ulfie: Why not just get a ZM 50/2 w/ E-mount adapter? Save money and get basically the same thing as the Loxia.
I figure that for some (or maybe many) people, it is an attractive proposition to have focal length and aperture settings in their EXIF data. A ZM 50/2 w/ E-mount adapter doesn't give you that.
qwertyasdf: The issue is...not about the absolute size of the sensor.it's the fact that it's called a 645, but without a 645 sensor.
It's like naming a 8-cylinder engine Model V12.
@Greg: Almost. A better comparison would be BMW with their model 528i which has been around forever, at least in name. The original 528i had an injection engine with 2.8 l displacement (hence 28i after the 5), but today its engine has only a puny 1.997 l (61 cubic inches).
The parallels are really astounding IMO :)
peterpainter: Well, if I give up on having a car I might just be able to get this. Should I ...decisions, decisions....
If it were a real MF sensor (think Phase One IQ260) I would be sorely tempted to buy this thing without being able to afford it.
Thank you Pentax for releasing yet another half-arsed pseudo-MF :)
dpreview's test camera seems to have a quite noticeable centering defect: Imatest says that resolution in the left corners is around 33% better than in the right ones. (1200 vs 900 lw/ph, thereabouts.)
I'm not sure I would give a "Gold Award" for this level of QC.
"50 Mpixel CMOS sensor with almost twice the physical size of the largest 35 mm DSLR sensor."
On which planet are 1.67 "almost 2"?
Martin from Munich: sure a great high end sensor!hope the innovations will translate in the "mainstream" full frame and aps-c market for all of us to profit
of topic: I don´t believe in dxo mark test 100%
snr, tonal range or dynamic range for example!testet with the manufacturer´s iso and the real measured iso which is often on the nikon site less than on the canon site.
for example: ISO 1600 is on a nikon 1226 an on the canon 1400. Sure that canon has more noise with 1400 than at 1226.
If they would rely on the real measured iso(if possible?) - the ranking would be more realistic.
Sorry for the bad english! I did my best.Canon 5dm3 shooter with greetings from munich (bavaria)
>If they would rely on the real measured iso
What makes you believe they don't? All their charts indicate that they already do exactly what you are asking for.
kimsch: So you compare a $30.000 camera to a $2.500 camera and the most expensive is better - SHOCKING!
No, this has nothing to do with price. It just so happens that the D800 had outperformed any other camera at any price ever tested at DXO until now, including medium format cameras that cost even more than the RED.
Cinetics: Justin Jensen from Cinetics here. Just wanted to give a huge thank you to Mike for reviewing Axis360. He made some great photos and video with it, and the article looks to be way helpful for people wanting to learn more about it.
And thank you all for checking out our new product and for your comments. We'll do our best to answer any questions!
Two questions actually: First, I understand that I can do everything that I can do with a Gigapan Epic Pro when I purchase an Axis360 Plus Package, and in addition a second Controller and Axis360 Stepper, correct?
Second, what are the powering options? On Kickstarter there's only mention of a "long-lasting battery", but what type? I hope it's somewhat commoditized, because I would hate it if I were dependent on one sole supplier. It would mean that the gear becomes an expensive doorstop when that supplier goes belly up. A standard 4-pin Hirose connector (or indeed any connector) would or should be another powering option. So, what are the powering options?
Jim F: I'm trying to figure out what's the point of Roger disassembling this body? What's the objective here? Not being critical. Just curious.
Did you not take your dad's camera apart when you were a kid?
FrankGr: Has anyone made excellent quality, sharp, very large prints - up to 20x30 inches with the GX7 files? Is it possible with a small sensor ?
And does it have eyepiece diopter adjustment ?
High quality prints, I believe, are made at 300 dpi (dots per inch). This is why Nikon states that the maximum print size for their resolution flagship D800 is 24.5 x 16.4 inches, quite a bit smaller than what you request, and this is a camera with twice the resolution of what the GX7 delivers.
The GX7 is good for high quality prints up to 11.5x15.3 inches.
B E: Have not seen this one mentioned:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY
Thanks, I've been remembering that one, but didn't know how to find it :) Classic!
These pick-up lines are tantamount to slurring "heey gorgeous, wa-wanna have sex with me?" at a woman.
If she's halfway sane, she'll not even look where that noise came from, much less dignify that noise with a response. And two seconds later, she'll have forgotten that it happened.
The photography business is really in dire straits if there are discussions about how to come up with a witty retort.
I guess we have to be grateful that Sony pretends to be listening at last, but this update for the NEX-7 is disappointing nonetheless.
The bracketing is still useless because you can't combine it with delayed shutter or remote, so you can't use it with long exposure times on a tripod. Have these people never taken pictures themselves?
And why they didn't take the opportunity to let the user re-assign the movie button instead of merely disabling it?
I guess it would have been hard work. This update looks like a cheap and half-assed quick fix, the sort of thing that I'd come up with after one afternoon to pacify the customer "until the real thing comes along."
Having had to wait almost one year for this "update" doesn't elevate my opinion of Sony very much.
qwertyasdf: Marc Newson the second?
I don't think so. If Marc Newson's K-01 is dead in the water, then it's not because of its looks. I think it looks better than it works.
Technically it's an exceptionally stupid design, but I doubt that Mr Newson had any say in deciding upon its specifications.
fenceSitter: Next to Nikon's P7700 and Panasonic's FZ200, the G15 and SX50 HS don't look like winners to me.
iudex: I feel the P7700's disadvantage of having no OVF is far outweighed the advantages of having a fully articulated screen, a longer zoom range, and probably a better performing sensor (thanks to back-illumination). But that's just me.
DStudio: I don't understand where you get the idea that "the SX50 HS has a sensor which is twice as big."
According to Panasonic's and Canon's respective web sites, their size is identical, i.e. 1/2.3" in both cases.
Next to Nikon's P7700 and Panasonic's FZ200, the G15 and SX50 HS don't look like winners to me.
Beware, someone might steal half of your picture, upper half or lower half. You must add at least four more watermarks, to cover high heels, legs, boobs, and eyes.
Marty4650: Setting aside the merits or liabilities of the Q system.... is this an actual upgrade of the Q, or just a repackaging of the Q with a few very minor improvements added? (higher top shutter speed, optional viewfinder, optional remote control, AF assist lamp, etc.)
When you compare the specs of the two cameras it doesn't look like there is very much new here. I assume that the new lens and the new adapter will work with either camera, so why buy the new Q10 when the Q is selling for half it's price?
Quote Marty4650: "is this an actual upgrade of the Q, or just a repackaging of the Q with a few very minor improvements added?"
It's neither. It's a downgrade, which is not uncommon when companies realize that there's no market for their product in the price bracket they had envisioned.
An "upgraded" version is then released with a lower MSRP, and lower specs as well.
Did you not notice that Pentax doesn't harp on about the Q10's brilliantly made magnesium alloy body, like they did in their blurbs for the original Q?
That's because the Q10 doesn't have a magnesium alloy body at all. They ditched that concept.
Jefftan: I have no idea why they think $500 is a reasonable price for small sensorall these product have always been below $400
Right now with increasing competition and game changer RX100 they actually think they could increase the price by 25% is totally silly in my opinion
Market will teach them a lesson. Even at $400 whether they can compete with Olympus XZ-1, Canon S100 and LX5 is uncertain
They really overestimate themselves by the success of Galaxy phone but this is camera which they have always been the underdog
I think the simple answer is: they think $500 is a reasonable price for small sensor because they weren't privy to everyone else's product pipelines.
Apart from that, even the predecessor EX1/TL500 is a fantastic little camera with very, very, very good image quality (if you stay at base ISO, that is).
The "game changer" RX100 has neither an articulated screen, nor can it be operated via IR remote. For some people these are essential features, so they'll be better off with a camera like the Samsung.
Horses for courses.