So just to clarify - Barney, are you saying that the Q looks so much sharper in this test because it sharpens in-camera and bakes that into the raw files? If yes, does that effect the editing latitude of the RX1R II raw vs the Q?
DStudio: As long as every company doesn't flock to bison leather I think we'll be OK.
I believe they would herd to bison leather, rather than flock. You're welcome.
This is a lesson in master trolling from someone.
A built in EVF is pretty much a necessity these days ... these should have one.
PeaceKeeper: I see a picture of an X-T1 there... has he never used it? Several of the features he claims mirrorless lack are right there.
He even singled out Fuji for being able to turn off the back screen, but still wasn't happy that you needed to access a menu to do it. A menu to shut off the back screen? There's a dedicated button right next to the viewfinder.
Just an example... I noticed a few other manufacturers being overlooked for having solutions to his problems.
I think maybe he's viewed/reviewed a lot, liked a few, disliked others, and conveniently forgot all the features that exist on the ones he disliked. It seems very clear that he favors Leica, which by itself is fine. Sadly, he does a disservice to other cameras by failing to use them enough to give useful opinions.
What happens on an X-T1 when you have the LCD off and hit the play button to review images?
"and tendency to play favorites"
Viewr: Who cares what this guy thinks.
"and has truly immersed his heart into the philosophy behind the thing we all share an interest in"
Wait, he's a comedic troll too?
AshMills: Another "plethora" - this time totalling...three.
A plethora of plethoras.
Rooru S: Sony A99 LCD tilting-rotating screen is better. Why make something so complicated just to make it different?
"Shortly after we asked for a closer look Ricoh representatives removed this camera permanently from view and locked in a cupboard"
Ha. What a weird thing to do.
eyeswideshut: I don't quite see the point of this. With current prices for a Sony A7 used or new and a $10 adapter we can get far better results with our legacy lenses.
"if you love your legacy glass" ... use it any way that works for you.
Ha ha, anyone can make something quite simple sound complex. I have both, both have their uses.
Golly, sorry for using the shorthand "most", thought you'd understand that rangefinder glass has a really short flange length. There will be no M focal reducer.
"Who wants to shoot a 50mm Sonnar or Summicron with the equivalent angle of view of a 100mm lens all the time?"
Hmm, I'm not sure you read up on what focal reducers actually do.
"which in any case limits you to only one mount (Nikon or Canon in this case)."
Not at all. An EOS mount focal reducer allows you to mount M42, OM, Contax, Nikon, etc glass. It has a flange distance shorter than most other legacy mounts.
joe6pack: I think there is a mistake here. The focal reducer from Zhongyi usually have an advertised magnification factor of 0.726x, not 0.762x.
I have to wonder why the Nikon-F aperture ring support isn't applied to the E-mount adapter as well.
The electronic aperture control of E-mount is not relevant to manual lens use, and the Lens Turbo does not utilize it, so it's quite possible.
These were the hands needed for the Leica SL photos.
I'd say it's coming, when they release the new optics version for E-mount.
Great work, Colin.
Do the SuperRAWs have the same amount of latitude for highlight/shadow recovery, processing and sharpening as a normal RAW does?
meanwhile: Given that there's no replacement coming for the a6000 yet (apparently), I hope there's an update for it too.
I agree. There's very little it can't do well.
Given that there's no replacement coming for the a6000 yet (apparently), I hope there's an update for it too.