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...
The Wide AND Bright combo was the one thing missing from the compact system cameras. This blows the doors WIDE open! Awesome! FF lens to M4/3 body would be perfect. OMD EM5 and GH3 cameras would ROCK even more with all that glass available that would be Wide AND Bright!
So they removed the articulated screen from the G15 JUST so they could call this "innovative"!?!!? Stupid marketing people at Canon chopped the feet off the G15 which would otherwise be a great pocket camera just so they could "re-introduce" something. I guess it is the only way they can be innovative anymore; remove something good just to give it back.
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.