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! :)
max metz: This promises to be the ultimate super zoom, if the lens quality is up to the task, the sensor and controls are already proven in the x10. The flexabilty of a super zoom can be extraordinary, a higher quality version such as this has been a success waiting to happen, ones thing is certain - being an x series Fujifilm the build quality is likely stellar. If I was starting out, with what I know now, this would be a far far better option than an entry level aspc dslr with kit lens.
The GH2 plus 100-300 is significantly smaller than a dSLR with anything near that zoom ability. And I will bet my last dime that the image quality the GH2 does is better than what this camera will do.
JackM: I don't get it. If I'm going to lug around a camera this big, it's going to be a real DSLR. I like to choose lenses for myself, thanks.
Fuji would be wiser to develop the X100 concept further, like with interchangeable lenses and more fast primes. They could really build a niche around that body. Only Leica can/will compete.
I think you don't understand. There are a lot of people who are secretly afraid of "changing lenses" and all that kind of "technical" stuff. They'll never admit it, though. This serves their market.
Perhaps I'm just not sensitive enough to see, but I can barely see much differences among the pictures. Even the 11 year old CAnon S100 looks to be in the ballpark
Dirty Harry44: Too many MPs, and 36x zoom with no VF, what a disaster.
Quite correct. How many times must a camera engineer look up, before he sees the sky? How many generations of P&S superzooms must pass, before one engineer realizes that a viewfinder is a MUST for such a camera, because when the person puts the camera to his eye he is doing a great deal of stabilization to the image. How stupid is it to hold a camera with 36x with hands outstretched and looking at the LCD screen. That's the LEAST stabilized position, and unless they've built in IS from the year 2030, and its bright sunlight, the image WILL be blurry.
Morons. Sheer morons.