Lab D: Pretty obvious why they dropped the price.I am sure all the owners planning on ebaying these to get the wider range lens and 4K on the FZ1000 are really upset now knowing their camera just lost $300 in value. Since it can't compete for video nor for sports and wildlife due to the short lens and slower focusing, I am guessing used prices will drop even more.
"No for sports"? How all these sports are shot with 70-200/2.8 on FF cameras? ;) Not every sport requires you to be million miles away, but faster lens is always welcome.
Aroart: Awesome, Now make the olympus omd $300 less please..Its funny, B&H still has the used rx100 at $1099..
OM-D E-M5 is $300 less. :0) Even $340 less or so. :)
Peiasdf: Now do RX100 III.
Wait for the next Pana LX... ;)
Thank you, Panasonic!
Panasonic had to do the same ($1300 -> $999) with their 12-35/2.8 after Olympus released their 12-40/2.8. :)
Competition is great! Even between different departments of the same company - Sony microelectronics got more sales, while Sony cameras lost some money. :)
peevee1: DPR wrote: "The first thing you'll notice here is that a) the Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 is noticeably sharper"
Huh? Check out the brick building near the bottom right corner, and a yellow structure near it. There is no question about which one is sharper - of course it is Panasonic. There is not difference in the center, but FZ1000 clearly wins in the corners, at least at wide end.
"he Sony is sharper, including the center."
I think in the center they both are very sharp, no issues.
jaykumarr: "peevee1, please look at the metal fence in left bottom corner. There is no doubt that Sony is sharper."
Are you talking about "architectural" sample, at 70mm? Because I was talking about the wide end.
Agree, although it might be a result of different JPEG processing.I personally like RX10 much more, but fair is fair, and FZ1000 lens is sharper in the corners at wide end. I don't know how the DPR reviewer can think differently when it is SO obvious from the comparison samples. Maybe the reviewer just mixed them? ;)
DPR wrote: "The first thing you'll notice here is that a) the Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 is noticeably sharper"
DPR wrote: "The situation in which the fully articulating (rotating) display wins out is when recording video."
Uhh... no. In video it is the same, which is determined by the 16:9 output format (only complete dolts shoot video vertically). When there is a difference is for still in portrait orientation, and for selfies, and for preservation of the screen in closed position.
Great, more direct comparisons, please! Much more interesting to read this way!
forpetessake: Many people complain this zoom is too dim, and traditionally Tamron superzooms have poor image quality, etc. You are forgetting that Tamron is a business, and as such is measured by profits, they must make the decisions based on those considerations. The stuff that sells and brings profits usually not the best quality. Never confuse saleability with quality.
110/4 does not have to be big.
DPR wrote: "The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 (and Samsung NX Mini) are the only other interchangeable lens cameras that are physically smaller than the V3"
Huh? Olympus E-PM2, Panasonic GF5, Sony a5000 are all smaller and lighter than V3, with much bigger sensors, and in case of m43 system, lenses of about the same size. I am sure if you look, you can find other ILCs smaller than V3 - how about Pentax Q and older NEX and m43 cameras?
peevee1: How come they need a firmware update for every camera to support a new lens? And what other lens makers are supposed to do, who cannot upgrade a firmware in every Fujifilm camera as soon as they release a new lens? And what will happen to old bodies when they go out of support eventually - no compatibility with new lenses for them?Seems like a bad standard.
"Reason for the firmware updates with each release of a new lens has nothing to do with camera flaws, but is because Fuji does in camera barrel distortion, chroma removal and other kind of 'repairs' to lens flaws."
Everybody does that, but competent standards store the profiles needed in the lenses themselves and communicate everything to the camera when the lens is mounted and camera is turned on.
"The lenses work anyway, just not as well as if the firmwares are updated."
Why? How bad is it? You are buying a shiny new expensive lens, and it does not work as it should without a firmware for all your cameras? Why the data for the lens (making it work optimally) is not stored in the lens itself, as it is done in m43 for example?
How come they need a firmware update for every camera to support a new lens? And what other lens makers are supposed to do, who cannot upgrade a firmware in every Fujifilm camera as soon as they release a new lens? And what will happen to old bodies when they go out of support eventually - no compatibility with new lenses for them?Seems like a bad standard.
Sdaniella: Kodachrome 25 ... ISO 25I've been asking for 25/12/6 since Canon offered ISO 50never mind 64/32!
"What are you talking about @peevee1 ?"
I can explain how using global electronic shutter you can achieve the effect of low ISO (NOT just high shutter speed - long exposures etc) but the explanation is too large to fit in the margin. :-)
Properly implemented global shutter can provide any ISO you want. Even 0.5. :) That is what current cameras are missing most of all, for that and many other reasons.
Just another Canon shooter: It is amazing that the author thinks of the removal of the AA filter as a plus. By this site's own admission, there is little gain in resolution but visible "gain" in aliasing, like here:
The most significant thing, if true, would be the ability of the sensor to register more photons, and the better tonality associated with that.
It is a natural landscape camera, do not shoot brick buildings and people with it (at least clothed people). :-)
"Sometimes we need a gentle polish, a tidy-up and a fix for the things that didn’t work so well the first time. And in the D810, that is exactly what we are getting"
How do you know that? Being an untested Nikon camera, it might have problem with focusing, or with oil, or they managed to invent some new problem. :-)
Besides, being intermediate "almost-non-upgrade" means than the next upgrade will be as big as D700 to D800E. You simply get more value being an early adopter after a significant change than early adopter of basically the same old thing - much more life left in your purchase.