Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"

On 2016-10-08 02:33:12 +0000, Rich A said:

So they jumped to medium format.

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/...film-interview

Probably

because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience:
http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/
--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2016100720150925210-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
Probably

because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience:
http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/

If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in
their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 08/10/2016 08:39, Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in
their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji.

Would that offer a lot over MFT, especially considering all the extra
weight and bulk? Having used both APS-C and MFT I'd have said there
wasn't a great loss in the smaller format, but a worthwhile gain in size
etc. Both Panasonic and Olympus offer IBIS.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , David Taylor says...
Would that offer a lot over MFT, especially considering all the extra
weight and bulk? Having used both APS-C and MFT I'd have said there
wasn't a great loss in the smaller format, but a worthwhile gain in size
etc. Both Panasonic and Olympus offer IBIS.

Some extra pixels/dynamic range/SNR (whatsoever) due to the larger
sensor, at the expense of larger and heavier lenses.

The new E-M1 Mark II looks pretty competivive however. From a system
perspective it's superior to the new Sony A6500 because of the limited
Sony lens range.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 08/10/2016 15:13, Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
Some extra pixels/dynamic range/SNR (whatsoever) due to the larger
sensor, at the expense of larger and heavier lenses.

The new E-M1 Mark II looks pretty competivive however. From a system
perspective it's superior to the new Sony A6500 because of the limited
Sony lens range.

Yes, of course, but one has to judge whether those gains are worth the
expense involved. For me, they were not, but others will have different
criteria, of course.

The E-M1 Mark II does look good, although (and please don't laugh) for
me needs I would somewhat prefer a built-in flash. Does it have GPS?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , David Taylor says...
The E-M1 Mark II does look good, although (and please don't laugh) for
me needs I would somewhat prefer a built-in flash. Does it have GPS?

Yes, I also would like to have an in-built flash (but I heard there it
comes with a small flash you can carry with you).

And no, it does not have GPS (sigh). I don't know of any new body from
any manufacturer which has GPS. The Sony A55 and A65 had GPS, but then
Sony took it out from the successor models.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2016-10-08 07:39:34 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article 2016100720150925210-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
Probably

because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience:
http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/

If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in
their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji.

IBIS is just one solution, and Fuji, like Nikon and Canon provide
IS/VR/OS in lenses which are likely to benefit from it.
Do you mean to say that you are so shakey that you cannot hold a camera
steady for a shot with a fast wide lens? If not that is sad, especially
if you are going to narrow your equipment choices based on that single
factor.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/8/2016 8:03 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-08 07:39:34 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article 2016100720150925210-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
Probably

because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience:
http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/

If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in
their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji.

IBIS is just one solution, and Fuji, like Nikon and Canon provide
IS/VR/OS in lenses which are likely to benefit from it.

For those of us with very good vintage lenses, IBIS is the best
solution. Since IBIS doesn't appear to add significant body weight, it
may be the best all-around solution because it accommodates lighter lenses.

--
Best regards,

Neil

On 2016-10-08 13:32:56 +0000, Neil said:

On 10/8/2016 8:03 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-08 07:39:34 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article 2016100720150925210-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
Probably

because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience:
http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/

If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in
their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji.

IBIS is just one solution, and Fuji, like Nikon and Canon provide
IS/VR/OS in lenses which are likely to benefit from it.

For those of us with very good vintage lenses, IBIS is the best
solution. Since IBIS doesn't appear to add significant body weight, it
may be the best all-around solution because it accommodates lighter
lenses.

....and yet the cameras those vintage lenses were originally intended
for film and there was no thought of IBIS, or any other IS/VR/OS. As I
said, it is foolish to base one's choice of equipment on a single
factor such as IBIS, thereby excluding some excellent options.

BTW: IBIS or not, mount convertors are available for most MILCs, so not
having IBIS does not exclude using those vintage lenses. Just pretend
you are using them as they were originally intended when you were
shooting in an analog photoworld, and didn't shake as much as you do
now.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-10-08 10:05, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-08 13:32:56 +0000, Neil said:

On 10/8/2016 8:03 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-08 07:39:34 +0000, Alfred Molon
said:

In article 2016100720150925210-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck
says...
Probably

because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience:
http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/

If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added
IBIS in
their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji.

IBIS is just one solution, and Fuji, like Nikon and Canon provide
IS/VR/OS in lenses which are likely to benefit from it.

For those of us with very good vintage lenses, IBIS is the best
solution. Since IBIS doesn't appear to add significant body weight, it
may be the best all-around solution because it accommodates lighter
lenses.

...and yet the cameras those vintage lenses were originally intended for
film and there was no thought of IBIS, or any other IS/VR/OS. As I said,
it is foolish to base one's choice of equipment on a single factor such
as IBIS, thereby excluding some excellent options.

Since we mostly stick to our brand/platform and accumulate such lenses...

As I have several very expensive lenses for the Minolta (now Sony)
system, the advent of stabilization (Minolta-Konica period) in camera
was a definite benefit. While (at that time) not as effective as IS/VR
in lens, it has come a long way in the meantime to the point that the
differences at the stabilization performance level are getting to be
negligible.

One might argue that having one system (in camera) is a more cost
effective solution than having it in all lenses. It definitely is for
those of us not about to replace our holy-trinities and other high
priced lenses.

Adaptors don't work in all cases or fully integrate either. Where the
body flange/film plane distance is too far for the given lens, you are
screwed.

--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.