I don't understand why XL doesn't work on all m43 mount cameras. Help me out here.
i grew up in Rochester and still live within 60 miles. These pictures capture the difficult light of an often cloudy place due to proximity to Lake Ontario. Sections of the downtown that Kodak is located are bleak. As for Leutenegger's photographs, I like them and that style; I know that they would be far more interesting seen printed even if only in the book size. I always thought Piet Mondrian's paintings were boring until I saw the actual paintings.
ccnell: Oly XZ-10 would fit in just as well as anybody else!
XZ-10 fast lens goes a long way in making up for the smaller sensor.
2001: When I bought my G9 it was the compact camera of choice., it could shoot raw, it had full manual controls and a magnesium aloy body. It was one of a few compacts a professional photographer considered. This was in 2007. For me this is where my interest in the G series ended, although still excellent cameras , compact iLCs with aps c sensors and interchangeable lenses and being able to use old Lieca , Contax and Angenieux lenses via adapter for the same price as G series camera ended my enchantment. I remember the outrage when the G7 didn't shoot raw. Given that the new bodies are plastic, the price is high and the sensors are small and they are made for professionals who are aware of all this, I wonder how they even sell at all. The blunders of the EOS M and now this ? Can't Cannon at least put an aps-c sensor to at least make it worth looking at ? Cannon has more than proven they make excellent ones. can't imagine buying this camera, I think others feel the same. 9 fps per second is nice but not enough of a rationale to get the camera. Is Cannon asleep? Is a stubborn moron in market research holding everyone hostage at Cannon ? Are they trying to lose a lot of money and reap the rewards of an obscure subsidy or stock option of some kind? I really can't account for any reasons Canon has for making an obsolanete camera and figure out why anyone would want to buy it? I remember when Canon made the best cameras on the market from the 1980's until now. Nikon and Sony are catching up and in some ways even surpassing Canon. Canon's response seems to be bending over backwards to fail. Hopefully Canon will wake up, otherwise the mid 2000's will be remembered as a once great maker a remembered fondly in spite of it's failures like a Voightlandänder and the German camera industry before they lost out to the Japanese in the early 70's
You can't make a APS-C camera this size with this small a lens. But, I agree. they could have a much larger sensor. The G1-X seemed to be a logical new path but focus was slow (so I hear).
Mike Ronesia: I have a feeling this lens will be very sharp at 1.2 and be priced to match.
For exposure and focal length - M43's 42.5 f1.2 = FF 85 f1.2 For DOF - M43's 42.5 f1.2 = FF 85 f2.4. Same settings gives same exp but shallower DOF with FF.
It's that simple... I think???
I for one like the deeper DOF, sure it takes more skill to get a good shot when you can't blur out everything else but in low light I can shoot wide open and have more DOF to work with. Bottom line is there are times when both can be used to your advantage and we all have to work within the limitations of the system we have.
85mm at f2.4 is a pretty limited depth of field on 1:35 format. (as is 42.5 at f1.2 with m43)
I like the blue one.
Digitall: Houston, we have a problem.
Will someone please enlighten me?
The significance of the medals worth the importance we want to give, but would like to understand the following situation:
Sony RX100 78% Overall score = Silver medal
Canon G15 76% Overall score = Gold medal
I would think the RX100 would be in the same class as the G1 X, not the G15.
Bob Meyer: Not enough information in this preview to help me decide whether I want one or not. While the enhanced control layout looks very nice, I'm OK with the GH2 layout. I don't think the extra size will be an issue (in spite of DPR's comparisons to the Sony SLT, the lack of a mirror box really makes the overall volume quite a bit less). I don't really need a weather proofed body, and I'm willing to trade the more rugged construction of the 3 for the lighter weight of the 2. Have to see just how much heavier it feels.
The important questions (for me) aren't answered: How much better, really, is the EVF? Is C-AF any better? Are card writes faster? They really need to be MUCH faster. Is the rear screen usable in bright sunlight? How much better is image quality?
For the price and weight trade off the GH3 will have to offer real advances in multiple performance areas to make me consider it, I'm afraid, especially since it appears to lose one of my favorite features, the multi-aspect sensor.
Looks like an incredible camera, but I agree. The loss of the multi-aspect sensor is a big loss.
DanK7: "So just how much of a threat does this represent for conventional compact cameras?" I am reminded of how the sales of wrist-watches has fallen, with fewer and fewer young people wearing them, perhaps in part due to mobile devices. On the one hand, it's nice to have a camera in your pocket at the ready; on the other, it's still a long way from replacing my DSLR.
It's hard to say tha point and shoots are threatened by a $700 camera (phone). This might change if it ever got subsidized by the phone companies as iphones/droids, etc do
fastlass: so you need a different lens to match the sensor and that's a minus, it doesn't sit well with dpreview. How could Nikon not get this criticism for the D3300? They could include a better lens, which is unlikely or they could use a better matched sensor - and sucks to be Nikon in this regard.
I doubt you guys could have imagined this problem when you started reviewing cameras back in the day, but they eyes of an entry level user haven't changed. It seems to me like the IQ for this class of camera far exceeds what's required for the target market. You end up sounding irrelevant when you're writing a review of a $700 camera that's meant to be read by people with $2000-camera taste. Luckily all those people, the world over, have gathered in your forums to enjoy one another's company.
Whenever I get into something new, I look to buy a little more than I need for the purpose of having 'room to grow'. The fact that this entry level camera has more (potential) IQ than a new consumer needs is a great thing. Rather than being a camera not worth investing in glass, it very much is. Lenses are the true investment; the consumer's next camera might be a hopefully upcoming D7100
As it gives the K-01 a ready lens collection, I thought that the choice by Pentax to use the K mount was somewhat brilliant. I hadn't considered the phase detect vs. contrast detect dilemma. I hope that they can improve their auto focus.
I would like to see pictures of it with the (optional) lens hood.
oluv: i am not too impressed with the samples. at 12mm the edges seem quite soft even stopped down to f/4.5doesn't look like a 1000€ lens to me :(
2.8 is 2.8. period. You can use faster shutter speed, no matter format size. Yes, you are right as far as depth of field... only.
Biowizard: It's coming soon ... heaven help us all ... the "mirrorless" iPhone with interchangeable lenses! But do we want it? NO!!!!!
There's a reason "DSLRs" work - and its no longer because the bodies were modified from film versions. Rather, it's why 35mm SLRs were SO much more successful in overall sales and market penetration than any other form of serious camera.
Yes, the 6x6 and 6x4.5 medium format Hasselblads, Mamiyas and Pentaxes gave even better resolution, depth of field control, and so on - but they were too "big" for most uses.
Yes, the 110 SLR (Pentax, remember it?) or even APS (where I have I heard that acronym of late?) SLRs appeared and then vanished like sparkle-dust: why? Too small. Too small to handle, too small to use, too small, period.
The 35mm is simply the "right" size to hold, adjust, plug things into, and shoot with.
So LONG LIVE the 35mm-sized DSLR! And away with these micro-sized system cameras. I already have an iPhone.
@howaboutRAW - I believe danijel973 meant APS film SLR cameras.
Gadgety: So the OM-D is tempting but I find the size and the packaging less impressive when compared to the several years old E-450 DSLR. The OM-D weighs 1g less and in terms of size little divides them: OM-D 122x89x43 mm vs E-450s 130x91x53 mm. And the E-450 has a built in pop-up flash. Of course the OM-D has several other features such as IBIS built in that take up space, but still, in retrospect I find the E-450 more impressive in terms of packaging. Olympus should have included a pop up flash in the OM-Ds body.
When looking at the whole package,the m43 lenses are much much smaller.
Oveerik: This is WAY better than SONY A77 which i sold as not usable over 1600 ISO. I rather have this as companion to D700 (later D800) than A77 with A900.
And - if I do not need 24mpx there is a possibility to shoot at lower resolution.
Rashkae - It's a $700 camera for people who want to learn more about photography. Lighten up.
photo nuts: Although this is about video, let me hazard a guess here: both Nikon D800 and Canon 5D3 end up with the same scores (> 85) in DPReview's final reviews. :)
I know the following article is widely quoted already but it really really makes a lot of sense:http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/hammerforum-com
I would totally use the D800 over the Canon 5D3 for framing a house, the 5D3 may be better with nails that have been sharpened after market though
tlinn: Folks can disagree about features and performance—what it should and should not be able to do. For me, this conversation cannot be divorced from price. At $500, this camera would be great. At $800, I think it offers such low value per dollar that I find it laughable. There are too many alternatives that offer more for less.
" but apart from price it doesn't do anything that well."
-The G1x looks to have really good high ISO performance in a pretty comptact package.