Retired Navy officer, bubblehead (submariner)
kobiluba: Very nice. I mostly like # 9What camera and what lence(s) do you use here ?
All the best
He started out using Pentax and now uses a Nikon D800 and Nikkor lenses. It's on his website.
Franz Weber: Why does nobody make a 12-50mm 2.8-4.0 lens?
Well there is the Oly 12-40mm 2.8 and mine is superb. I'd like a tad more length on the long end, but sure like the constant aperture.
rick decker: Most of the mountain shots have halos or other digital artifacts from over-sharpening. This does not look like a very good camera for landscapes.
Take a look at the mountain shot with the D750 in its sample gallery. In addition to what you guys are calling "gritty sky noise" there's also an oil or dust spot on the image. I'm not trying to stir anything up, rather I think it's silly that you guys are so quick to jump on a camera without even seeing the real test results. I have yet to see a camera that produces completely flawless images - except maybe that new Pentax medium format job that I can't afford. These images are so much better than film ever thought about being. Ease up.
G3User: Number 14 is a Photoshop fail! How can water just bend like that when coming out of the bucket? Another example of the how the judges have no idea what they are doing. Oh, that's right, this is Sony, I should have known. The death of true photography continues.
The water isn't bending (water doesn't "bend"). There is nothing unusual about that picture other than its comic value. Water is composed of water molecules, and in liquid form each molecule acts independently with some interaction due to surface tension, etc. Each undergoes accelerations and has its own trajectory. I have seen much more odd looking plumes than that (I'm an ocean engineer and see weird stuff all the time related to water).
I agree with kev777zero. Gosh the forum has gotten so techno-babble cynical about everything. This camera has the potential (emphasis on potential) to have DSLR IQ in a small, light package with an f2 pancake lens. So if you're stepping up from a P&S and don't want the bloated hardware a DSLR entails, this looks appealing. Throw in that it's compatible with some very good EOS lenses and it has potential. I'm not a mirrorless guy (like OVFs) but if I was in the market for one I'd certainly consider this. I'll bet it sells well contrary to all the marketing genius opinions. If it's IQ is good and there are no weird, dysfunctional issues, what's not to like?
wkay: whoopee, mediocre IQ, poor contrast, hi CA, and soft corners.
I don't like plasticky, cheap cameras. That said, and contrary to what photo nuts posted, I think the high iso quality is exceptional for a camera at this price. If you're a photographer younger than 30 years old, you can't possibly understand how much better even the lowliest DSLR today is compared to the best 35mm cameras of only 10 years or so ago. I remember arguments back then about how long it would take digital to equal film. That was rubbish. As soon as the D2X, 1DS and later models came out it was game over. Add to that the HUGE advantages in modern digital workflow over film and it's ludicrous that we (me included) are so critical of some digital models today. I mean come on, ISO 12,800!! I remember when ASA 800 film didn't look that good. I wouldn't trade any film camera today (and I still own an F4, FM2 and Leica M6) for even my Canon G12. We're so lucky and so spoiled. I can't wait to see what comes out in another 10 years (if I'm not broke from buying new toys).