Mattoid: If you are going to delete 'trolling' comments then you are against free speech and you may as well not have comments.
Not so. This site is private and speech is therefore not free. Are people free to yell whatever obscenities they choose at you in your own space, Mattoid?
I like comments because the occasional one can be useful; even some of the very rude ones. Some of them can even be funny.
Mikhail Tal: What's so gorgeous about these photos? They aren't nearly as vibrant, sharp, and contrasty as modern digital photos. They look just as dated as anything else from a bygone ear. Film is dead.
Some people just don't like bygone ears.
Timmbits: @DPR: I'm glad to see that you shot these with some other cameras for reference. however, you should add a few more in there, especially a wider selection of the higher-resolution cameras from Sony, Nikon, Samsung, Pentax, to keep the readership here happy... the best of each maker for reference in both APS and FF formats.
Some of us are aware of the scope of your effort. Thank you Barney. That said, may we have the moon on a stick?
Such a pity ..
Funduro: Blue dot looks like a Nikon D600 oil/dust issue.
It's a bit contrasty. They should have looked at the jpeg settings on the older MFT model they're obviously using.
Lelle Kidd: No one seems to react to the fact that the focus outline in "focus peaking" will be white! It should be in a contrasting color, such as RED.
Broadcast video graphers have worked with white/zebra focus peaking for years. I find your contrasting colour requirement a little unnecessary. Just my opinion, of course, but I don't think Fuji needs to change it.
Artistico: When I saw the headline I was expecting a bullet time effect, but this is not it. Rather it is a camera spinning rig with a slightly higher frame rate and a guy trying really hard to start a forest fire over and over again with different fireworks. Could easily be $100 in costs and $1,000,000,000 in damages if he succeeds.
Anyway, wouldn't it technically be really cheap to create a real bullet time effect with old - and therefore cheap - cameras and a not very high-tech way of triggering them at the same time or with a slight delay?
It doesn't matter if he gets out much or not. He's right.
jkokich: I applaud anyone who uses their imagination and ingenuity to do things Hollywood wastes millions on, but come on, this is merely a rotating camera rig. A very well-made one, for virtually no money, but not bullet-time.
Bullet time is simultaneous or almost simultaneous exposures from a series of cameras, not just one. This is just rotated slow-mo.
Are these forums a good idea? So much whingeing from people who probably don't take photographs regularly. It's getting worse.
Nikonworks: Most retailers hold a straight forward 'Inventory Sale', of which this article clearly seems to be, except the straight forward part.
DPReview please take notice:When I was a kid 'slot cars' were the newest and 'biggest' thing.Stores opened up just with slot car race tracks. It was fantastic but very short lived because the market place became overloaded with slot cars and accessories to the point the kids could not keep up with the market.The whole market folded like a deck of cards.
Of late, you, the editors are doing the same thing here at DPReview.You have too many Final Reviews to post before listing 'Old cameras under $1000'. You are reaching in all directions, phones, tech, cameras, etc.You are making this site unwieldly and soon ambiguous.
You better get together and focus on your mission.
At the same time you can discuss formally thanking me for my 'Real World Samples' suggestion.
Nikonworks I suggest you set up your own site if you don't like this one. But I'm not holding my breath.
It's great. The other models in the X- range have viewfinders if you need one that badly. Stop whining.
Finally. The camera for me. Now I don't have to wait for the Fuji XE-2 ;)
Head-to-heads are really useful. Thank you.
ARTASHES: Cons: "OM-D image quality in smaller, lighter, cheaper body" I think this is the biggest of pros of this camera ;)
HI Barney, thank you for your patient handling of all us high-maintenance trolls down here in Commentistan :)
SeeRoy: Wotta lotta twaddle here - the usual endless piffle about FL/Aperture equivalence. I don't use a Nikon 1 system (I own FX and M4/3) however I did buy, and have used, a V1 system for a woman friend as an alternative to her Canon DSLR. And I wouldn't be likely to buy this overpriced lens even if I was a CX system user.I agree that the existing cameras fall well short of what they might easily have been; many people might have been prepared to overlook the limitations imposed by the choice of sensor size had the ergonomics been better. However I feel it's likely that, given the rapid development in sensor technology, before too long we'll see a Nikon CX range that meets the requirements of many of its current critics.There's a lot wrong with my OMD too but it doesn't stop me finding it a much more enjoyable experience than an FX body with a 2.8 zoom attached.Edited for typo.
Guess I misunderstood this, perhaps? http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/04/Canon-develops-high-sensitivity-full-frame-CMOS-sensor-for-videos
Scott Birch: Larger pixels would be much better for light-gathering than wider apertures. Imagine how high an ISO you could get away with on a 5Mp 1" sensor. Or a 5Mp FF sensor, for that matter.
I saw this and got excited: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/04/Canon-develops-high-sensitivity-full-frame-CMOS-sensor-for-videos
Larger pixels would be much better for light-gathering than wider apertures. Imagine how high an ISO you could get away with on a 5Mp 1" sensor. Or a 5Mp FF sensor, for that matter.
Simon97: On my CX format wish list is a 13mm f/2 (35mm equiv.) and a 150mm f/4 (405mm equiv.) to give some tele reach without adapters.
No doubt this new lens will perform well. It is apparently easier to make smaller lenses sharp as the other CX lenses have been marvelous. Even the 10-100mm zoom is excellent.
All these people in search of the widest aperture ... are you all wedding portrait or chocolate-box virtuosos or what?
There's a sweet spot, surely, yabokkie? Narrow apertures affect quality but so do open apertures where the angle of incidence of the light on the sensor has such a big range. This affects sharpness too, right?