Maxfield_photo: Although this camera isn't for me, I like the brass, and I hope to see that as an option on future Pentax offerings.
But FFS, what is with the goofy sensor measurements? What is 1/1.7 of an inch? Who thinks in those terms? Why not say .58 inches, or better yet 15mm.
1/1.7"? Well, it's the standard for a long time now. Don't know who thought of that up. But the purpose of standard is to be consistent across the board, so people can make a meaningful comparison/measurement. If you suddenly change it to metric and no other manufacturer followed, it'll cause a lot of confusion and lose the purpose of a standard.
When they changed from large format (8x10 or 4x5, in inches) to medium format (6x7, 6x9, 6x4.5, in centimeters), to small format 35mm (35mm is diagonal distance), and now back to inches (1/1.7", 1/2.33", 1", 2/3" for compact format, I think the changing standard is to make sure you don't realize how the format is getting smaller and smaller....
AngryCorgi: A rebadged XZ-2 without the hotshoe or accessory port? What is Pentax thinking?? "Nobody wants to use flashes on this thing and nobody wants EVFs eitehr...people love the size though so let's keep it chunky and add some extra weight by using brass peices that we'll paint...just what everyone wants: all the weight and bulk but no more nonsense extras!!!"
Who supplies the lens? We need to find that out, but most likely scenario is cash-strapped Olympus sold the patent to Pentax, /assuming/ the lens contains the same lens group arrangement (which is not specified in the specs). It may or may not be manufactured in an Olympus plant, because it doesn't carry the Zuiko logo.
It is an _intellectual infringement_ if some manufacturing plant makes the Zuiko lens for Pentax, given the lens is patented by Olympus, and under typical OEM confidential agreement, the plant MUST not leak company secrets to third party without legal consequences. Lens formula isn't an open source design.
To D1N0: the page linked is for a different lens (both focal length range and aperture range are different).
To AngryCorgi: coating is for flare resistance at the cost of light transmission (i.e., it lowers resolution). Good modern coating shouldn't affect sharpness that much.
To both: the purpose of a civil debate is to increase knowledge.
onlooker: This blurb from the entry rules caught my attention:
"The images must also be stored with 72dpi in JPG format".
Good god, can Leica hire someone who actually has a clue? This is embarrassing.
I will not argue further though I do wish you two look out for more competitions that have such DPI requirement, look for your LCD monitors' DPI setting and see if you can change DPI also in your camera and play with Photoshop a bit to see the relationship between print output and DPI and megapixel counts. How that affects file size and print detail while keep the same megapixel counts.
DPI is dot per inch. It's a resolution measurement, but not a dimension resolution measurement. Higher the DPI gives your photos better detail by increasing the pixel density packed per inch. You can set DPI setting in-camera. It does not affect pixel count, only density of it. DPI setting only affects JPEG, not RAW.
This is a pretty standard rule in photo competitions. They only want 72dpi because that's the resolution of most LCD monitor. Anything higher will just be a waste of disk space. They'll receive thousands of entries, they only want to pre-filter the entries first. If they like your photo, they'll ask for something with higher resolution and possibly a print. Most entries even ask you to downsize your photos to less than 3 megapixel. At least Leica didn't ask you to down resolution your photos.
Unfortunately, I see Aptina's sensor still has a weird color bias from this example shot. I hope Aptina is listening. When you're a sensor maker, you want to show that your sensor is capable of reproducing accurate, life-like color. The special color mix is for camera maker and photographer to decide. While this photo looks /interesting/, but if I were a camera manufacturer, i would not build my professional level cameras with this sensor. It'll be a major headache to tweak the color profile so it'll look natural. Most people still shoot normal photos, Instagram.
orendanger: am i the only one that wounders what camera that is in the picture?
Yes, there is. It is above the EVF. It's just obscured behind the accessory port cover, which is also hot shoe cover.
Fotogeneticist: Until an EVF has the same refresh rate and dynamic range that matches my eye, it will never replace OVFs for me. What does an EVF give me except for battery drain and shadows you can't see into? And to the poster that said an EVF needs 2MP to out-resolve an OVF, if you out resolve what your eye can see anyways, what good would that do?
I can see more things in the dark with OVF than EVF. This varies of course from person to person, because OVF depends on your own eyes' unaided light sensitivity. EVF boosts the light level at the cost of color accuracy and noise level. I think current gen of EVF is good enough in term of resolution, but what's lacking is refresh rate and noise level under low light and lack of color accuracy under extreme bright light (which is quite often in California that you see light above EV16, which is cloudless sunlight, sometimes you might even encounter EV18 situation).
David Burren: The most interesting news (for me) from Olympus is the new 15mm/8 lens. But no mention of it here? What gives?
As a fixed-aperture manual-(2-step)-focus lens it should even work on Pany bodies (although the lack of in-body stabilisation might be a drawback at f/8). At the suggested price it's almost a no-brainer: a slightly expensive lens cap that doubles as a super-cheap 30mm-e walkaround lens. It'll be interesting to hear more about it over time.
But not even a mention? Had me double-checking that I wasn't imagining it. :)
It's an interesting product, but don't expect it to be stellar in image quality. Notice it's not even a Zuiko lens, so Olympus doesn't think it's quality enough.
It's really a lomo lens to make E-PMx series pocketable and already ready for shoot. And when I feel like shooting with a Holga, this would be a digital alternative (i do expect it to be sharper than a Holga). But it's a fun lens. US$50 is a good price.
JRApprentice: I am just about to display my ignorance but what the heck.
You say 'just how hard it is to get so much camera into such a small body...' re the RX1. Funny that, from the exploded view it looks like a 35mm lens set in a body in front of of an image sensor with with a body back behind. The little Halina I had as a lad and loads of other rangefinder cameras in he sixties and seventies managed that and didn't claim any special achievement as a result. Is it the electronics which make this difficult or is there some other mystery of digital camera construction that I am unaware of?
Don't know the details, but heat is a major design constraint for modern DSLR, because of that LCD screen in the back. You need to space things out before the heat shut the entire camera down or simply make the final image too noisy (heat will introduce interference).
The picture of RX1 shows off its aperture blades very well. Is it 9-blade construction? I think that might follow Zeiss philosophy very well for perfect bokeh.
buongustaio: any news about the sooo much craved body that would better handle top-pro 4/3 lenses?17mm aside, this is all i'm asking from this stand :)
Thank you Richard for keeping us posted. :-)
Yes. And will there be a new 4/3 DSLR for that matter? (an E-5 or an E-620 successor?)
InTheMist: That's an impressive lens on the XZ-2. I just wish it had a viewfinder.
And no, I don't mean a 'stacker' viewfinder.
Well, most lenses on DSLRs are nothing new. Some are decades old designs. Doesn't change the fact whether they're good or not.
Pentax K-30 looks very nice, and very compact for a camera with full features. No new Ricoh GXR cameras (or modules)?
It's interesting the E-PL5 does not auto rotate its screen in self-portrait mode. Don't know if that's an early firmware bug or whatever. The sushi conveyor is fun.
XZ-2 is nicer than expected. Almost bought an XZ-1 just because I expected XZ-2 would be an evolutionary update rather than something new. The new type of hybrid lens dial is the killer feature here, something that matters more to a pro who wants a travel camera or simply an everywhere camera. It's interesting this more pro-oriented feature is on a camera with a smaller sensor than Sony RX-100 or even the FF RX-1.
Anybody else noticed lower end E-PM1's silver matches kit lenses's silver (and 45mm's silver) and higher end E-PL5's silver matches premium lenses's (12mm and 17mm's) silver? I expect 17mm's price to be US$100-200 less than 12mm because of an easier to design focal length, but the build quality, more often used focal length, and clutch MF look promising so that might command a premium.
Yes on the comment on M with viewfinder, but I bet some people who buys rangefinder style cameras don't get the idea of a rangefinder anyways, and that's actually a big share of the market.
Anyways, too many judgmental comments on the report. Not sure that's what a news report like this should be. I personally expect more from Paul Smith, but I wouldn't say that if I were just doing my job as a journalist, whose job is about integrity and objectivity.
They managed to put Andreas Gursky's work on display.... Wonder what type of photography they're promoting. Yes, conspicuous absence of S, which is a medium format camera, but Gursky might find that format too small.
narddogg81: olympus should just become a third party lens manufacturer. i would buy their lenses, dont want to buy their cameras.
I also wish they would make lenses for third party. For example, I would love to use Zuiko lenses on Penta K-30.
However see how many contribution Olympus has made for modern DSLR concept.
LiveView for DSLR (comprehensive and sensible implementation, not just "we also have it". There are things like magnified MF check, WB preview, aspect ratio shooting, real time histogram, spirit level indicator, multiple exposure overlay, etc., some are implemented long before competitors caught up)First effective sensor dust reduction technologyIn-body image stabilizationMiniaturization (especially with current OM-D)Weather proof as a "system" (entire list of 4/3 HG and SHG lenses are weather proof, to accompany E-x flagship line of camera body. Underwater housing for even the entry level E-620). When they released OM-D, they also released weather proof flash, lens adapter and grip, so the entire "system" is WR.
3a: i may sound naive, why does Olympus lenses (say 300 F2.8), which just have to cover half the image circle of a Full frame counterpart be this heavy (i guess 400gm more than nikon) and this costly (almost 1000+$ more) ?i guess if Olympus had invested in making smaller and lower cost lenses (with similar quality), once they stopped making Film cameras, they would have been a more popular brand now.i guess i made the right choice of moving from E-30 to D300s, even-though i was not dissatisfied with E-30.
Yes, 4/3 sensor is smaller than APS-C sensor. In fact, its squarer format means the image circle requirement is even less. However, with Super High Grade lenses (like 300mm f/2.8 you mentioned), Olympus takes the go-for-the-broke approach and delivers some of the near perfect lenses without considering much on the design constraints (e.g., size, cost to produce, material choices). They have the largest lens to sensor size ratio of any format for the sake of achieving absolutely best performance. For those who want something that competes well with other brands' offerings, HG is very good already. But SHG lenses are some of the near perfect lenses in every regard. SHG zoom lenses can beat most prime lenses easily.
If you just want some "smaller and lower cost lenses" as you said, you can just buy the standard grade lenses from Olympus, or m4/3 lenses. They're very similar in grade with competitors. HG lenses will exceed your expectation already.
citizenlouie: I don't know, the second tip was shoot color for visual accuracy and realism.... None of the photos shown are visually accurate and real by my definition.... Of course these 70's photos were shot on film so it cannot be as accurate as digital on this respect, but now we have digital, which we've spent hours on tuning color profile and monitor (and if you print your own photos, tune your printer), we can (try) to get to as close to 100% accurate color and tonality as possible. The result can be very /underwhelming/ for modern viewers, who are used to super saturated color and high contrast that totally devoid of any sense of realism. I've been doing things in vein of "what my eyes see is what my photos look like" and most people just find them boring, often remarks like "underexposed" or "doesn't pop" or even "no apparent subject." Well, it's nice to do photo realism (I deeply believe in it), but realism doesn't sell.
That's my philosophy also. I think that's Ansel Adams's philosophy, too.