I don't get 360, it looks rubbish when wrapped onto standard flat dispayy, you waste a s!!!! ton of bandwidth on stuff of no interest like sky, feet, what's behind you, perspective is so mangled any sort of spatial awareness or depth perception is lost to the viewer. 360 why ?
attomole: I think the main thing with APSC is that even in indoor low light conditions without flash, the best examples will get some great results. @ ISO 3200 /6400 still has decent gradation through the shadows and some recovery of shadows is possible without getting a mosaic of coloured dots as soon as you lean on the adjustment, not possible with D200, D80 era cameras, the D7200 has a huge dynamic range, D500 looks like it will be same and maybe slightly better. In this regard the best Nikon APSC's are well ahead of the mFT's (sorry, I like the cameras). Sure, latest 5D's and D750 will do better but performance of the APSC covers all the bases, not so back in the day good "available" light photography was much improved by FF, now APSC has bridged that gap
would be interesting to see what they do withe D610 on refresh, I prefer to have the choice, but suspect it is there to disrupt Sony A7 series sales at the entry level. time will tell if an entry FF can sit at a lower price point than a high end professional grade APSC.
I think the main thing with APSC is that even in indoor low light conditions without flash, the best examples will get some great results. @ ISO 3200 /6400 still has decent gradation through the shadows and some recovery of shadows is possible without getting a mosaic of coloured dots as soon as you lean on the adjustment, not possible with D200, D80 era cameras, the D7200 has a huge dynamic range, D500 looks like it will be same and maybe slightly better. In this regard the best Nikon APSC's are well ahead of the mFT's (sorry, I like the cameras). Sure, latest 5D's and D750 will do better but performance of the APSC covers all the bases, not so back in the day good "available" light photography was much improved by FF, now APSC has bridged that gap
jadot: It's worth putting the X-Pro 2 next to the D500 here as far as I can tell.
No doubt the D500 is the DSLR to go for for many people, but if we're looking for a great performing APSC sensor the Fuji is keeping it's end up here, so to speak.
try looking at the DR though, the D500 looks quite a bit better when you start pulling up the shadows,
I love the MFT cameras for there size and this should be there natural environment, but for me the results from this shoot lack something, possibly its that stop or stop and a half DOF control you would get with a Leica M or a 5D. or the density and tonal resolution in the shadows.
good article for the site though, well done to all involved.
timo: I agree with other posters about the folly of using FF equivalent focal lengths. That really is confusing.
I note also that DPR acknowledges Olympus's support for the video. I know that manufacturers do supply review cameras, but this is taking sponsorship further. Most websites are commercially driven to some extent, but DPR's status as an objective commentator on cameras and photography seems in ever-greater danger of being compromised.
The video is quite nice, and the content atmospheric, but I'm not sure how much it really told us about the camera, apart from a few recitations from the spec sheet.
I think you can't get away from quoting equivalent focal length thats what we understand WRT angle of view, it just needs to be clear where you are using it, Say with a suffix 300mm(env)I think particularly with MFT we are used to using the "real" focal lengths, because thats how they are marketed and sold.
prefer black background,
Don't what ever you do don't drop or change the award system it would stop hilarious fanboyism in the comments.
One of these and a RX1 Mk2 (X100t maybe) would be my travel kit of choice, I think it covers most things unless you are very specifically traveling to shoot landscape and wildlife, I think if the opportunistic sighting of wildlife and scenery urban and in the wilderness, for example if hiking, fishing or shopping, is your primary activity this would be a decent rig, although MFT aficionados may disagree.
wouldn't be able to afford to go far though, oh well Derbyshire gets some great light in the spring
attomole: $500 camera with a $1000 price tag
It's worth what people will pay for it and if they are disappearing off the shelves then that's an end of the discussion, apart from check what else you can get for the money, there are some seriously good cameras, or Sony's A6000 which has similar perfoming sesnsor and will leave budget for decent lens arsenal to boot.
would be intresting to see comparison between crop to 400 mm on the 2 vs 400 mm on the 3 wiith a stop less light
@pkcpga Its a good camera but I think it's priced for early adopters with a bit of dosh, and to keep stocks of A6000 which is very good value, winding down.
@Richard Butler the electronics and processing technology has moved up a generation I don't see that it has moved up a slot in the Market, although if pushed I would conceed on the construction, For example a 2017 BMW 3 series will be a improment on 2012 model. it will still be priced for the same customers, around 30 thousand quid not 60 even though its a better car.
$500 camera with a $1000 price tag
Nikon 7200 still beats it on Noise, the Fuji XPO2 now as well, Not sure differences are with the processing or the CFA but competitors seem to squeeze more performance than Sony from the same silicon
ThatCamFan: I bought an X70, if I like what I see im switching from Nikon completely to the X-Pro 2 or XT-2
Dave Oddie: 60mm f.ov. equivalent on 4/3? Can't think of a more useless focal length.
It's not a standard lens giving a natural field of view and it's not short tele either.
On aps-c at 45mm equivalent it is almost the ideal standard lens focal length to give that natural viewpoint so makes much more sense.
Adding a 4/3 version seems like an afterthought. If I were a 4/3 user I'd get something like the Oly 45mm F1.8. The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is minimal and not worth the compromise in my opinion.
My thinking as well, I would have gone a little wider say around 23 mm giving a equivilant of 35mm ish APSC and a slight wide standard on MFT given the more square crop proportions of 4/3 frame
mosc: Really not trying to troll here (I know, great preface) but would it have been possible to hand the model a pencil or a lolly pop or something to replace the cigarette? I did notice and it did bother me. Sorry if this stirs trouble.
The trick is to simply take the cigarette without asking, such as Karsh did, resulting in the best portrait ever taken.https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/winston-churchill-by-yousef-karsh/
The senior boffin at Lee is getting a bit hard of hearing because I said we need something new for "wedding" photography , not WELDing" photography!
Tons o Glass 0 Class: The "bird" flying around the photo booth really does it for me.
@ Carey Rose, ah ha! that explains why you are all Sony fan boyz. " when I click my fingers you will wake up and Sony will get gold award"