Corpy2: You can tell that she doesn't write articles for a paper, only take photos.She doesn't realize that she is not supposed to disparage the one generation older model quite so much.
Yes, but one is supposed to do it gently. This was really bad. Especially when you consider that Canon was still selling the 7D as a "current" camera, for almost full price, until very recently (and may still be so selling it).
You can tell that she doesn't write articles for a paper, only take photos.She doesn't realize that she is not supposed to disparage the one generation older model quite so much.
Corpy2: I haven't read every last fine detail, but it seems that they do not give you full credit for the rental cost if you decide to buy the rented item, only a portion of it.
That does not seem nice.
digiart, that;'s the whole point. They make money by selling the lens. People who buy a lens get no benefit from an additional week or whatever. If they are going to buy a lens, they will have it for far longer than that. That being the case, few will intentionally rent to buy. However, if people perceive it as a benefit, as a just in case, then the company may get far more people renting (and then perhaps buying, but more likely not). The company loses relatively little by selling the lens for a fair price after deducting the full rental fee.
I haven't read every last fine detail, but it seems that they do not give you full credit for the rental cost if you decide to buy the rented item, only a portion of it.
Corpy2: At ISO 1000 the detail is lost.
I've looked at some other pictures from this camera. Your hands are fine, but I am seeing noise significantly higher than I do with the EM!, even at low ISO's. Not sure why that is so.
well, 1/5 is pretty incredible even in 2014, so I would not blame detail getting lost. Let me check another shot at close to this ISO that is at a more reasonable shutter speed.
At ISO 1000 the detail is lost.
Markol: I've been a huge fan of Jeff for many years but the final thoughts he put together destroy much of his reputation IMHO.While I'm not at all against this camera, an enthusiast would never argue that he doesn't print large anyway so the inferior IQ is ok when going on a once in a lifetime holiday. But amazon will be happy with the text, that's for sure.
Absolutely. That "I don't print" argument has been so discredited for such a long time, I'm surprised to see it resurface.
Corpy2: This downsizing makes no sense to me. Throwing away 2/3 of the information from the 36 mp camera?
Noise is not everything. Otherwise I'd be shooting with my old Canon S100 camera from 2001, which has some pretty clean images.
This downsizing makes no sense to me. Throwing away 2/3 of the information from the 36 mp camera?
Annual licensing? Another product I will not buy. The list grows longer...
I'm not impressed with the images.
I have an rx100, so I'm not anti-Sony. But these images are just not sharp at all. When I click on Original, get the huge image, and then click on it once, I see lots of blur.
Am I the only one seeing this in various images?
What is it, the lens? I don't have this problem with my RX100
Sorry, but these don't look all that hot to me. I don't see great resolution, great sharpness, or anything.
I come from a background of Canon, 7D and Mark II, and I sold these and am now very satisfied with the quality of, of all things, an Olympus e-m5 m43 camera (with their good lenses, of course). These look worse than what I see fro that camera.
Am I missing something?
When will DXO 7 support the ORF file of the new Olympus e-m5 camera?
Sabatia: In good light, the 100-300 takes quite good images. I've been surprised at how well the OIS works. I say this coming from years of working with Canon L prime teles on wildlife shooting. Again, I'm surprised at how many handheld shots zoomed in to 300 (equivalent to 600!) I've been getting that meet my sharpness and color richness standard. Nice to see Pana improving an already quite good product. Now if only they'd make a 200, 250, or 300 f4 or 2.8 prime, and--while I'm dreaming--if only they'd get a focusing system that would lock on to small moving distant subjects, at least as well as my former Canon mates.
I agree about the 100-300.
But Panasonic needs to still fix the 45-175. which I wrongly bought on the supposition that the firmware update fixed it. It did not.
I give up. I've been looking for a telephoto shot, and have gone through 15 random images. Still have not found one.
Is ther any telephoto shot in these pictures? If not, why not? If yes, why can't they be organized in some fashion so that I can find the one that is?
Odieinaz: IF DPR believes that it is necessary to test multiple S100s to determine whether observed IQ issues are related to early production units or non-representative samples, then should not this practice be done with all cameras? It now seems unfair to fault ANY camera for imperfect IQ without evaluating 3-5 samples. I understand that the S100 is a special interest camera among enthusiasts, but many camera models will have some sort of enthusiast following.
All the people that bought cameras badly out of spec, but who don't access DPR? Out of luck suckers, I guess?
Why? Why would Dpreview prepare a samples gallery for this camera?
... somewhere gets a truly bad camera or lens. It doesn’t happen frequently, but it happens. When it does, it isn't a subtle call; it's very obvious the lens is bad."
Not necessarily. One can have a lens that is significantly more out of spec than a "normal" lens, but not to the point that it is "very obvious." In fact, it is much more likely that a lens would be out of spec by a significant margin, but not "very obviously," than that it would be out of spec "very obviously," for several reasons:
1) Lenses that are "very obviously" out of spec are much more likely to be spotted and removed from distribution before they are, well, distributed.
2) Lenses that are only out of spec by a significant margin are more likely to occur than lenses that are "very obviously" out of spec, from a statistical perspective.
Kai-Uwe Och: I am sure many owners will be disappointed because of unsharp pictures, when they try to use the 624mm tele setting in combination with those typicall stretched out arms! :-)
A 24 or 22mm lower end makes more sense for creative photography, than this crazy tele range!
The same disappointment people who buy a finder-less Panasonic camera will feel if they try to use a zoom lens too! :)