intruder61: i want the $5000 hermes edition
they will soon have the $7500 Herpes edition...
yslee1: How is it possible that the Tamron 17-50 VC and non-VC ended up with the same score? I have used both personally (albeit Nikon mount), shooting both real-world images and brick walls, and the VC version is distinctly inferior. I can't believe there will not be a difference on the denser 18MP sensor.
I also have both 17-50 VC and non VC - on my 650D, it's clear the non-VC is much better since wide open. It tells more about the so-called review :)
WACONimages: Most Micro Four Thirds standaard lenses are pretty sharp and decent quality given their price! Why it seems so hard for Nikon/Canon to produce fair priced, but still nice quality standard kit-lenses?
I've been since my first compact camera a Canon guy. Just happens so. Compacts, pro-dslr ect. Invest a lot of money in that. Lately I'm more and more surprised by MFT, especially their lenses.
And what is the point! of having lenses with a certain max aperture!, if you have to stop them down by one or two stops to get decent quality????
It seems mirrorless is a somehow better at max aperture. Hear good things also about the Nikon 1 system in this respect.
the only m4/3 kit standard lens that I know good is the Panny 14-45... besides, there are much more options for the DSLR users other than the kit lenses.
Cameron R Hood: Wow...yeah Pentax invented the pancake 40mm like 50 years ago, and they've had a modern autofocus one out for 8-9 years that is stunning, plus they reintroduced it with the K01, redesigned by Marc Newsome, but by all means review the Canon copy...
You haven't reviewed a Pentax lens in 4 years, and you completely missed the mark on the last one you DID review (the legendary 15mm Limited).
So, even though you think DA 40 is stunning, if DPR hasn't reviewed it you're less confident using the lens?
Peiasdf: "The E-PM2 and E-PL5 borrow the Olympus OM-D E-M5's proven 16MP CMOS sensor, a class-leader in image quality"What class is that? m4/3? That's a class of two. EVIL/mirrorless? It is better than Fuji and NEX?
Why this review reads like company press release with the overuse of hyperboles?
Class leader in m4/3 class ;)
The Zeiss is better, I'm sure - at more than twice the price of Canon but I prefer the one that I can focus easily ;)
jhinkey: Sigma is rumored to have the 135/1.8 sometime this year AND Nikon has a patent on a 135/1.8 IF AFS VR and likely will come out with this lens in order to compete. So it's good that we'll all have some choices in the fast 135/2 department somewhat soon.
The Zeiss 135/2 certainly looks outstanding and the lack of AF does not bother me for what I do - outstanding wide open performance across the entire frame is what I like to see (just like the 100/2 MP).
@Petka - 135 DC is not bad, but it's a dated design too. It's more expensive than the Canon but has much more CA and so-so sharpness wideopen
rhlpetrus: I just don't get how anyone would get a camera that doesn't produce a decent RAW conversion from the typical software. Any of the current competitors like the Canon G15, the Oly or the Nikon P7700 produce much better results.
Apparently this cameras is more about wow factor rather than IQ - which is important in 2013...
kewlguy: cool, silver star for an expensive compact with mushy images...
REally? consistent image? Funny, DPR's own raw and jpg comparison shows Canon G15, XZ2 being much more detailed at low iso...It's time the reviewer take a look at their own raw comparison LOL
cool, silver star for an expensive compact with mushy images...
D7100 is said to have no AA filter, but why is it still softer than NEX-7 in the studio comparison? NEX-7 studio comparison shows better micro contrast too. Is it due to lenses used?
yabokkie: half a century ago, the Japanese beat the hell out of "unbeatable" Germans and drove them out of the market.
I would like to continue to use high quality Japanese equipment but it's not bad someone else can beat them on quality, at least cost-performance for the moment.
@yabokkie; if you ever tried Leica lenses, you'll know the German optics beat the cr@p out of the Japanese lenses... not to mention Zeiss, Schneider... their market share is small because of the higher price - for a good reason!
kewlguy: I got my Canon 24 TSE for $1700, this Samyang is not cheap either. The only aberration on 24 TSE L is severe coma in the corners (unshifted) - hopefully the Samyang's better corrected in this regard (while on par in other parameters).
Nope, mine is the TSE II.
I got my Canon 24 TSE for $1700, this Samyang is not cheap either. The only aberration on 24 TSE L is severe coma in the corners (unshifted) - hopefully the Samyang's better corrected in this regard (while on par in other parameters).
For the price it should be much better than the mediocre 70-300 VR!
f/2.8? yawn... should have made it 35/2 equivalent...
vodanh1982: "The cameras' wireless capabilities allow users to remotely capture and view images from iOS devices" No Android or PC?
androids are for amateurs, PCs for gamers - not Phase One's target markets... LOL
Mike99999: To me the Fuji X-series is a case of the emperors new clothes. They basically take a Nikon D3100 or a Canon t2i, put it inside a shinier body, and sell it as if it's the greatest new thing. It is a pretty standard APS-C camera.
First of all the images look mushy at ISO 200. It doesn't look nearly as good as a D7000 or OM-D.
Second are the lenses. Everyone is hyping these lenses, as good as Leica, etc... Why? These Fuji lenses are really overrated. The corner softness is so bad I often think these are re-branded Sigma lenses.
If compactness is an issue, Olympus is convincing me better. If compactness is not an issue, Nikon and Canon get you more for less money. It just doesn't look as shiny.
I had D7000 for a year, it has strong AA filter, need good lenses. OMD? LOL as long as the sensor is smaller, no way it's comparable to Fuji's X Trans. The problem with Fuji is just that there is no optimal RAW converter...making it a high end jpg camera.
the most expensive jpg-only camera...
reach0775: dpreview will remain my No.1 source for camera reviews, but I'll really stop taking their conclusions seriously.The 6D has similar or better IQ than the mighty Mk.III, some VERY serious USPs (GPS, weight...) and it costs a 1.000EUR less!Hey, that's an awful lot of money! It's a shame they even compare those 2 within the same sentence.But taking it down because Mr. dpreviewer would have had different ideas where to save money is really outrageous arbitrariness.
Problem is, most buyer only concern about spec when comparing 6D vs D600. As a user of both system, I did try the D600 but I didn't like the color - plus my collection of Canon lenses are growing due to more better new lenses. Add to those an excellent service from Canon where I am - that's why I got the 6D.