Before one jumps into conclusion "shaken pictures" are due to "shutter shock" one needs to rule out possibility it is due to 5-axis IS system.
I have EP2 and EP3 and have had EM5. I have not conducted scientific side by side testing but my impression has always been that with EM5 I get "shaky pictures" at shutter speeds that I had no blurriness at with EP2 and EP3.
Lies, damn lies, and camera tests, it's so easy to end up seeing only what one wants to see or what others end up making you see. It is impossible to judge camera through single set of studio shots so I prefer to test myself in real world. Below is P7700 vs. G15 side-by-side (Nikon on left), first upper right corner and then lower right corner, shot at practical infinity. Make sure you see them at full size, remember DPR reduces quality of uploaded images, and form your own conclusions.
Also, people like to parrot that G15 has faster lens. Yeah, that is true. But in side-by-side shooting I have been getting more sharp keepers at same focal length from Nikon's slower lens than I was from Canon. I was even getting more sharp keepers from Nikon at 200mm F4 than I was from Canon full tele at 2.8, that's how good VR on P7700 vs. IS on G15 was working for me.
ZoranC: No mention of lens misalignment issues some people are reporting? No mention of color shift some people are reporting?
@TJGKG: "I have had the camera since it was first released and have not experienced either of these issues. It is idiotic to bring up issues which are not encountered or include gossip."
Educate yourself before speaking. Read review by Imaging Resource and read posts on Luminous Landscape, Fred Miranda, GetDPI, etc. All done by competent and reputable people (I don't know do you even know how to test your camera beside turning it on but I sure do know that Imaging Resource reviewer knows his stuff).
Then you will realize those issues have been encountered, thus are not gossip, and only one that ended up idiotic here is you by speaking out of your ...
@tbcass: ... and you, ffor some reason, seem to be on crusade to dismiss and downplay anything that is not in fanboi drumbeat, even if it is reported by number of people much more competent and knowledgable and open minded than you, including Imaging Resource in their extremely thorough review (definitely much more thorough one than DPR posted here).
Have you even checked for color shift? Do you even know how to recognize it or test for it?
Like I said to you before, you are doing disservice to community and possible future owners through your attitude in posts on this subject.
@R Butler: Have you looked for them (you tested for them and you haven't seen them) or you just haven't noticed any in shots taken so far without actually testing and looking for them? Asking because color shift can be very hard to notice.
No mention of lens misalignment issues some people are reporting? No mention of color shift some people are reporting?
So they made it bigger than old one and more expensive than old one.
Works for me as that makes old one even better deal and I am selling mine.
Way Adobe pulled this one off sucks big time in my book.
During (pre)Xmas sales they were dumping LR 3 for $149. Now full version is $149 and upgrade is $79 which means those that gave money to Adobe early are milked by Adobe out of an extra $79 over those that didn't give them money.
Don't tell me Adobe management didn't plan this, that they didn't know what their LR4 pricing strategy will be, when LR3 sales started few months ago, so this leaves a stench of yet another greed driven manipulation by Adobe.
If Adobe had any respect for their existing customers they would offer free upgrade to anyone that bought LR starting in November of 2011.
Otherwise they shouldn't be surprised when customers start looking for ways to not give them any sales in the future, or to delay purchasing of Adobe products for as long as possible.
I know I will be one of them as I firmly believe any greedy company deserves strong lesson in how to be humble and not spit in the face of hand that feeds you.
Tell Fuji I will believe it when I see it. Until then it is all just words.
C'mon guys, all these statements and analysis and nobody seems to care that exposure didn't seem same and that DOF was not same?
Now that Fuji has shown to us how "seriously" they took $600 X10 development, X10 testing, and X10 customers, as if issues with $1100 X100 were not enough of an indicator, anybody still willing to spend $2300+ on Fuji X-Pro1?
If they say "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" what they would say for "fool me three times"?
Whether price is reasonable or unreasonable solely depends on performance some camera delivers (unless you are fanboi/fashionista).
As we have not seen any results yet that are worth hanging one's coat on it is premature to make any comment on price.
One thing can be said though: At that price image quality _and_ build of camera (as in reliability, lack of issues, etc) better be on at least same if not better level as best DSLR's out there or otherwise Fuji will end up wondering is there enough rich among fanbois/fashionistas to sustain profits.
ZoranC: IMHO with X100 and X10 Fuji has been overpromising and underdelivering while justifying their appetite for extreme pricing not with quality of result but with fancy brochures and other PR materials. If, as they say, history is any indicator of the future, what are the chances this new X from Fuji will follow that pattern?
For now I am passing. For $3K X-Pro 1 and two lens cost one can get new D700 and two lens.
@ Asylum Photo "(X100) It's hands down a high quality camera." You call camera where number of users are reporting problem with sticky aperture blades a high quality camera?! Please.
@faintandfuzzy: Sorry I was not phrasing myself. I should have said "in $3K range" to avoid nitpickers that have reputation of being Fuji fanbois. Regardless, even for $900 more D700 is still a bargain compared to X-Pro 1. First one is dependable worlkhorse that just keeps delivering incredible performance. Later one is trailing on Fuji's track record of X10 and X100 and if those are any indicator what is in store future is not bright for Fuji fanbois. Just look at samples Fuji posted. They are clear as a mud.
IMHO with X100 and X10 Fuji has been overpromising and underdelivering while justifying their appetite for extreme pricing not with quality of result but with fancy brochures and other PR materials. If, as they say, history is any indicator of the future, what are the chances this new X from Fuji will follow that pattern?
ZoranC: As I look at results of cherry picked copy following questions are crossing my mind:
1. Was final, best, copy cherry picked with assistance from Canon or it was from same supply channel us mere mortals get our copies through?
2. Should reviewers post reviews based on best copy one can get or based on average copy one usually gets? I believe it should be later because results should represent typical result buyers will be getting. Otherwise review is misleading potential buyers into thinking they too will get so good results when they might not.
3. Are all other cameras DPR reviews cherry picked? If not why DPR is posting result from best copy of S100 against random copies of S95 etc? Playing field should be level and if it wasn't how we can know S95 wouldn't have topped S100?
4. Took 5 copies to get one that performs as it should?! WOW! What that tells us? That DPR "just" had bad luck with 4 or that majority of S100's will behave worse than product manufactured properly should?
To Paul Rivers:
Re "How would one go about getting the average copy?", very simple: Don't go looking for cherry picked copy. Instead get 3 random copies from 3 different random consumer outlets. Test all 3 and present result that is from neither best nor worst copy but from "average" copy, while providing link for consumers to look at other two if they want to.
Re "Frankly, you used the term "level playing field", and one has to ask - how do you get a level playing field? If you choose the best sample for all camera reviews, that is "level".", no, best from each is neither fair nor level to consumers. Random copy from S90, S95, LX5 etc (I still didn't hear answer from DPR did they cherry picked them too, until then I will assume they haven't) is not level and fair either.
Re "The fundamental problem from their testing is that there isn't really "good copies and bad copies".", as an engineer I find that nonsense.
To MGJA: Regarding "So basically they had Canon send them a perfect sample. Now, before we all start wailing, I think most of the cameras they review are manufacturer samples sent out especially for reviewing purposes, often way before they're available through normal channels. Rather goes with the territory."
No, it doesn't go with the territory. If that is what is going on then reviews have question mark over them, there is zero value to consumer in review of sample that those consumers are not likely to get. Years ago there was an uproar in computer hardware communities over reviews done with "golden samples" / cherry picked samples because consumers felt deceived into making purchase decisions based on results that they would never get from their copies. I don't see why it should be any different here.
I have read your review and article. I do not remember seeing anything that would directly answer my questions. Maybe I just missed them or couldn't remember seeing them. As one that is more familiar with this review could you please point to me where exactly those answers would be or briefly answer them directly? Thank you in advance!
5. When S90 came out number of owners complained about optical misalignment. IIRC there was no mention of that in DPR's review. IIRC same for S95. So if my memory serves me well how come attention is all of the sudden paid to S100?
As I look at results of cherry picked copy following questions are crossing my mind:
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review