HowaboutRAW: did #1 really have to be cliché softcore?
@HowaboutRAW:Don't know where you live, but in Europe a cleavage like this is not considered "softporn" - even in an office.Had you called the pose "sexy", then I could agree, although I consider it more "relaxed" than sexy.And even if it was "nude photography", why should it not be on a site about photography?
Softporn? You have a very strong imagination!I see a beautiful young woman in a fashionable, low cut blouse.She could even wear it in an office without problems.There is nothing falling out as there is only a hint of curves visible. Nice pic and totally adequate for this site, imo.
Very sad.I have a motor-zoom flash unit from Metz that I bought for my Olympus C-5050 in the year 2003. Together with an adapter it gave me true TTL capability.
It still works like new.
Just a Photographer: Its not going that well with 4/3 at the moment.Hope they'll be able to come up with a game changer.
Many people looking for a small system are now looking towards Fuji due to their APS sensor, retro look and more or less same weight and AF performance.
The Fujis have excellent lenses, too, but they are larger and heavier. Their handling can also be quite irritating. Their sensors show very little noise but are not as sharp as m43.As a system I'd still take m43, because it offers much more flexibility.
JohnEwing: "Reached out to" is pathetic. "Contacted" is perfectly adequate: this is a technical site, not a charitable institution.
She usually writes fiction. This may be an explanation for that funny choice of expression.
Stephen Scharf: I really don't understand the comment about the E-M5 appearing dated. It was and is a terrific camera, and still has a higher engineering specification than the E-M10, so I don't get where the "dated" view comes from.
I have nothing whatever against companies upgrading their model lineups, but I think back to the original and legendary OM-1, and that camera was in production unchanged for the better part of a decade. It still superbly fulfilled it's design specification.
Stephen, the author probably doesn't understand it either. She writes up a few news for dpreview, but does not seem to have a deep enough knowledge for judging such a camera.
ChuckTa: Wow, esp the one with Mrs Britton and 150mm f2.8, that is one of the best looking bokeh I have see in an AF lens. Mrs Britton should be very happy.It looks like the NX1 with 50-150 f2.8 will be excellent for portrait photography.
@Barney: This can change quicker than you might think... :-)
justmeMN: Technical merit aside, in the US, Samsung has a brand problem. $2,799.00 for an off-brand camera? Good luck with that.
@Howabout, I know, I didn't complain about the price. US consumers will still not understand it. :-)
art99: OK, so the photos are sharp as expected in mostly sunlight at ISO 100 , but how about a few at ISO 6400 to 12,800 for a change in a dark venue at F2.8 ? After all it boasts a BSI sensor so let's see what that can do in the dark like evening street scenes or wedding venues.
... says someone who can't even read an article.
toomanycanons: Yikes, $1300 for the "kit" lens. It better be pretty darn good!
Try to find such a 'kit lens' from any other brand!
Justme, you are probably right, but this is a problem of US consumers: Their uncritical brand loyalty makes them blind to quality.Very hard for a company to change this and low pricing alone will not do or can even be counterproductive.
Donnie G: I was convinced that I wasn't among the consumers that Canon's G7 X was made for because I have never been interested in owning any compact camera. Boy was I wrong. Although I have no interest in owning compact cameras, my teens are very interested in the category, and I am their "deep pockets". So I wound up buying 2 G7 X cameras, one for him and one for her. Between the 2 of them, they were able to setup the cameras without any input from "the broke old guy". After about 10 days, my gorgeous gal pal, Brandi, and I were able to decipher enough teen slang to learn that the camera features they worship the most are the programable click wheel around the lens collar, the articulated touch screen, and the ability to upload images to social media via Canon's Image Gateway service. I don't think that these kids are even aware of the other features, such as sensor size, lens speed, focal length, or even IQ. It takes better photos than their smartphones and their friends think its cool. :)
Carta, this is the problem with teenagers: they are not smart enough for sensible buying decisions and yet you have to fund them as parents. :-)
mcolvin1: For $598, I could buy the Sony a5100, which from reviews I have read at other sites, is probably a better camera (APS-C sensor, 24 mp, touch screen, very fast auto focus, etc.) It is only slightly larger than the Canon G7 X (with the kit lens). Better lenses can be added later. DPR has yet to do its review. I am hoping that it will get a high rating. If so, that will be the one I will buy. Its image quality is supposed to be as good as the Sony a6000, which has excellent IQ. But it is small enough to fit in a fanny pack and carry all the time. After reading DPR's review of the G7 X, it is no longer on my list. Why pay more for it when it is probably not as good as the a5100?
Mcolvin1, both cameras have nothing in common. If size is not your priority, why look at the Canon at all?
Michael_13: Canon probably should have also bought the image processor from Sony. It really is a shame that they were unable to give it proper performance.
My post is not about IQ, dude.
Canon probably should have also bought the image processor from Sony. It really is a shame that they were unable to give it proper performance.
Sirandar: If Pana and Oly want to make "Pro" lenses they need to know what kind of pros they are targetting and realize they are competing against their own 40-150mm lenses which usually can do the job. I love my OMD-E5 to death but if I was really making my living with it I probably would be forced to used FF, if only because my customers would expect it. Thankfully I am free of the bondage of actually trying to sell photography.
Take home message .... there is not much point making 1000$ plus pro lenses for M4/3. The rich want more prestige cameras and the middle that loves and supports M4/3 cant justify the price when the 40-150 is only 149$
If the Oly primes I wanted dipped below the 400$ mark I would buy them tomorrow (12mm and 75mm). That is the price these primes should be.
Sirandar, the opposite is the case. More and more professionals switch to m43 because of the now available pro lenses.SLRs will soon become the dinosaurs and FF will lose importance.
SeeRoy: There are a lot of exceptionally foolish (even for DPR) comments here about what constitutes "pro" hardware - often dismissing M43 out of hand. I'd suggest that those people who feel this way (who are themselves most unlikely to qualify as "pros" I suspect) take a look at the following site: http://www.russellrutherford.com/. James Russell shoots M43, professionally, extensively. His observations about this format (for both still and video applications) can be found on the LL website (where he posts as bcooter). Here's one thread, comparing the A7 with M43: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85282.0Personally I like to use M43 with the nice, affordable, excellent, little primes rather than hulking zooms. If I want to use the latter for some reason, I lug the FF Nikon gear: but not very often these days.
HFLM, what backup do you expect? A forum is not a courtroom.He went to buy the A7 but found too many points he didn't like. The blurring was only one of them.He also gives many reasons why he ended up buying an E-M1. I learned a lot from it.
SeeRoy, thanks for posting this very interesting link!E-M1 must be a hell of a camera for professionals.
Pixelpeeping dummies in forums just don't understand this.
Peiasdf: Olympus makes beautiful lenses but why not making it f/2.0? The new Samsung 16-50 f2.0-2.8 looks ugly but is more intriguing as it is faster and covers a bigger sensor.
It wouldn't be useful for most situations. Just read the preview of this lens on imaging resource: dof is often too thin in portraits.
Why carry this monster when you often have to stop down?
kevin_r: How can this be a PRO lens if the largest aperture is only f/2.8?Given the small size of the sensor, from the photos I've seen taken at that f-stop, the DOF is so large it really makes the photos look as if it's been taken with a cheap point and shoot.There's really no distinguishing blur to separate the subject from the distracting background, especially at wider angles of say 50mm or less.
Olympus really should have made these "PRO" lenses start at at least f/2 if not f/1.8. Anything else is just duhhhhh...
You don't sound like a pro, so why do you care about these lenses?