TheBaldEagle: All future Nikon high end (>$1200 on and Full frame) cameras should have 4K@30p or better Video feature at least for output for external recorders in order to Compete well with Panasonic 4K and other 4K cameras. 4K & 8K are the future for the next Ten years. When people invest in expensive cameras which should last several years before getting obsolete! That is the reality!
Sounds like another blanket statement that shouldn't be made. The draw for enthusiast and competent videographers to 4k today has more to do with the quality of the HD down-sampled output compared to shooting in HD from the start.
As far as other formats your friends in videography are shooting, that depends on WHAT they're filming and who the target audience is. If you're suggesting there's no tangible difference between low-fps and HD/4k then you're not looking at video on a modern-day monitor. Otherwise, quality differences are noticeable to those who know.
Having said that, are 4k/HD resolution REQUIRED for someone shooting video of their dog in the park to be shown on YouTube? Probably not, but then again the consumer looking to be able to do that is more likely filming with his smartphone anyway and not someone seeking cinematic quality output.
mpgxsvcd: This is a great camera for someone who doesn't know what a great camera is.
@ oselimg: Perfectly stated.
Scottelly: Thank you DPreview! I was amazed to see that the V3 has superior resolution to the Nikon D7100 in the corners of the image, especially as the center of the V3 image shows there is not as much resolving power as the D7100. It looks like the V3 lens produces better resolution in the corners than the lens that was used on the D7100, which indicates to me that it is not so much the camera's limitations as the lens limitations. I was very surprised to see how good the images from this little 18 MP camera seem to be. Now I KNOW I want a V3.
I think anyone who likes the model should be entitled to say so. May not be your cup if tea, but to tell someone else what they should buy instead is a bit arrogant.
AlexRuiz: Gotta love the whiners.
- But my [ insert brand here] did not get as good of a score- But the [ insert model here] has not been reviewed and came out first- But I read that [insert internet myth here ] so the rating should be lower
Some of you obviously have DPR as the one, only, and final review site for cameras like the K3. When DPR doesn't produce what you want, when you want it, for FREE mind you, then you open a browser and Google for reviews of your fav make and model. I actually think some of you guys make your decision to buy based entirely on third party reviews without ever experiencing this equipment first-hand and making your OWN decisions. Act like MEN instead of sheep.
robertbrockmann: Very nice and comprehensive review. However, I wonder if in video camera reviews there is a section that says "it does / does not take very good stills". Save for a very few pro DSLR cameras that do yield astounding video results, if you want to make videos, buy a camcorder. Speaking strictly for myself, Fuji could completely kill the video option.
I think if most on here were really honest with themselves they'd realize they EITHER shoot MOSTLY stills or video, not both equally. Those that TRULY need the best of both in ONE body will invariably use something else.
And let's not forget....the reason video is so good in Sony and Panasonic and Canon is because those companies excel in camcorders. It's not a mystery.
caver3d: Same overall score as the Olympus E-M1. Really can't go wrong with either camera. And then there is the Panasonic GH3/4. Mirrorless is coming of age and finally putting the heat on dSLRs.
SaltLakeGuy: At a time when you virtually can't buy a "Bad" camera the X-T1 brings some interesting character to the table. Like so many things intrinsic to particular brands, the Fuji's sensor does in fact imbue a unique character to it's files. You either fall in love with it (as I have) or you dismiss it for some other beloved feature set of another manufacturer. As a complete package the X-T1 does a fine job of being a effective photographic tool whether you're a seasoned professional or a budding serious enthusiast. It's strengths are undeniable. It's quirks are there as they are with virtually ANY manufacturer. Once past those however one is certainly capable of finding the X-T1 a very highly satisfying camera system.
This post wins for being the most mature and insightful, period.
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: Nice overall but about 120% over saturation in colours and contrast.
Would have to tweak the settings to get something more natural and realistic.
Also, the white balance is off in some pictures, too much blue.
Although in the same category than the EM1, the colours don't even come close.
It's really not for the point-and-shoot photographer JeanPierre. Sorry.
Zvonimir Tosic: Wow, totally surprised: X-T1 review comes out in about 2 months. And with no long lashing and reminding needed because of the once made, but hardly to be fulfilled promise.It seems DPR can do anything if they really like it, and makes them enough dough.
I say the complainers have either neglected to read the MYRIAD reviews already done by dozens upon dozens of other users and want to thrash DPR for not doing something on their timetable are welcome to start their OWN photo equipment review websites.
Kurt_K: I keep reading about how great IQ is on this and other Fuji bodies, but I'm just not seeing it in the samples I've looked at. To my eyes it appears that Fuji is applying too much NR to its raw files, which I think is the reason for the watercolor look some people have already complained about. And given the fact that there isn't a DXO-style test for x-trans sensor performance, I think it's going to be hard for anyone to prove that Fuji isn't cooking their raws. I personally don't own any of the new trendy cameras, so it's not like I have a dog in this fight. I'm just calling it as I see it.
Maybe you guys ought to rent one and actually shoot with it instead of gawking at online samples and making scientific analysis based on that.
J2Gphoto: "A high-end camera is nothing without optics to match, and while the X-system is little more than 2 years old, the lens line-up is starting to look distinctly mature."
Personally the lens line up and the price of their lenses are what are steering me toward going with the E-M1. Also does anyone else think the white balance is way off on the E-M1 sample images? I've used the E-M1 and have never seen whites look so yellow.
The fuji lenses and the lineup as a whole is terrific. The ones who complain about it the most don't actually know what the total lineup is, and/or don't use the system.
If you want Olympus go Olympus, but it isn't for a lack of lenses in the fuji line.
davids8560: So many exciting innovations from what some might label lesser stars, yet the two most prominent camps retain the most widespread allegiance.
Has a lot to do with cost. Consumers can buy DSLRs with a kit lens for a fraction of the cost of high-end mirrorless, and be thrilled with the results. They represent the bulk of the market outside of cell phone shooters.
peevee1: Nikon 58/1.4 just lost all its market.
@ peeveeThe nikon 58mm isn't exactly "junk", it's just that nikon didn't properly define the best application for this lens. It was never intended to be an all-purpose 50 for the masses. It is one of those super-niche things that only wedding and certain portrait photographers can appreciate. It has a distinct character brought about by its shortcomings, which were intentionally designed into the lens.
ProfHankD: It's good to see there are now a few fast 50s (this, Otus, and the Zeiss Sony FE) that, at least by some metrics (especially MTF50), do better than the best of the old manual-focus fast 50s. However, they don't win on every metric against some of the old fast 50s that I've bought for under $50. Fast 50s were bundled with nearly every manual-focus SLR, and their well-tuned designs are simple enough to work well without aspherics and modern coatings.
In sum, it is good to see optical design of fast 50s finally advancing, and I'm sure these new lenses will sell well, but personally I spend money on new lenses only when there aren't much cheaper old competitors. For example, I bought a Sigma 8-16mm new a few years ago.... Yes, I'm one of those focus-peaking mirrorless camera users. :-)
"Poking the shutter button when on a tripod..."SERIOUSLY?????
Maybe you should read up on the proper use of a tripod, and the application of things like shutter release cords, timers, and mirror lockup before posting stuff like this.
Reactive: What a great shame that Sigma are getting so greedy, just like Canon.
@ reactiveWith your line of thought the same can be said of any super-wide, macro, or telephoto prime. Doesn't make it any less than it is just because you're dumpster diving for cheap glass.
mpgxsvcd: A lens is only as sharp as the camera it is used with. I am guessing they didn't use a Canon camera for the test.
DStudio: After looking at the various links here to sample photos, I can see the Sigma isn't the equal of the Zeiss OTUS. The Zeiss produces more 3D images, more colorful images, more beautiful images.
Also, as is common, this Sigma isn't as sharp wide-open as the lens it claims to replace.
This is one of Sigma's best efforts yet, but it still plays second fiddle.
Dstudio wins for dumbest comment yet.
Debankur Mukherjee: This lens seems to be better then the Nikon G type but cannot match the Zeiss Otus but the Zeiss is deadly expensive.........
@ shamael:While you may not like the 50mm focal length, it is NOT an uncommon length whatsoever. You need to study up on just how many more 50mm lenses have been sold compared to other focal lengths ... The consumer decides the product line not the manufacturers. How many more zooms are sold than primes? How many more 50s are sold compared to 24s, 85s, 105s, and 135s? Why is the 35mm f1.8 prime for nikon APS-C so wildly popular?
Kodachrome200: Im actually surprised that its more expensive than the 35mm 1.4. Traditionally that would be a more expensive lens
First off, this is NOT a "nifty fifty". Sigma INTENTIONALLY set out with this lens to compete performance-wise against the Zeiss Otus, NOT the Canikons. It's important to make that distinction, because Sigma already has a fine 50mm prime in the same target market as the Canikons.
As such, this new 50mm isn't going head-to-head with the 35mm prime either. While the 35mm is an excellent piece of work it has fairly high CA, more distortion and really falls more into the mildly wide-angle niche and isn't what a portrait photographer would likely choose for a shorter length. The 50mm is also optically far more complex than Sigmas previous 35.
Point is, this lens is still priced VERY well compared to the top offerings from Canikon and has AF which Zeiss does not. Those who can't afford it DONT need it....another 50 stopped down a bit will do the likes of onemoreguy just fine.
For those that haven't read the SLRGear review of the new Sigma, go check it out.
Earthlight: Sigma is on a roll. 24 mm f1.4 next please. Or make it a fast 20 mm... drool...
Agreed. A 24 and 85 in the Art Series from Sigma would be phenomenal.