Limited to those Pros "who are using digital cameras of at least 16 Megapixels". How utterly pathetic. So they want images from my 18Mp 7D not my superior 12.9Mp 5D! So nothing from my X100 or any previous camera let alone SD14 or Fuji S2 pro
Any fixed lens system over 200mm that doesn't include an EVF is pretty unusable.
They are so afraid to 'contaminate' their DSLR range that they are unable to produce a decent mirrorless camera. With a quality EVF this would have outgunned both Panasonic and Sony in the high end bridge segment. As it is they land a product in no mans land again. Pity. I would have considered this as a good partner to my Canon 5D.
Dougbm_2: DP Review you say "The D750 has a lockable mode dial". Does that mean it is optional to lock it or compulsory?
Crap. It's like a 60D. Why don't they, make it so you press down to lock and it stays locked and press again to unlock and it stays unlocked. This is flawed industrial design. I am regularly switching between AV and M and even custom modes even shot to shot. This lock button is just a nuisance.
Hold my beer - I got this: 760D vs 70D vs A77 ii vs GH4 vs (Feel free to throw in whatever)
for a new guy who is about to build his arsenal and is aiming to shoot video - shortfilms
@ThatCamFan see this :http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_slta77ii&products=canon_eos7dii&products=nikon_d7100&products=canon_eos70d&products=pentax_k3&sortDir=ascending
A77ii is cop sensor not FF.
DP Review you say "The D750 has a lockable mode dial". Does that mean it is optional to lock it or compulsory?
Mirko123: This looks like a great lens. Well done Fuji!While Nikon and Canon are stilling on their hands producing the same old, out dated rubbish and expecting us to buy.
@Mirko123. Well there's the stm range - 40mm, 10-18mm, 18-135mm, etc and 15-85mm plus 70-200L mm lenses and the primes - 300mm, 400mm etc and the more budget range - 18-55mm. 55-250mm, 70-300mm, 50mm 1.8 etc etc etc Largest range of all manufacturers for APSC and FF.
indeed! (what they said).
No1 is totally delightful!10 is charming too.
Some cool images. Really like no 1 and 6.7 is mad!
No 11 isn't too bad … : )
WayneHuangPhoto: I'm seriously considering selling all my Canon lenses and my old 5D mkI to finance the purchase of a D750 and one really good super wide angle lens. What do you all think?
@WayneHuangPhoto.I am in the same position.D750 (best sensor/camera combo) plus Nikkor 14-24 (best ultra wide ever made) is unbeatable. Not cheap but if you really want the best. Some people even use the Nikkor 14-24 on Canon bodies via an adaptor it is that good. But Ken Rockwell say "This 14-24mm is a huge, expensive and special-purpose lens. For 99% of the people reading this, the newer 16-35mm f/4 VR is a much better lens because it is smaller, lighter, has a more useful zoom range, it's easier to use, takes filters and is slightly sharper, too."
I bought FF 5DMk1 as I wanted the best IQ (non med format) for landscapes.My Sigma SD14 was better but only under ideal conditions. ISO 200 was it.I still use my 5D – now for real estate photography where a clean image is essential and lifting shadows common. The 5D is way ahead of the 7D in IQ. (which I have had to use when the 5D went in for a service). I use the 17-40 on the 5D and 15-85 on the 7D for this. Both good lenses. I will at some point upgrade to something like a 6D in order to get even cleaner files. APS-C would have to come along way until I was satisfied it was equal to FF. Initially I used a 60D with a Sigma 8-16 lens but the files were too soft. The 5D Mk1 has more bite and micro detail/sharpness in it's images. You can't compensate in Photoshop for this. Still prefer 5D for landscapes although often use 7D or X100 for convenience.Compare my X100 images to 5D here: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/05/07/memories-of-new-zealand-and-julia-by-doug-barry-martin/
Yuvalm: Five significant factoids:
1. FF equipment is, especially FF glassware, is big, heavy, cumbersume and not at all noticably better in any optical sense, than that of APS-C
2. FF is practically meaningless with APS-C lenses, while APS-C camera is happy to work with both FF and APS-C lenses, which are lighter, smaller, shorter, and as good, optically.
3. Most people who convert to shoot from APS-C to FF, are left withtheir previous glassware gone to waste of to be sold for cheap.
4. The above 3 reasons clearly show why converting to shoot from FF to APS-C makes much more sense than converting to shoot from APS-C to FF.
4. Give it a few more years, and many, like myself, will get the gist of it.
5. The only people who get mad reading this are those who migrated from APS-C to FF, and now feel like fools to have done that.
OK. my response to your points
1. Yes. Doesn't bother everyone.2. FF lenses are often just the wrong focal length on APS-C due to the 1.5 (1.6) x factor eg a 24-105 is a very useful on a FF but a much less useful 35 -160 on APS-C. As good optically?? Can't compare any two lenses that are not the same focal lengths etc Silly statement. A 18-270mm Tamron is not a good as a Canon 300mm prime for instance. Generally with lenses you get what you pay for.3. True. But many like me keep an APS-C body anyway.4. Does it? It doesn't at all show the reason people move to FF. Which is superior IQ under challenging conditions and ability to get shallower dof with the same lens plus greater file malleability eg ability to recover highlights and lift shadows and and overall cleaner (less noisy image).4 b. ??5. Another unproven generalisation.
Factoids indeed! See Wikipedia.
friedduck: I kept expecting affordable full-frame when I sold my last APS-C camera and all my glass. I was sure it was around the corner, and pledged to jump back in when it arrived (thinking along the same lines as the author.)
i'm still waiting.
Aside from buying an RX-100 I haven't spent a dollar on photography in 5 years. There's a huge untapped market here. It looks like buying used is going to be my solution.
@next shot. Using?!!
Still prefer my original X100 images.
HUh? Canon just released the excellent and cheap 10-18mm EFS lens not to mention the range of new stm lenses now available. Oh yes the 200-400 with 1.4 x converter, the 100-400mkII etc
Mike FL: Adding OIS makes any given lens BIG, HEAVY, SLOW, EXPENSIVE.
Fuji say "NO", and shows you on this "XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR" comparing to Samsung "NX 16-50mm F2.0-2.8 S ED OIS" which is weather sealed too.
This Fuji lens has NO OIS, but BIG, HEAVY, SLOW, EXPENSIVE vs Samsung.
Fuji, update your Lens Road Map, to see what do you get for the next year.
I think Fuji have shown how good there lenses can be eg the 18-55. Samsung as good? Unlikely despite the extra desirable features.
BeaverTerror: Perplexed about the lack of OIS, given that the wide angle 10-24mm has it. There is now one less compelling reason to purchase this lens over the much faster primes.
There must be a good reason not to have OIS. Most likely weight and complexity. You don't really need it until you get past 50mm. My 18-35 Nikkor was without as is my X100 23mm (35mm FF equivalent). OIS is not so important on a modern camera with good High ISO performance. Remember the hue and cry about the X100 not having IS? No one comments anymore because it is not an issue. My 17-40 that I use on my 5D for real estate work has no IS. I often shoot at 1/40 sec and rarely have an issue (but I am pretty steady handed.)