I like the fully articulated LCD on the old model much more as I do a lot of potrait orientated photos.I don't believe in a separate viewfinder I rarely use the built-in viewfinder of my G1x but then I need its there and it works okay in the rare situations I need it.Image quality of markII doesn't seem better than the G1x.I'm using a Canon macro filter to overcome the shortcomings in macro of my G1x and the results are excellent.I guess the markII is not for me would still like the improved speed though.
If you like to shoot in portrait format the new screen is a big disadvantage I will keep my old one no need to upgrade.
I do see quite a lot of stitching and blending errors. Nevertheless a great innovation!
And flash sync is?
A more relevant note:I don't see any real improvements between the 5 and 5s it's hard to see any real improvements at Apple lately, hope this chance soon.
Austrian money at Dpreview.
AV Janus: I must say i am surprised. They receive only 50% ??How much did they get on Getty?
one can read does have an advantage....read it again it's actually 90%on Getty you do get 20% for RF
ACDSee Pro rules!
No offence against Adobe ( I love their products too)
Rachotilko: I would like to ask the informed ones here (people with actual experience with different sensor formats):
Herr Schulz talks about different image characteristics of the bigger formats compared to the 35mm FF. I take his claim seriously - at least because there are some supporting comments in this discussion.
My question is: what is the primary cause of the difference in image characteristics ? Herr Schulz used an analogy: S is better than FF the same way as FF is better than small sensor compact. Which I think is completelly wrong: excessive noise of compacts is sufficiently demonstrable in common print sizes. But D800E is capable of taking high ISO shots without noticeable drop in IQ.
The only part that can bring about advantage in terms of IQ to "above FF" (such as S or MF) systems is *optics*. There simply are limits on what FF lens can do (in terms sharpness, distortions, CA, diffraction), that can be overcome only by means of the format enlargement.
Is this assertion right ?
It's different physics. The real difference between camera systems is actually sensor size NOT noise or resolution etc.Small sensor sizes has advantages and disadvantages.Big sensor sizes has advantages and disadvantages.So there is no better just different.Buy a cheap medium film camera and start photographing you will be amazed.I guess he is right the question only comes from photographers which has never used a medium format camera.
RStyga: I simply fail to see the advantages of this camera over a Pentax 645D. In terms of image quality, weather resistance, general built quality, handling and price, 645D is a no-brainer. Leica is for Leica users (or should I say rich followers and "successful" -financially-speaking- professionals).
I have the film 645 and probably will own a 645D and the end of the year. I love Pentax and probably will never buy a Leica S. But the Leica S is better the leaf shutter lenses at the 645 are a pain to use have only manual focus and manual cock and the choice is very limited (75mm is the widest, there is the 90mm from the 67 System and a 135mm..)
Well some people judge from the spec sheet and never had a real Leica in their hands. I was one of them till I actually photographed with one. Everything is so smooth it's a real joy to use it one can not imagine without actually using one. I stopped complaining and I'm sure one day I will own one.....
There was not much improvement from 4 to 5 (still worth the 29,- Dollar upgrade price). But there was certainly a lot improvement from 2 to 5. It's certainly worth the upgrade but they have special price offers from time to time I would wait for one.
Yes it's non-destructive. The Pro-Version is great IMHO it's much more stable than in past years. It's still by far the fastest image-browser I'm aware of. And it let you browse through your own file-system and still builds a database in the background, much better than in Aperture or Lightroom where you have a proprietary file-managment. You have all important developing possibilities and they are userfriendly and fast but for more advanced developing I use either Lightroom or Photoshop.Lightroom is more advanced with it's developing tools and the possibility of plug-ins are also an advantage.I use three image-browser in my workflow Photomechanic for keywording, Lightroom for more advanced developing and for the use of plugins. For all the rest I use ACDSee including it's database possibilities. It's worth a look and could use in conjunction with Lightroom in a more advanced image workflow.
unotisto: What's with copying Pentax all of a sudden?
Not sure if they invented it but Pentax had an Pancake at least 30years before Canon. And this Canon does look in many aspects similar to the Pentax design. Not a bad sign after all :-).
wow that Rebel-logo is ugly! I'm sure it's a great camera so don't be offended.
+1 for a Fuji X-S1 review! I personally think it's most interesting bridge at the moment!
I love the idea and I really appreciate the bravery of Leica but I won't buy it.
Funny how some Canon-Fanboys trying to find the needle in the haystack aka flaws. I'm a Canon-user myself and all I can say that I'm just jealous this should have been the new MarkIII and not the sham package Canon tries to sell us. No way I will switch to Nikon with all my Canon lenses and flashes etc. but.....
the 5ds used to be a bomb, really this isn't a bomb it offers a little more after a long wait for an obviously hefty price increase :-(