Robert Judelson: The Cannon 5D Mark 3 should win the Worst camera award
Really? I don't have the MKIII (I have the 'classic'), but it seems like a pretty good camera to me. I think the real reason is that the forums really built it up and it didn't meet the expectations. But it's still a very, very good camera.
rallyfan: I bet he goes home each night and cries into a suitcase full of money.
Even if he did, and the last sentence of the DPR article says he's donating most of it to charity, so what?
If I was in the same position I'd expect to be compensated. You wouldn't I take it?
Daniel from Bavaria: 500$ and no lens hood, that's ridiculous.
What happend to Olympus?
Well, I paid $450 for my Canon 50mm f1.4, and that didn't come with a lens hood either. Lots of lenses in this price bracket don't either. But it would be nice if they had put one in, wouldn't cost that much.
undergrounddigga: Am I the only one, who is over the moon about this launch?! :)Perhaps, because I am the lucky owner of an OMD, 12mm f/2.0, 45mm f/1.8 and 60mm f/2.8 macro. (no kit lens for me :) I absolutely adore these products. In design, size, quality and most importantly image quality are close to perfection. Just the thought of not owning the 75mm and now, this new lens, makes me go nuts :)This is actually the first Olympus camera I have bought. Have been using Oly (and Nikon) microscopes for 15-20 years, and they always been flawless. I am very delighted to see Olympus doing so well, and being able to release such fantastic products. And I am particularly happy that they attacked the m4/3, as for me size in an important factor. I know, not FF or whatever, but these lenses with the OMD are a dream to use. Can't recommend them enough. Hope the new lens will be sharp as the other ones, as I have heard some concerning reviews about the pre-production model.
Nope, I'm really looking forward to it as well! Hopefully it'll be a good as the 12mm f2.0 or 45mm f1.8. I doubt it will be as good as the 75mm, but we can hope.
bugbait: Photos are essential as they offer smooth & complex hue saturation and value.The old man is ideal. The blown out female image is not as useful to me as there is absolutely no texture to her skin. Real women have texture, and so do the images of them. The lip area was also very useful part of the old scene. The child is adorable, but even if it is your own child or a paid (parent) model; I do think it is inappropriate to use a child for the intense viewing of thousands of strangers. I feel strongly on that point.
There is a lot to like about the scene, but do not finalize until you get lots of feedback from users and have implemented some of their suggestions. Such as adding back in shadow areas, that is a must for most folks.
Thank you for the effort.
I don't really understand why the child picture is inappropriate, surely many photographers take pictures of children, either their own or other peoples.
If the concern is around the type of person viewing the picture, I'm sure they can get better quality (for want of a better phrase) pictures from other sources.
Otherwise DPR would have to ban all child pictures from the site. Something I think not many of us would want.
Just a thought.
schufosi777: 1995 pounds???????????????????? Thats 3200USD. Hello am I missing something. The price in Japan is 2500USD. Whats going on. I will import it from America!!!!!!!!
Yes, you're missing the fact that we have to add on import duties and VAT. VAT alone takes it to £1560. I'm not sure what the import duties are on something like this, but I reckon £1995 is probably bag on when you factor in those two taxes :(
Craig Atkinson: why do people get so excited? It's a camera, a good one, not a perfect one. I think a percentage rating is fine as long as it's read in context. I see it as being relevant today. Of course in six months it wont be the same, better cameras of the same type will be out. Today though the RX100 is best / second best [ricoh grd4] in its class. It might be the only camera of it's class, seems so.
Dpreview could develop two sliding scale systems. One which is the rating of the camera at the time of release and another which slides with time, so most likely will slide down as new tech is developed and released. 78% I think is fair. It's too small, it has no snap function or way of measuring distance. It has no real grip. It has no lens thread...A great camera but far from perfect. As far as the GRD4, they are both great cameras.
I'm with ManuH on this. I rarely even look at the scores. If I've read the review and I've not made up my own mind by the end of it, the score is not going to influence me at all.
Justin Francis: An Olympus Pen with a 14mm pancake lens and 45mm 1.8 walks all over this cam. The slow tele on the RX kills it. It's not that small as well. Don't understand the hoo-haa.
Avid m43 user here. Don't really think you can compare the size of the two. I've an E-PM1 which even when using the 14mm Panny is going to be bigger than this.
I really like the Sony, it's moved the P&S cameras forward and Sony should be applauded for this. I'll probably get one once it drops in price as its current price is right where other more interesting (for me) products sit (Oly 12mm f2.0 for one).
tonytonytony: Usually, I only read your posts here. On the account of Canon's debut into mirror-less, I thought I'd join in on the brouhaha.
Canon is smart. Canon is testing the market on their terms, design and all. I imagine that both the advancements in EVF technology and Sensor technology will alter the course of this model. It may even become a vanguard for their product-line: Compact, EVF, DSLR.
In the next five-years, I want this camera to be THE travel-camera. I imagine Fuji to hold the highest competition --looks and other things. (I am a digital Fuji-patron, despite only having a GW690II.) Yet if this Canon is endowed with an EVF in future models, along with improved sensor capabilities (given Canon's impressive algorithms), tack on a silk-nightie and she can go with me anywhere.
I respectfully disagree, Canon has had plenty of time to see what's happening in the market and release a product that would compete. They could have, and I feel should have, come out strong, but they decided to protect their DSLR sales, similar to Nikon.
Their main rivals are Olympus and Panasonic who have no DSLR sales to protect and are going after Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al, in the majority of the DSLR markets (beginner, enthusiast, etc.).
I don't doubt that Canon will produce a more enthusiast version of the EOS-M, but it would have been nice to see them go for it straight out of the blocks. Maybe releasing two versions like Nikon. They have the engineering expertise and user base, they just needed to use it.
Regardless, there's some very interesting times ahead...
Lee Jay: And I thought lenses for small sensors were supposed to be smaller and cheaper than lenses for full-frame. The Canon 85/1.8 (an excellent lens optically with very fast ring USM focusing and good build quality) goes for $389 at B&H right now.
Shouldn't this lens, with shorter focal length and thus a smaller aperture, designed for a 1/4 sized sensor go for around $250 or so?
@viking79: No, the 75mm f1.8 is the equivalent of the 135 f2.0. Unless you're under the impression that with a m43 lens when you meter with an external lightmeter and it tells you to set the 1/60th at f2.0 you would set 1/60th at f4.0?? I mean you could, but you'd be underexposing, you know that, right?
ithinkthatsme: For DOF maniacs, some sample photos are here: http://olympus-imaging.jp/product/dslr/mlens/75_18/sample/index.html
So, to resume it, you have a lens that gives you the Effective Focal Length of 150mm lens wich you can expose as an F1.8 lens and have shallow DOF of an 150mm/F4 lens ... i think people doesn't realise how shallow an 150mm/F4 lens will give you. Oh yeah and it weight a lot less and also much smaller.
Yep, but that won't stop people complaining about it, unfortunately. But for the rest of us, its going to be a great lens at a decent price.
Thanks for the link.
mhike: It's almost as if 4/3 and u4/3 is a scam for the lenses.
The lenses are much slower than they advertise, but then the push with mirrorless is to make ever-slower lenses, particularly zooms, but make them look a bit expensive and now people froth all over them and pay ridiculous prices.
And no lens hood at the prices they charge? Really?
@mhike: This has been explained many, many times before. Just take a look at the 12-35 thread from a few days back, with regards to aperture and DoF.
donthasslethehoff: This deflates my interest in m43. Pricing isn't sensible for non-pro's here, so I'm wondering with this lens at $900 and the Panasonic 12-35mm priced at $1200, does the m43 system lose it's luster?
For me, it is, and I really like the OM-D.
Sure, I can still buy the 45mm prime for a decent price and the Pana 20mm, but comparing these lenses to their CaNikon equivalents, I'm trying to see the value proposition.
Maybe there isn't one. Glad I didn't sell some of the Canon glass I kept.
I don't think it is that expensive, nor do I believe its just pro's who buy the expensive lenses. The 12-35 seems to be a little cheaper than the other OEM f2.8 standard zooms. The 75mm seems to be priced lower than the Canon 135 f2 and lots of non-pro's seem to have that lens.
The m43 lens line-up is starting to get more interesting for a lot of people. Me included!
The lens cap is optional??? I'm hoping that it comes with a plastic lens cap and the metallic lens cap is an option.
draculavn: From compared photos shown here, it's easy to see 5D Mark III clearly beats d800 in the fields of white balance, color tone and contrast. That's what I need and I will purchase a new 5D Mark III soon
dpreview just focus the issue of visible noise reduction which we never see. Some issue that we face just a few times in photography.
This review from techradar is much more impressive and fairhttp://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review
@draculavn: you're taking this way too seriously. It's just a camera.
plasnu: 82%. Ok, this scoring system is nothing but embarrasing for all of us, C or N fanboys, the sponsors and the reviewer himself. Dpreview should just stop this scoring system which is completely meaningless.
What should it have got?
RStyga: I believe what photoshutter was trying to point out is the difference not only in focal length but also in DoF (and he also made a mistake in the calculation). It is true that the same lenses (whenever possible by the lens manufacturer) on 4/3 sensor bodies (m4/3 are 4/3 in terms of sensor size) are one F-stop darker than on APS-C sensor bodies and two stops darker than on FF bodies; this affects the DoF value. So, in order to obtain the same DoF on a 4/3-sensor camera you need one F-stop brighter lens (all other lens parameters unchanged). Practically speaking, in this case, the lens by Panasonic is 24-70mm F5.6 (35mm equivalent) and 16-47mm F4 (APS-C equivalent).
The thing is, I'd imagine for the majority of people, having the extra DoF is preferred to not having it. I certainly appreciate i, especially in low light where there's always a trade of between stopping blur and DoF.
Also, f2.8 is f2.8, whether on m43, APS-C, 35mm FF, 120, 5x4 or 10x8. To say the lens, purely due to the DoF, is f4.0 is not very helpful to people who don't know better. It just spreads confusion, like seen in this whole thread.
topstuff: All very lovely, but this is'nt really an F2.8 lens is it, compared to APSC or FF?
What would be the equivalent APSC lens? A 17-50 I guess? And if my understanding is correct, would this 4/3 lens have to be a F1.4 to have the same light gathering as a F2.8 in larger sensors?
As said somewhere below, I don't think it is a simple as simply doubling the focal length to get a "FF equivalent" and keeping the max aperture the same.
I am not sure if this really a f2.8 as we know it. I am sure the people at DPR can clarify !
A lovely thing though I am sure, especially with an OMD EM5.
No, you're getting aperture mixed up with depth of field (doF). 1/60th sec @ f2.8 is the same regardless of format. If you had a handheld light meter telling you to set 1/60th @ f2.8 its the same on m43, 35mm or medium format. To get the same depth of field on m43 as 35mm FF then yes, it would need to have a larger aperture.
Personally, I've had more difficulty in getting more DoF than shallow DoF for low light shots, m43 really helps here. But that's me.
All the pictures deem to be missing from this article. Any chance we could get the links fixed?