Funny that an APS-C camera from over 4 years ago is still relevant.

Actually, I had an A6100. Sold it over a year ago; not nearly the image quality of a full frame camera.

I think these sort of articles now and then to keep the site afloat is more than fine.

Would you rather they shut down?

Well, not necessarily bad but they got more specific. So it got harder to find the right camera for your needs. On the other hand you also can get a camera that fits your needs better than before.
Also some features contradict themselves making cameras even more specialised. So I'd say while there are not necessarily bad cameras you can end up with a bad choice for yourself. In the past this was much easier. For Sports and Events you had the flagships for anything else the more money you spent the better it got. Today a 2000$ camera might be better than the 4000$ camera for your needs.

Now since most people want their camera to be the best in everything - I'll never forget the guy who was disappointed like his wife died when I told him the camera he bought and is using for photographing birds is bad for event photography. But online people don't get disappointed, they attack anybody who puts a dent in that illusion so I spare myself from getting more specific about this topic.

They are there. Om5 for example.
Any DSLR is 'bad' for sports. Or any situation you would need silence.

@jkgal, uhm what are you talking about? The D6 is still one of the most capable sports and the by a huge margin best events camera you can get.

And the D850 still is the reference when it comes to full frame image quality - not because sensor development stalled but customers today seem to prioritise the combination of speed and resolution over quality so that's where the development goes. Depending on what you need this can be great or bad.

And if you don't like that approach there still is Canon some Nikon models with older sensors and for sure also some Sony and other brands that went a different way.

Silence of course there mirrorless are absolutely amazing.

So as I said and you can see now there are so many options with pros and cons to consider today, maybe even too much for most who just want to buy a camera.

It's very simple: I need image and video quality. Particularly for video, the R8 is much better than the Z5, with full width, oversampled 4K/60. At that price point, that's pretty extraordinary. The 4K from the Z5 is cropped (1.7x) even at 30 fps. For stills they are more or less the same, or so it seems.

The Z5 isn't half the price of the R8 btw. Normal price for the R8 is 1,499, and currently it sells for 1,299 at B&H. I believe the $999 price for the Z5 is also a Holiday Special, although it might last. It's Nikon's oldest full frame mirrorless body and will probably be upgraded or replaced soon. Or maybe they'll just keep it going to have something for those who want something really cheap.

Not true, the XS-10 is 855 EUR into germany, and comes with IBIS, and better Sensor, without AA filter which eats up some resolution, vs the A6100 Sony. Yes, it's a bit more expensive (200 bucks) but you get what you pay for - and 54 lenses bar none into DX/APS-C does have noone, nobody else - not Sony, or Canon, -Nikon for real. Also the XF series are great lenses thoughout the bank, and with aperture rings. Again, for the other brands, this is only the unloved stepfoster child, because they want you to buy their more expensive FF gear...go figure. :-)

An entry level buyer, which buys the A6100, does not invest into another whopping 499 for the Sigma 18-50/2.8 E, but get's away with the cheapskate, dreaded 16-50/3.5-5.6 OSS.

For the record, the XS-10 is the better camera, vs the old A6100, and does feature IBIS. AF is not everything & -always. And Sony does thread FW updates also mediocre...up to buy the next model, this is your FW Update. :)

No hard feelings, i own serveral Sony.

Once again though, video is something very important nowadays. And Fujis are outright terrible for video except for the latest generation models where they are more competent. That why i did not even bring up the X-S10.

I don't regard IBIS as an advantage in stills photography. You can shoot 1/5, 1/10sec handheld all you want, thinking you have ibis but more than half of the photos you shoot are still going to be slightly blurry anyway because the subjects you shoot will still move, unless you are photographing brick walls. Trees and leaves sway even in the lightest breeze, and people will make micro movements even if they stood still for a photo. You still need to jack up your shutter speed.

You are better off buying a sony A6400 over a Fuji X-S10, unless you don't do videos at all.

Zzt231, define value.

@Husband80

Bang for the buck. You get much better IQ and AF in a much smaller, lighter body, with a massive lens selection, for 1/3 the price. The biggest advantages of the G9 II are weather sealing, enthusiast-level video, and IBIS.

"much better IQ" is debatable and you can find "massive lens selection" in m43 system as well.
I see the biggest advantage of A6100 to be the AF tracking. Otherwise it is a very primitive camera.

Z Fc is quite limited for now, compared to the other options. Nikon really needs to grow the Z DX line.

DPR doesn't have have a Best Instax Model category. :-)

The Fuji delegation has left the company.

You seem to be assuming that everyone is interested in or has the time to edit their photos. Choosing jpeg usually means you're not interested in editing.

As for Z fc jpeg file sizes, see Thom Hogan's Z fc review for an explanation of Nikon's Size Priority option.

Snoddas, JPG is a standard with a lot of leeway in how it’s implemented. Including different quantization levels which affect compression rates and resulting image quality.

The compression algorithm is most definitely not the same for every camera make. lol..

Anyway tilted, I’m not sure you’re correct. Pretty sure the Zfc has a few options t for JPG compression rates not really different from how other manufacturers are doing it…. I agree “size priority” is a terrible option to use for most situations but it’s optional, and actually I thought the option was finally removed in the Zfc…. Good riddance…

@MikeRan: It's the same when it comes to the underlying algorithm (DCT), compression levels can vary obviously, Nikon as well as the competition have options as you pointed out.

@gaul
Too big? For an average person? Really.

Despite enthusiast kvetching about their DX lens catalog (I'm that camp) that model seems to be doing at least somewhat well for Nikon with casual shooters just looking for a camera of some sort, surely a growing minority but I guess just having a choice of color sets it apart pretty easily.

Z5 does have IBIS but has cropped 4K, which is much-much worse than R8 if you do video.

@Snoddas The Sony A7II often sells for $1,000 including lens. It's obsolete compared to their more recent cameras, but does offer solid image quality. And IBIS.

@Andyyy The R8's lack of IBIS is only tolerable for video if you're using a gimbal or tripod. It doesn't have the gyro to stabilize in post like many Sony cameras.

Handheld, I'd take the Z5's crop. Look at some samples online: it's very good.

Many of Canon’s lenses are stabilised, which partially alleviates the need for IBIS.

Best bargain FF is Panasonic S5 in my opinion.

A7II and solid image quality? Sold it because it does not. The sensor was old and a bad performer when it was new. And AF lets a lot to desire.