A lot has changed since we last compared entry-level APS-C mirrorless cameras. In this 2020 update, Chris and Jordan compare the Fujifilm X-T200, Sony a6100 and Canon EOS M50. Which one is right for you?
Yeah, unfortunately I fully expect full frame and above digital cameras to essentially go extinct. Yeah some will be sold, but for all foreseeable purposes and end uses for most people computational photography in cell phones will persuade those with cash in hand to buy there. I realize it and have abandoned all cameras otherwise as of now. (I have an Olympus micro 4/3's Pro camera system which I love and never expect to have to replace.)
Entry level mirrorless camera's are the ones without a viewfinder. Most current APS-C models (don't know why MFT is excluded as it achieves the same thing);
Sony A5100 €399 with kitlens (2014) Fujifilm X-A7 €589 with kitlens (2019) Canon EOS M200 €499 with kitlens (2019)
That's entry level. A €1000 camera with 1 kitlens is not.
Look at the forum structure. M43 gets all lumped in to one forum so no brand split or lens forum or model split as on the DSLR side. DPR really have little interest in the format and it falls below the radar with their very traditional view of the market.
Sony have been given honorary admission to the inner circle of proper cameras with a proliferation of forums even though sharing a mount but m43 like Samsung never were.
So we have the new world of drones and video but the view of the camera side is very traditional and stultified and a clear sensor size hierarchy.
I have the M50 and it's a great travel camera, I don't bring my 5Dmk4 as often as I used to, the tracking, image quality, and articulate screen work so well that I may sell my 5D if Canon get on with the M50 Mark11,
yes! i am using EOS M (1st gen) all the time and my 5D3 plus L glass stays at home most of the time. simoly a matter of size, weight and conspicuousness.
Also waiting for a Canon EOS M50 II or M60 or whatever they call it. Hope it has as M6 II sensor and AF, built-in pop-up EVF, very compact body, and price in line with M50. guess we'll have to wait a bit longer now until that nasty virus has died down (pun intended).
"entry level" for current mirrorless APS-C system cameras is very clear: Fuji: X-A5 Sony: A5100 Canon: EOS M200
in this comparison dpr is looking at some midrange APS-C mirrorfree cameras. Fuji brand new at € 800, Sony also recent at € 750 and 2-year old Canon M50 selling at € 550 and very nicely holding up. At least for stills, which is all i care about.
I don't think the a5100 is entry level today. That model is coming up on its 7th birthday. Sony never discontinues anything (not literally). They keep selling models long, long after they are released. They don't replace the entry level camera - they just keep adding more models. That is why I think they are calling the a6100 the entry level for Sony.
Lol seriously dpreview?? Like the Nikon Z50 doesn't even exist? Or you're worried if you include it in the comparison it will just beat the rest easily? What a joke of an article.
c'mon this is not a team sport. they picked three cameras. truth to tell, if someone want's a really inexpensive entry level APS-C, they can try a used Sony of Fuji - saving $150.
z50 happens to be the entry level mirrorless for Nikon - but it is in a higher price category then these other bodies. The panasonic s5 is entry level full frame for Panasonic - but would it be fair to compare that to the Canon RP or the Nikon Z5? I don't think so - as those bodies are made specifically to be low cost.
Chris, Jordan, very glad you have a lens category. Anything that adds an overall/systems view is a plus (for me). I was a bit disappointed not to have seen the Z50 (which I just gifted my son with a $50 FTZ adapter so he can access the couple F mount Nikon & Signa lenses I kept - in addition my Z lenses including to the gorgeous Z 50mm 1.8 (well, gorgeous in the inside, I find the esthetics of the lens body unappealing)). I guess the cut-off was due to price (the Z50 with lens is $50 more expensive)? Side note: as someone who discovered photography with a Canon A-E1, I find the Fuji very cute (for lack of a better word :)!
I think I would start with a price point rather than sensor size. The Canon is considerably cheaper than the Sony and the Fuji in the ads on the site, and locally the difference is even bigger. For the price of the A6100, I could get either an M50 with the kit lens and the Sigma 30mm 1.4. The GX9 with the 12-32mm and the Lumix 25mm 1.7 is cheaper than both the Sony and the Fuji kits.
Yeah there's a difference between entry level and just plain old. The 5100 is a 2014 camera that doesn't even have a viewfinder. As frequent as Sony has spit out new models over the years, it looks like they could keep their entry levels updated better.
It's a 2015 camera. The A6000 is the 2014 entry and that also is still sold as new at my local brick and morter (maybe old stock?)
"I wouldn't try to judge Sony today based on that model which should have been deprecated five years ago."
Why not? Should have but didn't; they are still trying to sell the A5100 so a comparison is still relevant. Newbies don't know when it was made but it's sitting right there in the camera store and on the web page as the entry level model. So for folks trying to decide what they should get aren't helped at all by this video. At the bare minimum mention it exists and why it's not in this list should be mentioned.
And a slug? I still use mine daily and like it in some ways better than newer cameras. It's plenty fast enough and takes great pictures. It's the only (current) sony camera designed to take advantage of the power zooms with a dedicated zoom lever.
It can't do 9fps like my 2012 E-M5 can. It doesn't have a touchscreen interface or eye AF tracking. It isn't made of metal or weather resistant, either.. I mean hey, if we're gonna compare older model digital cameras.. I've shot the 5100 and there is no comparison between it and the E-M5. And yes, I'll say including image quality in less than ideal light because the E-M5 has IBIS which the 5100 does not.
Canon EOS M50 + EF-M 18-150 in kit costs a lot less [ € 869 ]. Much better bang for the buck. Plus M50 comes with decent built-in EVF and significantly better user interface - including fully functional touch screen and menu system.
More than 1 dial is only helpful in "M" mode. 99% of all images are NOT captured in M mode. Especially images captured by amateurs in non-studio/non-strobe settings.
And even with M50 / only 1 dial you can dial in aperture and shutter speed fairly easily. When you use M mode, your are not in a hurry. You have sufficient time to switch dial from aperture to shutter speed and back, using 1 button click.
Uh I shoot "M" for everything and like having physical dials. In fact my biggest ding on the A6400 is the lack of a front dial so I can have one dial each for Shutter Speed/Aperture/ISO.
@BrentSchumer: do you shoot in "M" mode only? in all other modes only 1 dial is needed.
As opposed to mechanical cameras of the past and retro stuff like Fuji, digital cameras with a smart user interface - like Canon - enable full operation with only 1 physical dial with context-sensitive function via firmware. A second physical dial only offers a minor advantage in M mode, in real life switching dial function between aperture control and shutter speed using 1 button press is no real inconvenirnce either.
personally i use 90% Av mode (set aperture using 1 dial) 3% Tv mode (set shutter speed using1 dial) 3% P mode (select aperture+time combo using 1 dial) 3% M mode, usually with flash - using 2 dials if available on body, or 1 dial plus button to quickly switch on single dial cameras. 1% green square - when i hand camera to some other person - "please push shutter button here, and please dont touch any dial or other button".
well in that case I can understand your wish for 2 dials. Luckily you have plenty of choice of suitable camera models.
And for big, expensive, high/er-end cameras I also want 2 separate dials - for those "M" mode occasions. But buyers of "entry level APS-C cameras" and "budget lenses" - which this article and discussion is all about - are typically not using M mode regulary/mostly/exclusively. So 1 dial is fully sufficient and helps to keep size of camera bodies as compact as possible, which I find very important for crop-sensor cameras.
Y'all need to "get over" the whole mirrorless thing.
The beginners these videos are aimed at just simply don't care. They just want a "good camera" that's better than their iphone.
This video would have been way more useful if it was just "Battle of the entry-level APS-C cameras" period full stop.
It would have only added 2 (maybe 3?) more cameras to the review but would have given newbies a much more valuable resource for choosing their next camera.
GET OVER IT. NO ONE (except a few VERY silly folks here) CARES WHAT TECH IS IN THE CAMERAS!!!!!
In fact, a lot of beginners are interested in what type of cameras they want. The want a better camera then their is in their phones. So a group of them decide that their cameras must not be to large, must have a decent zoom lens and must have a decent sensor. These people go for the 1" cameras as that is a perfect upgrade from their phones, it gives them a lot of possibilities with longer zoom lenses and the IQ is simply better then the phone, and for most of them good enough. Then there is the group that want ILCs. Part of them wants the cheapest camera around, and they probably go for a DSLR, other part wants the smallest ILC with a decent IQ and all (so that leaves the Pentax Q out of the equation). They will go for mirrorless, as the cameras with lens can be (very) small. Then there is the group that wants the best of the best, these might go mirrorless, or DSLR depending on their actual needs. So indeed beginners are interested in the technology!
@Newbie4Life The only question from smartphone user like me only 3 question: a) Price (must less than $500) b) Size must compact at least able put in hand bag. c) Better IQ (direct output JPEG) than $500 phone.
If you mentioned RAW post-processing via PC/MAC. Another question be why need extra cost to buy PC/Mac. Early version of iPhone also need PC/Mac. These pressure make iPhone can standalone without PC/Mac.
@forest dream If they don't even have a laptop or desktop, I doubt they'd even know what to do with a camera. Also, for those who want to buy a camera because it's better than their phone, they're probably not as obsessed with size as some think. They've already got a phone and expect that a camera is going to require its own space. The lenses are what causes ILCs to be rejected for size reasons.
Also - I think phones have reached the point where you can make better pictures with them than you could being a noob to system cameras and just picking one up not knowing what you are doing. It takes a lot of time to understand both the camera, and then light. If you are not ready to take on a new hobby that takes time to develop a craft - then just stick with your camera phone. Or don't - I don't mind buying your barely used equipment on ebay.
Yes they do when we look at reviews, but what happens when we look at sales? Looking at Amazon the first Fuji camera is @#19 behind 18 other cameras. So taking over the world might be a bit of a stretch...
exactly. 90% or what is chattered about on here is irrelevant to 99% of the camera buying public.
For example on a recent cruise every single camera I saw was a canon/nikon (including a 5D4 with L glass) until like the 8th day I saw a kid running around with a sony mirrorless.
I think camera nerds love the look of the fuji bodies. Lots of cool knobs that are a callback to film cameras of the past. I think the general public looks at that and is put off by it. It looks like your grandfather's camera.
I went Sony over Fuji because the 18-135 was about $300 less than the Fuji version. But now that I have it, I don't like it (a6400). It's sucked the joy out of photography for me. I can never remember all the settings, and settings change and I don't know what I did. It's more like a computer than a traditional camera, and computers ain't fun to me.
And BTW, no one makes an AF UWA prime for APS-C, like 10mm 2.8.
Because it's called "entry level APS-C mirrorless cameras"? And probably because the lack of PDAF on the EM10III and whatever the latest Panasonic is (I can't keep them straight) means they can't keep up in AF.
In agreement with many of the posters here on WHY wasn't the Z50 included in this comparison. I mean after all... the article title IS 'Entry Level Mirrorless'... and the Z50 IS Nikon's entry level mirrorless. All these cameras are within a few hundred dollars of each other 'price comparison wise'... so camera price should NOT have been an issue. ;)
If we have to include the Z50 because it's only a bit more expensive than these cameras, then we have to include the X-T30, which has the same list price.
The Z50 has more in common with the X-T30, Sony a6400 and Canon EOS M6 II. That's why it was included in a comparison against those cameras.
“A few hundred dollars” is a big deal if you’re buying an entry class body. Z50 is specced and priced like a midrange product, with more apt comparisons being EOS M6 II and a6400. And if such a comparison is made today, Z50 would get clobbered so badly on the lens section that it’d probably finish last, the body itself be damned. (Yes, that could change in a year or two. On the other hand, you presumably buy a camera so that you can use it today, not let it sit on the shelf for two years while Nikon gets its act together on cheap lenses for the Z mount.)
"[...] how uncomfortable and miniature that thing was" - That is valid for most manufacturers. It really depends on how you like it, personally i totally agree.
Some time ago i went in the store, with the money in my pocket to get the X-T20. After playing with it (and a few other models) for almost two hours, i decided to wait a little more and go for the bigger brother. Simply there wasn't much joy playing with that little thing. The wait turned a bit longer because the X-T3 announcement, and the big step it was in AF, but now my fingers are happy when holding the camera :))
Def personal preference. I switched from a Nikon DSLR to the A6000 years ago and appreciated the reduction in size/weight (I'm 6'1" with decently large hands) and the form factor has never been an issue for me. When I pick up an A7RIV it feels huge to me.
Such an exiting review. I should stop watching dp review camera reviews. Every time I watch those build up my camera desire, and I often end-up buying one more camera on amazon. After buying the latest model reviewed I get buyer remorse when I realize the cameras reviewed a few years back already cover all my needs.
Reviews are always about the latest models, as that generates the biggest sales, and the biggest interest in the review for a longer time. Price-performance is always better if you go for older models, this is true for many things, cars, phones, and cameras, too.
@Brent, I see the A6400 is number 13 vs 52 on Amazons best selling cameras. It even costs $200 less, is smaller, lighter, takes better IQ, has much better AF, etc... If the Z50 is such a great camera, then why do you own the a6400? That makes no sense to me. Why did you choose the a6400 over the Z50, since you think the Z50 is so much better?
Let me get this straight. BCN tracks a lot more camera sales than Amazon. And 4 of the top 10 cameras are Olympus. 4 of the top 6 are Canon. The #3 camera is the EM1 mark 3. So it is selling well. The Olympus EM10 and several Canon mirrorless cameras also rank higher than the A6400 as usual.
So are those all better cameras, including the Nikon in BCN's #1 spot?
@Sony Sam. It all depends on if you think Amazon (largest online company on earth) reviews and sales are more relevant than BCN, whatever that is, since I've never heard of it.
@snapa @BrentSchumer's comment was sarcastic. He was trying to say that the Z 50 is really an entry-level camera at a mid-level camera price. The latter is true, but the former is a bit unfair. If, however, you value the Sony Real-Time-Tracking feature above all else, The a6400 is the better tool.
I own both. Even with all the tech of the a6400, I found the Z 50 to be a much more pleasant camera to use; consequently, the a6400 is gathering dust.
I'd love to see that 18-140 Z-mount be released sooner than later, and won't be holding my breath for DX primes from Nikon...but the tool has to feel right in the hand for it to benefit your craft.
The Z50 is an enthusiast's camera that an entry-level user can handle. None of the cameras mentioned handle nearly as well as the Nikon, unless you like menu-diving.
Talk about desperate. Amazon US does not sell more cameras than what BCN tracks in Japan. I'd be willing to be the camera stores (combined) on the coasts sell more high end models than Amazon does. And eBay I am sure sells a good percentage too.
Also, DSLRs rule the Amazon US rankings. It is rare to see a mirrorless camera in the top 200 of the "Camera/Photo" category, while there is usually a few DSLRs in the top 100.
If you believe BCN you would be forgiven to think Olympus and Sony are competing neck and neck in sales when Olympus has a far lesser market share than Sony. Canon mirrorless cameras are ruling the roost in Japan and only japan as everywhere else they are not selling well
Internally, the K-01 was an entry level DSLR, where they just ripped out the mirror and the viewfinder, so that the K-01 was effectively like an always-in-lifeview-mode DSLR. Which is the worst case for pseudo mirrorless.
Therefore, the K-01 was such a failure even in the Pentaxians' sub-market, that Pentax removed it a year later or so.
M43 was at the start of race so far ahead, with its lens range, Panasonic's video features and Olympus' IBIS. Fuji was so far back, with its problems in AF and video and no IBIS, but it kept going and going, slowly and steadily..
All 3 cameras with the f/1.4 and f/2 primes for the respective mounts are great. I see no wrong choice, really. I read an article that Tokina is coming up with f/1.4 primes for Fuji. Even better.
You could say that. Then again, if AF is the thing that you find most important, then Sony certainly is a valid option. I think the DPReview did a good job explaining that even though the did pick a favorite, you may pick a different winner.
Since the Z50 was Nikon's DX camera I assumed it would be entry level. I stand enlightened about the fairly specific quantitative levels. Almost everyone likes to think of themselves as 'middle class' lol.
APS-C doesn’t imply entry level...ask any D500 owner.
Nikon appears to have targeted the mid to upper mid range in all their Z-bodies...that’s where they think most of the market is. The Z 50 is somewhere between a D5600 and a D7500 in its capabilities, with 2 control dials and a viewfinder that you would have never found on one of their DX entry level bodies. Speculation is that there will be a Z70, and if the z 50 is successful, maybe a z 30...but I don’t think a Z 30 would do very well. The market has become mostly enthusiasts.
@Jon - well, that doesn't really matter actually. But DPR had already put the Z50 in a similar comparison with the closer (in price and performance - in their view) models like X-T30, A6400...
Fuji has two problems with their entry level lens lineup: The price of the XF 18-135 is way too high for a super zoom, and there is no affordable UWA zoom.
As a landscape enthusiast who is very interested in the XT-4, I do wish there were better UWA options for X-mount. The only one that really appeals is the 8-16mm f/2.8, but that costs $2,000 which is hard to justify, plus it's quite large and heavy—not great when you have to hike to your shooting location. The only other native option is the 10-24mm f/4, which is reasonably-priced and -sized, but not weathersealed, and the image quality could be better—in an UWA lens, I want sharper corners. None of the 3rd party options offer autofocus, in-body aperture control, or EXIF. There are no UWA primes available at all.
I want something sharp, weathersealed, reasonably sized, reasonably priced, and that can speak Fuji's mount protocol. It needs to go at least to 18mm equivalent at its widest, and the wider the better. F/4 aperture would be perfectly fine. Image stabilization is not necessary.
Have a look at the Samyang primes. Yes, it is not a Zoom, and it is neither an autofocus lens, but the former is a tradeoff to consider when weighing in the excellent corner sharpness and light gathering capability of this F2.0 Lens and latter is forgiveable considering you seldomly need to adjust focus on an UW Lens.
The 12mm Samyang/Rokinon/Walimex is simply outstanding in sharpness, abberations and mechanics, even better at 2.0 than the Zeiss Tuoit at 2.8. The Price is a steal and mechanically is is a Rock. You only need to adjust focus when taking close-up shots and for that manual focus is advisable anyways. And for macro photography this is simply the wrong focal length. Just set it to infinity and you are good to go for 95% of all pictures. On my latest holiday to Morocco i had it set to F8 almost all the time and took lovely sharp Architectural images and landscapes of the high Atlas mountains. Should've brouhgt an NDfilter to be able to use it at F2.0 X'D
@Halftrack That would be a job for the Fuji XF14mm f2.8 AF. Not weather sealed but still tough. Sharp lens and It even does IR landscapes with no hotspots.
It aint a perfect world but if you're willing to go wider, rectilinear, reasonably sharp, then MF on UWA (which is soooo easy on mirrorless) can open up interesting perspectives for you.
1. Samyang.Rokinon 12mm --- hella sharp corner to corner, takes in filters, great build.
2. Venus Optics 9mm (Zero Distortion) --- not a fishy but a rectilinear lens with near zero distortion. Great build quality too. It has filed curvature but just focus halfway down from the center and you can negate the field curvature for good sharpness across the screen.
See Christopher Frost's review in youtube for these interesting glass.
The Fuji 14mm is a 21mm equivalent, which isn't enough wider than 24mm (of which there are plenty of options) to matter. Neither the Rokinon or the Venus can communicate with the camera, and they're not weather sealed either. Also, while it's not a dealbreaker, I'd prefer a zoom over a prime. One doesn't always have the option of moving closer or farther to adjust framing (if you're standing on the edge of a cliff, say…) so being able to zoom in and out is very useful. That said, one of those primes is probably what I'd go for—unless I just bite the expensive bullet and get a clean used copy of the Fuji 8-12.
Agree, which is why I went Sony. Though now that I have, I don't like it. It's sucked the joy out of photography for me. I can never remember all the settings, and settings change and I don't know why. It's more like a computer than a traditional camera, and computers ain't fun to me.
@Halftrack - if you really want the fuji body, and you don't care much about AF speed, there are EF to X adapters that offer AF (with aperture control from the camera, data reporting, etc). Performance is not native, but for landscape you get really functional AF and access to quite a few lenses. However if landscape is your main focus, the Fuji might not be the best option... and I am saying this as a Fuji X-T3 user :).
i think the M50 did well to say its age..the M50mkii will most probably have the 32mp sensor and the AF from the M6mkii with its improved tracking /eye af i think this was a balanced review
I have the m6ii and the 32mp is no joke. There is no high iso penalty and when shooting with the 32mm or 56mm sigma, the sharpness combined with the megapixels is phenomenal. If you don't believe me, check my flash topic and results in the forums.
Ah. So you haven't used one. More pixels, more detail, with no real penalty. The sensor in the M6 Mk II / 90D is very good, especially if you use DPP4 instead of ACR.
We are using cameras until 60 mpx. I failed to see the usage of 32mpx vs 26.. moreover you need really good and big lenses to achieve such a resolution.
In real life, it makes imo not much sense. Such some pixel peeping
I don't know who started the "lens being outresolved by the sensor" meme, but it's mostly mathematical masturbation, and only an issue if you're looking at 100% pixel crops and using a poor performing lens.
The same argument was made a decade ago when the 40D came out with it's 10 MP sensor-- "too many pixels for APS-C! Image quality will suffer!".
Those of us who actually use the camera, appreciate the 25% extra resolution, the additional latitude in cropping, and additional detail in our pictures.
there is no down side to the 32MP sensor this is not an opinion but fact 1 you do not have to use it full ress if you dont want the file size 2 the noise is better than the sensor it replaced 3 it has more DR than the sensor it replaced 4 rolling shutter in video is very good way better than the sensor it replaced 5 DPAF works better than the sensor it replaced 6 evan poor lenses resolve more detail with more MP if the image is viewed at the same size 7 good lenses resolve notable more detail 8 more cropping scope 9 makes the old 24mp sensor look lame
you disagree to what ? i never stated an opinion ..you say the 32MP sensor is lame. i asked you why you think that ..you have yet to say why ....its not an opinion that about every parameter has improved with the 32mp sensor its a fact..you don't have to shoot at full ress ... the extra ress is only a small part of what improvements this sensor brings to the table.. so why is the new canon APS-c sensor lame as you say it is????
@davev8. Hi:) This is an opinion just like mine.. For my work, 32mpx instead of 22-26 does not bring much but has some drawbacks (like bigger files, no added details, lower iq..). Well, if it works for you, nice enjoy :). For myself, it's useless.. I could take photographs with the 60mpx camera we have.. but I almost never do.
We also have an M6II which most of the time stay on the table.. the others cameras with lower mpx doing the job better..
i don't have the 32mp sensor and i will say that high MP is not often needed ..heck i still often use 12MP ...if you are getting no added detail out of the 32mp sensor you are doing something wrong...how do you get lower IQ when every parameter is better ISO.DR etc ??? how can it be useless ...if your resolution was limited by say camera shake then you would see no improvement in detail with more MP...so how exactly are your lower res cameras doing a better job?
@davev8: the lenses and handling are just not as good on the Canon as on the others cameras we have. So most of the time, yes, the M6II produce less details pictures with more efforts...
soooo how do the lenses and the handling of the camera make the 32MP sensor lame as stated in your OP ???...we will just put it down to the fact you made a nonsensical statement and leave it at that
The best is the X-T200, except for the terrible pre-amps audio noise. Anyway, it has the better 1080p, and the better 1080p 120fps, and the 4K video is more or less the same as the Sony A6100. The Canons looks like a toy... plain garbadge...
Sony way to much rolling shutter to be useful. Canon crop makes it sometimes useless, and Sony rolling shutter makes it mostly useless. Sony color profiles in video are pretty bad too. Since entry level buyers won't know how to fix it without 8bit posterization issues, it should be avoided.
Thanks a lot SpeedyNeo :), but I think I made up my mind... I'm in love with the Fuji X-T200, I just think is a little bit expensive for an entry level camera...
Drew, thanks, I will wait then :) I thought about the X-A7, but I saw some footage, and the continuous AF looked terrible, always hunting, etc I think the XT200 have better AF, what do you think?... also, it doesn't offer 1080p, 120fps... :(
Meanwhile, people coming from cellphone photography who are about to go on a big vacation, to an important event or embarking on their first serious photo project (food, landscape, product, documentary) ask me for buying advice all the time.
They do still exist, because even after several years of market contraction, camera sales are still higher than would be the case if only the enthusiasts and pros were left.
While entry level cameras dominate sales rankings and store rankings like BCN and Amazon, I've rarely seen high end models. Lately the Z50 and A7III are the only non-entry level models I've scene.
I love entry level cameras. As long as you can live with some stripped down features and a hit in performance you can get some great images and put the money into a good lens. I have been using the Fuji X-T100 with the 10-24mm on it since it came out. I have shot many landscapes/seascapes with it and It has not let me down.
You all need to reread my first sentence. "*Entry-level photographers* are less common than unicorns."
Nowhere did I mention *entry level cameras.*
Entry level cameras, should be called *Low Priced Cameras.* They sell to Advanced Amateurs, who don't have the excess money to spend on a hobby anymore—not to those Mythical-Entry-Level-Photographers.
It isn't 1960 anymore, when World Population was just 3,034,949,748 people. Today (2020) it has more than doubled to 7,794,798,739. ¿So what has happened to camera sales? ¿Maybe an indifference to camera-gear as a hobby?
Well I hope you read my reply, as well. Go to any major tourist destination and you can see plenty of entry level photographers with their brand new cameras.
There are many good restaurants in HB. There is a Hyatt Regency plus many more high-dollar hotels. The next town is Newport Beach, with it's large harbor amd many fine restaurants. So there are a lot of tourists in my immediate area.
I worked for Universal Studios during the 1970s/80s/90s. What people had on the tour-trams were mainly film P&S cameras—not many real IL Cameras in sight, except for the Asian tourists.
Always great to see you guys having fun with these very useful video guides!
I pretty much agree with your conclusions, although personally the camera I'd recommend to novices is the M50, despite the better AF of the Sony and the greater lens choice with the Fujifilm. But there again, I'm a little biased, as a long time Canon user.
I have a Canon EOS 2000D that does exactly that, and as that was my first ever DSLR, I was really confused why all of my shots were slightly out of focus, when the viewfinder image was consistently tack sharp. My late '80s film SLR didnct do that... It's still under warranty, I wonder if they would adjust it if I sent it back, as it would be a nice secondary camera to my current one.
I own the A6000 and M100 which belong in this category - and I really would like to recommend anyone that is looking into this category of camera to consider more than what the body offers. Bodies will come and go, but the camera's ecosystem won't. Look into what lenses are available for your system, then try your best to touch and play with these cameras in store.
If you don't really care about video, I would seriously consider an entry level DSLR. There will be a slightly higher learning curve compared to these mirrorless cameras, but there will be benefits if you do so. Entry level DSLRs like the Nikon D5600 or Canon SL3 can offer better ergonomics, better lens selection, better battery life and more.
That being said, mirrorless cameras are incredibly easy to use due to their incredible AF systems that let you track and focus on faces or subjects pretty much across the whole frame. Not saying DSLR's can't, buy mirrorless cameras tend to be better than DSLRs in this respect.
You hit on a major point to consider. For at least Sony there is no choice of bodies, and they have stuck with the same, often criticized body for 8+ years. All the A6x00 cameras use the use the same off center VF body as the old NEX 6 from 8 or 9 years ago. None of their controls are as nice as the highly regarded NEX7, or any of the competitors. And the sensor is also the one from the old A6000 that is showing its age. Since these A6x00 series was just refreshed and there seems to be a 3 year life cycle. Don't expect anything new for a few more years.
Entry level DSLRs usually don't have AF adjustment built in, so more likely than not they will consistently misfocus. For beginners wondering why all their photos are blurry, that's the fastest way to make them give up their new hobby. I think the avalanche of cheap DSLRs has been very damaging to photography as a whole.
I've used the A6100 and it is really a good all around camera. However, there were two things that really put me off with it. One was the build quality. I get it, it's an entry level camera. But this thing feels down right flimsy. And second, the EVF. Again, I know it is entry level. But the resolution from that EVF looks like 10 year old tech. Can't help but think they could have at least improved the EVF and still been able to keep it affordable. But beyond those two things, it is an awesome camera.
Sony has that camera, it's called the A6400. It is indeed considerably more expensive than the M50, and a bit more than the X-T200 as well. If you go Sony, I think it makes sense to save up and go for the A6400. It is not entry level, but a better camera which fixes exactly the issues you described.
The A6100 is basically the A6000 with a FW update and a higher price tag. Like Chris said it hasn't changed much. They should have re-released the NEX 7 which overall is better than this one instead. Both are outdated, but the NEX 7 is better.
I see Jordan is back to the S1H. What a rough life having to choose between the S1H, GH5/GH5s, and the X-T4 (which he used for the last couple videos).
Great job as always. My sound was down and I missed the first few seconds of the video. I started over because I enjoy these so much and didn't want to miss anything, no matter how corny it is.
It's always hilarious to siphon through the various comments following a review of any type. No matter how hard they try, Jordan and Chris are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I must say that IMO, they nailed this one pretty good.
As one of the many multi-brand users on these forums, I've really come to appreciate the gradual, yet determined climb of Fuji products within the mirrorless hierarchy. The cameras they are producing now-a-days (in all categories) are simply superb for their respective genre's. And as was mentioned by another replier below, now-a-days there are so many good cameras that you could easily just adopt one system and build on it - and be quite content.
I must say however (and I've said this quite a few times on various forums), even though I enjoy shooting with M43, Canon EOS M, Fuji X, and Samsung NX very, very much, if I was forced to have to whittle down to just one brand - it would be the Fuji X system hands down (IMO of course).
One attractive feature for Fujifilm is there are different levels and sizes of cameras in the same format/system. One can get a small fun 'travel' or entry level body to share with family, and also a larger more "professional" body too. No camera is better at shooting professional look stills and video SOOC because of their film simulation and professional looking colors. Others may be as good, but not better.
Ben... that means a lot coming from you, since you have extensively used all brands and don't seem to have any particular brand bias. The professional camera reviewers get to use a camera for a few days, while you use them for a several years. And you come from the the same spot most of us are in. That is to say "average amateur user."
I agree. I shoot with a Sony a6400. The results are good enough for me but I agree with Jordan and Chris that the ergonomy is not so good and Fuji has a far better choice in aps-s lenses. If I had no equipment, I would go for Fuji.
But all of you guys are not beginners, but veteran enthusiasts. You are used to pay many $$$$ or $$$$$ for your system(s). For a beginner, Fuji cameras are a poisoned bait, because Fuji's lenses are absurdly expensive, unnecessarily expensive for most.
Imagine, a beginner finds out after the first few weeks, that an ultra wide angle zoom is a "must have" to to start into landscape photography. With Fuji, he/she would be in deep trouble then, because already this is when the lens-price rip-off starts to happen.
Fuji should NOT be recommended to any beginners, due to the lens policy there.
Actually, you have several choices or avenues of approach here:
1. To begin with, Fuji does have their XC brand of entry level lenses - and they're quite good considering the their genre of "kit lenses." They get you the equivalent of 24 MM on the wide end of things.
2. Secondly, thanks to FRINGER, they make Fringer EF to X adapters (and now Nikon to X adapters also) that allow you to use virtually all lenses from either Canon and Nikon on your Fuji cameras with full functionality enabled. For example, I purchased the Fringer EF to X (Canon) adapter (I paid $199 for it). Then I purchased the wonderful, highly rated and reviewed, entry level Canon 11-18 F4.5-5.6 IS wide angle lens for another $199. Even with both purchases (the Fringer being a one time purchase that will allow for all kinds of Canon lenses to be used), the total cost was still only 40% of what I would have paid for the $1000 10-24 MM wide angle XF Fuji equivalent.
XC doesn't help, if the beginner finds out quickly, that the landscape/architecture stuff he admires are done with the shorter end on 10-xx zooms.
It is pointless to go a route, which depends on recycling old Canon DSLR lenses for Fuji, only because because Fuji doesn't deliver anything comparable (and will never do).
If adapting old lenses should be the preferred route, that would lean towards Sony for versatility then. Or some entry Canon mirrorless system of course, for utilizing old Canon-only lenses.
XC is just an alibi for minimal kit lens offerings, i.e. XC seems to exist just for facilitating kit offerings as baits. Seemingly not an inch beyond that restricted mission.
One of the nice things about having an opinion is that it is just that - an opinion. I offered mine based on my usage of these XC lenses and Fringer/Canon lenses.
And we will just have to agree to disagree. The XC lenses I have are outstanding and punch far above their weight. Perhaps I'm fortunate in being able to get great copies - of the XC 16-50 F3.5-5.6 OIS & Power Zoom XC 15-45 mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ. Of course, one can obtain lesser than ideal copies. But
As many Fringer adapter users will testify to - that combination with various Canon lenses, adds a new dimension to the use of Fuji cameras. And now they are making a Fringer Nikon to Fuji adapter. Things are looking up.
As for Sony lenses (or Sony cameras for that matter), there are many of us who don't particular care for that brand - for a variety of reasons - but again, those are just opinions (which I think we have a right to advance).
Take away the AF, which everyone has improved, and my Sony system has really stagnated over the years. Chris said it hasn't changed much since the a6000, but really it's been since the NEX 6. Whats even more depressing is the A6100 is not much different than the a6400 and a6600. The entry level Fujifilm camera has better ergonomics and VF/LCD than Sony's flagship. Same goes for video, same goes for IQ, and all the other categories where the A6100 came in last.
Sony got so high on the success of their FF line a few years ago that they lost interest in APS-C, even after the huge success of the a6000. A mistake IMHO.
BKLorenzo - I bought an a6000 in 2014, replaced it with an a6300 in 2016. I used nothing else until late last year when I bought a Z6. Got tired of waiting for a significantly better APS-C model from Sony.
You don't own a Sony system - you're a Fuji troll.
Your name is an instant give away. You've just created your account, bash Sony in every post, praise Fuji and yet for some inexplicable reason you call yourself 'Sony San'.
I used Sony APS-C exclusively from 2014 until late last year, and I basically agree with Sony San, except for maybe image quality, where I was never convinced that Fuji had any real advantage. In most other ways, though, Fuji left Sony APS-C in the dust.
Sony is on record as saying they don't consider aps-c a professional format.
Fuji will ALWAYS offer superior aps-c products to Sony for that reason. As you go up the pricing scale and feature scale Sony swaps to FF, so the model above the A6600 is the A7III.
Sony will never make an aps-c camera to compete with the XT-4 because it would conflict with the sales of the A7III.
Reviewers never mention this and it's somewhat ridiculous not to. Fuji is essentially building a FF system with an aps-c sensor, so of course they offer more.
Jim, Sony is on record saying APSC is not a professional format, not a top priority, and won't get their latest HW. The HW in the 3 recent refreshes is all from 2014 and earlier. Same body styles as the very old NEX 6, and no other choice. It is a shame because the NEX 7 was considered to be a professional camera at the time of it's release. But Sony ended that line and abandoned the superior Tri-Nav controls because it competed with the new A7.
Jim Hughes, You posted a link to a rumor site from over a year ago about an A7000 replacing the A6500. The year before that and the year before that they also had fake rumors of an A7000.
Are you making fun of people for falling for those rumors, or the site for being wrong so many times.
As we know the a6600 is the new flagship which replaced the a6500. There is no new HW though it does use a larger but old battery.
If you read the article it's was more back handed quotes about APSC and how it is 2nd fiddle. The first part of the quote you mentioned was, "full-frame is usually their main camera, but for a long time, they’ve also used APS-C as their second camera"
FF is Sony's main camera. Sony said APSC is a lower tier and not their primary focus. They have always implied their APSC will never compete with their FF cameras. They still put USB 2.0 and other very outdated HW on their new APSC cameras for gosh sakes.
I followed that Sony Rumors site closely for years and APS-C became a long-running joke. TIme after time, an exec would be asked about it and reply with something maddeningly vague, ambiguous and hard-to-translate-exactly. AFAIK their real intentions were never actually made clear by anyone, at any time.
And while it's not good for selling new cameras, there is a good used market as people move away from traditional cameras. There are many great choices.
What nonsense. Articulating screens, including flips, help improve composition without the need to contort oneself like a circus performer. I wish my Z7 had a fully articulating screen.
What you are really whining about are YouTubers, not flip screens. Well, if you don’t like YouTubers then that’s your right. But put your complaints in the right place, ok?
I prefer a fully articulating screen for photography as it allows the most options, flip screens won't do some things and do others poorly. A while back I had the screen at 90 degrees to the camera so I could hold the camera out past an obstacle, aiming to my right, and see what I was shooting. Also I leave mine folded inwards so knocks don't matter,
@DarnGoodPhotos: a fully articulating screen allows you to shoot verticals while looking at the camera from above, a useful thing in a lot of situations. A screen like my Z7’s that merely tilts doesn’t help at all in framing close-to-the-ground vertical landscapes.
@PLShutterbug Thats why I love the X-T3 3-way tilt screen, usable in pretty much all situations without having the screen stick out from the camera and being off axis.
Tilt only is pretty useless if you just happen to do any kind of photos in portrait orientation... So saying that fully articulated is generally worse for stills is cutting out a big chunk of stills photography to suit your particular use case. I enjoy both and own bodies with both kinds, it's sweet to have a choice.
to @BKLorenzo; I've been shooting stills with fully articulating screen more than 3 years now and I dont know what you talking about.
I'm realy appreciate articulating screen for both landscape and macro works. Actually it becomes one of the most important feature for me. If Iwould change my camera one day, new one must have articulating screen.
Close but you've got it backward for lenses. I'd love to get into the Fuji system but lenses.... there just is no good value solution for a full suite of Fuji lenses. There's no 3rd party support, no Fuji DSLR lineup to adapt. No good value telephoto options. Most of their lenses are clustered somewhere round normal. Sony, somewhat better but still lacking value. Canon refuse to make the EOS-M body I want but the EF-M mount is just the best value proposition by far, not just in this comparison but across the entire industry. That some require an EF/EF-M adapter is irrelevant.
Sony E happily adapts more lenses than anything except maybe Nikon Z (do Sony A/Minolta AF lenses count as working on Z via LA-EA3 + TechArt adapter?), and the number of native mount lenses is huge. I also don't find the EF-M lenses to be particularly compelling, and although it handles EF and EF-S lenses well with an adapter, EF-M is a mount that leads nowhere. Just for reference, B&H currently lists 74 EF-M lenses, 162 Fuji X, and 315 Sony E -- a surprisingly good showing for Fuji, but still half of what's available for Sony E. Most of the cheapest lenses for all three are 3rd-party lenses available in all 3 mounts.
In sum, the native lens availability differences are literally factor-of-2 separated, with Sony 1st, Fuji 2nd, and Canon 3rd. Including adapted lenses, it's Sony 1st, Canon 2nd, and Fuji 3rd -- with a roughly 1.5X margin favoring Sony for autofocus adapting (Sony wins by more than 10X if you count using the LM-EA7). Hard not to give Sony this win....
@Waka - That used to be correct (except for the two Zeiss lenses) but now:
1. Viltrox makes a fast 85 AF lens
2. Viltrox and Tokina are bringing fast 23, 35, and 56 AF lenses to X-mount.
3. FringerPro and two other companies make a canon DSLR adapter with AF and aperture support.
4. Fotodiox just announced they are bringing their adapter which adds AF to M-mount lenses. You can add their other adapters to get AF on a wide range of manual focus lenses.
5. Laowa, Samung, and some other companies make good manual focus lenses including some excellent fast ultra-wides.
Canon EOS-M has some wonderful lenses. All the basic platforms have more than enough lenses to keep any talented photographer occupied for several lifetimes. How did we do it with a Rolleiflex and a single fixed lens. Very well.
Gesture: Canon EOS-M has wonderful lenses? The DxO tests just don't support that claim. For example, the Canon 18-55 IS STM gets 13 overall, the same score as Sony's tiny and more useful 16-50 (which is one of Sony's worst lenses). The much-praised Canon 22mm f/2 is their best lens at 21, whereas Sony's similarly-priced 50mm f/1.8 OSS gets 25. Canon's lens pricing is often a tad lower, but overall there's nothing more wonderful about them than Sony (or Fuji) offerings... and Sony lenses have an upgrade path to FF (even the "APS-C only" Sony lenses will work on FF bodies automatically cropping).
Honestly, for me the only saving grace of the EOS-M line is that a couple of the models are supported by either CHDK (M3, M10) or Magic Lantern (M)... but the M50 isn't yet (Magic Lantern lists a port in progress). Incidentally, I do own a couple of M because of Magic Lantern support.
I've been a Sony APSC mirrorless owner since day (nex 5). But Sony has mostly abandoned entry level camera buyers. 3rd paries have helped.
It's depressing that in all the areas where the A6100 was soundly beaten, the a6400/6600 are not much better, video,LCD, ergonomics, rolling shutter, and more are all just as lousy. It should be mentioned, Sony doesn't even have a good touchscreen interface for entry level buyers. And the bad menues and confusing interface make that even more of an issue. I am surprised they didn't mention the bad touchscreen.
Agree, entry level users are not going to care about DxO charts.
They will care about Sony's bad colors SOOC, bad ergonomics, lack of a good touchscreen interface, bad rolling shutter, confusing menus, and all the other things Chris mentioned. And if you look at all those things, they are mostly just as bad on the A6400/A6600. They too would come in last for entry level buyers.
Canon's adapter is native; only Nikon can make that claim as well. Fuji and Sony adapters require translation electronics.
First- and third-party EF / EF-S lenses work exactly the same on EOS M cameras as they do on Canon's DSLRs in Live View. Same for Canon's EOS R cameras.
@ProfHankD. DXO tests? You have to be kidding. DXOMark hasn't tested an M lens since 2013 and that was on the original M. The 11-22 is one of the overall best APS-c wide zooms out there and DXOMark gives it a lousy score. Why?, because it isn't fast. Their one-size-fits-all scoring system is a complete joke. Now, they mostly review phones and give them impressive sounding scores, Hello.
For me, I think buying FF lenses for an APS-C camera is a mug's game. They're going to be bigger and more expensive than necessary, and you may need an adapter. I don't see APS-C as the logical default entry point into photography—instead it should be looked at on its own merits. If you want to shoot APS-C, commit to that and buy your lenses accordingly. If you want to shoot FF, do the same. Don't start on an APS-C camera intending to move up to FF later, get a used FF camera instead. When you're ready to step up to your dream camera, you won't have a mish-mash of useless APS-C lenses and FF ones that are 1.5x wider than what you bought them for.
The APS-C to FF ladder is dumb. It's going to be an expensive, money-losing proposition every time. Manufacturers should focus on making more entry-level FF options, as well as more high-end APS-C ones. Both sensor formats should be able to stand on their own.
@ Halftrack. Spot on. Way too much noise is made about the upgrade path and I suspect that as a percentage, very few buy into the story. Most folks who buy a camera shop around for one that suits them with little regard to the future. Those of us with lots of cameras (of many sensor sizes) understand the concept of "horses for courses" and yes, we occasionally use FF lenses on APS-c cameras, but, other than telephoto (and if you are seriously into telephoto, the price of an extra body is peanuts), not to the point of stressing over the issue. The success of the Canon M system supports that analysis.
As much as I climbed that APS-C to full-frame ladder myself, I'm at the point of probably mostly going backward. I'm keeping my 6D and not really planning on another full-frame camera. And I realize that very few purchasers change even the kit lens, not having any idea of what they're missing, nor what the tool in their hands is actually capable of.
Still, full-frame glass absolutely does have benefits on crop sensors. Obviously the best full-frame glass is the best consumer glass one can get anywhere overall, in terms of optical performance but also flexibility aside from the widest end of APS-C, but there's also the utility of full-frame glass providing better illumination through reduced vignetting, even at the cheapest level. This lets one get the most of the APS-C sensor for stills, but also crucially for video too.
Thats really vague, what lenses do you need? The XF 18-55 is a GREAT lens for like 100$ in a kit. The XC 50-230 and XF 55-200 are also extremely good quality for price, don't think sony or canon has anything in that range?
And why would you adapt something on APS-C, a small system to use bigger lenses + adapter?
profHankD - Sony doesn't happily adapt lenses. They adapt A mount lenses with an expensive adapter containing optics but it's Metabones, Viltrox, Techart etc who happily adapt lenses to Sony, with varying degrees of success. Yes, there are now adapters for Fuji but I won't trust those the way I would trust Canon and Nikon's native adapters and would not buy a new lens to work through those. And yes, there are a significant number of Fuji lenses listed but they're mostly kind of the same. That said, Sigma, Tamron, give me an inexpensive EF-M 80-400 f5.6 and I'll ask no more. If Tokina can do it for EF you can do it lighter and sharper for EF-M.
whakapu: There are no optics in an LA-EA1/3 and only optics providing a separate PDAF sensor in a LA-EA2/4 (i.e., the same SLT mirror in modern A-mount bodies). The varying degrees of success for adapting others don't vary so much now -- my A7RII autofocuses most EF lenses faster & better using a Metabones adapter than my 5DIV does truly native! (Yes, I own both.) As for Nikon, they don't yet have a Z autofocus adapter for F screw-drive lenses... or plans to make one, as far as I know. Anyway, yeah, Sony's lens situation is largely better because of 3rd parties, but that doesn't make the situation any less real. EF-M should be very competitive with APS-C E, the main reasons it isn't have to do with Canon being late to the game and never treating EF-M as top priority. The fact EF-M lenses don't adapt to R is another sign Canon's not all-in on the EOS-M line.
Of course, I will admit that ANY of the three cameras listed in the above comparison are quite capable
ProfHank I stand corrected on the Sony adapter. The main reason EF-M isn't highly competitive is that Canon don't want it to be. As a consumer I'd like them to produce a body at the level of the XT-4 plus another 2 or 3 native lenses. It would then be the mythical perfect camera system. As a manufacturer Canon are determined not to give me that system because it would only cost about as much as a nice mountain bike. They want me to buy a complete new R system at about the cost of a nice late model Camry and only have the EF-M system as an adjunct to that.
Not all FF lenses are large; sure, a dedicated APS-C lens would likely be smaller, but would also cut out the advantages.
Canon, Nikon, and Sony all produce decent 50/1.8 and a few produce 50/1.4 lenses that are affordable and relatively compact, and with Nikon and Canon having native adapters, such a solution may even be cheaper than first- and third-party native lenses. Take Canon's ubiquitous 50/1.8 STM -- imperfect as it is, it's still hard to beat for the price on native mounts and adapted to EF-M and RF!
Otto k. Why can't they gradually change the ISO frame by frame over the period of 1 second rather than jumping in 1/3 increments? Its simply a tweak in firmware.
I don't know. Canon seems more gradual, Samsung I usually use for video can also be jumpy (but you can configure it). It's not easy to make a foolproof AE system. I would prefer the camera making it configurable, just like AF speed or power zoom speed.
Jordan, the professional video reviewer said Fuji was great for video; while Simjn, a person in the comments section, said Fuji was bad for video. I wonder who we should trust more.
If you have the opportunity you should try both and see what's best for you. My best man was a professional race car driver but I would never own a car with a suspension like the one in his current car. YMMV
With the latest FW it appears the Fuji has caught up.
As a Sony user I know it is hard to admit, but these days Sony APSC has the worst video of anyone. Rolling shutter, bad color, lots of artifacts from low but rate, just poor specs overall.
Darngoodphotos and Foskito. Please show me the links where it explains how the Fuji can track objects in video mode. With the Canon , you simply touch it on the screen and its locked on. I own both, the Fuji while producing nice images is totally let down by poor AF in video in dynamic screens.
Most Youtube videos that 'test' the AF are simply some bloke sat in his home office bobbing his head side to side, backwards and forwards which apparently is a good indicator???
Come on, like I’ve said before, so a side by side print comparison and show us the difference between full frame, APS-C and m4/3 printed at 20x30, similar settings, appropriate aperture settimgs.similar mp count ISO 200, etc. You won’t do this because there is no practical difference, and you don’t want to show this! The article below proves my point! https://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2014/02/the-practical-difference-between-full.html
Try pushing files and heavy color corrections. That's where bigger sensors start showing their advantages. If you shoot just JPEG you will hardly get better results than a phone
I watched these videos and actually only saw them because you linked them in another comment somewhere. I agree with everything the article says, but when the light gets trickier the larger sensors are more favourable.
I recently done a wedding and ended up at iso 5000 with a Nikon d610 for a lot of photos, the light was dull. There really was no issue in printing and have a few quite large. I did do a few with my m43 (I actually only brought this along for video but done a few photos with a fisheye) also at similar ISO. I know from editing that they wouldn't print as big and look as good as the Nikon. They couple will never know what cam done or took what, but these shots from m43 will max out at an 8x10 print in my opinion
Steve is right. The famous ”1-stop advantage” in low light might be enough for some and irrelevant (or not enough) to others. There are factors like user’s experience who matters to others.
The X-T200 is Fujifilm's most promising entry-level camera in some time. With a feature set tailored to casual photographers who might bring the camera on a trip somewhere warm and sunny, well, we did just that.
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.
Fujifilm just announced its newest camera, the X-T200. In this hands-on preview, Chris and Jordan explain how it fits into Fujifilm's lineup and why they like it.
Fujifilm has refreshed its entry-level series with the X-T200, adding a giant touchscreen, proper 4K/30p video recording and shaving off 80g of weight compared to its X-T100 predecessor.
The GFX 100S fits most of the capabilities of the GFX 100 into a smaller and more affordable body. We look at what the camera offers and who it might make sense for.
Fujifilm's X-E4 is the most compact X-mount camera Fujifilm has yet produced, but that doesn't make it any less competitive. Take a look at how the X-E4 stacks up and what we make of it in our initial review.
Fujifilm's 30mm F3.5 R WR is a super sharp 24mm-equivalent lens for the company's GFX lineup of digital medium-format cameras. Is it good enough to warrant a place in your camera bag? Find out in our field review.
The Insta360 One R is a unique action camera: it has interchangeable camera modules, including one with a large 1"-type sensor and a Leica lens. We show you how it works and ask, 'who's it for'?
Exposure X6 is the latest Adobe Lightroom competitor from Exposure Software. With great image quality, impressive speed and powerful features, it's a compelling option that doesn't require a monthly subscription.
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.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional productions or A-camera for amateur and independent productions. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class.
Auroras are a stunning natural phenomenon and one of the most spectacular sights of the night sky. A recent geomagnetic storm occurred, and the crew aboard the International Space Station had an awesome view.
The GFX 100S fits most of the capabilities of the GFX 100 into a smaller and more affordable body. We look at what the camera offers and who it might make sense for.
Fujifilm's X-E4 is the most compact X-mount camera Fujifilm has yet produced, but that doesn't make it any less competitive. Take a look at how the X-E4 stacks up and what we make of it in our initial review.
The Fujifilm GFX 100S arrives in Canada, Chris goes into quarantine, and Jordan self-films in the field. It's been an interesting week for the boys in Calgary, but that didn't stop them from bringing you this review.
The Fujifilm GFX 100S packs a megapixel wallop, but it's powerful image stabilizer makes it easy to maximize your resolution even without a tripod and at slower shutter speeds – take a look.
We've just gotten our hands on a pre-production copy of Fujifilm's latest rangefinder styled camera, the X-E4. We took it out around Seattle and the Cascade Mountain foothills to see what it can do.
Fujifilm's new XF 27mm F2.8 R WR pancake prime doesn't offer a new optical formula, but it packs weather sealing and an aperture ring into an impressively petitite package. Check out the images its capable of right here.
Fujifilm's latest XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 has been on the brand's roadmap for some time now, and we were pleased to finally get our hands on a shootable copy. It adds quite a bit of versatility to the potential tool kit of X-mount shooters, offering a 107-457mm (35mm equiv.) field-of-view.
Fujifilm's new GF 80mm F1.7 R WR is a fast, standard prime for GFX medium format shooters, offering a 63mm field-of-view, in a reasonably compact, light-weight and weather-sealed package.
Fujifilm has released the XF 28mm F2.8 R WR, which adds weather-sealing and an aperture ring to the original non-WR version The XF 70-300 F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR is lightweight, also weather-sealed and is claimed to offer up to 5.5 stops of shake reduction.
Fujifilm has added a new lens to its medium-format system: the GF 80mm F1.7 R WR. This fast standard prime, equivalent to 63mm on GFX bodies, is relatively compact and weather-sealed. It will be priced at $2299.
Fujifilm has announced the X-E4, a midrange 26MP rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. It squeezes a lot of technology from the X-S10 into a more compact body and will cost around $850, body-only.
Fujifilm has announced the GFX 100S, a relatively compact 100MP image-stabilized medium-format mirrorless camera. The GFX 100S combines most of the features of the full-sized GFX 100 in a body smaller than the GFX 50S and with improved stabilization.
We spoke to Sony straight after the announcement of the a1, to get a bit more fine detail about the camera's specs and capabilities. And it's fair to say there's a lot going on inside Sony's new flagship.
The purchase expands Shutterstock's offerings, positioning it as a marketplace for customers who are embracing computer-generated 2D images over traditional stock photography.
Sony has announced the Alpha 1, a fast, high-res 50MP camera capable of shooting at 30 fps with no blackout. It can capture oversampled 8K video, has refined menus and comes in a weather-sealed body.
Sony's latest smart device, the Xperia Pro, doubles as a 5G smartphone, the world's first portable, affordable external 4K HDR OLED monitor for HDR productions, and an all-in-one 5G live streaming and file transfer solution when paired with supported cameras.
Filmulator is an open-source raw editor designed to be simple and straightforward. The app has basic management tools and raw editing capabilities. Filmulator's tone curve enhances local contrast and perceived sharpness, similar in spirit to the stand development process for developing black and white film.
The Fujifilm 10-24mm F4 R OIS WR is a reasonably priced wide-angle zoom for the company's X-mount, updated with weather-sealing and some ergonomic improvements. We've been shooting with it for a few days to see how it performs.
You've no doubt heard warnings about the effects of diffraction at small apertures. But what exactly is it? Our resident mad scientist, Don Komarechka, explains what diffraction is and how it impacts your photos.
Tamron's 17-70mm F2.8 III-A VC RXD is a lightweight zoom for Sony APS-C E-mount shooters. Equivalent to a 25-105mm F4 in full-frame terms, this lens handles nicely on a6000-series cameras and offers great versatility for daylight shooting.
The Canon 200mm F1.8L may be over 30 years old, but the fact that it still keeps up with the newest high resolution sensors is a testament to its design. Featuring guest photographer Irene Rudnyk.
We teamed up with Canadian portrait photographer Irene Rudnyk to shoot a sample gallery with the legendary Canon 200mm F1.8L. Check out the photos and tell us what you think!
Comments