maxnimo

You think someday the geniuses at Microsoft will figure out how to display 12 point print to always appear as 12 point print regardless of screen resolution and screen DPI?

Since my Canon 50mm prime lens died I'm done with Canon. A $380 prime lens should not die before the camera dies. Never again will I buy Canon camera equipment, and I most certainly won't spend $5000 for a prime.

If there's plastic in there, then you have potential problems. Plastic has a nasty tendency to outgas plastic molecules, and can also become unstable with time, either cracking into tiny pieces or turning to a sticky jell. If the manufacturing process is just a bit off, even a stable plastic can come out unstable, leading to degradation.

I'm glad that you are amused, unlike some others that have no sense of humor and get completely bent out of shape when confronted with brutal reality. Now if I could only find a lens that doesn't blur half the faces in my group shots..............

Okay, this was a nice toy lens review. The problem is that I haven't seen a single zoom lens that even comes close to properly filling more than 6 Mpixels. So can we now move along and review some primes for real photographers? That would make me super happy.

These sample photos are of significantly better composition than most of the other camera sample photos, so I am pleased for a change. Nice work.

A theoretical question: If a wide angle lens is not sharp edge to edge then what's the point of having a wide angle?

Oh my God! Are any of you real photographers? Those 3 F2 samples are about as useful as a bag of dirt.

You all must have magic lenses then. But my eyes have not yet seen any wide angle image sample (or test chart) that's sharp edge to edge. For example, 3 months ago I saw samples of some wide angle prime (35 mm, I think) shot at f4!... and 20% of either side was blurred and distorted, and this was a $1000 lens! So if I took a group portrait, all the faces on the sides would have been blurred and unusable. Now remember, I'm NOT talking about 50mm and up... some of those are fine.

I've never seen a zoom lens (FF, APS or MFT) that's sharp edge to edge at any price. I've never even seen a wide angle prime lens (FF, APS or MFT) that's sharp edge to edge at any price. So, unless this lens is magic, it's overpriced by 500 %, since blurry, distorted edges will make it useless for any wide angle shooting I do. To sum it all up, all the wide angle zooms I've ever seen up to now are anywhere from poor to total garbage.

I'm confused by all the "ugly" comments. Is this camera supposed to be framed and hung on a gallery wall next to Mona Lisa?

You know what I think happened here.... most of the test shots were jpeg-compressed at 50% quality instead of 98% quality, either accidentally of on purpose.

What's with all this smartphone stuff? How about being able to stream the images to a laptop or a tablet, or is that too much to ask for?

No wide open shots lead me to assume this lens is a piece of krappe wide open.

This would have been the best camera in the world... if it came in lime green.

My girlfriend would like to buy this Leica.... but only if it has face recognition and comes in pink.

Digital Suicide has a perfectly logical, reasonable question, so why the nasty reaction? Personally, I think having "no correlation between awards and scores" is illogical, retarded and moronically idiotic.

So they decided to come out with another proprietary lens mount instead of adopting the MFT standard. I wonder if that was the best course of action to take. One thing I know for sure.... I'd have no interest in buying this camera.

"the LUMIX G5 provides stunning image quality, even in low-light situations....."

So if I'm not stunned by the image quality at iso1600 will I get my money back?

The purpose of camera image samples is to show the quality of the sensor and the lens. It is not for showing off the photographer's zany artistic skills. Most of these samples are not very useful.