What do "full size" files look like on a 10" display or on even a very large 1920x1080 screen?
Easy. They look like more money spent on storage space and bandwidth, or else like more time and less capacity for fewer files.
sarit: I'd like to see the manufacturers put 1" sensor for these bridge cameras or at least 2/3" for god's sake.
The Fuji X-S1 zoom camera DOES have a 2/3" sensor.
jcmarfilph: We want the HS50 review DPR. Please stop posting release notes of toyzoom like this.
No toy, no fun. All cameras are either toys or (unfortunately) instruments of starvation and poverty. A "serious" zoom would probably cost $50k, need to be carried by truck, and take pictures people would expect to get for free.
Joe Ogiba: 1080i ? Really ? Poor Fuji, they still don't get it.
All recent computers will play 60i HD video. Windows 7 WMP does. What the display does with the interlacing should not be noticed.
shaocaholica: Why won't 1080i just die. Interlaced displays died a looooong time ago.
Most videocameras used by broadcasters use 1080 60i, although some broadcasters issue in 720 60p. You don't get 1080 60p anyplace but consumer cameras. Nikon added 1080 60i to the D5200, whereas the D5100 had only 30p. My 2007 display is 1080 60i, and most Blu-ray is either 1080 60i, 720 60p, or 1080 24p. The BBC will broadcast anything sufficiently spectacular, waiving any "standards" that prescribe one format or another, and not broadcast dull stuff, no matter what the format. Of course, most stuff is pretty dull, but if a Fuji owner happens to zoom in on something naughty, who knows?
wallbreaker: I wished it was 1 inch sensor
Fuji's X-S1 zoom camera has a 2/3" sensor. The camera appeared in late 2011 and apparently failed to excite enough interest for DPR to author a full review. Some buyers failed to notice any advantage from the larger sensor, and the lense tube had a tendence to wobble or sag, which could become worse with heavy use and cause focal distortion.
Canon seems to understand the adage that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If the T5i is a refinement of the T4i, that may be the smart thing. Spectacular advances in video tracking focus are a difficult thing to implement without going mirrorless or using a transluscent mirror. If people can now buy the T4i for $100 or $200 less, they can be sure they are getting pretty much a "latest and greatest" consumer DSLR.
Amateur Sony Shooter: Many wining photos were taken with Nikon cameras. Only one winer with NEX5.
Would an "impartial" Sony committee would have awarded only shots taken with Sony cameras? Would have the people in these forums asphyxiate if forced to opine about a photo without knowing the camera model or without judging only shots taken at >12,500 ISO and viewed at pixel level?
People have been boiling lenses (lentils) for millenia.
Why no curiousity about how the lens got into the sea, or why the owner thought it worth $X to half-rescue an old lens perhaps worth less than $X? The story must be a bit soft-boiled.
Wonderful gear to have for a $10k job for those clients with $100k to spend for the finest.
Meanwhile, a must-have for the $500 / wedding photogs: a lens that optically reduces the subjects' girth, clothing size, dental or dermatological problems, and bad hair. Why can't that old goat (the guy footing the bill?) smile? Well, he probably thinks $500 is way to much.
Sometimes an over-bright flash, complete defocus, and general blow-out is the best "fix."
davob: Is there any chance DPR could do the G5 review as a kind of addendum to the GH3 review - compare and contrast. The software and features should be similar.
Psst! A little secret: the G5 offers 95% of what most people would ever obtain from a GH3, for 1/4 the price. This month, some retailers offer a $599 "bundle" that includes the G5 body, kit lens, and a 45-150mm lens. The stuff the GH3 offers that the G5 doesn't includes the weather sealing (nice to have but not worth $500 extra) and the specialty video controls and modes, which would not make the video created by the typical Joe or Jane any more Oscar grade.
123Mike: AF video still not anywhere close to what the Sony SLTs accomplish.
Or most camcorders, either. However, don't those SLTs have a "short temper" (sensors that heat up and shut down)?
tonywong: I really think you guys need to do a 'behind-the-scenes' look at how your in-depth reviews are created and performed. Just wanted to put this in before the usual complaints are fielded.
I think there'd be value in seeing how many hours and work goes into a product that is ostensibly released for 'free.'
Users "pay"? If I stare at a shop window, will the owner owe me a wage or free merchandise?
PC Wheeler: Hey, even if the GH4 was announced tomorrow, we'd not have our hands on it this year in all likelihood :)
A GH5 may appear in 2014 or 2015, if Panasonic is still in the camera business. Perhaps it will shoot 250Mbps 4k video that will look fine on an 80" display at 6'. You can edit it on your i10 4hz 12-core Windows 9 machine. Upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. Hup, two, three, four. Hup...
Don't be surprised if the legacy camera divisions of Olympus, Panasonic, and Pentax don't all end up as trade names of a Chinese firm.
Aleo Veuliah: I Like better the GH3, but have tried the OMD and the GH3, they are both different but great cameras, I am glad Olympus and Panasonic Lumix are doing well on making very good cameras and lenses. Other good thing is that Micro 4/3 users have a wide choice and a very good quality level.
I am waiting for the full review that maybe ready soon. But liked the updated preview.
What is there to wait for? You've already reviewed the GH3 yourself. Dare DPR disagree?
A preview with a list of "video features" but whose tests or findings are still TBA. Perhaps by May?
Among the most contentious questions will be whether the 50Mbs or 72Mbs offer any improvement, other than technical compliance with supposed "broadcast grade" video, without lay viewers perceiving a speck of difference in the net results. Might video shot with a GH2, or even a G5 or X900 or CX760, appear just as sharp? Might the moiré be worse than with a D5200? Might an OMD "five-axis" stabilizer be better?
cmc1: Seriously, and please educate me if i am wrong. Am I missing something here with these studio comparisons? I always view the Queen of hearts playing card top left corner because of the lines colours and details and every camera I think to be bad everyone else says is very good. From what I can see after comparing loads of camers nothing seems to come close to the Sony NEX7?? I don't own a NEX7 nor am I Sony fanboy but it appears to produce the sharpest images on this test card upto about iso1600.
That medallion on the Martini bottle is not a typical or even ideal object. The engraving is, almost by nature, noisey. The noise reduction or JPEG engines respond to it very differently than her Dear Majesty du Coeur. However, maybe it is important to compare cameras by how they treat mushy or soft surfaces too.
Dan Tong: I am looking forward to the FULL Preview for this "video optimized " camera of most interest because of it's highly touted VIDEO features and performance, rather than it's still image capabilities, so I hope that getting this review done has a high priority, and that extra attention is paid to the Video features. It would be very useful to compare the GH3 video features and performance with those of other cameras that have superior video control such as Sony NEX 7, 5R, 6, RX-1, RX100, Canon Mark II, Mark III, Nikon 800 etc.
Most other cameras whose latest versions are, as you often say, simply small incremental updates, there is not that much unexpected news. Then there are those cameras that are real news because they create a an innovative new class of camera such as the Fuji X series, Sony RX1, RX100, Nikon E800, if not entirely new, with some breakthrough features, which any enthusiast wishes to know more about.
Thanks for the great reviews !
The comparisons you suggest might not yield results of practical consequence to most people, who don't have money for the advanced lenses, all the ancillary recorders and gear, or to produce alluring promotional videos. The test might also leave-aside other factors in the equation: sensor heat, audio, stabilization, or other out-of-the-box issues the typical buyer might confront.
The advanced video features are usable only by a few people under quasi-studio conditions. Ordinary mortals' video won't be any more "broadcast grade" by shooting at 70mbps or if they dork with the "clean HDMI" output.
A surprising amount of video quality is possible with a $400 camera. Above that price, the incremental returns become thinner and thinner, with most of the differences in quality attributable to content, editing, and (most important of all?) the charming muuuusic the maker plasters over the discontinous, empty, or featureless audio: "Hey. Great video. I like that band too!"
G Sciorio: Judging any camera by these studio shots is pointless. It's only one small part of a very large equation.
A fast sports event in a dark venue? Shot with the slow 300mm lens? BIF? No, I don't suppose admirers would like that.
GH3: announced September, 2012; full DPR review still WIP @ March, 2013. Meanwhile, a cadre of early buyers will have already congealed their opinions (often a week before delivery) and be upset with any score below 90. Are the GH3 photos any better than those shot with camera X or Y? Probably depends mainly on the photographer. Is the video any better? Probably depends on the editor. Of course, GH3 buyers will hear none of this. No one every spends money in vain, do they?
The real strengths of the GH3 can already be presumed: more features than the GH2, which hardly a handful of users could ever master. Ditto for the shortcomings: bigger and more expensive than a G5 (someplaces offered for $700 with a kit and tele lens bundle), which will a address all that 95% of users will ever need, with any deficiencies met either by a faster lens or by a DSLR for sports action.