Weakest link relative to Oly OM-D E-M5 is the lack if IBIS. Weakest link of the E-M5 relative to the G6 is the video.
Not a big fan of uber-HDR. Looks really fake Photoshop baked. But beautiful scenery.
This is a real disapointment for M43 users. Why not design the adapter to fit Canon EF-S and other APS-C lenses onto M43 camera the same way it is designed to fit full frame lenses onto APS-C? This is dumb to have a full frame lens attached to a M43 camera with a APS-C size image circle half wasted for $600.
So this is what city road crew workers would look like fighting a fire.... cool.
Higuel: some $1300 for a lens that does NOT even close the iris as ordered by the camera...from a white brand on top!
This confirms us all that Samyang has forgotten that their first major success, the 85mm f1.4 owns it to the fact that it was INDEED way CHEAPER then the options from the brands! WITH almost the same optical quality.Start increasing the price like Sigma is doing and in no time Samyang is be story like many other brands who propose stuff way too expensive! They still have a looooong way to catch sigma in AF and ANY automation for that matter! Naturally they can try a crazy move like Sigma did with the SD1 sold at absurd prices, well, actually NOT SOLD! And in few months they had to cut the price to less then half!!! That is what Samyang deserves also!
Anyone who buys this lens plans to spend a few minutes adjusting movements per shot. How hard is it to set aperture on the lens instead of the camera. What a dumb comment.
There used to be small screw attachment devices that were very handy. You could screw it into a tree and then attach the camera very securely almost anywhere in the forest without a tripod. I think they disappeared because of the perceived damage to 'nature'. Would be nice to have three small screws for this system as well. Seems like a great system idea.
A Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm f2.0 lens is about $2000 alone. So it is interesting that the lens DXO mark is about the same as the $450 Samyang 35mm f1.4 at f2.0 (to match the Sony). The Samyang is actually a lot brighter in the corners too with less complex distortion. Same goes for the Sigma 35mm f1.4 at $900.
I found Waldo!!! hey?!, is that my wife with him?
So the 16MP, 7FPS, with 1.3X crop factor would be almost exactly the same crop and resolution as a Micro 4/3 camera, except slower frame rate than the M43 cameras.
Kurt_K: From base ISO up to 1600 (i.e., the range that encompasses pretty much all my shooting), there doesn't appear to be any advantage at all over the 16MP micro four thirds cameras. If anything the m4/3 offerings appear to be resolving more. I can only surmise that the 5200 is employing stronger NR at low ISO settings.
It is amusing that marike6 spends so much time and effort looking for some aspect or potion of the test image in which the D5200 is better than the OMD with it's much smaller and older sensor. Simply the fact that a pro needs to search so hard through only RAW files to justify that it can even come close to the OMD means that it is irrelavent to 99% of users.
What the HECK are you guys talking about the "great IQ?!? You obviosly have NOT actually used the camparison tool and still you blather on in complete ignorance. Do the comparison before speculating how great it is (isn't).
Both the NEX-7 (much older) and the OMD EM5 (much smaller sensor and far fewer pixels) have at least as much detail and far LESS noise than the D5200 at 6400 ISO.
Go ahead, burry your head in the sand. It just makes you look like fools. Either you work for Nikon or you are completely blind.
Perhaps it just looks impresive compared to another Nikon.
Vitruvius: I compared the D5200 to the OMD EM5.
The sensor on the OMD is only 2/3 the size and 2/3 the MP and still far out performs this camera. The OMD has at least as much detail, despite the lower pixel count, and far less noise, especially at high ISO. Turned them both up to 6400 ISO and the D5200 looks terrible compared to the OMD.
So for all those people that need the Nikon badge and the 24MP sticker to impress, knock yourself out.
Pretty sad actually that Nikon can't do better with a much larger sensor and so many more pixels.
Even the 18 month old NEX-7 has far less noise at 6400 ISO.
I compared the D5200 to the OMD EM5.
tgutgu: What a clueless company!
They still don't what Europeans and Americans demand!
While the competition has focus peaking for more than a year, they offer lame excuses for not implementing it.
It looks that the GH3 was prematurely released, probably due to the success of the E-M5: lousy EVF and no resources, i.e. time for developing an image processor, which is able to support focus peaking.
Doesn't the Lumix G5 already have focus peaking and 60p FHD video? I guess that was a different department.
"No focus peaking because it was not included with the Venus Engine" .... So you build the hardware and software from the Sony CLM-V55 external monitor into a vertical grip accessory (minus the screen) and loop the HDMI signal through the grip and back to the GH3 screen. Bob's your uncle. Or you just offer a new version of the GH3 with a new Venus Engine. How hard is that? "More than 90% request this". So why wouldn't it be included?
Low Budget Dave: As far as product review speed, I am not sure any web site does particularly complete reviews in advance of product introduction. I am not sure how they could. As far as the NEX6 goes, I bought it when my old camera broke, based on the assumption that it would be about the same as every other camera in the price range.
Generally, it is a pretty good camera. I am not wild about the color on the kit lens, but that is easy to fix with the Sony 50mm or even the Sigma 35mm. The autofocus speed seems to be pretty good, but the accuracy is only about average. The camera gets distracted by bright areas, even if you are using center focus or spot focus. Anything moving gets out of focus very quickly, and the Sony has trouble keeping up. The Sony face detection is more likely to focus on the outline of the head than on the eyes.
The kit lens is designed for portability, and comes with the trade-offs you would expect. The only thing I didn't expect is how touchy it is to manually focus. A quarter of a turn takes you from front focus to rear focus, and only a very good eye and steady hands will be able to capture a shot in between. In this respect (and many others) the 50mm "sippy cup" is vastly better.
In short, it is about the same as every other camera in the price range. It is a little better at some things and a little worse at others. Of course, if they said this in a review, they could finish every review within 2 hours of getting the camera.
They might also add: "This camera won't help you take better pictures, unless you are upgrading from a cell phone, and maybe not even then." This sentence can be safely added to every review.
So you are here reading an "extended PREVIEW" of a camera you already own. My point exactly.
I LOVE DRReview and it is very sad for me to see the information here becoming less and less relavent. Reviews used to come out the day after a camera was announced. Now there are "previews" coming out 3 to 6 months after the camera is for sale. So what is the point of that? The Lumix G5 sems like a competent camera that was announced in July and there aren't even studio shots available to compare it to other cameras, at least not on this site. Which means that I am forced to look more and more to other sites for relavent information. It is very sad because this was a great site which I used to recomend to everyone I knew. I am sure these are factors beyond the control of the staff and I am sure they are just as frustrated so you have my sympathy.
Vitruvius: See if I get this...
If I use this between the Canon EFS 15-85mm IS USM f3.5-5.6 and a MFT body (like the OMD EM5 or GH3) I would get the equivalent of a 21-120mm IS USM f2.8-3.5 lens?
Focal length X2 and then X0.71. ?
Then with the the MFT Digital Tele Converter (x2 crop) the same lens would also allow FHD video at 42-240mm with IS and USM at f2.8-3.5?
Thanks for the clarification on the EF-S mount. Good to know.
Thanks for the reply Andy but then I don't understand why the white paper says "DX" to "Micro 4/3" = "Yes" on page 3?
See if I get this...