I would have thought this to be unbelievable, but... I downloaded a bunch of the studio shots from all the highest ranked cameras (studio comparison tool) and then enlarged them all to the same size as the largest image and compared them all at 200% side by side. At a mere $850 CDN (Henrys.com) the OMD’s image quality is very close, and in some cases better, than the best the big boys can produce even with full frame. Pretty amazing! Well earned. Now only a matter of time till it is hacked or upgraded to enable focus peaking and higher video bit rate.
Focus Peaking or not? Clean 4.2.2 HDMI out or not?So many rumors. Some people have a production model already. Can anyone confirm?
Apprently it is shipping already but yet nobody knows if it has focus peaking for sure or clean HDMI out? Apparently one of the best recent cameras and still no full reviews in sight?
schufosi777: Pity I cannot buy it. I am an English speaker living in Japan and it comes with Japanese menus only and Sony will not allow it to be imported from anywhere. So its down to the other two who do have English menus.
Don't new cameras have menus built-in? Then a firmware upgrade to english version would give you english menus. Right???
Just like all artistic competitions, totally subjective. The lighting in winning entry posted above is comlpetely staged as you can see by the shadows of the leaves on the trailer, and yet the intent of Barnack's rangefinders was to enable compact photo journalistic style cameras. what a contradiction of intent.
"The history of photojournalism is closely tied to his invention, as, beginning in 1925, the compact and easily carried Leica cameras were instrumental in enabling entirely new and expressive forms of photography."
Vitruvius: Months are passing by and still nothing available for sale. What's up?
Oh ya? I would love to see from where. I see GH2 and G3, but the only GH3 for sale is "out of stock, order now and we will ship when avaiable". So where would I buy one today?
Months are passing by and still nothing available for sale. What's up?
peevee1: "The Extra Tele Conversion function extends zoom range Max 4.8x without deterioration of image quality."
Either their video is very bad at the normal mode, or it is just false advertisement. You understand, for 4.8x digital teleconversion you need to use 1/23 part of the sensor. In could not possibly be as good as video from the whole sensor unless it is a complete junk to begin with. Starting with 4/3, it is like 1/4" sensor, it is not that small even in tiny cheap consumer camcorders.
And without IBIS, you still can use only a handful on Pana zooms for video, or have to shoot from a tripod, if you want something better than a shaky-blurry. The same for stills in low light.
Wow, you guys are so far out! It only collects the data from every 5th pixel during regular mode so it can cover the whole sensor area and match the lens image circle. With the ETC mode it collects data from every pixel but only from the middle of the sensor. So there is no dif in image quality or amount of light, but it equals a smaller area of the image circle so your lens factor changes.
Great review, thankyou. I hate to state the obvious, but the lens is ideal for interiors... and there are virtually none in the samples. Would be nice to see.
E_Nielsen: Ahem... You guys forgot the Sigma DP2 Merrill. Can any of the top 5 cameras in this article produce photos comparable to the DP2 Merrill? I dare you to do an objective comparison.I've owned the DP2 Merrill for a few months now and remain astonished that a camera of its compact size can produce photos comparable to top DSLR or even medium-format cameras. Why isn't this camera all over your Web site??
I only know what I have read from other owner reviews. Since you own one I would assume that you are correct. Still, it would be nice if they added some processor horsepower to this otherwise very nice camera (the DP2). Can't imagine what full HD video would be from this sensor and lens combo.
DP2 = 1 picture every 4 to 10 seconds.... might be a drawback for most situations. And half an hour battery life isn't very useful either. These aren't "frivolous features" that would be missed by a "beginner", they are requirements for the camera to be usable to anyone other than landscape and astro photogs. Otherwise looks like a great camera though. Wish Sigma would develop it to something more usable.
oselimg: @Charrick...With all due respect are yo not being fanatical about not having optical viewfinders. I can understand if you've never used a good eye level viewfinder. I admit the one on G15 is not good nor accurate but even a bad viewfinder at times can be a life saver when shooting at the longer end of the zoom range. Just imagine shooting even at moderate telephoto settings how the camera shake is translated on to the screen whilst trying to compose. Having the camera rested against your face helps you greatly to hold the camera steady. I can personally live with a mediocre screen but not without a viewfinder. Ps. You don't have to be a "real photographer" to use view finders.
All depends on how you shoot. I normally rest the camera against my knees, hips, or a wall with articulated screen. I would LOVE a nice optical viewfinder for those few occasions where I shoot eye level but for most of my shots I can't see through the viewfinder when the back of the camera is against the wall and I don't feel like laying on the ground for every knee level shot.
FartIng: i bought and returned the G15 for a G1X - Why?Articulated screen, larger sensor, but I found the G15 still has awful noise on photographs and HD video above 800 ISO (like the G12 I had before that).
The only awful thing now I find about the G1X - Macro close up photography is impossible which is heartbreaking.
Now I use my Nokia Lumia 920-which seems to take better photos than the G1X!
That Nokia must be MUCH better at that noisy pixelated grainy look than the Canon.
I shoot about 95% with articulated screen so I am really disappointed that Canon would "upgrade" by REMOVING the articulated screen. It is something they helped pioneer and they did it well and some of us actually NEED it for what we do. So why would they reduce their own potential market by removing this? Makes no sense to me. They have already developed it. There is very little extra cost to add it. And how much camera thickness does it really save to remove it? Likey not much.
KodaChrome25: Before the law changed... three possibilities...1) client hires photog, contract says client owns (C), photog paid, photog turns over photos to client2) client hires photog, contract says photog owns (C), photog paid, photog licenses photos to client3) client hires photog, no contract, client owns (C), photog paid, photog turns over photos to client
After the law changed.... three possibilities...1) same2) same3) client hires photog, no contract, photog owns (C), photog paid, photog licenses photos to client
What's the problem?
You only mention commisioned images. THAT is the problem. The vast majority of images were NOT "client hires photog". It is more like "I am having fun taking pictures and posting them online". Then someone really likes one of my pictures, right-click copies it, and uses it commercially for their business and makes money off it without paying me.The new law now is very clear that I own the copyright to that image BECAUSE I made it. The whole 'posting to public domain for all' is now clearly less valid an argument.
Vitruvius: No camera sensor shift IS, no lens optical IS... means that it would either need to be a MUCH better system than cameras like the EM-5 in some other way or much cheaper.
Arn wrote "I see little point comparing the m43 cameras to the larger and wider aspect ratio APS-C sensor cameras."
YA! I totally agree. The OMD EM5 BLOWS the Samsung away! Even with less pixels and a smaller sensor! Go ahead. Try the studio comparison tool. The NX 20 is not listed but the NX210 has the same sensor. The M43 camera beats the APS-C camera COMPLETELY! Everyone says size matters. In general yes, but not always. So why not have a smaller camera system that has better performance? Seems like a no brainer to me. Unless you are trying to compensate for something else.
the reason: what the hell am i supposed to do with a 67.5mm lens??? Canon Nikon, Pentax, and samsung dont seem to get it, if you have an APS C sensor you should make APS C lenses. Fuji gets it, the upcoming 56.5mm comes to 85mm f1.4, a classic portrait lens. Even m4/3s gets it with the upcoming 42.5mm f1.2 (coming to 85mm), and every lens they make comes to a classic focal length . Heck, even the nikon 1 system has an upcoming 32.5mm f1.2 that comes to 85mm.Just drop the system already and be done with it, stop half assing it
Try changing the aspect ratio on your digital camera and then see what happens to your 'perfect' focal lengths! You might as well throw your hands in the air and run out the door screaming! Or just stop posting really stupid comments.
Every image is distorted by the lens to make it appear flat. No two lenses will be a perfect match.
No camera sensor shift IS, no lens optical IS... means that it would either need to be a MUCH better system than cameras like the EM-5 in some other way or much cheaper.
To be constructive... I have found the paper clips with the lime green background and the dark glass bottles to be good comparison areas. They have specular highlights and are an indication of how well the sensor records real three dimensional objects with edges and very smooth gradations. The photo cards have white to black steps but the dark bottles have much more subtle transitions which can bring out JPEG banding issues. This is also handy if you plan to shoot green screen since it gives and indication of edge bleed in real life. The feathers are a good indication of how well you will be able to filter out a background with a person's hair.
Sorry, but a picture of printed pictures on a wall does not have this kind of depth for comarison.
rich889: the point of the comparison scene is to COMPARE between cameras across the board, OLD AND NEW. The most logical way to do that is to expand the current scene rather than delete it and start with a clean slate.
@ Simon Joinson -"If we expand it and increase the shooting distance, the magnification changes and the comparability is lost. We will be reshooting around 80 cameras. We did think about this stuff."
You already compensate for the variaty of sensor sizes and crop factors presumably with lenses or changing the distance from camera to scene. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you could expand the existing scene and shoot the same scene as before AND ALSO move back and shoot the entire new scene as well.