DPNick: So he took a bunch of pictures of dirty slackers and losers while he was one; I don't see the brilliance. It's not quite Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Doisneau, Friedlander, Lange, Stieglitz, etc.
Jeez DPnick, what does it take? By all means, show us better.
Anepo: One of his photographs on his website can literally be called a pedophile photograph, it is an underskirt photo of an underage girls bloodied underwear, an EXTREMELY inappropriate photograph that screams "call the cops".
I thought that one a bit beyond the pale myself. Powerful pic, but ... no. It's an awesome collection of pictures though.
Why is the review taking so long? Any more delay and merchandisers will be displaying the damn' thing next to the Pentax Q ...
Dedi Kurniawan: waiting FujiFilm X30 with flip LCD & accesories/optional batterypack AA for battery ^^
Why not? Form and function should triumph. Flip LCDs are useful.Personally, I'd like to see a model with same functionalities and same F-number lens but all bigger to fit a 1" sensor.
Do tell us more, JustDavid, about the Q. Nobody else seems to want to.
Hi ISO performance is great for such a small sensor. I was surprised. Good for indoor pics.
So good to see articles like these. Much more informative than press releases ;)
mpgxsvcd: When your only update to your product is to offer it in a variety of colors you know that things are not going well.
Is a car a failure if offered in more than one colour?
WilliamJ: No camo ? Big, big mistake ! Why no sand-camo and jungle-camo, it would make more sense than a lot of these flashy colors ! Anyway if we go this way, why not trying textile patterns like tweed or tartan ?
This tartan war thing is a myth. I would rather go with paisley :D
Scott Birch: This is such a non-issue. I'm loving the red-blue politicizing of it by our hysterical American brothers, though. All this foaming at the mouth for nothing at all.
Yes Raincheck that's pretty much it. It's easy to feel Olympian when so many people are ranting like idiots. It is to such fools we look for some of life's minor pleasures :) To have an issue with hunting, and so to rant on about ... spotter scopes. And without a trace of irony. It's a source of amusement, yes.
Camediadude: Every now and again dpreview makes a serious misstep. (Been lurking here for over a decade) ...Re-posting this irrelevant-to-photography, politically-charged story is precisely one of those missteps. Learn from your mistakes, guys.
You brought it on with 'serious mis-step.' Did you honestly expect every single reader with a brain to supinely accept that without commenting? One of us was going to, and today I'm the one who was bored enough. Good luck cap'n.
Dear dpreview, I'm anxiously awaiting an article on who makes the optics for American drones. That would be far more interesting. Thanks.
This is such a non-issue. I'm loving the red-blue politicizing of it by our hysterical American brothers, though. All this foaming at the mouth for nothing at all.
Why is this a "serious" mis-step? It's a story about imaging devices. It generates interest in site content. If you, after a decade of lurking, suddenly awaken from your slumber, you're kinda demonstrating the article's effectiveness, even though your comment hints at a personal bias that isn't really germane.
Grobb: "IF" Fuji can live up to ALL of it's marketing hype/press release promises and not have any of their famous 'white orb' like issues, this just might be a possible upgrade candidate. Those are some VERY big claims, like 30% less noise and 20% more resolution, and that extremely fast AF time! Only time and reviews will tell the true story. I personally hope they are all true, BUT something tells me they will not be able to deliver :(
I am curious about the laws in your country pertaining to warranty claims on second-hand goods with no receipts.
RadioGnome: I was suddenly struck by the fact that Fuji prints the 35mm equivalents of the focal length on the zoom ring. I was inclined to like the whole retro styling, but this suddenly made it all look very fake and 'willing to be something it is not'.
I was considering ordering a X20, but can't describe how stupid the camera looks to me now.
I think after a good 10 years of varying sensor sizes, every serious photographer is mentally capable of understanding the focal length / sensor size story. This makes it ever more appropriate to just print the actual physical focal length on the barrel of a zoom lens. One side is 'wide angle', other end is 'tele'.
I like 35mm-equivalent numbers. I don't want to have to do any silly calculations in my head or think about sensor sizes when picking up any camera. Whatever makes it easier to concentrate on taking good photographs.
Maverick_: As a GH1 owner who was anxiously waiting for GH3 for an upgrade I have since completely dismissed GH3 as a fail from Panasonic. It's not really a photographers medium, it's a videographers. GH series is an amazing video camera and a rather ordinary stills tool.
Although some many not appreciate these comparison shots from DPR, but many do. If you want to figure out what a sensor can do, specially in high ISO, this is one of the best benchmarks on the web.
It seems, the GH3 is only marginally better than the GH2 and not quite as good as OM-D which is 400 dollars cheaper and much smaller. I don't see any reason to upgrade to GH3, as I do not need the broadcast quality video option. And the OM-D is looking even better now.
yabokkie the advertised ISO is the useful one to examine because that's the setting we'll use. we're buying a camera not just a sensor.
tomservo33: Well, it is quite strange, how Sony can make such innovative, comfortable to use, generally feature rich cameras, that consistantly deliver SOFT images. I suspect that the issue is Software, not the sensor, lens, etc... Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it is not an "Issue" but an intentional feature/style. I have heard many discuss the AA, the agressive sony noise reduction; and compared to other APS-C cameras, and m4/3, the Sony shots all suffer from a general softness that seems to be caused by either aggressive and unnecessary noise reduction, or an odd JPEG engine. I feel that the RAW files are all quite good if I had to do Post-P. and I would have bought a Nex-6 if the Jpegs didn't look a little bit softer, consistantly.
tomservo if you only rely on review data, samples and user portfolios then that, surely isn't enough. it only goes to show that most comments on these fora are uninformed and of little use. can the real users and photographers please stand up?
It would be good to see a similar treatment of the X100(s)'s lens.