Marty4650: Anyone notice.... this is the only camera in it's class that has a lens shutter cap device?
This is a convenient feature found in every cheap P&S camera today, but hard to implement in larger sensor fixed lens cameras.
Yes, and a huge pain once this thing gets a bit bent or dented.I prefer more sturdy protection.
Great sharpness and no visible noise, but one thing bothers me:
Skin colors. Especially lips look very artificial to me. So far I've only known this problem from Panasonic.
Combatmedic870: ??? Why? A 28mm 2.8 lens?
Why cant some one release one of these with a 32-35mm(50mm) F1.8/2 lens. I just want one with a 50mm equiv!!!!!!!!!!
@CombatWhy not take a PEN + 25mm/F1.4 instead?
Makes more sense in imo.
gl2k: Oh Dear Fuji. Goofing with a RAW file is never such an ingenious idea. The noise level is incredibly low compared to the elite DSLRs (Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx) but none of the higher ISO images is sharp but soft and smeared. Sorry that sucks and belongs to a entry level body at best.
Maybe you should also read the text and not only look at the pictures. Might save you from drawing wrong conclusions.
mumintroll: Fuji X-E1 not bad. But personally I think much better IQ have Sigmas DP1,DP2,DP3. I would really like to compare them in Raw.For studio, where is lot of light, for landscapers are Sigmas the best choice. I just regret, that we will never see review of those cameras here.
Not so sure about this. As much as i like the Foveon's sharpness - sometimes it produces strange colors.
RichRMA: Comparing it against the default competitors in the RAW studio test image, it looks soft as can be. Resolution looks like 1/2 that of the other 16mp images and vastly below that of the NEX-7. Even moving the little square to other parts of the scene pretty much show that as well. I wonder why?Odder still, the resolution target test looks good!
@RichRead the review and understand it. Then look at the right pics for comparison.Then draw your conclusions.
harry cannoli: $2800, viewfinder optional?
I just can't get past that. Blame it on my age. Texting is a solution looking for a problem, a Tweet is the sound a bird makes, and as cameras go, the viewfinder is as integral a component as the shutter.
$2800 and I charge the camera the same way I charge my phone?
Have fun with that.
Harry, it is a bit hard to vote for a built-in EVF, since the main point of this camera is size. Offering it as a separate solution is very wise i.m.o. Since you really need a VF, you need to stick with larger cameras.
The missing charger is a bad joke though, but somehow typical for Sony.
Ad B: Hi,nice comparison, but...If you make a comparison in August 2012, please don't use cameras from Januari 2011 and July 2011.I understand you have those two cams, but you had to do this in 2011.Now it was better to compare the OM-D with ??.
@Ad: 1. This is a review by a forum member, not dpr staff. 2. The results about handling & lens behavior are still valid with current models.3. Both cameras are still available at VERY attractive price levels.
My conclusion: Great little review for someone who hunts for great pictures and not the latest "gear".
ThomKing: Wow guys..."The last pic - the group indoors - is of terrible quality.I think it is a shame to waste such an opportunity by using improper equipment." lets keep things in perspective It was shot with an iPhone in a location with no control over the bright daylight streaming in from all sides.
And..."I think the real reason is, he is afraid the portrait pictures will become horrible if he will use the iPhone." I don't think they would have been "horrible" but kudos for acknowledging the issue and moving forward. Shooting 40 couples and printing all in a short time frame you made the right choice. Oh and lets compare their wedding portrait quality to any other portrait they have had, Oh wait they have never had their portrait taken before and have nothing to compare it to. I am sure they will cherish their portrait regardless of what it was taken on or the quality for the rest of their lives together. My 2 cents.
Thom, you're right. Looking at the whole context my comment is very narrow minded. But coming from the dpreview mainpage, the headline for this article sounded so much like a marketing stunt for Apple that I simply reduced my statement to the "gear level". Fortunately our discussion broadened after that - largely due to Kevin's professional reaction.
Lan: "the processes can be more energy efficient"
Wording noted. Not "is", or even "will be", but "can be".
That said, at least they've managed to put together a prototype device; that's further along the development track than many get!
This is probably a very scientific way of expressing their expectations.
Keep in mind: These guys are engineers, not marketing people! :-)
Michael_13: The last pic - the group indoors - is of terrible quality.I think it is a shame to waste such an opportunity by using improper equipment.
My ten year old Oly compact would have given a better result.
@Kevin:Yes, your pics convey a great deal of these people's happiness!
Currently, I use an Olympus XZ-1. Excellent lens with outstanding sharpness & contrast, rivaling the best SLR lenses available (F1.8-2.5/28-112mm equ.). Quite fast even with RAW files, reliable exposure and focus. Hot shoe for fixed flash, but also remote flash.Currently available at a bargain price, because XZ-2 came out a few months ago.
If you want to read a detailed review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusXZ1/
A quick impression of a hand-held pic in low light:http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1237586640/download/2443668
I also know and can recommend Panasonic's LX7 (F1.4-2.3/24-90mm).
And then there are Nikon P7700, Canon G15 and Sony RX100.
All of them are highly capable compact systems with different strengths and weaknesses.
I am sure that they would serve your talent very well.
@emily: A re-read neither will change my opinion, nor will it improve the images. :-)
I respect Kevin's courage to try this out, but cannot agree to his conclusion: "Going back, I would have no hesitation just bringing an iPhone."
I totally agree to his point that a phone is less intimidating than an SLR, but so is very likely a good compact camera. At the same time it would offer much better image quality and better control of exposure.
Maybe, next time Kevin will try this with a little compact.
PS: I am absolutely sure that these people will still be very happy about the pictures and am totally supportive of Kevin's generosity.
The last pic - the group indoors - is of terrible quality.I think it is a shame to waste such an opportunity by using improper equipment.
Macx: More megapixels does not equal less resolution guys and girls. You HAVE to compare the final output. Looking at it on a pixel-per-pixel basis is meaningless in a photography context.
Now, I agree that 20 megapixels behind a comparatively tiny lens aperture sounds like trouble, and it obviously isn't marketed for enthusiasts, but maybe Casio uses the extra data-points for some clever automatic noise reduction and sharpening which is appreciated by the snapshooters this is marketed for.
Or maybe they just want to distinguish it from other P&S in its price range.
@Macx:I don't agree. This sensor will generate masses of useless data due to diffraction. This is a waste of space and energy on any portable device. No kind of clever data processing can change this.
Timmbits: Olympus needs to introduce a larger sensor pocketable camera, and larger sensors in their larger cameras. The omdem5 is nice, but competition from other mirrorless manufacturers offers larger APSC sensors in the same size/form factor or even smaller than the omdem5. Sadly, Olympus may not have the R&D funds to recover from their strategic mistakes - nor have the will to step on their own ego to admit them. But if they don't bite the bullet, they may have to sell off their camera division or risk becoming another Casio (as far as cameras are concerned)... but who would want to buy it? No one needs their low end, and pretty much the only one that could use MFT is Casio as they are the only manufacturer absent from the large sensor space.
@Timmbits: Your points are not generally valid - they are only true under special circumstances.
1. more control over depth of field for a same "speed" lens
Most photographers need more often more DOF, so for them a smaller sensor is better. And if you really need shallow DOF you can use almost any lens out there thanks to (m)FT's flexible mount.
2. better low light performance
Negligible, because this can be offset by a) a brighter lens that is not bigger than a full frame versionb) a lower F-stop at the same DOF compared to full frame
Indoors, when large DOF is needed, a good compact can beat an APS-C. I've tried it.
3. better dynamic range
Not so sure. According to DXO, an OMD is even slightly better than a 5d3. Only the latest Nikon sensor is better.Of course, it depends on how reliable and practically valid DXO measurements are.
@Timmbits:You don't give any reason why they need "bigger sensors" and you only compare body sizes. A system consists of sensor, body and lens. And Oly's systems deliver a hell of a lot performance for their money.
Nobody needs another company as uninspired as Canikon.
brianj: Interesting, it has the same size and type of sensor at the canon SX260HS, yet has not got as wide angle nor anywhere near as much zoom. Ah, I see, its called enthusiast because it sports a f1.8 aperture lens.
I wondered what the name 'enthusiast' meant!
Actually yes, enthusiasts are willing to pay more money than an average user, because they value and understand the true qualities of a product.
magneto shot: hmm set aperture to 1.8 , shoot picture of portrait standing 5 meters away...no blurring of background, no bokeh....set aperture to 2.7, shoot picture of portrait standing 5 meters away, no blurring of bg, no bokeh
whats the point of small sensor again?
@marike6: Yes, Nikon now offers a variety of 1-models. I spoke about the V1, that I find quite disappointing. Too large and crippled on purpose (no mode dial or hot shoe). The new models may be improved, but still won't be pocketable like the XZ-10.
Regarding AF: Indoors my V1 is not faster than my XZ-1, sometimes even slower with the 10-30 and I expect the XZ-10 to be even faster.
RX100: I never owned one, so you may be right, but the pictures I saw so far were not very convincing to me.In my opinion a bright lens with a smaller sensor is just more versatile.
LetsDoTheStapler: Yeah impressive, my iphone can do more shallow depth of field.
Seriously m43 is such a pointless system
@Lets:Very interesting. Can it also do as shallow comments as yours?
BBking83: I understand that for DPRev's reviews, you want to give examples of how an "average" photographer would use the camera. A VERY average photographer.
But "selfies"? Seriously? OK...
@LetsDoTheStapler I can tell you are a follower.
"Oh look, iPhones are better!!""Oh look, that's a better photo because of teh bokeh!!"
BTW, your iPhone does not do true DoF as it's done with software but you probably wouldn't know that...
... and even if there were, they'd still tell you something about distortion behaviour of the lens. So, why not?