Demon Cleaner: A gold award for a camera that doesn't have overall image quality listed as a pro?
Hi Kryten61. My point was that it's highly irregular for a camera to receive a gold award when image quality isn't meritorious enough to warrant inclusion in the 'pros' listing at the top of the 'Conclusions' page.
I think the NX1 is a fantastic camera and would love to be the owner of one myself.
Edit: Just to clarify, I think image quality *should* be listed in the Pros. Especially when considering it's a staple inclusion in every Canon APSC review, even with their antiquated and significantly substandard sensors.
A gold award for a camera that doesn't have overall image quality listed as a pro?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.
"I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. The bokeh mania is driving people nuts."
Huh? It's an ultra-wide angle lens. Even wide open the hyperfocal is under 9 meters. At f/2 it's 4.5 meters. This lens has everything to do with available light and very little with your "bokeh mania". Cinematographers and videographers in particular will be wetting themselves over this piece of glass.
backayonder: Reminds me of a hotel I once stayed in. The plumbing was shocking
It appears they upgraded the facilities after your visit, and from the scale of the amendments it seems they feared you one day might return.
Ivan Lietaert: I actually like this kind of video. It is quite convincing.There is one thing I wouldn't do, and that is to change lenses that close to the surf. I'm sure the your sensor will get dirty very soon like that!
The cynicism stems from the presenter being on the Sony payroll for "brand support." And that's Sony's wording, not mine.
It's no more appropriate for a Sony rep to be presenting this piece on the A6000 than it would be for a Canon rep to present it.
"Sony Camera Goes Surfing With Sony Ambassador." Has a nice ring to it, hmm?
I also quite enjoy these types of articles and hope to see more in the future.
I don't see the issue as long as DPR makes it clear that they're undertaken by people on the manufacturer's payroll and we're forewarned it's a cynical fluff piece and impartiality is out the window.
Eugene232: not a fanatic of m43, sold an EPL5 a few months ago, but pics taken by this camera on Flickr look realy nice
@Zusu, How does this differ from what users of other cameras post to Flickr?
Syriac: I noticed on the shutter dial that the intervals are 30, 60 and 125.
Shooting video in 4k PAL mode (25p) the "proper" shutter speed should be 50 or in 1080 PAL mode (50p) should have a shutter speed 100.
Does the LX100 sold in PAL regions have a different shutter intervals or are the all the same? or did I miss something here?
Further adjustments to shutter speed can be made with the rear dial. 1/25th, 1/50, 1/100 are all there.
draschan: just tried it for a day. a friend got the fancy leica version. it's an excellent excellent camera. the lens is simply amazing. the controls are phantastic!!! aperture on lens, time and compensation dials. nice viewfinder (although I have little comparison with viewfinders). fast, reliable. and the lens. did I mention it? the lens. it is 1,7 -2,8. the wide angle seems better than my excepensive olympus 12mm. It is a loveable camera. don't see much (or any) difference to my gm1 concerning the 12 vs 16mp. I personally would prefer a touchscreen and I'm not sure why it's not included. the extra leica lens hood is also great... as far as I can tell all panasonic I used did amazing video, I am looking forward to test the 4k (and extract 8mp images from it). so only downside: if you like touch then wait or get the lovely gm5. panasonic is really trying hard to please their customers.
@Sirandar, for your delectation:
The 12mm prime is a good but not great lens. The 7-14mm f/4 zoom, which is at its best at 7mm, even resolves better than it at 12mm.
Beckler8: The low zoom ratio makes it hard to consider this for general purpose video.
Camcorders can offer greater reach because they have a sensor commensurate in size to those found in a mobile phone.
mpgxsvcd: I wonder why they couldn’t have produced a camera like this a few years ago. I know the auto focus tech was not as good and you wouldn’t have had the 4K video. However, couldn’t they have put a 4/3s inch sensor in this size body back then?
Could they have produced this lens a few years back? Were they just waiting for the software correcting technology to catch-up with this lens design?
Apparently it was only recent advancements in lens technology that made it possible.
Beat Traveller: Thanks for publishing this. It sounds like a very capable camera.
Too bad the Australian price is an absolute gouge :(
"Too bad the Australian price is an absolute gouge"
It's actually cheaper here. US$900 converts to AU$1026. Yet Gerry Gibbs has local stock listed for $999.
Demon Cleaner: I'm still somewhat flummoxed by DPR's obsession with performance when compared to a full-frame camera. Most people will be weighing up whether a GH4 is worth the extra expense over something like a Canon APSC. That's where the value of the GH4 ultimately lies, and I think that comparison would be far more useful to the masses.
Filmmakers made up their minds regarding the GH4/A7s many moons ago. They don't wait 12 months for DPR to release their review.
G1Houston they published a 16 page Comparison Review between the A7s and GH4 a couple of months ago. What value is there in regurgitating the identical information verbatim in this review?
Surely some basic level of comparison against the GH4's direct competition is warranted?
You're telling me no one is interesting in knowing how much better the video image quality is compared to an E-M1, A6000 or CaNikon enhusiast camera? Because these are the questions constantly raised by prospective ILC owners on PHOTOGRAPHY forums.
DPR have written this review for filmmakers and have completely overlooked that photographers wanting to take video seriously might also have an interest too.
Why isn't there a comparison of DFD performance to phase or on-sensor phase detect? Why no comparison of video image quality or low light performance between these direct competitors? Why no explanation of this new 4K photo mode or the quality of the stills it provides?
It's all a great mystery. Unfortunately DPR have decided for us that the only people interested in the GH4 are those who want the size & bulk of a FF camera system and are prepared to carry external recorders and spend upwards of $4k on their system. I respectfully think they're mistaken.
I disagree Zdman. If you frequent photography forums you'll see the GH4 get a mention whenever someone touts video performance as an important consideration. However it's extraordinarily rare for them to say they have a budget of $4000 and are happy to carry around an external recorder to access the 4K video (as required by the A7s).
It is far more common for them to be considering other enthusiast level crop sensor cameras. This is the market segment for the GH4. The camera just so happens to be a hybrid and shoot internal 4K. It's not a FF competitor!
Those people will come to DPR looking for enlightenment as to the advantages of the GH4 over cameras such as the Olympus EM-10, Sony A6000, and CaNikon's enthusiast offerings. Yet there's nothing here for them. Certainly no comparison of video performance to assist with making an informed decision.
As I posted above, the LX100 can record 4K. Are you suggesting they should start comparing compact cameras to FF behemoths?
My point is that the parameters established for stills comparisons are every bit as relevant for cameras that have video capabilities.
There's a myriad of relevant questions facing everyday photographers that DPR have chosen to overlook, instead heading off on this obtuse tangent from a "filmmaker's" perspective that almost no one has any real interest in. It's an opportunity lost and I feel DPR have failed to grasp who their audience is on this one.
Realistically only a sprinkling of photographers would give serious consideration between an A7s & GH4. If someone wants a FF camera they'll look at FF cameras. If video is important they'll accordingly weigh their options from within that segment. The same goes for people after a crop sensor.
DPR have compared crop sensor cameras against crop sensor cameras for stills since time immemorial. Why is it that this comparison is suddenly no longer relevant when video enters the equation? The new compact LX100 can shoot 4K, is it now to be measured against FF cameras as a consequence?
I think DPR missed an opportunity to address concerns facing a far larger proportion of their readership. Photography forums are inundated with the same questions from mobile phone upgraders and prospective ILC owners:
"I'm upgrading for travel; size & weight are of paramount consideration; I want exceptional stills & video in a single package; what camera for me?"
I'm still somewhat flummoxed by DPR's obsession with performance when compared to a full-frame camera. Most people will be weighing up whether a GH4 is worth the extra expense over something like a Canon APSC. That's where the value of the GH4 ultimately lies, and I think that comparison would be far more useful to the masses.