This week Chris and Jordan compare four popular mid-range APS-C mirrorless cameras: the Canon M6 II, Nikon Z50, Sony a6400 and the Fujifilm X-T30. Which one is right for you?
Can the Nikon DX lenses for their non-mirrorless work on the z50? Advisable or not. Not sure why one would buy the APS and then put the FF lenses on it....but I am not a professional. This camera handles the nicest of any of them, and I got clear, sharp shots without trying.
Hi Chris, I am very impressed with your reviews. The latest APC review pretty much tells a fairly complete story. On minor issue is that it should be mentioned if the touch screens are a problem with gloves. I can see three joysticks but the fourth, I believe the Sony lacks that. I am in a climate where it is no problem but can Use this at -35 like in your home town? Again, Congrats with your fantastic career. Rinus (from Calgary but now in Kelowna)
Day ago received Nikon Z 50 with 2 lenses. . Let me tell you the quality of camera is amazing, pictures are sharp, focus is very accurate, face, eye. Touchscreen is a joy to use, and other 2 cameras lack this feature, we are is 2019 and good touch interface is a must. EVF is very good, same resolution as A7III but much better, (no visible pixels). Will test more but so far is a winner.
+1. I wrote it before....the EVF is being better (can't stand my NEX6, A7 EVF, A7 II EVF isn't being better - A7 III still only 2.36 MP, but i assume it's the same, with neglible bigger screen ratio, means the same grain & distortions, like A7 I/II.) I've expected the small 2.36 MP Nikon EVF on the Z-50 being better. than on the A7 III with the same pixel count, because already my 2011 Nikon V1 CX DSLM EVF (1.44 MP) is much better, than onto the 2014 A6000 with 1.44 MP! Nikon creates better EVF Optics into that Pricerange.
Further, posted yesterday here that Gunther Wegner tested the Z-50, he does find the IQ very good, also being better than D500/D7500, and up to Z-6 Image Quality comparable. ;)
" My guess that we can expect a similar image quality as the D500 / D7500, were even exceeded. According to my tests, the image quality is on par with the Nikon Z 6, just below that of the Nikon Z 7."
If you are thinking of getting the Fujifilm X-T30 be very careful. A few weeks ago I bought one with the 18-55mm kit lens and two other lenses. Four days later I returned it all for a refund.
The lens was decentered. The first things I did was test for that as I had read of it in some reviews.
The camera body malfunctioned in several respects, far too many to have any confidence in the functioning of a replacement over the long term. That including freezing at least half a dozen times.
I have small hands but found it impossible to hold the camera to shoot at eye level without unintentionally pressing a button or dial, not just the Q button. Only an unreasonably light pressure is needed to activate them. Also, the aperture ring on lenses moves far too easily. On the other hand, the Fn button in front of the exposure adjustment dial is almost impossible to press.
Some people who say they also have small hands say they have no problem, but would you be one of them?
I had all kinds of problems with my X-H1. Aside from the tiny buttons, which I hated, it would exit out of the menu on its own, every time I tried to set it up. The camera was possessed. Didn’t give me much confidence in Fuji. I had to return the camera after only two days.
Thanks Chris and Jordan. Another home run. Still trying to decide whether to pull the trigger on the Nikon. I am currently shooting Nikon DSLRs both FX and DX and have enjoyed the Fuji X100F a lot but will probably hold out for the next generation of Nikon mirrorless. I am glad to see Nikon and Canon in the mirrorless game and look forward to what the future will bring. It’s amazing the amount of camera you get for the dollar these days.
I was user of D7500 (still have it, fantastic cameras for stills). This summer bought Z6 with FTZ adaptor, Z50mm F1.8. Great buy (already using professionally, for paid job). I want to complement it with Z50, which seems to have insane AF in video, much, much better than D7500. This combo will be both very economical and efficient.
Why is genitalia size so central to equipment discussion? Why couldn't this article be just about mid-range or mid-priced cameras? Hey, maybe a real cheap full frame could be considered, or a nice micro 4/3, but no no no, its all about genitalia size first. It's gotten so bad that companies like Olympus are now cornered off (unless they go through genitalia enlargement procedures like Pentax and Panasonic were forced to), with prices on ever increasing trends, until we are all cornered up in a non sustainable black hole of a niche. Yay!
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.
@McFern: I think a fuji medium format camera could change my mind on that, sadly nothing i could afford. But i can see why you like it, those old 4x5 / 8x10 / 6x7 are closer to 1:1 but they must have made great images!
Opposite, of course. Z50 with the D7500's latest sensor is so much better, there is no comparison. It can also all Z lenses (not just kit, not just DX) and with FTZ adaptor all F mount lenses.
@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.
@They Cagen Non I never used any joysticks for focus, and Z50 touch display is great to focus *I am obviously a hybrid, more video-inclined shooter, that's natural for me and for intended target buyers of Z50 - who come from smartphones. Z50 got its own nice 16-50 mm zoom, which is perfect, but if there is need, you can use all F and Z lenses on that - how that can't be an advantage?
Well done Chris and Jordan! a great video...AND you seemed to be unbiased in your views. Now tell Jordan to be ready at all times! If he is not ready for the video than shame him by forcing him to be in it and we will ridicule him for you. Maybe your Christmas present for him this year can be a good shaver and a spare outfit that you will take on all assignments. Shame! (ring) Shame! (ring) Shame!
As someone else mentioned below, here are the release dates: Sony A6400 - January 15 2019 Fujifilm X-T30 - March 20 2019 Canon M6II - September 26 2019 Nikon Z50 - November 7 2019
So the camera that was released first, and hence out the longest, has the most people responding that they own it. Nothing really impressive about that.
Considering people will claim they own cameras which haven’t even been released, those numbers have very little value. Even if that weren’t the case, do you really think that Sony has only sold 276 a6400s?
@DarnGoodPhotos, 276 a6400 is the just a little percentage of the larger global statistic, but so does the other camera's number. so i'll just take it as a representation of that global number. of course there's margin of error and so on, but doesn't matter too much..
I don't approve this compression. DPreview, how you can compare d750 as z50 sensor?, even if is the same, it may perform different because of new processor/software/electronics/mount, etc.... will be nice if you compare actually z50 to other cameras. Rate cameras by sensor resolution is also overrated, more pixels is not always better.
"My guess that we can expect a similar image quality as the D500 / D7500, were even exceeded. According to my tests, the image quality is on par with the Nikon Z 6, just below that of the Nikon Z 7.
Image quality of the sensor is exceptional for a camera in this price range, it is in the range of ISO performance and dynamics on par with the Nikon Z 6, this will soon be a separate contribution."
Being at the 4th place after Sony from Image Quality like the Comparsion of 4 APS-C DSLMs here said? unreal.
It appears, based on the lack of side by side comparisons, that they just based image quality on megapixels, which is just lazy.
I’m not saying that the Canon, due to the megapixels is not #1, but to have Sony or the Fuji ahead, especially knowing how weak their inexpensive kit lenses are really baffles me.
Everyone that has tested the new Z50 kit lens has said it is the best among all of the brands.
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?
I like the X-T30 a lot though two things stop me from buying; the lack of image stabilization and no 8,000 mechanical shutter. Still contemplating whether to get the OMD 5 MK III over it.
If you don't need the video improvements that X-T30 provides, you can get the X-H1 instead of X-T30 - better sensor, has IBIS, fantastic grip, 1/8000 mechanical, 1/250 sync speed, weather sealed.
OMD 5 MK III is a nice alternative that should have been included (but m4/3 lens pool is bigger than Fuji X by a huge margin!)
Well, that was my concern as well before I got one in my hands. That body is unbelievably comfortable and sexy. Yes, I carry the X-T30 sized X-T100 when I'm traveling, but this size is not the primary reason for that, TBH.
X-T3 is something in between and you can get used to the difference in weight pretty fast. The EVF makes a difference, especially if you are not able to feed the Fujifilm X system with native glass and would like to try some manual-focus lenses from the film era. I do it all the time :)
There seems to be a lot of comparison of these cameras or maybe cameras in general to smartphones. This is really nonsense in my opinion for one reason and I guess its more philosophical. Part of the reason some people enjoy the pursuit of photography is to handle an instrument where you can look through a viewfinder, make decisions about exposure using the shutter and aperture controls, and other details. Using a real camera helps one become more immersed in photography. I would not say that smartphones are useless for photography. Hundreds of millions of people use them but I am just making the point that as a tool for photography, nothing compares to using a real camera.
I would just make a guess here, that most people like to take pictures, and share them. The relatively crappy state of photography because of smartphones makes it pretty clear that most people don't care about the tool, or the parameters of photography. They simply want to capture a moment, and share that moment, when possible, immediately.
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’.
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.
Let us also not forget the general global tendencies that drive us. Impatience. These days a 10 minute download is too long. We need next day delivery even for things we don't really need immediately etc.
Same goes with social media + consumerism. People want to take images NOW, and share them NOW. But likewise, the image is most generally forgotten immediately. Why? cause "photographer" didn't spend enough time for it to really register in his/her memory. Camera out, short 1-2 min composing (if that). Take the image... meh color/lighting makes it look a little meh. Slap on a filter on there to catch some attention. POST!! Tag some people or share with specific people to get a reaction.
Done over moving on. People view and consumer images just as described above as well. So we generate tons, but a lot of them aren't "good". Even good ones are drowned out.
@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.
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.
It is because entry-level/mid-range camera too expensive when compare with smartphone. A mid-range smartphone Huawei P30 only cost $400-$500. This price can't get entry-level camera body e.g. Fujiflm XT200.
Please didn't advice buy used camera because used smartphone extremely cheap e.g. $50-$150.
How young people who no high salary can buy camera.
Don't get your logic. The saying... "you get what you pay for" applies. You can get a "mid range" phone for $400-$500, but it doesn't make it a mid-range camera by any means. Not even close. For that kind of money you can get an entry level rebel camera with a kit lens and it will already be far far far better than the camera in any of the phones you can get.
If you want to get a second hand entry level camera you can also get it for $50-$150.
It isn't about young people having no high salary, it is a matter of priorities. Most people buying a phone are not buying a camera. They are buying a phone that can be a camera. But their first priority is the phone. A person buying a camera is prioritizing the photography part.
When I say a better is far far better that is just talking about IQ. But consider other things... and it isn't even a comparison. If you want to shoot your kid doing sports for example... no phone is adequate. Not even close.
@lawny13 I has Lumix TZ90 which bought around $400. Never feel it has superior image when compare with my Huawei P10 (which bought with same price in same year), although I happy with ability of zoom.
And here is your problem. I specifically said a rebel. The camera you mentioned, the lumix TZ90 has a 1/2.3 inch sensor. A rebel by comparison has a crop sensor which has a 15x bigger sensor area than the TZ90 you mention. The lumix is a point and shoot, and most of us here on DPR agree that phones are pretty much pushing point and shoots out of the market.
And again, you come against what I mentioned are priorities. A PS is very much still about portability, it isn't about the best IQ you can get, or general performance.
Take a ILC crop camera, place a f1.8 cheap nifty fifty lens on it and it will blow a phone camera out of the water. Especially/particularly when it comes to low light picture taking.
Here... nothing better than a picture to make a point.
@lawny13 I know it is P&S. It is because only P&S (exclude used camera) sell below $500 in market. No new APS-C camera can found in local market in this price range. I agree that my problem is poor/low budget. However, many poor people happy with their budget Android phone (around $300) because smartphone maker still produce "good to use" budget Android phone.
Think you need to define $500. In which market? We talking US dollars? Cause if we are talking about USD then I just have to disagree with you completely.
You can get a Canon T6 with kit lens or a Nikon 3500 with kit lens for just $400.
Look... if you want to do photography, and want to produce good images, then you have no excuse if you are just a student or poor. You immediately told me to discount 2nd hand cameras. That is where I say BS... no offense. Get the best gear you can afford. Why should 2nd hand cameras not be considered? I can afford new gear, but at times I do by second hand, because it meets my needs and how much I am willing to pay for it.
A larger sensor camera will give you way way way better images (RAW) that will allow you to properly do some post processing and learn to post process. That is just FACT. I have tired processing phone images and they fall apart very quickly if you go beyond basic processing. And images are crap in low light of any kind.
Do those students drink? Party? Waste their money on whatever number of things? Then they can definitely save a couple hundred and buy a refurbished camera body at a shop without paying "new" prices.
If they aren't willing to do that, then they are not serious about photography. I was a student when I bought my first DSLR. I bought it during a sale and I spend less then 300 euros. I had saved it for it too. But I was serious about getting into photography. If there wasn't a sale i would have found refurbished. If I couldn't find a refurbished one in my budget I would have gone second hand.
@lawny13 I agree that Nikon 3500 / Canon T7 (with lens kit) should be one of the choice of poor people. Except T7's processor is too old.
Poor people like me/student should not involve drink/party, waste money.
IMO recommend refurbished/secondhand camera to some smartphone user is improper because 1st will come out in mind : a) refurbished/secondhand smartphone more cheap. b) there always has latest budget smartphone which "good to use". So, normally people will buy budget smartphone with latest mid-range processor (cost around USD 300-400). Smartphone with few year ago processor no market.
Sorry but this conversation is pointless. You seem to be stuck on the cost only and not what you get per device for the money you spent.
An APS-C camera... any of them have a sensor that is 15x bigger in terms of area than your phone. That is almost. That means 15x more light. Which means that much better images in challenging light conditions. It is a significant difference. Processing speed has nothing to do with it so I don't even know why you bring it up at all.
A smart phone needs the processing power since it is doing a lot more than just pictures. The processors in cameras are powerful enough to deliver the specs you see that they have. You don't need more than that. We look at performance spec sheets and not processor speed.
The latest smartphones won't, for example, allows you to track action well, or produce clean images in low light, and it definitely doesn't give you the various lens options a DSLR does.
If you prefer a phone over a camera because you don't see the value in a dedicated camera, or you care more about the latest processor then go ahead and get your phone.
Heck, you started by saying that you can't get a good camera for less than $400. And I showed you that you can. They are in fact the latest entry and mid level crop sensor cameras. Then you say they have old processors...
They will produce better images by far than you phone. They will track subjects better than your phone. They have more control points and are dedicated entirely to taking pictures allowing you to more easily capture a decisive moment than you phone. You have lens options, and lighting options available that your phone can only dream about... but by all means, don't get one because the processor is too old.
Complain about cost, while they can be found dirt cheap second hand.
That is a 7 year old camera. It is FF and it can be found new for around $600 (body only). You can probably find a lightly used one for $400. That camera with a cheap 50 f1.8 (for around $80) would run around your phone in terms of image quality, easily.
@lawny13 I understand & agree your point about advantage of APS-C camera over smartphone. Only camera/photography lover did not understand how normal consumer (no photography lover) think: a) First in mind must be cost. b) What benefit/better IQ of camera over same cost smartphone.
All these "used camera", "RAW post-processing" term is how photographer use to get better IQ photo. Normal consumer never care it (I not means normal consumer thinking is correct)
Camera market shrink because camera maker only understand what photographer want but never understand what normal user want.
It similar to car lover + sport car vs normal people + normal car. Sport car market pretty small (less profit) compare with normal car market (high volume).
Same thing happy on budget smartphone. But, some smartphone company understand how important budget smartphone market, produce "good to use" budget smartphone, lot profit, never worry sell volume down.
I am an applied physicist (currently working as an opto-mechanical engineer in the space industry). I am also a pragmatist and I often play devil’s advocate. So I generally try to look at thing in a practical way.
I think you point of view here is completely, and I mean absolutely wrong. To claim that canon, as an example, doesn’t know what people want is completely crazy. The majority of their sales go to the regular consumer.
The way you have been writing sounds to me like you want a camera to cost $100. Or to at the very least cost less then a cell phone. Your comment about processors not being as “fast” as a smart phone’s already points out that you don’t exactly know what you are taking about.
But rather than going to why it can’t be as you say perhaps you can explain to me what you think these camera manufacturers to do.
@lawny13 Entry-level camera should aim as daily use device not expensive rocket. It also not high-end rocket science.
Nobody ask camera for $100. Camera & smartphone both with sensor, processor, memory, battery, screen. Most of the part are same, except different sensor & body. Camera focus cost on larger sensor, smartphone focus cost on processor. So, the cost is similar.
For entry-level camera body like Fujiflm X-T200 sell as USD 699 is too pricey if it aim as entry-level camera.
Nobody request entry-level camera has high burst mode, good EVF, high-end camera IQ. Normally, just need better IQ than same price smartphone (if worst IQ, why not use smartphone).
In other hand, if flagship camera like X-T4 price at USD 1700, why consumer can't request USD 50 high-end processor e.g. Snapdragons 855/865. Why camera maker use similar processor in USD 50 android TV box.
There really is no point in talking to you about this. You have a certain idea in your mind and seem to keep pushing it. All of the cameras you mentioned are not “entry” level per say. And you are only talking about mirrorless and completely ignoring the previous cameras I mentioned. You start with one of a $700 cost while I actually showed you good for entry level camera with a 18-55 and 75-300 for $400 after you claimed there were no entry level cameras for $400 or less.
After I pointed that out you said they had slower or older processors. And now you say that no one needs faster burst rates.... you do know that is processor related right?
So... you can believe what you want to believe. But you can easily find a good entry camera and 2 lenses that will giver 95% of all use cases. And then means that you can find it even cheaper on sale or second hand. Simple as that.
IMO the overall winner here is the Canon M6II. Yes, it does lack a little in native lenses, but at the end of the day photography is about photos and this camera has the best sensor out of the bunch. It certainly would make an excellent travel camera and this is also where the detachable EVF is a huge advantage. The EVF can simply get detached and with a lens like the excellent 22 mm, the camera can go into a coat pocket.
The Canon is an amazing little unit. Your comment illustrates the reality that every user has their own weighting as to what is important. All a review can do is lay out the various factors.
Not everyone will use every feature equally. And even within each category, there may be some where there is a larger margin between 2 particular cameras than in others. So for instance the difference between 1 and 4 may be greater in one area than in another. Just to have a ranking doesn't tell the whole story
So ultimately it is up to each of us to make up our own minds.
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.
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."
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.
As long as canon also comes out with a body that has an integrated EVF.
My opinion on this is that those who want an EVF will prefer to get it built in. Then there will be those who will get the M6II because it is smaller and slimmer without the EVF. Then purchasing the EVF will be for occasional use.
But... just this M6II option and detachable EVF is a little off putting to me at least, because I do own flashes. So they do have their uses. For fill light, or for when the light gets dim, even when traveling. Though I admit my flash use is only 5-10 percent of the time.
The Nikon is getting overall high marks for its ergonomics and build. My suggestion to Nikon would be to run with that and market the camera as a really fun to use and carry device. That's what most are looking for.
Stop trying to win an ever shrinking market over with small technical details that cause most users to yawn and check out. Try to win over even a tiny piece of the smartphone market. Go with the idea that you offer a camera that is easy, fun and can take pics a smartphone cannot.
I think they are marketing it as a creating device (for vloggers etc). I do think its a good approach. Ergonomics, color, lens quality, image quality, low light ability, AF are all excellent as well. I think that finally this model as well the Noct lens will really surprise at the end of the quarter.
We wish we could. Seems like a lot of people in the industry are having trouble getting a hold of one, us included. Supposedly we have one in the mail due to arrive next week.
Regarding the log video profiles, on the Nikon Z50, you can make your own log profile using a custom curve (or simply download a log profile and import into the camera).
Dear beatboxa, would you recommend external HDMI out recording on this camera or you think that the internal one is quite good too with the profiles you cited?
@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.
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. The only camera that best satisfies all these requirements is Nikon Z50.
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.
@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.
@john they are subjective to a point. If they lined a camera body with razor blades, I think everyone would agree that is terrible ergonomics. The Z50 looks chunky in photo, but once you see it in person, it's actually and I'll quote my wife here "cute". It looks like an older SLR, but with a very nice grip. It really is a joy to hold.
But you guys assume a nice grip = better ergonomics. However, not everyone loves grips. It IS totally subjective. The X-T30 (Q button aside) felt fine in my hands and I have big hands. I prefer my cameras shaped like a bar of soap. I know it’s hard for you grip lovers to imagine, but it’s true. Anyway, haptics is probably the better word.
@John Fair point. My first m4/3 camera was a GF2 and it was fine with the smaller primes. The reality is though, a camera needs a minimum size/grip to be comfortable for extended use. I guess it comes down to target audience and intended use. These are midrange (or in the M6 II, highest in the range) cameras and targeted at people who will want to shoot and not just snap a few pictures.
I photograph a lot and for many hours... but with small primes and a neck strap. I only bring the camera to my eye to make the photo generally speaking. If you like to sit and view through the viewfinder for minutes at a time and like longer, heavier lenses, then I can understand. But that gets back to my point of haptics and ergonomics being subjective to the users needs and not all users have the same needs.
Lens availability must be considered if comparing across brands and systems, so I think it is good that it is now a category. For making a buying decision, it is a vital aspect.
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.
@razorfish Nikon has now excellent choice of Z lenses. People actually getting very good results using Z S lenses (the expensive ones) on Z50, of course one can also use kit DX lens too. I have both F lenses and they are also can be used with the FTZ adaptor.
For the most part I think the article is informative. What I find fault with is not comparing like cameras. If you are comparing cameras with a in camera viewfinder the one with out will lose all the time. Comparing the Canon EOS M5 would have been a better choice even thought it is older.
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.
Mr Darn Good, I was only referring to in camera viewfinders, no other specs. I do agree that the X-T20 is more comparable to the M5. If Canon did not have a new camera that was in the group then maybe they should have left out the M6 II.
That being said I have a EOS M03 with the Add on EVF I actually like it better except for the Flash thing. I bought a flash 8 most ago and have not used it yet.
I disagree. They are not comparing cameras, not cameras with built-in EVFs. The EVF is only one aspect, and it’s up to the user to decide how important that is. It makes no sense to use the M5 since those specs are outdated and it would automatically place 4th.
Grouping by sensor size makes sense from a technical point of view. I guess some people (especially on this website and forum) think sensor size is important. But I'd advocate that it is only of secondary importance because of the real benefits and limitations for each sensor size: to weight and size, ability to get shallow depth of field, high ISO performance and of course cost.
So how about a comparison agnostic of sensor size (other than tangible impacts). Like, What does $2000 get you in each system?
DPR has articles titled "the best camera for $xxxx" in $500 increments, I think. Although I don't like the concept of "best" because it's one-dimensional and doesn't leave room for specialization - low light vs landscape vs studio for example. Also, prices change over time, so it's difficult to keep up to date. That said, during the holidays it should be possible to create a snapshot of what is available now in each price bracket or by beginner/enthusiast level.
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.
You do realize there is already this https://www.dpreview.com/buying-guides? You select USE CASES and then you have: travel, landscape, video, sports and action, easy to use, etc.
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.
You did your work and that got you exactly where you should be. That's great and everyone should do it for themselves as it's impossible for DPR to cover everything. For example, a6x00 has a lot of lenses, but UWA zoom is veeery expensive. M6 has nice, compact and affordable UWA, but where is the fisheye? Same for m43?
For me, I'm sticking with a dead system as it has what I want, decent and compact: standard zoom, fast 30mm and fisheye. Everything else is just a bonus for me.
What they could do is price and review some sets, for example - zoom trinity, universal zoom + fast prime, box of primes, etc. Even that would be a lot of work for questionable results.
Yes, in terms of capability this is largely true for most use cases.
Over time, as any tech matures, all products tend to converge to the same point of capability. BTW, we see this in sports and nature as well; over time all athletes or members of a species gets better, and differences in capabilities are reduced.
So that's why I advocate that most users concentrate most on usability and ergonomics. The camera they enjoy using the most will be the one they actually use the most. They will derive the most value from it, and as a bonus, develop in their photography the most as they will practice more.
Today is not 2009, and new people do not come to photography.
Cameras today are bought, 95%, only those who ALREADY HAVE a camera. Therefore, those who are now invested in the Canon system will buy Canon, and so will those on Nikon, Sony and Fuji. And all this has NOTHING to do with the question of "ergonomics", or "quality" of a particular camera.
Even though the movie was shot on gh5 strangely m43 weren't included. The Panasonic G90/95 for example has all the pros of the ZA50 and doesn't have its cons.
„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?
@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.
This is one of the first test pictures I took with the G90 which I rented for a weekend to check out low light AF, high iso noise, eye AF during video and UI: https://g4.img-dpreview.com/519C3A99CCF14DAE807566970972CB17.jpg I was overwhelmed that I didn't need high ISO being able of shooting at very low shutter speeds. Handheld video looks like shot on a gimbal! This year I rented all the available competition: m50, em5ii, a6500, a6400 and later the G90, which in my opinion is a better overall package.
For shooting stationary subjects on tripod or PRO usage FF definitely is the best choice but for traveling, family and run and gun activities midrange m43s with a x5-10 zoom are very competitive. In terms of design, handling and weather sealing the G90 is second to none in its class while the lens choice is the widest of all. IQ, video and AF depend on the situation but definitely on par with the competition.
I would happily own any of these cameras, and I was really close to owning the Fuji. But the appeal of the Nikon, for me, is that I can fold it into my new FX mirrorless system (Z6), with the same mount. Brilliant.
@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
I gather Nikon Z the focus is FX. Z6 or Z7 for the moment and should they go on a family vacation and need something lighter they might consider the Z50 but they are limited in features such as stabilisation and larger lenses and cropped focal lengths. Some might still use a Z6 or Z7 on a vacation or the Z50 if they can really make do with the DX zooms if the trip isn't so photography focussed.
Perhaps have a DX ML zoom and then add in a single FX prime. I guess this is similar prior to February 2009 with NIkon DX dSLRs there were no DX primes. The 35mm F1.8 DX was released in Feb 2009. Which was up to a 1yr after the FX Nikon D3 and D700 was released.
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.
@mxx, No need for the reviews to be an either or scenario.... video vs. written. They're both valuable and by doing both, reach a broader audience, take your pick. It's a positive not a negative.
They're all good in their own ways. Such as if you need AF, Sony might be better. If you need good high ISO performance (for OOC JPEGs) Fuji might be better, if you want access to a large supply of APS-C and FF lenses, then either Sony or Nikon might be better. It just depends on your needs as to which one is best. For you, it sounds like it's the XT30, for someone else it maybe the Sony. For me, it's probably the NIkon (since I have a lot of Nikon glass, although I do own an XT30 too).
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've sold that "match made in heaven." Fuji lenses are overpriced, with mediocre image quality. Fuji bodies are terrible ergonomically, impossible to hold. Add to that soft mushy images, which is a Fuji trademark, and it's a no-brainer to dump those as soon as possible.
@DarnGoodPhotos -- you must be mind-reader, you know what Fuji (who exactly) is thinking. All we know is that Fuji ISO is about 1 stop higher than most other cameras at the same light conditions. And since I personally owned a lot of Fuji bodies as well as other cameras, they are neither offering better highlight protection, nor better noise, nor better anything. Their trademark is soft mushy images, and that's it.
Who cares about that. Thats of no relevance when you are out there using it. This is just opinions on numbers. I have used Nikon and Fuji amongst other brands for years. Who exposes for numbers? Sheesh
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.
I like these reviews. To see the cameras being used helps me get an impression of what real life usage might be like. And that - in the end - is much more important as test charts. These cameras are all solid performers
How is that the Z50 has the best ergonomics? I agree that the grip is the best of the four, but that is all. The exposure compensation button is in a very akward position. There are some touch areas on the side of the screen which are not lite nor have a tactile feedbak, they are imposible to use in dark enviroments. There is not joystick and while using the viewfinder you can not use the touchscreen to move your focus point, only the not great D-pad. The program wheel is too easy to turn involuntarily. I do not think it deserves a 1# place for ergonomics.
Other than the grip on most cameras, the button placement is going to probably be subject to experience with the system. For example, Nikon shooters might find the Sony button layout to be awkward, but the Z50's just like their DSLRs. Just as a Sony a6000 or even an a7-series shooter might find the a6400 layout to be easy to use, a Nikon or Canon shooter might not.
For me, coming from 5 years of Nikon , I've gotten used to the button layout so I don't personally find it strange, but it's because I've learned the buttons on the DSLRs and much of those were carried over to the Z bodies. I will say the two buttons on the front (Fn1 and Fn2) are awkwardly placed, especially if you have short and/or fat fingers because some adjustments require a button press and scroll of the command dial, which can be difficult for some, but those are also programmable too.
@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.
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.
I don't think ANY of these cameras deserves a #1 in ergonomics, but within the range of contestants, the Nikon squeaks by into 1st place. You can argue one way or another over joystick vs. touch screen AF positioning, and a left-eye shooter may disagree with a right-eye shooter. I'd like a joystick too, but I'd have to buy a Z6/7 for that, and with these bodies I'm trying to get the best blend of control and compactness. Of course, previous experience biases opinion, and I prefer NIkon's UI but dislike Fuji's and hate Sony's. You could get a human factors engineer in here to rate the contestants and I guarantee that there would be no agreement with that reviewer's assessments.
I don't have a problem with the D-pad, if it's properly placed. I do have a problem with Sony's D-pad...but see my comments about subject tracking elsewhere. The UI has to be considered in totality. We may not resonate with parts of any interface. It's when multiple dissonances crop up that the tool becomes unfun to use. With me, the Z 50 has fewer of those dissonances than either the Sony or Fuji. Usually I can work with Canon's UI and in fact am rather impressed with it generally.
It would be nice for once if someone seemed to realise in an aps-c comparison that Fuji is not playing by the same rules as the other aps-c manufacturers.
Nikon, Canon and Sony all have a two tier camera range: aps-c and FF. Fuji only has one tier - aps-c. As such their cameras and lenses are necessarily higher-end, as they are able to include features, build and offer lenses that the other manufacturers reserve for their FF ranges.
If Sony only had aps-c like Fuji, for instance, the A6400 would have an A7 style body and all the FE lenses would be aps-c only.
Fujifilm don't have to be justified by the fact they didn't want to support another series in the FF format. Remember they have already a medium format offer, Sony, Canon, Nikon don't...
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.
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.
Sony chooses not to include basic features like a second top dial or UHS-II slot on the A6400. I say that as an A6400 shooter. They choose to squeeze out every FF sale instead of updating their APSC bodies.
That is a big appeal of Fuji: you will get all the latest tech in the APSC lineup.
I think it is. I wouldn't say people are necessarily being passed up by Fuji for FF, because I see people on forums asking about going from, say, an a6000 to a Fuji, or maybe a Nikon APS-C DSLR to a Fuji. Fuji is a niche brand. I do't think they expect to have the market share of any FF manufacturer. And like what BrentShumer is saying, Fuji implements features that Sony APS-C users wish they had, like dual card slots and 2-way tilting screens (in both landscape and portrait mode).
However, I wouldn't say they are out selling FF though. They are providing a different strategy to APS-C than some of the others--like listening to their user base. The only downside to Fuji's is they don't have IBIS in most of their bodies, but for some, that's not necessarily a deal breaker (for me it wasn't at least). But on the flip side, they do offer some of the best kit lenses and features you don't find on the other APS-C cameras, even the higher end ones.
In the film era resolution was defined as lines per unit length that could be separated. I believe this is still valid, and talking about resolution as the pixel count is very misleading. You crop by a linear factor and not by pixel count. The difference in resolution between 32,5 and 26 MPx is therefore expressed as a factor of about 1.12. No wonder that that this marginal difference does not influence image quality. I wouldn‘t talk about a ‚resolution bump that results in more potential for cropping‘.
Nevertheless I very much enjoyed the video as usual.
The image quality section shows EOS M6 II compared against others in the studio comparison tool, however I cant find EOS M6 II on the list when I go to Studio comparison. Am I not looking properly or is it not officially added yet?
I would like to see Micro Four Thirds included in these comparisons. When you leave them out it seems like you have turned your back on them. They really are competing in the same market as these cameras. Sure there is a 0.7stop noise penalty, which only really comes into play above ISO 800, but that is not enough to disqualify them from comparison with this group.
And in their favour they offer:
- a huge system of native lenses from the camera makers, including some amazingly small primes that have beautiful rendering
- a true system, not just bodies and lenses
- a large range of body choices to suit almost anyone's personal preferences
- excellent image stabilization, some models have Dual IS
- some unique imaging features, especially Olympus
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.
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.
@vscd No it's not exactly the same. The difference between m43 and ff is 1.94 stops. The difference between apsc and ff is 1.3 or 1.2 stops depending if you're talking about canon or everyone else. That's about two thirds stop difference, with canon close to half a stop. The difference between 1inch and m43 is much closer to a full stop. Regardless I think it's fair to limit to apsc. 1.5 crop looks much different than 2 crop. I think the difference between all of these is significant and each step is needed to fill out different niches.
Yes and the difference between apsc and m43 is less than 1.4x crop. It's 1.25 (canon) or 1.3. Also m43 has more area since it's 4:3 (which is why it's area is greater than 0.25x full frame area even though it has a 2x crop factor)
Did you calculate all this by your own before writing it? Or just quoting it from somewhere? MFT is 17,31 mm × 12,98 mm which is 21,63mm diagonal. Fullframe is 43,27. This is a crop of 2x. Very precisely. If you use your MFT as 3x2 the difference is getting even larger because 17,85 mm × 11,90 mm is 21,45mm, so the cropfactor is even more than 2x.
Yes, the difference between APS-C and MFT is smaller than between APS-C and FF, but it's roughly one stop and clearly visible. I would not compare them in mid-range cams.
Are you just going to restate what you said without trying to do some math?
2x crop yes, but ff is not 4x the area because of the aspect ratio difference.
2/3 a stop is not 1 stop. Yes it is close. But the difference between full frame and apsc is much greater, closer to 4/3 a stop than 1 stop, especially in canons case. 2/3 does not equal 4/3. In fact if you did some math you would find the difference to be almost twice as large.
So I don't know why I have to keep responding here. You could stop spreading misinformation that is convenient or you could just say. "Yeah you're right but I'm not going to adopt such a precise mental model"
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.
You're right. I should put more effort into being understood. Its a relief to me that English is your second or third or fourth... language. I thought you were just arguing with me to aggravate me. I don't think there is any disagreement here.
Huge? Have you held one? The body size of the a6400, m6, and Z 50 are almost exactly the same. The Z 50's viewfinder sticks up, and its grip is actually hand-sized, but with a lens attached there's very little difference in bulk.
Now compare this to the X-T30. The viewfinder hump is a bit lower, but the shoulders are a bit higher.
The Sony is admittedly incredibly small. But the other 3, with viewfinders, are very much the same size. For the cost of another 1/4" in viewfinder hump height, you get a large image that's easily viewable with glasses on.
And, of course, you have to remember that they all are manipulated by the human hand. The Z 50 just fills the hand a bit more fully.
@mosswings, actually your camera size compares to an X-T3... An X-T30 is musch smaller... The Z50 is closer to an X-T3 or an RP than an X-T30/M6II/A6400.
Brent: yes, because of the projecting viewfinder primarily. The a6400 is incredibly small. But it pays for that tininess with small, fiddly controls that are poorly placed, a viewfinder that is unfriendly to eyeglass wearers and left-eye shooters, and a smallish grip. The Z 50 is what result when you consider operability and human factors in product interface design.
When you put an 18-135 or 18-140 onto either of these cameras, the bulk becomes quite similar. Yes, the a6400+18-135 will fit into a BYOB 9 case - barely. The Z 50 is closer in overall dimensions to a D5600. So is the X-T30. Both require the classic 4" deep small body DSLR case. The a6400 can get away with a 3.25" case.
The really big failing of the Z 50 is its near useless subject tracking interface, which is a tack-on to auto-area-AF instead of its own AF mode. I bought the a6400 explicitly because its subject tracking interface operates more smoothly than the 3D-tracking on my 2013 era D7100. In this regard you can focus-and-recompose effortlessly on the a6400, and this largely replaces joysticks and D-pads for composition. Because the Z 50's UI is I believe unfinished, you fall back to D-pad for eye-at-finder focus point placement, although the touch screen is quite easily used when the monitor is employed. That makes little sense.
On the other hand, with eye at finder the a6400 is just as clunky as the Z 50 in the non-tracking modes - and there are many times I find that I DON'T want the focus box to be dancing all over the screen.
On the overall size, I concur that the a6400 is extremely small. For me, it's simply too small for me to effectively use. If it works for you, great. Enjoy!
Kinda sorta. Height to the top of the viewfinder, about the same. Height to the shoulders of the camera body, X-T2 much taller. Depth, well the X-T2 has no grip. The Z 50 is a bit shorter than the D5600 but if you align the backs of the cameras they're about the same in depth and width...The Z 50's EVF projects a useful 1/4" back of the monitor. Left-eye shooters are rejoicing.
In addition to its new products, Nikon has also pushed live three firmware updates for its Z50, Z6 and Z7 mirrorless cameras, including a major 2.0 firmware update for the Z50 that adds Animal Detection AF.
Nikon has paired its Z 50 kit with a number of accessories to create an all-in-one set of gear to get up and shooting video and vlogs right out of the box.
Firmware version 3.00 for the Z6 and Z7 camera systems brings major new and improved features, including updates to the AF tracking implementation, expanded CFexpress support, animal-detection autofocus and more.
Fujifilm's new X-T200 is a huge improvement over its predecessor, bringing it a lot closer to its step-up model, the X-T30. Find out if it's worth spending another $200 to get the X-T30.
We've been testing the Nikon Z50 extensively and found a lot to like about it. However, the camera's biggest drawback is probably that it faces such well-established competition.
Being cooped up inside doesn't mean you have to take a break from photography. If you've got negatives from way back when, what's the best software around to scan them? Check out our in-depth comparison to find out.
The Sony Alpha 1 is Sony's flagship mirrorless camera for, well, just about anything. With a 50MP sensor, it gives you tons of resolution, but it also lets you fire off burst images at 30 fps for fast action sports. Add in 8K video capture and you have a really impressive package.
The Tamron 17-70 F2.8 Di III-A VC RXD is a compact general-purpose lens for Sony's APS-C, E-mount mirrorless cameras. So how does it perform? Read our review to find out.
Sony's FE 35mm F1.4 GM is an impressively sharp and long-awaited pro-level 35mm optic for full-frame Sony E-mount cameras. It's well-built and is pretty compact, but it's still not quite perfect. Find out all the details in our field review.
The Sony a7S III is a 12MP full-frame camera primarily designed with video in mind. We take a look beyond the specs to see what it offers to filmmakers.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Whether you make a living out of taking professional portraits, or are the weekend warrior who knows their way around flashes and reflectors, you'll want a camera with high resolution, exceptional autofocus and a good selection of portrait prime lenses. Click through to see our picks.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2500? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2500 and recommended the best.
Following the success of the Pentax KP J Limited in 2019, the Japanese camera maker is back with a new J Limited product, this time in the form of the K-1 Mark II J Limited 01. The handcrafted camera is available in four colors and is currently available only in Japan.
FiLMiC, makers of apps including FiLMiC Pro, Double Take and Firstlight, has patented a new image rendering technology, Cubiform. The new tech uses color look-up tables to perform significantly faster editing and rendering.
Yasuhiro Osone, General Manager of the Product Planning Department at Sigma, revealed the news in a mirrorless lens development live stream shared earlier today.
Color slide film can produce images that are brighter and more vibrant than standard color print film, but with far less exposure latitude, there's little room for error. Here's everything you need to know about color slide film.
As we put the final wraps on our Nikon Z7 II review, we couldn't help but take it out for some neighborhood photos during some relatively rare Seattle snow – check out how it performs at ISO values high and low in our gallery update.
A few days after Sony Nordic revealed the details of the 2.00 firmware update for the Sony a7S III, the firmware update is now live and ready to download.
Billed by Sigma as 'a more compact but still high-performing alternative to the existing 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN | Art' its new 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN is indeed considerably smaller and lighter than it's 'Art' series contemporary. Click through for a closer look at Sigma's newest zoom lens.
The sensors in the Phase One XF IQ4 camera system is currently the largest medium-format digital camera sensor on the market, and we've just put the 150MP model in front of our studio test scene. Want detail? You've got it. Check out how our new reference camera fares.
Pentax has released updated versions of three of its prime lenses, adding improved coatings and a more rounded aperture diaphragm for smoother bokeh. The updated 31mm F1.8, 43mm F1.9 and 77mm F1.8 'Limited' lenses will be available in April.
NASA's Juno spacecraft has been orbiting Jupiter since 2016. A recent image captured by the spacecraft and processed by a citizen scientist gives us a beautiful look at the gas giant.
Last year, Isaac Lowe-Anker, younger brother of photographer Max Lowe graduated from college, but like a whole generation of students in 2020, his graduation was virtual. In this video, Max takes his brother on a celebratory road trip across the Olympic Peninsula.
The GN2 builds upon the foundation Samsung's GN1 sensor offers with new and improved features and capabilities thanks to its Dual Pixel Pro and Smart ISO Pro technologies.
The Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN is small, but how does it perform optically? Chris has the answers. Meanwhile, Jordan begins his stint filming episodes with the Pentax K-01. Let the fun begin.
The Sigma 28-70mm DG DN F2.8 is a compact standard zoom for full-frame L- and E-mount bodies. We've been shooting with the lens on the Panasonic Lumix DC-S1R so you can get a first look at its image quality.
Sigma has introduced its 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary lens for L- and E- mount bodies. This small and light lens has numerous special glass elements, plus weather-sealing, and will be available in March for $899.
After landing on Mars on February 18, Perseverance has been busy. In addition to its first images, Perseverance has captured a 360° view of Mars using its pair of onboard 20MP Navcams.
Rode has released a new Wireless Go II kit, which comes with three units: a dual channel receiver and two transmitters. The updated kit features improved connectivity, onboard audio recording storage and more.
The Sony FX3 is a 'compact cinematography' camera built around a 12MP full-frame BSI CMOS sensor. It shares a lot in common with the a7S III, so what does it do to earn its place in Sony's 'Cinema Line?'
Sony has formally announced the much-leaked FX3 full-frame video camera. The FX3 marks the entry point to the Cinema Line of video cameras, and wears Alpha branding, setting it between the FX6 and the a7S III.
Following the launch of Sony's new Alpha 1 full-frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, we sat down (virtually) with Masaaki Oshima, Deputy Senior Manager of Sony's Camera division. Click through to read our in-depth interview.
An email sent by Sony Nordic to newsletter subscribers appears to have let the preverbal cat out of the bag — the a7S III will get Sony’s S-Cinetone color profile in a version 2.00 update.
Huawei's Mate X2 is the Chinese company's latest foldable phone. It incorporates a Leica-branded four camera array, complete with a macro and telephoto camera.
Laowa has expended the mirrorless camera mount options for two of its most popular manual primes: the Laowa 11mm F4.5 FF RL and the Laowa 65mm F2.8 2x Ultra-Macro APO.
Professional wildlife photographer and Olympus Visionary Scott Bourne is one of the best-known names in bird photography. In this interview, he explains his background, and what he thinks of the new M.Zuiko 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x IS PRO lens
As we press on with our full review, we've had a chance to shoot more with the Sony a1 and also process some of our Raw images to get an idea of just how much dynamic range it's capable of.
Hasselblad has launched a new video series, 'Hasselblad's Home,' offering a behind-the-scenes look at Hasselblad's headquarters and its products. The first episode focuses on the design philosophy of the X System.
Our intrepid DPRTV team up in Canada has been braving the freezing conditions to bring us a gallery of images from the new Panasonic S 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 Macro OIS. Click through to see how they got on.
The Perseverance rover has successfully landed on Mars. The rover is in Jezero Crater, where it will spend its life exploring and analyzing the surface of Mars. The rover quickly sent back its first images.
Comments