This looks good. I admit to being a little disappointed though: my first thought from the pictures was that Olympus were releasing a camera with an optical viewfinder and a fixed lens - like an X100 but more compact.
Still, quite impressive.
davob: Unless you want to set off a new equivalence tsunami, I suggest you amend the commentary to slide 6 to something like "a 34mm f3.6 lens would (at least from a depth of focus perspective)..."
Or maybe they just don't care, seeing as how a mouse could quietly break wind miles away and it would still set off an equivalence tsunami on these forums.
I love Fuji's ILC line and the X100, but I can't really see a reason to recommend this over a GR.
Thank christ, now people can stop speculating about when the X-Pro2 is going to come out and move on to discussing when the X-Pro3 is going to come out.
Absolutely love that last one.
Serious Sam: Spends 1.5k $AU on ONE lens on a 16mp APSC system? PLEASE!!!
Add a $AU100 and That the ENTIRE cost of my new Nikon D5500 system. Body + Kit lens(only use at 18mm) and the three 1.8G(s)....
I know some people has money to burn but at least spend it on something has high retain value like Leica lens....
I am speechless.....
Why buy a car for 20 grand when a pushbike can be had for $200? I know eh, people are crazy.
He's also one of the best Irish outside backs since Brian O'Driscoll...
FBoneOne: The issue here is not that Carey enjoys the XA-2; he explains very well why it is his choice. The issue is that DPR labeled the section "Gear of the year" which does two things. First it gives the gear selected a seal of superiority (it is the best of the year), and an endorsement that DPR (and therefore the reviewing staff as a whole) endorses that gear as the best of the year. When all it is actually, is the preference (argumented) of one reviewer.
Call it what it is, "individual staff pick of the year" - it serves the same purpose, it still explains why each of you picked one specific piece of gear as your preference of the year, but it does not give the impression that that piece of gear is necessarily better than every other. Or of course you like the hundreds of argumentative responses and the traffic it generates, in which case cynic me says you hit it right on the head.
Does it keep you up at night knowing something is not right on the internet?
Hmm... think I'll stick with my 35 1.4.
This new season of Vikings is a lot tamer than I remember.
That's actually a pretty good list. If my X-E1 did even one eighth of those things he suggests I'd be incredibly happy with it.
Beat Traveller: This thread doesn't really need another 'what is the point of this' post from someone who would never really buy one, but I just don't get it. Leica prices are hard to justify even when the IQ is top notch, but considering that you can get a Sony for less with more resolution it does baffle me.
To all of you: IQ does not equal resolution, but resolution is one component of it.
This thread doesn't really need another 'what is the point of this' post from someone who would never really buy one, but I just don't get it. Leica prices are hard to justify even when the IQ is top notch, but considering that you can get a Sony for less with more resolution it does baffle me.
Gee, there's a lot of noise even at the base ISO. What gives?
Geez... it's going to be harder to improve on these cameras soon...
kadardr: Where is the NX1 review? This one is simply insignificant. And you say you are unbiased?
I think the meme around here is actually "where is the K3 review"
Good review, inane comments as usual.
This is good. Not quite the price range I'd expect, but a good step from Nikon. Now let's see if they can release some more wide primes.
Doesn't look any different to me.
Good article! It's a very exciting prospect this A7rII, even if the name is closer to resembling a car numberplate.