Is it just me, or do more and more photographs—especially landscapes—have that over-processed look these days? To me, there's something decidedly artificial-looking about this style of image making.
Pro shooting digital since 92: "enthusiast mirrorless space"?
After testing the NX1 I sold 2 Canon 70D's, a Canon 5D MkII and 9 Canon Lenses Including 4 "L" series.
I was disappointed with soft images from the Canon cameras so I carefully adjusted back focus on all 9 lenses and 3 bodies. Took all day. After all that the images were still only about half as sharp as the NX1. That's the honest truth.
I was really hoping for touch screen, higher res, sharper images, and small FAST lenses suited to APS-C from Canon in the 7D MkII. Ha-none of that happened.
The Samsung has better IQ than ANYTHING Canon currently sells.
After 20+ years shooting Canon I switched to Samsung, improved my capabilities and pocketed some cash! I'd call that ADVANCED PRO VALUE.
Mirror boxes held over from film era? WHY?
Regarding H265 - Samsung has the power to do it. No Canon has enough power yet.
btw the Samsung has BETTER 1080 30p wH265 in 1/9th the FILE SIZE of Canon All-I codec.
Film is dead. Kodak is gone. Is Canon next??
@Papi61: I don't know what I'm talking about WHY—because I don't agree with your brain-dead opinion? Here's one review of the Samsung S6 that is less than enthusiastic:http://www.zdnet.com/article/htc-and-samsung-android-flagships-disappoint-back-to-the-apple-iphone-6-plus/
@Papi61: I haven't seen the S6, but the Samsung phones I have seen were cheap plastic wonders. Your unqualified enthusiasm for Samsung products sounds like wishful thinking to me.
cgarrard: Samples in Jpeg show just how much noise reduction is being done at base IS0 (smearing and low fine detail)- not to mention artifacts.. and it just gets worse on higher ISO's.
Add in the fact that you can't adjust sharpness/contrast/saturation/or noise removal on the Jpegs for better out of camera results... and well, might a well use a smartphone to take images if you're just judging on out of camera image quality.
Good that raw is included, but that leaves out all the color profiles and art filters for good looking out of camera Jpegs.
I can adjust sharpness and noise reduction on my ZS10, which is not good at all in low light but otherwise a wonderful little camera. Have these adjustments been removed from later models in the ZS line?
Gesture: Sensor manufacturers have concentrated mostly on providing high ISO settings that are not often used, he said, and had neglected low settings in their favor, but Olympus hopes this will change very soon.
Exactly. Do we really need 156,000 ISO.
In my experience, the number one complaint of the average snapshooter is poor low-light performance; so I take issue with your assertion that high-ISO settings are not often used. In the past, they were not often used because the results were too noisy, but this is definitely starting to change. I predict that better low-light image quality will be wildly popular with snapshooters the world over.
Possibly a steep learning curve. I still haven't figured out how to do something as simple as set foreground and background colors. Does look like a potential Photoshop replacement, though.
djohnfot: dpreview has always been one of the class acts in its field, with the best reviews and most up-to-date news and general interest articles. Here's to an even better 2015!
My one wish is that the trolls would at least read the article before they post their comments. Otherwise they are wasting their time and ours.
I have never understood why such a truly excellent website continues to attract so many stupid, mean-spirited visitors (i.e. trolls). Just one of life's great mysteries, I guess.
Possibly appealing to renters, but not to owners. I wouldn't dream of loaning my gear to a stranger just to make a few bucks.
With more and more large-sensor compacts coming out, I think the category needs to be redefined. A 1/1.7" sensor is just lame compared to the best cameras in this test group.
Adobe's Max conference is very aptly named. Their company slogan should be "We screw our customers to the max!"
It is very unfortunate that the GX7's grip is so chunky and just plain ugly. Looks like a very nice camera otherwise.
Shockingly mediocre selection.
"Noxia" has to be one of the worst name choices ever in the history of product branding. The word "noxious" immediately comes to mind.
Adobe MUST allow users to access their own edited images, with or without a subscription. Anything less would be outrageous. As for letting former subscribers continue to use a version of Lightroom with limited functions... this is neither here not there.
Samuel Dilworth: Paving the path to subscription-only Lightroom, as feared …
I long for the old days of selling something the customer wants at a fair price. Why is this model so untenable?
@String: It's not a conspiracy, it's an extortion racket.
Macx: 1) When considering equivalence (i.e. DoF, diffraction and total light/shot noise) sensor plays second fiddle to the lens: Given the same FoV and the same physical (virtual) aperture, you'll get the same image characteristics, no matter if you're shooting an image on your phone or on your medium format digital back. The thing that is holding your phone back in performance is for most intents and purposes the tiny lens and not the tiny sensor.
2) The difference in DoF and shot noise between different formats only come to play at the extreme ends of the exposure gamut: Bluntly, on a bright day, shooting for a wide depth of field your phone will give you roughly the same performance as your dslr. Only when the phone is out of its comfort zone the difference becomes apparent. Cameras using 1", 4:3 or APS-format sensors are a few stops shy of the comfort zone of current FF cameras. If you're not actually using those stops there is little to distinguish it.
"The thing that is holding your phone back in performance is for most intents and purposes the tiny lens and not the tiny sensor."
As written, this statement makes no sense. Tiny sensors, which almost always have large numbers of tiny pixels crammed into a tiny space, are inherently noisier than larger sensors with similar pixel counts. Unless everything I've read is in error, there's no way for that tiny sensor to produce images similar in quality to the images captured by sensors that are significantly larger.
PVCdroid: I'm convinced Apple decided that people are too slow and dumb to handle complicated software. What's strange is their focus on photography lately with a new ad campaign. Draw them in and keep it simple, stupids. And I was suspicious Apple was going to go whole hog into new sensors/cameras/lenses/software with all their dough.
Most people ARE too dumb to handle complicated software. Let's not forget that Apple's original mission was to make computers "for the rest of us". As people have gotten dumber and dumber, Apple software has followed suit.
Why is DP Review wasting time on this forgettable camera when many cameras that are much more worthy, and much more interesting, sometimes never get reviewed at all?
VadymA: Wouldn't consider it even for $0.99/month. I just despise PS counterintuitive concept of layers.
You're kidding, right?
Adobe wouldn't be doing this if Photoshop users were flocking to Creative Cloud the way some analysts claim they are.