justmeMN: In the USA, Olympus mirrorless is still an obscure product line, with little brand awareness, little advertising, and little retail shelf space. They don't seem to have much of a future here.
Yes, sales in the US have grown, but does Oly make profits there? Prices are quite low in the US compared to Europe.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Mirrorless, as it is done now, is a path that leads to nowhere. Cropped sensors will never equal full frame. The way to go is the one Sony pointed at with the RX1: full frame mirrorless. Price can be a problem, I know, and then there's the lens size issue, but mirrorless cameras like this one are uncapable of the kind of dynamic range a full frame sensor can offer. I use a mirrorless camera alongside a 35mm film one, so I'm not writing this out of bigotry or cynicism. These are my findings after comparing results.And no viewfinder is an issue, too - although there will always be the X-E1 for those who can't do without one.
@Manuel:Thank you for the interesting paper! My conclusions:
1. You are right that on the one hand film has more DR potential than even FF sensors. On the other hand, the practical value of it is very limited (see their conclusion). With digital cameras, exposure is more delicate. This is why most of them come with helpful tools to prevent blown highlights.
2. They also make clear that even a little compact can beat film regarding noise. Larger sensors are way ahead.
3. You say, FF was much better in DR than APS-C. Looking at the DXO numbers this is only true for older sensors. Currently, the best APS-C equal FF in DR with 14 stops.
You may be right that not all sensor developers focus on DR - megapixels and high ISO are still the focus. Maybe, we will see a DR race in the near future.Till then: You better expose for the highlights! ;-)
@Manuel:I don't agree to your judgement. APS-C and 4/3 are the right way to go i.m.o.
1. FF digital is not like FF film, because it is bigger and more expensive.
2. APSC and 4/3 have long surpassed the quality of film. The increase in quality FF offers is totally irrelevant for most people.DR is not an issue anymore.
3. Why was 35mm so successful? It was cheaper, lighter and totally sufficient in quality for most users compared to MF. Same applies to APS today.
Ben O Connor: I wished to own "a mirrorless systme camera" M 4/3 was first interest, then it becoming NEX... but when I check DxO´s ratings, I am confused.
According to them , all these lenses avaliable on mirrorles cam´s are ordinary or trash.
Ben, don't get confused: You cannot directly compare the scores between different sensor formats.
WACONimages: Most Micro Four Thirds standaard lenses are pretty sharp and decent quality given their price! Why it seems so hard for Nikon/Canon to produce fair priced, but still nice quality standard kit-lenses?
I've been since my first compact camera a Canon guy. Just happens so. Compacts, pro-dslr ect. Invest a lot of money in that. Lately I'm more and more surprised by MFT, especially their lenses.
And what is the point! of having lenses with a certain max aperture!, if you have to stop them down by one or two stops to get decent quality????
It seems mirrorless is a somehow better at max aperture. Hear good things also about the Nikon 1 system in this respect.
Right so, Wacon. Don't listen to them and simply rely on your own experience. ;-)
Karl Gnter Wnsch: Their measurements are so badly screwed - the 100mm f/2 USM lens better than the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM - there is something fishy going on here, and it stinks mighty badly! I can only see one reason in their published data: They seem to take all aperture settings into account which a lens offers - and at f/22 (the maximum the 100mm f/2 can close it's aperture to) the diffraction of the sensor isn't as bad as on the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM where the lens can close to f/32. So these guys basically are morons who have no clue what they do and should be barred from further producing this overload of measurement garbage! Please DPreview - do yourself a favor and drop them from your portfolio of partners, you're better off without them!
I'm quite sure they know what they're doing. The problem is, they 'compress' all their findings into one figure and this makes it actually harder to choose between two similar lenses. A cross table with selectable points of measurement is better i.m.o.
So, all you need is a D800 and a cheap Samyang 85mm f/1.4 and you're in i.q.-heaven? Interesting.
Anyone here, who has this combination?
Hugo808: So the lenses most people are going to use - 18-55, 18-135 - are the worst ones for the camera?
That makes it a tough sell, why can't we have a top performing standard zoom without having to carry around something heavy like the fast L series options?
Just once would be nice.....
Why? Reason 1: Because most people don't want to pay 1.000€ or more for an entry level SLR.Reason 2: Because most people who buy entry level SLRs do not have the need for better lenses.
mathew crow: What's a BlackBerry?
... a smarter phone than other "smart phones".
FoolyCooly: Is it too early to request a shootout?
Panasonic G6 VERSUS Blackmagic Pocket Cinema *FIGHT*
Interested in seeing if Panasonic squeezed any more DR out of the 16MP Live MOS.
BlackMagic shoots RAW Video but it is limited to 30fps.
Just watch the comparison between 5d and Blackmagic (available on the web) and you'll see that G6 will not have much of a chance.
The Blackmagic's sensor is purpose built, while that of G6 is an all-rounder.
RichRMA: Having seen these things in the astronomy world for 30 years, many of us were wondering when they'd release something like it for cameras. Now that it's here, we see the expected shortcomings (added aberrations) and realize it will be mostly a "centre of field" device. But I'm wondering if it even makes sense getting one? You can buy f/1.4 lenses now from 24mm all the way to 85mm and that is pretty fast. Some of them are very sharp, even wide open. There are also lenses that are as fast as f/0.95 (Schneider CCTV lenses, and others, usable on m4/3rds). My guess is most people will find that going up one stop in ISO will be a better idea than using this compressor except in rare circumstances were every last drop of speed is needed. This kind of device would have been far more useful 5 years ago when cameras were much noisier at high ISO.
@Nishi: No, they are not better suited for FF, because they were designed to fit film and not digital sensors. The latter makes them lose sharpness and light in the corners. A 4/3 design crops the best part of the lens, but of course the adapter's glass must be excellent, too.
Just imagine that you had a bunch of Zeiss or Leica lenses worth several thousand Euros. With this adapter you'd be able to make good use of them again - without losing their focal length and even gaining on aperture. The lens centric design of 4/3 should even work better with this adapter.
plasnu: Awful color. Beginners and lower class people usually prefer more saturated color, but this is too much. LOL.
And you really think there's no saturation setting in this camera?
tommy leong: ergonomics would be my first concernfollowed byhow much really smaller it is in real use.
4/3 cameras are small but coupledwith their zoom . the bag they need is not muchsmaller than a rebel.So "small" as a feature for 4/3, is not in real use.
Ad a proper zoom to the equation, put the system on a scale and you know the advantage of 4/3.
If you only use the kit lens and have large hands, a bigger body can be better, of course.
retro76: You can say what you want about Canon's aging 18 megapixel sensor, but I would still rather have this sensor over anything from the likes of Sony, Nikon, or Olympus. Maybe technically the sensor isn't quite up to par on paper, but in the field the color, wb, detail, and tonality are second to none. I have owned the Nikon D7000 and I did recently own the Olympus OM-D and while those systems are wonderful in their own right, they just can't touch on Canon for output. I know it sounds biased, but I have owned just about everything under the sun and the only system that really comes close to accurately capturing the moment is Canon. I never understand why so many fashion photogs and world renowned artistis used Canon until I bought into the system (I thought it was brand snobbery, but I was wrong).
You're lucky that you've found the right system that fits your needs and your taste. Personally, I never liked Canons color rendering much and prefer Olympus and Nikon. Today's technical standards are so high, that there's practically not much difference in image quality between brands. This allows choosing according to taste and other aspects. Isn't this great?
Excellent lens, but the JPGs are not doing it justice.
The RAWs however, are also quite misleading as I found:- strong moiré patterns on the money bills make Nikon A look worse- stronger default sharpening than for other models makes it look better
I took the RAWs of Nikon A and E-M5 and developed them to best sharpness & detail with their supplied RAW converters. My result:Both are practically on par and deliver excellent iq. Some parts of the scene favor E-M5, others Nikon A. Moirés are almost gone.
Another comparison showed that the lens of Nikon A matches that of Oly XZ-1/2. Superb.
Imagefoundry: How I wish that this nonsense with Lightroom would just cease already. Version 7.4 still doesn't work with xtrans, it just doesn't work in a slightly different manner. Talk about procrustean bed....
Using LR output to compare camera brands amounts to partisan tactics, in my honest opinion. Its demosaicing engine is as bad as the user interface and color controls are good; and the output from different cameras is wildly inconsistent.
@Imagefoundry:I don't like/use LR either, but it is very widely spread.Besides: DPR offers RAWs for download, so you can do your own comparisons with your preferred software.
GeorgeZ: Wow, I just saw for the first time what they charge- almost 1.000€.You can get a 5200 with 2 lenses for the same money. I know it's a premium compact but how on earth are these prices calculated? The sensor can't be the reason, the electronics or body neither. Remains the lens, but I doubt it's more expensive to make than a 18-55 kit lens. I guess they just want to make 5x the profit they make with a equally priced DSLR.
@GeorgeZ:The lens is certainly more expensive than a kit version: Better quality and lower quantity.Look at the prices of excellent primes: 500€ and more are not unusual.If you know how prices are calculated you understand that selling prices are largely based in cost per unit. You can also imagine that such a camera has eaten a large chunk of development costs, because it is very different from the other models.
Pablo4: To my eyes, at base ISO (where I shoot 90% of shots) the camera produces mushy RAW pictures. There is definitely some NR going on, or the sensor/lens isn't that great as fanboys would like. Just look at it and compare to the NEX 5N, 7, Olympus XZ-1 or M5. All cameras I had are sharper. Yuck, no thanks.
@Pablo:Wrong impression. You need to read the whole review. A simple RAW comparison cannot tell the truth about the true performance.
santamonica812: No RAW. Therefore, no interest at all for serious photographers looking for a 2nd, lighter and all-in-one, camera to bring on their travels.
@santa:Why don't you look further? Fujifilm offers even better models with RAW.