iAPX: I still don't understand how someone could spend so much into a camera and then use a non-calibrated iPhone display on it. Non-sense!
Can you tell us what camera has a calibrated display? Moreover, what fine control would anyone think of doing in the field in uncontrolled lighting environment? Most pro and prosumer cameras can send a JPG to a connected monitor or laptop that has a "calibrated" display. But again, this is for the benefit of the client that needs to be assured that the shot is not completely whacked or out of focus. They know that post will yield the final look.
shauravraj: Too freaking expensive for a student enthusiast like me .... why can't they make something cheap and affordable. Do any of you guys know any cheap photography drone?
@badi and shauravraj, DIY is perfectly fine. The problem with your understanding of my statement is that you are complaining about what people are selling after they got paid. Expecting people to sell anything for the price of components is the insulting part. Criticizing them for creating something you or anyone might want to buy AND getting paid for it is insulting. You may also want to examine going the DIY route if it is to only save money. DIY is fun for some but not for all. Those people pay others for their time and expertise.
@badi, Of course you can build one for less. Particularly if your time is worthless.
If you are that passionate about drone imagery AND you are creative, figure out how to get it done at YOUR price point. Why be a hostage to a business model created by someone else?
extraone: images are fine to me, IQ is just ****. soft, and low contrast and horrible colors and no sharpness and crap bokeh. this is a joke, right?
damn that D810 is looking even better right now. bravo Nikon!
Clearly they are trying to mimic the hobbyists that will be buying it. I am astonished there were no cat pictures. ;)
NAwlins Contrarian: Just when DPReview was getting good at giving us charts with equivalents, I think this one falls down, especially when comparing the GM5 and the RX100 Mk. III.
The review notes the GM5's "tiny viewfinder", but the specifications say it has 0.92x magnification, which sounds large. Presumably reconciling these statements requires adjusting for sensor size, and the GM5's viewfinder has 0.46x-'equivalent to 35mm / full frame' viewfinder magnification. The RX100 III specs list the magnification as 0.59x, which I suspect is already an 'equivalent' figure.
And of course, it's fine to say the GM5 has a larger sensor than the RX100 Mk. III, but with the GM5's compact kit lens, the real comparison is the GM5's equivalent of 24-64mm f/7-11 with the RX100 Mk. III's equivalent of 24-70mm f/4.9-7.6. So when adjusting for both sensor size and aperture, the effective light-gathering puts the RX100 Mk. III 1 stop brighter at the wide end and a little more than 1 stop brighter at the long end.
"If getting enough depth of field on M43 requires f/4, then to get the same depth of field on FF requires f/8."
Yes, I am way ahead of you on that. The DOF issue is not what I am commenting on. You are actually agreeing with me WRT the advantages of M43. My comment was about those who claim "equivalence" in criticizing the deeper DOF available with smaller sensors. Frankly, the whole discussion about equivalence seems to be the province of newbies or number geeks who never get on with taking pictures. We disposed of these issues back in the 70's when choosing between sheet film, MF or 35 without any of this handwringing.
So you are trying to argue that 1/125 at f8 on an M43 is not the same as 1/125 at f8 on a FF? Yes, I get that the total amount of light is not the same but the light per square mm is the same at given exposure on any format.The DOF does change thus making 4x5 nearly useless for a portrait at f5.6 while M43 has miles. But the light is the same per square mm.This equivalence issue is quite useless except for DOF and THAT only occurs because of the preoccupation by the newbies for a new metric and love of a newly fashionable look with only light applicability in the universe of imaging opportunities.
Serious Sam: In Australia
$900 Panasonic Lumix GM5 Kit
$1000 Nikon D7100 Kit
$798 Sony A6000 Digital SLR with 2 Lenses
You serious asking that much for a m43 when the other choice is that much better?? Someone need to give Panasonic a wake up call.
Maybe DPR should show a price per pound figure for all you guys for whom this seems to be important.
I can see all the debates now. "This camera has to be the best, its price per pound beats the closest competitor by 25%!!"
In terms of equivalence the apertures dictate the DOF not the light gathering. f8 is f8 in terms of exposure.Comments about "light gathering" make it sound like a given camera needs to use a longer shutter speed to compensate for its "equivalently slow" lens.
Photomonkey: While there may be some carping about the details, it seems that Panasonic has delivered a decathlete in camera form. Strong in almost every area and weak in none. A category champ that deserves the accolades.
I would submit that its use of 12MP is a testament to their confidence in the IQ that they don't have to market with MP specs. Their target market has been asking for just such camera.
Photomonkey: Here is the FF Olympus we've been waiting for. ;)
Do I have to explain the joke?
Here is the FF Olympus we've been waiting for. ;)
While there may be some carping about the details, it seems that Panasonic has delivered a decathlete in camera form. Strong in almost every area and weak in none. A category champ that deserves the accolades.
Markol: With each passing year, the comments get worse. Sad.
Welcome to the internet. Free speech in action.
SaltLakeGuy: Are you kidding? The real estate photographers will be buying those up in droves. And they are NOT illegal for the purpose of photography by a paying client to market their home.
The thing that WILL happen is that the price asked for drone photography will drop to nearly zero. This is the ultimate point and shoot.
RGBCMYK: 2.8 D-max is huge and to my knowledge wasn't even approached in the traditional darkroom Once cadmium was removed from b/w paper even a selenium toned piece of fiber base paper only reached a d-max of 2.2 to 2.3 on glossy fiber base paper!
Kirk, the comments are a response to the notion that IQ can be reduced to numbers and that the numbers are true to begin with. I have been buying photo gear for over 40 years and have had the opportunity to see how little the numbers mean. Granted, there are real improvements over time. But while I am sure this product produces fine work, the prints will largely be indistinguishable from those preceding them because most people have no idea of the significance or in fact can see what that number means.
Rebranded hardware. Thus the fall begins.
Top Dog Imaging: I am not a "fanboy." I daresay, the Oly EPL-5 and EM-1 are my favorite cameras of all time. I am 55. I've used a wide range of analog and digital pro equipment (from 8 X10 film to MFD to FF Digital 35). The Oly fast primes are simply fine. The camera bodies (that includes the EPL-5 with the VF-4) are nice to handle. The 16 MP sensors are great. Now I wouldn't expect to use these cameras for fine art reproduction, highly detailed landscapes, or finicky high-end commercial work. I know a number of pros using these cameras for editorial work, street photography, weddings, fine art, and fashion. What I love about the Olys is that I am taking more photos now than ever before. I am willing to take pictures in places I would not have otherwise even with an APS-C camera (I still use a Nikon D800). I haven't picked up a MFD (Hassey or Phase) camera over the last few years. I am patiently waiting for the 7-14mm pro lens to become available. A tool is a tool is a tool.
Oddly enough the m43 sensor is fine for a lot of "finicky" work today as the vast bulk goes to the web. That imagery that does go to print actually acquits itself very well at A3. I recently did a side by side test of several lenses on my Canon 5dmkIII and for fun, my GX7 with the kit lens. Astonishingly, the kit lens outperformed the 24-105 Canon (tripod mounted, MU) and since I was shooting at ISO100 the file was smooth and sharp. Considering that standards are ironically both higher and lower than in the past, the m43 works splendidly. The challenge is the driver not the car.
Adamant: When can we expect regular camera reviews to resume here on DPR? Car magazines manage to review dozens of vehicles every month. DPR has managed to review, what, two whole cameras since July?
I don't know if you have noticed but the car mags seem to review dozens of cars so long as they are Porches, BMWs, Mustangs and Ferraris with the odd Kia thrown in for credibility.
snapa: Olympus is really great at producing extremely expensive lenses. To bad their sensors can not do justice to them. Hopefully the next generation m4/3 sensors will be able to keep up with there lenses. If that ever happens, the m4/3 format will be a formidable one. That is of course, if the prices come down to reasonable prices, which they are not at this time.
In this environment of declining camera sales, cutting prices is a fools game. The fact that the successful companies have expensive lenses is because they generated the profits that enabled them to create great lenses that people actually buy. No one is lining up for the cheap garbage that is already available.