chiane: Another slow 14-42 kit zoom. How many does that make?
@Steppenwolf:You should learn to understand the context. Chiane spoke about zooms. So did I.
Do you really think I did not know about primes?
Is the lens even better than the pankake from GM1?
How many bright pancake-lenses do you know?Small and bright does not work together - at least not with current technology. Buy the 12-40/2.8, if you need it.
Dean Mindock: Here's another way to solve the distortion problems. Use a flat lens. http://www.wired.com/2012/08/new-flat-lens-could-revolutionize-cameras-as-we-know-them/
Wow, this would be really revolutionary. Thanks for the link.
Edgar Matias: There's an error in your 3rd column table heading for the low light test. You wrote "F-numbers equivalent to F6.3". Should be "...F5.6"
Also, for the low light test shots, it would be very interesting to see f/3.2-equivalent shots also. This would demonstrate the difference (if any) that a really fast lens can make on a smaller sensor...
FF = f/3.2APS-C = f/2.1 4/3 = f/1.6 1" = f/1.2
Would love to see this 2nd set of test shots added, if you have the time.
Thanks for the article. Great work.
Edgar, I think you can simulate this by using the studio comparison tool:Set the smaller sensor camera to base ISO and the larger to equiv. ISO.
Even a bright compact with a tiny sensor can get very close to a large sensor cam.
rfsIII: Thanks for legitimizing one man's crackpot theory. You have set photographic understanding back by 150 years and made life harder for photography teachers everywhere.What you guys are ignoring is that f-stop also controls overall performance of the lens. Most lenses are sharpest at their middle apertures—there's no "equivalence" for that law of optical engineering. The image from a cropped sensor camera is not going to be as sharp across the frame at f/2.8 as one from a large-sensor camera is at f/5.6.
@rfsIII: In theory you might be right about sharpness, but simply take a look at the pics and compare FF/5.6 to 1"/2.0:Do you see any difference in sharpness? I don't.
Incredible resolution and excellent colors:http://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/dp2-Quattro-5446/highres/Sigma-DP2-Quattro-SDIM0003raw-to-jpeg_1404142695.jpg
Maybe, Foveon should make a Fourthirds version and sell it to Olympus.
Sad Joe: Nice video - well shot ( I take it NOT via an Olympus as their current video models are poor) Shame that DRP didn't see fit to cover this same news item 4 times - then again it's NOT a Nikon….Anyone else fed up with YET MORE D810 news ?
The video was recorded with the same camera model.
gunkan: For landscape use D800/1DX/5D Mark II or III. OR even medium format.
I tryed several M4/3 but at the end the IQ of Fuji APS-C was better and the bokeh too.
Perhaps at low ISO the EPL-5 can compete with Fuji X-A1, i really loved EPL-5. But at high iso or looking for bokeh, the X-A1 APS-C rules it.
M4/3 are really fun cameras, very convinient, lightweight and so on. But IQ can't compete with bigger sensors.
Top M4/3 cameras an lenses have insane prices. For those prices you can get some professional full frame stuff.
Tell this to the pro in the video who is earning money by using a totally inferior system (according to your comment). ;-)
tirmite: When will DPReview, the eminent technical blog supposedly, stop playing the dishonest lens equivalency game? So if it's "equivalent" to a 24-70mm then you also HAVE to make the f-stop "equivalent." It is NOT like a 1.8-2.8 aperture. It would give DOF results more like an f4.0-5.6 lens would it not? Being able to shoot in low light is more a function of ISO and sensor noise these days, but for some of us having control over depth-of-field is still what separates a snapshot from a photograph. This camera is NOT a replacement for a 35mm DSLR with a "real" 24-70mm f2.8 lens, although it's clearly a great little pocket camera. How about truthful, accurate marketing both by the manufacturer and camera reviewers about what a lens REALLY is equivalent to if you're going to make that selling point in the first place?
@termite:You are plain wrong. The numbers are not marketing, but the correct optical description of the lens.
Regarding eDOF: Most buyers of compacts care more about speed than DOF, because it helps to keep ISO low. The larger DOF of small sensors often even helps in this respect.
So why should you even mention an eDOF number? For a portraitist who wants to replace his FF/F2.8 with a compact?;-)
MAStai: The Fujifilm X-S1 is overlooked--with identical concept. Its been around since 2011 and has lower res and smaller sensor but 24 – 624 mm range.
@David: I was referring to XS1 when I listed Stylus 1 as alternative. I know that it is not in the same class as FZ1000.
For me though, size matters more than a slight increase in IQ. Besides, in many cases the Oly can beat the Pana with F2.8 and more depth.
Wilight: When the goal is 600mm, which would have a better IQ: a crop of the frame on FZ1000 at 400mm (equiv), iso 3200 or Fz200 at 600mm (equiv.), iso1600?
Very hard to tell...FZ1000 only wins if it is more than one stop better and at least as sharp as FZ200.
I expect, the FZ1000 will be a little better, but only at pixel level.
My experience: Indoors, a Nikon V1 with zoom has a hard time against a 1/1.7 sensor with a bright lens.
If 28-300mm is enough and size is critical, I recommend Olympus Stylus 1 as alternative:
F2.8, light, fast & easy with a large & sharp EVF.
Here's an interesting review about it:http://robinwong.blogspot.de/2014/01/olympus-stylus-1-review.html
zoranT: RAW IQ is practically identical in all three RX 100 variants. The additional cost you pay for Mk. 2 & 3 has to do with handling and video capabilities. If IQ is the most important criterium, no need to switch to 2 & 3.
A faster lens has nothing to do with iq? This is true only if there is enough light.
Andrew Butterfield: I like everything about it except for the hilarious hugeness, which would be a dealbreaker for me. Damn the laws of optics.
Same for me.If size is crucial, I can recommend Olympus Stylus 1:Very fast and easy to handle, very good lens & iq and still very portable.If you like to read a well done review:http://robinwong.blogspot.de/2014/01/olympus-stylus-1-review.html
DWM: This camera is huge! What exactly is the advantage of a 1" sensor again? I'd rather have a D5300 and a kit zoom. Or a Nikon 1 and 10-100mm if small size was important.
Nikon1&10-100 is not really smaller and even heavier:http://camerasize.com/compact/#556,494,544.42,ha,t
No. M3 beats the others in IQ with its faster lens.
MichaelIsGreat4: These pictures would be SO MUCH BETTER IN COLOR!!!
There is this false idea (sometimes even snobbish, falsely "hip" idea) that quality pictures ought to be in black and white! Wrong!! It is much worse when a good picture is in black and white than if it would have been color.Why? We live in a world full of colors, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD THAT IS BLACK AND WHITE!!!!!!
Thanks for sharing anyway these pictures.
@ MichaelIsGreat4:You sound a bit narrow-minded to me. Saying monochrome photos are bad because of the availability of color is like saying paintings are useless because of the availability of photography.
I usually also prefer colors, but in this context, b&w gives a "dreamy" impression, in my opinion.
Wow, just wow. Every picture tells a little story and is beautifully captured.What a great photographer and - I presume - what a great dad he is!
So, finally Canon joins the FourThirds system. ;-)
It is basically a µFT with an F2.0 zoom lens. Excellent!If the lens performs as well as on the previous model, Canon has a clear winner.
Only drawback: Choices are getting more difficult: GM1, E-M10 or G1Xm2...???
Well done, Canon!