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
HBowman: Some ppl like to waste money in useless engineering. What a wast of time im dazeled.
Not really. The first commercially available DLSR had 1.3MP and cost $30000. But later versions built on it and look where the industry is now. This is a completely new technology and like all such technologies someone has to be the pioneer and get the first version out. The first iteration won't be the most exciting one but once it is in place it opens the door for more development to get it to a point where it will be more capable and more suited to a broader range of uses.
bobbarber: This chart looks this way only because of an arbitrary definition of "mirrorless" cameras as having interchangeable lenses.
Compact cameras are mirrorless, as well as cell phone cameras.
Many more mirrorless cameras are sold each year than DSLRs.
If you look at the charts you will see that the chart never mentions mirror-less. It says "The proportion of interchangeable lens camera sales made up by SLRs (light blue) and non-reflex cameras (dark blue).". So it is very clear, we are talking about DSLR vs non-DSLR interchangeable lens system cameras.
Dustinash: the biggest problem with this picture is poor lighting. The second is that although the subject tells a story, the background is bland. Its a decent photo not a great photo
It is not a posed studio shot. It is a real-life event so you don't control the lighting and background.
tessl8d: I almost bought the K5 just over a week ago, everyting about it felt and worked right,a few days later I saw the KO1 and the money's stayed in my pocket. If this is the Ricoh/Pentax way, then I'm afraid that they will find themselves with some big problems, I'm not buying into a system from a company that might not be there in 3-5 years. If the slim,light and capable NEX7, was weatherproofed, I'd be happy to wait 6 months for it. Hint Pentax.
@tessl8d - K-5 and nex-7 are very different cameras so I wonder why would you compare them. And they also differ hugely in terms fa available lenses. As for k-01, you have to understand that it is not a competitor for nex or m43 etc. It is a camera for existing pentax k-mount and gives them another more compact body to use with their lenses. If I owned a k-5 and a bunch of pentax lenses specially some limiteds then I would gladly buy a k-01 to use with my limited to have a more compact setup for times when I dont want to carry my k-5. That would be very different from going for a mirrorless system like nex or m43 which will be even more compact but require me to buy into a complete new set of lenses and accessories etc. Both are very different products.
Copiare: Great, now more slow zooms and awkward cameras with bad quality control. Pentax/Ricoh, The Ne'er-Do-Well Camera Company.
I have never owned a Ricoh camera, but I have never heard any Ricoh owner complain about the quality. From owners comments my impression has always been that Ricoh cameras are very solid which function the way they should and have very good interface.
DFPanno: No EVF is going to be superior to the human eye and that is what an OVF is (in essence).
Of course an excellent EVF stands to be better than a poor OVF but that goes without saying.
The substitution of one for the other may create the opportunity for other design advantages but that is a tangential conversation.
You don't really watch "directly" through the lens in an OVF. The lens forms an image on a screen and you then watch that screen through a prism. And that process does NOT show exactly what the lens sees. For example OVFs do not reliably show the depth of field captured by the lens at large aperture. Everything at f2.8 or larger shows as about the same. An EVF does not have this limitation and shows the depth of field exactly as captured by the lens. As for looking at a "tiny" monitor, have you actually used an EVF. A good quality EVF hardly feels like a tiny monitor. In fact when I use an EVF on my camera, most of the times I don't even feel that it is an EVF and not an OVF. It is not perfect, there are times when I feel the limitations of the EVF. But thats why it is good that the technology is improving and removing the remaining limitations.
JohnHoppy: Bad news for all who insist OVFs will always beat EVFs and DSLRs with mirrors and OVFs will last forever – Sorry, they won’t. The good news is, EVFs will keep getting better. When a mirror box/pentaprism camera costs 30% (or more) above the electronic solution, no prizes for guessing which way the makers will go. But be patient, and positive – tomorrow’s cameras will be better than today’s in every way, and guess what – eventually you won’t notice they’re all-electronic!
There is a mistaken assumption that OVFs are somehow a more "pure" way of viewing for photography. I was recently reading an article from a professional photographer who uses large format film cameras and medium format digital backs. Interestingly he was happy that his medium format back now has a good LCD and live-view because for the first time he could reliably achieve precise focusing for his medium format system. Funny no one told him that live-view through LCD is not what proper photographers use :)
simon65: I was aghast to look through the electronic viewfinder of a Sony NEX-7 recently and be told it represented the "state of the art" and was recognized as the best in the market.
What I saw was lots of noise and pixels and colour distortion.
The Sony guy explained that, "Well we are inside".
Hmm, well, defintely lots of room for improvement there by MicroOLED and then some, before electronic viewfinders can claim to replace optical viewfinders as found on DSLRs or indeed on Leica and Fuji's rangefinders.
I suppose your particular store must have really low light levels. When I tried the A77 EVF (same as NEX-7) at a Sony store I didn't see any noise at all. And that was with the slow kit lens. I tend to use relatively fast primes so my real-world experience is likely to be even better. The EVF was easily better than most APS-C DSLR OVFs and second only to the full frame OVFs.