h00ligan: I hope the better lenses show this sensor is much more capable. These shots are exceeded by the rx100 which is smaller and longer zoom. Its a pity we cant see real representations with the top end glass.
These sorts of shots reiterate that mft with basic zooms are a poor choice and the platform really requires top notch lenses coupled with skilled processing to excel to even the level of basic modern aspc alternatives in the price range.
I understand that better glass yields much better results, i just hope beginners and minor hobbyists who wont use better lenses stick with either advanced compacts or larger sensors.
For example. The nex 6 powerzoom lens is bad, worse than the old larger 18-55 and shot like this blows away the new panasonic. For less money and around the same size...
I was hoping to move to a mft and pan 7-14 for interior shots but the sensor may not be able to capture the detail I'm after
Reserve judgment for better photographers using better lenses.
No, these shots don't reiterate that at all, esp. in comparison to 'basic modern ASPC alternatives'.
Please know what you're talking about before actually talking.
white shadow: Having tried the 12-40mmf/2.8 lens, this is what I would say about it.
It has a very good built and feels like a Zeiss ZE full frame lens. It is made of aluminium.
Priced at $999, it is much cheaper than the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8. Optically, it is also much better than the Lumix which is a bit soft at f/2.8.
It is best used wide open from f/2.8 to f/4.0. The colour rendition is very similar to a Zeiss lens. It has that 3D look, clarity and colour saturation.
The AF is silent and fast.
It is probably the best and sharpest Micro 4/3 zoom lens so far.
It's quite irrelevant who you are if you're spouting utter nonsense about the Panny being 'a bit soft at 2.8'; it qualifies you as a fool who doesn't know what he talking about.
Thanks again for admitting you haven't tried the Panasonic but desperately want to appear important by bloviating.
"A bit soft at 2.8"? LOL!
Thanks for admitting you've never actually used that lens, troll.
Well, the Leica worshipers are here. Time to fold up the tents and move the show down the road.
Tanngrisnir3: Well, one thing's for sure. This sure brings out the True Believers in the religion of Leica, and all the usual nonsensical articles of faith.
Yeah. I have done that. That's why I'll never be a big enough sucker to by anything by Leica and pretend there's some magical, pixie-dust quality that it can achieve that others can't.
It best seen as a stupidity tax on bad photographers.
I understand where you're going with that, but to me IQ is everything. The only 'experience' important to me is how the shot actually looks after I take it and PP it (or don't).
A camera to me is a tool. Can it do what I need it to do, correctly, and at what cost?
Leica loses every single time by that measure.
Well, one thing's for sure. This sure brings out the True Believers in the religion of Leica, and all the usual nonsensical articles of faith.
This is what Leica means and can do (in right hands). I would recommand visiting that guy personal web, its very enlightening about "why would anyone buy Leica".
There are few ways to get similar look, but its not cheap or easy..
I see nothing in particular in those shots (while they're nice) that I couldn't get with a 5D or higher end Nikon
inevitable crafts studio: i think the behaviour described in the article is exactly opposite.
the experienced photographer doesnt need to take 20 shots from 20 angles, because he knows the gear and his eyes to see whats most apealing for him/her.
the tourist is the one that walks around and takes 15 shot of every location, because of a lack of practice.
also how often happened it that a static object was in the frame i didnt see at first: never
and honestly i cant imagine how someone could make a mistake like that^^
but i like this series, dont want to sound like bashing it ^^
No, not really. I know several pros, and they do, indeed take a inordinate amount of shots of the same thing, due to changing light, atmospheric conditions, etc...
What IS it about people who use these 'bridge' cameras that they're so damn afraid of getting close to a subject?