VisualNectarPhotography: Am I the only one not impressed by the mid to high ISO IQ here?
I'm not a paparazi I'm not thinking in shoting in the shadows our dark beadrooms. Well..! the D800 conquered me and I'm full impressed. Thanks Nikon and Sony.
renee breau: Hi, I am getting a camera for my daugher for graduation. Need to find out which is better, Nikon D3200 or Sony NEX-5 for graphic photos. She is a graphic artist and takes photos of music artists for CD covers and possibly more types of photos. Thanks.
BJMcKee51: I just purchased a D3200 to replace my old D40, thinking I was getting a much better camera, but it seems like there is almost no difference between them, especially as far as picture quality goes. 24mp file sizes are impressive, but useless to most of us casual users, causing very slow downloads. On my 24 inch iMac, I can see no difference in the photos from the two cameras. The "Live View" function is clunky and annoying. There was no lens hood included with the D3200, while there was a hood with the D40. I haven't tried out the video function, yet. At this point, I feel like I should have bought a different Nikon body, but I don't know what one. For beginners, the D3200 still may be a very good camera. It is light weight and would be nice for carrying while you are hiking or biking. I have had no problems with it so far.
Maybe you must check the resolution parameters on the camera to see if they are set to the max, or if you are shooting in jpg fine or raw.
bashlal: i do not find Leon Neal's pictures any better than an amateur shooters photos taken with any point and shoot camera. i have done a lot better job with my D3s that all the stuff that you have posted above. mr. dans video could have been lot better without the spitting scene of the person sitting on his rickshaw. i decline to accept the opinion
I agree with bashlal, even the photo of that burned building is sh1t. I have made a mutch better work, at age 8, from my old school.
I'm a photografer or at least I like to think so. All I want is to take the best photos and not damn videos.Please by a camcorder for your's boliwood movies.
HUG! uggly..! i will keep with my dslr, more confortable to grabe it, like uh... you know, to have the brest of a women on my hands..!
Hello? any pro outthere? no? someone? anyone? please..!
Simon Zeev: The writing is on the wall. I'm sure that in less time than expected EVIL (mirrorless) cameras will replace DSLRs camera first at introductory models and in short time even for some professionals and advanced amateurs (those that don't need to impress with a big camera) The EVF still needed and the last one from SONY sound good enough to replace every other viewfinder.( for me the VF-2 from Olympus is good enough)The way to a professional EVIL camera will go trough water proof camera and good lenses.An electronic shutter may be in the future also.
A lens of 4.0-5.6 is nothing amazing, is realy over priced for is type of lenses in fact like all the 4/3 gama.
Small is better, uhmm maybe for kids with tiny hands, i like to grab strongly my camera with both hands and feel his weight when i shoot clear sharpeness photos, not a toy like this..! and the prices? nah this is a joke.A lens 3.5-5.6 28-84 mm ? this is worse then the basic lenses offered with a slr camera body.This is nice cameras and lenses for uh... outdoor family photos at beach..!
Small is better? uhmm maybe for kids with tiny hands, i like to grab strongly my camera with both hands and feel his weight when i shoot clear sharpeness photos, not a toy like this..!This is great cameras and lenses for uh... family photos and i suspect this lens is not for indor.
The reasons i should by a compact is because i don't have to change lens between photos and not have to carry with lots of equipment when i go out, in this case I don't see no real advantages and im going to stick with my dslr. If i have to spent such a money on this cameras and lenses instead i will buy a good a slr and some other equipment to it too.
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom: u wish it was manual zoom..my motorized?
If you where a photografe you will understand the lack of the manual zoom
tkbslc: $400 price tag seems steep for such a slow lens the more I think about it. And yeah, it's small. But it's only 16mm (0.6") thinner than the original Olympus 14-42mm when closed. Those are like $150. You also get a real focus and zoom ring on that lens. So it's a pretty good premium in dollars and usability just for being the smallest
Small is better, uhmm maybe for kids with tiny hands, i like to grab strongly my camera with both hands and feel his weight when i shoot clear sharpeness photos, not a toy like this..!
DaMatta: Great bridge.
P500 I mean..!
mpgxsvcd: Looks like a very good and compact super zoom.
steve_hoge: "Pet Detection" is all well and good - but will it shoot RAW?
I dont have pets, to be true I hate pets. It shoots raws and it shoots also dogs and cats?
Barry Nelson: But we still have no eye-level level viewfinder...LCD or optical? Rear only LCDs just don't cut it with me,especially on bright sunny days
Thats a real shame..!
Carmel: Please note that this is a very SMALL superzoom. Only 106 x 76 x 73.5mm and 143(?) gr. (The weight is probably higher). For example the Canon SX30 is 123 x 92 x 108 mm and 601 gr! Small size is a very tempting feature for long-distance travellers. I know.. A nice first to Olympus. Hopfuly others will follow.
Small is better..?