nfarrar: I just don't agree with the general premise. All things being equal a bigger sensor makes better images. Generally speaking better dynamic range, more vibrant color and better bokeh. Its more about physics. As an investment FF lenses are gold. I agree that APS-C lenses can be a little bit smaller and lighters. I own the Samsung NX 16-50mm and 50-150mm S Lenses. They are smaller and lighter than Nikon G equivalents. That being said I'm locked. I was willing to make that deal for the features of the NX1 but if I was going to Nikon/Canon the equation changes in in favor of FF. With Sony E/FE it's a different altogether.
> All things being equal [...]
Stop right there. In real life, the things are never equal.
> As an investment FF lenses are gold.
Unless in 2015, as expected, CaNikon would launch FF mirrorless systems. Which require new lenses (with step motors for AF). Then the "golden" lenses would join the vast ranks of the legacy glass which doesn't really work well on new bodies, can be bough S/H very cheaply, because most users started migrating to the new lens systems.
CameraLabTester: The moment a photography enthusiast removes the concept of "upgrade" in his/her mind... the more enjoyable that photography enthusiast and hobbyist's picture taking would be.
Upgrade spreads the curse of inadequacy, a useful tool of marketing.
> Settling down with "good enough" is what makes people stagnate and stop growing their skills.
Hu? Settling on "good enough" gear is precisely what helps people to grow their skills! Because otherwise they spend more time learning their new shiny gear than actually applying their skills to it.
Even more, settling on "not good enough" gear helps even better with the skill development. Because, without the help of the camera, you have to use the skills more often.
> I'd argue the 'upgrade path' to full frame is a myth.
"Arguing" with a belief is akin fighting the windmills. You might win in the end, but you will not make many friends.
IMO the whole notion of the "upgrade path" is wrong and assumes slow development and limited choices. Like it was in the film era. Yet now we have more choices than ever - and development is still in a high gear.
Things we crave for today, tomorrow are often simply forgotten. Because tomorrow there would be more different things to crave for.
How low Canon has fallen - not a single entry! /s
As not affiliated with any religion: Happy whatever! Get drunk! Get more drunk!! Buy new camera while drunk! Drink more! While wasted, buy the lens you always wanted! And finally: be happy!!
Zol Straub: Watch out for the Grinch ... I'm sure I saw him lurking in the forums.
"Watch out for the Grinch ... I'm sure I saw him lurking in the forums."
It must be the Pentax. Only they make green (and weird) cameras.
PowerG9atBlackForest: "...whatever you say in your part of the world..."
We say "Frohe Weihnachten und ein gutes Neues Jahr!"
You have tested the Sammy NX1 with the 16-50mm zoom?
... and I have complained that you test the m43 cameras with the plastic fantastic 45mm...
So you basically pick THE best lenses for some systems (Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony) and the rest is just "whatever"?
Still not a single Foveon based camera.
How about adding one of the prev-gen Merrills?
They have the uncompromised Foveon sensor, without the high ISO tricks of the later models.
I know you like the Phase One as the reference. But to me it has simply way too high resolution and is still Bayer-sensor based and not free from the (potential) demosaicing artifacts. With images from Phase One, it is hard to see the forest for the trees...
ThePhilips: Considering the cons, hardly a gold medal material.
Or other FF cameras are even worse in the aspects?
That escalated pretty quickly.
... and all I asked was whether the mid-level FF cameras are still handicapped as before.
Considering the cons, hardly a gold medal material.
h2k: Personally i like write-ups much more than videos. I can't concentrate on videos.
DPR had the real-world write-ups about the Pentax MF camera and one of them was good.
I kind of understand your sentiment.
I personally prefer an article with several short videos.
Single long videos is a hurdle. (Most annoyingly: I'm not always at leisure to turn the sound on and/or no head-phones at hand.
ThePhilips: I understand position of the DPR and yet....
The list makes no sense, because the best entry-level mirrorless camera is a discounted 1yo mid-/top-level model.
I think you have missed my point. I'm in no way contending the winner of the roundup.
The list makes no sense, because it tries to include only the "new" cameras, and judging the class of the camera based only on the MSRP.
A round-up based on the average street price would have made much much more sense, because it would have expanded to include much more cameras, of much better price/performance ratio, yet available the low prices.
I understand position of the DPR and yet....
Mike Dobbs: umm, how does glass corrode exactly?
Sensor warms-up and cools-offs. Impurities in the glass expand and contract. The impurities start small, but with the time, they "carve" a hole in the glass which might become large enough to be visible.
ThePhilips: I have expected to see the Sony A99 as one of the picks on the last page. But otherwise, pretty unsurprising conclusions.
The most interesting bit for me is the explosion of the number of the FF cameras. I wish the manufacturers were as eager to bring their lens catalogs into the 21st century: some small and pancakes primes and zooms would have done much good to really expand the choices.
If you ask me, even a f/7 pancake prime is better than no pancake prime at all. But I can easily imagine a f/5.6 or f/4.0 (software-corrected) pancake to be quite popular.
IMO if FF wouldn't become more versatile, then it is destined to slowly bleed to death in a niche. What is the point of a small FF body, if there is no small FF lens to put on it?
I have no illusion that FF pancake can be as small as a m43 pancake.
But even if one dumbly scales up the m43 pancakes (multiply the dimension by 2) the size is still much smaller than the FF lenses.
The ironic thing is, producing a FF pancake should be much simpler than a m43 pancake, since the mechanics doesn't have to be as miniature.
Imagine an analogue to Pana/Oly 14-42 or Pana 12-32 pancake zooms. Or the pancake primes like 28mm or 35/40mm. Typical length of 2.5cm (1") in m43 terms, means 5cm (2") in FF terms. A 5cm thick (kit) zoom lens for FF? Would have been pretty exciting.
Compromise isn't that huge. The m43 system is the evidence of that. (And FF has even more headroom to compensate for the software corrections.) First.
Second, a FF sensor with high MP count might be interesting for lots of other practical reasons, not only that ephemeral optical perfection, which magically vanishes just after release of a new body or lens.
Fazal Majid: Missing the Leica M-E and M typ 240. That said, I am puzzled by the recommendation for the A7, given it has been thoroughly obsoleted by the A7II.
Leicas are high-end only in the "luxury" sense of the word.
StephenL: When will people realise there is no such thing as full frame? m4/3 is full frame to an Olympus user. Yet to a Pentax 645 owner, a Canon 5D sensor is tiny.
> Without being too pedantic [...]
I wish the same "not pedantic" worked for the 35mm FOV equivalence.
Every time somebody mentions "24-70mm eq lens" everybody's up in arms explaining that "how dare you!" and "it's not equivalent!!"