Madrid... nice :)
Thanks, Richard! :)
I love how there's more backlash here about seeing "Oh, wow!" in the title than there is actual discussion of the camera... That's what I get for reading the comments section :)
Dodge_Rock: There were only a handful of candidates to choose from and no option for a write-in. No love for the 1st fixed lens 2000mm camera, Nikon P900?
I think they took the winners from each sub-category for this particular poll.
Timbukto: Man this article...totally misses the PUNCH LINE...which was the absolute hilarity that the internet responded with! http://petapixel.com/2016/01/29/nikon-awards-prize-to-badly-shopped-photo-hilarity-ensues/
The Tie-Fighter photoshop is HILARIOUS!
This is great... already being re-'shopped: http://mothership.sg/2016/01/nikon-spore-facebook-awards-prize-to-badly-photoshopped-perfect-shot-of-an-airplane-in-chinatown/
I like how the thumbnail for this post looks like two lightsabers...
Robert Holloway: Maybe it's me and this is not a comment about the Sigma. I just don't see the need for 20mm f1.4 . Can someone explain where this lens would have a real practical use. Astrophotography? Not really something I'd think of for portraits. landscapes at f1.4? Thanks!
+ weddings and other events in dark interiors.
Not that it matters from a technical perspective, (and I can't stand when people say the opposite) but these image are quite nice—great job!
That grain... ugh...
Wow, I'm highly impressed! Well done, Fuji :)
DavidsfotosDotCom: Many Cameras are great, makes choosing one harder!vsAll cameras are great, but that doesn't make choosing one any easier
In technical writing less words is the BEST way to say it.
It's a well-written piece. Don't we have better things to do than critique the writing (esp. for something as trivial as economy)?
exapixel: Want to make this article more helpful? Run through a list of credible "best cameras for somebody", and for each, legitimately try to describe the photographers who would indeed be best served by that product.
I'd say that's a key function of the reviews :)
geoson: This commentary would have been a great addendum to the review of the LX100. I remember the howling when DPR gave it an 85. I let my sister borrow it when the battery in her Dslr died. Health issues have prevented her from joining me on my photo journeys, but now she can imagine slipping an LX100 in her bag everyday.
I love my LX100, and it's a great travel cam, but darn if it's not without a laundry list of quirks, many of which can be addressed with a firmware update...
Terry M: One thing that people who say, "I never _________" (usually "shoot video") don't consider is that even if you never or even rarely use a certain feature of a camera, you want it to be a good implantation of it if you ever DO need to use it.
I don't shoot a lot of video but if I'm ever asked to, I want to have a camera that CAN shoot video and will shoot GOOD QUALITY.
I wonder if these same people are okay using Picasa because they "never" use most of the features in Photoshop or Lightroom?
Yes. Good implementation of lesser-used features also reflects well on the brand as a whole, as it shows they are invested in making a truly quality product.
agentlossing: Kind of silly to have a discussion that doesn't even mention the lens ecosystem, even though every single one of these cameras featured is an ILC. It's as if they are recommending them solely based on kit lenses.
I don't think that the article was meant to be an exhaustive investigation into every aspect of a camera or system that might make or break a particular model, but rather the focus is more conceptual. It's just about knowing what you need, what you don't, and being conscious of the limitations of a camera/ssytem you buy into.Of course lens selection is important (and was even mentioned in reference to the XT-10), along with many other things not listed here.
I've certainly found myself praising the great technological advancements found in today's camera market compared to X years ago when people ask me for a specific recommendation... and until I know what features and qualities are/aren't important to them, I just talk in general terms about brand and class differences before sending them off to DPR :)
Edgar Matias: I have another suggestion for you (Fujifilm) -- make an XT-1 model with a SQUARE sensor that utilizes the whole image circle of your lovely APS-C lenses...
APS-C sensors are 23.6 x 15.6 mm. Going square would up the sensor size to 23.6 x 23.6 mm, which is essentially the same vertical as full-frame (36 x 24 mm). You’d get the same look as FF, using lighter APS-C lenses.
Added bonus... While the vertical is the same as FF, the sensor area is almost 36% smaller -- a huge savings in sensor cost.
Call it the SX-1 and position it as the top model in the X-series range of cameras. You'd have a full-frame camera that’s less expensive to manufacture than every other FF camera, with the additional cachet of a square sensor, AND without having to start over with a whole new range of lenses.
How about a circular sensor mapped to the image circle of the lenses? Avoid all those unused dark pixels in the corners...
WaUTa: "Unlike the X-T1, which lets you punch in to a 100% view of the AF point, but doesn't maintain it if you switch between images, on the X-Pro2, it's easy to press the rear dial to jump in to a 100% view of the selected AF point, then spin the front dial to shuffle between images, with the position and magnification maintained."
Hmm. My X-T1 does maintain the position and magnification when shuffling between images with the front dial. It's only reset when the pictures switch orientation (portrait/landscape).
Maybe they mean "doesn't maintain the AF point"? For example, if the AF point changes from shot to shot. Could be nice to have as a configurable setting.
I am thoroughly impressed—a great step up for Fuji users! Looking forward to the final review with production samples.