damian5000: Jeff may have a point re lens, but what most people fail to understand is that it's *moot*.
Nearly literally, it means nothing, because these differences in sharpness don't show until making big crops or pixel peeping or looking very very hard at corners and comparing the two side by side SOOC.
Very unfortunate these sad reviews of g7x and g5x. Fine, mention it, but criminal to not also put it in the appropriate light (context, not literal light). Jeff should be ashamed.
Raist3d - I would prefer a better lens also. In fact, when G5X was announced, I was disappointed that Canon just used the G7X lens. But I like a lot of things about the G5X so I am interested in "guaging" the extent of the softness. For me, the screen pixel level difference that DPR shows just doesn't convey a difference that I can interpret in a meaningful way. Also, the fact that DPR mentioned the lens softness back in the G7X review (I believe) but still recommends that camera as well as the G5X, with overall positive comments about image quality strikes me as a somewhat contradictory assessment that deserves additional supporting comments--with something like maximum print size before the softness can be observed (or some other qualifiers)--to help review readers assess how bad/relevant the softness is.
@Rishi and @Simon, I think DPR should have provided a little more context to the Canon lens sharpness (or lack thereof). It would have been pretty easy to say that the sharpness difference (Canon vs. Sony) can or cannot be seen in a 12" x 18" print or, say, 16" x 20" print.
Looks like I'll have to spent a dollar at Costco and print some 4x6 crops of the sample files.
How about posting the unedited jpg so we can see how much this was pushed?
Only thing I am unsure of on the G5X is the lens. I remember reading that the G7X's lens is soft. However, if the lens is at least as good as the RX100 IV's lens in that lens' range, then I don't know what's not to like about the G5X--size and style not withstanding.
Philly: Will someone at dpreview please put an Oly 12-60mm lens on this camera and tell us about the AF performance. Thanks! :)
I'm talking about the 4/3 Oly 12-60mm f2.8-4 lens which typically requires PDAF for fast AF. I want to know how the Panasonic GX8 AF system performs with this lens. (As pointed out, this lens requires an adapter for m4/3 bodies.)
Will someone at dpreview please put an Oly 12-60mm lens on this camera and tell us about the AF performance. Thanks! :)
Thumbs up for taking Mr. Kataoka's portrait with an Olympus E-M1 and the Oly 25mm f1.8 lens.
Interesting choice of camera to test this lens. Does the metabones adapter support auto focus? If so, did the AF work well? If this shot was manually focus, must say it looks very nice. Certainly no misfocus here. Is it practically to use this lens in manual focus mode at 1.4 with the Sony Alpha?
Would be nice to get this for the XZ-2 as well.
RichRMA: Why is it these wifi devices need proprietary software to work? Wifi is wifi.
@Death89 - thanks. Just downloaded it. Agree that it needs the multi-select feature. But it offers a nicer UI than what I was getting when I was retrieving the photos via browser connection to the flashair IP address.
Regarding the date change bug, I think I got the same thing when I retrieved the photos using the browser. Some of the photos had the wrong date--noticed it right away because my photo view is sorted by date taken.
@Death89 - what is the name of the Windows ap? I had tried a couple, but they didn't seem to work. Thanks.
Well, it'll be easy for them to do mark II version of this camera: 1) add touch screen, 2) add flip mechanism to screen, 3) add built-in flash (but this may be difficult), 4) new sensor if one is ready.
For all the comparison with the Sony RX1000 III, it appears to me that the form factor makes it more of a competitor to the Fuji X100T. If this had the built-in flash, I would consider it more. But it is very similar in size to Olympus E-PM2 with 20mm f1.7 lens that I already have. So if I'm going to have to juggle-- bringing add-on accessories like clip flash--bringing add-on viewfinder for E-PM2 isn't that much different.
Phil Askey: Nice job peeps.
Phil, I was just thinking during the live broadcast that dpreview should have had you there and interviewed you, to get your thoughts on the cameras today and the future trends.
I'm not sure what you're up to nowadays, but I am sure all of the old timers would have loved to see you.
Philly: @ Andy Westlake
Andy, do you have any opinion of the 12-40mm vs. the 12-60mm SWD? I just got the E-M1 and will be trying it out with my 12-60mm. Do you think 12-60mm owners gain much by going to the 12-40mm (other than the smaller size and the faster focus)? Thanks, if you can offer any comments.
Thanks, Andy. As much as I would love to buy the 12-40mm, it would be very difficult for me to justify that without selling the 12-60mm. And it is hard for me to let go of the 12-60mm at current market prices. Your comments help in the decision process. I held on to my 12-60mm because I never thought Oly could match it--at least at the same price level. Maybe Oly can surprise again and even improve the PDAF in the next generation camera--probably more for continuous CAF reasons than for 4/3 lens support. But it does appear to me that they have the potential for significant PDAF improvement through addition of cross hair sensor and some firmware improvements.
Thanks again for your comments. I enjoyed reading your take on the E-M1 and all your other reviews through the years.
EDIT: BTW, for anyone interested, one slight advantage for the 12-60mm is that the DOF is a little thinner at 60mm f4.0 vs. 40mm f2.8 for head and shoulders shots, which may be useful in some situations.
@ Andy Westlake
Philly: This is a very surprising recommendation from the same reviewer who wrote the "First Impression" on GM1. If you look at that "First Impression", it was very negative:
with only the camera's negatives highlighted. What changed?
Hi Andy: yes, I did read the last paragraph. It even starts off by saying that "we don't want to be too negative". But I do acknowledge the positive comments about the camera being "cute" and a "feat of engineering". To me, the overall message was that the camera may be cute and a feat of engineering, but to what end? The "positive" points served as a foil to highlight the negatives, I thought.
I'm somewhat agnostic towards the GM1, but I just thought the "gear of the year" recommendation seemed much at odds with what was written in the "first impression", that's all. Thanks.
This is a very surprising recommendation from the same reviewer who wrote the "First Impression" on GM1. If you look at that "First Impression", it was very negative:
Oly72: Seems very odd that 'What digital Camera' gave the E-P5 a rating of 90% and a 'Gold Award' and with absolutely no mention of blurred images at shutter speeds of 1/160. Olympus has the best image stabilisation system around - bar none. Are you sure that the sample used for the test wasn't just a faulty unit as I just cannot believe that Olympus would release a camera with such an issue.
'Camera labs' also gave the E-P5 a score rating of 86% and again with out any mention of blurred images at the fore mentioned speeds.
'Techradar.com' Gave the E-P5 a 5 out of 5 star rating and guess what? No mention again of blurred images at the stated shutter speeds?!!
To Andy Westlake: the shutter shock on the E-P5 does not sound very encouraging for the E-M1. Based on the specs (1/8000 sec, 1/320 flash sync), and common sense, I would have believe that the E-M1 and E-P5 use the same shutter. I hope that dpreview will address this explicitly on the E-M1 review. I would like to buy the E-M1 and am hoping that it does not have the problem.
Philly: Amazing that he doesn't wear any gloves while doing this. Isn't there a risk of getting oil from the finger tips onto the components? It doesn't seem like a very good practice.
Roger, thanks for your comments. I just thought wearing gloves would be a standard practice, as I believed it was at the factories and service centers. But maybe they don't as well.