 |  |  |  |  |  |
| The king of the mountain by Dan Paris from Landscape with Wildlife | PA020047.Bald Eagle Approach.2 by Hornsbee from BIF | Couples' oh No moment! by mythshri from Seated Couples | Big eyes by Minas_Eye from Eye - macro/close-up | Bon appetit! by valenttin from Van een mug een olifant maken | THREE BOWLER HATS by FINEART4YPvK from Men Wearing Hats |
RobbieDobbie67: It would have been good in the article to have mentioned that the competition is only open to people in the United States of America before I wasted my time clicking over to the Adorama site only to find out after I decided to read the terms and conditions. It's just clickbait advert again for an American company.
Regardless of what was written when, the fact remains that op managed -- even after having wasted so much of his Very Valuable Time -- to find some spare time to come back here to complain. Which shows that it is all just a load of...
DrEvil: Personal hygiene is not art.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
panther fan: You point out that you don't use ethanol to clean your lenses. Why?
95% Ethanol should work just as well as Isopropanol?
Or is there any intrinsic problem with ethanol I am not seing?
The problem with ethanol is that it is often sold (depending on where in the world you live) denaturated, that is, with additives to make it undrinkable. One common such additive is castor oil. It will be left on the lens after the alcohol has evaporated.
LOL... Love the hate. I take it DPR viewers would rather see yet another backyard colibri or a mountain reflected on a lake that demonstrates the corner sharpness of the new lens, bought for the sole purpose of demonstrating the sharpness.
PaulSnowcat: Well, Fuji seems to know wht they are doing. In all their latest history they are constantly growing, slowely but surely. They show stability in their cameras lineup and that's kinda attractive for the end user.
While I agree with Fuji knowing what they are doing, and imho they are doing a great job differentiating themselves in overcrowded market, I think drawing conclusions by comparing two quarters is misleading. Fuji has relatively few major releases - The sales numbers on any specific quarter depend on which model has recently been released, and what is 'Hot' for the quarter.
Comparing X-T10, X-T20, and X-T30 in studio scene, the skin tones seem to have gone from pinkish in X-T10 to much more yellow in X-T30. Not saying one is better than another, just an observation.
markster234: I would suggest to DPR to completely re-write this series, and first of all take some time to think who is the audience. Instead of clarifying things, explanations like this will just confuse the beginners. :
"Every object in your scene will be projected onto more square mm of sensor if those two hypothetical cameras have the same field of view. This means every object is described with more photons of light, which gives the potential for a cleaner image."
Why not simply write :"A bigger sensor registers more light than a smaller one, and that may result in a cleaner image."
I also have to wonder about the cliffhanger:
"Now this might sound like bigger is always better. But it's not that simple..."
Will this meaning be completed in the next episode? Or did the writer just give up?
What I really was trying to say that for someone who reads "Choosing a camera, do magapixels/sensor size matter," it would really be good if you cut down on the terminology, and just explained what difference -- if any -- it will make on the photos, and in which ways and conditions it may matter. It is understandable environmental damage, that anyone who has been around DPR necessarily expresses their thoughts in expressions like 'field of view' etc... Just keep in mind, that when you write an article for a beginner, they probably will think that 'noise' is the sound that the shutter makes.
I wonder how come none of the reviews ever mentions what I consider one of the major cons of the Fuji X-T#0 -series: the crappy, non-replaceable eye cup. On the very worst conditions, so much stay light gets in that the EVF is practically unusable. That happens only in direct, bright sunlight, but it does happen.
I would suggest to DPR to completely re-write this series, and first of all take some time to think who is the audience. Instead of clarifying things, explanations like this will just confuse the beginners. :
"Every object in your scene will be projected onto more square mm of sensor if those two hypothetical cameras have the same field of view. This means every object is described with more photons of light, which gives the potential for a cleaner image."
Why not simply write :"A bigger sensor registers more light than a smaller one, and that may result in a cleaner image."
I also have to wonder about the cliffhanger:
"Now this might sound like bigger is always better. But it's not that simple..."
Will this meaning be completed in the next episode? Or did the writer just give up?
boldcolors: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62537400
Why are you linking to your own posts that have no point? If you have something to say, why not just try to say it!
This will make a nice, light walk-around camera, especially if you already have 40 and 28 mm pancake, 50mm f/1.8 ...
Hausner85: This is the kind of camera that is killing the camera market. It has no connection to modern age. Give it to some one with no experience and he will be discourage to learn photography.
I just gave my old DSLR to a 10 years old kid, he loves playing with it, and already understands how the shutter speed, aperture, ISO -triangle works.
spidermoon: For a very entry level camera, price is too high, a Fuji xt20 is 700$, sl2 is 500$, Fuji X-A5, more beginner oriented is 500$
If we are comparing price at launch, even Fujifilm X-T20 was $900.
(You sort of almost have a point there, as I would rather have a discontinued X-T20 than Canon SL-3, but the people who would buy this camera are not seeing it that way. )
realmadeira: This camera is going to sell well, especially discounted to $500-400
1. 4K video with $200 10-18 lens for vlogging
2. Flip-out screen
3. Small and light
The target audience: people in their teens and 20's who are used to use their phones. Most of them will never use OVF. LV focussing is actually very decent on Canons
"The target audience: people in their teens and 20's who are used to use their phones. Most of them will never use OVF."
If they will never use OVF, why would they buy a camera with a flipping mirror? Ten years ago this would have made sense, but today -- there are much better options for that group. Don't get me wrong -- it is a nice (boring, but nice) camera. I am just not sure who is going to buy it.
Panasonic, you just made Fujifilm look soooo good!
Why is Fujifilm X-A5 on this list and X-T100 is not?
X-T100 is basically the same camera as X-A5, they have the same specs. The only difference is that X-T100 adds an EVF and a tilting screen for the same price.
rbach44: "The likelihood of seeing the banding in the real-world is small."
Wow! DPRreview has finally admitted that occasional banding in deep shadows when raised by +5 EV in post is not a showstopper. Its probably closer to a non-issue for many.
The reviews of this level of equipment become necessarily 'nitpicking.' The cameras tested are all very capable, they are all built by very capable people who are hellbent to make sure that they will make the best possible photos. So there are no direct flaws in these pictures that we can directly point out. The differences are in these small details that an average DPR reader more likely than not will never notice. Those are the differences, however. I think DPR strikes the right balance acknowledging they are there, but not making them to a big deal.
Horshack: "The likelihood of seeing the banding in the real-world is small."
I think this requires a bit more elucidation. While it's true the total number of shooting scenarios in which the Z's banding manifests may be rather small, if your particular shooting (and post-processing style) happens to involve those specific scenarios then your likelihood is much larger in practice. In my testing these scenarios typically involve very high contrast scenes, where the amount of deep shadow area represents a relatively large proportion of the frame (say 30% or more). One example is dark indoor scenes with either natural sunlight coming through the window or an intense light source. You can see a recent example here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62025692
If one would like to argue against the general importance of +4EV pushes as an exposure/processing technique then that's fine, but what you're really arguing against is the general importance of high dynamic performance rather than banding.
This is a first impressions preview, we cannot expect DPR to go all the way into details about everything. I would assume that if they consider this an issue, it will come up in the final review.
eno2: The Z6 is a nice camera but it has several major flaws that makes it uninteresting for me:
1) sub par AF performance.
2) Only one XQD card slots (expensive as hell) and no SD what so ever.
3) Banding in the deep shadows.
4) The grip material is prone to easy deterioration.
To bad Nikon didn't do it right and I will have to look somewhere else. :(
I'm so tired of these 'I am angry for not getting what I wanted, so now I am going to turn my back on you.' comments.
"Well Boo-Hoo-You!" (Dr Phil)
For a $500 budget, the absolutely only place I would be shopping for a camera would be Adorama's used/demo section -- This is a price bracket where a former generation more premium camera gives you much more than a current new $500 one.