Not everybody wants or needs a full frame sensor, but that doesn't mean you have to give up pro-level performance on your camera. In this episode, Chris and Jordan compare four of the top performing APS-C and Micro Four Thirds models currently on the market: the Fujifilm X-T3, Nikon D500, Panasonic G9, and Olympus E-M1 Mark II.
Whether your priority is landscapes, portraits, sports and wildlife, or street photography, we'll help you figure out which of these models is right for you. Want more information? Check out our in-depth reviews and sample galleries for each of these cameras.
Well, I got the Olympus. Could not be happier. Amazing clarity, contrast, and colors. Extremely compact, but not super light with larger zooms. Still, fabulous results and amazingly fast fire rates. Olympus flash is nearly perfect; powerful, accurate, minimal flash harshness. I'm experimenting with extreme crops. So far, zero problems with jpeg of at least 4 mb. Trying a 24x36 below 4 mb now. I'll see. I doubt I'll ever move from this system.
Depends on what the photographer is after. I'd say if you're doing astro, the a7r II may not be the best out there. But perhaps for landscape, portrait, or sports it might work out. And really it's the end result that's the important part. Yes, gear helps you get there, but I'm sure it would be quite difficult to look at a finished image and say "That was shot with a Sony [or a Canon or Nikon or Fuji]".
Well, for the body it might be a good deal, but again, as someone mentioned, it's been around since 2014 so $1000 sounds about right. The kit lens that comes with it, though, I'm not so sure of. I think it's just your average kit lens, nothing spectacular, but $1000 for a lens + camera is still a good deal, despite its age and the lens itself. Buy the kit, sell the lens, and get something better maybe...
@ CarpentersEye You're wrong. My A7ii has served me very well for the last three years producing high quality images. I go through cameras pretty quickly but the A7ii is still in the arsenal. It's light, full frame, has IBIS, and I can easily blow up prints to 24x36. There are also alot of great lenses available for it. $1000 with kit lens is a reasonable price.
It all usually depends on the needs of the photographer. For some, the latest and greatest (with the fastest AF and the most AF points) isn't necessary (such as those who mainly shoot landscapes), but for others (like those who shoot sports) AF and focus points might be a critical make-or-break feature. For some the A7 II is enough, for others, it's not. Just like the NIkon and their DSLRs, for someone the D3500 is enough (for a beginner) but for a pro- they would need something like a D750 or D500.
Some people just want to take snapshots of their kids or grandkids, while others want to do astro or sports/models, etc.
Sorry, i was referring to past comments in general in this thread as a whole (not a specific person; should have clarified). Some say it's a bad $1000 purchase, others say it does what they need.
So wait? Wait for the newer Fuji; because it will add IBIS and not leave anything out and it will cost a lot less??? Yeah. Right. That will happen.
Also, there are smaller Nikon APS-C bodies. Better than the D500 comprehensively? But do you think Nikon is working on APS-C mirror-less SYSTEMS? They should be. But if they can't quite get together a FF combo, well then. I think they skipped a important step with video focus on smaller DSLR's. Not making the Df with good video was just lazy and limiting. Because how would that not then trounce everything on this list? Especially if like a Df's little bro(but video too). Silver and black baby.
Has Nikon made a deal to stick with non-mirror-less DX cameras? Thus protecting that lens stable from the needed adapters with mirror-less? Leaving mirror-less APS-C to Fuji?
Hey eye....even the 10D and 20D are pro bodies. Canon early years, wedding photographers were using these camera bodies and the customers didn’t complain
To be fair, the 20D was engineered more like a professional body anyway. Mine took a complete soaking once and it's still running like a charm when I dig it out for M42 lens use. Definitely a Canon for the ages.
Actually the manufactures "category" of "pro" means little in the big picture. Are pros still using those "pro" old cameras. No not mostly. There longevity it not a minor aspect or one we must live without.
Who's asking about time? Who's asking whats right? Why are buyers so short sighted and how does that demand open the door to corruption. After watching the process over years then it is clear they know how to do better and yet only do what they can get away with. If you don't think advertising has any thing to with manipulation and you trust the Eastern camera cartel then your new.
I think you messed up with the exclusion of the Canon 7d mk2. It clearly belongs in this mix, and more importantly it is such a significant camera in this space its exclusion is just plain odd.
Also with portrait photos, bad call. The Nikon clearly has the superior system. It is all about the right lenses for the various poses. There are so many lenses of a very high quality to choose from.
As for needing a lighter body for landscapes... news to me. I shoot landscapes often and I use a full-frame to do so. I am no spring chicken either. I think your rational here was just plain silly.
I really like your logic , it just makes sense. Some guys carry a heavy tripod when shooting landscapes and they'll eventually tell you to have chosen the camera because of its small size and weight, non-sense. At some point, we have to stop reading reviews and go our own way for selecting our equipment.
The M43 are least worse for video (GH5 being over priced); but they will frustrate you (comparatively) for oh, I don't know. Just portraits, sports & wildlife(like children). Lastly Nikon is stupid on video focus(continuous and quiet); a major oversight.
Fuji missing IBIS(maybe later) and low prices(don't hold your breath).
Therefore the "best" all stink and no system is reasonably affordable anyway. I'll pass. What Progress?
Excellent review. [And you know I'd tell you otherwise.]
Darn companies. This one has that goodness. This one has another; but never the combo shall meet. WHY?! And no I do not mean absolute perfection. I'm saying; why are they retarded.
Oh they are doing there best. No! Oh they are just learning this stuff? No! Oh but they got that latest thing (or two). No! It would cost to much. No!
Excuses, excuses. But *YOU* know.
Also; unlike the reviewers can say; it should be obvious why I do not consider M43 in it's current sensor state. APS-C is the current deal. See COC and diffraction BALANCES (These do not change with sensor and stuff, future improvements). What balances? Cost and sizes per qualities.
Obviously the Fuji is the least worse here comprehensively. Except for cost and lack of IBIS. But why would I buy into it then? Opps. But note; Fuji knows APS-C science and color...
The real question is why any manufacture continues this shell game. Because buyers think we must take what we can get. You don't understand; if you would stop first adopting for bragging rights then they would do better at not leaving out required combinations and at much less ludicrous prices. Because prices are extremely inflated now. And that's not just my perspective or means.
I've heard some say like BOK-EH and others BOK-UH. I generally pronounce it the latter (BO-KUH) as that's what I've heard the most both in general discussion and training/instructional material. Not saying one is right or wrong. It's obviously a matter of translation (and perhaps accent).
From Wikepedia: The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け or ボケ), which means "blur" or "haze", or boke-aji (ボケ味), the "blur quality". The Japanese term boke is also used in the sense of a mental haze or senility.[7] The term bokashi (暈かし) is related, meaning intentional blurring or gradation.
The English spelling bokeh was popularized in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue; he altered the spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers, saying "it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable".[8] The spellings bokeh and boke have both been in use since at least 1996, when Merklinger had suggested "or Bokeh if you prefer."[9] The term bokeh has appeared in photography books as early as 1998.[2] It is sometimes pronounced /ˈboʊkə/ (boke-uh).[10]
7D mark II iTR struggles to accurately track moving subjects, especially fast ones Comparatively poor base ISO dynamic range and exposure latitude in Raw Spot-metering not linked to AF point Soft video lacks detail Long screen blackout during live view shooting No AF with continuous shooting in live view No zebras to evaluate exposure No focus peaking No touch screen No Wi-Fi
The Canon 7D Mk2 + Canon 500mm f4, have been and are for me very good tools during the last 4 years to photograph birds and birds in flight. In my case, iTR has always been very accurate in tracking small and fast moving subjects. No camera of any brand can correct a bad photographer.
This video is about crop cameras with "pro bodies". The consensus is a rangefinder style body is not pro and thus it was excluded. I doubt the feature set has anything to do with it.
The actual mirrorless cameras don´t need a central viewfinder; no mirror and pentaprism needed. The corner vf position avoid nose collision. The people are very reactionary to accept the advantages of new technologies.
Landscape and portraiture for my D500? Never considered it. It's built for action, and that's its primary usage. I have other (FF) bodies better suited for pretty scenic and people. Best tool for the job, tools.
Wait....you mean you choose the proper tool for the job? Damn, that's radical. The other thing that's surprising is the lack of focus on the system instead of the body. You're buying into an infrastructure, and that counts for a lot. Also, when someone can't master the AF on the Oly, well, that's the result we get.
Agreed, any cam in that video is able to produce excellent results in any discipline. Yes, some have advantages, slightly, but really, are we supposed to by different cams for different uses? Pros, sure. But the rest of us? Nah.
Yes but you're lowering the bar and raising it at the same time. That's crazy. Looking for the most comprehensive and making excuses (accepting worse) for it not existing.
The idea of multi-system necessity is wrong. And how many then? That can only work for camera reviewers. LOL.
Oh give it a rest. I still say it was a great review; but I did need this JJcoolbean chart to keep up! Thanks.
The take away is; none of these systems are comprehensive ENOUGH. Which system is least worse? And for mere mortals who only mortgage their house (and divorce) one time!
And please put the better ones on top. Many things are backwards with photograph. :) [Understanding that's how they presented them]
Great video guys. You are making huge progress. Keep at it. I agree with most of what you're saying, except the D500 for portraits. In DPR own reviews, the D500 was favourably compared to the D750 with respect to image q quality. Do any of the other cameras on this list best the D750? I don't think so.
I agree with what they are saying except the D500 for portraits, and the D500 for sports and the D500 for wildlife (lenses) and the D500 for street and the D500 landscape or kids or the D500 for anything else that moves.
Seriously if you were going to shoot photos of a once in a lifetime event with one of these 4 cameras would you grab anything besides the D500 and some nice Nikon glass?
Well the lowly 35mm f/1.8 DX $120 (street) and the second to none 50mm FX (for DX, walk-around short tele, portraits) f/1.8 $150 (street) primes are world class glass. Their kit is a cut above and the older 55-200 VR is compact, as little as $80 and a top sport performer. Then there's 70-200 VR for more sports etc. Can't beat those prices per quality and matched to good sensor. Combined with a low cost smaller body like the D3300 about all you have to do is pull your own focus (a shame for Nikon) at 1080p video (if you want some video) and you got phase detect, best C-AF sports and wild kid life. The sensor, only a hair lesser than the D500. The D3300 was $329 new with kit. Now the D3400 is $299 or less; but a down grade in flash power. You could get out used with a D3300, kit and a prime for about $350. And if you know what you're doing then you could run rings around any system.
For sports and wildlife Fuji only has a 100-400/f4,5 tele zoom; it is big, heavy, plastic and expensive. SONY, CANON and Nikon has a lot better lenses in this line.
That D3300 has no right to be as capable as it is. I use mine for holidays with the 35mm DX and the DR and overall IQ always wows me for the low price.
What happens with DX stays with DX. LOL. None of this; upgrade to FX later crap. Do or do not. Some of the best lenses are FX and work on DX just fine. Not for "moving" to FX.
It's typical especially with marketing. Define a niche, and bs criteria (great camera but it's big so it's ranked last) just make the criteria/rules such that whatever you are pimping comes out on top.
Disappointing to see the camera store TV guys stoop so low. It's almost like their background is selling cameras.....
I keep looking for sales bias. Very suspiciously. I don't see any yet.
What I know is we fight to hard for what we bought. Better to keep an open mind; because about day two then your stuff is outdated. ...Never was comprehensive.
There you go... 7D mark II iTR struggles to accurately track moving subjects, especially fast ones Comparatively poor base ISO dynamic range and exposure latitude in Raw Spot-metering not linked to AF point Soft video lacks detail Long screen blackout during live view shooting No AF with continuous shooting in live view No zebras to evaluate exposure No focus peaking No touch screen No Wi-Fi
Every Fuji gets (over)hyped. This is happening since the Pro 1, which was a cumbersome and slow dog (still it has a lot of character to offer). However, with the X-T3 now there is actually a Fuji camera that feels about as responsive as a good DSLR. It still has some quirks which the Fuji fans love and others only shake their heads about, but at least the performance is there nowadays. And in times when all the "big boys" skyrocket the prices of their products, the T3 is pretty affordable for what it can do. That is in my opinion the most defining benefit of the T3.
I use some Fuji cameras, because they are a nice compromise of size, quality, prize and with the T3 even in regards to performance. If I had to rely on the camera to earn money with it, I would not choose a Fuji, especially not for landscape or sports work.
And it's not just the camera, it's also the lens system. Nikon (Canon too) has never taken their crop sensor cameras seriously in all the years they've been making them, since they can just push users to go full frame if they *GASP* want a wide angle prime lens.
Fuji indeed does get overhyped, especially their earlier attempts. The newer ones live up to the hype though. Regardless, the amount of hype surrounding any new Fuji product is dizzying.
The Pentax is not in this picture at all ! The 24MP has IBIS and the most rugged camera body for the landscape shooting. If we limit the AF to single point autofocus, it’s perfect for portraits with its beautiful Limited and Star (*) lens collections...
I have seen very good wildlife shots too with its telephoto lenses.
I myself own few Fuji bodies. So, nothing sort of I dislike Fuji. But, looking at all the recent YouTube and other media reviews (including this one ) the whole media is acting as marketing team for Fujifilm. For me, it looks totally a biased approach in reviewing and recommending a camera though the XT3 may be a good camera in general.
You could have made the same "the whole media is acting like a marketing team" argument when the A7 III debuted. The common thread is that they're both really good bodies offering really good value.
M 4/3rds will be dead in 3 years.. Only camera worth buying is the Xt3.. Spend a bit more get an A73, I just bought one open box for $1,650 with kit lens...
Both Apple and m4/3 have been pronounced dead multiple times since their inception. As for sales figures, I'm wondering how Fuji's compare to all the m4/3 cameras combined? No idea, just curious.
Here's what Chris says about the #4-ranked E-M1 II for sports AF: "Pro Capture is a bit slow...." that's it! Not a single negative thing about actual AF ability or accuracy.
Then about the #3-ranked G9: "CDAF CAF is a bit wobbly... although it works." I think he doesn't know about the current firmware.
Then about the X-T3: "insanely fast, very consistent".
Contrast this with DPR's actual test results, in part 2, below.
DPR's review on the X-T3: "the X-T3 did pretty well at following the subject, but could lose the subject as it changed its approach speed on the corners. We then adjusted the fine-tune settings,… This performed better, with only slight mis-focus as the cyclist slows and changes direction. In both modes, we found the camera would occasionally completely lose the subject if it immediately veered off the focus point at the start of the run." Summary, "Probably on a par with the Sony a6500 in most situations…"
G9: Subject riding at the camera, "The G9 essentially aces this scenario, with almost all images tack sharp or acceptably sharp. " Tracking the weaving bike rider, "…really quite impressive, with the vast majority of frames in focus and the camera easily able to stay on our subject for the majority of the runs we shot." Summary, "…it aced all our autofocus tests"
See if you can correlate Chris' bland assumptions with DPR's actual findings. Beats me.
It was interesting that for both the landscape test and the street photography test, the D500 loses out and the main reason is it is big and heavy! Don't know why anyone would focus on this issue. Does it take the best pictures for those situations? Let the reader decide if the big and heavy thing is a factor or not. After all, one of the best landscape cameras is the D850 yet that is bigger and heavier still.
Also, in DP Review's rankings, the D500 is at the top of the heap and here, it seems like a dud. Which is it guys? Talk about confusing.
Well, lovechunk, if you agree that weight saved is a factor for landscape, then consider how much weight can be saved by having stabilization in the camera or lens instead of a three-legged monster! And since prime lenses are ideal for landscape IQ, and neither the X-T3 nor any of its landscape-friendly primes have any stabilization at all, the X-T3 probably comes in last place against that criterion.
I personally agree with the size and weight as a big disadvantage of the D500. Actually the D500 weighs more than some FF DSLRs (including Nikon´s own D750). Many photographers switch from DSLRs to mirrorless because they are tired of carrying heavy DLSR kits. It is a big difference whether you carry 1320 g (D500+10-24mm) or 793 g (X-T20+10-24mm) all day, not counting other stuff that can be lighter (tripod etc.).
Of course weight is a factor for landscape (hike 15km / 15+kg every day of your trip and you will know), but for a pro it is not a top-priority, quality is. IS won't save you always: landscape needs top sharpness all the time, which is mostly at sunrise and sunset... Tripod most of the time. Primes not that useful, you don't need their fast aperture and DOF. Mostly zooms with aperture dialed in to top MTF.
I like this video. I've said it since the XT1 came out and I sold my Nikon D700: Mirrorless crop is the logical future for most things based on technological progress, but its ok if you call me biased :-)
I think the weight issue shows a bit of a narrow mindedness. I wonder how many of these guys have an extra 10lbs on their waist, but you don't see them doing anything to fix that. Yet they will replace their entire system (and suggest everybody do the same) to save a lb or two?
I have a sling strap, i can get wrist straps, if i HAD to carry my heaviest cameras all day, i would be just fine. Saving a bit of weight on the body, while the lenses are the same size isn't much a difference in a bag.
I bought ML for the features not the weight, i question the motivation of some "photographers" when they place this much "weight" on weight.
Meh, they are Fuji bias. For street photography wouldn't the better dual IS in both the panasonic and olympus put them up higher? Yes the low light won't be as good, but with the superior IS can't you shoot at lower ISO?
What makes me laugh is that they limited it to their own silly idea of 'pro body crop sensor' cameras, then left out obvious inclusions like the 7D II for 'convenience', AND THEN compared them on non-pro criteria like smallness and lightness.
I mean, if you included all 'non-entry-level' bodies in a sports AF comparison, the Fuji wouldn't come out #2, it would rank more like #10, behind a whole swag of DSLR bodies and maybe the a6500 too, and I would even like to see it in a real life test against the G9, instead of Chris making some pretty bland assumptions. (I also think he criticised the G9 for 'fluttery CAF' based on early firmware, not the current).
Plus it's limited to 'pro bodies', then they give extra points for JPEG colours. Guys, guys, make up your minds.
How about some pro-level criteria for this test? -- Like system comprehensiveness (Fuji won't win), lens options at each purchase point (Fuji won't win), proven water resistance (not Fuji IMHO), and hot/dusty durability?
If you look at it, you'll see it's just another 6000 body, which IMO, never quite matched the NEX-7 body which although not weatherproof was well-built.
Not sure where this league of NEX-7 worshippers came from, but even the NEX-6 beats it in IQ and AF. The A6000 just blows it away in everything but build (dropped a position in the order) and horizon level, and the A6500 makes it look antiquated.
Well, some companies have very long product lifecycles. That's just a reality we have to deal with. For example, the D500 (introduced Jan 2016) is the replacement for the D300S (introduced July 2009). Nikon's product lifecycles are 5-7 years. In the case of the D300S, it was 7 years. The D750 (introduced Sept 2014) is just over 4 years old. The D500 probably won't be replaced for another 3 years, at least. That's just how Nikon rolls.
Notwithstanding the, erm, poster who thinks the camera with the best AF of the lot cannot possibly be a pro body, why not the A6500? Now, I’ll go off and think of a random number and then claim that number is how far the Four Thirds bodies are behind APS-C in terms of DR.
Then again, Sony specifically states the A6500 is a pro camera. Dunno, my A6300 feels very solid, and has survived many instances of snow, ice, and rain unscathed.
@ DiffractionLtd: You would be surprised how much beating the A7 and A6xxx series cameras can take. We have lots of them at work. We see more trouble with Canon cameras.
What - no Leica CL, the smallest and neatest interchangeable lens APS-C camera? Yes, it is a bit more expensive but it is made of metal not moulded plastic like some others.
Auto focus, shot to shot performance and sufficient range of native lenses? I don’t think Leica intended the CL/T to be a Pro Camera (they have the SL for that).
I still say, do a video article on an identical image, landscape, with a top Micro four thirds, apsc and full frame camera with the best glass, and print them 20x30. I did a comparison between my EM 1 ll with the little 75-300 and a friends D810 with the newest 80-400, neither lens is the best of each sustem. Mirrormwas locked up on tje D820, and I shot the Olympus on silent mode. The result was very surprising.....50% of everyone who looked at the print liked tje acuity of my EM 1 ll primt sauing that there was more snap..I couldnt detect any reasonable difference in tonality.
Yet when I went to the camera section of John Lewis, a large respectable department store chain in the U.K., all the staff laughed when I said I was interested in the Pen F and insisted it was a toy with the worst sensor. a lot of prejudice. It’s the photographer not the camera.
The commission being offered to the sales staff on the PEN F was less than on another brand I suspect. Generally the tech staff at a department store know very little, most are probably students working part-time. I currently have an exhibition showing and it is a mixture of images taken on FF and m4/3. Printed A3 and you cannot tell which image was taken on which system.
Comparing two stabilised M4/3 cameras with two APS-C cameras, one of them a DSLR and the other a non-stabilised camera seems strange to me. They are so unalike.
Is there really a market of camera buyers who think to themselves "I've decided that I want a crop-sensor camera with a pro-body" who go looking for a video review ike this?
You must be scratching around for ideas for video reviews.
The title is well done. The word "pro" will get the wannabe " professionals" here all agitated and excited. After all, what if they took cat or brick wall pictures with a lesser instrument? What if that lesser body did not have dual card slots or the right equivalence or some other totally crippling flaw the precludes "professional" photography?
They got 2 cameras I'm considering which is pretty good hit rate.
If your first instinct is to talk s about someone else's free content acting like you know better, maybe just assume you are not the intended audience and move along.
@s1oth1ovechunk - LOL, what a silly comment. My first instinct?? Did you think it might be a considered comment?
Your next sentence was just as silly. I could easily say "They got zero cameras that I am considering which is a pretty poor hit rate" and that would be just as valid as your statement.
In case you missed my point, I will try to make it a bit more clearly for you. DPR are comparing unlike cameras, something that they don't do in written comparisons because it generally makes no sense to most people. That is why so many other posters are asking "why not include the Canon/Sony/etc model".
So the question remains, why do it in a video review?
My assumption is that they are scratching around trying to find productive things for their new celebs to do.
The comments section is open for users to post their opinion. Some comments are positive, others are negative. My comments are simply my view. I never said DPR owed me anything and I never promised to give you anything. If you think that online comments should only ever be positive then you're deluded.
Indeed. You have my feedback. You can be someone who talks s about other people's work, sounding Superior to them. No one is stopping you. I just wish you wouldn't. Make your own video. Come up with your own ideas. Don't just be a critic off other people's. You might find out that it's not as easy as you make it sound.
Why they didn't mention 80d from canon? It's not so old, but have much better video autofocus then all this cameras, unfortunatelly only in 1080p. Weather sealing is presented too. I've used fuji system about 3 years. All fuji cameras have great specs on the paper, but lags behind any cheap dslr from canon or nikon in terms of reliability signifinatly! Hate those lock ups, lags and poor batteries. About crop vs FF. Its different tools. No need to compare. Just use that suited your needs best. More than, any cheap ff with 1.8 prime will be much cheaper than t3 with 56 1.2 and will produce same or better results.
Ruggedness, weather resistance, responsiveness, and so on... Any body can be used by a pro, but not every body is a pro body. I'd be happy to shoot some stuff with a 6500, but I wouldn't take it out in the rain or cover a riot or shoot ballet dancers with it like I would one of these.
And why not the Nikon D7200? It's still a great camera and insanely good value for money and is suitable for most pro use (except maybe hard core sports)
They also have to pick and choose the bodies they include, as there could literally be dozens of bodies that would fit this comparison. Some make it, others don't. It may be that one is more popular than others based on the stats DPR has. In any comparison, something (or someone) is always bound to be left out unless the particular market is quite small with only a few models to choose from.
Without the Sony a6500 included in the comparison this is not a legit report. Did you choose the cameras compared by sales numbers? Is Sony selling so few a6500s that it did not make the cut?
Stu 5: you have made several posts arguing various suggestions for inclusion in the review have been excluded because the suggested cameras are "not pro bodies" yet are seemingly happy to accept the reviewers opinion that all those included are indeed pro bodies.
Why? The Fuji is not in my opinion a "pro body". It is just too small. Try handling it in freezing temperatures doing any type of photography and you won't be able to operate it with gloved hands.
Pro cameras are big and often include built in battery grips not just because they tend to be FF dslrs but because size and usable controls in all conditions are an advantage. So if the reviewers want to extend the definition of pro bodies to something as small as the Fuji then that ought to let in the Sony.
My view is of those chosen only the Nikon qualifies as a pro body but at least the Panasonic and Oly are larger bodies with larger grips than other models they offer. X-H1 would have been a better choice from Fuji.
The manufacturers of these cameras designate them as professional or flagship models. Although any camera can be used professionally, only four representative cameras (two M43, two APSC) were chosen to keep the video within a manageable time frame.
Stu 5 - and who decides what is a pro body and what is not? Here is what Sony says on their site: "The α6500 professional-class APS-C interchangeable-lens camera features unbeatably fast autofocus; High-density Tracking AF Technology with comprehensive phase-detection AF point coverage; enhanced buffer for continuous shooting at up to 11fps (Hi+); 5-axis optical image stabilization; and touchscreen focus control."
On the X-T3 product page, Fujifilm does not mention that this is a Pro body! Because it is not!
Technically, Sony has not released a "pro" APS-C mirrorless body yet. Supposedly, Sony's upcoming APS-C mirrorless release will be a "pro" APS-C mirrorless body:
It is rumored to be a "high end" APS-C body or mini A9.
It's a similar situation to Sony's FF mirrorless bodies. In spite of releasing a lot of FF mirrorless bodies (A7, A7II, A7III, A7S, A7SII, A7R, A7RII, A7RIII), the A9 was Sony's first real "pro" body, even though a lot of pros were already using Sony's other bodies. Frankly, the "pro" label is quite nebulous and vague. Pros use all kinds of cameras.
The good news is that the upcoming high-end or "pro" Sony APS-C mirrorless should be quite impressive. It'll likely be a mini A9 for those who don't want to spend $4000 for a FF A9, but still want all of its performance and are perfectly fine with APS-C.
@NicoPPC maybe it can but its physical dimensions remain the same as in that the top plate and back of the camera where most buttons and controls are, are restricted to that space. I am sure they are not all replicated on the battery grip.
@Dave Oddie - Some people act as if they are at the controls of a 747 airliner when doing photography, and as such they think that the outer body of a camera needs a physical switch, button, knob, or dial for every parameter or function that a camera might have. That's ridiculous. There are really only a limited number of parameters or controls you need to manipulate when shooting. You generally don't need to access the bazillion functions, settings, or parameters that a camera might have. So I don't get the argument that we need big cameras so that we can cover it full of buttons and controls. How many more buttons, knobs and dials do you really need?!?! I think a body such as the X-T3 has all the buttons, knobs, dials, and controls you need.
It is a pro body because many professionals use it in their work including myself. The features included match or exceed other so called pro bodies listed for this review. Size is not a determination as professional. Leicas for decades have been much smaller then SLR cameras and yet many photographers have made a living with them. For years the entire Sony line up could be considered non-pro mainly because of their lack of lenses, repair turn-a-round and support . That has changed now and many more lenses are due out soon.
Occasionally DPR will throw in a stinker and this is one of them. The Sony A6500 remains their flagship apsc camera and despite its aging tech would have been a very strong contender.
@stu 5 I have been making money from my old Canon 550D/T2i for eight years, with it's plastic body and kit lenses without a problem. The idea of a 'pro' body only concerns amateurs, actual pros just get on and shoot with whatever they have available. As others have said Fuji does not have a good reputation for durability.
Stu 5 - and who decides what is a pro body and what is not? Here is what Sony says on their site: "The α6500 professional-class APS-C interchangeable-lens camera features unbeatably fast autofocus; High-density Tracking AF Technology with comprehensive phase-detection AF point coverage; enhanced buffer for continuous shooting at up to 11fps (Hi+); 5-axis optical image stabilization; and touchscreen focus control."
On the X-T3 product page, Fujifilm does not mention that this is a Pro body! Because it is not!
@Richardandhiscat Well I try not to get them wet! I am not saying the 550D is a pro level body, clearly it is not. But the term 'professional' body as used in this article seems dubious. The Canon 7Dii is a very robust pro level camera proven over many years and is not included here. I don't think the Fuji would last five minutes as an all-weather camera.
Big dpreview fan + a Fuji shooter here, yet, I find the review quite biased towards X-T3 in subjective manner.
First, not including Sony A6300/A6500, which despite being couple of years old, is still a very capable camera!
Second - calling X-T3 the landscape king, which is a XTrans camera. Really? XTrans is not everyone's cup of tea and the X-T3 gallery shows that XTrans IV still struggles in many situations that involve colour resolution. Look here: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5370103067/fujifilm-x-t3-sample-gallery/6119165164 . A 24MP bayer sensor still has more colour resolution than 26MP XTrans.
Third - discussing image quality and JPG in Pro context. Everyone knows that most people who want to achieve best image quality and control output out of their cameras, use RAW. To X-T3 disadvantage: XTrans files require 3x processing power and don't have the best support out there...
Fourth - virtually no 3rd party AF lenses available for Fujifilm (except 2 Zeiss ones).
@sirkhann I think it‘s not a big surprise that the latest camera that just came out this summer gets the best marks. I can’t see any biasing here. In my opinion the discussions about XTrans are all overrated. Every raw file of every brand is heavily processed and will be even more in the future. There are many factors affecting the colours in an image. Without a direct comparison I wouldn’t judge. By the way, the comments to the image demonstrate how subjective this whole matter is. The X-T3 got quickly supported by C1 and Lightroom which I guess are the mostly used raw converters. Processing is done almost instantaniously in Lightroom, even on my iPad. So I have nothing to complain.
Stu 5 - and who decides what is a pro body and what is not? Here is what Sony says on their site: "The α6500 professional-class APS-C interchangeable-lens camera features unbeatably fast autofocus; High-density Tracking AF Technology with comprehensive phase-detection AF point coverage; enhanced buffer for continuous shooting at up to 11fps (Hi+); 5-axis optical image stabilization; and touchscreen focus control."
On the X-T3 product page, Fujifilm does not mention that this is a Pro body! Because it is not!
They never talk about reliability. Just go to the Fuji chat area and other Fuji chat sites and on FB and you will find the most people having problems of any camera I have ever seen. Great camera but very bad reliability. Vs the D500 that I have shoot with from the first week, it was out in rain, show. heat and just about everything and it is not once locked up or quit working or had any problem. That being said I did buy one of the Fujis as well so time will tell on it. But I feel like I need to bring an extra Nikon lens with me all the time so if the Fuji locks up or something I can change lens from a zoom on my D500 to a portrait lens and keep shooting. Reliability for a pro shooter is more important than tons of features you almost never use.
They should have tested the X-H1 instead of the X-T3. I think this is a much more "pro grade" camera even if it lacks some of the features of the X-T3 (for which they could have downrated it).
Quite right. I have a budget of about 1600 euros and I will be choosing the Canon 6Dii over the XT3 because I need a camera that is tough and reliable in the field over a period of five or six years. That beats fancy design and theoretical specs all day long .
Robustness and reliability are two different aspects. I have no doubt that the Fuji X-T series cameras are very robust. That’s my experience of the last couple of years. When it comes to reliability, things look a bit different. Like so many others, I had lock up issues sometimes, especially when trying to turn the camera on immediately after switching it off. In rare cases I even had to remove the battery to solve the issue. This always helped but that can’t be exactly called ‘reliable’. If reliability is your major concern, you are always better off with an older model that has a positive track record in this respect. I wouldn’t just rely on brand names.
I've been using and abusing a Fuji X-E1 for a few years now. No problems. The camera is solid, well-built, no reliability issues. The reality is that things happen with every brand. Have people forgotten the issues Nikon has had?
The point is that you rarely can attribute it to an entire brand. "Issues" are generally model-specific, whether you're talking about Nikon cameras, or Apple smartphones.
There is quite a bit of complete confusion here since it is a consumer website. The commercial market for photographs counts in hundreds of million dollar/Euro, billions over the US only: that's what I call professional. How can there be a sustainable market for Phase One systems, Leica S, Pentax 645, Alpa and similar systems? Comments here are from amateurs who feel hurt when we tell them the truth. Clearly, labeling consumer camera models as "pro" make them sell to hobbyists who feel proud to have purchased the "pro"model, doesn't mean the "pro"model is actually a professional grade tool. Sorry if that hurts, but that's the truth. Agreed: not every truth feels good to hear.
@pentaust I know there is a lot of debate on this, but anyone who runs a business, earns money, and pays taxes on it is a 'professional'. That's the way the government looks at it, anyway. It doesn't matter how much is earned.
I believe what you are talking about is 'commercial' photography. Large scale advertising, fashion, sports, and corporate photography are some examples.
In photography the word is probably overused a bit to sell cameras, but please don't berate all the small time photographers who do weddings, portraits, art shows, etc. They may not be commercial photographers, but they are professional if they're running a business.
I suspect you are correct that most of the people on dpreview are amateurs. Of course in that category you will find a wide range of expertise from rank newbies to very accomplished individuals.
He lost this fight so copy pasted it up top to try again.
Doesnt understand that there arnt many Phase One cameras at sporting events.
Pros use the tools that work. Reliably. In -25c +40c, dust, rain, etc....
Alpha? You mean Sony? They arnt seen much in the field because of the, you guessed it, reliability.
Thats why the Nikon Z7 is the best made mirrorless. Nikon and Canon know this. It may not have the specs of a Sony, but the Pros can trust it in the field. Where they work.
I lost my fight... laugh. Because whether a camera system is for professional use is a matter of fight and amateur comment? After you bought a Rice Cooker PRo at wallmart and use it to cook a pound of rice for your family, are you going to argue with the catering firm that cooks rice daily for 2000 factory workers? After you are the proud owner of the pro version of spade and wheelbarrow, do you dare having a chat arguing with Caterpillar trucks?
@SteveAnderson: you've lost (you own game) on the medium format front. So now resort to professional wildlife and sports. Unfortunately, you argument doesn't work due to non of the systems used by professionals for wildlife and sports are being listed in this DPR review. So, you've lost. Please seat back, relax, and re-assess you opinion later, at least you will learn something, it will be a positive thing for you to have your photographic knowledge increased.
@SteveAndreson: when you avoid the statement "none of the systems used by professionals for wildlife and sports are being listed in this DP review", and take the case of medium format together with wildlife and sport cases, you're like a pendulum bouncing all the way to the other extreme position. Practically and traditionally, full frame has been the professional choice for wildlife and sport, we haven't seen any pro going backwards from a D5 or 1DxII to an XT-3. For journalistic works, full frame has been the professional choice and still is. And for advertising, medium format has been the professional choice and still is. Professional just don't mess around saving a few thousand euros on the camera system simply because traveling on location all year around is orders of magnitude more costly that camera equipment, so why compromise on camera equipment?
Discussions here are mostly filled by hobbyists who want to be right, this is what professionals don't read, except the professionals who themselves make the majority of their income out of promoting camera under brand sponsorship. I know some professionals who offer paid photography workshops with Fuji X-T3 telling "students" X-T3 is their professional choice and the next day they put the X-T3 back in its case and go on location shooting with their medium format system.
For the whole range of apsc and m4/3 camera system the money is made by selling camera and lenses. For medium format and professional grade full frame systems (read 1D / D5 series), the money is make by selling images. That's how the hobbyist segment and professional segment distinguish themselves.
<< we haven't seen any pro going backwards from a D5 or 1DxII to an XT-3. >>
My local pro camera store has a display case full of used 5Ds and D8XXs that have been traded in for XT2s, XH1s and at least one XT3. The word on the street is that people who have to carry those things around all day, every day are finding it’s just not worth it any more for any but the most demanding shoots or the most pretentious clients.
And of the four systems featured, Nikon - as any fool knows - is widely used for both sports and wildlife, as are the others, albeit to a lesser extent.
pentaust, It took you 2 days to say anything other than your medium format rant and that only medium format is true professional.
I asked you over and over, as well as others, a simple question about how many of the many thousands of pro sports photographers use medium format and you just dodge.
2 days later is too late to talk about FF now.
Everyone already knows that medium format is used by certain pros for certain types of photos. Same as everyone already knows that FF is used by most pros for most photos.
The point of the argument that you would not let go is that only medium format is pro. You can look at where you copied the same rant.
I never said a Rebel is a pro camera. I didnt even say a XT3 was pro. You were on your own tirade that people argued.
The Fuji looks like an excellent camera and Fuji users have a great option available. Still it is newly released so it makes sense that it would surpass some of the other cameras that are nearing the end of their product cycle.
X-T3 is the only body in the comparison that - Is not supported by DxO and has poor rendering in Lightroom - Does not have any viable 3rd party alternative for cheaper AF lenses. For all other mounts, there are native Sigma lenses which have great value for money.
Most Fujinon lenses are fantastic, but being without competition, Fujifilm is milking us with the prices. Just look at XF27/2.8, XF90/2, XF80/2.8 - ridiculous prices for APS-C lenses that are double that of the competition's Full-frame offerings?!
Well if 'pro' means rugged (made of metal) fully weather sealed, with abundant physical controls which have some hope of being operated with gloves on, and having image quality among the best of the breed, then I would argue that Fuji does have a 'pro' body. Hey, if it isn't big enough then add the extra grip.
I know personally at least one pro who shoots Fuji exclusively-yes, for his primary source of (plenty of) income. The only real downside in a 12 hour shoot is batteries-he has to keep a bunch of 'em on hand for his fleet of X-T2s. He bought a 3 and is hyped on it, but the software support isn't quite there yet (in his words) so he hasn't yet switched out entirely.
Do a lot of pros use cameras they aren't in actually "in love" with, but feel they must for the IQ aspect alone? Because I am well aware of my favorite cameras' shortcomings, yet I prefer them anyway. I mean, I'm just saying, not judging. I just like my cameras, and like, so sue me, already! Big deal! It's like the old saying, "I'm okay, you're okay."
I did watch didn't hear it mentioned but they could have done the 80D but the Fuji H1 should have been there since it is suppose to be pro models or close to
The X-T3 is the latest Fuji tech, so they tested the X-T3. There is no updated APS- camera from Canon or Sony, so they didn't bother. Their explanation makes sense. I could see another such comparison once Canon & Sony update their lines, though.
True, but Canon & Sony's high-end APS-C are both using old tech, so it would be pretty pointless to compare them. It looks like the X-T3 may have scared Sony back to the drawing board, as all rumors were pointing to an immediate release right before the X-T3 came out and surprised the hell out of everyone.
Most of Sony tech is old just polished, The sensors are old just added a card slot and came up with a better battery which was very necessary Fuji needs to update their battery,
@Tim McClanahan - "as all rumors were pointing to an immediate release right before the X-T3 came out"
Rumors are just rumors. Besides, going back to the drawing board with a sensor or processor redesign would create a delay of probably close to a year, or even more. Chances are, the supposed new high-end Sony APS-C body will be out in a few months, at most. A6000 and A6300 were both announced in February. Likely, Sony's next APS-C body will too. If it's out in just a few months, there's no way that Sony would have had time to "go back to the drawing board." Most likely, there was never any intention of releasing it immediately after the X-T3. The idea that companies pull products at the last minute out of fear of another product is simply absurd. By then, the camera would already be in production and there would already be a warehouse full of cameras! No way. If anything, Sony simply said, in response to the X-T3, "Oh, cool, it still doesn't have IBIS! Yessss!"
@SteveAnderson - Sony has not yet released a "pro" APS-C camera. As good as the A6500 body is, it's not a "pro" body, and they've never said it was a "pro" body. Sony's next APS-C body is supposedly going to be a "pro" one. It is rumored to be a mini A9.
Speaking of the A9, that body was also Sony's first "pro" FF mirrorless. All of Sony's other FF mirrorless bodies (A7, A7II, A7III, A7R, A7RII, A7RIII, A7S, A7SII) were not "pro" bodies, even though many pros do use them. The A9 was Sony's first official "pro" body.
I also think people tend to overestimate the conditions in which most "pro" shooters work in. People here seem to think that all pros regularly work in pouring rain, waist-deep in mud or something. That's just not true for the vast majority of working photogs. The majority of working photogs are shooting in much more mundane circumstances.
As much as I hate the EOS R, the mount diameter has nothing to do with it. When they start making APS-C RF-mount lenses, the image circle will be smaller, so the glass will be smaller, therefore the lenses will be smaller. You'll still have to deal with Canon's stupidity in their bodies, though. :)
Unless Canon and Nikon opt to taper down the lens barrels of their APS-C lenses for the RF and Z mount (assuming they ever do have RF and Z mount bodies with APS-C sensors), then all their APS-C lenses will always be of a certain minimum lens body diameter, ie, at least 65mm, since that's the approximate outer diameter of the RF and Z mounts. 65mm is based on the fact that the EF mount, which is the same size as the RF mount, has a 65mm outer diameter. Here's a diagram comparing Canon's EF-M mount to the EF mount (both EF and RF mounts have the same 54mm inner throat diameter, so they should have the same or very similar outer diameter).
@SteveAnderson - FF lenses would not be "shorter" than APS-C lenses. They would just be fatter, with a larger diameter, and likely heavier. And the notion of "balance" is misunderstood because proper handholding addresses balance issues of any lens-body combination. You think a 3.2lb RF 28-70/2L "balances" well on a 1.5lb EOS R? Or a 2.1lb RF 50/1.2L? No. But proper handholding technique (supporting the lens with your left hand) addresses this. And no, a bigger, heavier lens is not going to "feel lighter." It's going to feel heavier because it is heavier. Larger lenses don't magically cheat gravity. A bigger, heavier lens hanging from your shoulder is still bigger and heavier.
As for size and weight, it's clear that EF-M lenses are smaller and lighter than comparable RF lenses. Compare the RF 35/1.8 to the EF-M 32/1.4. Even though the EF-M is faster, it's still smaller and lighter.
That's like saying the only cars around should have big V8 engines. Not everyone needs that. Most people will never even notice the difference. And the reality is that FF cameras do cost more. You can buy an APS-C camera for as little as $354 new-- that's the price of a Rebel T6 kit right now on Amazon. And that's WITH a kit lens and 64gb SD card, too!
Try buying a new FF body for that price! The reality is that APS-C sensors are still a lot less expensive than FF sensors. I think people who say that "FF needs to be the only camera around" are just trying to price a lot of consumers out of the market. It's an elitist mentality, as if to say that if you can't afford FF then you shouldn't own an ILC. They want to get rid of all the entry-level buyers who are buying APS-C cameras like the Rebel T6 or Nikon D3400. Yeah, that would be great for the camera market! It's not as if the camera market isn't already in decline! Let's just make it worse by eliminating APS-C!
@joyclick Unless you're volunteering to porter around a fullframe kit for me for free every time I want to travel with camera gear, I'll keep enjoying my micro 4/3rds kit. I am very much enjoying the ability to carry two bodies and six lenses in a "small enough to qualify as a personal item on airlines" backpack, and still have room for a laptop and snacks.
One of the reasons I prefer APS-C is that I want a lot of pixels on the subject without large files. You just cannot do that cost effective with a FF camera. Not interested in narrow depth of field or 200mm lens that frame like 200mm lens and don't talk to me about equivalence. I am thankful we have an option.
Very refreshing to see respected YouTube pundits understanding not everybody wants or needs full frame cameras. Equally positive you two are promoting choices rather than others with big YouTube following doing their best to kill Micro Four Thirds. I’m grateful for this piece showing the positive choices. Nice work.
@tangbunna; it is the small mickey problem, or, sexual issue that many male photographers project then in the "required larger size of their camera equipment".
Not ev'ry ML FF is big... an APS-C X-T3 is the same in dimensions as FF A7III... so camera size is not the issue, surely not for sex... maybe the new Nikon big "hole" could serve for that purpose.
For stills, no, as demonstrated by the a7III. For high-res, high-framerate, high-bitrate and color-deep video (like the X-T3), yeah, they gotta be bigger. And if you want IBIS, too, wait to see how big the X-H2 will be. Advances in sensors and processors will bring that heat generation down, but physics will only go so far; these new cameras generate a lot of heat and have to dissipate it somehow, as Sony discovered.
"Advances in sensors and processors will bring that heat generation down, but physics will only go so far; these new cameras generate a lot of heat and have to dissipate it somehow, as Sony discovered."
Shouldn't the IBIS or die crowd be fawning all over the E-M1 II..? This video showed its stabilized output, the walking shooter and walking subject, it looked like it was on a steadycam. My IBIS equipped E-M5 has also produced some really nice video (albeit at 1080p) through vintage glass which was tack sharp, handheld. However its audio section also sucks :-( so that's why Oly sold the addon mic/XLR socket device that went in the hotshoe. I wish I had one of those!
To deliver greater fidelity of the picture compared to reality, the overall sensor size is irrelevant. What is relevant, is the actual sensor tech applied *per unit of area*.
Here are small(er) sensors that *wipe the floor* 🕺🏿 with most, or all current FF and APS-C sensors:
[1] → Sensor in Panasonic GH5S. Sony IMX299, 4.63um, Multi-aspect. BI-CMOS, High Dynamic Range: 85dB+24dB(TGT) *WDR, Dual gain. It wipes the floor with Fuji XT2, XT3, any Canon, Nikon Z7, Sony a7-whatever-R, etc. It is currently *the most advanced sensor* 👍 in any consumer camera.
[2] → IMX224LQR and IMX225LQR; 3.75 µm. (Type 1/3) For extreme industrial applications, AI, automation and so forth. Approx. 1.27MP. *WDR. Minimum subject illumination of 0.005 lx or less (at a gain of 72 dB).
@riveredger. No, I am correct on this. There is a host of small sensors with photosites that are twice as efficient than best of those found in commercial cameras. Think like this: it is *light gathering per unit of area*, not the overall size, which is irrelevant. In short, learn photography properly.
You have A good point, but it's not the only consideration. For creative purposes, DoF is also incredibly important, and the sweet spot for that is clearly FF (not even the new "medium format" cameras are better as their lenses are so much slower in comparison - even taking their marginally larger sensor size).
There are several factors that influence DoF, not only the size of the front element of the lens. One could write a whole book about terrible misconceptions about photography, misconceptions which people accept as "truths".
You stated that sensor size is irrelevant with respect to overall "fidelity" of a photo. Answer this, then: all else being equal, how can a smaller sensor outperform a larger sensor when the scene luminance decreases? At a higher ISO value, the larger sensor will maintain a higher SNR and greater dynamic range every time. Again, all else being equal.
@riveredger, Light gathering was always, always, always, per UNIT OF AREA. Total sensor size is NOT part of light capturing ability. That is NOT how photography works. If per unit of area, a smaller sensor uses more advanced photo-sites, then it outperforms larger sensors which use poorer photo-sites regardless of sensor's overall size. That is why that tiny sensor above, is a beast, requiring a minimum subject illumination of 0.005 lx or less (at a gain of 72 dB). That is incredible. Small megapixel count cannot be used for too much magnification, though, but remember, Nikon D1 had only 2.7MP APS-C sensor in it, and yes, it was used professionally.
Total light gathered depends on sensor size. Given the same technology, the larger sensor will always capture more light then the smaller sensor at the same exposure. Exposure is per unit area.
Man, this is not thermodynamics in which we use thermal radiation for the cumulative effect, nor we measure reflected light inside the room and outside the sensor area (say light in dark corners inside camera hardware, or light reflected inside the room). We measure only *visible light frequencies* directly falling on the sensor. There is no frigin' total light in photography when we measure *frequencies only* and they must be accurate per unit of area. I know that some uppity misinformers like Tony N keep repeating it and making money out of lies, cheating poor people.
Just had a flick through the Fuji prime lens catalogue -- nothing under 200mm with IS except a macro.
So you are going to have to use the X-T3 as a zoom lens camera, or live without ANY stabilisation.
Sorry, that is IMHO poor.
So, when we see IBIS, a pro-grade handgrip inbuilt (how this camera even qualified as pro body with that grip is amazing), and genuine top-shelf C-AF, the X-T3 will be a real winner at the current price.
I personally like that the Fuji body, particularly with regard to the grip, is more modular in nature. You can add or remove grip attachments according to your preference. It's not a one-size-fits-all world. Not everyone wants or likes big, beefy grips all the time. I don't understand why you think it's necessary to have a "pro-grade handgrip inbuilt." That "inbuilt" part just limits your options. It's like with Canon 1DX and Nikon D5's with their "inbuilt" battery grip. You can't remove them, so you're stuck with a bigger, heavier camera all the time! No thanks, I like modular. So I like Fuji's approach. I like that Fuji offers modular grips and even modular viewfinders (like with the GFX). I wish more camera brand would offer modular grips. After all, not everyone's hands are the same size. And not everyone's preferences in grip size or shape are the same. That's why I think the grip should be the one thing that is not "inbuilt." It should be completely modular and customizable.
Same goes for my E-M5 II and the Sony A7 series and also their A6000 series. There are grips that suit any hand, and you get the benefit of modularity. I like that too -- as evidenced by my purchase. But that still doesn't get them into a conversation about 'pro bodies'.
@TN Args - Like I said, I don't know why a pro body needs "inbuilt" grips. I think people seem to think that way because they see Canon and Nikon flagships with their "inbuilt" battery grips. It wasn't always like that. The Canon EOS 1V, Canon's last flagship film SLR, didn't have an inbuilt battery grip. Neither did Nikon's last film flagship, the F6. Were these cameras not "pro bodies" because they didn't have "inbuilt" battery grips? Of course not. I think it's just a false mindset that any form of modularity makes a camera unqualified to be a "pro body." It's a weird mindset. For example, that would be like saying that modular lenses (ie, lenses that are removable from the camera body, or lenses that aren't "inbuilt") make a camera less "pro." And yet, some people think that a grip attachment that is removable from the body, or isn't "inbuilt" makes a camera less "pro." You don't hear people saying that lenses need to be "inbuilt" in order for cameras to be "pro bodies."
<< Just had a flick through the Fuji prime lens catalogue -- nothing under 200mm with IS except a macro. >>
Most prime lenses under 200mm - or 135 on APS-C - don't need it*, and Fuji have said that they avoid it because it degrades image quality (albeit slightly). The 50-140 and 100-400 pro lenses and all the non-pro zooms have IS.
* Though I'll concede that some photographers do. Usually the ones who complain most bitterly about its absence... ;-)
It isn't cool, rugged, useful, or any other positive thing to increase your shutter speed for no reason other than eliminating wobble in a setup with neither IBIS nor OIS. It makes for noisier pictures, because the tradeoff is going to come from ISO.
Hilarious that @peterwr bought that story about OIS degrading IQ. Firstly, the whole thing was invented to *improve* IQ, which it does, spectacularly, either with reduced blur or 10x lower ISO setting. And secondly, you can turn it off if you believe propaganda, so including it is win-win.
"Crop Sensor" is the wrong word - every Sensor Size image is being "FullFrame", (1/3.2" Smartphone Sensors up to 53.7 x 40.4mm Medium Format (used into the IQ3/IQ4 Phase One for instance) as long, as you don't crop it. Watch the "Crop or Crap!?" Video from Zack Arias, to learn about that, links posted many times the past years. ;-)
And if Ansel Adams would still being alive, he'd agree that 35mm "FullFrame" Format is too small - back then, these Guys shooted Large Format Cameras.
As long as you don't use a smartphone (which can be great, although) camera, nowadays, any camera should satisfy one needs for Quality - so pick your poison...err, what you need.
There aren't any bad cameras anno 2018 like some 10-15 years ago into the stores anyway nowadays. Horses for Courses.
Btw, the 26 MP Sony APS-C Sensor into the X-T3 is capable of delivering 16-bit RAW Output, a APS-C 1st for enhanced Tonality. People should do a Poll for Fujifilm to support that with KAIZEN FW. ;-)
The Fujifilm X-T3 exhibits very good image quality overall, with excellent detail and color at low ISOs. Further analysis of the high ISO performance confirms it falls behind its predecessor, though.
This week, Chris and Jordan share their assessment of a final-production Fujifilm X-T3 from the National Music Centre in Calgary. Find out what they think of Fujifilm's latest X-Trans addition.
Fujifilm released a firmware upgrade for its X-T3 mirrorless camera that addresses issues with distortion compensation and the mechanical lock on SD cards.
Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
The GFX 50R is a 50MP rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. It borrows heavily from the existing 50S model but in a smaller body and at a lower price. How does it differ?
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.
We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.
The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.
Nikon's D3500 may be an inexpensive DSLR, but the company didn't cut corners when it comes to image quality. See how it handled fall colors and tropical seas in our sample gallery.
Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.
DxO announces the latest update to Nik Collection (version 1.1) that brings better compatibility, fewer bugs to the plugin suite it acquired from Google a year ago
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.
ON1 Photo RAW 2019 brings an updated interface, more powerful Lightroom migration, better camera/lens support, and more to ON1's flagship editing program.
Experiencing life through the lens of a camera might mean you miss out on special moments, warns Casey Cavanaugh as he shoots a short film through the viewfinder of his Hasselblad 500CM
Comments