Yannis1976: Would be interesting to compare with similarly priced m4/3 zoom kits e.g. G6+14-140mm or Oly+14-150mm. Also there is no mention I think about macro performance.
I would agree that if DOF ("equivalent aperture") is what matters, you should be shooting full frame with real glass, not this consumer bull$#!+. I sold all my DSLR gear to free myself of the 20+ lbs backpack I used to carry. The FZ1000 is a full stop faster throughout the range.
I would happily prove it, but you only need to read the reviews here to see the results. I can't spoon feed you.
Which 18-250 kit lenses are f/2.8? You're throwing away a full stop of light and skimping 30-50% on the long end reach by going with a kit zoom. What light you buy back with the larger sensor you throw away with a dark lens, and any detail you ends up getting thrown away when you have to crop to the center of the frame for the telephoto end.
forpetessake: If you want a superzoom, just get any lightweight Nikon/Canon DSLR and attach an 18-200 zoom to it and it will be ahead of this Panasonic in every way. Or if you want a mirrorless camera, get a Sony A6000 with 18-200 zoom, or Samsung with 18-200, or Olympus with 14-150.Only those who are interested in half baked 4k video may find this camera interesting.
I must have missed the recent announcement of all the 18-200 f/2.8-4.0 lenses on the market.
AngryCorgi: Wow. You shouldn't ever shoot JPG with the V3. Worst JPG engine I've seen in quite a while. Very Sony-P&S-esque!!
Except that no enthusiast in their right mind will shoot with this. It's a fashion accessory which means that outside of the marketing shots, the output of this camera will never be RAW put though a proper conversion engine. The target audience doesn't even know how to open a RAW photo, much less what to do with the bland images that pop up (in comparison to the pre-enhanced, sharpened JPGs OOC).
Carlton Foxx: This is definitely not a Hasselblad H5D-200, but if you look at the samples you can see what this camera is awesome at: it's a lifestyle camera for people who want to document their travels, their kids, and their nightlife without the bulk of a DSLR but with great focus and impressive color. I see it as a camera for high-tech people who have enough disposable income for a cool and different camera, but not enough for a Leica; people on their way up. Early-career engineers, or a vet just out of school... This is not the camera for stockbrokers or executives.
As the review says: nothing else offers the same balance of size, autofocus, and interchangeable lenses.
" and interchangeable lenses."
You say that like it's a good thing. From the system lenses I've seen, it appears more of a hindrance. You certainly have identified the market, though. We used to call them yuppies.
Fygaren: As you probably never frame your photos using diagonal AOV, to get the equivalent of FF 3:2 with mFT 4:3 or the other way around, you need to do some cropping.
FF 100mm f4 = mFT 48mm f1.9 and then crop vertical AOV to get a 3:2
mFT 50mm f2 = FF 92mm f3.7 and then crop horizontal AOV to get 4:3
Horizontal crop factor of mFT is about 2.1 while vertical is about 1.85
I shoot only square format, you insensitive clod.
jaykumarr: The sony camera used in this test, is a poor quality one. It has consistently produced sharper output in RHS and softer output in LHS. This flaw is present in all the photos.
So should be believe that the camera is an bad in general, or simply that Sony QA is bad?
(Note: I've had other Sony cameras which "developed" severe OOF in certain corners or sides under "normal" handling)
Sixpm: I have been using the V3 finder grip lens kit for the past three four weeks and not a day without it, I had the V1 for a couple of years and although the V1 is good, ergonomically it just cannot compared with the V3. I have made 60" x 40" prints which only to remind me of the film days with Tri-x pan on a old Nikon F2.
Too many people is judging the ability of this little camera on the price and I'm sure once you used this camera you'll not look back to any other cameras because the speed and ease of capture for street or sports photography. Of course, horses for courses if I were to shoot high quality interior, I would have used the D800E with fixed lenses but then again, I know I could have done the same by shooting multi stitch frames to achieve the same or better quality.
What I'm trying to say is this 'little' camera is 'that good'. Don't have to believe a word I said here, go and hire one out and find it out for yourself.
"I have made 60" x 40" prints which only to remind me of the film days with Tri-x pan on a old Nikon F2."
You're kidding, right? 40x60 off of a Tri-x negative would be something you do for the art-quality grain, because the grain is what makes it interesting. That does not speak well for a digital sensor. Get back to me when you start waxing nostalgic because it looks like TechPan in Technidol LC
It looks like an overpriced compact that has been hobbled with kit lenses with small apertures unless you decide to spend enough to buy a real FF system.
thesutex: can't say i didn't see this coming, as Apple is apparently abandoning whats left of its pro business.. its all about the big profits.
At least we can continue to use Aperture until the next OS after Yosemite, maybe there is potential in Photos, though i doubt it. Probably stripped of features and "dumbed" down
On the contrary, enough people have to be willing to pay enough for a product to make it worthwhile. Apple now talks only in Billions, as they have 150 of them sitting around doing nothing, and several coming in every quarter by keeping the technically illiterate happy with their various devices. And I mean that in a sincere, rather than denigrating way.
You could have a million photographers and enthusiasts sign up for Aperture at $1000 each every single year, and the Apple BOD would yawn at the prospect. $250M in revenue a quarter is the kind of money they lose in the seat cushions at 1 Infinite Loop.
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.
Don't feel like they've abandoned you, they've just come to the realization that you're not really all that profitable as a group. There are what, maybe a couple hundred thousand or a million photographers out there? That's nothing compared to the Billion people with camera phones who just want to apply a neat filter and buy another app on the app store, and might find it convenient to skip power for convenience and buy into the all-Apple world.
You can't pay Apple enough money to make it worth their while to keep you. That's what the power of a billion consumers means to both pros and enthusiasts alike.
Daxs: Don't care, I'm Canon user!:)
Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
We're all behind you, bro, and we're here to help.
tirmite: When will DPReview, the eminent technical blog supposedly, stop playing the dishonest lens equivalency game? So if it's "equivalent" to a 24-70mm then you also HAVE to make the f-stop "equivalent." It is NOT like a 1.8-2.8 aperture. It would give DOF results more like an f4.0-5.6 lens would it not? Being able to shoot in low light is more a function of ISO and sensor noise these days, but for some of us having control over depth-of-field is still what separates a snapshot from a photograph. This camera is NOT a replacement for a 35mm DSLR with a "real" 24-70mm f2.8 lens, although it's clearly a great little pocket camera. How about truthful, accurate marketing both by the manufacturer and camera reviewers about what a lens REALLY is equivalent to if you're going to make that selling point in the first place?
With sensors and processing so different between cameras, the ONLY thing equivalent aperture tells you is DOF relative to a 35mm/FF format. It's useful, but from an optics point of view I'd rather know the actual f number because I can gauge how often I can use the camera in available light, or how fast the shutter can be in a given light to capture motion.
dash2k8: For that price we could just buy a Wacom, albeit a small one. With the Wacom you won't have to worry about scratching your screen while getting much better pressure feedback. I bought the Jot Touch two years ago and it's just not the same.
I haven't. I'm trying to get away from a vast array of digital devices - phone, reader, tablet, laptop. By getting a Win8 convertable with a digitizer, I have about 95% of what I use a tablet for combined with a machine I can do real work on (AutoCAD, for example). The only downside is I have a *big* latptop (15.4") so it's a bit heavy for wandering around.
I gave up on the iPad as a pen input device. It tried about 4 different styli, including the Jot Touch (2nd or 3rd gen) before giving up. I've got a Sony Flip now, and it's worlds better, though still not like paper, but better than a Bamboo tablet. I've never had a dedicated Wacom Cintiq, so I can't compare to that level.
The worst thing about the iPad is the palm rejection. I'm sure "real" artists can hover over the screen like those in the videos, but I can't - ore at least I can't for very long. And even with the best software, iPad palm rejection is so unpredictable as to be frustrating on the best of days and unworkable most of the time. On the Flip, my palm almost never causes an issue, and the ability to pan and pinch zoom while using the stylus with never an error is much, much closer to a paper.
lacroix75: Today, I'm not a CC subscriber and will continue using CS6 for years to come. However, the reality is that the "bug" for a subscription model is out there and it's only a matter of time until many of us will eventually cave in if we need the latest and greatest in photo processing feature and power. Adobe and other software giants who are currently using the subscription model realize that eventually CS6 will be a thing of the past as they continue to improve and advance their CC features (not the case today); thus we will all gradually get "sucked into it".
Advanced features are key but it'll take time to get there and convince me to join CC. For me personally, I'll consider joining the subscription model when enough advances justify the need for my work.
As far as iPhone & iPad APPs, they're nice perks but they're not a selling point for me at all and agree with Joe & Magnus3D about being a Dino...
Unless you value your time at $0, switching to alternate software is an expensive proposition. Would you pay $10 to have an extra leisure hour? $20? $50? If you could buy an entire week of commitment free time, would you spend $1000? I ask because to learn a new package, if you're even a moderately competent user of PS, you're going to spend a week of evenings learning how to do the things you currently do in PS. Yes, they're similar, but they're not exactly the same, in the same spot, with the same shortcuts, or the same effect values. $1000 - a pittance in retraining time - buys you 8 years of continuous updates in Photoshop and Lightroom.
Would you rather spend time modifying your workflow for nothing more than to save a few dollars, or spend that time working on your art.
backayonder: The last time I updated Lightroom 5.2 it would not work and had to revert back to earlier version. I was not alone. I would be happy if Adobe sorted this issue out instead of messing about with Mobile versions
I promise you - the people at Adobe coming up with the licensing-scheme-of-the-month are not the group writing code.
Gryfster: I would guess that the main motivation for the price cut is to capture the many people who use pirated versions of CS5 or CS6. This is very similar to how iTunes helped the record industry reduce the amount of illegally downloaded music.
At 9.99 I would consider subscribing, but since my version of Lightroom is sufficient for me now, I'll wait for a little bit. It's highly likely that they'll slowly raise the price when subscriber numbers stabilize.
Getting CC was an easy decision for me. I was dropping $80-100/year on Lightroom, and had an old version of PS (student, great deal). For $120/yr I stay current with every release of LR and get a full version of PS for the times I need it. $30 for access to photoshop on every device I own? Yeah, that's a value proposition I'll take.
JordanAT: That's one big lens (and big pricetag) for something as (optically) pedestrian as a 35/1.8. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were making the lenses intentionally larger and heavier than they needed to be to justify the price and make the photogs feel like they had a "big"lens.
I suspect it's an easy way to pad the bottom line.
That's one big lens (and big pricetag) for something as (optically) pedestrian as a 35/1.8. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were making the lenses intentionally larger and heavier than they needed to be to justify the price and make the photogs feel like they had a "big"lens.
P Johnson: Still some notable watercolor effects of especially grass and 'chipsified' leaves in trees in full size, but that's APS-C at current state.
It's what I hate about my HX30V, and why I decided not to wait for the 100m3. Don't get me wrong - the camera JPGs look fabulous when downsampled to a screen, it's only when you crop that you realize there's no information in those 20MP. Note that I used the 30V for work, taking images of damage to buildings and often needed to see cracks/labels/surface conditions, so I often enlarged images.
This effect actually isn't present (or not nearly so) in the Canon cameras. Now, the out of camera JPGs are softer/lower contrast and need more PP to have the punch of the Sony JPGs. That makes Sony the choice for weekend snapshots that will never see Lightroom or Aperture, as they fabulous at 6-8MP viewable size. But there's nothing you can do to get back the data that was destroyed by the JPG. Let hope, for the sake of the 100m3 owners, that the RAW is (a) truly RAW and (b) salvagable without heavy processing.