schaki: Clearly not very impressed so far. The lens have somewhat rough out of focus rendering. Which can be seen in the picture with the red tractor and also the picture to the left of the dog-pictures.The default jpeg ouput looks somewhat flat and I get the impression that the default NR setting for jpeg not is off, as it the look seems to indicate. Also the trees doesnt look too well which probably is down to NR. At Fujifilm have not overcooked it with too much sharpening.Maybe better than standard settings could push the ooc jpeg output towards something better.But that oof rendering as mentioned before... Wont be easy to get away from that.
Both cameras are great
straylightrun: Juat get an old X-E2, upgrade to the new 4.0 fw and get a 18/2. Itll be cheaper, faster, you get an evf and its capable of changing lenses.
I did. I bought an x-e2 with 18-55 in almost new condition. The x70 is still nice though.
The camera's video is perfectly usable for most people who want a camera first and have the ability to get a decent video when needed. Besides, I don't think the aim of this camera was video, but it looks pretty good as an afterthought.
mxx: What happened to the a6100 and a6200?
They were going to release them, but since Canon kept releasing mirrorless turds, they didn't need to.
I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself.
fairfaxian: Anybody have enough Sony/Panasonic HANDS-ON experience to compare this to the Panny GH4? I was just about to pull the trigger on the GH4 as a 4K video cam w/SloMo (important features to me) As a Canon user, I have a collection of Canon glass -which I can adapt w metabones to either brand. Sony has a larger sensor, but the panny has an EVF, and a huge range of peripherals/accessories. Sony probably has better still IQ, and low light advantage. But I have never even held either cam in my hand (or any other sony for that matter) I love my Canon 7DII -but its a relative blunderbuss for size. And no 4K or SloMo video. Canon is typically slow to the feature wars, but I would tend to go with them if features were equal. Alas . . .
Times change and technology moves one. While the GH4 is still a fantastic camera and has more professional features, controls and options like anamorphic, time coding and no limit recording, the Sony wins on video quality, iso usability, and AF. People say AF is not a big deal for video and prefer to use manual focus, but for a solo run and gun style shot, the a6300 is probably a better choice. But who cares about all that. It's about getting the shots you want.
Technology changes fast. Videographers don't suffer as much from fanboyism and will use the most logical solution available. Sony may be the best option today on a budget, but Panasonic may be the best option tomorrow.
I would say wait until you can try it out before you buy.
Damn you Sony! I just bought new gear. Couldn't you have announced this a few weeks earlier? Oh well. Nice tech.
It's a spec monster, especially on the AF and video side. I love seeing all this technology creep it's way down into consumer enthusiast cameras. Even if I don't buy it, it will be pushing other companies to deliver comparable products. I bet there will be camera companies rethinking their mirrorless update because of this camera, and that is good for all of us.
Looks like this is going to be the go-to camera for quality video on a budget. If the video part of it lives up to it's spec sheet, this camera will sell very well.
For still imaging only, it's nice, but not really the leap some were hoping for. The a6000 offers better bang for the buck if all one wants to do is take photos. The lack Sony APS-C specific lens choices hurts this camera's potential too.
Anyway, nice camera. It is tempting for a video/photo combo.
I won't comment on the camera itself as I am certainly not it's intended user, but I wonder if this signals a trickle down to better video in Canon's lower priced cameras to come. The limiting factor before was supposedly readout speed for their sensors, but it looks like that is improving. Only time will tell.
PhotoKhan: The more I see images in 4:3, the more I find this the worst format of them all.
Lol! Too serious? I'm not going to bother.
That's the problem? Is there supposed to be a once size fit all?
I own full-frame, APS-C, and M43 formats and each have their place. In fact I use more M43 than I do than the others, because of it's portable size, speed, and great image quality. M43 may be the worst format for you and your use, but for others it's nearly perfect balance. Still, I will agree that this camera doesn't offer that much more than already existing M43 cameras.
Looks like a fine camera, but this market segment is so saturated that I don't think there is a lot of motivation to purchase the PEN-F, especially if prospective buyers already have M43 gear. It's simply not enough of a jump in features and technology to warrant the purchase. I think most will wait and ride it out with their current gear until something truly groundbreaking arrives.
endofoto: Check out comparison with Nikon D750, at +5EV Nikon is perfect, almost no noise, but Fuji is useless, both are the same price, Fuji little bit smaller. Sony A6000 is as bad as Fuji at +5EV, yet much cheaper. Nikon D7200 is much better at ISO 3200. We will see DXO comparison, I dont think Fuji would have DR higher than 13. You dont believe me, check this out.
I don't think the draw to Fuji cameras is seen at a pixel level. Fuji''s compact system, lenses and overall image rendering is preferred by a certain set of photographers. I think Fuji's especially excel at portraiture and skin tones. I don't think it's supposed to compete with the D750; it's a totally different way of working.
I think everyone wins here. X-E2 owners get new firmware that gives new life to their cameras. It's paid for re-releasing the same model, but $300 cheaper. If it has the same internals and firmware upgrade as the x-t1, thats pretty good performance. The major upside is access to fuji glass and image rendering. It should also push the price down on used X-E2 cameras.
Looks like a workhorse of a camera. Though I probably wouldn't buy this camera, I can appreciate it's design, purpose, and niche it has carved out. The camera is not for everyone, but I am sure it will be fabulous tool for a decent amount of users out there. As for image quality, no one can really comment on it's max potential as we have yet to see raw conversions. But check this pro's work our he shot with the x-pro2 on JPG:http://blog.nathanelson.com/shooting-fashion-with-the-fuji-x-pro2/To put it bluntly, I am sure the camera will be capable of producing damn fine images.
Really? What's next? Are they going to patent a circle? They should file for stupidity infringement on themselves.
Freakin huge! But that's the price to pay for being an awesome lens. I'm really glad Sigma is putting out such a high quality line of lenses at very reasonable pricing. Sigma's offering either match or better the canikon counterparts. This particular lens looks like it has no equal.