dougster1979: How disappointing!! I was looking to upgrade my d7000 but i think i'll pass.
To be fair doug, the D7200 has a better sensor, better AF, bigger LCD, larger buffer etc. So basically every aspect is improved expect maybe video.
Zvonimir Tosic: All right, some will call me biased, but before you do that, please re-assure me with good answers. I am looking at the gentleman's picture above, and in his hands a camera with thinner profile, yes, but with a gigantic lens on it, no smaller that equivalent DSLR lens.
So what's the point he wants to make with this engineering "feat"? That laws of optics always apply and scaling down camera size is a myth? Or that DSLRs are still better ergonomically designed and made for big lenses .. but he won't admit that?
Or that overall imbalance of his design to comfortable handling .. is the new way to enjoy photography in the 21st century? Perhaps following the same route of thinking that the most simple and dumbest of cameras world has ever seen are also called "smart" (smartphone) in this 21st century?
Is there a problem with this 21st century or something?
However for all their browbeating and chest thumping these guys still upgrade and get the latest stuff for their work simply because it is better.
^^ Your statement was clearly pointing to that DSLRS are ALWAYS ergonomically better than mirrorless. I was pointing out that its not always so.
The DSLRs with tilting screen have extremely slow live view AF. Not something that I would use extensively in the field.
And yet these people use the best cameras and lenses ? Shocking isn't it that these guys don't extensively with cellphones.
People use the best tool for their needs. You will not see any Pentax or Sony sports shooters as their cameras aren't up to speed in the focus tracking department.
The best studio shooters will not even use DSLRs but MF cameras.
Even landscape and wedding guys will hardly use Pentax or other crop sensor cameras simply because FF cameras outperform crop cameras. People are however using mirrorless cameras for landscapes due to their lower price points for full frame.
For wildlife shooters many perfer crop cameras due to their better reach.
Zvonimir Tosic: Nice to know Fuji did not dare to compare Total_size-vs-Performance quotient of their cameras with Pentax K-3 armed with, say, 6 DA Limiteds.
But instead with 7DII which has .. ~8 years old sensor tech and no lenses that can compare with Fuji's or Pentax APS-C optimised primes.
^^ Agreed with you thoroughly. Most of these Pentax limited lenses are pretty old designs and they are pretty slow for prime lenses. The Fuji 18-50mm f2.8-4 overlaps a lot of these primes and I seriously doubt anyone will be able to tell much difference in the images.
Add a Fuji 35mm f1.4 and 23mm f1.4 and Pentax has nothing in its old aging lens line up to match the new Fuji offerings.
@ZoranHR - Your statements are full of conjecture. I find DSLRs to big and bulky to use for long periods of time. And yes I like more electronic features like an EVF and the option to compose with a tilting LCD while still having fast AF.
JUst because mirrorless cameras don't suit your shooting needs doesn't mean everyone thinks the same way.
If you are happy with the a larger DSLR thats fine and I wish you well. When I used to use DSLRs extensively I appreciated the bulk till I moved to mirrorless. I realized my hands used to pain quite a bit after a long shoot. I still use DSLR lenses mind you but I find using a lighter body preferable to using a big bulky DSLR like a 5D mk 3.
But if you think everybody loves the size and bulk of a DSLR over a mirrorless camera then you are free to do so obviously. But please don't be surprised to see DSLR sales keep on diminishing year after year while mirrorless sales show a tremendously upwards growth.
Pentax is too small a player to really matter to anyone. He will obviously benchmark himself with the market leader and that is Canon. Canon may not offer the best sensors but the rest of their stuff is good - AF speed, tracking, accuracy, fps, lens line up, support etc etc.
So they will target where their potential customers lie. They are far more likely to get people jumping from Canon or Nikon to Fuji than getting a Pentax or a Sony guy to jump since Pentax has a good amount of small primes and Sony has their own mirrorless system which includes a full frame option.
First off thats a single lens thats big. They have many excellent primes like the 35mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 14mm f2.8 etc etc that are superb lenses and are very small to boot.
So for a large part you are getting a smaller system yes but a few lenses are no smaller than a DSLR. That is also true.
So if all you need is a 16-50mm f2.8 and a 50-150mm f2.8 zooms then you may be better served going for a DSLR.
However if you love fast primes along with the superb high ISO performance of the Fuji Trans sensors then this is a very good system to get into.
DStudio: Looking at the samples, looks like a great 15mm lens!
Now, since it's going to be shot at 15mm most of the time, can anyone please remind me why we need the zoom?
^^ You are referring to 16mm on crop. Not the same thing on FF.
On full frame most zooms start at 24mm or 28mm.
babart: So why can't they make a f/4 model too, so everyone can afford one?
Yeah there are hardly any good affordable UWA lenses for FF.
The Tokina 17-35mm is pretty well priced but it uses #%#%^ 82mm filters.
Not everyone needs the widest setting all the time. I have used my Sigma 10-20mm often at 20mm also when I didn't need the extreme angle of view. Zooming is far easier than simply changing the lens to take a shot.
Boss of Sony: Does this camera have anything over Sony a6000 apart from IBIS?
^^ Their A7 now sells for $1200 and anyone calling them second rate hasn't used them enough. I am using one for the past 2 months and my initial appreciation for the build quality has only grown.
Now I am no Sony fanboi. I loved the Olympus OMD EM5 that my friend uses but I liked my A7 even more for the better IQ and I most certainly didn't find the OMD to have any superior build quality and neither did my friend using the OMD.
Alexsfo: Micro Four Thirds is an impressive system. It is ok to have more choices even if it's not priority FLs at the moemnt. m43 is truly the only alternative to Canon and Nikon. All resources now need to be allocated to refining AF with on-sensor PDAF. It can be done, Nikon did it. We need PDAF for both both stills and video. Even if it's just a single center point, it'll do. It is the last remaining gap between m43 and dslr, everything else is way better already (EVF is MUCH more useful than any OVF, get used to it. OVFs are for film, EVFs are for digital).
There is no lag with a DSLR. There is a minor blackout but any sports photographer will tell you they will anyday prefer an OVF over an EVF for sports.
Does this 240 fps viewfinder still show a slideshow when shooting ? If yes then the OVF wins again.
mpgxsvcd: Wow that looks like a stunner. However, I can't help but think that a Panasonic GH4 in capable hands with the right lenses could probably come close to matching it.
$28,000 to spend on lenses goes a really long way towards making the playing field even for the GH4.
In photography and videography its not difficult to get good quality without breaking the bank. However like Medium format to Full frame the difference between good/very good to excellent is far more expensive than it is from mediocre to good.
So too for this camera. A GH4 will come decently close but for that extra 10-15% quality you will need to pay through your nose.
Agree with you on all the points except the last one. I use EVFs and while I personally love them many do not. There is always some micro lag when using EVFs and for people used to the lag free OVFs that can be very disconcerting.
Plus for tracking moving subjects an EVF is not nearly as useful than OVFs due to the slide show effect at max FPS.
So while I would choose an EVF over OVF the vast majority will rather have an OVF.
Look the OMD is a fine camera and the lenses it takes is more pocketable than what Sony uses. My friend uses the older EM5 and I was impressed with the handling, build quality and general IQ from the sensor.
However we both agree IQ wise the OMD is not in the same league as my old Sony A55 which has a light blocking SLT mirror. The OMD bottoms out quickly in tricky lighting situations and he uses it mainly for the 100-300mm lens which gives him plenty of reach.
Other than that he finds his Fuji XE-2 far superior in the IQ department and the OMD is ONLY for reach where the Fuji options are very expensive.
Anyone saying it matches good APS-C sensors are correct for only general photography. Anything more demanding and the smaller sensor reaches its limits pretty quickly.
yatbond: Folks. Ok, your ff and apsc are amazing cameras. This is also an amazing camera, which I own together with many great lens. All can produce amazing photos. Choose your priorities and choose your camera. For me, mobility is key. I need relatively small camera bodies and small lens together with great ergonomics.
This is the only format that actually fits all my requirements. And I also shoot FF when I don't have to take care of my kid.
+1 Agreed. Visited your website. Lovely photos ! :)
nikonson: Rich man's lens: FE 90mm/F2.8 = $1,500Poor man's lens 1: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.7 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4Poor man's lens 2: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.4 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4
If you are referring to the Sony Alpha 85mm f2.8 SAM lens then yes its a full frame lens based on the CZ Sonar 85mm f2.8 design.
A very sharp lens for low price but also has a crap plastic body.
ChicagoInPhotographs: Leica M mount sized lens with autofocus was what I was hoping to see. These lens are too big IMHO.
If you see their large APS-C lenses it was a strong inkling that their FF lenses were going to be huge !
photofisher: Looking at this big glass, I'm glad I went m43. Not the absolute best in IQ but perfect size. The cost and size are probably worth it for pros but not for me.
Different needs. I also want something small and compact and my A7 just in't as compact as I would have liked.
However after using a 35mm camera I simply can't go back to using half and quarter frame sensor cameras.
For people who just need compact cameras with good to decent IQ m43 is a very good compromise. A couple of friends use them and I love how compact they are.
But for those that need 35mm performance there is no substitute and I have resigned to the fact that ill never have a really compact system if I need AF. But the 35mm IQ makes me very happy with my choice.
Arn: The 35/1.4 looks tempting. Any info on the weight? 24-240 is interesting for a walkaround lens if performance is decent. I fear the macro may be overpriced. I'm hoping to see Tamron produce EF lenses in the future, like an SP 90mm macro.
^^ Impossible. To make a lens for such a small flange distance requires a completely redesigned lens from a DSLR lens.
@Arn - If you don't care for AF since you are looking for a macro lens you can get a Canon adapter and use the Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS lens or a Tamron 90mm.