StefanD: Darn... I just sold my Canon 70-200 4.0L to exchange it with the Olympus 35-100 2.0 only to find out that that beast weighs 2 times as much :-(
I bought a 70-200L f/4 is due to its light weight and manageable size, got tired of lugging the 100-400L. Sorry it didn't work out with you and the Oly.
It's not going to convince me to purchase a Micro Four Thirds camera, but it was creative and funny!
Just Ed: I notice when using the comparison tool some slightly older cameras display the sample at a lesser magnification (smaller size). Is this something DP can adjust so they all are approximately the same magnification?
And moreso if it does not display different cameras at the same size....THAT WAS MY POINT! Did not wuestion if the tool was equal or better than a downloaded image at full size. Without comparable sizing, it is somewhat useless.
Seriously, I think you understood my point about four posts ago.
The advantage is speed, which you have conceded by you response.
That negates the advantage of the comparison tool.My original comment holds true.
robspeed750: Noisy! Even at ISO 100. All those megapixels ... of NOISE! Top job, Canon! lol
Nathiotho, the source of noise lies with the OP.
Yanko Kitanov: The performance is really not up to the price. I was expecting much more. Not that it is totally out of Pentax's league, but it is also inferior to the D810 which has lower resolution but delivers better results in terms of noise, dynamic range, tonal gradations and subjectively always looks much sharper even at unprocessed RAW level. A great cam for Canon but not a such a great cam for it's price range in the market.
Actually, I thought the Canon did a much better job of rendering true blacks. There are some differences in tonality and the Canon pics seem to show greater color saturation. I fail to see where the D810 looks sharper or better in any paramater of comparison on this test image.
Guess you missed my point, I am not interested in comparing pixels to pixels, rather seeing in practical terms what each element of the sample scene looks like from a particular camera. To me that is far more relevant since it speaks to the real world capabilities.
Oleg Ivanovskiy: Aw, c'mon people, you are boring! Not a single joke with some Monty Python meme in the comments...
Bet she puts out,know what I mean...know what I mean?
It Viewer has to have a program which decides how large of an area of the test image to magnify...right? Thinking that spec changed somewhere along the line.
I notice when using the comparison tool some slightly older cameras display the sample at a lesser magnification (smaller size). Is this something DP can adjust so they all are approximately the same magnification?
It would be more interesting if the hand had more of a Martian Green tint.
Tonio Loewald: It seems to me that "shoot to the right" was more useful in the film era — film has ludicrous (almost infinite) over-exposure latitude (it's not practical to recover it without some kind of high tech enlarger, but I read somewhere it's in the neighborhood of 22-stops). These days, certainly at lower ISOs, it's often advisable to somewhat under-expose lest you accidentally blow out small highlights that aren't apparent in your histogram.
Tonio, "enlargers" are decidedly low tek. It is uo to the photographer doing the shooting and printing to control/manipulate the exposure and develop the image properly for the best tonality. Its one heck of a lot more work than digital.
Awesome article! Thank you DPR for sharing this with your readers. Am anxiously awaiting part 2.
That's a heavy duty beauty. Wonder what launches it has recorded, Apollo11?
mpgxsvcd: I think the biggest problem I have is that Dpreview doesn’t understand its own audience. We simply don’t want to hear about this camera. It isn’t something that we would ever consider buying. We accept that you don’t EVER talk about products from RED or the high end Panasonic video cameras because we know that not many people here would ever buy those.
So why is this camera so special? What makes Dpreview think that their readers want to have this camera shoved in our face every couple of days. For once and for all. Stop pimping this camera to us. We get it that you think it is revolutionary. However, we simply don’t see it that way.
Barney, possibly more moderation IS indeed needed and that is not directed towards any one individual.
Battersea: I hope Canon starts shopping there.
Brendon, my comment was not directed specifically to you, it amazes me that you get so defensive.
Your a wonderful photographer and very knowledgeable, now go have a nice day!
Hi Rishi, i think the trolls here have a hard time understanding photography/videography much less how to run a business. All they can do is compare numbers, art eludes them.
Just Ed: Have To agree about "photos" sucking even in comparison with iPhoto. Apple seems to be dumbing down a lot of OSX to be compatable with IOS.
IIf I wanted my iMac to be more like the iPad I would not have spent a couple of grand on it.
Yes it does, sir. The interface is dumbed down for the masses. You have to click through to get to the good stuff.
You Won't find me adopting photos, at least not until all the other options are exhausted.
Anyway, tnx for a spirited discussion. Good luck on your adventure for a RAW converter.
Vscd, they might just be people who actually use their cameras rather than quote one specification 😀