internally compensate third party lenses (except for CA, sometimes). So will this lens be convenient? Out in the field absolutely. But the post processing required somewhat cancels out this convenience. My congrats to Tamron for offering this unique product.
nandadevieast: I feel the review is good but over-critical on small issues.Jpegs?? For a RX100, it could be a valid point. But for a FF camera? If you think Jpegs are so important then as well give it extra points for having all the dumb modes (scenes/hdr/auto/auto plus) :)
You should also put things in perspective. Exceptional image quality from EM1 is not half as good as very good image quality from A7. Dont we know that?
This review reminds me of good old dpr, when reviews used to be critical enough. Wish it was true across the brands.
@Shawn: Yup I see posterization in the Space Needle images, as you noted. Point taken.What caught my eye was the "Rough Edges" section where the review demonstrated that in-camera JPEGs at ISO 16000 showed obvious sharpening and NR artifacts. But at ISO 16000 one might presume most would choose RAW recording. That said, the D610 has obviously superior JPEG. Thanks for the comprehensive review.
Good points, makes sense. But...some buyers of this camera will indeed shoot JPEGs, for travel or snapshots, etc. One small gripe with the review: if conditions require ISO 12800-25600, smart owners will use RAW. Though I appreciate DPR's candor here, downgrading the A7 for poor JPEGs quality at 12800-25600 appears to be an oxymoron. I'm not a FF shooter but do most FF cams yield excellent JPEGs in that ISO range?
Thanks for this compendium. That said, we all know there are many other places that focus on lens reviews if 'your' fave lens is not listed.
But I look forward to more lens reviews here...especially those that allow the side-by-side comparison view, which is great.
FWIW: Tokina, how about other mount options for the 12-28mm?
mpgxsvcd: I bet there are plenty of people that will buy this camera. I just don't think this camera will make their photographs any better.
It's no longer about better images any more, really. It's about size , compatibility, portability, price, and yes...appearance. Virtually any modern digicam can capture great images; (except perhaps indoor sports or BIF). Anyway looks like a cool unit nonetheless.
KariIceland: not 1"? no thanks.
@ccm & JM: Indeed. A 500 hp sports car that gets 75mpg ?
The old scene was quite good, this new one even better. I see the advantages to be:
-improved relative skin tone evaluation-off-center, identical, symmetrical objects, and corner charts; useful for evaluating lenses in fixed-lens cameras-'green fuzzies' are great for evaluating jpeg renditions and/or cameras with small sensors-true-black background, for tone & noise (is it true black?)
But truth be told, charts like this are now most useful for comparing lower cost & smaller cameras since high end camera sensors have become so good in just the last few years (notwithstanding the very subtle, pixel-peeping variations of high-end sensors at high isos).
It's a superzoom cam without the superzoom lens. IQ should be excellent , however.
Some very nice photography here. Many of the images in this challenge show the natural beauty one can find off of paved highways & roads, but at the same time respecting those images where paved streets might be a welcomed benefit.
Rod McD: I've turned over a few cameras too in my time. I think one of the key things that has driven GAS in the last decade has been the development of digital from its infancy (nerdy accessories to computers) to fully fledged photographic tools. In this short period, improvements were annual and every model was superceded when you walked out the shop door. It's slowing down now and people are lamenting that new models are appearing more slowly and that upgrades are incremental....... It'll take a few years to get used to changing expectations, but it has to be a good thing.
Excellent observation, in regard to the wave of technological innovation over the last 10 years or so. First it was resolution, then it was low-light/low-noise, then auto-focus speed/accruacy, video, dynamic range and now its connectivity & integration, i.e. wifi/gps/android os/etc.
Kid Plutonium: Yes, quite an interesting post.It makes me think of one particular phenomenon I've noticed on a number of forums in which commentators sign off with a long list of all their cameras and lenses. Why?
Many hobby-oriented sites have users who ID their gear, whether it's cameras, motorcycles, telescopes, wood-working tools, you name it. I don't think they trying to prove anything other than they are advocates of a particular brand or system or technology, and yes to some extent, fanboys.
Due to challenge complaints filed by others, it is requested this fine image should be withdrawn, since it does not meet the rules of this challenge in regard to "...2 different species...". You are always welcome to resubmit a new image. Thank you for your participation & understanding.
Technically, this very nice image does not meet the challenge rules of no 'animal holding another in its beak, mouth, claws, horns..." You are invited to re-submit a replacement image. Thank you very much.
Technically, this very nice image does not meet the challenge rules of Two different species of animals in one image. You are invited to re-submit a replacement image. Thank you very much.
This is a very nice image,, but due to comments from other participants, please re-submit with 2 or more actual species in image, per rules. thank you!
Thanks to everyone for submitting all these wonderful images!
A few of the photos submitted may not technically meet the challenge rules. Entrants are invited to consider resubmitting an appropriate image.
Please vote, and best of luck to everyone !
Your challenge host.