Ryan19853: I just purchased an OM-D E-M10 and it arrived yesterday. So yeah. This is quite discouraging news.
I bought it specifically for a mid September trip so I would have time to learn it. Should I return mine and pay $100 more for the Mark II and risk it arriving right before my trip (if even)?
Pros (that I care about):Comes with the EZ Lens. The smaller size would be nicer than the II R I got for travel.5 Axis stabilizationFirmware updates (Will the Mark I stop getting them?)
Cons:$100 more than I spentWon't have familiarization time before I actually need to use it.
The silent shutter would be nice but I can do without.
Talk me off the ledge... what should I do?
> For $100 difference, I would swap it if only for the 5 Axis.
A quick search for completed transactions on eBay showed that used E-M10s are just over $300, so it's more like $350 difference for current model owners.
> Talk me off the ledge... what should I do?
Stop reading DPR and start enjoying your new camera. I can assure you that the Mk II will not suddenly make you a better photographer.
dash2k8: For those arguing "reality vs art," you do realize that every single movie nowadays is heavily color graded, right? And in many instances, the lighting technicians lit up a scene in the most unrealistic (or visually "real") way. Things that should be completely dark are suddenly given a silhouette to give the room depth. Two people talking in the dark magically happen to stand behind a light that illuminates their face in the perfect angle that adds mystery and intrigue to their dialogue. Is that not another form of HDR, only it's in pre-production? And then in post the warm scene with artificial rain is turned bluish and desaturated to make it look like a tempestuous storm. All. Completely. Fake. But critics "love" the art direction and execution. Go figure.
> That's why I hate movies today. CGI makes the movie deal unrealistic.
Kingslayer, you completely mis-read dash2k8's post. Color grading has nothing to do with CGI. It's more like post processing in Lightroom, and it's been done for decades.
johnsmith404: Calling a resolution increase of just around 12% a 'leap' is pushing it a bit.
Come on guys, linear resolution, line pairs, how 19th century! This is the 21st century. Resolution = pixel count. Get it? :)
Barry Goyette: I think whats not being answered with all this focus on Dynamic Range and SNR is "does 14 stops of DR produce a photo that LOOKS BETTER than one taken at 12 stops. Sure I get that the Nikon/Sony will let you shoot directly into the sun while you focus on your tulips...but when I look at that shot....I see a very strange looking sky, which is where most of that DR is being utilized. I shot some tests with the 5dsr today in stupidly backlit situations and was able to get very satisfactory results exposing for the highlights and pulling up the shadows. The shadows had a bit of noise in them sure, but at this resolution, who flipping cares...you're never gonna see it won a print shy of 24x36.
But here's the thing, when I maximized these images with their paltry 11.7 stops of DR, frankly...they looked a little fake to me. They looked a little like DPR's tulip photo...(HDR anyone?) My question is this. Would stuffing 2 more stops of DR into that shot make it look any better?
> I think whats not being answered with all this focus on Dynamic Range and SNR is "does 14 stops of DR produce a photo that LOOKS BETTER than one taken at 12 stops.<
Thank you for asking this critical question. Has anyone seen side-by-side comparison of the same scene shot with cameras with 10, 12 and 14 stops of DR?
TS's Tumblr post can hardly be called "angry."
Do all online reporters/journalists have a mandate to inflame issues?
Angrymagpie: To be honest, I really wanted the Leica Q when it first appeared on DPReview yesterday. Then a few hours later, A7R mk2 happened...
@ PhotoKhan > Do you believe that the Leica optics will be miles away from this...?
I obviously did not explain myself very well. I didn't mean they are different on optics or image quality. Optics and image quality are the last thing I worry about in these high end cameras. I meant ergonomics, or how the camera interacts with you, the user.
For example, the Leica does not allow me to just slap on another lens and do whatever I want. And that could be a good thing.
True. Sony certainly did not make camera selection easier. But these are really two very different beasts. The Leica sacrifices versatility for simplicity. Of course, it has a limited range of application compared to the Sony. But its beauty lies in its ergonomics and how it forces you to focus on the image, rather than on the operation of the camera.
WT21: I loved the G6 looks, and would prefer that with a better sensor, over this beast. I'll just keep on with my GX7.
> GX7 had no stabilisation during video recording right?
IBIS does not work during video recording in GX7, but OIS still works.
Clive Dickinson: I agree with these comments and with this article. Photos is an insult to any self-respecting Aperture user. I very reluctantly made the switch to Lightroom. I had tried it before and could not warm to it. Now, I find it is not so bad and some of its features are actually very good. The Aperture import feature is excellent, as is the ability to call plugins and the integration with Photoshop. I now find that many of the basic things I had been doing in Aperture can be split between LR and PS and it is forcing me to become more proficient with PS.
I think that Apple have done me a backhanded favour. However, like mediasorcerer, I am concerned about Apple's obsession with dumbing down everything and forcing everything to be integrated with IOS and iCloud. If that continues in Mac OS X then I may be forced to look elsewhere for my computing services. The recent OS dev't trends via Mavericks and Yosemite suck big time for me. I do not use IOS and do not want iCloud.
Another beauty of Photos is that when you have the Keyword Manager shown, you can assign keys to keywords, such as 3 for '3 stars.' By carefully customize your keyboard shortcuts like this, and utilizing other shortcuts, Photos can be a very fluid photo management tool.
I don't know why everyone hates it. Sure, it doesn't have some important features. But I think many people simply did not take the time to see what's under the new user interface.
For me, the main thing in Aperture that is missing in Photos is adjustment brushes (local adjustments). It has all the essential adjustment tools, has a pretty good search function, keyword tagging system. For me, with about 10k photos, I don't see why Photos is an insult. Other than local adjustment, what are the big features that are missing?
Some features mentioned in this article as missing can easily be implemented. For example:
The Loupe: uh, 'z' for zoomStar rating system: use keyword 1-star, 2-star, etc
Can someone please license Aperture and keep it alive? Please...
carcour: I would wait a until the next version of Photos is released. Apple seems to have a problem with keeping with existing features - the best example is Final Cut Pro X, it took Apple a few iterations before it was usable by Pros. I will stick with Aperture for the time being and then if Photos become good enough i might switch otherwise it will be Lightroom. I'm not sure Lightroom will import all the metadata that I have in Aperture.
> I'm not sure Lightroom will import all the metadata that I have in Aperture.
You mean adjustments? It won't.
flypaul: Apple are indeed now a consumer gadget company and any serious amateur or pro would be wise to wonder about the future and the company's support for serious software and even hardware long term. They have a bad record and it may be time to "think different" before they drop Mac altogether. "One more thing',my MacBook Pro is due for replacement in 4 months and if I'm not satisfied by then I'm gone.
>Apple are indeed now a consumer gadget company...
Apple is never a software company. It's more of a design company. It points to what is possible and lets others fully develop that concept. Unfortunately, some of its products, such as Aperture, are so good that losing it is such a shame.
Aperture has been out for so many years, it begs the question why LR interface is still so bad.
arndsan: what is the point of adjusting photos without the brushes. Even in old film days you would kind of do the adjustments for over or underexposed for special areas. Ok there is LR and it seems to be a bit more advanced. The annoying thing is how apple always dictate you what to do.I thought as an graphic focused company it will keep up this values. but now everything becomes iPhone, quick, meaningless and annoying.
>I thought as an graphic focused company it will keep up this values.
A graphic focused company? Where have you been in the last 20 years? Apple now focuses on people's day to day life. Not just the recording of it.
SDPharm: > Kowa announces pricing for three Micro Four Thirds lens
So, what is the pricing? Am I missing something, or DPR is trying not to be helpful?
> scroll through the photo, read the descriptions. It's there already.
DPR serves millions of page views a month. If only one hundred thousand people spend one additional minute look for that information, that's more than 69 days of perfectly good time wasted.
Of course, DPR probably generated thousands if not millions of additional page clicks due to this type of hidden information, thus cleverly enriching their advertisement revenue. Am I cynical? Sure. But if you are as popular and influential as DPR, you have try hard to avoid this type of scrutiny.
> Kowa announces pricing for three Micro Four Thirds lens
DPR > This year, we opted to split the category in two, as we had a hard time definitively deciding on just one or two overall top picks. <
Why do we have to have only 1 or 2 top picks. If they are good, just say they are good. Why do we have to artificially 'down grade' some good cameras into non-top picks?
67gtonr: Isn't DPR, by separating mirrorless cameras into their own groups, saying that even on the verge of 2015 mirrorless cameras still cannot compete with DSLR's?
> It mirrors what camera sees to viewfinder, so you can see what camera will capture.
I beg to differ. The mirror reflects what you see, not what the sensor sees. EVF reflects what the sensor sees (with limitations, of course). Ultimately, both are just framing devices. Back to the original poster's point, why should we separate DSLR from mirrorless into two separate categories? Today, EVFs are slow and have limited gamut. But I can imagine the technology will catch up real fast.
> They are different class, because they serve different purposes.
So what purpose does an internal mirror serve?
As a service to consumers, it is useful to compare the two so-called categories. It's not like if I go shopping I limit myself to only look at one type of cameras. If I have $2000 burning a hole in my pocket, I want to look at all available cameras I can buy. I don't care if it has a mirror in it or not. It would be very helpful for a product review site to compare across 'category.'