They're showcasing the inimitable Leica reds. Other than that, meh . . .
GodSpeaks: Well I see the trolls are out in force today. I am also willing to bet that 99+% of the naysayers couldn't afford this camera anyway.
Not to worry folks, it's a Leica, aimed at and for those that can appreciate Leica, and like the opening blurb says, have high credit limits.
Claptrap! It's NOT a Leica. Aside from the ostentatious badge, it has nothing to do with Leica.
I could afford it, but I'd be embarrassed with it. Anyway, the buyer of this thing needs to hire muscle if he doesn't want to get mugged just out of principle.
This thing reminds me of those outrageously expensive, oversize wristwatches in vogue with power types: shameless ostentation.
I thought Leica's founding principle was discretion. Obviously, it's lost its soul.
lbjack: Infantile bashing of new tech: Wul, I don't need no that-there 4K blah blah...just marketing blah blah...
If optical zoom in smartphones is constrained by form factor, then the only alternative is cropping out aka digital zoom, a ripoff unless you get a finer field in the first place, which 4K gives. 4K enables far better crop zooming.
Of course 4K is meaningless on a 5" screen, but who said the phone is the end display? Whine about no 4K content? Well, get off your butts and make some! This phone facilitates it.
Why do you pubescents talk about the phone as the display? The phone is the viewfinder, not the display. It's a camera making content to be curated, then viewed later on a proper 4K display. Bashing as useless 4K based on a thin, 5" camcorder is infantile.
You missed my point. The things you say betray a need for remedial reading.
Infantile bashing of new tech: Wul, I don't need no that-there 4K blah blah...just marketing blah blah...
lbjack: Stodgy. C'mon Canon, get with it! We need Sony innovation with your quality.
Precisely my point.
Stodgy. C'mon Canon, get with it! We need Sony innovation with your quality.
A challenge here that costs money to enter? That's real class.
matthew saville: Oh jeez. Game, you have been changed. Let the nay-saying commence!
I've already shot a huge Hindu wedding with the A7R II and the 35 1.4 FE, and I gotta say it is definitely delivering the goods. I'd switch right now if I had enough money to buy all the right (FE) lenses. (And yes, all the right FE lenses do currently exist, for my shooting style, though not others'...)
Matthew, I was actually supporting your excellent post, the conclusion of which says, " all the right FE lenses do currently exist, for my shooting style, though not others'..."
I'm one of those "others". I'm sure the A7rII is a fabulous camera, but it has it's weaknesses, and action shooting needing long lens AF is one. Astrophotography, using very long exposure times, and extended 4K are other reported limitations.
Always condescending. You've really nothing to be condescending about. I haven't used one? Very few have! I'm making a purchase decision and would just as soon get my information from real users who've bought one, if that's OK with you.
(3) "anything we've written" isn't all there is to write, though you doubtless think it is. The problematic AF in adapted Canon lenses is already documented. That's a problem for action shooters. "Nothing that moves" I cribbed from a review which concludes: "if Sony’s FE lens lineup works for you or you only shoot landscape/slower subjects with your Canon lenses, the A7RII is absolutely worth switching for and fantastic. If you shoot anything that moves, it’s not ready for prime time."
The reviewer has at least as much credibility as you, though you'll doubtless dismiss it.
I don't need long lenses with good AF for Hindu weddings. But I do need them for wildlife and sports, which is "my shooting style".
I, Sir, get it, too.
"For my shooting style" is the thing. That means, for this camera, at this price point, with the current lenses available, nothing that moves.
The complaints about DPR's report from the Sony presentation are infantile. It was said at the outset that this was a Sony event. DRP were there to report what they saw. If you bash your hosts, then you don't get invited back. Maybe the manufacturers need DPR more than DPR need them, but then it's also about manners, a concept lost on paparazzi wannabes.
lbjack: The royals-bashers have no understanding of the institution of modern monarchy, and what envious little people don't understand they seek to tear down. Of course it's an appropriate attitude to have in justifying what amounts to child molestation by their peers.
Modern monarchs (which don't include Muslim monarchs) serve at the pleasure of their people, and there are few peoples indeed who are not delighted with their royals. If not UK -- and the majority support the monarchy -- then those benighted peoples of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Thailand and Japan.
And the OP to you.
I live in a republic but appreciate the purpose of monarchy for those peoples who choose to have them.
As stated, bashing their subjects is the way paparazzi, such as you presumably, seek to justify their depredations.
MustyMarie: But some/many of us COULD NOT CARE LESS ABOUT THE ROYAL FAMILY AT ALL !!
A family of twits who would be no-one if not for a name & wealth (inherited and certainly NOT deserved) !!
This is the most asinine of human activity, a given family of land owners, makes them special - how & why & STILL ?
The epitome of arrogance, and some buy into this and almost worship this utter silliness, even in other nations !
If ANY thing, their wealth should be taken and distributed to the poor of the UK, the land used as a park for all those 'commoners', and a law making it a crime to pay homage to the family name and the individuals - forever.
Very repulsive in the current age, or ANY age actually.
Only small & sad minds of individuals pay any importance to this family, sad!
Well, MM, you and your likes should try that shallow, petty rant in most of today's monarchies and be ready for a well-deserved punch in the face, not by the authorities but by the people, who are quite happy with their royals.
The royals-bashers have no understanding of the institution of modern monarchy, and what envious little people don't understand they seek to tear down. Of course it's an appropriate attitude to have in justifying what amounts to child molestation by their peers.
Valiant Thor: The HDR (cartoonish) hater photography purists are simply exhibiting their ignorance. They assume that just because they can't see certain colors and elements of the light spectrum with their eyes, they don't exist.
If you were to visualize the entire known light spectrum as stretching from coast to coast, that which we see with our eyes would be about the width of a dime. In terms of seeing what is really out there, humans are almost blind. Maybe HDR can be thought of as a step in the direction of seeing more of the wonders of creation that exist beyond the limits of human perception.
I applaud Trey and his excellent techniques which attempt to show our world in a new and different "light".
Good point. Normally, our eyes' dynamic range is wider than a camera's because our saccadic vision samples different areas in our vision field virtually simultaneously, giving us subjectively higher dynamic range than what we'd get if our eyes fixated on one point, like a normal camera does. HDR imitates saccade with an AE bracketing burst. Like our minds combine our saccadic fixation points to widen our DR, HDR software combines the burst shots to widen the dynamic range according to the ± values of the bracketing, i.e. ±5 expands DR more than ±3.
Because of modern cameras' extremely high sensitivity, one would think a camera -- from "see in the dark" to resolving the solar disk -- will exceed human DR. And there you arrive in what one might call meta-vision.
There's no "trick" about HDR. It just enables the camera to record ALL that's out there, which our eyes, or a normal camera shot can't take in at once.
Bassman2003: Thank you as always for great articles and camera info. After looking at all of the photos I have to say I am underwhelmed. If you had not told me what camera I was looking at I would not have thought it was the most shiny toy on the block. The images were fine but nothing to say I need to move away from my current 5DMKIII. I know the specs are better but I just don't get the feeling from the images. Kind of 'digital' looking to me (which is how all Sony photo & video tends to look for me).
Don't want to be a party pooper as I was pretty excited to see this camera in the wild. Just my opinion though...
The OP bent over backwards to be tactful; nevertheless you respond defensively and arrogantly -- "you completely ignore, etc." How can the OP "ignore" context you didn't provide? IQ is IQ, and whatever it took to obtain the IQ should have been in the report, not in a churlish ambush in the comments.
lbjack: If I'm going to have a dedicated camera in lieu of my smartphone, then I want photo AND video in that dedicated camera, and I expect video quality comparable to the photo quality. By not having competitive video, Fuji is missing the boat.
Fuji make great cameras. I have an X100 and X100s.
Read my post carefully. My point is simply that the world is moving to convergence, whether the connoisseurs like it or not. If dedicated cameras want to stay viable vis-à-vis smartphones, then not only must they offer better IQ but convergence, too. And that's what the manufacturers recognize. And that's where Fuji is missing the boat.
High-quality video is not "fancy stuff". As another poster says, if Fuji is going to offer a high-quality still camera with video, then it's an epic fail that the video isn't consistent with that level of quality. It has to do with integrity.