DPReview TV: We compare four mid-range APS-C mirrorless cameras

And yet, I never I had a problem with the X-A1, X-E1, X100, X-Pro1, and X-Pro2 I have owned.

Personally, I love 4:3 aspect and I know why. Im old, so in my day real cameras were 4X5 and 8X10, portable cameras were 6X7, and only amateur formats like 135 were stretched (aside from panoramic cameras). Even popular cameras like Kodak Instamatics were 5:4. So a 5:4 aspect (and 4:3 is close) is the most aesthetically pleasing to me and many others. Many artists use this aspect for paintings and other physically displayed art works for the same aesthetics, and photos were in this same category of displayed art works until portable TV screens became common. I still "see" in 5:4, mostly vertical, so 4/3 and digital medium format is there for me without fiddling. I suspect that many folks who feel that 3:2 is more pleasing grew up with 135 as the popular photography format, wide screen movies and widescreen TVs. Not a bad thing, just different. Unfortunately, "hate" is an exclusionary word.

I think you’’re the only one equating sensor size with genitalia.

@StoneJack but a 24-70 lens is a pretty useless focal range on an APS-C camera so why anybody would buy full frame glass to put on an APS-C camera is beyond me.

Plus having a range of lenses to adapt to it isnt the only consideration when looking at a camera body. Omitting a focus point joystick alone means the Z50 is not the best camera in this test.

D7500, not D750.

DPReview earlier on the Z50: "The 20.9MP sensor inside the Z50 is based on the familiar CMOS sensor inside the D500. ISO sensitivity spans 100-51,200, and based on our initial (JPEG) shooting, it's capable of excellent image quality." So excellent image quality is good for the 4e place on image quality?

The only hesitation on the X-H1 is the heft. No denying it’s quality and capabilities.

The most important element of photography is still the photo, not the tool. I, and many/most other photographers would be happy to dump ILC cameras if a smartphone could achieve the same results. That said, I fo enjoy looking through the viewfinder.
However, you can adjust the aperture, shutter, ISO, etc. on a smartphone, too. Not sure if an EVF exists for smartphones, but technically it’s certainly possible.
My point is: cameras are still used because they take better pictures, not because of the ‘tool’.

@Meerkato

Correctly me if I am wrong, but phone aperture ranges are quite small. So you definitely don't have the f1.8 to f22 range that dedicated cameras have. And as I have pointed out before you don't have the PP options with a RAW image from a camera. The files fall apart quickly.

Past but not least the control point thing is also fully valid. These days entry level camera sensors are just as good as the higher end models (broadly speaking). They are definitely better than those in phones. So why bother getting something in the mid and upper ranges? Weather sealing, faster performance, more AF points AND... more control points. You can quickly change settings on a ILC camera, at least mid and upper level bodies.

Most regular people don't care about these things because they are generally fine with the phone/camera doing it all for them.

@lawny13
I agree with what you said. I also don't dispute the importance/joy of control. My only point is that smartphones are not inherently worse than cameras because they cannot be controlled in the same way, rather because of the small sensor and lens limitations.
So if there were no sensor and lens limitation, you could have all the controls etc. on the phone as you have on a camera.

@Meerkato

haha.

Sorry but i do find it funny., and I think you can see why. There are arguments ranging on these forums about the comparison of IQ when it comes to nikon vs sony, vs canon etc. There is also the aspect of ergonomics etc etc.

All MILC (FF at least) are far far far better than phone cameras when it comes to the parameters I mention above. And yet it is argued that... if it weren't for the small sensor and lens limitations... that somehow a phone would be on par.

Kinda like saying that if it weren't for the engine a fiesta can rival a ferrari. That doesn't take into account all the other design aspects that make a ferrari superior in terms of performance. It isn't just the engine. The frame, the handling, the tires, the aerodynamics considerations and all of that.

If you didn't have the sensor limitation, and lens limitations, a phone would still be ergonomically & control wise bad compared to a ILC.

As for controls. Try changing shutter, ISO, and aperture on a phone quick enough to capture that one instance quickly. Compared to a camera with three direct control points, it can't compete.

For static objects np.

Lets say I am taking images at my kid's birthday party. If I intend to capture it all with a phone I would immediately accept that fact that it isn't a ILC. And therefore I will take the hit in terms of using a phone. Worse IQ when the light gets dim. Blurrier images when it comes to movement. And no creative control, such as slower shutter speeds for panning capture. Catching exact decisive moments. etc. And I sure won't be PPing heavily either.

As someone who used to use detacheable EVF, I say "don't do it." The reality is that when you put on an EVF, it practically never comes off. I used an Oly m4/3 with a hotshoe EVF, and it basically became a permanent fixture on the body. I never took it off. So what you end up with is a large protrusion on the body that takes up your hotshoe. I recommend that if you are an EVF user, get an integrated EVF. A detacheable EVF just isn't the "advantage" that people think it is compared to an integrated one. As for pocketability, that's more theoretical than practical. My little Oly was smaller than any of these cameras but it still remained outside of any coat pocket 99.98% of the time.

https://imgur.com/a/pgzx1FN

And as I mentioned, the removeable EVF that I thought I would be attaching/detaching quite often ended up just staying permanently affixed to the camera. Looking back now, I would much rather have an EVF that was more integrated into the body (lower profile).

For most users of this camera, the add on EVF taking up the hotshoe won't matter, because they weren't going to buy an external flash to attach there anyway.

I do agree that it may be more practical to have a slightly smaller profile with integrated EVF...but overall I maintain that for most users the detachable EVF will not be detriment, even if they keep it on the camera at all times. It just creates a slightly different profile.

These unmotivated positive comments about a specific brand remind me to read that article that went viral today, "Her Amazon Purchases Are Real. The Reviews Are Fake."

As opposed to unmotivated negative comments...

The problem with casting doubt on only the positive comments is that by definition leads only to a cesspool of negative commentary. And it’s not like all negative commentary is credible or honest. In fact many have been found posting negative stuff to boost competitors.

So sure online any comments can be met with suspicion. But that is equally true for the negative as well as the positive.

Like with everything else one has to think for one’s self.

@Thoughts R Us- "the detachable EVF will not be detriment, even if they keep it on the camera at all times. It just creates a slightly different profile."

There are two detriments. 1st your hotshoe is occupied. 2nd (probably the biggest detriment) you get a camera with a much taller profile because you have an EVF sticking out of the hotshoe like a sore thumb. I found that to be the biggest annoyance. Again, look at the photo of my Oly:
https://m.imgur.com/a/pgzx1FN
The camera ends up being much taller compared to an integrated EVF. This is something to consider if you want to keep the size profile down. Plus, I found the shape of the detacheable EVF gets caught on things. It was the case with my Oly EVF and it certainly looks like it would be the case with the Canon EVF. If you are an EVF user, I recommend just getting the EOS M50. On the other hand, if you think you will not be using the EVF 50% of the time, the M6 might be okay since you'll have the EVF off the camera a lot.

phones??? with a 28-112mm lens !!!! (its not 24-70 as the op say )

Last time I checked there was no phone with a built in optical 24-72mm lens and APS-C sensor

@StoneJack I don't have a Z50, but it seems to use the same bitrates and codecs as the Z6, so it should be similar.

If so, the internal recording is very good and should be good for almost everything, with the only exception being advanced applications & rigs (where you probably wouldn't use the Z50 anyway).

I would recommend trying the internal recording with those log profiles first; and then if you find it limiting in any way, try external recording. Most external benefits would be to ergonomics (like a better display), and to higher bitrates & bit depths if you need them. But I don't think most people would need them.

Ergonomics are subjective to a point, but sometimes a consensus arises and you can conclude that a product has either good or poor ergonomics for the majority of the people. There are some design rules.

With the Z50, the consensus is that the ergonomics and handling are great. That makes it a great camera to own.

In fact, in a day when all cameras are so competent, the best one for most to buy will be the one that is the easiest and most fun for them to use.

Ergonomics are completely subjective. Each one of these cameras can feel good in one person's hands... and have controls exactly where they work for one person while not working for an other. Many seem to confuse ergonomics with big grip. Every one of these cameras meets your definition above of "Most buyers in this category are looking for an easy to use camera with good ergonomics, good image quality that they can get without much efforts."

Ergonomics is not completely subjective. It is defined by human beings using their judgement, but a consensus can emerge.

What if I buried all of the useful settings in menu's purposely made to be obtuse? What if I purposely made buttons in all the hard to get to places? One can think of all sorts of poor ergonomic design tricks. Now sure a few may like them but they would be poor design.

Why do people study for years principles of good design and ergonomics?

Matters of taste and judgement are subjective but there are rules and principles where most are in agreement.

So if Nikon generally gets high marks for great ergonomics/handling, then that means that they probably have great ergo's and that most would enjoy using it.

If a brand consistently gets poor marks for ergonomics, then that too reveals something, which is that most people will not particularly enjoy using it.

Ok, I am going to make this very simple. None of these cameras have bad ergonomics. I prefer the Fuji to all of them even if you believe the Nikon is the best. Subjective.

Fully agree.

@John Gellings -- I knew it, and that's why everybody hates to talk to Fujinuts -- they are illogical always showing their confirmation bias.
I still have X-T2, though it doesn't see much use. But to say that X-T30 has a good ergonomics is insane. That camera is so awkward to hold, there is no comparison. You have enough room for two fingers and need to be careful not to accidentally bump any buttons, especially the Q, or any wheels. The worst camera ergonomically, and it's totally objective.

forpetessake, this might be true in the USA, but it isn't true in other countries. Here in Chile, many people use the mid-range cameras and buy better lenses.

I don't get why the detachable EVF is considered a big disadvantage by some.

In most cases it's included with the camera in the kit it's very functional, in some ways maybe even adds a bit more flexibility...IMHO, to me it's virtually the same as having the EVF built in.

The only real disadvantage is that it ties up the hotshoe that could be used for a flash, but realistically, most people using these types of cameras are probably not going to buy and use a flash anyway.

So bottom line is that to the intended market it's probably not a big deal to have the attachable EVF vs a built in one.

And yes, I do think that the M6 II is the right one to use for this comparison, as it compares the latest APS-C offerings from the vendors in this price category.

That's awfully difficult to do. Do you need small and discreet street photo set, longer BiF set, wider lamdscape set, studio set with strobes, event set with versatile zoom and a prime? Just imagine how many dissenting opinions on the comments would there be.

I agree it wont be simple, and would be best with more restrictions: like for sports or landscape, etc - perhaps separate videos for each. I think Chris & Jordan are up to the task.

I just think this would make more sense for how I'm approaching my camera gear purchases. I really don't care about sensor size. But I am interested in depth of field, weight, etc. Right now I often have to view/read reviews for one sensor size or the other, and make some assumptions as to how they compare.

Key difference: I propose: What does $X get you in each system? The buyers guide is body only costs.
Admittedly, my proposal this is a really open ended question. But it is how I landed on micro 4/3. If I just considered the body only, then I don't think I would have. I priced out what I wanted, for example: body with x minimum features, light travel lens, fast standard/wide lens for indoors, and fast portrait lens.

Yes, sensor size itself only has a handful of direct effects.

1) is maximum dynamic range = at the sensor's lowest ISO.

2) range of practical lenses that can be paired. In general, F/1.4 primes and F/2.8 zooms seems to be a good rule of thumb as the "top end" (though obviously some niche lenses push these boundaries).

3) digital resolution, though in general we are nowhere near hitting pixel density limits in these sized sensors

4) rolling shutter (which can sometimes affect AF or other aspects)

5) cost of camera body (only)

Everything else--shallow DoF, low-light performance, weight, size, price, etc.--is heavily (if not primarily) dependent on the lens, within the practical limits above. ie. an APS-C with an f/3.5-5.6 lens won't really fare better in DoF or low light than a 1" with an F/1.8-2.8. The sensor size in the APS-C's case is not the bottleneck--the lens is.

It is only when you use a fast lens alongside these sensors that the sensor size plays a bigger role.

What is „What is ZA50?“?

Really, is it that hard for you? Why do you have to stir things up?

„Even though the movie was shot on gh5 strangely m43 weren't included.“

Strangely? Why should they include it, it’s an APS-C-comparison.
They nearly always use the GH5, should they have used Betamax, just for not having to justify themselves?

it seems m4/3rds has to be mentioned in every comments section regardless of how relevant it is to the actual article.....

yes the statement is that it's not an APS-C camera

@duchamp
I own Panasonic and Nikon cameras, and to be honest, NIkon is much much better. Panasonic colors are something to struggle. Panasonic M43 used to be a good contender until Nikon entered mirrorless. Since then Nikon's FF Z6 and now APS-C Z50 are far superior to any Panasonic m43 simply due to colors and larger sensor size, better low light ability and crisp, extremely good AF (as you know, Panasonic m43 uses CAF, while newest Nikon mirrorless all uses superior PDAF. Nikon AF is now even better in video than Canon's famous Dual pixel. Probably on par with Sony.

@StoneJack
I'm from the same camps as you are. I love my FF Nikons DSLRs for image quality, UI and ergonomics and hate them for their size and weight. The Z50 isn't helping much here - leaving aside light and small but cheap and of low quality kit lenses - fast APS-C lenses are still quite large. Regarding video I'm so much fond of the G90 I own - on any family occasion I put it on a tripod, connect a powerbank, a large sd card and forget about it for the whole event. For the low light image quality I can argue - depending on the subjest the G90 can be on par with any D8xx or even better - dual IS is a miracle. It's low light AF is much better then D610 I owned and on par with the D800/810. And it has eye AF which even D850 lacks.

That seems to be the appeal of the Z50, for those who are currently using or looking at adding a FX body in the future. Not so well if they are not.

@KR: same thoughts from my side. Had a hands on with rhe Z50 - excellent usability. Few native primes.
What makes me hesitant is that I own Fuji lenses, too. Love the primea.
The X-T30 is too small for my hands though. Meh

But then you overpay for lenses, shoot without stabilization, and carry around more weight.

If you have to read, you might involuntary end up in the comments section. That scares too much audience away, hence they turn this slowly into a video site and let the comment section slowly drift away as a bad self sustaining ecosystem.

//What’s with all the video reviews? Is reading too difficult for people these days?//

Different types of content appeal to different types of people. As a camera and photography site that continues to exist despite a significant contraction of the market, we are going to continue trying new things to attract new audiences. Our written content and reviews are not going away, nor are they being pushed out by video content. Different teams, different production workflows, and so on.

Just be careful to not just replace existing site members with new ones. The reason I was attracted to this site was the way the info was presented (in article form). If I wanted video reviews, I would just have gone straight to YouTube.

Exactly. The interesting result: They are all good enough for most use cases - have your pick. Cant go wrong

I thought Fuji faked it's ISO values so they're a stop darker than what they say they are?

XT30 + 18-55 +35/1.4
A6400 + 18-135 + 35/1.8
M6II + 22/2 + 32/1.4
All great and compact combinations.

No, Fuji is objectively misleading: https://youtu.be/DtDotqLx6nA?t=1918

BrentShumer: Since there is no strict definition for ISO values for digital cameras there can‘t be any cheating. The fact that the same ISO setting on a Fuji leads to slower shutter speeds or higher f-values doesn‘t give the Fuji any advantage in an image comparison. Such comparisons have to be done at the same f-values and shutter speeds, like dpr does it. Fuji tends to underexpose, which extends dynamic range and increases noise. But that behaviour can simply be corrected with exposure compensation.

I do. I shoot in a studio with strobes. That's how I know that my current camera uses one third of a stop higher ISO for the same exposure compared to my old camera although it's made by the same manufacturer and belongs in the same series. If you care about it you just take it into consideration, if not - enjoy your photography.

There's not enough time to go into the details, like Canon's fast card slot.

If you want to read the review, just turn on closed captioning,

But even closed captioning still won't bring back that 13 minutes of my life.

Try appreciating both for what they are. I personally like having the option of both video or article.

A closed caption video is not the same as a well-laid-out written piece. Obviously.

@Frage: I got a hands ob with all these bodies at PhotoPlus.
I agree with the usability assessment. Its very good.
They all are. For ergonomics the Nikon shines. The question you might ask yourself is how important that is too you.
Your choice.

Having to use a D Pad to move the AF point in EVF shooting is an automatic 5th place for ergonomics. Unbelievable in 2019.

I have to agree that a clunky button user interface for setting AF point while using the viewfinder in 2019 is a huge negative. They mentioned it twice during the video but somehow didn't deduct points for it.

The Z50 isn't joystick vs touchscreen. It's "joystick or touchscreen" vs "D-Pad."

Why? To a consumer choosing a system, it doesn't matter to them why Fuji is able to create a more complete APS-C system. And it doesn't matter when evaluating them either; they have made their choices, as had all of the other companies.

Fuji is playing exactly by the same rules of the other companies, but there are tradeoffs, and the choices that Fuji has made result in their leadership in the APS-C market.

The other companies don't get graded on a curve.

Fuiji MIGHT be smart in not wanting to play in the FF market (partially as there probably isn't enough market left, and it's too saturated IMO by the big three: Sony, Canon and NIkon, with a sprinkling of other brands) and just going to MF instead, where there is less competition, especially in their price range.

I suspect as resolutions continue to increase beyond ~100MP, there will be a need for larger sensors and Fuji will have positioned themselves in a good spot. A spot that even Sony hasn't ventured into...

Fuji is competing in the FF market. People are passing by Fuji going to the FF competitors. Fuji is losing buyers who otherwise would buy a Fuji FF kit.

You may think Canon does, but thats not true.
The M-mount is locked just like the Fuji and has been around for a while, since 2012 for Canon. Canon has been really horrible at releasing lenses. There are 8 total lenses.
To move up in Canon you switch to completely different R-mount and your only at a 135 sensor. For Fuji to move up you also switch to a different mount (GFX) but your larger than 135 format sensor.
Only Sony and Nikon want to push you into 135 format with same lens mount.

Yes I realize that, but when are they ever going to do an article on "We Compare Four M43 Cameras"? We know the answer is Never.

So I would prefer they re-title and let M43 into these comparisons. The M43-to-APSC gap is small in terms of IQ, whereas FF is a much bigger gap from APSC.

there will be round ups where everyone gets to play together regardless of sensor size

Well canon doesn't have the same sensor size as the other 3. If micro four thirds called their sensor aps-awesome, maybe they could be included.

Here's the catch - difference between APS-C and m43 is exactly the same as m43 and 1".

Devil's advocate - If you include m43 here then you include 1" in m43 reviews and then you have a body with "similar" sensor size and similar price and a 24-72/1.7-2.8 or 24-200/2.8-4 or 24-600/2.8-4 and such lenses just don't exist for m43. Not a nice situation.

You just wanted to include mft into an apsc comparison. Regardless of your wannabe scientific approach, it makes no sense. Nobody cares about your nagging on 1.3x vs. 1.5x whatsoever. We all are very clear about the differences. Now spare us, it's getting boring.