Simon97: Looking at the RAWs, they are better than the 4/3rds cameras and a bit behind the NEX in the comparison. It makes me wonder why the jpegs look like a crappy P&S at higher ISOs. If it has NR control, turn it way down.
Esa - I am comparing to NEX-5N and E-M5 not to some 5 years old sensors. I have also compared the RAW files from dpreview and imaging-resource and they match my own experience. The studio scenes are useful for controlled testing however actual use in a variety of conditions tells a lot which you don't see from studio shots. Its ironic you think you can tell more about a camera by looking at online samples rather than actually using it :) Don't tell me that you know more about these cameras without using them than I know after using them extensively.
chlamchowder: G5's CDAF looks really, really fast - about as fast as traditional PDAF systems. Of course, the 4/3 sensor does give more DOF with the same aperture and field of view.
What's more interesting to me, though, is how the systems compare when dealing with moving subjects.
Do you realize that the DOF difference between Canon and m43 is only 1.2x? So if the DOF for canon shot is 1ft than the DOF for equivalent m43 shot would be 1.2ft. Hardly enough to make any meaningful difference in AF performance.
Nice overview, though there is one thing which the review should mention but does not. NX200 with the firmware update gives the same "compressed" or "optimized" RAW files as NX210 with similarly improved write times. So NX210 doesn't really have an advantage here.
peevee1, have you actually used the camera? I have used the cameras with the Panasonic 12MP sensor, I have used the Panasonic 16MP sensor cameras, I have used the E-M5, I have used the NX200 and I have used the NEX-5N. And I am talking about actual usage not just test shots. The NX200 sensor in my actual experience is way ahead of the 12MP Panasonic sensor and very close to NEX-5N sensor, except in terms of low ISO dynamic range where NEX-5N has an advantage. The E-M5 lags behind NX200 at high ISO and probably comparable in terms of base ISO DR.
perry rhodan: First Yawn second Hilarious. IQ on par with OMD ? haha. Tried every samsung fom this series for years, because I really like the lenses, they are very nice. Samsung has to try better sensorwise. It's about 4 or even 5 years back in time. Please DPR, it isn't april fools yet. Samples do NOT back-up the conclusions AT ALL. Care to clarify??
Every comparometer shows the samsung line to be worst by far in IQ when leaving lowest ISO. Even small sensor compacts can do this good light low ISO in 2012.
Have you actually used the camera? I have used both the NX200 as well the OMD EM-5 and like them both for different reasons. However NX200 is better at high ISO in my experience and fairly close to NEX-5N that I have also used. I use these cameras with RAW only so not concerned about JPEG quality as much. Though as far as the "bad JPEG" is concerned, that comes up only if you are looking at 100% pixel. I don't use my images at 20MP, and I doubt most users of these cameras print big enough to need that kind of resolution. So even when I do use JPEG I am more concerned about color, white balance etc than resolution and in that respect it does pretty well. EM-5 is probably a bit better in JPEG colors but NX200 is definitely better than the Panasonics. As for the write times with RAW, yes they are a bit long though I typically don't notice that in day to day use unless I specifically set out to check write times.
justmeMN: That doesn't look very promising for the EOS M's AF speed. :-(
Oh well, companies rarely get things right the first time. Perhaps the 2013 version will be significantly faster.
True but it is still very surprising given how much time canon has had looking at the market. Panasonic G1 was the first m43 camera but it still was much faster AF than what we see here for 650D, despite being a CDAF only system. And then we have Nikon 1 with its hybrid system. So if EOS M has similar AF performance than it would be puzzling. If it was a company like Pentax then sure I could understand. But for a company like Canon with so much technical expertise and resources, it is fairly surprising.
facedodge: Make sure to compare it to contract detection on a T3i in the final version of this review... That is where the improvement is made. You've got apples and oranges here.
I totally agree with Richard that comparison to G5 makes a lot of sense sense. I am not that crazy about comparison with PDAF. In my mind hybrid AF is a technology to improve upon CDAF-only systems so it will be more interesting to see how much improvement we have over the CDAF in 600D. But still comparison with PDAF is interesting and thanks for the work that you put in!
Eleson: Why not compare with any sony slt also.Publishing a separate article with a "test" of "Canon Quick AF" makes it look like it is something new and revolutionary.Nonetheless, this is a really great reward for being the last into the game. :)
Thanks! Looking forward to that
Baczek: what this video doesn't show is focus accuracy. i don't care how fast PDAF focuses if the picture comes out all soft. hybrid AF is MUCH more accurate with older lenses like the 50 1.8.
Right, but I think the important comparison here is with G5 and with 600D CDAF (which they didn't show). Hybrid AF is expected to be an improvement over CDAF-only systems because it can use the PDAF to quickly get in the zone and then use CDAF for final accuracy check - so basically best of both worlds. Right now it seems somewhat faster than the 600D CDAF but way behind the speed of dedicated CDAF cameras like G5. And G5 being a CDAF only system would also be at least as accurate as 650D. 650D is tested with a lens specifically designed for this technology so we can no longer blame it on PDAF-based lenses not working well for CDAF. If the EOS-M has similar performance than it will be fairly disappointing considering that other mirrorless cameras are doing much better using only CDAF. The video AF is of course an unknown right now.
Peiasdf: It is something. At least it is a much better effort than Pentax Q and offers something other system don't.
The gap that used to exist between P&S and APS-C is being fully filled with 1" P&S, Nikon 1, m4/3 and highend EVIL/mirrorless.
There is a camera for everyone. Hurray
Calling people names doesn't make your arguments stronger. You can make your arguments without assuming that others are incapable of thinking. The lens examples are there just to point out that other manufacturers have been able to make faster lenses in similar size despite having a bigger image circle to cover. It is not to suggest that those lenses are direct equivalents. If you insist on a direct comparison then Panasonic 14mm 2.5 is smaller, lighter and faster than the Nikon 1 10mm 2.8 despite covering a larger sensor and similar field of view. But point is not to make a lens by lens comparison. Point is that if using the smaller sensor doesn't result in any benefit either in terms of lens sizes or body size or cost then whats the motivation for going to a smaller sensor.
Pootle2: I don't understand the hate... this is THE best value camera if you have kids. The speed of focusing and shooting is amazing.
I just wish the pancake lense was more compact so that the camera could be a bit more pocketable and that we had some F2-ish lenses.
Personally I don't hate it. I am interested in the system. However in its current state I just don't understand why I should pick it up over either my S95 or my m43 setup. It has no size advantage compared to m43 - I can build an m43 setup which is the same size as this and yet has faster lens and larger sensor. Similarly it has no low light shooting advantage over my S95 because of the slow lens. The only trick up its sleeve is the PDAF based tracking AF. In single shot AF mode the m43 cameras are at least as fast as Nikon 1 if not faster. And honestly with slow lenses on an 1 inch sensor I doubt that you need great tracking anyway, the DOF is going to be pretty deep to start with.
I would have no issues with Nikon 1 sensor size if it gave me an advantage in lens size. But even with a 1inch sensor they can't do better than the 10mm 2.8 or 10-30mm f3.5-5.6 leness?!! I mean Panasonic 20mm 1.7, samsung 30mm f2 and canon 22mm f2 are all about the same size as 10mm 2.8 and yet each of these is significantly faster and covers a larger image circle. If you give me a smaller sensor than at least give me smaller lenses as a benefit of the smaller sensor. Why should I go for the smaller sensor if the lenses are the same size as larger formats and even slower.
Class Four: I have a T3i and a 60d and they seem to have no focusing issues with the 5 or 6 lenses I have. Was thinking about picking up a 7d. Now I'm not so sure I want one. Is this a wide spread issue with 7d??
If you read through all articles in the series, you will see that they are talking about very slight degrees of OOF-ness and that too when viewed under pixel peeping conditions. In normal conditions you will not see the difference
Combatmedic870: Meh...just get the Leica 25mm. Well worth the price difference for faster focusing. The FL is less awkward as well.
I like the 20mm FL better than the 25mm on m43. For me 50mm equivalent is the more awkward FL
jorepuusa: It´s great that professional photographers teach amateurs how to shoot. Then amateurs start taking pictures cheaply or pro bono and pros lose their jobs.Pros go to schools, four years photography there and then they buy expensive gear and use money to get clients. And then some of them teach amateurs in web which causes the profession to collapse, that has happened all over and photography is a dying profession.
There are countless books, magazine articles and internet articles available on photography. You would think that the world will be full of pro-grade photographers, but its not. Being a good and successful photographer typically requires a lot of dedication, practice, experience and creative vision. Articles like this cannot turn someone into a pro. They just show the path to those who are willing to put in the effort and have the vision. Said another way, if all a professional photographer knows can be conveyed through an article like this than I am afraid that "professional" photographer doesn't deserve to paid very high.
645D: I got my brand new FA50/1.4 for $200 :-)
Those were the days when Pentax lenses had great low prices compared to other brands! Those days are long gone
I only see thumbnails of the gallery images on the last page. Clicking on the thumbnails doesn't open the gallery
photo nuts: I think it makes sense to incorporate wifi capabilities in cameras.
But I have some simple questions though. How long does it take to transfer one 20 MP RAW file to a phone? How long does it take to transfer one 20 MP jpeg file to the internet?
That will help us determine how useful this feature really is.
Why would you want to transfer a RAW file to a phone? And similarly why would you post a 20MP jpeg on say facebook?
Brigcam: How are you supposed to do any meaningful comparison with this tool when the shooting parameters aren't equal?
For example, G3 vs OM-D same lens (OLYMPUS 50mm Lens) at 1600:
OM-D S:1/400 A:6.3G3: S:1/640 A:6.3
To be fair dpreview does report the measured versus stated ISO for each camera in the detailed review. So if this is the case then it should come up there once the whole review is in. But yes it does mean that comparison using the studio comparison tool can be misleading. I think dpreview should consider labeling the measured ISO in the studio test results to make it clear what we are comparing
brendannicholas: My photos can do that too! It's called photoshopping a photo taken at f8.
No the result of light field process is very different from what are describing