How fast is fast and how slow is slow? To me, the important thing is whether it is fast enough for your needs. I am a careful and deliberate shooter. I remember when AF was a thing of the future and everyone had to manually focus. The first auto focus cameras did a lot of hunting before settling down and we all thought it was wonderful. My internet provider is lightening fast and it's major competitor promises even faster operation. But do I need it? I am only so fast and the older I get, the less fast I am. I guess this is a long winded way of saying that as a Fuji-XPro-1 user with all the latest firmware downloadsAF is lightening fast for me, although my OM-D is somewhat faster. So, how fast do you really need aside from enhancing your bragging rights when comparing cameras?
The Canon G15 viewfinder is not a serious composition tool, nor do I believe it was ever intended to be so. Only a very few of its competitors offer a "tunnel view" viewfinder. It is a handy thing to have when grabbing a shot and due to it's narrower FOV, you are bound to get the subject. It should be compared to cameras in the same price range that have no viewfinder. Let's face it. The only viewfinders worth a damn come in the Leica M's, The Fuji X100's and the Fuji X-Pro-1 and so forth and they are priced accordingly. So, it is unfair to criticize the G15 for the limitations of it's viewfinder.
For what it is, the G15 (CMOS) is a great little camera. Nice to take along when I don't care to take a premium camera outfit with it's greater bulk. With the right settings, I have made some very good 13 X 19 prints with it.
The GX1 is priced higher than the G15. The G15, and I suppose the new G16 are good cameras for the purposes intended. And no one is forced to use the viewfinder.
I'm not sure LR5.2 is ready for prime time. Not only does my LR5 say it's up to date, but four attempts to download the 5.2 update on DPReview resulted in stalling somewhere between 1/2 way and 3/4 way. I even went directly to Adobe's website and tried again. No luck. I know it is not the iMac because I download updates all the time. Has anyone else tried to download this "upgrade"?
I like that it is a little larger and has a built in grip. The need to remove the grip on my E-M5 to change batteries is a real pain in the derriere. The fact that it has no anti-aliasing filter is also a big plus since there are now enough excellent programs to eliminate moire so that the filter is no longer necessary to those who do their own post processing. The ability to correct for different lenses is also a great feature that I find very useful on my Fuji XPro-1 when using M mounted lenses. That Olympus adds this feature for 4/3 and MFT lens mounts is laudable. Moving the on-off switch eliminates the annoying placement of the switch on the EM-5. They seem to have addressed most of the issues and have added enough custom buttons to avoid most menu surfing. Three cheers for Olympus and I hope that their present financial difficulties brought on, not by product deficiencies but rather the former crooked management does not impair their survival. They make a great product.
Finally, a camera that is auto-everything; relieving the photographer even of the burden of actually having to take pictures. Ain't progress wonderful?
A few years ago, I bought a Lumix GF-1 for traveling plus the two kit zoom lenses. Right away I noticed that I could carry only the camera and a small waist pack to tote whichever lens was not mounted to the camera plus a spare card and some odds and ends. I then moved up to an Oly. OM-D and still was able to carry only a waist pack with a couple of lenses and the camera around my neck.About 6 months ago I realized that i hadn't used my Nikon D300 in several years, so I sold it along with most of it's lenses. I kept the wonderful Nikkor 50mm f1.4 plus a very long tele to use on the MFT's with a lens adapter.
Now i have a Fuji X-Pro1 with adapter plus the OM-D. I love the fact that with the OVF, I can follow action without any blackout or image shuddering. Both are amazing cameras and either can shoot rings around the D300 with much less weight and bulk.
All of the comments, so far, show why camera manufacturers should use a common raw converter. Adobe tried to encourage a move in that direction with DNG which is used by Leica and very few others. It is time that, at least the smaller manufacturers stop putting out their excellent products that have proprietary converter codes. If they would all get on board, then we consumers would all benefit. Certainly, the dizzying assortment of RAW converters packaged with cameras cannot be a major profit center for them, so why do they do it? Even competing cameras that use exactly the same sensor use proprietary RAW converter codes. It is time they all cooperated, at least to that extent.
When Adobe's press release said that PS was going to the cloud and anyone wanting the updates had to subscribe, I thought, how great for the professionals who have been paying a kings ransom to upgrade their suites every year or so, and how sad for amateurs who buy only a single program for a few hundred dollars and get several years use out of it. Adobe also said that Lightroom would continue as a stand-alone application.
As a long time PS user who, in the past two years has moved to LR, going back to PS for some of the tools like content aware, this latest move by Adobe comes as a real blessing. Adobe hasn't forgotten about the lowly amateur market after all. Three cheers for Adobe, and I will be downloading the latest version in the next few days. Hoorah!
Just to establish my creds., I own and enjoy using a Leica M8u and occasionally still use my M4-P. So my comments should not be construed as a reverse snobbery slap at Leica. But to release a camera that is obviously aimed at the street shooter crowd without a built in viewfinder and no image stabilization just boggles the mind regardless of whatever fine qualities the camera may have.The convenience of a built in EVF to avoid the ungainly hump that graces my NEX5N should have been of first design consideration.And to offer a 70mm capability without image stabilization, either sensor or lens type, really puzzles me. No serious photographer is going to hold the finderless camera like a cell phone and expect a sharp result.
I am the owner of a Fuji XPro-1, so I have the advantage of a very Leica like OVF with the option of a switchable EVF for close critical focusing as well as IS. Leica would have been well advised to up the price about $500 and include the missing modern features.
$1000 for the E-P5 body at Adorama plus the expense of the EVF. So it has focus peaking (in B&W only). While it appears to be cosmetically a good looking camera, tell me why I should prefer it over the OM-D which has an excellent EVF and focus peaking using the key line filter selection under Art Filters? Adorama, B&H and others are currently selling the OM-D body for just under $1000. The E-P5 is cute, but no cigar as the saying goes. I'll keep my OM-D.
Still no eye level finder either optical, EVF or hybrid. Therefore, not a serious camera for serious photographers. I'll stick to my OM-D and avoid the hand/arm shakes, thank you.
Nice to see that Zeiss finally got around Touit.
If you compare the RAW images @ ISO 400, a not to demanding setting, the little Canon G15 blows the Fuji X20 away. How very disappointing for a camera manufacturer of this quality and standard. When looking for a small carry-around camera to use when I don't want to use my more serious equipment, I had a brief romance with the X10, liking the build quality, but ended up with the Canon G15 because of the image quality. According to the comparison images in this X20 review, The G15 is still the better camera.
This has no relation to the classic Minox spy camera. They still make one that is digital and the 9.5mm films are still available. I have a pristine Minox B that I haven't used in years. I keep it around just because it is fun to look at.
The DCC Minox is a continuation of their miniature Leica 'look a like' line that they have been making for several years. Thus it has a " film advance" and a "film rewind knob". It is a cute high quality novelty camera, but that is all.If you are into "mine is smaller than yours" then you'd love to have one. But it is no competition for most of the less expensive pocketables with more features.
Scottish Kev: Forgive me if this has already been covered but I spent a long time looking for a backpack that would carry camera gear and hiking gear, as when you are out in the wilds you dont have "just" your camera gear and then wear everything else. This bag like many out there only does camera gear.
Why dont more bag manufacturers actually design bags to carry camera gear and personal gear.
Oh and I did find a 1 or maybe 2 manufacturers who do what I think is a sensible back pack for hiking/carrying personal gear and I bought one but it was stupidly expensive (such is this camera/hobby/addiction ah well) but it does an awesome job!
The Tamrac Adventurer series does have the capability to carry camera equipment nicely nested plus an upper compartment for personal items. I have the Adventurer 9. There are also larger models.
I've had a Hadley Pro for several years. it still looks like new. It is the only bag Iuse when traveling because it is so protective of my equipment. Admittedly,it is bulky for walking around and I always pack a more compact messenger type bag in the luggage for that purpose. Hadley products are expensive, but you get what you pay for. As for the leather straps and trim, unless you are standing in a hot shower with it, it is no problem. In an average rain, the water rolls off, but I admit that I am not fond of standing in the rain and look for shelter. So, it is not a good product if you a duck. But for photographers, it is fine.
Re.: Fresh paint on obsolete targets.Bureaucracy, like nature, has certain immutable rules. One of those rules is that a bureaucracy, once created, can never be destroyed. Another rule is that a bureaucracy's budget, one created can be increased, but never be diminished.
As a result, there is, no doubt, a federal "Department of Resolution Test Chart Maintenance" which dutifully fulfills its destined mission and regularly repaintsand/or refurbishes these targets. It is, no doubt, manned and/or womaned by dedicated servants of the citizenry numbering in the hundreds to carry out its mission and its destiny. Said task force, speculatively, is primarily charged with records keeping, producing and updating mil specs for the specific paint required together with one painter and staff.
4/3's and MTF was, until this year always a step or two behind the FF and APS format cameras until the advent of the OM-D. AS far as I can determine, the OM-D is a match for any APS cameras on the market in terms of resolution and IQ. The full frame newer offerings remain the benchmark, but I wonder how long it will be before 4/3's catches up to FF. I'll admit that it doesn't seem logical, but larger sensor area just doesn't seem to tell the whole story. It would be a terrible shame if Olympus, having made such a big product breakthrough,were to go under. Perhaps they will get a white knight like Pentax so that their product line will continue to advance.
Before we can make a judgement about this lens, it would be useful to have a head to head comparison with the Panasonic Lumix 20mm /1.7. I have the Lumix and have found it a wonderful little lens with few faults aside from it's plastic lens barrel. I bought it for my GF1 and kept it when I bought my Olympus OM-D. But is it worth it to buy the Zuiko 1.8 instead of the Panny?
I would think that it is a question worth pondering and can only be answered by an objective comparison.