Now that it's out of the hands of the original Kodak, there is some chance it might actually be good. Bad memories about digital Kodaks before.
I'm thinking of buying one. I like Putin...
DPR has been doing the right thing using ladies' hands for a change now...
VF is sexier than LCD, period.
As a black x-100 owner, I'm crazy jaleous!!
This is about as good as it gets with this sensor size. And it IS good.
Those of us who still can't see x10 on the shelves can download the firmware and feel as if we have it... fantasy world.
princewolf: Thank you very much for this Dr. Fossum. I was very excited to see you around in dpreview, and it's our chance and privilege. Several points;
-"Force of marketing..." is one of the best quotes I have ever heard, it explains a lot of things going on in technology driven industries.
-The UDTV with 33 MP, if it were available today, could make photography pretty much a thing of the past, considering that still digital photos today have so much resolution advantage over HDTV, but again there would always be a cheaper 60MP still image taker for any 33MP video camera!
-I suspect viewing a 33MP video at 60fps would be quite challenging for the brain. There is no doubt about the advantage in image quality, but some neural problems may arise but I guess it's too early-and certainly not for me to pass judgement on.
Finally, I would like to ask if you could recommend a "for dummies" type resource for understanding the deeper electronics of current photography technology?
-Most people live below their eyes' resolution capability all their lives, and some people who just start wearing glasses have difficulty adjusting to the clarity. In fact, optometrists prescribe less than perfect numbers on purpose because brain can have difficulty absorbing all the details. I'm talking about long term effects, and unless you are a neurologist Uaru, your guess is as good as mine.
-With a videocam with 32 MP output resolution shooting at 60 fps-oh yeah, I would be worried! Even if some frames were interpolated, a 30 fps shooting with 32 MP each would allow me to pick the best frame. Of course other adjustments such as ISO speed, aperture control, shutter speed etc would still be necessary, but hey--they can incorporate all these into video if they make a 32MP@60fps videocam. In any case, for any 32MP videocam there would still be a photo camera with at least twice the resolution, so the point is moot.
Thank you very much for this Dr. Fossum. I was very excited to see you around in dpreview, and it's our chance and privilege. Several points;
Ken Croft: To heck with the cameras, introduce me to the lady please!
Nice lady indeed.
Is it me or is this the first preview video (except for focus demonstrations and sample videos of course) posted by dpreview? Looks like they did a great job, I only want more of these!
I liked the idea. It's nice to be able to postpone the focus adjustment process, and this camera allows fast exposures by (somewhat) eliminating the need for auto focus. Of course, it does so at the expense of camera size. Check out all those optics in the cut out, and compare to the retractable lens of a P&S. Of course an 8x f2 lens across the zoom range is neat and somewhat justifies the size. However, the size must inevitably increase for more resolution. I think even a 5MP camera with this principle would be quite big. The imaging sensor can always be made better (more MP), in time. But the optics required to do the same trick with more resolution will be quite large. Another problem is file size. There will be need for keeping multiple times the size a single focus image would need. Still, it might work! The sad thing is after developing this innovative technology they gave it to an art designer who turned it into a freak. I want dials and knobs.
Thank you for this article. I appreciate the work. There is some very useful advice such as how harsh shadows can give away artificial light, and setting up lights from darker to lighter. I think the first and last images look quite similar in thev feel they convey. It may be easy to get such a shot by accident, but getting them by design is what makes them valuable.
Actually for this zoom range, 2/3'' sensor is quite good(FZ-50 had 1/1.8'' with 12x).
Viewfinder, twin dials and more buttons definitely would have made Nikon 1 a lot more attractive, but then I guess it would inevitably eat away at P7100 sales, which has a smaller sensor.
Parent A:-large sensor->better IQ, ISO performance-interchangeable lenses->less pocketable, ->have to switch lenses frequently, ->need to carry multiple lenses ->expensive lenses
Parnet B:-small sensor->moderate IQ, ISO performance-fixed lens ->more pocketable, ->one bright zoom lens ->no need to switch lenses ->no need to carry multiple lenses ->pay for lens only once
Child:-small sensor-interchangeable lenses
Case in point: The parents' worst qualities are merged to produce this child. A small sensor is justified only in its reduction of lens size, and indeed rendering multiple lenses unnecessary. But it's of course great for the manufaturer to offer a small sensor AND make you buy seperate lenses for it, and I will in no way challenge people's right to buy them. I won't.
Cyril Catt: If small cameras can have pop-up flash units, why not pop-up OVFs?
especially plausible for a fixed focal length.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Canon we had to grab a G12 to get this much zoom range with a 1/1.7'' sensor...so it looks like a good deal, although where I live it will be too closely priced to G12 to make a difference
I'm all too happy with my FZ-50, the zoom and focus rings, beautiful lens(35-420mm-35mm eqv), 1/8'' sensor, not to mention RAW...
If Ricoh has any sense, PENTAX brand will remain. They would be unwise to remove it. An even worse feat would be to name it Ricoh-Pentax.Ritax/Pencoh/Penritaxcoh/Ripencohtex.It's not a good thing.