marike6: Sigma has some excellent lenses in its lineup, but in general, I didn't buy a Nikon body to slap Sigma and Tamron lenses on it. I have in the past, but lately I've been using all Nikon lenses. Rock solid AF and excellent color/contrast that Nikkors are known for.
It was the same when I shot Canon. Mostly, I didn't skip L lenses to go to shopping at the Sigma and Tamron counter at B&H. On DX, Sigma and Tamron have some sharp, compact and reasonably priced f/2.8 standard zooms. And Tokina has a few great UWA zooms. There are some great values in Sigma, but on FX, I mostly stick with Nikkors.
For the Df, I'll likely use a mix of G and AIS Nikkors.
And Nikon strikes again. So much for the 3rd party ecosystem.
jerry367: seems like a firmware update
Way less than Fuji does with firmware upgrades. ;-)
At least we know they did not invest much into R&D for that camera, or marketing in the US for that matter. And they will be able to sell a couple of these to their Japanese fans.Come next board meeting, "Are we in a mirrorless market?" "Yes, we have just released a new mirrorless camera and it is already paid for its R&D and made a profit" - BONUS.
reginalddwight: I think Canon made a huge mistake with the EOS M2 by forgoing a killer pink version.
They will announce one to a big fanfare and speeches about innovation - in a year or two.
So, no 70D sensor even after 5 months since 70D. And no EVF or even ability to add one. They are really trying HARD not to make a decent mirrorless.
peevee1: Great photographs!
Tiny sensors are the best for macro. People buying FF or even APS-C for macro are just clueless. m43 unfortunately is the smallest ILC format with native macro lenses, but sometimes manual focus etc is just fine, and then cameras with even smaller sensors should be used. Or simply P&S if the built-in lens is OK for macro.
If Pentax ever gets around to making a dedicated supersharp macro lens for Q, something like Q10 will suddenly start to make a lot of sense.
Not only DoF, but higher pixel density too. 1:1 macro lens put on a sensor with 6x crop compared to FF works like 6x macro (which in not even available for FF) while preserving DoF of 1:1.
km25: I may really like this camera. A grip, interchangeable focusing screens and maybe (and I say maybe a little more MPs). All the artifacts I see in Sony processor may show that Nikon may go their own way. I think the Canon over all looks the best. But as it stands, it is a very appealing camera. It is just a light fast D4. It is a camera that get's the shot.
It is in no way D4 except for the sensor.
mariooliva: Could someone explain to me why it was used f. 5,6 1/1600 for the Nikon Df test and f. 7,1 1/1000 for the Canon MarkIII test? The Sony probable is an excellent camera but it was used the superb lens Zeiss 85 mm f.1,4 I think it would have been better to use the Nikkor 85mm f.1,4 and the Canon 85mm f.1,2 too.
Use of Nikon's 85/1.8, one of the sharpest Nikon lenses, at f/5.6, its sharpest overall setting, is in no way a limit for this 16mpix camera's resolution.
inti4444: Have you noticed the different shapes, well it is part of the Chaos theorem.Each crystal is unique.Beautiful pictures.
First link on google:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-snowflakes-form
But whatever science discovers, idiots would still think that some supernatural being in the sky personally carves them out.
Rbrt: Somebody should buy this guy a really good camera!
Something like Canon 1Dx or Nikon D4 would be THE WORST for the purpose. ;-)
ploutakis: I have read some comments in the web about the huge distortions of theNEX 3N's 16-50 lens.They comment that the camera corrects the problem automatically when in jpeg mode.What about RAW.I dont use Photoshop ,so I wish I knew whether the Sony raw converter resolves the problem .
Sites which test RAW lens performance (including maximum CA and vignetting) without correcting for distortion first simply do it wrong. Correcting of distortion simply pushes the worst offending regions of image frame (corners) beyond image frame (for barrel distortion - which coincides with FLs having bad vignetting etc), so those awfully vignetting corners (usually with high CA too) simply never make it in the final image - for the price of slightly lower sharpness at the edges of the frame ("awful" 5% distortion can be corrected for the price of as low as 5% reduction in sharpness, which for sharpness is nothing).And most sites like DxO which started testing lenses before the corrections became standard (often parts of new lens mount electronic protocols for mirrorless where lenses store their own distortion profiles) do it wrong, so don't waste your time checking mirrorless lenses at them.Lateral CA is just 3 distortion profiles - separate for each color channel. Easy.
Impulses: Why didn't the E-PL5 make the list? Four or five other brands got two models featured... I'm just curious really, no skin in the game. I've got a GF6 myself (though the choice was between it and the Oly, for the newer sensor). Nice roundup, dizzying array of good options really.
"But what do you need the PASM dial for, if, as soon as you leave the P mode, you must anyway rely on the touchscreen to set the shooting parameters?"
Wrong, E-PL5 has rear dial/wheel too, so it is just as easy to use in S and A modes as consumer DSLRs like Canon Rebel and Nikon D3xxx/D5xxx series.
BKK Street: Nice write up. Most of the tourists I see lugging around DSLR's would be better served with one of these. (Or an RX100 for most situations). And GM-1 and Fuji's are just gorgeous. Do miss the availability of a fully articulated LCD on all the models listed though.
marike6: "People don't exactly "lug around" a consumer DSLR like a T5i, D5200 or K-50."
Yes they do. After a several hours touring with one of these, they start to hurt neck and shoulders.
" Those cameras are small, lightweight,"
No they are not.
" offer bright, clear viewfinders "
Except for k-50, their viewfinders are just awful. Tiny, imprecise (not 100% coverage), and with consumer kit zooms, quite dim too (and the latter includes k-50). Except of course when you get sun in the frame by mistake - then they will hurt your retina.
zigi_S: You can get an Olympus e-pl3 with kit lens for 249€ in Europe. A current model the E-PM2 with kit lens for 420€. A fuji x-m1 the most cheap you can get with a kit lens is 799€. I don't see how these cameras are comparable. The fuji just doesn't belong into this group. For that money you can get a canon 60d and a nikon d7000. Cameras certainly not belonging to entry class.
"The Fuji XM is expensive but it is the Fuji entry option after the enthusiast XPro and intermediate XE models.."
Their entry option is X-A1, not X-M1. X-M1 is the same as X-A1 with broken color filter which allowed them to save money by not including antialiasing (low-pass) filter - for the price of color bleeding and low color detail as the consequence (although better black-and-white detail which only matters for test chart). And the cheap trick eliminated only vertical and horizontal Muaré, but diagonal is still there. I would think such compromises for the missing LP filter should put value of X-M1 at $50 or so BELOW X-A1, but they want $200 more?!? Ridiculous. Only heavy marketing of "X-Trans" brand to those who do not understand how demosaicing works can explain it.
DT200: Way to go Fuji! You can find deals on the Nikon 1 too which make it attractive.IMHO, the Sony A3000 was a dud.
A3000 is certainly a good value. Bad camera - but very good value. Total opposite of, say, Olympus E-M1, which is a good camera but bad value.Some people seek value, utility, some people seek pleasurable experience. That is why there is something for everybody.
Motorcycleboy1991: So why the Fuji X-M1 over the X-A1? The category is, "entry level."
I talked to a Fuji rep at a recent camera show. I was tired of carrying around bigger, heavier equipment when I travel. I am really impressed with what Fuji is doing. When I asked why I should go for the X-M1 over the X-A1, he said, "At high ISO it is a little better." That lines up with what I have seen in your comparisons, and comparisons on other sites.
Is it worth $200 more (28.5% more, if I did the math right) for a little better high ISO; in an entry level category?
This is a serious question. I ditched my DSLR and went with the X-A1 and a few lenses for a travel kit. I wasn't trying to cheap out. I just didn't see the extra value in the X-M1. What did I miss?
"Is it worth $200 more (28.5% more, if I did the math right) for a little better high ISO; in an entry level category?"
It is not REAL better high ISO, it is just higher level of noise filtering embedded into demosaicing process of this pattern because red and blue dots are on average further apart. For the same reasons, colors in small details tend to bleed into each other more than with Bayer pattern.
vivanchenko: M1 is not only slightly better in higher ISO than A1. It also reproduces colors differently. This is very noticeable side by side. M1 delivers the same IQ as the highest end. And it is also faster to focus than any of it. And so is A1. Both of the cameras have some advanced feature which most of the higher end doesn't.
Braking things up by levels is very confusing and misleading.
In fact, X-M1 is worse than X-A1 if you shooting something other than black-and-white resolution charts. With this pattern, color bleeding after demosaicing to JPEG is inevitable.
stanleyD22: yes it would be great to have comparison between A1 and M1 one to one..if it's worthy of that money
In fact, X-M1 is worse than X-A1 if you shooting something other than black-and-white resolution charts.