Now three weeks into upgrading my G3 and GH2 combo to G6 and GX7. For some reason with both on the shelf I'm grabbing the GX7 90% of the time. When I had a GF1 I took it when I really needed small, but otherwise preferred my DSLR or the GH1 once I had it.
For personal shooting - frost-kissed flowers when I first wake up, something impulse and not a planned shoot, I'm finding the GX7 often wins out over my DSLR kit. Only when I know that pixel count will matter - studio work for fine art prints I know will be printed large - is the DSLR an instant winner.
Raw image quality is a real upgrade from my last m4/3 kit. Handling is really nice, I put a hand strap on and have a long strap waiting to go on but think that might never happen, the camera really handles - literally - superbly.
The only downers: that wifi button has intruded way too often. For some reason my Nikon shoe flash don't fire reliably where the one Panasonic shoe flash I have does.
A miss on details. High quality manual focus, through split image or other approach, would have made this a complete package with some interesting values for me. I'd love to have a smaller Nikon kit to haul around, and I was hoping that's what this would be for me. I owned an F3 for use when I didn't want to haul around the much bigger size film bodies.
Smaller matters. I have several older Nikkors where I own modern AF-S versions also. The 35mm f1.4 AFS is a wonderful lens, but I keep packing and using the older 35mm f1.4. Why? It's a whole lot smaller. Even early autofocus lenses like the 105mm macro are much smaller than the new AFS versions. I suspect this body and four older non-AFS lenses would take up about the same space as my D800E and two modern lenses.
But, without better support than with modern bodies for manual focusing, it ends up a miss for me. It would make for a smaller kit with the older lenses, but won't work better with them. Sigh.
I'm strangely unmoved. Having recently shot the Panasonic G-6 and GX-7 back to back in studio with the xpro-1, there is nowhere near enough gap in performance these days for there to be a strong argument for APS C superiority. The xpro optical finder is different enough and useful enough to fill a real niche.
TFD: While I admire all these new niche camera each with their quirky feature sets and small collection of lens but their price points always leave me cold. Especially when you look at the lens prices - what is the point of an interchange lens camera if there are few lens, no third party lens and they are more expensive than their SLR peers.
$1400 would buy you a Canon 70D a Nikon 7100 or a Sony A77. You would have 10 times more lens options - including 3rd party lens.
Psssstttt... Full frame lenses work fine on aps-c. Enormous range of options for DSLRs. Not counting all the manual focus Nikkors, some of which are still state of the art.
As someone who bought an RX-100 mostly because I'd had a little good fortune and thought I'd treat myself - and then found out what an excellent piece of gear it is - I'm very intrigued. Price is always relative - some point and shoots would be "expensive" for what they can do at $10.
I will say that the RX-100 does disappoint me in one area, which is the lack of articulating screen, and it made me swear I'd never buy a camera that didn't have some form of extreme tilt at minimum. I shoot from odd angles a lot and the RX-100 disappoints there. I'm shooting a GX7 now, which has a tilting (not articulated) screen, and it's OK... not great, but OK.
I'll be watching the reviews and posts very closely on this camera. Seems like a perfect business backpack companion for me.
When I bought the RX-100, it was based on the excited reviews here and elsewhere. I had some good fortune selling some images so treated myself, thinking with my emotions - my head wouldn't have approved spending that much on a compact camera.
It's probably one of the best things my emotions have done for me photographically in awhile. The image quality is excellent - with a tiny amount of work the RAW files at 800 and 1600 process into very usable prints up to 12x18 sizes, and at 800 and below, upscale reasonably well for larger prints. (As with all digital cameras, some images upscale better than others.) I've sold many prints from images shot with this camera.
I've recommended the RX100 to many friends, and every single one has raved about the camera.
Cost is relative to quality, and the RX100 was definitely value for money. I have D800e kit for big work, m4/3 and XPro1 for personal work. The RX-100 holds up well as a "never be camera-less" carry camera.
I have to say that there's a good outcome from Adobe's announcement, which is that a couple of friends with image processing product development efforts have suddenly gotten renewed interest from venture capital firms.
Schumpeter rules may well apply, and the world may benefit from an even better replacement.
nnowak: The piracy statements are pure marketing BS.
The only reason for switching to a subscription model is that it guarantees a steady and dependable revenue stream. No more need for major annual or semi-annual software revisions in the hopes of luring new customers or upgraders. No more spikes in sales right after a new release followed by lagging sales as software nears end of life. No need for discounts to clear out previous version software. The programmers now only need to roll out small new features on an ad-hoc basis.
Nothing about the cloud service (functional or financial) is beneficial to me and is only designed to help Adobe. CS6 is the end of my relationship with Adobe.
With all of the people promising to abandon Adobe, I don't see how this ridiculous change will be a financial benefit in the long run. Maybe Adobe will die a quick death and then that steaming pile that is Flash will be gone forever too. I can only hope.
Epic fail. I've got enough experience with various other cloud-based solutions to know that it's a hideous user experience for those who travel a lot and are often in areas of iffy bandwidth (if any at all) for extended periods of time as I do. "It's on your hard drive..." yeah, sounds fine assuming you're someplace where the app can still phone home, and when it can't most cloud solutions fail hard. The problem with any and all cloud solutions is they assume strong first world bandwidth. That's so arrogant. Particularly for photographers who adventure into the wilds of either nature or barely developed countries, any bandwidth assumption whatsoever is a mistake.
Mssimo: He forgot to talk about the 2 hours of POST on each image.
As someone who does similar shoots with similar gear, looking at his images very closely, there's not much post processing. Dust or blot removal, for certain, I'm amazed every time I do a session at how much stuff that I don't see in the normal world shows up in the micro world. But the assumption that he's grafting images together into the shapes you see is a false one - I've gotten similar shapes with my setup, which is two droppers with a computerized speed and droplet size control for the droppers. If there's any fudging in his description, it's probably that he uses viscosity management more than he says. And uses snoots, flags, etc on his flash, but everyone into this sort of photography does.
Having looked at and shot the Schneider K shift lenses for Nikon, compared to Nikon's own, I suspect that the price for m4/3 will be breathtakingly higher than any other lens for the format. And that while the quality will be excellent, if the pattern holds from the Nikon and Canon world, not better enough to justify the price difference.
As I read through this, I wonder if there'll need to be change the custom camera profiling tools like Color Checker Passport, and go through camera profiling again.
nick66davis: I find these articles interesting and the quality of the images is high. But, out in the wild it is often difficult to make all the considerations that the writer is describing. Such is the likelihood of the subject flying or running away that sometimes you are just lucky to get any shot at all...factor in the wind moving the subject and thefact that you can move the subject relative to the light source and I'd say that macro photography in the wild must be one of the hardest areas to become truly proficient in. Looking forward to the next installment.
I find macro shooting to be one of the subjects with the most things to pay attention to. Shooting early in the morning is often very important, before the breezes and winds get going. The damp and water drops are richest just after the sun gets over the horizon, or within a few minutes of the end of a rain. "Working a subject" requires moving in partial-inch increments, and you can't really see your result as well as full size world shooting. I find that the answer to the question "how much DOF?" is way harder to find than in the larger world, and I tend to shoot several DOF options. I have some images where both razor thin and broadest possible worked equally well. I think macro shooting is a great focus for someone who loves precision, and loves to tinker.
John Sargent: Good advice for those taking photos of motionless inanimate objects and of landscapes, but not so appropriate for budding press photographers, street photographers, and photographers of swiftly moving sportsmen and women, as well as of children and animals. One suspects that Cartier-Bresson and Capa would have got nowhere had they stuck to rules as constricting as these…..
You suspect incorrectly. Cartier-Bresson's book is worth reading so you'll understand - what's described in the article is very much along the lines of how he looked at and photographed the world. The idea that he was grab-shooting is incorrect. He's talked about many of his "spontaneous" pictures, and while he didn't stage them, he did see them coming, visualize where the best angle would be, get there, how to make sure the reflection was captured, etc. The difference between people like CB and Capa and the rest of us is that they practiced and shot 10x what most of us do, and as a result could "do the work" faster than we can. If snapshooting was a valid technique, there'd be little difference between their work and the work of the average person on the street. I believe that for Capa and a few of the recent street photographers, you can see their contact sheets, and you'll see how many framings they captured, and how few they selected.
Huge improvement. More fine detail, less smearing, although it looks like they did all the work in the luminance, the chroma noise got crisper and didn't increase.
Still, big improvement. I find it easier to remove chroma noise in post processing than luminance noise.
I find the images at high ISO kind of crunchy looking. Even what should be (based on what the range of luminance in the subject appears to be) pure black has luminance noise "texture." That's something also common with the m2/3 cameras, even at lower ISOs, but it is a bit disappointing to see it in large shadow areas even after processing from RAW.
And a big ditto ditto to "Sigma needs better lenses for this camera." I find the edges of many of the images to be appallingly un-sharp, sometimes just soft, sometimes linear-blur soft.
I think people who shoot DSLRs or m4/3 put too much belief in what "weather sealed" means. I've shot consumer-level DSLRs in dust storms and rain, along with top end Nikon DSLRs and lenses that are weather sealed, and with reasonably careful treatment - frequent removal of standing water or dust, keeping the gear out of direct rain or dust impact, and NOT using a blower for anything until out of harms way, have never had a failure in consumer-level gear. I've recently purchased a GH2, though, and it's got an open microphone on the top of the body - dozens of holes for water to get into the top - and I don't know how well it's sealed under that. During some hurricane shooting I put electrician's tape over the mic location on the housing, since I don't shoot videos anyway, but am a bit annoyed at what I think is a failure of common sense by Panasonic's engineers. There's no more vulnerable place to put a mic...