leeys

I'm guessing Fujifilm's X-Trans sensor crashes their software. :P

Yea, it will. The camera doesn't care what memory card you put it - that high speed burst is all written to the camera's buffer at first. The V1 has a 256MB buffer that accommodates 30 raw files, while the V2 has a 512MB buffer that stores 40. I'm not certain about the V3 as Nikon are not releasing the camera where I am. After that the buffer flushes to the SD card. Thus the only difference a fast SD card makes is the time it takes for the buffer to empty. On a V2 the fastest I ever got was ~20 seconds, or about 25MB/s. The Sandisk Extreme Pro, Extreme Plus (or Extreme 80MB/s), Lexar 600x and Samsung Pro (2014) can achieve this, based on my testing. Also, if you're not interested in AF, you can do 60 FPS with *any* Nikon 1 camera. If you want exposure controls, then you want the V2.

The sensor is larger, and given the state of MF sensors, it's probably half a decade behind everyone else in terms of speed. In fact this is the first MF sensor that has good high ISO capability - many MF sensors were optimised for use at ISO 50-200. In fact the switch from CCD to CMOS probably happened much later too. This sensor is much better because it's a Sony sensor, hence the high ISO performance and the ability to do video. MF is such a small market now, so don't be surprised if progress in this area is slow.

I think it starts with you wanting native lenses or not; if size and weight is an issue (for instance, if you want to put it on a stabiliser or an aerial vehicle). Option 1 is perfectly fine if you intend to get other lenses with it. The speed booster isn't cheap, but its value goes up with each adapted lens you add to your toolbox.

Uh, it's 20 FPS, what would you like to know? Is it any good? Well, at 20 FPS the AF isn't that hot, but it works 70% of the time, I'd say. Personally it's still a bit too jittery.

There's a thread somewhere around here showing Kendy Ty's work shot on a EOS 550D. You know, something not very well regarded at this time. Personally I think buying a ton of gear before you know what you're doing is a *bad* idea. Start small, and add stuff along the way. The reason why you're confused and don't know what to buy is because you have no experience. Start building that experience.

DXO has rarely been wrong with their measurements - Sony's probably doing some pretty clever tricks on the image processing side.

It's slow. It's DSLR live view slow.

That's not really answering my question, is it? Take the defensiveness down a notch; I wanted to know if reviews were wrong or you had an exceptional sample.

Eh, this is the kind of thing I'd spend more money on. It's kind of an investment, and it's one that'll pay itself off, especially if you have multiple lenses.

Really? The tests haven't been so hot, and going from previous experience with Sony's NEX lenses I'm inclined to believe Sony has stuck to the same formula: very sharp centres and mediocre to terrible corners. There's also fairly heavy light fall-off (more than two stops). While the latter isn't too hard to correct for and places a bit more stress on the sensor, I'm not very fond of the E-mount lenses for the first reason.

"Hey look, we can just crank the ISO to 12800 and shoot video! Who needs lights?"

If you're not in a hurry, waiting is not a bad idea.

And that's why the confusion reigns - people do things like start converting to 35mm equivalent, then add the factors in (which gives the wrong numbers).

This again. Ok folks, repeat after me: Focal length is focal length. It does not matter what frame it covers. FoV equivalent is taking the lens's focal length and multiplying by whatever modifiers are present. In the case of a speed booster on m4/3, it's 0.7, followed by 2.0, for a total factor of 1.4. EDIT: Oh, and if you're shooting in 4K, don't forget that extra crop. It's 2.3, right? So 0.7 x 2.3 = 1.61

Did you mean CA? Yes, very little.

That depends on the lenses, doesn't it? I switched to m4/3 for photo work and the Panasonic zooms are a treat. I could do with shallower DoF on the wide angles, but that's just about the only thing I'm missing. I think this is where many people are missing the forest for the trees: Sure you can shoot at ISO 400k in an area lit by two candles, but as a long time photographer, I find that this results in crap images. Good images (be it stills or video) need good light. The current crop of sensors can do at least ISO 1600 competently, with ISO 3200 being workable as well. I find I don't really need more than that most of the time. Certain people might need more, like photojournalists, concert photographers, or documentary shooters, but if you can have a say in the lighting, what're you doing chasing after super high ISO cameras?

The OIS is pretty good, but you still need to have some form of support, be it a monopod or a shoulder rig. I love the 35-100 as well; it's almost a true apochromatic lens, and plenty of resolution throughout its zoom range (drops a bit in the edges at 100mm).

That's why I was a bit confused - surely that's not a reason to like them more than the others? That's really a matter of processing power. I've got a Nikon 1 V2 and the first time I tried it with the electronic shutter I was madly pressing at the shutter button wondering why nothing was happening - the total lack of a blackout and nearly no stutter combined with a relatively static scene made it look like the camera didn't fire - except I had already taken 20 photos of the same scene!

Don't they all do focus peaking in the viewfinder?

If you're not rendering on the laptop, then I think the 13" is perfectly fine. I mean, there's no point in buying the 15" if you're going to loathe carrying it, however powerful it might be. The main advantage for me would be the screen on the 13" rMBP. It's so much better than the screens on the Airs. The denser resolution helps in photo editing too. The new CPUs aren't much faster however. A 2012 is an Ivy Bridge model, right? The current models use the Haswell CPUs, which offer little performance gain, but increased battery life (20-30% increase). The main increase in speed will be from the improved integrated GPU, which helps when editing.

I edit photos and videos on an 11" machine when on the road. It's all about being what you're comfortable with, and my eyes can perfectly take the load from my shoulders in this regard. You didn't mention the 15" with the nVidia option, so I did forget about that - whereas the difference between the integrated Intels aren't much, the nVidia is a different animal. Does your iMac have a switchable integrated graphics solution? If so you can switch to the integrated one and see how your favourite editing programs perform. EDIT: Didn't notice you had an Air. Hmm. If you find that slow, then maybe you don't have much of a choice. 15" it is for you! Personally, I'd just go with the 13" rMBP. Can't stand 15" laptops, though I'm willing to concede that this might be a cultural thing as well.

Nikon doesn't change cameras drastically with these in-between refreshes (though some will ask what is up with the D4 vs the D3s), so I expect to see Nikon's real response with the D900 and the D... err... well whatever that comes after the D610. I still think at this stage, without a proper mirrorless system (the 1s are still too heavily compromised for day-to-day pro work), Nikon will struggle in this field. Most have already given up on Nikon, and I am also not caring too much about Nikon for use in video work, having switched away last year. While the form factor is dated, I still don't like the UI of X-T1 that much. The GH4/GH3 is so much better, as is the Olympus E-M1. The Nikon UI is still one of the best for stills, and it's hard to top it.

The profit margins on the GoPros are insane, apparently. Still they are the best I have seen from this type of camera - other action cameras usually have worse quality. Might want to see what the Hero 4 offers.

Ye gods I thought I was pretty clear. Focal lengths are focal lengths. Calculate your FoV crop based on the focal length of the lens. Doesn't matter what image circle it covers. That only affects whether or not you can actually use the lens, but not your math. So just do this: Focal Length * Crop Factor * Focal Reducer Factor Which means they are not full-frame lenses, because they project an image circle that does not cover an area of 36mm x 24mm.