 |
Gesture
Lives in
United States
Joined on
Jun 21, 2009
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Thanks.
Looks like a nice cameras. Just think Body Only should be somewhere around $300. We are well past development costs on this format and, wow, no cost for mirror, optical viewing, etc.
Mescalamba: I would only add, that Sony ZA 24-70/2.8 SSM dont have stabilisation for simple reason that Sony system doesnt need it. Should be noted there that all Sony dSLTs and dSLRs have built in stabilisation system, so every lens on it is stabilised (as long as camera knows there is lens on it and it has proper focal length in chip coded).
So simple "No (stabilisation in camera body)" would suffice.
Then why aren't the Sony or Pentax mount lenses less costly. Why not put OIS in the lens and the user can choose to turn off in-camera shake reduction.
rfsIII: It's a quality revolution. First there were the Sigma 35 and 50 1.4s, and now this.
Do any of you experts know what has changed in either the lens industry that is allowing these second-tier companies to suddenly come out with lenses that equal or beat the big two?
I know that there is a lot of cross pollination and that the second-tier firms make components and sometimes whole lenses for Canon, Nikon, and the rest, but there seems to be a shift in what has always been a very "cooperative" industry. In years past I don't think that Canikon would have allowed their subcontractors to make lenses that directly competed with their bread and butter products.
Has something changed in the industry culture? Are we seeing a new breed of corporate executive who rejects the collusive practices of times past? Are new design algorithms or computer programs making this possible?
Or have Sigma and Tamron just kicked their optical engineers into high gear?
Interesting comments. I think part is the recognition that one must compete at the high end, higher value, more profit product. Those buying a camera with kit lens, will likely do fine and not look elsewhere than what comes with the Canon, Nikon, Sony, maybe, Pentax DSLR.
Photoshop Elements used to have a neat trick. You could open JPEG files in Camera Raw mode and it was possible to recover some highlights.
Gesture: What's the equivalent in the Canon or Sony lineup?
Thanks.
What's the equivalent in the Canon or Sony lineup?
marike6: DPR writes: "Users wanting to shoot primarily in live view mode will have to settle for slower autofocus performance than they'd get from nearly any mirrorless camera."
It's a DSLR with an OVF. Why would a still shooter want to shoot primarily in live view mode? Unless you are leveraging the articulated LCD shooting low to the ground or overhead, if you are shooting "primarily in live view mode" on a DSLR, you are doing it wrong.
I don't get why DPR keeps harping on handheld Live View shooting and subtracting points from DSLRs with OVFs for LV and touch screens. It's a bias that's particularly odd considering these a DSLRs not P&S or ILCs without VFs.
Go back far enough and Phil Askey reviews would question why anyone would want Live View on a DSLR. Actually, how about when the camera is on a tripod.
DLBlack: It is sad news that Olympus is dumping their p&s cameras. Still for most people the smartphone/table photos are good enough and their is no need to carry multiple devices if one is good enough.
I keep hearing that P&S cameras was where the big profits were. So with P&S cameras gone then the price of high-end cameras are going to have to go up some.
The day is near that cameras and phone/tables are going to work together. It has started with wifi connectivity in cameras. The Canon N, which is extremely small has wifi might be useful if one wants a little better than a smartphone/tablet but not interchangeable lens camera. A ruggedize sprt camera with WIFI coul be userful to. Panasonic has a ruggedize sport camer with wifi. So there is a place for a P&S camera but it is not your regular p&s camera. It has been replace by the smartphone/tablet.
So many places I go, few carry cameras, a lot of photos being taken with phones-from modest ones to the better phones with apps.
Good idea. So should a few others. The traction for Olympus is in Micro 4/3rds and all-weather cameras. Wish more had joined the Micro 4/3rds consortium.
rallyfan: The Sigma DP "M" series offers excellent solutions to questions very few are asking and for which even fewer are willing to pay; a very impressive evolutionary dead end that sold slowly and performs even slower. Dreary cameras lacking what Ignatius J. Reilly would call the proper geometry and theology, taste and decency.
The rest are good choices.
The Merrill is like when someone doing 35mm sees what their first 120 or 4x5 film neg can produce in terms of details and tonality. It's another dimension of reality.
PicOne: Might this mean that DPR will wake up a bit and perhaps attempt a review of a Merrill compact?
When you buy a DP series camera you are getting a premium lens besides the sensor.
jhinkey: Nice, but not $900 nice . . . .
Although an avid Nikon user for some time now - I've recently added some m43 gear to my kit because Nikon came out with a very anemic 1 system. I couldn't wait anymore for a compact, high IQ system with non-dumbed down bodies and a decent lens selection.
The V-2 was a step in the right direction, but it was too little too late as it lacks features that I think should have been there. Plus the lack of anything seriously wide or a fisheye or other fast primes aggravates the situation.
Nikon is playing catch-up to m43 and needs to get serious real fast with high quality glass that's not outrageously costly nor larger than the m43 equivalent.
Part of me wishes they would build something to compete with the Fuji XE-1 offerings.
Samsung has a nice lens lineup and the sensor is APS-C.
Sakura Sakura: Seems to me Nikon are misjudging & overpricing the Nikon 1 system. I just don't get it, the 4/3 system just as compact, cheaper & probably better image quality. In case you think I have a downer on Nikon I have a Nikon DSLR & love it.
But it's an "acclaimed system."
brilliant sharpness ... intricate details ... $900 a bargain. What with modern computer-aided design and advanced manufacturing techniques, can never understand why lenses cost so much.
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee: It doesn't matter a whit. I don't use their stuff. I use Aperture, Corel etc.
People spend far too much time "processing" and not enough composing or just taking photos.
I wish them ill in their move!
Yes, read a book by W, Eugene Smith, all the time he spent working on images in the darkroom. There were 2 Lustrum Darkroom books issued by Ralph Gibson that showed the "processing" mode in the film days.
Not that Adobe is listening to me, but I offer this solution to one issue of the Subscription only model. Also issue a one-way PSD to TIFF converter freely as DNG Converter now it.
kymarto: Basically, the cloud-only model is a tacit admission by Adobe that the upgrades to PS are no longer compelling--the product is no longer worth the money, so now they will live by extortion...
Honestly, look at the last couple of upgrade cycles, the last one especially. What did we get for out $200? A new skin, a cosmetic upgrade to the crop tool, a new effect filter and an improved patch tool, more or less...This is pretty pathetic. No wonder they had to institute a new upgrade policy--just to keep people on the hook in hopes that CS7 had something of value, and they would save money by upgrading twice to get it, rather than having to start over.
Basically we are being asked to assume the burden of Adobe's lack of initiative in making the upgrades to PS desirable to the people who must decide whether to pay for them. It is only their monopoly that allows such an attitude to exist; if there were a decent competitor they would already be dead in the water.
Unfortunately, this is the nature of software as it matures. How much more can you do to Photoshop or Microsoft Word-just gets harder to support hardware-wise. In the early days, when computers had much less powerful processors or memory, there was a premium on elegant, sparse code. That is gone.
A lot of unanswered questions. I work away on whatever stable, paid-for version of Photoshop, Photoshop Elements or Lightroom I now use and enjoy. 5 years from now, I decide to subscribe to the Adobe CC. I want to work with some programs that can no longer be bought standalone or want to work with the most recent version of Photoshop. Will my "old" PSD files work in the new versions on the Adobe CC.
MrTritium: 420g with battery?! The Nex-6 and X-E1 weigh only 350g, and the nex-3n 269g. Is this camera made of LEAD?
I think this camera represents value plus appeal. But, yes, make one smaller with a fixed 35mm effective focal length