So am I right in thinking that the Ricoh GR, Nikon A, Sigma DPMs, Fujifilm X100S, Sony RX1/R etc. aren't going to get a roundup - despite being clearly a separate and self-contained class apart from the others, targeting a user-type which clearly has a large presence on this site, are wildly innovative in terms of offering significant gains in image quality which rival or even supersede DSLRs, and are truly portable? It's not like they are even niche models anymore - they are well into the mainstream as far as sales go.
Kiril Karaatanasov: This is non-sense. Very subjective choice and a poor one!
E-M5 is 2 years old!!!! It is also the same price as NEX-7 thus way overpriced compared to NEX-6 for example.
It seems GX7 purposely got demoted altough it is better than E-M5 in just about everything.
NEX-7 was excluded. Why? Because it is better at everything and DPR rated it higher than E-M5, so no way E-M5 could be rated tops? Is it because Sony are not advertising here enough?
As well any APS camera gives much more creative control than any m43. This is just a sad fact Olympus got it wrong. No need to praise them for that oversight. It would be fair to say all m43 have limited IQ and limited creativity options. Than you can start comparing apples to oranges.
What is X-e2 worse at compared to the melenium old E-M5?
Silly. A camera does not get worse over time; normally others appear which are more refined. Clearly, in the opinion of the reviewer, this has not been the case here.
Also, it is clearly incorrect that "any APS camera gives much more creative control than any m43". It depends on the lens as to the depth of field and the sensor technology as to high gain noise as well as many other factors.
I'm glad DPReview made a 'subjective choice' - I or anyone else can easily make an 'objective' choice from the specs list... The difference is, they've handled and used the cameras for a long time and I (we?) haven't.
robmanueb: "All things being equal, if you can add a function, why not do so?"
Then they mention the battery might not be up to it and the lack of microphone jack. Well that would seem like two good reasons right there. Whatever format video comes out at on modern SLR cameras someone will always complain that it's needs to be higher resolution with another frame rate with more manual control over all the video functions and no jello roll regardless of how prone CMOS is to that effect.
So I'll give a third reason, price, video as a function is not a free lunch and it's not a firmware hack away. So a bunch of photographers who don't take video get to rationali$e buying a high quality camera they wouldn't have been able to afford if it had video. The high ISO will make people covet this over a D610. So it has niche.
Well done NIkon.
Video as a function IS actually a free lunch BECAUSE it is a firmware hack. Their sensor will cycle at x frames per second anyway and video is just a reading off of that. The only added cost is the microphone - which, at the quality it would be and with Nikon volumes, adds next to nothing. I think leaving it off is simply patronising.
mzillch: Staged:-split second timing which would be nearly impossible to duplicate even in a studio setting, by hand [no triggers], without the pressure of being under enemy gunfire and getting your camera hand blown off, in one take.
-the soldiers face, a major point of interest, falls EXACTLY at a "rule of thirds" intersection despite the camera being aimed with an awkward, over the head grip, with NO viewfinder use to compose such accuracy.
-no camera blur, subject blur, full frame focus, good exposure, no visible gunshot wound [not that there has to be, but seeing it would add to the credibility]
-"overhead shot"? Looks more like tripod height to me, but who knows
-no negatives nor contact sheets have ever been seen, showing for example the shots leading up to this one (the flubs)
- " O. D. Gallagher, of the London Daily Express, "was sure" that Capa posed it: "While sharing a room, Capa apparently taught Gallagher how to fake a good action shot too."
Actually, plenty of camera blur. Exposure & focus would have been pre-set (focus presumably at hyper focal). Composition would have been fairly easy - even though he was shooting above his head he could have had a good idea of where everything was. There wouldn't have been a visible gunshot wound so soon. Also, this was the film age - there wouldn't have been loads of dud shots before hand, photos were spaced out and thought out.(And why is the fact that the London Daily Express alleges it, a good reason to think it's staged?!)
Robo2k: Well Aperture is one of those products that Apple gives as much attention as to the iPod classic. Seriously, why should anyone bother using it when Adobe is doing a much better job?
Take Logic Pro. Long time after 9 was released, everyone was saying what you are saying; then they released X which is fantastic. New versions of Apple software are slow in coming but worth it.
Sebastian Firtman: Mmm, You need look : www.memoto.com :)
And $9/month to use it after 1st year? No thanks...
canonalex: I like it! It makes photography available to physically challenged people who cannot manipulate the complex menus and scroll buttons.
Nice derogatory comment there, Manuel.
papillon_65: I won't be buying one but it looks pretty damn decent to me. Too expensive? don't buy it or wait a year and buy it for 50% less, what's not to like? People have been moaning about no rangefinder option in m4/3's so Panasonic have now built one and people are still moaning, who'd be a camera manufacturer? tougher gig than fracking in Balcombe......
This is not a rangefinder! Just because it is styled similarly to a Leica does not mean that it uses the same viewfinder system as one...
(Only Leica currently make digital rangefinders.)
"If you think we've missed a camera off that's seriously deserving of the title, leave a (polite) comment and we'll add it to the total." Okay - for a start, Sigma DP2 Merrill. This has a very different camera philosophy, with incredible image quality in an unobtrusive form. Alternatively, Leica: the M-Monochrom has certainly changed things, and the new M (I don't know whether it counts as having come out yet) is the best model from the only brand making digital rangefinders, and hence the best digital rangefinder on the market (and anyway a stunning new development from the inventors of 35mm photography). Some would argue, with reason, that it is the best camera in the world today. So it doesn't really make sense to leave all these out. I don't know whether or not you intend to include anyone else's suggestions (quite a few have been 'politely made' below, and don't seem to have made it onto the list), but I think it's important you do.