BleugrassBoy: I bought the app and have been playing around with it. It's fine - nothing wrong with it. But there's also nothing in it that I don't already have in other apps (Snapseed, Waterlogue, VSCO Cam, Camera+, Analog, etc.) If you don't already have a stable full of photo apps go ahead and buy this one. But if you do already have a bevy of these apps, I haven't found any great new functionality with this one.
I see what you're saying. For me, it was the other way though. It kind of goes in both directions, so I replaced a set of apps with this one. But sure, if you're comfortable with others I can see how you'd better stick with those.
Danny: Apart from color correction, how far do you want to go with editing on a smartphone screen?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I've used this for a short while and could easily see how it would improve one's "iphoneography". It sounds like this isn't something you'd enjoy much, relegating an iPhone to quick snapshots only, but don't diss those who do just because of that. :)
I like it! Especially that it doesn't fall into the filter trap of _only_ offering filters just because it does. It especially leaves me with lots of room for fine tuning and even localized adjustments, and graduated filter effects. Combined with the tools for photo collages etc., it replaced 2-3 of my apps. I think I'll stick with this one for a while. I really like the versatility. It feels mature despite being in the first version.
Digital Imaging Technician: I bought the A7 when it came out. It's nice to see the system evolve. But to take pictures with a ILC you need lenses. And Sony, unlike Fujifilm, does not seem to understand this at all.
Give me reasonably fast primes to a descent price. The 35mm 2.8 is too slow and the 35mm 1.4 on their roadmap is too big. How about a 35mm 2.0?
I'd venture to guess that the 35mm 1.4 is "too big" compared to for example a Fuji X lens because this is full frame lenses.
This is also why I went for X-T1 instead. I don't just value size and weight of camera bodies.
Jarda_Houdek: Interesting, finally some competition for Lumia 1020.Still, Lumia beats Lumix: Lumia may have a smaller sensor, but with stabilization and brighter lens. Also Lumia supports RAW, which is not yet supported in Android. And Lumia has Xenon flash. Can't see how this devide could win against Lumia.
Hm, I think the minor difference in maximum aperture (f/2.2 vs f/2.8) is more than offset by the 50% larger sensor. Android L, expected "late 2014", will finally offer RAW support. :)
Jogger: Looks ok, but, why get this over an RX100?
The handling is completely different, like night and day. Of course, at the cost of RX100's pocketability. But that's one example of how different needs may have a photographer pick another camera.
Jeff Fenske: Does this mean the image stabilization is significantly improved for still photos too — IS being the RX100's achilles heel, a commenter rightly called it — since almost all shots taken will be without a tripod?
"The camera also has Intelligent Active Mode – another first for Cyber-shot RX series cameras – which utilizes Sony’s frame analysis technology and 5-axis compensation to dramatically reduce the effects of camera shake while shooting movies."
Since the lens is much brighter on the tele end now (1,5 stops!), this alone will signficantly affect stability without even improving any algorithms.
The small aperture on the tele end was the one weakness of that lens before, now that was effectively eradicated. Impressive! The EVF is a major bonus on top of that. I think this is a greater leap forward than the MK1 -> MK2 was.
berbmit: An amateur's experience constrained by a price-point:
After my D5100 and all lens was stolen I had the chance for a clean start. The X-T1 became the replacement kit; body and three lens graciously payed for by insurance. It was a hard call to move away from the familiar Nikon range, but after a week I'm convinced that I have a whole lot more camera for the replacement price than I could have got with a Nikon!
In particular, I am amazed at the improved quality (subjectively speaking) compared to my old Nikon RAW (using Lightzone/DCRAW under Linux) ... the difference is immediate to my eye.
The handling is really nice; more compact without feeling too small, solid to hold, great build quality. The EVF in low light was a surprise ... as if I was using night vision goggles ... fantastic for composing a low light image.
I'm still getting used to the idea I bought non-Nikon, at this point I am having no buyer regrets and would not trade back to a Nikon price-parity equivalent.
So are we comparing entry level DSLR's with advanced level mirrorless cameras now? The two have so many differences I wouldn't even know where to start, ranging from handling and weight to features.
Richard Franiec: Nothing can tame boundless love for Fuji cameras and prevent 84 point (balanced) score to happen, even this:
"One point we do have to make is that the X-T1 is nowhere near as good a movie camera as it is for shooting stills. Manual control is limited, and video image quality is unusually poor. It's OK for casual use, but if high quality video is high on your list of priorities, you'll probably want to look elsewhere."
Well, of all camera features there is, video is perhaps the hardest one to quantify in a score, especially since excellent video may require lower sensor resolution to avoid resampling causing moire. The performances can end up in conflict with each other. You can see this with the Panasonic GH4. It's an awesome micro 4/3 video camera, but not the best micro 4/3 stills camera.
That's what I think about this anyway. I find only a minor score hit more understandable here than, say, for the sub-optimal controls on the back that kept popping up throughout the review.
David Smith - Photographer: This new Olympus OM-D E-M10 has got me excited about micro four thirds again! Why? Because it doesn't seem to suffer from shutter vibrations, shutter shock or whatever you want call it. Many micro four thirds cameras suffer from it (i.e. Panasonic GX7, Olympus E-M5, E-M1, Sony A7R). It seriously degrades image quality at normal (and most used) shutter speeds.
The E-M10 is an awesome little camera that offers the same image quality as the E-M1, but in a much smaller (but high quality) and more affordable package. And without the shutter shock problem! What more do you need? If you don't specifically need the extra features (like shutter shock) of the E-M1 or the E-M5, I'd go for this excellent E-M10.
I think "Shutter shock" is a misnomer since it isn't about a shutter shaking the camera around to cause a blurry picture.
From everything I've read on this, it rather seems to be the IBIS overcompensating for movement (regardless if said movement is from a camera's shutter, your shaky hands, or something completely different).
The GX7 has no 5-axis IBIS. The E-M10 has no 5-axis IBIS. Both of these have in-body stabilization, sure, but it isn't of the 5-axis kind. I think this is a key difference. (I have heard very little if anything as for "shutter shock" from GX7 owners)
The E-M5 do have it reported though, and the E-P5. Both have identical IBIS mechanism.
This is actually not news. Overcompensation is a known problem with some stabilization algorithms, showing its ugly head in various ways. My Nikon D90 has the option to turn off stabilization since it'll otherwise overcompensate when already stable, like on a tripod.
gerard boulanger: $1,300...
You won't get away very cheap with a comparable crop sensor DSLR and a superzoom lens either, and the performance seems similar. The DSLR will give you maybe an f-stop better noise performance but on the other hand, this one would kill it on video.
Gesture: Would love to see a camera like this in Micro-Four-Thirds.
I think the Canon Powershot G1 X Mark II is the closest for that. It has a sensor a bit larger than even micro 4/3 and also a built-in zoom lens with some reach, and also offers a bright lens. Still not as long as this one though.
J Parker: Initially I thought this camera was expensive -- then I realized it might be dollar for dollar one of the best camera values around.
If the Zeiss lens is as good or better than the f2.0-2.4 from the days of the Sony F707/717/828, this is tremendous value for the money. Consider the cost of a Canon or Nikon F2.8 24-200mm lens combination -- then ask yourself how much would a Zeiss equivalent would cost.... To add a little more food for thought, years ago, Luminous Landscape did a shoot out between the above mentioned Canon L Glass and the fixed Zeiss lens on the Sony F828. The Canon should have won hands down -- it was a dead heat.
Think about the sum of the parts this camera offers. This camera is worth every dime.
Yes, for being so close to APS-C performance, just maybe an f-stop away or so, it's pretty good value.
RX10 + 24-200mm equivalent: $1300
Nikon D5300: $1100Nikkor 18-200mm (24-300mm equivalent) f/3.5-f/5.6: $600
So it's $400 more for the step up in sensor size and a bit more reach. Regardless if one thinks it's worth it or not, it's surely no outrageous price for the RX10 when looking at it like this. And as for the 18-200 lens, I actually doubt its optics is as good as this Zeiss lens. I've used one myself and it's soft for anything 100mm+.
Love how the video stills are clearly outresolving those from the Nikon D610, a fricking full frame camera. The X-E2, as expected, makes my eyes bleed. Video was never a strong card among the X series cameras. I like how this part was included in the review! Often an overlooked but important aspect for people wanting to film with the camera.
Again, please, pretty please make the focal length graph logarithmic. The huge distance between 100-300 mm just corresponds to a 3x zoom, exactly like the much smaller distance between 24-70mm.
Noogy: DPR please make up your mind. You gave the same gold rating to the D610's defective, flawed predecessor - the D600 and vigorously defended such rating even when I commented that I personally already knew at that point that a new camera to replace the D600's flawed design was in fact already in the works. Months later Nikon finally indirectly admitted that it was a flawed a camera that needed to be replaced asap in perhaps what can be described as the shortest replacement cycle in the DSLR world. Please restore a bit of credibility by withdrawing your D600 rating and giving it to the truly deserving D610. Imagine the irony when in the future, one of the worst DSLR bodies in history due flawed design, was at one point rated GOLD by your prestigious website!
Yes, the dust issue hardly showed up during DPR's review period, and they can impossibly take others opinions and problems into account when setting a score. Reviews are subjective, not summaries of the "general blogosphere opinion".
StevenE: This is the third highest score ever given by DPR. The two higher scores were given to the Canon 1D mk IV and the Nikon D3S.
The D610 score beats Nikon's D800 and D800E, and the Canon 5DIII.
"The D610 score beats Nikon's D800 and D800E, and the Canon 5DIII."
The scores aren't meant to be compared to each other like that, so this camera isn't beating those at all.
The D800 score is in comparison to other professional full-frame cameras, not in comparison to the "introduction full-frame" D610.
For an introductory full-frame camera, they think this one is a really good one that that. I mean, the sensor is basically pro quality, and it's a frickin step in model.
justmeMN: "CHINA - Industrial and commercial authorities have launched a probe into Nikon China after the company was accused by China Central Television of selling defective products.
Many consumers have complained of dust buildup on the image sensor of the Nikon D600 camera, CCTV said on its annual 3/15 Gala news programme on Saturday."
"Many D600 users including Du have asked for a refund or a free upgrade to the newer model D610, but Nikon has refused their demands, even though some D600 owners in the United States have been offered a free upgrade to the D610, according to CCTV."
I fail to see how a D610 review comment section is appropriate for some lingering news about the long known dust issues with the D600 (which is already mentioned in this review, FWIW).
itkovian: Looks to me that the D4s is about 3 stops (iso) better than the Fuji XT1. Now, that ladies and gentlemen is impressive!
Fujifilm and Nikon doesn't even use the same ISO ratings. Fujifilm overestimates them by at least half an f-stop, so a ISO 1200 photo from Fujifilm is more like ISO 800 from Nikon even when identically exposed.
You're comparing two different sensor sizes, two different sensor technologies, two different ISO ratings. :p While that can be fun, of course a full-frame top notch sensor is going to be at least approximately two f-stops better when taking detail into account and going beyond mere noise (which others have said can be surpressed). The X-Trans technology is cool but not magic dust.