Timmbits: I don't care! Korea has decided to start hunting whales, and I am participating in the international boycott of all Korean products!
I really hope you don't have a Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus or Panasonic... you do know what Japan has been doing for decades now, right? Right?
Jurriaan Schalken: Does the image of flagbearing/waving muscled heroes still work for people?
I know nationalism and patriotism are important aspects of american life, but images like that always remind me of... North Korea. NOW i don't say the countries are alike, no way! Even though The Netherlands and Europe are seen as socialist by many US people/media, when you look at how the country represents itself visually, the US behaves like a communist country (not in terms of ideology, McCarthy's brainwash is still very present).
The way sports heroes are represented as hollow non human nationalist bots with a flag seem very similar (and devoid of humanity) to me.
So, athletes that look human, have a sense of humour AND are the best in their olympic field, is thought provoking and interesting (to me).
Nationalism only works if it's reinforced again and again, and it needs a lot of repetition, to reinforce, what is essentially, a form of ideological brainwashing. Whatever that ideology may be.
American nationalism is different from European. It centers around common ideals, symbolized by the flag, not around a common set of genetic markers and ethnic identity. Whenever an European complains about US flag waving, your should consider that your equivalent is your skin color. Which the ever increasing masses of desperate immigrants living in ever more violent ghettos who hold European passports but will never be considered countrymen by their native neighbors can attest...
On the balance, I'll think I'll go with the flag waving, myself.
In your spec sheet, assuming it isn't just Panasonic's, you give the body type as "Rangefinder-style mirrorless". In my world at least, you need some sort of integrated VF to claim that - so X100, X10 or NEX7 would be, but NEX5N, GX1 or this wouldn't. Neither would micro-dslr:s like EM5 or NX11.
Would you care to qualify your criteria for "rangefider-style"?
Very good. I would personally prefer smaller spacing and more controls, but this is a fine resource to have indeed. Thank you, DPR!
Very good. Thank you. Especially appreciate that you made it a web site adapted to small screens and not yet another retarded semi-webpage app to download and update.
On my Galaxy Note Android phone, I will probably be running the full version for the time being, seeing as I have 1280x800 px to play with. But it's nice to know that an optimized hand held version is being perfected.
First, thanks for moving towards and standardized high-iso test.
But that said, you probably should take a look at the scene while it's still new and you haven't shot dozens of tests with it. People have bene criticizing it, and some of that is unfair - it needs to be a tripod shot for comparability and lighting needs to be stable even if low for the same reason. The subject, though, are just about as bad as they could have been for this test - NR smearing doesn't really impact most of the items in the picture. The rat, which is affected, is out of focus. Please consider replacing some of the plastic figurines with hair, texture and feather samples, ideally in patterns that tend toward small. Those things in central focus. If possible, try to normalize the highest-iso shot at 1/250 or possibly even shorter, since high-iso is so often used to freeze action. It will not be a perfect test - what is? - but it will be better.
bluevellet: The biggest criticism I read from this preview is that "the buttons are too small".
My thought exactly.
"Paging Decker, Replicant loose in Olympus isle!"
Very easy on the eye though - both the girl and the cam.
Jon Stern: It's silly that we are still calling these cameras "mirrorless". We don't call DSLR cameras "filmless"; film cameras weren't called "glass-plateless"; and glass plate cameras weren't called "portrait-painterless".
Equally, we don't normally name things by what they don't contain. Otherwise my computer would be called a chickenless, pyramidless, stuffed-toyless, Andromeda-Galaxyless, swimming-pooless, 5000-foot-statue-of-Charlie-Chaplinless, Pope Gregory-II-less, etc., etc., etc., ... laptop computer!
Personally, I enjoy calling it "mirror free camera". MFC is a nice TLA, too.
My personal favourite among so many great pictures. Well done indeed!
ZoranC: As I look at results of cherry picked copy following questions are crossing my mind:
1. Was final, best, copy cherry picked with assistance from Canon or it was from same supply channel us mere mortals get our copies through?
2. Should reviewers post reviews based on best copy one can get or based on average copy one usually gets? I believe it should be later because results should represent typical result buyers will be getting. Otherwise review is misleading potential buyers into thinking they too will get so good results when they might not.
3. Are all other cameras DPR reviews cherry picked? If not why DPR is posting result from best copy of S100 against random copies of S95 etc? Playing field should be level and if it wasn't how we can know S95 wouldn't have topped S100?
4. Took 5 copies to get one that performs as it should?! WOW! What that tells us? That DPR "just" had bad luck with 4 or that majority of S100's will behave worse than product manufactured properly should?
From the preview: "At the time of writing, we are expecting another sample from Canon and we will rush it into the studio and out into the real world as quickly as possible."
So basically they had Canon send them a perfect sample. Now, before we all start wailing, I think most of the cameras they review are manufacturer samples sent out especially for reviewing purposes, often way before they're available through normal channels. Rather goes with the territory. Always assume that whatever online review you read is the best possible that piece of hardware will ever preform and that your own copy is likely worse. If anything, I'm amazed at Canon's amateurism in not securing good copies for a high-profile site like this from start.
All that said, I'm not sure I buy all this DPreview "doesn't matter in the real world" talk. We come here for technical details. If you think your tests are irrelevant, perhaps you should change them for test you consider reflect RW performance better.
This could have been interesting. If
a) The lens was measurably smaller than the predecessor. No information in the press release about that.
b) The optical quality is significantly higher than the OS version. Again, no way to tell from the sales pitch.
Assuming they would have crowed about it if any of those were true, it seems like just another ripoff - selling less at the same inflated price. But I suppose they need a fatter margin to meet the CEO bonus after their brilliant SD1 moves...
There's something unreal, in 2011, checking the spec list and seeing "Orientation sensor: no" for a new camera. Come on, Olypus. How difficult can it be? $49 p&s throwaway cameras have been providing this for like a decade now.
I am surprised at just how badly the S100 fares compared to its immediate predecessor. Frankly, even if a third copy is better, a 2/3 bum rate is simply unacceptable QC. It seems Canon sacrificed IQ at the altar of wide angle and megapixel.
Pity. This series used to be the one to get for real compact shooting.
Again, excellent presentation. And it's so refreshing to see video previews actually add value - showing us auto focus speed, shutter noise and card writing times simply cannot be done well in print.
Well done, dpreview.
Sorry, Adobe. That the picture you were caught with red-handed is the only one that got... uh, digitally enhanced for greater marketing impact, while the other two are real, REAL, cross-our-marketeering hearts is kinda hard to swallow.
Unless you post the original RAW files - preferably with a pre-demo time stamp from a service you don't own directly, like Flicker - your credibility on this issue is zero.
Maybe you have a winner on your hands here. Who knows? But until your efforts have been reviewed and verified by independent third parties, the rational thing to do at the moment, given your conduct, is to assume this is all so much exaggerated hype for the sales drones to regurgitate.
These video reviews are really excellent for two things that are nearly impossible to qualify in text - auto focus speed and shutter noise. Thank you for including those!
Also, I like the sober and professional presentation. Well done.
A video review that really shows some interesting and relevant features. Particularly enjoyed the AF speed and superscreen demos.
Well done, dp!
Thank you! Why is ISO not registered with several images?
Thank you for a detailed first look.
Care to comment on AF speed compared to other premium compacts? S95 was the slowest compared to LX5 and EX1, so it would be very welcome if Canon has managed to improve the focusing speed.
I really, really hope that the awful A77 images shown so far are the result of beta drivers and beta software in combination with non-adapted raw converters.
But why in the name of blazes does Sony let the cameras leave the house for testing in that sad condition? Don't they realize how much damage to their reputation these images do?