Just use common sense when reading reviews. If the review contains a lot of hyperboles and lack of objectivity, then I usually discount it more than the one that's more impartial and honest. Another thing I find is, some people are so happy about their purchase, which is nice they rave about their purchase, but please let us know what's the reference point. For example, some people say "it's the sharpest lens I have ever used." Which is nice, but how many lenses you have used is a very important criteria when people judge the quality of your review. Same can be said about negative reviews. I don't know if they're still teaching this in college, but when we do research (reading reviews is kind of like a purchase research), we need to know the credential of the person who wrote the article. An industry expert's words weigh more than someone who's merely very enthusiastic about the subject.
Well deserved first place. Not only the subject is nice, but the attention to the backdrop is just excellent with meaningful use of shallow DoF. Amour means "love" in Spanish, and the other word in focus is rapport. Both show what a marriage should mean.
The survey is badly written. Feels like it's written by a new college grad who has never taken a statistics class with very limited language skill. Many questions are almost guaranteed to generate useless data. Some of the survey questions are painful to answer (I wanted to stop taking the survey several times) because the questions are so badly written. The survey should be sent to someone with knowledge of photography before it's gone live.
I love the part "According to our exhaustive research" about the Asuka camera. LOL. I am sure you knew that already.
These are Holga killers. :D
logbi77: So we have Fujifilm naming a superzoom X-S1 while Panasonic names an ultrathin compact XS1.
It is very annoying isn't it? There is a Canon G series, and there is also a Panasonic G series. There is a Canon G1x, and there is a Panasonic GX1.
Some marketing department's conversations are weird. They typically ask for a special letter to be in the model name. The most popular ones are X, Z, and Q, but there is no Y. ;)
It is a nice looking camera. The edges at each side reminds me of the old film cameras made by Pentax and Minolta (both made beautiful cameras). The handling might be a little retro also though. It needs an eveready case for a good hand grip (that's what I do with my Olympus film OM cameras), since it doesn't have the removable hand grip add-on like the Olympus XZ-2 has.
I think the tapered end at the grip for XZ-2 is not just for modern line, but the thinner middle makes the much thicker end, essentially, a grip, without that recognizable hand grip look. A more subtle design of the modern camera. Many better designed compact cameras (including ILCs) have some sort of contour curves to compensate for the aesthetically pleasing but ergonomically awful thinner bodies.
Can't wait see the result of course. Especially a side by side comparison with the XZ-2.
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.
I agree with you, Maxfield, that'll make life easier. But unfortunately the convention is set up this way. I studied accounting before, so I know changing standard from one to another is more problematic than one could possible imagine (lots of tiny details will have to iron out, it's not as simple as it seems). The standard print sizes are still 8x10", 11x14" and the likes, though those are from the large format days!!! Fortunately this camera, like most compacts, uses 4:3 aspect ratio..., so it's easier to print standard sizes like 8x10 or 11x14.... (compact camera has too small a sensor to print 12x18).
And most of the photography terms are counter-intuitive, anyways. Just use what you're given, because the convention is just too set-in. It's easier to adapt than try to change the world is what I've learned over the years....
ogl: Shutter speeds 1/8000sec with Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority,Manual Exposure, and combination of electronic shutter enabled
Thanks for the info, RichardBalonglong. Now you're making me curious. Is this a physical shutter speed or some emulation mode?
I am not sure I like electronic shutter.... Maybe that's why there is no hot shoe on top. But then, most compacts are using electronic shutters.
pbailey4: looks great - a comment on sensor size, clearly we are tempted to and do believe that the larger the better, there is more. I have produced A0 size (46.8 x 33.1 in) prints from my Nikon D700 sensor 24 by 36mm and my Lumix FX-35 sensor 6.2 by 4.6 mm, both at the 28mm lens setting and simply showing these pictures to a dozen people to guess the expensive camera shot (the FX-35 was used and cost £30) and most picked the image from the cheaper camera. Also the smaller sensor means that lenses will be appropriately shorter to deliver the 35mm camera equivalent focal lengths - if you love good depth of field this is a good thing. My Canon G1x suffers with a huge lens that extends because of the larger sensor and a reduced depth of field.
What we do miss is that not all camera of the same make and type will do not deliver idendical results - manufacturing tolerances means some will deliver better results vs an identical model.. having tries back to back this is my experience.
Yes, and I shall add one more reason why one should try their prospective cameras out before buying it: handling.
During Christmas sale, I bought an Olympus E-PL3 during lightening round. I returned it after a few shots, and understand why E-PL3 is placed lower than Olympus's more professional models: handling and ergonomics! On paper, E-PL3 has the same specs as E-P3, except maybe E-PL3's screen is arguably better because it's articulated. E-PL3, however, is awkward to hold except for pancake lenses (no grip), and with its standard P&S dials for control, it behaves just like a P&S.... Yes, it has PASM dial, but you won't be using them.... Yes, it has every control of a DSLR, but you won't be using them.... Ergonomics and handling are what set a professional model from an amateur one.
And yes, quality assurance is a big issue. That's why I've always bought Olympus, but not Pentax..., though Pentax's specs are very competitive for their price.
I just checked, in the second page of this preview, it says 1/2000", not 1/8000". I wonder what you guys are talking about. It'll be cost-prohibitive to make a reasonably accurate 1/8000" shutter speed camera. IIRC, Olympus XZ-2 has a 3-stop built-in neutral density filter if you are shooting under bright light.
baabbott: I have a Fuji X-e1 with zoom in my B&H cart, then...I saw this. I've been waiting for years for a digital replacement for my film Pentax MX (black)..a great camera.However, my excitement completely went to zero, when I saw the small sensor and lack of manual control (external).Time to hit the buy button on the Fuji.
If you care about the features that make a camera great, I highly suggest you put your hands on a camera you're buying. I admit I was very excited when I read about Sony RX-100's features and specs (large 1" sensor and excellent lens). All that excitement went down the drain when I actually handled one. The controls are awkward, which is probably good if you just use Auto, but not anything else (not even good for P mode). So be sure you handled your Fuji X-E1. This camera does have a rear dial, which is the same amount of control as most entry DSLRs.
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).