AllOtherNamesTaken: According to Lenstip, the Tamron 15-30 is sharper, 1/3 the price, is stabilized, and has 5 times the warranty:
"When it comes to the duel with the Canon EF 16–35 mm f/2.8L USM II the Tamron wins hands down. The Canon was able to compete successfully only in the frame centre, on the edge of the frame it was definitely worse. Still it is possible to use filters with it, a quite important asset in this class of parameters.
To sum up the boasting of Tamron about the superior quality of their new lens proved to be true. The company managed to present a device which compares favourably with its rivals, is cheaper, has optical stabilization and a 5-year warranty period – it would be difficult not to recommend it. Independent producers have been proving for some time that they are no longer specializing in cheap equivalents of brand name lenses. The Tamron 15-30 mm is an excellent example of that strategy."
You give up 4mm, but you gain alot
Curious to see some more reviews down the road.
Posted in the wrong area by mistake, the personal attacks were very unnecessary. My apologies for the confusion.
According to Lenstip, the Tamron 15-30 is sharper, 1/3 the price, is stabilized, and has 5 times the warranty:
s_grins: WOW!the review came out really fast.
@ String - Obviously, what you say is true, but not only were the reviews not out when it mattered, but for the sake of completeness and comparisons, as well as very likely their click revenue, it would be better to have those reviews than not. They are the first google hit when you type "X camera review" into google - why wouldn't they want traffic from the Nkon/Canon Flagships? Why bother review anything at all then if eventually it won't affect people's purchase decisions? Imagine the time and effort they could save. I can understand not every P&S being reviewed and whatnot, but leaving out the flagships from the 2 biggest brands in the camera companies in the world is a glaring omission IMHO.
Interesting that they still haven't reviewed the Nikon/Canon flagships.
They finally added a chest strap and the AW cover to one of their best bags, good job Lowepro.
Took too long though, I have since moved to F-STOP and have seen the light. No other bag even comes close. Also, they don't look like camera bags and the entry port is against your back so theft is not really possible.
AllOtherNamesTaken: $400 for 1/2.3" sensor? No thanks.
You could buy a Nikon 1-series and Lightroom 5 for $150 not long ago haha. Who in their right mind is spending $400 on these cameras?
Here is the review, which is on the first page of Google after an "Olympus XZ10 review" search, so either you are lying about trying to find it, or I am certainly questioning your competence.
Obviously it is a link to a JPEG. I am surprised you do not know that a RAW file simply saved as a JPEG without any processing whatsoever is the only way to display such a file on the web, and is still representative of it's output. That is how DPreview shows it's RAW comparisons as well. Even the ISO 100 samples are very soft with visible noise.
I am done arguing with you over whether or not the 1/2.3" sensor in the XZ10 is so amazing, since you are the only one who thinks it is, and are blind to both physics and fact. You also refuse to post objective evidence of the 1/2.3" sensor being so amazing. There is a reason the RX100 series is probably the single most popular DSLR backup camera, and not 1/2.3" sensor cameras.
Also, in this easily found English review of the XZ 10, here is what they had to say about the amazing sensor and it's ISO capabilities as well as the lens:
"For a 1/2.3-inch sensor size the XZ-10 does a good job, but in the same breath it doesn't get us super excited either. Shots aren't the best going, but they do the job - it's the appeal of the wide aperture controls that goes some way to keeping shots at their best, particularly at the lower ISO settings."
"But for all its good, it's the pictures that lack that extra buff of polish. Some shots we took were great, while others were a little soft - as the lens seems to introduces optical issues - and the standard sensor size can't quite match up to its larger rivals."
And here is a 100% RAW crop at ISO 1600 which by today's ISO standards looks horrible:http://www.pocket-lint.com/assets/images/phpu9o9vy.jpg
If you think that 1/2.3" sensor is amazing, then keep enjoying it :). Everyone else with a definition of "amazing" set at a much higher (and easily achievable) level will continue avoiding grossly overpriced 1/2.3" sensor cameras. I have seen ISO 1600 RAW output from the very best 1/2.3" sensors including the XZ10 and it is anything but amazing compared to larger sensors, so please do not tell me what I have and have not seen.
Also, RAW is not always truly RAW, as many companies still bake NR into their RAW files, especially in small sensor P&S cameras where noise is such an issue anywhere beyond base ISO.
Create an objective RAW comparison of your own to show us all how Olympus has managed to defy the laws of physics and create a 1/2.3" sensor that "shames" or even comes close to the 1" Sony sensors. Since you are likely the only one who believes that, I'm sure there would be many people who would like to see the results.
It sounds like you're talking more about the lenses. The 1" sensor in the RX 100 II will absolutely embarrass any 1/2.3" sensor at any ISO. Again, no offense intended whatsoever, but if you are happy with 1/2.3" sensor output at 1600 ISO, our standards are very different. Those senors start showing visible noise beyond ISO 160-200 or so in RAW, and the JPEG engine already starts removing detail with NR at extremely low ISO's. It's simply physics taking over, not a put-down to Olympus or anyone else. I would bet the 1" Sony sensor looks better at ISO 1600 than any 1/2.3" sensor looks at even ISO 400. Even my 1/1.7" sensor cameras REALLY started to fall off around ISO 200-400, requiring heavy NR for a clean shot.
One reason why fast lenses are so important on 1/2.3" sensor P&S cameras is because their sensor performance is so poor, you need to keep ISO as low as possible at all times. Thankfully the small sensor also ensures most everything is in focus even at small apertures.
With all due respect, we must have very different definitions of "excellent" as I have never seen what I would call 'excellent' output from a 1/2.3" sensor. Do you have a link to these objective tests where it shamed the 1" sensor in the Sony RX II?
$400 for 1/2.3" sensor? No thanks.
Paul B Jones: Good questions and honest straightforward answers. Lots of peculiar comments though. Why the personal animosity? Did Canon hurt peoples' feelings somehow? And why the assertions that Canon knows nothing about markets and marketing when year after year after year it is number one in camera sales? All very peculiar.
"If another company made a sensor that we believed to be truly the best quality, we would not hesitate to use it."
"If another company made a sensor that we believed to be truly the best quality, we would not hesitate to use it." Right.....
Canon offered a maximum pixel count of ~22MP for seven years before the launch of the EOS 5DS and 5DS R. Why did it take that long to increase resolution?
"I wasn't actually aware that it had been seven years!"
"Looking at all of the mirrorless cameras out there, there’s nothing that really frightens us. "
No wonder they are so behind with their sensors and mirrorless offerings. Those are some rather concerning comments. They are in their own little world thinking they are the best at everything with no competition.
AllOtherNamesTaken: DPR's interview with Canon says the DR is the same as 5DM3. Sorry folks.
Max native ISO 64005 Fps, no mention of crop mode FPS increase1/200 flash sync1080/30P max
Skip to 1:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=99NUDmVYwDM
Frame rate does not increase with crop modes.
Appears to be the same or worse as a 5DM3 in most ways except megapixels. Very disappointing, and sadly not surprising. D810 appears to be better choice in every singe way, including cost,l except all out megapixels.
DPR's interview with Canon says the DR is the same as 5DM3. Sorry folks.
So where is Canon's service advisory?
mironv: What a waste of R&D founds if they worked at competing FP lens to Canon DO why o why they bring 300mm not 400mmf4 FP lens
30% shorter, 42% lighter, how is that not desirable? Hell, it went from requiring a tripod collar to not needing one at all and extremely hand holdable. Imagine how much more easily this can be used at zoos or events than the outgoing 300/4 which required excellent support or very fast shutter speeds. This is a very welcome size/weight reduction. The price is *extremely* reasonable as well, all things considered - many were expecting $2500.
Canon's 400/4 DO is $6,500 and weighs four times as much. VERY few people would be interested in that compared to an ultra light/compact $1,999 300/4 VR that countless people have been asking for for years and years now.
30% smaller and 1.5 lbs lighter than the outgoing model, and the worlds lights 300mm F4 prime is hardly a "waste of R&D". It's something that has far exceeded most people's expectations.
Nikon is going to sell truckloads of these.
Pretty crazy that the 5DM3 is still priced anywhere near $3,000. You'd have to be out of your mind to pay that in this environment unless you absolutely needed one for a job or something.
AllOtherNamesTaken: How is "No AF-point linked spot metering" not a Con when the competition has had that feature for at least a decade, even on $400 bodies, yet something extremely subjective such as not having a touch screen listed as a Con? Glaring omissions like this in reviews really make me question the quality of DPR's reviews sometimes.
Thanks Rishi, keep up the good work.