Best Cameras

Rounding up a few significant recent releases:

Nikon D500
The Nikon D500 is a milestone. The biggie camera companies' commitment to the smaller sensor has been less than inspiring overall—as is often noted, neither Canon nor Nikon have ever bothered to build even adequate offerings of APS-C-specific prime lenses, and, after a desultory hodgepodge of offerings, Sony backed away from providing a full lens lineup for its former NEX cameras. ("Get an adapter, sonnyboy"?) The central signal of this lack of interest was that after first committing to APS-C for its pro offerings, Nikon reversed itself and went to FF ("full-frame," 35mm size...which used to be called "miniature" when it was a film format, but never mind). The 300S was its last pro-level APS-C camera, and that came out almost seven years ago now. Users waited, and waited. The professional-grade APS-C DSLR became Nikon's lost child, wandering in the wilderness.

The D500 is the Prodigal Son coming home again. It can of course be used as a main camera for general shooting, but as a $2,000 body with no IBIS its main brief for actual professionals is to serve as a specialty camera for sports-and-action photography and for those who shoot telephotos and need the reach—bird photographers for instance should love the D500. It has a high frame rate, very fast AF using an array of focus points the width of the entire frame, and an AF-point selection joystick. And with an XQD card (that stands for eXtra Quick Damn card...no it doesn't, but that's how I manage to remember it) it can gobble captures impressively before pausing to burp.

It will also have a very good viewfinder. Why is that important? Because most APS-C DSLRs for amateurs don't. And it's nice to have that option.

The D500 is worthy of the great 17–55mm ƒ/2.8.

D300s fans who have been wandering in the desert for 40 digital years are back to the land of milk and honey.

Pentax K-1
One downside of the new Nikon D500? It's no smaller, and only slightly (150g) lighter, than the Pentax K-1, the long-awaited, do-everything FF body from Ricoh. (That is, without the battery grip shown here.)

Maybe I've been in this business too long, but the K-1 puts me in mind, a little, of the Minolta Maxxum 9, Minolta's 1998 swan song pro body. That Maxxum (called Dynax overseas) addressed longstanding gadfly complaints that Minolta didn't have a professional body (although it had tried back in '93 with the 9xi, a different camera than the 9). So Minolta finally gave in and produced one, and it was terrific...but it didn't have a pro system around it, its competitors were already well entrenched, and the market was shriveling because digital was on the way. So it kind of fizzled. Cut to 2016, and Pentax has endured longstanding gadfly complaints about its lack of a full-frame body. But its competitors are already well entrenched, and the market is, if not shriveling, at least contracting...

...And the all-new K-1 also looks to be terrific. In this day and age when multinational giants are competing fiercely with traditional cameramaking companies, Pentax is perhaps the only marque that is both: a fine old name (Pentax was the top consumer SLR in the 1960s) with the resources of a multinational giant, Ricoh, standing behind it. Can the K-1 compete, or is it too little, too late? Helping it along is a very nice price indeed for a camera packed with this much technology, especially at introduction—less than $1,800. I'll see one on my next visit to B&H Photo in New York City, in the meantime we'll hope it meets a better fate than the old Maxxum 9. But then this is manna from heaven for long-suffering Pentax fans, and Pentax fans are among the most loyal of all. The K-1 is currently back-ordered.

The very best thing about the K-1? Back to native angle of view for the wonderful Pentax Limited 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm lenses*.

Fuji X-Pro2
It's kinda funny that everybody has migrated to FF just as APS-C gets surpassingly good. The story of Fujifilm has been one of the great success stories of the past ten years, growing from next to nothing. What was Fuji in 2006 but a maker of a modified Nikon with a funky sensor (the S3) and a bunch of point-and-shoots like the cute little Z1? The X100 created a bonafide international sensation in late 2010 when it first appeared, and speculation that was half rumor and half hopeful fantasy flew in all directions about an interchangeable-lens version. Fujifilm very promptly fulfilled expectations with the X-Pro1, which, when it came out in early 2012, was one of the most hotly discussed and widely desired cameras of the whole digital era.

Did Fujifilm then either rest on its laurels or reinvent its own camera? It did not. Thanks to David Hobby we got an inside look at how Fujifilm went about exhaustively refining every aspect of the older camera to make it better in every way—while not changing its basic character, shape, operation, advantages, or "gestalt."

They fixed the battery slot; diopter correction is now built-in; there's a joystick for focus-point placement (double press it and focus resets to the center of the frame); there are two card slots (one UHS-II, if that matters to you); and about the only way that speed has not improved is in startup time...which is faster, just not enough to be really noticeable.

The unique viewfinder, denied even to Leica, was the original camera's most distinctive feature. But it's strongest point was its image quality. That has been significantly improved, and is the leading edge of the wedge as the Fujifilm X-Pro2 garners glowing praise from all over the world.

A unique camera that used to be good and is now superlative. Buy it with the new XF 35mm ƒ/2 normal, a lens that was made for it.

Sony A6300
I like refinement: it's a sound idea. Take a good design and make it better by getting feedback, improving weaknesses, and building on strengths.

Sony's A6300 is the furthest development yet of its NEX concept, which began in 2010 with the NEX-5 and NEX-3, Sony's first "mirrorless" cameras (although it took a while for the world to settle on that term). In 2010 it was a formidable combination of a super-tiny camera and a sensor as large as most DSLRs had at the time. All that is not quite as special any more as it was then, and Sony's interests have moved on to greener (think FF, and "green" as in $$) pastures, but meanwhile the concept has benefited from six years of steady refinement and steady improvement over multiple models. The current iteration isn't so wee, because really, it's better to size a camera to fit the hands of humans. But it's been refined into a highly usable and very user-friendly camera.

The A6000 was evidently a huge bestseller, surprising even Sony. It just seemed to hit that magic sweet spot of high performance, small size and convenience, and low cost. The A6300 is a "no, we meant this" type of refinement—"better" in numerous small ways, including, notably, construction quality. (Cynics might say it's a way to come in on top of the A6000 in price-point for customers who are less price-sensitive, but we're not cynics.) It does have a claim to fame: fastest autofocus in the world. Asterisk, among ILC's with APS-C sensors. But still, super-quick.

The A6000 is still in the lineup, and continues to be the better choice for those conserving precious shekels. Fast, light, cheap, and not too hard to learn to use, I'd say it's the number one recommendation for parents taking pictures of kids.

Lenses? It doesn't make a huge amount of sense, because it's too big and too costly, but if for the dedicated enthusiast, the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8, a lens I owned and still miss, remains a particular recommendation. It would be a shame to own an A6300 without also owning the Zeiss 24mm. I'd say it's worth shooting Sony's ex-NEX cam just to use that beautiful lens....

-

[To be continued next Monday...]

Mike

*There's no way for me to segregate the named lenses from the other Limited lenses at the link. Check FF coverage compatibility for the lenses you're interested in.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Michael Murphy (partial comment): "For the best lens for the Nikon D500, get the Sigma 17–50mm ƒ/2.8 OS instead of the much more expensive Nikon. DxO rated the Sigma as the sharpest standard zoom on the D7100. I have both the Nikon and Canon versions. [...] Now I just wish I could find an equally low priced, good quality 70–200mm ƒ/2.8 or equivalent to match! Even Thom Hogan recommend the Sigma over the Nikon, when the Sigma cost $600+. At $419 it is a steal."

Richard: "Speaking of miniature cameras, did you know that the Manhattan Miniature Camera Club is still in existence? You should pay them a visit the next time you're in town, it might be worth a story." 

Mike adds: From the Club's welcome page:

"Why 'miniature?' When our Club was founded, back in 1933, 'miniature,' or 35mm, photography was new and exciting. In fact, the Leica, the first successful 35mm camera, had been introduced only eight years earlier. The term 'miniature,' meaning the smallest standard format, was much used until the 1950s, and though the word no longer applies to 35mm cameras, we proudly keep it in the official name of our Club, both because it indicates that it is one of the oldest clubs in the metropolitan area and because it is the name by which the Club is widely known."

Jim R: "While it's not a flood, the number of people 'dabbling' in the K-1 is quite impressive. Source data = new member welcome page at pentaxforums, a USA user site. I never thought I'd see such a thing—multiple users of other brands coming to Pentax each day...and not just lurking!"

Comments

[bongo]

"and for those who shoot telephotos and need the reach"

but not really. Since the aps-c is a crop of the FF - you would get the same "reach" by cropping a FF image down to aps-c size. Otherwise if you wanted "reach" why not shoot with a 1/2.5 sensor.

[Tell me which DSLRs offer 21 MP in crop mode with the same focus speed and throughput as the D500, and I'll agree with you. And of course the problem with fingernail-sized sensors, although they do have much more reach, is IQ and high ISO limitations. --Mike]

[John Krumm]

The Pentax is an interesting approach, I think. It's very much aimed at the "enthusiast" market, but with a pro quality build and of course lacking a full line-up of modern lenses for now. They have started with the usual zooms (a kit zoom, a 15-30, 24-70 70-200, and 100-450 ) plus a 100mm macro released a while back. The promised new primes will come next year. The Sigma 35 Art lens works now (with one problem that Sigma promised to fix). In some ways it's like an updated Sony A900, but I think the Sony still has a better viewfinder.

I'm been reading Pentaxforums.com for the last month, looking at every posted image from the people who received the first batch of K1's. Lots of very enthusiastic first impressions, but of course such a place has a sample bias.

[Dennis]

"The Nikon D500 is a milestone."

But not a game changer ;)

On the A6300 versus A6000, it's nice that Sony does these "refinements", but should be noted that along the way, they do some ... UNrefinements ? The A6000 had a lower res EVF than the NEX-6 and, inexplicably, lacked the "virtual horizon", which seems like one of those intrinsic-to-any-live-view-camera types of features that helps them distinguish themselves from DSLRs. So some of the A6300's refinements are really the restoration of things that were made worse in the previous iteration.

Much of what makes the A6300 more expensive has to do with video. I'd probably upgrade if it were my only camera, but I still think of my A6000 as a "second" camera to my DSLR (even though I probably shoot it more these days).

[Ranjit Grover]

Mike,
If there was such a thing as "the best camera" all other cameras would have vanished from the market. Every camera has its own drawbacks, idiotic quirks and pit falls. In the pre-digital age all the cameras were similar, yet distinct. But that was inevitable. Enter digital and the camera design has gone for a toss. So much so the best camera is the one that is in hand. I do not see "the best camera" any where in the horizon or beyond.

[sneye]

The K-1 might look like a remnant from the past, but it is probably the most feature-rich FF camera on the market today (at least for those who concentrate on stills).
I suspect it was designed exclusively for Pentax loyals. Nevertheless, it turns the heads of many, many others (including me). And those Limited gems with their peculiar focal lengths make resisting even harder.

[k4kafka]

"It's kinda funny that everybody has migrated to FF just as APS-C gets surpassingly good."

Not funny at all.For me,when I put a 35mm lens on my camera, I want to see a 35mm field-of-view. It's not about how improved the APS-C format is...

[ But if the cameramakers would make APS-C primes there wouldn't be a problem. The Fuji 23mm for instance is very close to 35mm on FF. The problem is really that Canikon never made APS-C primes for their cameras. --Mike]

[Ian Boys]

The X-Pro 2 doesn't have 2 UHS-II slots, it has 1x II and 1x I. But yes, very desirable camera indeed!

[Fixed. Thanks Ian. --Mike]

[Michael Murphy]

For best lens, get the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS instead of the much more expensive Nikon.

DxO rated the Sigma as the sharpest standard zoom on the D7100.

I have both the Nikon and Canon versions. I bought the Canon version on eBay recently for $269 new, as an import. Now I just wish I could find an equally low priced, good quality 70-200 2.8 or equivalent to match!

Even Thom Hogan recommend the Sigma over the Nikon, when the Sigma cost $600+. At under $300 it is a steal.

Combine it with a $500 new D5500 (from the Best Buy sale), or a $300 used D5300 and you have an incredible, low cost image machine.

Maybe a thread on great "bottom fishing" cameras under $500, or kits with a zoom and a prime under $1,000? (Add the Nikon 35 1.8G and 50 1.8G, or a Sigma 50 1.4 non-Art for portraits.Great lens, a big chunk of glass. I own that in both Canon and Nikon mount too.)(On the Canon side, the 24 2.8, 40 2.8, and 50 1.8 STM for $350 total refurbished, plus the 85 1.8 at $275. Plus the 17-50, and great 55-250 STM at $110 refurbished.)

I really cringe when I see the latest Fuji body at $1,600. Crazy! I do have a $2,000 used D810, but the D500 is way too expensive for me. My Canon 7DII was $1,050 for a USA body, $950 after selling the printer. Best ergonomics of any camera I have ever used.

I still need a DSLR for low light events wuth the 70-200, and wildlife with a Sigma 150-600 or similar. The Fuji is a lot of money for a second tier kit. :(

Cheers.

[stockshelter]

Might want to clarify your link to the Pentax limited lenses - many won't work with the K-1

[Fixed, thanks. I always think of the 31/43/77 troika as "the Limited lenses." There are many more now that Pentax has dubbed with that name. --Mike]

[Gordon]

I've owned 2 A6000 bodies, one for backup, since late last year. I like the A6000 a lot, with the 35mm/1.8 lens. Down the road I'll consider the A6300 if the price comes down, but I don't see a huge benefit to it given my kind of photography. I also own the 24mm you mention but rarely use it.

I recently bought the X-Pro2 with the 35mm/2 lens and use it almost exclusively. I'm not much for rangefinders, having tried one for a short time, but the Fuji image quality is wonderful, even if Adobe Lightroom still occasionally chokes on X-Trans files. I prefer the ergonomics of the smaller, lighter A6000 but it gives me strange and annoying cyan and/magenta casts on enough images to annoy me, and it's not weather resistant like the Fuji. Plus, the Fuji feels like a veritable tank - in a good way - compared with the A6000.

I'd be lying if I said these are the last cameras I'll ever own; given my history I know better, but for now they seem preferable to me than anything else available.

[jseliger]

Lenses? It doesn't make a huge amount of sense, because it's too big and too costly, but if for the dedicated enthusiast, the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8, a lens I owned and still miss, remains a particular recommendation

That Zeiss 24mm is also crazy expensive by the standards of most people (including me). $900? Damn!

The rumors mill claims that Sony may rectify the lens problem: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-is-investigating-the-possibility-to-make-new-fast-f1-8-aps-c-e-mount-primes/. One can only hope. Sony's APS-C system is perpetually "almost:" almost enough lenses, almost enough support. But not quite.

[Inaki]

Bit funny the selection done. But fully agree with what Michael said.
However, I do think that the d500 I'd on a bit of an uncomfortable position. Way to expensive for an aps-c camera. And with a small sensor. Market share is on the bigger-is-best, that coming from sensor sizes. That belongs to the 135 sensors. There lays the trick to d610 et all. And the other aps-c fast cameras are more than capable for speedy shooting, such as the d7200, the Canon d80, the Sony Axxxx, K3II, et all. They can be so fast that on fieldwork it is more important the overall responsiveness and how often does the photographer look at the screen not to miss the shot.

Regarding lens line-ups: there comes pentax again. Had the best Aps-c prime line-up ever with the Da limited lenses (which were sweet performers on all the focal lenses). Didn't help a shilling to them. Remember the 35 Macro? Still a gem. As we're the 70 2.4, the I can't believe how tiny it is 40mm. None of this helped.

[Stephen Scharf]

Funny, I read blogs virtually every day of (mostly professional) photographers who are migrating away from FF, rather than migrating to it (perhaps it's a lot of amateurs who are migrating to FF?). The main reason? Because unlike amateurs who shoot "occasionally" compared to professionals, pros have shot with really big, heavy and cumbersome gear all day, every day, for years. That takes a toll on both mind and body (do I *really* have to haul my 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8 and 500/4 up to the Corkscrew again?) The fact that there are lens systems and and cameras with image quality (and increasingly, performance) fully comparable to FF DSLRs means that many pros have to suffer no longer. As a longtime motorsports PJ, I can tell that my back is a lot happier, and my energy levels stay higher throughout a long race weekend (NASCAR is coming up...) shooting Fuji X than Canon Pro gear. Color me happy. Plus, my PR Directors flat out *love* the image quality.

[mike plews]

It seems odd to me that Nikon builds an entire line of excellent APS-C DSLRs and then is so thin in the area of fast wide DX primes.
I suppose they know their customer base better than I do.

[Stephen Scharf]

Just a couple more comments on today's post...

#1: The inside look David Hobby does such a great job describing is a business best practice called "Voice of the Customer" aka VOC. This a best practice near and dear to my heart because I do it for a living at the biotech company I work for. It's product design based on actually listening to customers about their needs and then, as David points out, actually doing something about it. From the perspective of a professional, I can tell you that Fuji is really, really good at VOC. Canikon, are you listening?

#2: Folks who experience the occasional hiccup with Fuji X-trans files really, really (really) should get a license to Iridient Developer and use that for RAW conversion of their selects. An out-an-back from Lightroom to IRD and back takes all of 30 seconds, and you will clearly (perhaps for the first time) see what the camera is actually capable of delivering. Surely one's images worth some effort in post (there's that word, again) deserves a trip to Iridient Developer.

[Moose]

". . . image quality. That has been significantly improved, and is the leading edge of the wedge as the Fujifilm X-Pro2 garners glowing praise from all over the world."

It's easy to rave about a camera, harder to compare them, especially for intangibles, such as, say 'drawing' quality. The standardized studio test subjects at DPR and IR have their weaknesses, but also the strengths of really direct comparisons of a variety of subjects, textures, repeating patterns, etc.

Take a close look at the DPR X-Pro2 test, image comparison tool.

For starters, select X-Pro2, ISO 200, RAW, and Oly Pen-F*, ISO 200, Normal (as opposed to HiRes). Wander around the image a bit; clicking on a spot brings it into the 100% windows. The 20 MP Oly image is slightly smaller, but almost everywhere I look, I can see slightly more, finer detail than the Fuji.

The Fuji wins on the star moire patterns**, but falls behind on the paint brush bristles and the feathery green stuff. Many subjects just seem identical. On resolution and pixel level clarity, I'd call it almost a dead heat, with the Oly edging a bit ahead for doing better on more of the sample subjects.

Wander off into other ISOs, different Raw converters, and one may never return.***

Color is tougher, as none of the people are real, just photos of photos, but both they and the feathers, pigments, etc. seem a draw to my eye.

I'm not saying that the X-Pro2 isn't a great camera; I'm sure it is. I am suggesting that in the excitement of getting a new camera body, particularly if it's a brand one likes, hyperbole is easy. In the process, phrases like ". . . the leading edge of the wedge . . ." may be , uh, er, um, excessive.

* I'm not touting the Pen-F, not a camera for me. It's about the newest µ4/3 sensor in it and the GX8.

** I assume the Fuji has an AA filter. The Oly does not, cannot, to allow the high Res Mode. The AA filter, while controlling moire, may be losing some superfine detail in non-patterned subjects.

*** I'm also vaguely aware that X-Trans sensors have had some trouble with Raw conversion in ACR. Is that still a thing? Does it make a difference here?

[s.wolters]

The D500 is a millstone! Especially with that 17-55mm zoom attached. I had that lens with the D300. Great stuff optically, but relatively heavy and the balance of that combination was unpleasant. I traded them in when the D700 came out, so I could use use all my old lenses again.

I have the feeling that the D500 is something like the F100 I had. One of the best of its kind ever, but too late and at the end of an era.

[Dave]

thanks for mentioning the K-1; all K-mount lenses will work on it, just some will invoke the crop-mode or show vignetting...

[D. Hufford.]

The D500 would be the camera I would spend $1800 or more on. Would. Would if I thought I needed it. I still have my D300, which is the best overall digital (or film) camera I have owned.

Unfortunately, as everyone knows, Nikon made the D300 and then decided to stop making lenses for it. (Oh, just by a bigger and more expensive full frame small format lens or a consumer grade f4.5 10-950mm) As I do less and less waterfowl and wildlife photography, I have less need for a dSLR and its superior focus on moving objects. The D500 is surely tempting, but not yet that tempting.

Oh, and I may be a sinner, but I haven't the slightest need for full frame and frankly don't see an overwhelming practical advantage in one. Nor is it obvious in most photos I see from FF. As for cropping a full frame to get the extra reach, I could never figure out how I would compose, especially on something like a bird in flight. Shoot a bunch and guess? Then you still have all the added expense of FF lenses and the weight.

[Andre Y]

I rented the D500 the first week it was available to be second camera to a D810 for a photojournalistic project on a local dance company, and overall it's a good camera, but with some caveats:

1. No DX primes! If Nikon had a Fuji-like lineup of DX lenses, I would overlook every other objection I'm going to name. If they had a 16mm f/1.4, that alone would do it for me. As it was, I had a 24mm on the D810, and a 50 on the D500 to act as a short tele. That 50 BTW is a 1.4D, and the D500 does just fine with screw-drive lenses.

2. Weird corner cutting. The camera is very fast, has good auto focus, and feels great but there are a few things that feel less than thoughtful and finished: the tiny D-pad, the random lockups (happened to me once), the UHS-II SD card incompatibility, the weird battery behavior, and the odd user-interface choices.

For example, the touchscreen is only usable for some things, but not navigating the menus. You can't move the magnifying cursor around in liveview unless you do a hack by switching your lens to MF, and turning on touch-to-focus. Why am I going on about this? Anyone who's used Nikon's liveview cursor knows how slowly that stupid red rectangle moves with the D-pad.

The joystick is great for moving the AF point, but only very few, odd choices of functions can be assigned to its press, and that didn't include centering the cursor. The full-width AF array is great, but navigating it is a chore if you can't quickly and easily center the cursor. Yes, the tiny button in the middle of the tiny D-pad will center the cursor, but my thumb is already on the AF thumbstick. Why should i move it away especially if I'm trying to move the AF point quickly?

That full-width AF array BTW is the main reason I had to check out the camera, and it works great.

There's this great Snapbridge feature too, but they've basically cut off a big chunk of their audience by not having the iOS version of the app available from the beginning. Android users can use it now.

Image quality is almost as good as the D810 at ISO1600 with perhaps a tendency to block up both highlights and shadows a bit sooner. The D810's not great at 1600, but it's still impressive to see a smaller sensor catch up to a not-so-old full-frame sensor.

Anyway, it's a great camera, and if you need it, then none of these objections will matter to you. But it does feel like a camera that's been rushed out of the gate, perhaps so Nikon could present it as a twin to the D5.

[Yonatan K]

I have accumulated all the full frame, K-mount primes I "need" for the K1 (31, 43, 50, 77, 100 macro, 135) over the past 4 years... Now I need to accumulate the cash to buy one (and the 28-105 kit zoom).

[Christopher Mark Perez]

I'm happy when folks are thrilled with their new cameras. The excitement can be contagious (ie: I end up spending some more money). Before plonking down serious dough I like to see how things compare. It's instructional, if nothing else.

So... continuing with what "Moose" said, take a look at the Fuji RAW or JPG and compare it to Sony's A6000 on the linked DPReview site. Look particularly in the etching of the family (though the effect is clearly seen elsewhere). The Fuji looks soft to me. Even the in-camera Fuji jpg's (I'm assuming they're sharpened) don't quite compare to Sony's output.

Interesting.

[Goff]

The real milestone in the last year has been the introduction of a professional quality mirrorless camera that replaces the DSLR, all off them. I mean the Leica SL. It is a true revolution. It has everything we have come to expect in the best DSLRs and it does brilliant video. Finally, it uses every Leica lens ever made. I use my M lenses and the M macro adapter on the SL. I am selling my M240.
Goff

[Steve Jacob]

Flashing through this morning I initially read...

"The Nikon D500 is a millstone..."

Most people I knew with a D300 used it for sports days and nature photography, especially birds. The crop factor and frame rate works very well in this instance.

It's selling well apparently, unlike the D5.

[Dalvorius]

Has it really been so many years?

The D300 is still available new (grey import) from BH... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/635645-GREY/Nikon_25464_D300s_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

[Nikon D300s was announced July 30th 2009 according to dpreview. --Mike]

Will there be a big price cut / purchase opportunity with the D500 announced?

[bongo]

MIKE -Tell me which DSLRs offer 21 MP in crop mode with the same focus speed and throughput as the D500, and I'll agree with you. And of course the problem with fingernail-sized sensors, although they do have much more reach, is IQ and high ISO limitations.
-----------
All your points are well taken and correct - however initially you were ONLY talking about reach. Also 13mp or so from a FF camera cropped to 1.5 isn't too bad a res. A camera such as the 5ds would have 20+ mp cropped. Of course it costs more, but then so does an aps-c camera over a 1/2.5.

[I said, "...its main brief for actual professionals is to serve as a specialty camera for sports-and-action photography and for those who shoot telephotos and need the reach—bird photographers for instance should love the D500. It has a high frame rate, very fast AF using an array of focus points the width of the entire frame...."

How is that "only talking about reach"? --Mike]

[Stephen Scharf]

For Moose and Christopher:

There is no AA filter on Fuji X-series cameras. This is why the X-Trans sensor was developed, to prevent moire from occurring in the absence of an AA filter.

Regarding DPR reviews of Fuji X-trans cameras:
Gents, you cannot go by the methodology that DPR uses for evaluating acutance (sharpness) of Fuji X-trans RAF files. DPR insists on using ACR/Lightroom for RAW conversion, approaches who underlying demosaicing algorithms have proven time and again to be sub-par and not fit for purpose when demosaicing Fuji RAF files. This has been pointed out to them countless times on DPR forums, but they do not listen. They are not scientists, so IMHO, they do not understand that there is a significant *interaction* between the color filter array design, the RAF file and the demosaicing algorithm that cannot be gotten around, and because of this, making judgements about intrinsic Fuji image quality using ACR/LR is both inaccurate and imprecise. ACR/LR is not the right tool for the right job when it comes to demosaicing X-trans files, it is as simple as that. If you want to see what this sensor and the lenses are truly capable of, one needs to use Capture One Pro or Iridient Developer. Right tool for the right job. If you would like to see example images, have Mike send you my email address, I would be happy to provide examples (though there are many on the Net, as well).

[hugh crawford]

How can you forget the only truly professional Minolta the XK?

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/minoltaxk/

If you don't listen to the folks who claim the made in Portugal Leica R series were professional Minoltas.

[Robbie Corrigan]

It's funny, I will be getting the K-1 in a few months after the initial run teething troubles come to light and are ironed out (saying that nothing has come to light on the various Pentax forums) and I have accumulated some nice primes for it to play with. Zeiss 25/2.8, 31/1.8, 43/1.9, 50/1.2, Leitz 60/2.8, 77/1.8, 100/2.8 and I'm trying to hunt down a 135/1.8. I made a mistake in getting the DA* 2.8 zooms (16-50 & 50-135), having too much fun with these and the K-3 to be massively envious of the K-1 buyers right now.
It is a camera designed for its loyal followers, Ricoh have said as much and all the better for it. Licking my lips in anticipation of the new primes due out next year for it. Good times for the 'Pentaxian'.

[Eric Rose]

By all accounts the DSLR market is in big trouble. Why Nikon and Canon still keep flogging DSLR's to non pros beats me. The market for those that actually buy standalone cameras has gone over to mirrorless. The vast majority of images are made with cellphones these days.

I have been shooting Nikon since the mid 70's. Minolta before that. Suffice it to say I have a boat load of FF Nikkor glass. At my advanced years it doesn't make sense for me to sell my Nikkor lenses and move over to the Sony FF mirrorless lineup but I've been tempted. Sony seems to get it, Nikon and Canon don't. Once Nikon makes a FF mirrorless camera that accepts my MF Nikkor and AF Nikkor glass I will finally dump my D700. But not until. The D500 or even the D750 leave me cold. The video codecs in pro and prosumer dslr's suck. If I want to do serious video work I use a real video camera.

I feel there is going to be a real shake out in the next 2 or 3 years. Cameras like the Sony A7 series and m4/3'rds will be the only ones left standing for the prosumer market. Once Sony releases their rumored medium format mirrorless camera you can say goodbye to Nikon and Canon.

That is unless they wake up.

[Mike Jones]

So with a 0.71 magnification viewfinder (allowing for the 1.4x crop factor) the D500 almost equals the D5 (0.72), but lags behind Canon's best effort at 0.76 in the EOS 1D X. Is this the best for an APS camera? I like a large viewfinder, it makes photography fun.

[Mike Jones]

Got the crop factor wrong for Nikon (it's 1.5), so the magnification of the D500 is 0.67. Nowhere near the best full frame cameras, digital or analog!

[Alan Carmody]

Mike Jones. That 0.76x for a DSLR full frame magnification viewfinder still lags way behind the all-time film SLR viewfinder, the glorious 0.92x viewfinder of the tiny full frame Olympus OM-1.

[Inaki]

Hi goff,
Although you happen to be right on the camera format, I think you are wrong on the model. On that side, the most important camera and system has been by far the Sony poker of A 7 cameras. Nostalgia can be a good thing. But as a business tool proposition, the Leica makes no sense.

This coming from somebody heavily invested on a pentax system. With ecstatic lenses such as the 100 Fa macro (the tank)

http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/pentax_100_28_fa/lens.jpg

I would love to think the k-x cameras to be a pro system. Primes are there. Top notch. Zooms an flash systems, and moreover, service, are not there.

The (I doubt it even exists) quality difference with the a7 makes the Leica not even funny IMHO.

[Warren Maas]

I recently bought the a6000 for the size, price, and focusing speed. Cute little camera that took a bit to get used to. Didn't take long and I felt the controls to be pretty intuitive and quick to learn. I bought the Sigma 30 1.4 and the Zeiss 55 1.8. Both sharp and fun to shoot with. However, enlarging just a bit in Lightroom, the oof areas seemed to me to be plastic ( technical term) and smudged ( another tech term). I couldn't get past that. Maybe on an a7ish body they would work better. No experience there. Long story short, exchanged it all for the Fuji XT1 and 35 f2. Much happier camper with that setup. Both having rebates made it even better. Some controls on the XT1 seem not so well thought out, but I think I can live with it's limitations. No XPro 2 in the budget.