Poweruser: Although 15/1.7 sound spectacular on paper what you are really getting is a moderate wide angle (35mm terms) with almost no option to work with selective depth of field. Unless you really close up, compact camera / phone style.
Would it matter if this lens was f2.8 instead? A fast aperture at this focal length helps the smaller m43 sensor to gather enough photons in bad light. Picture-wise at 15mm it doesnt make a difference at all.
We must have bokeh. We don't know why, but we must have bokeh.
yabokkie: if the AF is really good, and better if good with EF lenses, many of us should be able to put m4/3" behind us.
What camera do you shoot with, Yabokkie?
Without ever having been in the same room as one or seen any sample pics, I can say that this is a good-looking camera. The design team got it right this time.
Macist: Without GPS, it's useless as a travel camera.
Fail, since superzooms are mostly bought for travel photos.
I just tell people where my shots are taken. If that isn't enough for them, then they can sod off.
Scott Birch: I can't believe the whining from people in this comments thread.
And I am frothing at the mouth at your insolence in calling me out on this. It's all gone a bit ironic, hasn't it? Even so, still incredulous at the whingers. It sounds like a good camera. At least get your hands on it before you slam it on this forum.
I can't believe the whining from people in this comments thread.
People whining about 'post' and Photoshop perhaps never used a darkroom.
aftab: Remarkable jealousy shown here by those who will never be able to produce anything remotely close.
Carabas, you're assuming that total originality is an absolute requirement for every piece of art, yes?
PinPoint: wow, a dumb rubber cost around 20% the price of a camera body with sophisticated electronics and mechanics... I changed all the 4 tyres of my car and that cost me around 2% the price of car body...
Hi EssexAsh. People who cannot spell 'tyre' tire me also :)
Breathtaking. Thank you.
atamola: These "DP top picks" are really shameles and laughable.
The "How are these lens chosen" should read: based on what is most convenient for us.
The Samyang 35 f1.4 is an absolute optical marvel and the undisputed champion £ for £ and yet is missing from the list.
These "Top Picks" are nothing but shameless retail sale catalogs disguised as objective reviews.
For want of one lens, the list was panned. Dear oh dear.
mrbonsai: Can anyone tell me what the shutter lag is for the M-1 is?I have been searching but can't find this information.Thanks in advance.
33 inches? That's about 2 nanoseconds. Really?
The people look a bit plasticy, don't they? I think the noise-reduction setting is rather harsh.
tbcass: I'm confused. What is "in camera RAW processing?" I thought the whole purpose of RAW was to give you a totally unprocessed image for post processing on a computer.
More image-editing than simple jpeg output, less image-editing potential than a computer. It's another option. Choose to use it or choose not to use it. Simple.
PeterF: I was actually interested in this camera until I found out it had no optical image stabilization in video mode and also not ability to take stills during video mode.
Pro video used to require external sound recorders. Nagra, anyone?
Scott Birch: Why's the dynamic range lower than the other models? Lower than quite a few mirrorless cameras, in fact.
What I was asking about specifically was the dynamic range of the XM1 compared to the other X-series cameras in the range. I am wondering why there should be a difference with the same sensor.
If you look at the XE1 dynamic range curves, Timmbits, you'll see it fares quite well compared to other cameras.
QuarryCat: I never liked the portrait with the peering eyes - i don't like the artificial green background - but I love his other, even more realistic picture with the hands and the living eyes - thanks a lot for showing it here!
"Saturation slider?" How old are you?
Would the real one be fake? How real would the fake one be? We may never care.
supeyugin1: $350 for a converter? They are crazy! I've bought my Samsung NX100 with 20-50 and 20/2.8 (30mm equiv.) and a flash for $450 brand new. I later sold the flash for $70, so that's $380 for the camera with 2 lenses. And those jerks from Fuji are charging $350 just for one bloody converter?!
supeyugin if all your photos end up on social media sites or remain on some hard drive until accidentally deleted, then your NX200 is fine for you.