nikon power: The Instax will work well for women. For men, they will need bigger wallet to hold the 2x3 prints.
Tonkotsu: From Fujifilm's press release on their website...
"With its modern design the instax mini 70 broadens its appeal to not only young women, but also men in their 20s and 30s"
Luke Kaven: Step right up, you duck-lipped narcissists. This camera's got a MIRROR on it, so you can admire yourself full time.
Why exactly does selfie = narcissism?
Just wondering, mostly because people who bring up the 'culture of narcissism' are often doing little more than misappropriating an actual personality trait and turning it into a broad, negative generalization about people who are doing something perfectly normal.
Why do you automatically assume that a.) this is for women, and b.) the only place for a printed photo in a man's possession is their wallet?
I take photos with my Instax Mini 9 and put them on the fridge, put them into albums, share them with my family members, attach them to gifts, post the results on Instagram, etc.
What I'm saying is: Why are you being so narrow-minded?
I think now would also be a good time to remind Luke that the Mini Neo 90 - the more 'serious' Instax camera - has a mirrored shutter button on the front that Fujifilm said was there for selfies.
D200_4me: Seems Barney was the only expert on the panel. Schooling those boys...
I think Pye made a number of salient points, especially about the democratization of photography. It's something that I wish people within the industry would explore more often, as it's part of the explanation of how we got to our current state in photography.
Photato: What is the Sensor Aspect Ratio, still 4:3 ?I really like the Live Picture feature though, simple, fun and effective.The Lens Aperture at f/2.2 though is behind the competition who has f/1.8 like the LG G4.Oh and no Raw pictures yet?I wish Apple would have stick to the 8MP larger pixels using the newer technology but 12MP is not as bad as Sony Z5 23MP sensor.
Just because Apple is playing on conventional wisdom - small pixels = bad performance - does not mean that it's true. There is nothing inherently bad about having more megapixels.
Sony probably chose the 12MP sensor for the A7S because it makes sense for 4K video without having to do any binning while also reading out pixels 1:1 at reasonable frame rates. For stills, objectively speaking, it's only slightly better in the ISO department than, say, the A7RII, which clocks in with nearly 4x the resolution. Plus, as Rishi pointed out in the A7S review, downsizing a high ISO image from a higher megapixel image to match the 12MP photos of the A7S, the higher resolution camera looks better, hands down.
Canon's $30k camera is not a direct comparison to a stills camera. It's a video camera limited to a maximum 60p, and it only reads out at 1920 x 1080. All the 2.2MP sensor tells me is, to get that stupid-high ISO, you have to have really, really big photosites.
tungsten hour: Yet beaten in call quality, durability and battery life by the average $10 no-contract flip phone. Progress!
According to who? I've been using mobile phones since the late 1990's. I've killed a few flip phones, but only just cracked the screen on a smart phone earlier this year. Flip phones also do significantly less complex tasks, and the minimal circuitry, coupled with a basic display, allows most of the phone to be battery. Also, remind me which flip phone uses VoLTE (Voice over LTE)? Y'know, the technology that leverages VoIP to make people sound as if they're right next to me, talking directly into my ear, and uses radio bandwidth that no flip phone could ever touch? (PS: IF a flip phone ever migrated to VoLTE, it would probably kill most claims to battery superiority.)
It's a 4:3 aspect ratio, but that's fine because it ensures that different photo aspect ratios (square, 16:9, 4:3) use as much of the sensor area as possible.
Live Picture reminds me of Panasonic's Pre-Burst, if the latter could be immediately rendered into a GIF by the camera.
I'll take the f/2.2 lens if it means that the rear camera doesn't protrude further from the back of the phone than it already does.
You should read DPR's articles on why smaller/larger pixels doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme. The TL;DR version: Higher resolution ≠ worse ISO. performance.
D 503: This is the end for the camera industry. Soon you will be buying cameras with drm and with half the features missing at release. You can of course purchase upgrades at £100 a pop.
I think you're being a little dramatic. Arguably, any electronic device sold can be improved upon, and it's up to the manufacturer to put a monetary value on those improvements. I'd take a $100 upgrade that significantly expands on the capabilities of my camera than, traditionally, being told to buy a whole brand new camera.
Also, being well-versed in DRM and its affects on media, I don't see how it applies to this situation at all.
Mike FL: That's good as it may push SONY to release a7000 even if the M3 has the same IQ and same AF performance as a6000, but without build in EVF.
M3's lens is cheaper than SONYs especially the UWA zoom, but I wish Canon can release a std WA zoom starting with 24mm equivalent.
But if M3 has bad IQ and bad AF performance comparing to a6000, SONY may just wait, and enjoy that a6000 is still more less the #1 bestseller.
Mike FL: That chart has absolutely no context whatsoever, and, therefore, means precisely nothing without it. Second, if this is sales of just cameras in Japan, then what about the rest of the world?
I'll continue to discount Canon's mirrorless prowess so long as they continue to push a 3-year-old system that only has 4 native lenses while simultaneously stating they're finally 'serious' about mirrorless cameras.
Mike FL: Your comment assumes that the M3 hasn't already been on sale for months elsewhere in the world, where mirrorless cameras sell at higher rates than here in the US.
The IQ between the M3 and the A6000 is about the same, and the AF and burst on the Sony is superior to the Canon.
The Canon UWA zoom is cheap because it's a variable aperture lens. At least Sony will sell you a constant f/4 UWA lens.
Releasing this product in the US will do nothing to push Sony. As has been the case over the last several years, they'll release the A6000 successor whenever it's ready and not because Canon tried blundering their way back into the US mirrorless market again.
Mike Sandman: As a practical matter, the ability to push images 4 or 5 stops without much penalty (except for the artifacts at high-contrast boundaries) means that most of the time, we won't have to mess with combining shots using HDR software. This could make it a lot easier to get very good images in high dynamic range situations without a tripod.
With regard to the lossy compression and the effect at high-contrast boundaries, I agree with dPreview that this is a strange choice on Sony's part. If you keep pestering them, perhaps they will issue a firmware update to fix this. However, the size of the files may be 80MB or more, which may be a problem for ay computer with less than 8GB of memory. Is it also reasonable to think that loss-less RAW would slow down the save process in the camera?
In any case, interesting report,and please keep pestering Sony about lossy RAW.
I'd like to hope that anybody who has US$3200 to spend on a camera body likely also spent money on a computer that has more than 8GB of RAM in it.
Also, after reading the article DPR posted last week of the A7RII teardown, it would suffice to say that a 4GB buffer would certainly fill up much quicker with lossless 14-bit files from a 42MP sensor.
probert500: I shoot the a7r and used to shoot the canon 5d2. I had more high contrast edge artifacts on the canon. Don't know what this means but lossless compression isn't the silver bullet.
The IQ from the sony is leaps and bounds beyond the canon - magnificant. It looks like this sensor is even better.
still - yeah - you should have the choice.
The 5D Mark II and the A7R have about 5 years worth of technology development between them, so it should be no surprise that an issue like contrast edge artifacts was alleviated in that time, if not outright resolved.
As DPR keeps pointing out, many have already clearly demonstrated that Sony uses RAW file compression techniques which cause these artifacts. You can also clearly see that the Nikon D800 series, using the same sensor as the A7R, produce better RAW files regardless of compression. I can also personally confirm that Sony's compression techniques are not restricted to the A7 series - my D7000 files always looked better than my NEX-5T files (similar sensor), and the same goes for a D3100 vs a SLT-A33 (same sensor, but with a bonus 1/3 stop light difference because of the transparent mirror).
I like Sony, but the lack of choice for compression is weird. (Especially when you realize that sometimes Sony's OOC JPG files are larger than their RAW files.)
fotoph: why take shots of a moving band at 1/13 and 1/10th of a second?
Sometimes photos of a moving band with some motion blur in them looks way cooler than a completely static image of a moving band.
Tape5: "Fujifilm is aiming it at hobbyist and a younger generation of creatives: essentially those who might not be able to afford (or don't want to spend more than $1000 on) the X-T1, but still want the same image quality it offers."
Isn't not being to afford sort of similar to not wanting to spend more?
One is a logistical financial roadblock.
The other is a self-imposed personal choice.
I find the level of cynicism of most of the comments to be simultaneously unsurprising and utterly infuriating.
Nowhere else can you find a group of people who are completely defeatist about a production team taking a photography and film tool that the majority of people have on their person at any given time and making a full-length feature.
I'll gladly argue against the use of a 'real camera'. I'm fed up with footage from 'real cameras' being post-processed into appearing as amateur handheld video. This is the real deal, which lends to the character and authenticity of the movie.
For all the concerns about the footage quality, I can't say that I've read a single review of the film thus far complaining of how the film looks. Your average audience member doesn't care about IQ unless it adds or completely distracts from the story being told. It looks like an interesting movie, which means I'll probably take it over the countless beautifully-shot yet otherwise-garbage films out there.
vesa1tahti: Real photographers don't take videos. So, clearly Gold Award in still photography. Cheers.
'Real photographers don't take videos' is the sentiment of a person who doesn't understand video is photography, just with a faster frame rate and more post-processing work.
Opposite to your claim, pro photographers are increasingly *more* inclined to produce video for their clients:
(This is one among many articles that I've read in the last 6 months alone.)
And, rather than investing in separate cinema equipment, it's probably easier and more financially feasible to expect your DSLR to perform the task - especially with the likes of Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony, proving that 4k in a tiny package isn't difficult.
But, if you insist that photographers don't take videos, I'll be sure to let the people I know who do both for a living that they have to pick one or the other, and not both, just to make you happy. I'm sure they'll want to meet you to extract the money their business lost.
ProfHankD: These look clearly designed for Sony FE bodies, and even the OLED display makes sense for that (the info was digitally available, so I bet this doesn't cost any more than the usual focus/DoF scales). A big step for Zeiss... a giant endorsement for Sony.
Not an opinion, just pointing out that you're pointing out the obvious. (Or just read Eric Hensel's reply, which was aimed at me, but aptly describes yours.)
There's nothing informative about your comment, and this isn't a 'bold move' for Zeiss or Sony. Sony thew Zeiss some money, along with an engineer or two, and told them to hit a certain price point. Zeiss made an optical design, tested a few prototypes, and had their partners in Japan (aka: Cosina) crank out production copies. It's not terribly different than how the 'Zeiss' lenses made by Sony are produced, or how the Touit lenses are produced. (I wouldn't be surprised if the Loxia line was also made in a similar fashion.)
This isn't new territory for Zeiss or Sony at all. You just think it is because they have the Zeiss badge on the side without there also being the name Sony being visible somewhere else.
Peiasdf: Fast prime + IBIS + FF = dream combo for 2015. Wish this tech is available in 2010.
It was available in 2010. Actually, it was available in 2008.
EcoR1: Excellent. It seems that E-mount is becoming very fast the de facto mount for professionals and enthusiasts who wants to have best possible image quality in smallest possible form and with all modern camera- and lens-desing benefits.
Personally I think I'll go for a 25mm lens, it has a very short minimum focusing distance and I can finally give up my 24mm A-mount lens. Also weight is not bad.
I don't know if you've looked at the lens specs closely, but the Batis 85mm f/1.8 is not only larger than Nikon's 85mm f/1.8G (81mm x 92mm, vs 78mm x 73mm), it's also heavier by a good 125 grams (475g vs 350g). If you believe DXO Mark, Nikon's lens is also among the sharpest 85mm full-frame lenses out there that doesn't have the word 'Otus' in its brand name.
As far as E-mount becoming the de facto for anything, there's no evidence at all to support such a claim. Global mirrorless sales are down for the quarter and have been generally flat for the last year, according to CIPA sales figures. If Sony is seeing any gains, it's at the expense of other mirrorless camera manufacturers, and not from people leaving DSLRs for Sony E-mount cameras. (DSLR sales are just way down, and it's because consumers are leaving the market, altogether.)
Essentially, you're making stuff up, and I have no idea what you're prattling on about.