People (photographers) need to learn to differentiate between editorial photography, which must represent reality, and creative works, which don't necessarily have to.
As long as the creative photographer isn't trying to fool anyone with such composite imagery, there's nothing wrong with it. It's basically just another genre of photography/visual art.
JohnyP: all of these "theoretical photographers" who sit in front of a monitor defending rights to their non-existent works of art is quite funny.
Abandonment of the copyright for all works posted on internet should be instituted. Patent and copyright trolling is a waste of everyone's time. This is the only way to make all these trolls switch to something else (hopefully more productive than arguing with people on-line over something).
^ China mentality.
Photato: Canon, bring the 70D with a 8MP sensor. Great for low light hand held and of course video.
WRT pixel density:8 MP APS-C = 21 MP 35mm FF
So if an 8MP APS-C 70D comes out, you can expect noise performance comparable to a cropped 5D3 or 6D.
Due to evolution having reversed course, humans -- er... I mean chimps -- have stopped using incident light meters.
acidic: Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots).
Also, the studio comparison tool for this camera is jacked up. Move it around the image and the zooms are not the same crop as other cameras.
Sexy, but no thanks. For this price, I'd expect Superb sharpness all the way into each of the four corner pixels.
@peterwrSucks bad compared to other FF cameras. D600 and Sony A99 corner sharpness will suck too, with poor lenses. But at least you can stick an excellent lens on those bodies. Not so with the RX1.
@TrojMacReadyI'm comparing it with other FF cameras. I understand your point about different focal length and distances, but I'm not going to bother downloading the files to compare the EXIF on each of the files. Regardless, the softness looks like it's due the lens softness, not DOF issues.
Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots).
Back in the day, I had a catalog of film scans of out of focus lightboxes exposed to a middle gray. Blank 4000dpi scans from Velvia, Provia, Kodachrome, Ektachrome made up my film grain library. I found myself often adding grain to my dSLR images via layer in Photoshop for my clients. You see, in the early days of digital photography, I still had many clients who thought digital images looked too artificial and sterile. A bit a grain and curves/saturation adjustment always did the trick to make the photo look more realistic. Also, heavy handed WB adjustments were to be avoided. Photos obviously taken in open shade should have still had a bluish cast, otherwise it looked fake. Funny how things change.
Now it's time to move backwards ;-)
tkbslc: "Kuster believes that iPhone photography allows portrait subjects to let their guard down becuase they are not looking at an intimidating DSLR."
So why not use an LX7 or rx100 or something? Even a GX1 with a 20mm f1.7. The iphone offers nothing special in this regard.
The iphone has photo apps.
Marksphoto: Finally I would be able to take a wedding photograph with myself included in it cuz guests always say you have been taking photos all day long, let me take a picture of you.
It may make me rething on what to wear on the day of the photoshoot. The possibilities are limitless ;)
now we need a 360 degree fill flash cuz I like to be lit properly
Get a speedlite with Sto-Fen diffuser. Not quite 360 degrees but close. Watch out for the flare!
I didn't read the whole review because this product doesn't really interest me as it currently stands. With that said, I would consider a product like this if it had IQ comparable to say, an Oly EPL1 or better yet Canon G1X. Probably a couple years away for that. It would also have to accomodate a SIM card with phone/text functionality. It wouldn't replace my phone, but it would be nice to pull the SIM out of my phone and pop it into this camera when I plan to take it along in lieu of my phone.
Is this Tamron specifically designed for m4/3? Or is it an APS lens adapted for m4/3?
Ridethelight: There are stacks of duplicated slow lenses for canon/Nikon camera's going back years, mirrorless is just a repeat of the last 10yr cyle.If you want to be really serious about DOf ,you will need fixed fast primes or FF .Between panasonic duplicating slow kit lenses and Olympus making overpriced silver lenses without hoods included i have finally lost interest in this m4/3 segment.
I think you mean if you *don't* want DOF.
mpgxsvcd: Why would you ever come out and say "Focus peaking and zebra pattern. More than 90% of the requests we're getting are for these features." and admit that the "the GH3 won't get focus peaking."
That statement doesn't help Panasonic one bit. They would be much better off just not talking about it at all. Everyone knows the camera doesn't come with the feature. Why even mention that you cannot add that feature?
Odd that a consumer would complain about a company being transparent. Of course if you're a shareholder, please continue.
E Dinkla: I would not mind if 4/3 goes 4/4, a square sensor based on the longest side of 4/3 (or a bit more) and the best sensor stabilisation Olympus offers, OM-D style. A raw format that would have all the sensor data included but some choices of aspect ratios on the camera for other output. No changes to the lenses, there will be severe vignetting on the corners of the square image but at least in RAW development one can select the best aspect ratio - composition within that lens covered disc.
If 4/4 were based on the longest dimension of 4/3, you wouldn't be able to use 4/3 lenses due to the larger image circle required. Still, it would be pretty cool if compatible with 4/3 lenses, even if that meant dark corners. One could easily crop the final image to vertical and horizontals and squares pretty nicely, avoiding the dark corners. Personally, I like the multi-aspect ratio sensor of the GH2. It would be even better if raw could capture all of the pixels, even if it meant missing pixels in the corners.
tkbslc: I think if we are going to throw around equivalence, it should be to APS-C. I mean, that's what the vast majority of m4/3 users would be using if not 4/3. It's not like there are all these people who would be using $2000-7000 cameras, if not their $500-1000 m4/3 body. I wonder what percentage of m4/3 users have even shot "full frame" since the film era.
I guess I just don't know why it is brought up so much since it's probably not a familiar point of reference for most people in this segment.
I haven't shot APS-C since going 35mm full frame in 2005. Reason: APS-C bodies are slightly smaller, but the lenses are the same size as FF. So frankly it was never worth the sacrifice in IQ. With the higher end m4/3 bodies, there is significant weight/bulk savings with APS-C IQ. For those kinds of weight savings, it's worth the sacrifice in IQ. I still shoot 35mm FF for critical stuff (client work), but for my personal work, it's 99% m4/3.
acidic: Canon should dump the M and jump into the m4/3 format. Though their sensor technology currently can't compete with what's in the OM-D or GH3, loyal Canon dSLR users looking to downsize or for a compact second body will likely find Canon's offerings attractive. Especially if they included an EF-S/EF to m4/3 adapter.
Additionally, unlike EOS M, a Canon m4/3 body would be a product compatible with a growing format.
And unlike EOS M lenses, Canon m4/3 lenses might appeal to not only Canon users, but to Oly and Panasonic users as well.
@howardroarkSaturated market? There is still a lot of room for growth in this arena. Which is why Canon made the EOS M. Sure it's got a bigger sensor than m4/3, but for all intents and purposes it's in the same general category. That being compact mirrorless interchangeable lens.
@meland1) m4/3 is not the best format for APS-C replacement, but it's a format that doesn't require lenses that are so niche that it only works on one body. Maybe someday Canon will offer two M bodies simultaneously an entry level and semi pro. Oh scratch the latter as per Mr. Maeda.2) All business decisions require risk. The EOS M being an example of one.3) The personal computing market is very fragmented. Computer manufacturers, printer manufacturers, monitor manufacturers all independently market their products quite successfullly. With standards in place, compatbililty is not a big issue. Look at how successsful Apple was when they were only compatible with other Apple products.4) Obviously.
Canon should dump the M and jump into the m4/3 format. Though their sensor technology currently can't compete with what's in the OM-D or GH3, loyal Canon dSLR users looking to downsize or for a compact second body will likely find Canon's offerings attractive. Especially if they included an EF-S/EF to m4/3 adapter.
rpensotti: I agree with mpgxsvcd, Masaya Maeda should be fired now!The statement about the doubtful future of the APS-C is irresponsible.With the improvements in sensor technology, this format is still the best compromise for quality, bokeh and low light.What about the hundred of thousands EF-S lenses out there?The EOS-7D should have been ready before Xmas.His comments about the Sony RX-100 are ridiculousAn RX-100 lookalike with a better hand grip and a little longer, wide zoom made by Canon will conquer a large share of the serious enthusiast market as the ideal take anywhere, or second camera.Let's keep in mind that with a good in-camera panorama feature, a really short wide angle is not a must anymore.Shame on you Canon, you are letting your constituency down!
"...the future of semi-pro DSLRs is probably full-frame..."
Allow me to emphasize SEMI-PRO DSLRS.
The only semi-pro dSLR with APS-C sensors that Canon currently offers is the 7D. Okay, if you insist, then let's throw the 60D in their as well (though I wouldn't consider it semi-pro by any means). Meanwhile, there are 4 or 5 entry level Rebel offerings, all with APS-C, and all perfectly compatible with EF-S lenses.
WilliamJ: I note no camera maker ever had the idea - isnt' business made to earn money ? - to design a camera that could be upgradable. The 1970-80's where the years of disposable items (lighters, razors, cameras and so on) but why not making the 2010's the era of items that could be upgradables ? Your camera is too slow ? Change of image processor. The sensor is too old ? Have a new one... That way, camera makers could get some more money to make a living without having to produce unrestly new now-super-complicated models with the bad results we can see far too often.
Hey, Mr Maeda ! That's a concept for you !
tkbslc is right. Computers are moving towards the 'disposable' category. Phones and tablets as well. Sure some components are replaceable (just like camera body components), but most are not upgradeable. Just look at all the glue they use in newer Apple products in lieu of screws. Sure it makes the product smaller, but certainly prevents it from being repairable/upgradeable.
So this thing will allow the NEX to control the Canon's aperture as well?