TheScrambler: It's nice. It's small. It feels good and it's quality is nearly at full frame level. But should i really leave APSC-DSLR technology ? I really dont know...;-)
Well, then get a legacy camera for those legacy lenses, and stop whining ...
abolit66: why max shutter speed 1/4000 ?????
!!! I think peevee1 is Yabokkie's new ID !
NCB: Looks to be a good camera. But ... I looked seriously at the X series and the one thing which put me off was a reputed tendency to mushy greens, which was born out in example pics I've seen (I'm interested in landscape photography, so things like good grass matter). Apart from that, a good addition to a good series.
Notice the top plate has the same controls as the Nikon Df, barring a mode dial, and it has a similar grip and position of the shutter button. I wonder if anybody will be screaming "retro - ugh!". I doubt it. Now why would that be?
The price with kit lens is half that of the Df, which is all to the good. However, the Df is full frame, has the wonderful D4 chip, and any number of usable lenses, some very good value for money. So maybe the relative pricing is about right.
"good grass matter"… you're be surprised how many non-photographers cares about that too :P
Valentinian: Questions (waiting for Jan 28 for answers):is AF better than E M-5 ?is EVF better than E M-5 ?is shutter up to 1/8000 ?is as reliable as the E M-5 ?
If the answers are "yes", if more lenses will come up, and Olympus does not upgrade the E M-5 within 12 months (forget the E M1 -that's for 4/3 lenses), then I will switch to Fuji
Yabokkie's just a troll… over 3000's comments and not a single "like" :)
yabokkie: no more teasing needed.
judging from the photo the camera cannot be anything good.
yabokkie's a troll...
Frank C.: obviously DX and not FX, correct?
Neither, it's a Fuji…
Rod McD: I understand why some people might want one, but it's not for me. Nor do I want the faster XF55-200, as good as it is. Or the 56/f1.2. I'm with those who think Fuji need to offer a small (ie modest speed) telephoto prime around say 85/90mm f2 or 100mm/2.8. That would provide an AF lens with some reach, a step up from the 18-55mm zoom, and still capitalize on the mirror-less advantage of small size. If I want a case full of big zooms, I may as well stay with a DSLR.
Yabokkie: "XF56/1.2 isn't a ultra fast lens at all. it can do nothing more than a 85/1.8"It gathers twice as much light on the sensor..."neither Oly 75/1.8 with can do no more than 150/3.6."That one gathers 4 times more light...Amazing how many ignorant fools in these forums !Regards,S.
Peter KT Lim: Ha...ha...those bought the "Carl Zeiss" lenses overnight become old lens !
And not you can sell them for twice what you paid for them, like old leitz lenses :)
JEROME NOLAS: I'd never buy a Sony anything. Who said Leica is an expensive camera? Leica should make phones or at least supply lenses for them...that'd be a hit for sure!
As long as you can get a Noct on it, I'm buying it !
samhain: 56mm f1.2?!? AWESOME!!!!
Yes !You'll save 10K over a Noct :)
Robert F. Tobler: What about support for the Sigma Merrill Cameras (SD1M, DP1M, DP2M, and DP3M) ?
What about them ? (Who cares, Sigma didn't even sell a full box of those!)S.
Salvador Abreu: It's about time... too bad I returned that X20 because of lack of raw support on Aperture...
Quick, go buy it back !!!
If that was the only reason you returned it, buy it back !
donut: DXO statistics are crooked:"When comparing the huge volume of data accumulated over measuring 147 lenses, one very surprising result was revealed. The average sharpness scores of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III matched the Nikon D800 and if the results were based solely on the mean average, the Canon actually out-performed the Nikon"-completely not relevant- no information here- misleading-they should have said: You need a very good lens to show that the Nikon sensor is better... if you do that you see Nikon has 39 and Canon 35 ( sigma 1,4 85mm)Well that is obvious at 36MP-
"It is amazing that so many are so surprised by something that is (to me at least) pretty much intuitively obvious. To make it work the best, you need pretty damn good glass -- yep, we get that."That's precisely why that regardless of the Canikon's sensor advantage, those Leica pics stand out so well !S.
3systermuser: they should review the AFS70-200mmf2.8GEDVR2 lens as soon as they can and they should make some wide lens recommendation chart like this for NEX7 , Fuji X, Samsung NX and Oly MFT as well.
but one thing I can not understand is why they always rating the Zeiss 2/100ZF2MP lower than the Nikon AFS85mmf1.4G?
I have these 2 best primes for F mount and there is no way to claim the Nikon 85mm f1.4G is optically better than the 100Zeiss MP.
Some Zeiss glass is spectacular, some really is Cosina's standard...Sorry to burst your bubble, but Zeiss ain't what it used to be.Designed is Germany is not made in Germany (thank God it's cheap to make up for it!)S.
Biological_Viewfinder: These comments read sort of like a comedy.
Canon Guy says, "It's rubbish, DXO is meaningless"Nikon Guy says, "It's science."Canon Guy says, "Not when Canon's not the leader anymore."
Someone actually asked if they should sell all their Canon gear and buy Nikon gear. Well, my answer is yes you should if you want the very best possible camera for Landscapes or Studio work. Otherwise, you should keep your brand because it's about the same for everything else. Understand that the D800 really only shows that massive resolution when its on a tripod and hands and mirror are off. If your shooting handheld, then that resolution gap is gone.
But the real question is "Why is it so important to have the best?"Everything is replaced with "new & improved", no matter what you buy.I think the Canon crowd would be better served to just let stuff like this bring about market competition that will generate even better Canon cameras in the future. Competition is good!!! Even for Canon.
Nerval, obviously, you didn't get the point !Lol :)Canon & Nikon might not be the same company, but they basically offer the same gear for the same audience...S.
FranciscoJG: It is technically possible, in a few years, to an APS-C sensor to have 40 Mpixel, and a sensor FX to exceed 100 Mpixel. Just need to have a density near 14Mpixel per square, and this has already ben made in 2005 by Sony. I don't have is doubts that the customer don't need this. I have no doubt that today a 4.7 µm pixel makes a better picture than in 2008 a 8.4 µm pixel, due to improvements in the structural construction of the sensor. Nor do I doubt that the built-in image processing is today extremely better than they did in 2005/2008.I have no doubt that such high density sensors will bring great increase of diffraction and shading, not to mention many other problems. And for what? To show the images on any screen or Tv, 3 to 4 Mpixel is everything you need. To print on paper 12 x 16 inch picture, 12 Mpixel is enough. The 16 x 20 inch need 18 Mpixel; for 20x28 inch, 24 Mpixel is enough. Someone will print more than 0.00001% of is pictures in a larger format than this?
"To print on paper 12 x 16 inch picture, 12 Mpixel is enough. The 16 x 20 inch need 18 Mpixel; for 20x28 inch, 24 Mpixel is enough."Lol, non sense... There's plenty of great 20x30 prints made from 6Mp cameras... Damn, I can print crops form my D700 that big !
Yes, you will see grain if you stand 2cm from it, but then so will you on any 8X10 camera print.... Large picture are meant to be look for further away, just like large TV's :)
But yeas, please go ahead and by that 100Mp FF, htat way you can crop, buy more, change every 6-9 months... go for it !
hexxthalion: after reading through following two articles it looks like I'm going to postpone my purchase of X-Pro1, it's really shame that ACR isn't quite there yet:
ACR support is the only thing which holds me from buying X-Pro1.
Well it shouldn't, the jpg are better than D700 raws ...
Bruce Crossan: They still call their company "Fujifilm". . . what is "film"?
"you know dictionary, right?" Printed Wiki screenshot ?
mosc: Yes, it's not a phone. Wow. You know, there are these devices out there that have android on them along with wifi WITHOUT data plans. They're called tablets, maybe you've heard of them? They sold millions of em last year. Maybe you already own one? I do.
What a lame comment ! And you own a Android tablet, even lamer... lol !