riveredger: You should include a Sony SLT model when comparing Live View and/or video AF. They are amazingly responsive and fast focusing in Live View AND can continually AF well in live view, unlike other cameras.
If you look further down the comments, you'll see that we're already planning to do exactly that.
jj74e: so....basically the hybrid af system does nothing and is just a marketing point (for single shot, non-continuous AF anyway)
This is from the forthcoming 650D review, so we compared it to one of its peers we knew to do this well (to show how it compared to the level of performance that you can get for the same money).
If we include such a video in the K-30 review (and I'm not going to promise anything), it would probably also be against the G5.
Jun2: What is the result of G5 vs 650D phase?
Yes, but you can get the G5 to shoot again before it has re-set to the original screen (it can shoot while writing).
I'd expect the G5 to be faster at single-acquisition AF and the 650D to be better for continuous AF.
Ruy Penalva: I think a better comparison would made in video mode or moving stills.
That's something we'll be doing separately. Stay tuned.
mpgxsvcd: Great comparison. Do you have any videos showing the difference when they record movies instead of stills? Great job. Keep up the great work.
That's part of an article coming in the next few weeks.
facedodge: Make sure to compare it to contract detection on a T3i in the final version of this review... That is where the improvement is made. You've got apples and oranges here.
It's an improvement, but it's hard to imagine it being slower than the T3i performing CDAF.
Since the G5 and T4i are targeted at similar buyers, I'd disagree that this is an apples to oranges comparison. At worst it's a green apples to red apples comparison (they appeal to slightly different tastes, but your expectations of them aren't wildly dissimilar).
mfj197: What lens was used on the G5
The Lumix Vario X 14-42mm retractable kit lens - a relatively comparable step-up kit lens (the standard 14-42mm is similarly fast).
The 650D is certainly faster than the CDAF system on the 600D. We've not compared against a Nikon DSLR setup, but they'll be similar - a long way off the pace of a designed-for-CDAF mirrorless lens/body combination.
We'll be looking at its continuous AF and movie performance soon.
fastlass: it is obvious that both the testing methods and the review products are flawed. But after correcting for these errors, I believe the same results will be produced.
Would you care to point out these 'obvious' flaws?
This behaviour is consistent with our real-world usage (with two independently-sourced units), or we wouldn't have included it.
Eleson: Why not compare with any sony slt also.Publishing a separate article with a "test" of "Canon Quick AF" makes it look like it is something new and revolutionary.Nonetheless, this is a really great reward for being the last into the game. :)
As it says in the text, this is part of the forthcoming Canon review, it's not intended as a comprehensive look at all available focus systems.
You may be interested to know that we shot video from several different forms of AF (including the SLT's phase-detection) yesterday and hope to publish a full article on that shortly.
Francis Carver: Hybrid AF, wow!!! Finally, Canon is experimenting with cutting-edge technology that others (Sony, Panasonic) have been using for a couple of years now. :-))
Sony and Panasonic?
We've seen on-sensor PDAF + CDAF from Fujifilm and Canon but I don't remember any Panasonic or Sony implementations. Ricoh also made a Hybrid AF system, though that used a secondary sensor.
chlamchowder: G5's CDAF looks really, really fast - about as fast as traditional PDAF systems. Of course, the 4/3 sensor does give more DOF with the same aperture and field of view.
What's more interesting to me, though, is how the systems compare when dealing with moving subjects.
We'll be covering that in an article in the coming weeks.
delastro: I think this is PR. May be I will read dpr still more critically in future.
I beg your pardon? We see some images with an interesting story behind them, from an event that much of the world is looking at, we don't name brands or talk about cameras and you conclude that it's PR?
I can personally assure you that no-one pitched this to us or suggested we run it. It's something interesting related to photography (as distinct from cameras), that's the only reason we covered it.
keeponkeepingon: This is a nice little article!
The first thing I think when I read something good is: Who wrote it?
Why doesn't dpreview give the author credit? You've got 15 buttons on "connecting"/"Social"/"Faceschnook" etc, how are we supposed to connect/socialize with a nameless entity.?
We do try to engage wherever we can. A lot of the news is by me, it just so happens that when the system was set up, we were rarely writing anything with an individual's voice in it, so it didn't make sense to give a byline.
IcyVeins: " Nikon US suggests it might appeal to people who bought a kit with just the 10mm prime lens."
Traditionally news (which isn't supposed to have an opinion or voice) isn't credited, since the whole point is that it isn't an individual speaking.
Since we're expanding the types of news we cover and who contributes to news, I can say that I wrote this one. Thanks for your kind comments.
Mssimo: 2.5 billion dollars for a 2MP camera? Really NASA?
Did you read the article?
Do you understand why they had to set the specification in 2004 (originally for a 2009 launch)?
And that they have to get the data from these cameras, and all the other experimental instruments, back from another planet?
falconeyes: I think NASA made a mistake here: to publish an early image with poor quality, DPR would pick up upon and trolls would make any discussion 99% noise.
I think, with a lander project this expensive, stunning photography sent back from Mars is crucial for public acceptance.
I see that the quality is much worse than 2MP alone would explain. So, I guess they have problems with image quality (like dust, maybe from the landing or the current "weather") and what we see probably is an early test image.
So, they have to wait for better conditions and shoot a 16 image panorama which they can stitch into a stunning pano for the public. At that time, DPR should have reported, not now! But it is important that NASA is going to do this. I hope they are aware of this. I guess they are.
Last note: Of course, the conservative nature of space projects made them use an outdated camera technology. Which is sad. But I don't think it is limiting the quality of images we're going to see in the future.
Because that hadn't been released when we published this story and it's not from the main imaging cameras - that's from the navigation cameras. This is the first color image from Mars - that seemed quite exciting, even if it's only a taste of what's to come.
This is the first colour image to be posted from Mars!
If there are some cool panoramas later, we'll publish those, too. But, given this picture is new and we'd got some information about the lenses and sensors that hadn't been widely published, we absolutely had to publish now.