Peter Bendheim: Well, it's exactly the same sensor as the OMD series, so is DPR saying that all those products are now dated too?
It's not the same sensor as OM-D cameras. Even OM-Ds don't share the same sensor, as E-M1 has different sensor from the rest.
Not surprised to see poor performance on wide end. But I am surprised how well it handles harsh backlight and flares. This is where my Olympus kits fall apart completely. And this Tamron seems to correct for chromatic aberrations pretty well, too. I'd say it looks decent for a super zoom, too bad about the wide end.
But at $600? I think I'd rather shell out another $200 and get Panasonic FZ1000.
TheEulerID: It's simply untrue that FF focal lengths aren't useful on APS-C. Firstly, the so called "classic" focal lengths are semi-arbitrary anyway. OK, a standard lens might approximate to a human field of view, but mostly it's a bit arbitrary. After all, who uses zooms only at what are recognised as "classic" prime focal lengths.
A 50mm lens still makes a decent portrait lens on an APS-C for instance. I you want a slight flatter perspective on the face, stand back a little and crop. (Perspective is defined only by camera/subject distance).
A 35mm prime provides for a useful WA on APS-C. A 70-200mm f2.8 works very well on an APS-C in my experience.
Yes, might want some special APS-C lenses (especially at the wide end), but only 2 of my 9 lenses are APS-C specific. Those APS-C lenses are still useful on FF when you want something more compact to carry as you can always work in crop mode.
Oh man, you clearly didn't get the main point of the article. What's more, you supply even more examples supporting the opinion from the article.
50mm is not a portrait lens per se. It might be on APS-C, but not on FF. It's a 'standard' focal length that mimics the way we see the world (field of view similar to human's eye). Mount that on APS-C, and that is no longer true. While it can be useful on both systems, it will serve different purpose depending on the camera you mount it on. If you shoot portraits with your 50 mm prime on APS-C and switch to FF, you may suddenly find your portraits are 'off'.
Same with 35mm. That is not a WA lens on APS-C, by any stretch of imagination and cannot be used as such.
And the 70-200, being useful on APS-C, sure, it may suit you (you probably got used to it). But have you tried shooting it on FF camera? The difference on the tele end is quite significant (especially on Canon).
On the right image, it looks like little amoebas, you can even see a trail as it moved :)
bluevellet: Assuming the tech works and the rumor is true, this could have some neat applications for photography with non moving subjects. I can already see a few things I could do with it.
I assume this is JPEG only, but if they can somehow produce raw files out of this, this makes it even more useful.
One thing is for sure, this feature allows you to shoot 40mp without needing a super sharp lens.
I don't think it works like that. As Samuel wrote, the image projected by the lens is the same no matter what you use to capture it.
I see no reason why they could not output that in RAW. Nikon and Canon have those sRAW thingies, that aren't really raw RAWs, so that would be similar. However, if it's gonna be only for JPEGs, that would be a major bummer.
Why do you think you won't be needing a sharp lens? If your lens can't deliver 40 mpx bayer equivalent resolution, than you won't be having that with sensor shift trick.
Bram de Mooij: I own this camera for while now and I agree with almost all of the conclusions in this review. I do not care about the seperate flash, since I almost never use flash. I like the camera very much although at this moment I have no possibility other then rawtherapee to process raw files on a computer. I have noticed the distortion of uncorrected wide angle raw files is severe and am a bit surprised that this seem to have little effect on corner image quality or did I miss that ?A viewfinder on a camera is essential to me (for that reason I do not like my GM1 as much as I expected). The quality of the LX100 viewfinder is not that great. As I wear glasses I keep on fiddling with that correction wheel. I do not seem to get that right. I will do some experimentation with the contrast and color settings of the VF now. Thanks for that advice.
Sure, but correcting distortion in post processing does impact image quality.
Nothing to rave about, just a normal evolution of the technology.
With integrated signal processing, NR, HDR and nice video capabilities, this is probably gonna be a hit for smartphones.
And once competent phase detection AF becomes standard in smarphones, it better be a standard in mirrorless by that time. I'm looking at you Olympus, the E-M5 successor better have one of those nice AF systems on board.
RichRMA: I don't know. The Olympus E-M10 is cheaper and IMO, a better camera. A used Olympus E-M5 body is only about $500.00. Unless each last mm reduction in size is vitally important, it seems on the high side for nearly $900.00.
But that aside, the GM series is all about size and compromises are unavoidable. It's not really a competitor to E-M10.
Fortunately, the EVF in E-M10 is well designed and protrudes quite a bit from the back of the camera. It is much, much more comfortable to see through than an optical viewfinder in any consumer grade DSLR I ever used. And I wear glasses and have quite a big nose myself :)
Haha, lots of vitriol and judgment coming from people that haven't even seen the guide and, judging by the comments, are not equipped with enough knowledge or experience to properly ascertain its value.
I must say I liked the preview. Seems to cover wide variety of topics, and not only technical stuff. If it keeps reasonable pace for those 6 hrs, that should be very informative. And it looks like it's produced very well.
But having said that, how is that news? :)
Edit: On second thought, I would not mind the occasional "news" on photography related stuff like books, albums and such.
tom1234567: This information is free online you DON'T have to spend $97just search google
You know, for most adults with work and responsibilities, time is money. So this $97 or whatever is a very simple economic calculation.
I'm pretty fond of my old LX5, despite some of its annoyances. Looks like LX100 could be the a nice replacement. And I could use a fast wide angle lens coupled with a decent sensor, for sure.
naththo: Its clear that this Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 is the best quality in lens I can see in the sample. I can't understand why Canon shows it poorly since they make decent lens? Wonder why? Hrm?
I would not judge lens quality based on those test shots. Those are zoom lenses, the performance varies at different focal lengths and apertures. Some cameras might perform better on wide end than others, while at the tele end, the situation might be reversed.
Sdaniella: most small sensor systems lenses have considerable lens aberration correction, especially if going very wide fov, so it starts to get harder to tell how much of the distortion is from variation in optics, or from the standardized correction of those expected distortions as designed.
the Canon G7X RAW (seen shown elsewhere, shared on DPR, from a French test comparison webdite, forgot which) at 24mm eq, looks extremely distorted, its a wonder how it can possibly be corrected fully 'rectilinear' in JPEGs without plenty of evident softness in the corners (and at the edges of the frame).
most of it, would not be of great concern, knowing such massive correction is going on, on corner details where most are likely to ignore, and not notice unless specifically looked for, or typically removed during 'creative cropping' for final work presentation.
anyone choosing from compacts Canon S120 to Canon G7X will cheer 'yay'!
ditto: LX7 to LX100 (a bigger sensor size jump; yields bigger IQ gains)
Our opinions differ because you seem to cherry pick which pictures you are looking at, but whatever.
If you can properly evaluate performance of a zoom lens based on one shot at one specific focal length and one specific aperture value, then good for you. I like to evaluate that kind of stuff based on more data points. And while lab shots at IR give me more info, it's still not enough for full evaluation. But you just need one photo to know everything, that's some impressive extrapolation skill.
There's nothing left for me here than to wish you luck on your quest, whatever it is.
You're welcome :)
Aren't you just cherry-picking? I don't need to check my facts again, it's all there in the open, just look at RAW files. The facts are that at the wide end, the performance of G7X is poor. And the reasons for that are obvious (huge distortion and lens not covering the sensor).
And obviously, performance at different focal lengths will vary. G7X seems to be doing a pretty good job on the tele end, while on LX100 for example, it's a bit softer on the tele end than in the middle (again, something I would expect, since the sweet spot is usually in the middle of the zoom range).
And using DPR samples for evaluating lens performance is quite silly. Those comparisions are great for evaluating image quality from sensor performance point of view (noise, dynamic range, color rendition, etc.). And possibly they give you some idea for best case scenario for lens performance, but not much more.
I think Sdaniella is referring to test shots from imaging-resource. You can download both RAW and JPG for G7X and LX100 and compare yourself.
Both Lx100 and G7X have significant distortion at wide end. And frankly, that's pretty much what I would expect from a compact camera.
The difference is in the amount of that distortion. On G7X, the lens at the wide end does not even cover the whole sensor, and the distortion seems to be more pronounced. From the looks of it, correcting that not only requires "defishing", but also upscaling. I would expect the loss of resolution after such significant correction to be noticable. And the IQ in the corners is already not great even without software corrections.
Astrotripper: Looks promising. A bit mushy, which I guess is typical for in-camera jpegs. However, I'd say:- those look much better than jpegs from any of Samsung's mirrorless offerings (now, that is one lousy jpeg engine), including NX1- it seems to handle lens flare pretty well- CA must be pretty well controlled, since the in-camera corrections have left very little traces of it, no obvious purple fringing as well- a little bit of softness in the corners on the wide end (probably resulting from distortion corrections), totally expectable, still much better than some DSLR zooms- no extreme vignetting, but that's most likely corrected in software, so hard to tell how the lens perform in this regard- ISO 1600 looks to be perfectly usable
Can't wait for in-depth review. This looks like it may be a perfect walk-around camera for more advanced users.
You're probably right, it's hard to properly judge based on shots someone else did. Especially considering there are plenty of settings that can impact the end result (noise reduction, sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc.).
I'm generally OK with the jpeg quality on most cameras nowadays. I don't use them, as I mostly find them a bit on the heavy side of post-processing. I've singled out NX, because this is the only one that really puts me off. I know the NX cameras can deliver nice IQ when using RAW. But to me, the jpegs look like something that came out of a smartphone.
Looks promising. A bit mushy, which I guess is typical for in-camera jpegs. However, I'd say:- those look much better than jpegs from any of Samsung's mirrorless offerings (now, that is one lousy jpeg engine), including NX1- it seems to handle lens flare pretty well- CA must be pretty well controlled, since the in-camera corrections have left very little traces of it, no obvious purple fringing as well- a little bit of softness in the corners on the wide end (probably resulting from distortion corrections), totally expectable, still much better than some DSLR zooms- no extreme vignetting, but that's most likely corrected in software, so hard to tell how the lens perform in this regard- ISO 1600 looks to be perfectly usable
armandino: Canon M system:Camera + 22/2.0 $31111-22mm $40018-55mm $10922/2.0 $11955-250mm $400adapter for EF $100
The canon M is designed for basic functionality and unfortunately a non competitive focus speed. Yet you can buy a whole system for the price of a mid range mirrorless. If AF speed and EVF are not your concern this is an excellent proposition. It also underlines the most obvious of the issues with the hyped mirrorless systems: they are overpriced.
@Michael_13In case of MFT, inexpensive lenses are the exception. Despite being quite a mature system for it's age, the selection of good affordable lenses is abysmal. Sure, even the kit lenses are decent optically, but if you want something more, you need to shell out a lot of cash. Affordable constant aperture zoom? Forget it. Cheap nifty-fifty? Nope. Affordable UWA? In your dreams.
Not sure about other systems, Fuji is even more expensive I think. Maybe NX is more affordable, not sure.
Right now, if you want something cheap, you buy a DSLR. Most consumers look at price first. Hence most consumers choose DSLRs. Which means mirrorless does not get mainstream acceptance and mass market sales numbers. Which means it must be more expensive (it still bleeds money for most companies involved). And the circle closes.