bradleyg5: This is getting absurd dpreview you should be ashamed.
This listing the focal length "equivalence" right next to unadjusted aperture is border line disingenuous.
It is not a f1.8 150mm "equivalent" lens, it is and forever will be a 75mm lens, it doesn't magically become a 150mm lens just because you put it on a camera with a small sensor.
If you insist on listing "equivalent" figures, list the equivalent aperture right next to it so people don't get the wrong impression.
This lens at f1.8 75mm will produce an image on a micro four thirds camera that will look identical to a F3.5 150mm on a full frame camera, for you to imply it will look like f1.8 150mm is flat out wrong and shameful.
Jon, I was referring to autofocus performance, ISO didn't enter into it. A 2.8 line sensor will not work on a 3.5 lens. End of story. Period. The end.
Secondly, I own a 5D II and a GF1. Your comparison of ISO 200 to 800 is nonsense. I don't mean that rudely, but it depends entirely on available light, and a handful of other factors (lens quality, sensor manufacturer, software etc.) and you can't simply bump the numbers like that and assume a two stop advantage across the board in all conditions and at all sensitivities.
Tell an f/2.8 sensor line on a phase-detect autofocus system that f1.8 = f3.5, see if it listens to you.
(Yes I know micros 4/3 is contrast detect. The point still stands, as presumably our friend makes similar ridiculous comparisons between crop and full frame)
IcyVeins: Thic camera CHEATS, you can't reduce noise in RAW and still call it RAW.
It's their camera, they can do what they want. Would you prefer to be offered the Red Green and Blue sensor data separately and interpolate them yourself? Perhaps just the stream of numbers and let you decide how they should add up?
Stollen1234: but why do we have to read this on this website..
we all heard about this on google news..yahoo..or Foxnews..
Please keep this site about photography..i mean about cameras and how to take photos..
not how to share it on social networks
'No camera reviews were hurt in the posting of this story'
I have a very soft spot for Pentax and I'm all in favour of attempts to shake up the current paradigm and lack of choice regarding bodies, but only to improve outdated systems, not to exercise the designer's ego. I saw an interview in which he seemed far more concerned with imposing his own signature and style upon it than whether or not it actually worked. Like a Phillipe Starck grapefruit squeezer, this camera appears designed to sit there looking striking, not to actually be used. Shame that a once great company has, I suspect, goofed again.
Everybody complains when a review isn't posted immediately after a launch, now everybody complains when news comes off the grapevine early. It must be hell being forced to come to this website every day, being made to pay the hefty subscription price and then not finding it to your taste...
The irony is that Samsung have not even bothered to bring decent connectivity together in the products they already have, instead they're providing components for main rivals Apple to do just that in the near future. My TV should be my hi-fi and have a dock for my Mp3 player/HD video camera, and should be linked wirelessly to my media centre and external storage, which should all be remotely controlled by my phone/tablet. (As just one theoretical example - there are plenty of others) That was all doable years ago and should be absolute standard, but Samsung sell their products individually with precious little interplay between them - compare the Samsung store in London to the Apple store, and it's an enormous missed opportunity. If they want leverage in the camera market they should be selling packages of products, offering cheap cameras with their TVs, phones and laptops, all of which have a good slice of the action, but ensuring first that they're properly integrated.
And have they addressed any of its major UI failings present since its first incarnation? No. The incredibly wasteful use of screen space, the ludicrously unhelpful access to controls etc. Typical Adobe release, add things but don't fix. Such a shame. The software boys certainly know what they're doing but the designers screw it up.
Not needing 5 clicks to do the simplest thing would be a start. But customisation should be the goal, not imposing another designer led, fixed concept on people, but letting them choose.
Video is here to stay and I have no problem with that, it's another tool. But I do have a problem with the lack of imagination shown by editorial staff in their handling of stills and online newspapers, and their slavish assumption that if you stick a video into a report you've automatically achieved something worthwhile. I had an argument with some Guardian bods as far back as 2005, that the direction they were taking was utterly unimaginative and half-hearted, they were trying to dump a newspaper on to the internet, rather than start with an appreciation of what the net can do and build a new format from the ground up. And here we are in 2012, and online newspapers are still laid out abysmally, the navigation is still hopeless, and more and more we're offered video even when we would prefer to read in silence - something the still image complements perfectly. I think with the growth of tablets we'll slowly see an improvement, but there's a real lack of vision.
Mssimo: 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) !!! wow..better than the D800/5D mk2
Of course, regardless of its advertised capabilities... if its as hackable as the Panasonics... ;)
thethirdcoast: Good luck shooting macro or telephoto handheld with that tiny grip.
Well I've been holding cameras by the lens for thirty years now, why break the habit of a lifetime?
Harold66: it would have been perfect but why on earth did they move from a 41mm to a 45mm FOV ? they maintained the 28mm FOV so why not do the same with the dp2 successor ? :(any words on a external finder . another minus of changing the FOV . I do not know of any 45mm external finder :(
also they should try to offer the option of a ratio in addition to the 3;2 ratio
I imagine someone felt the two cameras were differentiated enough and needed more air between them. I agree, I don't like the move to 45, but a move to 43 might have been a good advertising sell - 'the camera that gives you what your eye sees' kind of a thing.
All that lovely tech inside, and still a cheap body to save a couple of $$. The X100 sold as much on its looks and feel as its guts, how much would it add to the price to put it in a nice box? Sigma are a company I greatly admire, but it seems there's a penny pincher in a grey suit intervening at a crucial stage in all their designs. But good luck to them, I hope it does well enough for them to continue making cameras.
Jmmg: 36MP? Really!? When is this My DiXX bigger than your DiXX cold war going to end? Why don't they just simply made a digital back with different MP counts for all the people believe the more MP=better photographer they will become...Few people could use a P & S camera less then 6mp to get great shots, many people paid ridicules money but their photos still looks like crap...Money and MP do not = better photographer or better pictures, just my humble 2 cents.
It will end when people stop buying on the basis of Mp, and when customers stop demanding it. Same reason so many other products are not optimal - the customer is uneducated to their own needs.
Peak25500: Maybe those primes are aimed at video market... It's sure IS would have been better on the 24-70 II, but I think Canon didn't do that without thoughts...
Although I'm one of the ones dissatisfied, I think you're spot on with that.
The 24-70 we expected, and no surprises, I'm sure it will be lovely. But I've been waiting for a really good 28mm for years: a 28L would have been nice (although unlikely), a 28mm f1.4 would do, or even just an improved 28mm f1.8, one as relatively good as the 85mm f1.8... but no.
I started to agree with DPreview, who are those two primes for? I use my primes for photographing moving people in low light with as shallow DOF as possible, IS is of no use to me whatsoever. But then I read the other comments - of course, video, makes sense now. Still a bummer for an old stills man, but there we go, can't have everything you want in life!
He says totally automatic AUTO-ISO makes sense for the target market, and I can see that, but only if you've got your flow-charts right in the first place. How many years will it take for major manufacturers to learn that which millions of users understood on day 1? Subjects sometimes move - durr. The staggering improvement in quality at higher ISOs in recent years seems to have gone unnoticed by the guy typing in the AUTO ISO code. It would have cost them zero to get this right, it's a basic coding error and could be fixed with a firmware update right now.
$2500 a year for phone and internet? Change your provider...
The current mass panic over copyright - in music, photography, film and writing - and the flurry of patent cases over technology, all only highlight the self evident truth: intellectual property laws are breathing their last breaths. They've had eminent opponents for 200 years (Brunel hated them), and they've caused more harm than good to many great people (they generally protect financiers and not creatives). In their current form they're unsupportable. The world has changed, the genie is out of the bottle, time to move on.