HawaiiVolcanoes: Here are some FACTS: Sony makes their money selling INSURANCE in Japan...they LOSE money on all their cameras and electronics. Sony is an INSURANCE company...some of you may not believe this...but i'm sorry..it's TRUE. So....whatever cameras Sony makes...they're done to perpetuate this myth that they matter in the world of electronics. They probably spent more money "brown-nosing" DPReview and other review sites than they did on "development". thank you very much ----p.s. yes..these cameras are beyond ugly..period
not only not true, completely irrelevant. google are a "search company" but does that make maps or gmail any less useful? Hond make all kinds of stuff, but their cars are great...
2nd degree: What's all the fuss about? People too obsessed about what camera/format is best. I'm sure it'll be a capable camera, but a good photographer should be able to get a decent shot out of any modern camera.
One thing though, I won't buy one because it makes me feel a little bit sick lookiing at it. It certainly been hit with the ugly stick.
A familiar and often trotted out point of view, completely unhelpful and completely useless at moving the conversation forward. With your logic we would have just stopped innovating as soon as, say, 35mm format was invented by Leica in the last century. What you're not getting is that each new camera tries out new features and slowly through the evolutionary process of the markets the industry innovates. While you certainly can take higher resolution photos with a Fujica GW 690 - miles higher resolution actually, not everyone wants to do that.
And calling it ugly is both subjective and pointless.
davidodd: Fantastic design/tech. I'd love one. BUT... one reason m43 is popular is the lens, the range and the size (e.g. the 45mm F1.8). A FF sensor may not take up much more room but the lenses will I suspect. That 70-200mm don't look too light (and I'm guessing $$$$$)
But... and it's a big one, the lenses are worth it. FF gives so many advantages over shooting with the middle of a wide angle lens.
chj: Mirrorless without a touchscreen?! at well over $1000?! Why Sony, why?!!! As much as DPR'ers may pooh, pooh, my recent iphone acquisition has made me realize you HAVE TO have touchscreen for spontaneous shooting.
what's so hard about touching the shutter the release? that works just as well for spontaneous shooting. touchscreens may be nice for menu nav, but certainly don't add anything to shooting.
MarcMedios: It's a great little camera. Put a Leica logo on it and most of you guys who now criticize it would be salivating for it.
I have a Fuji X20 which cleanly outmatches the G16 in two areas which are important to me: shutter lag (the X20 has none) and small size. However, the G series is excellent; I've used several, a G10, G12, G14, G1X and they all perform admirably, much better than, say, the Leicas that are nothing but rebadged Lumixes.
HAHA, kind of hard to take this seriously, when you say you've used the G14, which never existed!
mcshan: That ugly Wi-Fi sticker would be the first thing to go. Makes the camera look cheap.
paint it red!
This is a very attractive camera, but aside from looks, why would anyone spend this much when for less than half the money you can get the equally small Canon SL1 or T4i, with a much wider range of lenses, bigger sensor and faster AF, more resolution, better battery life and an optical viewfinder! Doesn't really make any sense for a photographer to pick the Olympus.
self-indulgence masquerading as art. It's been done many times before and with far more skill and depth.
Shamael: This information is really "informative". this camera loads with instant film paper cassettes and prints the pictures like an ancient Polaroid camera did. A cassette is around 4 to 5$.
That is one useless thing that Fuji puts on the market. Sony got more wise, they slowed down with the useless gear, Fuji seems to have taken it over from them. Now, one never knows, it could sell, since useless stuff sells good in those days. Maybe with a golden top and a rosewood grip and a H in the circle as logo, it could make a runner.
there are more details on this forum
Useless to you maybe, but there people here that like instant photography. Just because you can't use these alternative formats to make awesome photos, doesn't mean all of us are so inexperienced.
Puertochap: Grossly overexposed. Poor composition. Inappropriate background. Pedestrian. Lovely small girl "snapped" by a doting Dad.
I think you need to calibrate your monitor before you conclude over-exposure. Besides, exposure is a matter of creative interpretation, it's like seeing a high-key image and complaining because the white background is over exposed.
The background is obviously used to draw the eye into the subject of the frame, it's actually well composed.
As for pedestrian, I just think you get art in terms of photography, all you're looking for seemingly is something that a pixel peeper would look at. Kind of like looking at a HCB and complaining that his image lacks resolution, or has blocked up blacks.
forpetessake: That's been mentioned many times on the forums that the only game left to increase IQ is increasing sensor size, and given time, the FF prices will go down and virtually all compact cameras will be FF. For some reason this simple fact provokes knee jerk reaction from people with small sensors. Must be a Napoleon complex.
compact cameras wont all go FF because it dramatically increases the cost of lenses, this isn't something that electronic miniaturization can address.
I don't think this is any kind of knee jerk reaction at all, I just think you don't get the issue properly.
aris14: We need cheaper equipment of top quality.That said IMO right now is the 4/3 format that allows us to have top IQ and glasses with reasonable cost. I think that current technology suggests that today we can have at least equal with top 24 x 36 mm sensors a couple of years ago. The 24 x 36 sensors may remain for special projects and demands along with larger ones.In less than 5-6 years a sensor of let's say 12 x 18 should deliver the same IQ in every aspect with today's top guns...The rest is marketing...
"The rest is marketing..."
This so naive. And you obviously have no clue about sensors. The size of the sensor effects many things, from depth of field, to tonal range, to low light sensitivity to resolution. I'm sure in 5 years a 12x18mm sensor will look just fine, but it wont come close to a "full frame" sensor (which in itself is tiny)
FinDERP: Film is alive and well, even amongst the young!
I would say this, having just bought an enlarger....
Especially among the young, it's become very hipster now to be vintage/retro with silver crystals.
D200_4me: Looks aren't everything....but boy that thing is ugly ;-) They should have abandoned their attempt to make it look more like a Fuji X100. The retro look works great for the X100. It just looks weird on the GX7.
I don't agree at all, it's much more of a retro-meets-modern than the x100, but I think it looks stylish.
hea: I remenber my uncles back in the late 60s, 70s, most people who bougth SLR/Rangefinders, both pro's and amateurs, expected to stay with the camera and lenses for 10-15 years, have no need to be upgrading every year or two.I bougth my first DSLR a D40 6 or 7 years ago, still is functioning well, I made an upgrading only recently, a D7100, in the mean time I had no need to upgrade, and I think I will maintain my D7100 for years, If not is broken accidentally.
I'm still using my Nikon F3 I bought in '82.
onlooker: This is my all-time favorite of his pictures from the Bay Bridge:
and it shows! But what has that got to do with anything here?
Devendra: i think the author blended the boundaries of models finger and shoes, while leaving too much space on the right side of the imagesorry, i lost the interest after seeing the image with chopped off parts
not to mention that it's a horrible photo and a very unflattering pose.
Dimit: It seems that the best of all and presumably the sole pair I'd need for the x system,i.e.the 23 and 56 mm are about to come last to impress us the most!!
the Fuji 35mm is good quality, but to anyone who's ever used a ff DSLR with L lenses, the focus speed is laughable. Even with the 3.0 firmware it clatters into focus so slowly by comparison.
stunning image quality, exactly what one would expect from a sony full-frame sensor
I was ready to be impressed by all the people on other forums saying how these high mp phones have full-frame dslp-like quality. These are dreadful! The noise reduction is so harsh it's painterly, but not in a good way. The noise is horrible, even with the noise reduction in those "low light" shots. Outdoors in bright light it's not terrible, looks about the same as the iPhone5, but compared to a real camera, dslr or mirrorless these are abysmal.