haiiyaa: jpg looks bad. However RAW looks very good and almost compareable to m43. But why is there so much noise in the blacks, even at iso 200?
poor dynamic range.
10mp would have been enough and would have improved iq. Nikon doesn't want this to succeed.
Siddharth: At $250 it actually competes with all compacts with very limited zoomsNikon Coolpix S800 seriesCanon Powershot series (not all)Even Sony H400 is more expensive..
This looks like a clever product strategy...
actually it is 399,95 go ogl it: http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/product/52277
Looks to be the same camera as this one:http://www.kodakcamera.jkiltd.com/Americas/cameras/astroZoom/az522.php
250 pounds translates to 425 dollars. I would guess it will actually cost less than that.
"(bested by the Sony Cyber-shot HX400V with its 1500mm equivalent reach)"
I just clicked on your Sony HX400V link and you state in the specs that it has a 24-1200mm lens.
That would be the H400 (no x) it has 63x zoom range. It' s the el cheapo version without goodies and inferior hardware but with a longer zoom range.
At least it' s predecessor the x-5 had an articulating screen and looked better. This is aimed even lower. Very uninspired design. The zoomrange of these things is getting a bit ridiculous. Also there should not be more than 10mp on a 1/2.3" sensor. More is waisted because of diffraction and just adds to noise.
VENTURE-STAR: Everything indicates that this is a pretty awful, pointless piece of equipment that has little to offer anyone who is serious about taking pictures using a modern digital camera body. At £480, they are having a bit of a laugh I'd say!
you don't get it
nerd2: Still way too expensive for what we get. Helios 85/1.5 has proper aperture, more than one stop faster and cheaper (used to be WAY cheaper)
That is not Petzval but a Biotar design. From the 1920's. Cheaper biotar is the Helios 44 (2, M(1 to 6))
Every wedding photographer should have one
;) it's very steam punk
and now for something completely dif.... eh.. identical.
Looks like it doesn't prevent massive barrel distortion.
vFunct: This camera isn't for the idiot that thinks a bigger sensor is better.
You're right, it is for the fool who likes noisy and blurry pictures.
Not out of stock in Europe.
quezra: Drama incoming in 3... 2...
You yust destroyed your image of a artsy fartsy landscape fotographer Chippy99. MF is great for landscape btw despite shallow DOF. You just stop down and use a tripod. Super resolution.
LTZ470: f/1.2 = f/1.2 = f/1.2 = Shutter Speed...f/1.2 w/ f/2.4 DOF gives faster Shutter Speed which is THE critical factor...I'll say it again faster shutter speed with increased DOF which is advantageous in many applications... ;-)
The A7 is not the only FF camera. Canonikon look it up. You are the most hopeless fan boy I have met so far. Be proud of it. Flickr is a site for hopeless attention whores. There is never any negative or even constructive criticism. People only comment and like hoping you will watch and like and comment their photo's in return.
Under exposed, harsh flash light. Wrong bird in focus. Resolution so,so.
Try finding a F/ 0.6 lens for the em1. You will have a much harder time. You can just use a A-mount adapter on the A7 and have access to all A-mount Tele glass.
StevenE: Should also talk about the angle at which light strikes the sensor. In FF the angle at the corners is pretty extreme, causing light loss and vignetting. This becomes even more extreme in mirrorless cameras since the flange distance gets smaller, like Sony A7 series. Smaller sensors may have an advantage in corners, especially in mirroless. I'd be interested in an in-depth analysis of the significance of sensor size, sensor design and flange distance
Only a problem with old range finder wide angle lenses on the a7. When you use FF SLR Lenses with an adapter your angle gets much less shallow because of the longer flange distance. Most vignetting is not due to the angle but the corners pushing the image circle.