The Davinator: Best sports camera just got better.
What he means is that there is more to a camera than just a sensor. Just like there is more to a car than just the engine.
My Sony A7 II gives me better results and IQ than the 5d mk3 that I borrow. But the Mk3 is just a complete and total package. Its so responsive and what it does it does great.
The A7 II as much as I love it does have a few quirks and issues that you have to live with and because of that its not a camera that I can readily recommend inspite of having a better sensor.
Battersea: I hope Canon starts shopping there.
@vscd - I am no fanboi. If required I shoot with Canon cameras, I personally use Sony cameras and I have shot extensively with Nikon cameras too.
And yes I run into issues with Canon sensors quite often. Even Canon users who use my cameras admit the sensors are better.
They don't shift because Canon has a superb lens line up. No question or doubt about that and neither is the sensors so bad or anything.
Its just that you need to use something better to appreciate it and since I have used better sensors I know the drawback of Canon sensors.
^^ Really you assume that by the complete lack of shared photos on his gallery or no of challenges entered ? :P
Not saying he isn't a good photographer who takes a lot of good photos but there isn't any evidence to support that.
I may not be any great photographer but I have taken over 10000 photos and with my old A700 I had to do a lot of bracketing, used GND filters and what not for my landscapes.
Now with my A7 I found I don't need those techniques that much anymore. Thats what a good DR can give you.
Even in weddings that I shoot I find that clipped highlights from a 5d mk 3 have very low recovery. Even my old A55 was much better in this regard.
Now please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying this is a deal breaking problem for Canon. I still enjoy very much shooting on a 5d mk3 BUT to say that is a textbook problem and not observed in real life means you are either a hardcore Canon fanboi or you haven't used a better sensor and so have no clue what you are talking about.
^^ Whats Sony got to do with it ? The Toshiba & Aptina sensors compete well with Sony and even Nikon original sensors like the 16 MP 35mm sensor used in the D4 and Nikon DF are all better in DR.
Canon is the only sensor manufacturer other than Sigma lagging behind in DR. Sony, Nikon, Aptina, Toshiba are all ahead in the race.
@vscd - Last I checked most people aren't pros and most people shoot between ISO 100 - 400mm and rarely reach ISO 800.
In fact a cursory glance at the top 3 winners of the challenges were majorly shot at ISO 100 - 200 and a few at ISO 400.
And the DR differences between Nikon and Canon sensors > ISO 800 are negligible compared to DR differences between the two at ISO 100.
Now I would agree with you if the Canon sensor had some super duper high ISO performance but even there its no better than Nikon. I use a 5D mark III extensively in my work and I find its sensor worse than my Sony A7 in almost every aspect including high ISO performance.
I have many photos ruined by less than perfect exposure which happens often in a fast paced shoot.
The only thing I love about the Mk3 is the build quality and AF but you can easily get that with a Nikon too.
@vscd - Why defend mediocrity ? Their sensors don't perform in terms of DR and if they can't compete they should look elsewhere maybe in at least a few models. There are work arounds for most drawbacks on cameras but if you are paying with your hard earned money why not demand the best ?
From all accounts Canon is using a Sony sensor in its G7x. They clearly admitted that the sensor was not developed in house.
So if they could do that for one model why not on more models ?
Lapkonium: Meh, another subpar chinese fiddly toy.
^^ I take it you have used it extensively and come up with the conclusion ?
brendon1000: I am just wondering if its worth getting this heavy lens when a Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f1.4 should be about all that is required at a cheaper price.
The Rokinon has a beautiful rendering and I got rid of it purely because i had a hard time focusing at f1.4 on moving subjects. Manually focusing with a f1.2 lens ins't going to be any easier. :P
^^ Then why buy it in the first place ? Sigma has a pretty good 85mm f1.4 lens that autofocuses and is a pretty good lens too.
And you get a good amount of used 85mm f1.4 lenses for around the same price as this pure MF lens.
Now the Rokinon 85mm f1.4 has no real competition since at its price you have to make do with the f1.8 versions which don't have as nice a rendering IMO and you need to double or tripple your budget to get an AF 85mm f1.4 lens.
I am just wondering if its worth getting this heavy lens when a Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f1.4 should be about all that is required at a cheaper price.
sentro: The 15-400 looks sweet....I wonder how much that will be?
Seems to be a killer wildlife lens. Should pair well with a K-3.
Zoron: Time to come up with a new body and new organs.
You, me and a lot of serious shooters are fine with 16 MP files. But a lot of buyers are first timers and they compare features. Ok this camera is 16 MP and costs $1299 ?? No thanks ill pass. MP is a marketing tactic but it helps sales especially for non professional cameras like Fuji, Samsung and Sony.
People who buy $3k+ bodies are generally the ones who know what they want.
Crotach: Jesus, at this price who would want to buy it? You can get full frame for less!
IQ wise I have extensively used different cameras and while most are great at low ISO at high ISO 35mm sensors still have an advantage especially if you push the files a bit when you process.
Look I am not disagreeing that it isn't a good camera but I don't see much use for it right now. People who want quality will buy 35mm sensor cameras regardless of how good APS-C is, a bigger sensor has other advantages.
People who are serious about video will spend more to get an A7s or even a Panasonic GH4 with better codec support. The Samsung video codec will appeal only to casual video shooters.
And yes 15 fps IS impressive but people who need tracking (mostly birders and wildlife shooters) have no wildlife lenses to use. The Samsung 300mm lens should help but that is sure to be very expensive. A 100-400mm/150-600mm type lens is sorely lacking.
^^ Honestly it cannot hurt to ask for more. 16 MP is dated by most standards. If Fuji doesn't add a more MP sensor its sales WILL reduce. A few passionate users who are happy with 16 MP are not going to help it compete with Canon or Nikon.
They already beat the competition in terms of quality lenses but when Samsung is offering 28 MP and the Sony A7r is offering 36 MP in sub $2k people are going to overlook a 16 MP camera no matter how good it is.
Aur: Fujifilm makes some of the best low to medium budget wide angle lenses right now imo, they have far less distortion than canon / nikon equivalents.
Saw some pictures of this lens, again, super controlled low amounts of distortion, just like their excellent 14mm f/2.8. Probably one of the best wide angle lenses I have seen for architecture.
Canon and especially Nikon doesn't seem to give a damn if wide angle crop lenses make architecture look totally deformed.
They don't even get their 35mm lenses right, let alone super wides. The amount of distortion on that Nikon 35mm 1.8G is a disgrace of epic proportions.
Fujifilm makes far better small size lenses.
I have been reading a bit more on this and it seems you may be correct. I don't see this in my work as my 16mm lens on crop gives a lot of noticeable perspective distortion while my 24mm lens on 35mm doesn't give me as much. It could be down to lens characteristics though as my Sigma 10-20mm gives some insane perspective distortion which is missing in my Tokina 17mm on 35mm.
lambert4: I am so glad Fuji gets it, make weather sealed lens to match bodies.The Micro four thirds assortment still has only one weather sealed prime, the 60mm Macro. One of these days we will get a few to go with the zooms?
Agreed. So many brands have weather sealed bodies but no weather sealed lenses which kinda defeats the purpose.
One is a 16mm lens and the other is a 24mm lens. Of course the 16mm will have more perspective distortion than a 24mm lens especially at close up distances.
Yes but you will get far more perspective distortion from this lens than a 24mm f1.4 on a 35mm sensor.
And honestly neither the Canon 24mm f1.4 or the Nikon 24mm f1.4 have any really objectionable distortion characteristics.
Of course if you compare to the Sony 16-50mm distortion at 16mm then of course the Sony beats the pants of the Fuji or probably any lens out there for max distortion. :P
Full frame prices are dropping due to age and in general prices do drop. However cameras like the Canon 5ds are still selling at much higher price points.
NX1 sales are generally minuscule to be taken seriously by anyone.
Its a good camera overall but its not the best at anything really.
The A7s has better video, almost any semi pro DSLR will offer much better tracking and AF, IQwise any FF camera will beat it and even the latest Nikon.
Of course no one camera can do everything it can but Samsung is still a niche player.
tinetz: To be truly honest, impressive package. And still there is this feeling stuck in my head that makes it hard to consider photographing gear from electronics companies - same as Samsung still applies to Sony - as best suited for my photography. It's not rational, but...
@Serious Sam - If you don't need IBIS or video. Other than that the A7 is about the same as the II version.
The II version LCD display is better but the A7 display is already very good.
^^ BTW the A7 II also has a fully customizable function button which allows you to chage the settings quickly.
I have used Sony cameras all my life and the A7 II takes a little time to get used to but once you do its a very intuitive and feature rich camera. There are plenty of customizable buttons to tune the shooting to your needs.
Agree with you on the dials though. They suck. Especially compared to the A7. Don't know why Sony went and changed those.