I can't help wondering if this wouldn't be more applicable to video....
Guess Sony could do with some good news, but they deserve it. This is what they do best. I like the novel approach to the EVF. All round a pretty big camera in a small package. Nice going.
Amount of processing and data to do something useful = x.
Amount of data and processing to make doing the same thing completely idiot proof = 10,000x.
Using F11 and a small sensor and writing some software to do intelligent blurring would probably be easier and less wasteful.
57even: Dear DPR - JPEG "dynamic range" is not dynamic range. It's a post RAW applied tone curve. It is actually quite irrelevant.
Please, don't keep calling it "dynamic range" because it isn't unless it's shot in RAW and opened in a non-profiled RAW converter.
I have no problem if you call it JPEG contrast range, but dynamic range has a specific definition which you have (sort) of explained in your own glossary. The problem with JPEG contrast range is it is a poor indication of the recovery potential of a shot you have deliberately underexposed to maintain highlights - something that RAW shooters do as a matter of course.
I am not saying it isn't useful (for JPEG shooters such as sports photographers and quite a lot of wedding/event shooters) but it is applying the incorrect definition to the measurement you are actually making. This in turn makes the conclusion quite confusing because most cameras expand JPEG latitude by boosting ISO and underexposing... which actually reduces real DR.
A RAW measurement would be great, but again it is not DR unless you establish the actual noise floor.
Dear DPR - JPEG "dynamic range" is not dynamic range. It's a post RAW applied tone curve. It is actually quite irrelevant.
Fell asleep about 3mins in...
APenza: Very nice. Should be an inspiration to all, young, and old artists alike. I like his quote, " Hard work will outperform talent any day of the week". How true.
Personally I think talent is required, but there is no substitute for hard work either. Talent will simply be the difference between a well executed artefact and art
G3User: This guy is a joke. Sliding levers in Photoshop does not make you a great photographer. It may make you a good artist. My teenage daughter can slide levers and apply instacrap filters also. It's too bad he has to resort to these gimmicks to make his photos interesting (there not by the way). They are all over processed. We don't even know what the camera captured. You could get these images from a cell phone and then Photoshop them to death which he has done here. What a waist of space on dpreview, they should only profile real photographers, not illustrators like this guy.
The only joke is your comment.
I have always marvelled at Sony's ability to build a great camera while taking all the fun out of using it. Ironic considering the near perfection of some of the top end Alpha SLRs, designed and built by the remnants of the old Minolta team.
Perhaps their DNA is finally infiltrating Sony. It's been at least a decade now...
afm: No mushy greens or waxy skin tones like the X-E2 then although it has the same sensor and processor!!
Only a JPEG issue. Different JPEG processing? RAW is exactly the same as all other Xtrans cameras.
Mike99999: The watercolor look from this camera is unacceptable (e.g. as shown by Steve Huff).
How often do you have to repeat yourself. Steve Huff seems very pleased with his XT1, and most everyone else has found various solutions to the LR/ACR sharpness issue.
gerard boulanger: I was surprised to see a very DR range between X-Pro 1 and X-T1, about 2 stops...
JPEG DR is not really DR. It's just the JPEG tone curve. RAW files are the same for all Xtrans cameras. Which means high levels of black recovery...
Glad the Pentax engineers still have a job and are refining their ergonomics. K5 was a very nice camera and this looks like a good upgrade. Still wish I had a green button on my D800, and I also wish it was even half as comfortable to hold.
DaveE1: To those who decry the use of Photoshop (or other editing tools), just accept that no photo EVER has been a true representation of the real world.
The day we have a camera that can do that, is the day DPReview gives their 101% - Extra Shiny Platinum Award at the end of that camera review ;-)
Every film, camera sensor and associated technology alters the image. Photoshop alters the image. We all produce images that are altered from the scene we captured, whether we like it or not. Indeed, many Photoshopped images are closer to the real scene than what the camera produced prior to editing.
Let's get over ourselves and make the most of hardware and software technology to produce images that we are personally proud of. If others like them, great! :-)
I completely agree. This religious attitude to post processing is inexplicable. Film is hardly realistic, especially black and white film.
A digital file is just a set of RGB values adjusted by the camera (or Photoshop) to produce a contrast response that is a good default for a flat image. Most images are not flat, so you need to make further adjustments in post to even approximate the adjustments the brain makes when it sees the same scene.
None of which can make up for poor composition, focus or choice of aperture etc.
iAPX: It's pretty interesting, as China is an emerging country, they are trying to protect consumers, and seems to be more pro-active at this than US or Europe!
Probably because most of their consumer programmes and magazines are not entirely reliant on their advertisers, or living in constant fear of a lawsuit for libel.
Anastasios Papatsoris: It is clear the dynamic range of X-E1 is substantially better than X-E2's capturing much more shadow detail.
There is no difference in dynamic range at all. There is a difference in the default tone curve used in each camera for processing JPEGs. What this has to do with dynamic range (it should actually be JPEG exposure range) I will never know.
Since nearly everyone boosts contrast in post processing, Fuji merely adjusted the default tone curve to be more contrasty. You can adjust the camera many ways to offset this if you insist on shooting JPEGs.
plasnu: There is aesthetic issue with film simulation without doubt. They do look fake, and they actually are.
All photos are fake, specially on film. A camera is not a photocopier. Exact duplication is not part of the brief.
waxwaine: "Mirrorless is the future" ( with deep serious voice) ... jajaja(lol)You can't replace photographic experience with an lcd. Ask any photographer kow much they love the sound of mechanical shutter.Then, MILCs can be replaced by phones, but this is not the case for DSLRs.
My MILC has a mechanical shutter. It sounds very nice too.
57even: Phone cameras probably only account for the loss of compact sales. Higher end sales are being damaged purely by people's lower spending and unwillingness to use credit.
Any maker who is centred in the enthusiast market, content to maintain a relatively small volume business, and has a relatively diverse business portfolio which can mask small losses in cameras, can probably tough it out by selling fewer models and building higher value luxury products with good margins.
Those at greatest risk are the companies whose revenues are highly volume dependent and who have substantial investment in plant, production and distribution, especially if cameras are a large proportion of total income.
Fuji are a very diverse company, cameras don't even have their own division. They also have a very niche market share and are aiming for the enthusiast. If their executives are patient, I think they can pull through. I think they diversified the line too fast into the wrong markets though. Seemingly they recognise this so I expect a 4 model ILC lineup in future (M, E, T and Pro).
Sigma are more dependent on the camera market, so I am not so sure. Their ART lenses are an attempt to hit the core SLR enthusiast market, but I don't know how badly the lack of camera sales for Nikon and Canon affects Sigma. They may even benefit as they provide cheaper, good value versions of pro lenses, but the general decline cannot help them much.
Phone cameras probably only account for the loss of compact sales. Higher end sales are being damaged purely by people's lower spending and unwillingness to use credit.