2eyesee: "...an extra wide angle 4x zoom that starts at 21mm equivalent - a focal length Casio says is optimal for taking self-portraits."
darngooddesign: You've heard of this thing called a tripod, right? The point is that "selfie" is the current slang for "arm's length self-portrait", as opposed to the traditional self-portrait where you set the camera down somewhere and use the timer.
It should read "arm's length self-portraits".
When you evaluate a camera for gold awards and such, it makes sense to evaluate the body in isolation. But when you make a purchase recommendation for a system camera, shouldn't you also look at the available selection of lenses?
Felix E Klee: In a professional context, for example for fashion photography in a studio, what is the advantage of a medium format camera today?
Today's full frame sensors and optics provide more than enough resolution for even very large printed ads, and dynamic range there is plenty as well. Furthermore, in a studio environment, I expect lighting to be perfect and the pro photographer to frame close to the final result.
For landscape photography medium format is interesting, but that's not my question.
This is a bit old but more in line with my experience:
I would be genuinely curious to see your results.
Voyrie: Where is the Sony RX100?
I expect there will be an update to the "high end pocketable compacts" roundup soon:
John _ Finn: Seems very strange that the Sony RX100 is not included.
I expect they'll have an updated version of this soon:
GWYNOXY: It is a sad day when a genuine heavyweight of the photographic world is ridiculed for copying Sony. Savvy Sony does not enter into such relationships without getting something in return ... maybe DPReview should research this and at least mention it instead of inviting the scorn with the glaring references to the grips (this is not he first time, Senor Britton). Oly got a mention with the medical deal with Sony. Hasselblad should be celebrated ... yes the Steller line is is a questionable business tactic but Leica have been doing it for years with the Panasonic clones and emerges unscathed? Maybe the secret is to change the top plate also ... then we wouldn't notice it that much? If I had the money - I would buy the Hasselblad in a heartbeat. The Zeiss lens is more historically aligned with them anyway.
Leica's Panasonics have around a 30% markup. Once add up the cost of the bundled software (Lightroom), better materials, better quality control (hopefully), better support (for sure), the price is surprisingly reasonable. Leica probably gets a very good deal from Panasonic on the cameras, as Panasonic has benefited a lot from using Leica's brand in its lenses. Oh, and the Leica version comes out right after Panasonic's.
Hasselblad, on the other hand, asks for 300% markups on models that are more than one full product cycle behind...
photogeek: Does anyone actually use the "DOF preview button", especially on APS-C bodies with tiny viewfinders? Why is it even worth a mention? You can't tell the effect in the viewfinder anyway, not to the extent that you'd be able to tell how sharp the background would be.
AshMills: it does depend on what lenses you use. The matte screen is better for faster than f/2.8 (brighter, shows the true depth of field so than you compose and focus correctly), worse for slower than f/2.8 (darker). The standard microprisms screen is better for slower than f/2.8 (brighter, so you actually see...), worse for faster than f/2.8 (relatively darker, shows depth of field at f/2.8 rather than at the lens' max aperture so you don't see what background blurr you're going to get making it hard to judge composition). If you mostly only use f/2.8 zooms and fast primes, being able to change screen is a definite benefit.
photogeek: that's generally true, but not so much for some high end aps-c models like the 7D, which does have a decent magnification ratio, even after accounting for the crop.
You can reassign it to something you find useful.
Picturenaut: To all those referring to DxO's bad ranking of the 7DII: just watch Tony Northrop explaining clearly why the philosophy of DxO's ranking system doesn't give any useful information about cameras such as the 7D2. He shows why the 7D2 is a really great crop camera in particular for sports and wildlife stills & video shooters:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTuBr0W0Zhw&list=PLwIVS3_dKVpsjSZrQ7H-Nw8GQ7ZuDYyaD
Btw my local camera provider (a pro shop) told me recently that the 7D2 is flying off his shelves, in particular a lot of videographers buy it.
BTW: For the suitability of a sensor for a high-end sports camera you mostly need to look at SNR in the mid-ISO range (which has zero impact on dxomark's summary score). The 7D does well there.
Their measurement data (if you know how to interpret it) is reliable and very useful. Their summary scores are near meaningless.
Have you tried a blind test? Shoot three images with both the 645D at 75/2.8 ISO 200 and the 1DSII at 50/2.0 ISO 100, crop the 1DSII image to match framing, carefully normalize color and sharpening, print both same size, show the images side-by-side to a few people to see if they can tell you which is which. If you print at a very large size I expect they'll be able to see the difference in resolution (all the more because the 50L only is really sharp at f/2.8), but other than that I'd be surprised if anyone can reliably tell the difference.
ozturert: I'm impressed with the fact that there still exist people who say "I see no point in spending money on a MF camera which has a smaller sensor than real MFs. Real MFs have ... sensor".Go and buy whatever you like. Why whining here? Trying to prove something? This is the king of price/performance cameras with excellent body, DSLRlike ergonomics, good UI, state-of-the-art AF system and nice lenses (not the best, but still very good). If you like bigger sensors, go and buy a camera with a bigger sensor and use them.
Wide-angle is where you get meaningful size reduction in the lenses by designing for a smaller image circle. Normal to tele, it's not going to make much difference in the size of the lens, so they may as well design for the original 645 image circle (and they do).
Sandyramirez: the crop factor is .78, so the equivalent to your 75/2.8 in 35mm-format is 58/2.2. You'll get virtually the same angle of view and much more subject isolation with, say, the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 on a 35mm-format sensor (and it will be sharp at f/1.4). Even the Sigma 50/1.4A and the Canon 50/1.2L will give you sharp enough images with more isolation. The cheaper 50/1.4 lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sigma are not so sharp at f/1.4 but, if you're not looking for the highest resolution, they'll be more than good enough at f/2 and match your setup for a fraction of the cost. I envy you and do lust for a 645Z myself, but it's not for isolation (on that account my 5DIII and 50/1.2 go far beyond what I could get with the 645Z).
noirdesir: that's mostly wrong. The mount (and size of mirror box) are indeed designed for a larger image circle. Everything else is not: the mirror, the prism and viewfinder, even some of the new "digital" pentax MF lenses (the wide angle lenses) are all designed for this sensor size, and not any larger than they need to be.
sean lee: I can buy Nikon coolpix A or Ricoh GR about or less price at amazon.They have APS-C sensor.
Of course you can. But you won't have 24mm and, by the time you've cropped them to 100mm field of view you have a 1MP image at equivalent f/16. They're lovely cameras, but it makes no sense to think of them as alternatives to the g7x and rx100 - different cameras for different purposes, and likely different buyers.
AbrasiveReducer: Not sure I see the need if the filters are in brass mounts. Aluminum does jam but that's because it's not brass. Still, this seems like a good idea, and if it catches on all filters will soon have knurled rings.
Steephill: look up the manual for Canon's 50/1.2 or 16-35/2.8.
This idea that rotating zooms are better than pump zooms regarding dust is bizarre in its persistence. Unless the zoom is non-extending (which is not the case here), the mechanism is irrelevant: air needs to get in and out of the lens as it zoomed. Yes, all pump zooms are extending, but regarding dust the difference is not pump vs. rotating, it's extending vs. non-extending.
Johannes Zander: It's because they don't have the disciples like Leica.Who are willing to pay more for Panasionic electronics with a leica sticker.
Adding an example, if you don't already have Lightroom and are interested in buying it:(Leica D-Lux 109) / (Panasonic LX100 + Lightroom) = 1200 / (900 + 140) = 1.15.I'm kind of brand-phobic, and if I ever had a Leica I'd have to cover that red dot with black tape, but 15% markup is actually surprisingly reasonable.
...this almost makes Leica's markup seem reasonable for quality of materials, qc (hopefully), and the extra software. Come to think of it, maybe the whole Hasselblad fiasco was just a clever ploy by Leica to make their rebadged cameras look like a bargain...