c h u n k: What's really needed is a universal QR plate...period. one that will fit in any tripod without a unique plate, and that can replace any, or virtually any lost plate.
Considering the huge number of standards I doubt that is really possible.
wouterv: So how's the AF performance of the X-T10 compared to the Nikon D5500? Especially in low(er) light situations?
In still photography and good light the XT10 should be neck and neck with the Nikon probably even faster. As the light goes down the Fuji will probably start to be a few ms behind the Nikon.
However in CAF the Nikon will be noticeably better in tracking accuracy. Its also easier to track with an optical viewfinder.
Do note that I haven't extensively used either camera and these are my personal opinions only.
arhmatic: I need to repeat, video quality is disappointing. Why repeat? I keep hearing the same "if you want good video quality, buy I video camera" - getting a second camera is not the answer.
The reasonable thing to do is for Fuji to get the video quality at the comparable level with everything else on the market. Not exceed, like the still image quality, just match the other offerings. Whatever the technical limitation with sensor and such, well, most simple users don't get and don't care, they simply want something comparable. Cheers!
There are rumours that their next flagship camera is a non X-trans sensor camera so that may help them come out with very useable video.
Frank_BR: Will this lens help Canon to reverse the steady decline in the sales of DSLR cameras?
I think they are giving up trying to increase sales of its low end cameras. They are resigned that mirrorless and camera phones are winning the battle at the lower end of the market.
However the high end is still their baby and they seem to want to milk the pro and high end customers as much as possible. So lower sales but higher profit per sale.
Emacs23: At the cost of colors?Although that should not be such a huge problem considering how color blinded modern Canon cameras are.
Yes what Dr Jon said. They change the mount specs a bit not the entire mount which causes incompatibilities. Something like dual pixel tech etc.
Also another thing to consider is using a Sony A7r II camera with Canon lenses. Many Sigma lenses don't work too well with that solution but most modern Canon lenses work very well.
This is seriously good stuff. However I have moved to an all arca swiss system even on my monopod so this is less useful for me. But its still a very good solution if it works properly.
Its not just colors. The Canon is a more reliable lens. Its possible in future that Canon comes up with some changes to their mount that can render the Sigma unusable. Sigma has a dock but whether they may be able to completely fix the incompatibility is a question mark.
That said the Sigma is already incredibly sharp wide open that I seriously doubt the Canon will be noticeably better.
jm5: $1799? I will go with sigma. Once that breaks I will buy a second sigma. Will the canon be sharper? Probably but who can really tell.
The Sigma is so incredibly sharp that you really won't notice much difference other than the lens rendering of color.
However for professionals the Canon will have a far more reliable focusing system and that for a lot of people is a make or break feature.
vesa1tahti: Can't beat the Nikon D7200 (excl. size and weight).
Its not meant to ! Its also much cheaper than the D7200.
The Olympus EM-1 is a bit more in the D7200 league. IQ wise the D7200 will be better but also physically larger and if you add a lens like the 70-200mm f2.8 you have a very large package.
Also the EM-1 while not in the same AF tracking league as the D7200 still has a higher burst rate and a deeper buffer for non professional sports usage.
Plus larger viewfinder, tilting screen, touchscreen etc.
Sdaniella: judging by peoples lauding RAW strengths (Sony ARW) for ppif the ARW shadow recovery benefits differ only by a little bit from Sony ooc jpegs
wouldn't Sony ARW (cooked) RAW just be a slightly (mathematically) stretched (less compressed) kind of lossy JPEG (can manipulate more than 8-bit jpegs) whilst not officially a jpeg (it isn't 8-bit; therefore not jpeg by definition)? right?
are there lessons for RAW-only shooters here?
I can't be sure why ooc jpeg would be so high contrast (why darks too dark in full daylight) even with the sun (well above horizon) properly exposed (far brighter than a night time store lit display, right?!). why not just dial contrast down in camera so ooc jpegs aren't rendered unrealistically dark?!
No the two aren't comparable (RAW & JPEG). I shoot weddings with an A7 and I shoot indoors so at high ISO like 1600 and more. Whenever I clip the highlights (which happen very very often) with RAW I can pull back a pretty substantial amount of detail.
JPEG has very little headroom to pull back clipped highlights. A one stop clip is enough to destroy any detail in the highlights when brought back. With RAW I can pull back detail from 2 to 3 stops over exposure.
Average User: Rishi's was a perfect test. I bought the D750 with the Sigma 35 1.4 specifically to take low light indoor shots of my new daughter with lots of black hair. I bought the a7r to get landscapes equal to the D810 in good light. Awesome but hard to get really good shots consistently with sometimes erratic focus and no ibis. Bought the a7rii to get a7r quality, consistently. My low light test: same shot, first with d750, next with A7rii w zeiss 1.8 55. The a7rii gets lowlight iq equal to D750 up to 3200 iso. Didn't test above that. Landscapes with better dynamic range and noticeably sharper than A7r's best. And good focus, nearly every shot, even at 200 mm hand held with the F4 70-200, OSS off. Better than D750 low light? Too close to call. But equal that camera, is exciting... Hoping someone will come up with a good full service Nikon to FE adapter so I can use my Nikon lenses.
A pretty unbiased feedback. Some people are claiming all sorts of IQ improvements but that is mostly at base ISO. High ISO it is still not noticeably better than an older D750.
However its good to know the focusing is much improved.
There was a Nikon AF adapter in development. Should be available soon.
kawasakiman: Who cares????? Big deal so it focuses in low light.....I'm not into taking pictures in the dark!
Thats good. I guess everyone shoots like you and thus no one uses their cameras once the light goes down.
mbaginy: I need to agree with Harry Lane - the prices seem quite high. I'm glad I bought my Gitzo some 10 years ago. I'd probably take a closer look at alternatives, if I were in the market today.
Did you have a look at Really Right stuff ? A UK based manufacturer so should be available in Europe.
lapomattiabarambaniviendalmare: The biggest issue for this Sony super toy is the lack of adequate lenses.4k $ and no real fast primes or 2.8 zooms?Come on Sony, you've got to be kidding...
^^ Its not about identifying which ones are taken with which.
Most clients can't tell which photos I have clicked with a FF camera and which ones I took with an APS-C camera. But I can tell and I prefer the ones taken with the FF.
If I only cared about what the clients wanted I wouldn't have moved to FF.
But I am happy with the move. I am happier with my photos now and that too me is far more important.
Similarly pros who love their work will want the best quality they can afford. And with the f1.4 lenses available they would prefer it over the f1.8 lenses if their work demanded it.
^^ The Nikon 85mm f1.8 G is a pretty sharp lens. But its rendering is average. I compared it with the 85mm f1.4D and f1.4 G.
Both the f1.4 lenses had IMO a more pleasing rendering than the f1.8 version.
For casual work the f1.8 is all anyone needs. But for someone like a wedding photographer who takes a lot of portraits I am sure not too many will be happy with the rendering of the f1.8 G even though sharpness wise it wouldn't be much different from the f1.4 version.
Its not too much to ask but Sony already has an excellent 55mm f1.8 and a 85mm f1.8 Zeiss. I don't think there will be any faster lenses for the time being maybe due to size constraints.
dlkeller: Once more Tamron is screwing Sony users by removing VC with the lame excuse that Sony has in camera stabilization. They seem to not consider that many Sony users are using the non-stabilized mirrorless cameras or just prefer the stabilized viewfinder the Tamron offers Canon and Nikon.
^^ Thats true for any system aside from the big two.
Tamron and Sigma don't make any many of their lenses available for Pentax or Sony or the mirrorless systems.
For maximum compatibility you need to go Canon or Nikon.
That said I use some lenses like Tamron 70-200mm LD Macro (old non VC copy) and mine is stabilized along with many 3rd party lenses that won't be stabilized on Canon or Nikon.
@bluevellet - Fair enough, sample variation is an issue. Though I have used that particular lens and I loved the contrast, color and sharpness.
Thats a pretty good lens. Its small and is very sharp in the center. The sides are not as sharp but that is down to the Sony sensor and flange distance rather than the lens.
The colour and contrast is amazing.
^^ Not denying that m43 has plenty of impressive lenses, but do say other than one Zeiss 24-70mm lens which other Zeiss lens is average ?