whyamihere: The most popular complaints appear to be:
"It's heavy and big!" I'm not sure what you were expecting out of a f/2.8 zoom made mostly of metal and glass. It's about the same size and weight as most other f/2.8 APS-C zooms out there.
"If I attach this lens to my Fuji camera, it's no longer the ultimate travel camera!" Unless you lost all of your other lenses, you can still mount them to your camera when you travel.
"It has no IS!" Most zooms of this type don't, either.
"But the Canon and Samsung lenses have IS!" Those lenses also have inconsistent optics. Which is more important to you: IQ or IS?
"It's overpriced!" Except it costs roughly the same as the competition.
I don't own Fuji gear, but, come on, these arguments are pretty weak.
whyamihere this lens has not been tested ANYWHERE. All your points on it being an excellent lens wide open is based on hearsay.
And no a Canon FF with 85mm f1.2 and Fuji with 56mm f1.2 ain't going to give you the same image. FF is a larger sensor and the image will look different not to mention the different rendering of the lens.
boarderphreak: Fuji just trounced Canikon and people bring on the hate. Amazing - and totally expected. :D
Well the USP of mirrorless was lightweight and compact. Otherwise why choose a system with limited number of lenses flahses and accessories over a full fledged DSLR system like Canon or Nikon.
This lens being as large as a DSLR lens negates the size advantage offered by mirrorless cameras.
Of course Fuji offers many other excellent lenses and I have no doubt this lens too will be excellent but its also big and expensive.
BozillaNZ: This is almost as big and as heavy as the Canon's FF 24-70mm 2.8 II (and no OIS too!), well done Fuji, you pushed your gear another step towards a full frame DSLR, in terms of size and weight!
A Canon FF DSLR has much more bulk. And there are other lenses too.
Its just another choice to consumers.
Rob Sims: One of the missing lenses for Sony e-mount... sigh.
(Disclaimer, I own the 16-70/4 and love it, but sometimes it'd be good to get a little more subject isolation from an F2.8)
I agree with you. But Sony doesn't seem to be interested in f4 lenses. One option is to move to an A7 type camera and get the 24-70mm f4 lens. You will get similar isolation than from the Fuji + 16-55mm combo
ttran88: So guys Sony A7 $1300 + Zeiss 24-70 $1200= $2500 or XT-1 $1200 + 16-55 $1200= $2400?
@tkblc - Of course the A7 will have less perspective distortion ! 55mm vs 70mm for portraits. FOV doesn't matter, focal length does !
Kurt_K: Overpriced, I would say, given the lack of stabilization.
Compare Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS with its siblings.
Compare Canon 16-35mm f4 IS with the 17-40.
Addition of IS doesn't have to compromise on the IQ.
And high ISO performance has many more trade off than noise for people who care about IQ to consider.
My Sony A7 lacks IS and at times I rue the missing IS. Will buy the new A7 II just for the IS as the other improvements are very minor.
Well the Fuji will be a bit smaller and lighter and have faster glass. Faster focusing too.
The A7 will have less perspective distortion and slightly better IQ and offer IS too.
Both are excellent choices. You can't really go wrong with either option.
Disclaimer : I use an A7 and love it !
Samuel Dilworth: The very enthusiastic reception for this camera surprises me.
To me it seems like just another fractional iteration of Nikon’s FX platform, largely put together from existing or tweaked technology modules. It does little or nothing to solve the big problems causing SLR sales to fall. (It doesn’t even have a built-in GPS receiver for geotagging.) Unless I’m missing something, it has nothing that might attract a new type of customer either. Even the design is a nondescript, black blob indistinguishable from any other Nikon SLR to a causal observer. It practically defines banality.
What is there to get excited about? The main innovation seems to be a novel, cost-cutting construction technique – not that you’d notice as a buyer, since a D750 sells for $800 more than the functionally similar D610 (itself overpriced).
Obviously it’s not for me, but I can appreciate many cameras that aren’t. This one defeats me. Maybe my expectations are out of whack.
Well TBH I too was very much taken away with this camera.
One look at the competition tells me why I am so happy.
The 6D is the closest competitor and that camera is woefully inadequate compared to the D750 primarily in AF and in other areas too like IQ, viewfinder, tilting LCD etc.
The only other real competition is mirrorless cameras and frankly unless you have an existing arsenal of lenses available or you are fine with MF, the D750 is a better buy at $2k.
Frank C.: dumbed down piece of photographic equipment for 2k$+... I don't think so! 1/8000 and 1/250 x-sync was around decades ago, srry today it's fuel injectors, not webers! LOL
^^ As long as Canon comes up with crap like the 6D with just 11 AF points and 1/180 shutter speed Nikon will have no real reason to offer 1/250 flash sync and 1/8000 shutter speed for their $2k price point FF DSLRs.
sandy b: Good articles here:
Bottom line? others do it too, perhaps not as, but the shots are still ruined.
Still a gold camera.
Just read the first article.
Here is what their conclusion was -
"I have already said it in my detailed Nikon D750 review and I will say it again: the D750 is an amazing camera. Whether some units have this particular issue or not will not matter for most people and most situations, so do not get overly concerned about it."
So it seems to be a minor almost non issue and the D750 justifies receiving a Gold award.
Then pay more $$$ and get the D810 or the 5d mk 3.
I for one don't care for those features so ill be happy to save some money off the above two mentioned cameras .
Coyote_Cody: And yes pg 13, a DR test shows better for D750, but how come I can not play with that scene the same way as pg 12, seems maybe a bit 'cooked' from a reader's perspective - you can play but I can't ?
So once again I say "yes for a poor exposure/photographer the Sony/Nikon sensors allow correction of DR better" but then why did you shoot so poorly ?
I for one, will expose for both the light and dark areas of a pic, its easy try it, its photography 101 !
I also admit I like 'human eye' pics, ie - NON HDR looking pics - shadows are what would you call them - oh yes SHADOWS - which unless I am wrong are DARK !
So yes, Sony/Nikon are better cameras for lousy photographers (at least at exposure) but then wasn't film even worse in so many ways ?
Not jealous of Sony/Nikon sensors, but sad that Canon can not/does not keep up (6 yrs ago class leaders, now Sony/Nikon sensors followers) - but then many of the world's most beautiful pictures are NOT from Sony/Nikon sensors are they ?
No but Ansel adams did use the best available large format cameras during his time.
Honestly for most work you can't tell the difference between Canon and Nikon/Sony sensors BUT for a genre like landscape photography where DR is almost always an issue a Nikon camera or Sony camera makes so much more sense.
For almost any other genre you don't really gain any significant benefit shooting Nikon or Sony.
Sounds like a sad case of sour grapes.
I have used 3 systems in my work and Sony and Nikon is much superior for landscape work.
For other work however Canon is pretty good and can keep up with Sony or Nikon.
However once highlights are clipped on Canon sensors there is generally little you can recover without screwing up the colors.
proudfather: Anyone know what the widest lens available is for this camera?
I shoot with the 16-35 mm on a Canon 5dmkiii for landscapes and would need something comparable for the MF Pentax.
The widest lens AFAIK is a 25mm f2.8 which translates into 19.5mm on FF.
Not as wide or as versatile but you do get MF quality.
Sdaniella: 2014 FF Systems:Low End vs High End for good 'LOW' LIGHT
Canon EOS 6D vs Nikon D750 vs Nikon D4s vs Sony A7S
ISO 51200: (=Max ISO for D750)
DPR Comparison Widget Subject: Left-Side (dimly lit): JPEGS (RAW = Always worse)
For me: the IQ of D750 is very close to 5DMkIII, but behind 6DAnd I would never consider D810, nor A7/R/S, nor fixed prime RX1R (35mm too long)If Sony made a RX1R with a fast fixed 24mm prime (maybe: if it had a vari-angle swivel screen)
Least of all D610:it's the only new FF amongst those in the 12 that lacks the Exposure Simulation LV that the rest have.
James you really cracked me up !!!! I feel the same way but you summed it up beautifully ! Well done ! :D
stern: DPR says in its introduction to this article: "What follows is our enthusiast-level DSLR roundup. The cameras included all sport APS-C sensors and pull some pro-level features from their more-established counterparts."Well, this might hold true for the big two, but certainly not for Pentax. The Pentax K3 is in no way artificially crippled like her Canikon-counterparts. The only major "pro-feature pulled" from the K3 are the extra pixels (54 Mio.) of the rather expensive medium-format 645. Anyone wonder why so-called "full frame" sensors are smaller than "medium format"? Canikon have NO offer beyond "full frame". Full stop.
@TadekH - At $1000 and $900 for either I would pass for using such expensive lenses on an APS-C only system.
I would rather get the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 and use it on a FF body if I was spending so much.
If size is a major concern then ill get a Fuji system. Smaller lenses and very good IQ.
Hi Stern. Comparing an old film camera to todays modern digital sensors is not correct. Its like comparing a V8 1970s Jaguar to a V6 Honda today.
Compare a modern APS-C camera to a modern FF camera and then come back and let me know your findings. I find FF cameras give me noticeably better output for my main business of weddings and also for shooting in the studio where the per pixel sharpness is amazing !
I don't like the perspective distortion caused by wide angle lenses on APS-C either. One more advantage of FF.
Sure medium format will be better but not for the type of shooting I do and it involves a very limited lens line up.
What great price are you referring to ? The Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART and 85mm f1.4 lenses cost about as much as a Pentax 31mm f1.8 and 77mm f1.8 which are slower and older optics.
This is just ONE example. You get a Nikon 85mm f1.8G and 35mm f1.8 lenses together for less than the price of the 77mm f1.8 alone.
And NO the upgrade path from APS-C is NOT medium format.
Medium format is a VERY restrictive system. No AF, very few lenses , prohibitively expensive etc etc.
Those who say APS-C is as good as FF are either kidding themselves or shoot at very small apertures anyways to diminish the advantages of FF.
However as an APS-C user who has started using FF I would never want to stick to using APS-C if I can afford FF.
True I don't like the size but ill probably get an A7 II which is smaller than most Pentax cameras but has a FF sensor.
deserthawk742: My Pentax K3 with the 3 classic limited lenses will easily beat all of the other cameras in this round up!
@BarnET - Thats a very sensible statement you made and I agree with you 100%. I don't need to shoot in rough weather but there are plenty of people out there who do wish to do that so for them the system works.
Everybody has different needs and requirements and there doesn't exist one system that does it all and will make everyone happy.
Exactly ! Pentax fanbois seem to think the world of their cameras and lenses while other systems are crap !
My friend used to think the same way and then he tried a Nikon system. Within 2 months he sold off all his Pentax gear and switched to Nikon.