sean lee: Hi, Guys. I have a question. I am not professional photographer. Just like to take pictures.
Now I am using Canon t2i with EF 50mm F1.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 and Sigma 10-20mm. I am satisfying with their IQ but I want to have little smaller body in retro style. I was waiting if canon announce retro style SLR so I can keep the lenses I have now, but I don't think canon will announce and I am tire to keep waiting.
If I switch to Olympus E-M10 or Panasonic GM1, am I down grade or up grade? or just same grade in IQ? Thank you,
In terms of raw sensor quality, you can expect E-M10 to be a bit better than the T2i, specially in terms of dynamic range. In terms of JPEG quality, you will see a bigger difference as olympus jpegs are excellent. In terms of lenses you could go with Olympus 45mm 1.8, Panasonic 25mm 1.4 and Olympus 9-18mm to replace your current lenses and each of these is superior optics compared to the lenses you have for canon. So you should get a gain in IQ. GM1 sensor falls short a bit and would be a little behind the T2i sensor though not by much. Plus panasonic jpegs and white balance are not that great.
inframan: It's a statement in itself about its readers that DPR felt compelled to identify each source photograph.
Who would I rather be - someone who wants to learn about these classic works, or a snob who considers others beneath him as he already knows about these and other don't. I would take the first, thank you.
It does seem strange that you have to pay more than SB-400 for this flash even though it is lower power. However I would prefer it over SB-400 for a couple of reasons. First because it allows greater than 90 degree tilt, which is something I use all the time on my bigger flashes. Second it is lighter on its own and combined with the AAA batteries instead of AA the overall package would be even lighter. For me the main use of SB-400 or SB-300 is when I want something smaller and lighter than my Sb-700, so the extra weight reduction over SB-400 is worth the slightly lower GN (18mm vs 20mm).
I would definitely be far more thrilled if it had swivel, but unfortunately a small flash with swivel still remains a dream. It could clearly be done, as shown by SB-N5 (makes me jealous of Nikon 1 system).
WoW is all I can say!
scrup: Why all these negative comments directed to the newspaper. Markets are changing, newspaper advertising revenue shrinking every year. They need to do what any business will do to survive. They saw an area that could save costs and made a decision.
For those that say quality will be suffer. Is it better to have a crap picture or no picture. News is global and people want to know what is happening around the world and not just their backyard. 27 photogs no matter how many cameras or zoom lenses they have can't be everywhere. A picture is still worth a thousand words no matter who takes it.
Newspapers will not survive by cutting costs. To survive they have to improve the value of what they are offering and convince the readers that they are delivering something which is worth spending time and money on. I doubt that further decreasing the quality will help in that goal. Cutting cost my delay the demise but not stop it. And it may even accelerate the demise if the quality takes a serious blow.
Johnsonj: "It is a shame that the public can't see this museum-quality exhibit."
This isn't about the "museum-quality" prints people should be seeing, Robb.
This is about MILLIONS of people (photographers or not) replacing 28 photographers. I'd rather pull from the MILLIONS than those 28. The millions are everywhere at once, the 28 are not.
Times have changed. It's official. The dying newspapers can't afford photographers.
They can afford photographs and that's just what they'll continue to get. Those pictures might even get better.
But do you want to sort through millions of those photographs to get the few fit for publication? Or do you want to rely on those 28 who have the capability to deliver what you need?
For people worried about the DxoMark score difference between GR and Coolpix A, please do yourself a favor and look at the SNR and dynamic range graphs and you will see that the differences are pretty much non-existent. As for 12-bit vs 14-bit RAW, the advantage of 14-bit RAW is that theoretically you could capture more DR with it. However as above comparison would show you GR manages to achieve very high DR even with 12-bit so it doesn't matter that it doesn't have 14-bit raw. If anything it is actually better that we get the same DR with a smaller file size. It would also be interesting to throw in the Sony 5N in the DxoMark comparison - another camera with the 16MP Sony sensor. 5N shows a clear drop in DR compared to both GR and Coolpix A and puts in perspective the negligible difference between these two. Now from personal experience 5N already has excellent DR and shadow recovery, so I could imagine that these two cameras could only be even more excellent.
JohnyP: I hate to admit this, but i think your reviews are largely irrelevant now. You can't keep up with volume of cameras and reviews simply matter less. People are quite fed up with reviews and buy what they want and ignore opinions.
I know i do and i believe many others are doing the same.
Interesting that even though you are "ignoring" the reviews, you still found time to visit this website and comment on the review :)
random78: It would also be interesting to have a comparison with the RX100 in the review. While at first glance it might seem to be in a different class due to different sensor size and zoom lens, in reality it can be a direct competitor. At its 28mm end its lens is f1.8 so in terms of DOF control and low light it should be similar to a f3.2 APS-C lens. That makes it fairly close to GR and Coolpix A specs. And it is even more compact. An an RX100 owner I am curious if I would see any real gain in going from RX100 to one of these two.
There is more to it than just the studio scene. The quality of lens, the ease of operation, etc all come into the picture. If I take your approach then I could say that DPR should just publish reviews for Coolpix A and GR and the readers would have all they need to do the comparison. However the fact is that when a reviewer is evaluating two cameras with an intent to compare them then they can provide more insights than you can extract that from comparing individual reviews.
It would also be interesting to have a comparison with the RX100 in the review. While at first glance it might seem to be in a different class due to different sensor size and zoom lens, in reality it can be a direct competitor. At its 28mm end its lens is f1.8 so in terms of DOF control and low light it should be similar to a f3.2 APS-C lens. That makes it fairly close to GR and Coolpix A specs. And it is even more compact. An an RX100 owner I am curious if I would see any real gain in going from RX100 to one of these two.
M Jesper: If they release this i would forgive them for using that same 18MP sensor in everything since the beginning of time. And it would explain why it took so darn long ...
Yes the 4th gene 18MP sensor is pretty much the same as the 1st gen. There has not been any noticeable change or improvement in that sensor
Pablo4: Still no mirrorless with IBIS... :< If only Olympus didn't have such small and bad sensors, everything would be fine... But with the current offerings, SONY, SAMSUNG, NIKON, PANASONIC... all of them tell us, they don't care bout our legacy lenses :<
I don't know why so many think that m43 sensors are "so small". Lets look at the sensor sizes, taking m43 as base.
In terms of linear dimensions we have:
m43 = 1, Canon APS-C = 1.25, Sony/Samsung/... = 1.3, FF = 2
In terms of area,
m43 = 1, Canon = 1.47, Sony/Samsung = 1.62 and FF = 3.84
So the difference between m43 and APS-C is much smaller than the difference between APS-C and FF. In terms of performance, the sensor in E-M5 and other recent olympus cameras is actually somewhat better than my NX200.
It looks like the skies are still overexposed, just like the d7000.
@Couscousdelight - so you really rely on camera's metering to get it right every time?. On all the cameras that I have had, I consider the camera's metering as a starting point and then adjust as needed.
tkbslc: 45mm seems like an odd choice for APS-C. Did they just try and copy m4/3?
Please keep in mind that Samsung already has a 60mm lens. I think the main point of the 45mm 1.8 is to have a compact telephoto option. Once you go to long focal lengths the lens size advantage of mirrorless design goes away and you end up with large lenses for these small bodies. You can see that with the size of the Samsung 60mm lens. So I think they decided that the longest fast prime they can offer while keeping the size fairly compact is 45mm and thats why they chose this FL. I think I would like that lens (the non-3D version).
random78: Does the NEX-3N built-in flash have bounce capability like NEX-6 and RX100 etc?
Perfect. Thanks again!
Thanks! I know that the bounce capability is not official but on my RX100 I use the "unofficial bounce" flash a lot and would like a small NEX with this capability.
However I didn't get the "hold it to prevent it fully extending" part. On my RX100 I let the flash fully extend and then pull it backwards with a finger, which makes it point upwards. Is it different with the 3N?
Does the NEX-3N built-in flash have bounce capability like NEX-6 and RX100 etc?
Chekr: @photo nuts
The fact is that kayone was not correct in his assertion. You being a sheep, jumped on the bandwagon and are now criticizing the author for something that he did actually get right.
You can apologize at any time.
@checkr: Again did you actually read the dpreview text at which Kayone commented? dpreview says "depth of field equivalent to an 90mm F4 on full-frame". Which is wrong no matter which camp do you belong to in the equivalence debate.
kayone: Math is wrong on the 42.5 caption, should be an 85mm f 2.4 equivalent
@Chekr - have you actually read what the original comment was about? Dpreview article says " depth of field equivalent to an 90mm F4 on full-frame". They are talking about DOF not exposure, and have made a calculation error while coming up with the FF equivalent for DOF - I hope you would agree that there is no interpretation under which this lens becomes an F4 equivalent.