JRFlorendo: Canon is serious about still photography when they match Sony's EXMOORE sensors, that's what every Canon fanbase has been waiting for +8 years now.
The porn industry chose the less expensive VHS format and generally video tape was not seen so much as a serious market by the movie industry until it hit them hard. Quite similar to how video over web developed just lately: first porn and "private" copies and then the bandwagon of commercial offerings.
fdfgdfgdgf: "DSLRs can capture the moment better than mirrorless, because you're viewing directly, not through an LCD"
That was a good one
Two examples of EVF restrictions:
- The Olympus E-M1 is said to have one of the biggest and best EVF currently available. Its VF optics seem really good, but for live viewing it does not even make full use of its "superior" resolution. The latter means that looking through the E-M1's EVF during live view yields quite exactly the same somewhat unsharp results as the lower resolution EVF of the E-M5. The only time when you can see its full resolving power is during playback of already recorded images.
This is a problem of processing power, because for live view (and focusing) only a fraction of the sensor is used to build the image (16 mp at 30-240 Hz is out of reach for current processors). OVF don't care.
- The EVF of the Panasonic LF1 is both small and comes with a low resolution. But it's still useful and usable and curiously its main drawback is neither its size or resolution, but the bad optics that cause considerable geometric and color distortion. This is a problem of optics.
I see a screw on filter ring on the 8.5 mm lens.
TheWhiteDog: I like Fujifilm's attitude. Despite its name less than 13% of its income is derived from anything to do with photography so their level of care in firmware updating old cameras is very commendable and I may only own an X20 right now but I will grow with them. It is a great time for photographers, it is like ice cream, Canon & Nikon are vanilla & chocolate, the classics and will always be the most popular. But chocolate & vanilla are not perfect for everyone, hence the need for more flavors, and these days there are lots of great flavors in cameras. Pick & choose your favorite and be thankful the selection is there as it wasn't always so in great digital cameras.
It's not all shiny on the Fujifilm support/firmware front, though. Leaving the X10 sensor debacle aside there are several firmware issues on the X10 that have never been fixed and are reported to be affecting other Fujifilm EXR cameras as well.
Still one has to recognize and appreciate how "old" models still get updates. Albeit the definition of "old" really is messed up nowadays.
At last Photokina Fujifilm did not offer a service counter and demonstrating any issues to the externally employed booth crew was rather useless. Other companies offered dedicated service and I even got a direct e-mail address from one of the Olympus support members. Of course the latter doesn't mean that issues get fixed, but at least you can communicate them properly.
Neodp: The f/0.95 only would realize its light gathering prowess if onto a superior comparable sensor (better DR, tonal, color sensitivity), no matter its size. Micro 4/3 is not there yet. It's too much a compromise. A non-compromising lens is no match. Then, there's less 3D looking bokeh blur, and its quality. Meaning, you should understand, the Bokeh is similar to f/1.8 on larger sensors. Not f/0.95. Not light I say; but the Bokeh. Which is not an F-Stop measure; but looks different depending on the crop factor at the same F-Stop, due to your relative focal angle vs. distances (you place your 25mm m43 where a 50mm FF would be for the same angle.) Composing that same angle, puts you into more DOF range, and that's less Bokeh in the [actual] differing mm of the different sized systems. The actual mm focal length does not change.
An equivalent focal mm is not the same as an actual focal length mm, in all of its photographic qualities.
Calling this lens a "toy" is hardly any basis for a serious discussion.
tecnoworld: I love the design of this camera. I think that all mirrorless systems should have a camera with this shape in their lineup. Fuji X-E2 is also very nice, actually.
Yes, but there is very little room between the grip and the lens. So while the NEX-6 overall felt good at the grip my fingers didn't like getting squeezed and kind of stuck in there.
binauralbeats: VGA resolution? Sorry, I know "many reviewers said the EVF is great", but that doesn't change the fact that it is significantly lower resolution. Less is not more. More is more. Personally, I'd like camera makers to spend more on the EVF than the rear screen. In fact, leave off the rear screen and spend it all on the EVF.
How useful higher EVF resolution is in practice depends on how Live View is implemented. On the Olympus E-M1 the higher resolution of the EVF compared to the E-M5 is mostly only useful for playback. During Live View the image is about the same on both cameras, as in: considerably less detailed compared to the final playback image.
Guess we first need faster processors before we get to see the full resolution of EVF being used. Don't know what Sony's implementation looks like, but they deal with the same fundamental problem. During Live View you cannot process the *whole* sensor's input while trying to provide fast AF along the way. It's just too much data to crunch in real-time.
2:22 to 2:30 is a neat trick, with the background moving away while the camera gets closer to the foreground. Did you change focal lengths in between shots there?
Zoron: no IBIS? about time Fuji....before it is too tale
IBIS needs space, the 5-axis IBIS in some Olympus cameras even needs a lot of space. Larger sensors need space, too, and smaller bodies provide less of that. All not just a decision of marketing, but a real limit of physics.
Very nice! :)
Timur Born: I talked to Adobe's German shopping line today. According to them you get to rent Photoshop, but *own* Lightroom 5. The drawback is that when LR 6 arrives you have to buy an upgrade, just like anybody else.
Too bad, I would have been more tempted if I knew that I'd get two versions of Lightroom for about the same price that I'd have to pay for two upgrades, with Photoshop CC on top (owning LR4).
Yes, the LR4 in my backhand is good to have. I was very temped to buy a second license when LR5's full version was down 50% for a few days, making it cost less than an upgrade. Strangely it was only down 30% over Black Friday/Cyber Monday.
Anyway, one year of CC will give me two upgrades (LR5 + LR 6) and Photoshop as a bonus that I may or may not use regularly. If I stop the subscription afterwards I can just buy some LR4 -> LR6/7 upgrade and be good with it.
After reading a statement on a German Facebook page run by Adobe I took the plunge and just wait what happens once LR6 comes out. If it works out then one year of PS + LR subscription will cost me little more than updating LR two times (4 > 5 > 6).
I took the plunge and am very curious how the Lightroom 6 part works out.
The DPR test scene shots reveal the strength of the LF1 sensor and its lens weakness outside the center. That being said of all the cameras listed here only the S120 and LF1 fit somewhat comfortably into jeans trousers pockets, even if they stay there all day during walking, driving and sitting.
Between these two the LF1 offers more reach at the long end, viewfinder for when needed (bright sunlight, dark stage audiences), but lesser wide angle and close to zero JPG controls (sharpness, noise). the LF1 is considerably cheaper than the newer S120 here in Germany.
And yes, the RX100 offers a larger sensor, but its lens construction suffer from the same compromises (even worse in the corners) and lack of long reach also evens the sensor size and resolution advantage for the long end. But more importantly, its depth makes it more of a coat pocket camera, and if I need to use coat pockets I can already use Micro Four Thirds.
So we get different statements from different people at Adobe. On what information should I base my buying decision. To be clear: I specifically asked the shopping line about upgrades to version 6. Of course it's very possible that he didn't know better, but then how should I?
And if you look through all the pages concerning this offer I found all but *one* repeating the specific wording of "Lightroom *5*", including the paragraphs about updates.
Depends on the series of cameras (price range, I guess), i.e. no firmware updates for known issues of the X10 in years. And one could argue that some of the features listed here should have been part of the package right away.
Still you have to give them that they do deliver new functions in "old" cameras where other companies would ask you to buy new hardware. (Ok, they ask to buy the X20 to get the fixes needed for the X10, not so nice.)
I am missing the Panasonic LF1 as maybe even better alternative to the Canon S120. Not only does it offer a better reach to get that shot across the room, but more importantly it's the only one coming with a viewfinder. Nothing is more of a turn-off at a party than someone running around with a bright screen!
I talked to Adobe's German shopping line today. According to them you get to rent Photoshop, but *own* Lightroom 5. The drawback is that when LR 6 arrives you have to buy an upgrade, just like anybody else.
PC Wheeler: Canceled the S120 order and decided to give the LF1 a try. Some of the samples posted in the forum and in reviews here http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_LF1/sample_images.shtml and here http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_lf1_review/sample_images/ are pretty impressive. This "Lens very soft at the borders and corners with very visible aberrations" could be from LF1 sample variability.
Worth a try: The EVF and 28-200 mm range are appealing. If a no go, then the S120.
Absolutely do give it a try. Much of the lens softness is at the wide end with wide open aperture, so there is room for improvement via stopping down. Post processing helps, too, but it also very much depends on your usage case. I am mostly shooting people, so I don't really care so much about wide landscape shots with the LF1.
In this shot I demonstrated heavy processing of an LF1 file. You may notice that I added strong vignetting, which not only focuses the view on the tree, but also helps to hide corner lens aberrations and blur. ;)
In my opinion the S120 currently seems priced too high for what it brings to the table versus the S110/100 (much cheaper), a RX100 Mk1 (same price) or LF1 (cheaper). The LF1 delivers what I need at a reasonable price (now that it came down).
Timur Born: Most people should just stay in sRGB space throughout their whole processing pipeline (camera, software, display, printer) and get away from the bigger-is-better mentality. Not to mention that today most images are viewed on all kinds of displays which more likely are working within the limits of sRGB than anything else.
Things can get *lot* more complicated once you want to use proper color management. Not only because of the "management" part of things, but also because you only really can make good use of it once you understand what you are doing and what the corresponding benefits and *limitation* are.
Thanks for writing this article and trying to help everyone get a better picture (pun intended) of all this.
Proper color management can get complicated, even more so proper monitor calibration, especially with inexpensive monitors. It's no magic, but still over many peoples' head without them noticing.
Who knows how many people use AdobeRGB profiles on their camera and maybe even monitors, just to post images on the sRGB web or have them print at some service whose printers use sRGB profiles, too.
All that being said, I am not against proper color management. I am just saying that many people who lack the knowledge or equipment to do it right are better off staying within sRGB. And even if you do it right it doesn't necessarily lead to better looking pictures. The number of possible gradations stays the same, you just stretch them more out. It all depends on the intended outcome.
Not to mention that in our mostly artificial world there ain't so many extreme colors around anyway. Not everyone does photos of a Caribbean beach. ;)