For light editing, sure. For on-the-spot editing, sure.
The main problem is one of workflow though. Then there's the problem of the software. This does not run the adobe suite. It runs the basic mobile apps. You can do some pretty basic things, that's about it.
Get a Surface Pro 3 or 4. That is far more suitable with enough horsepower to do most things a creative can need. I do photo editing, processing, digital art, desktop publishing and graphic design on my surface pro 3.
The surface pros also run full blown adobe suite and in desktop mode, have multitouch trackpad so you can use the suite quite comfortably.
In touch mode, I open photoshop, click 1 button to apply my custom action. Or just set it to batch process. Or just use lightroom if that's more to your workflow.
The ipad pro will be a better illustration tool than a photo editor's tool. It's fundamentally no different from an ipad.
Shouldn't the title be: SPONSORED CONTENT?
It's only an analysis insomuch as it talks about the camera but it's actually a marketing and sales pitch (or press release).
I have no issues with reading sponsored content but I'd like to know beforehand so I don't start rejecting the content as I read through, expecting it to be an unbiased look when it isn't.
SmilerGrogan: If Sony make the bulk of sensors, why does DP Review bother testing so many different cameras.
When the same Sony sensor is used in Camera A, B, and C, wouldn't it be more efficient to just test Camera A and extrapolate to the others?
Plus that would free up staff time to review the more interesting and off-beat cameras out there (branch out into medium format cameras or finally review the many Pentaxes that are gathering dust in the equipment closet).
The software used to interpret the sensor data will al lead to quite different results.
OEM can have vastly differring views of what looks good, what should be retained and what to throw out as well as colour profiles.
Underlying sensor may be quite capable but it's the oem that decides what to extract from the sensor (or how).
nerd2: I don't get it. $1099 body + $899 12-40 2.8 + $1499 40-150 2.8 + 45 1.8 = whooping $4K worth of gear, frequent lens changes and only 5fps.
I could use D750 + 28-300 lens combo to take approximately the same outputs, while much less hassle overall (cheaper and lighter, does not require lens change, faster AF, faster fps, comparable DOF, comparable resolution etc)
that's like saying people are foolish for paying $1000 on a 12-40 pro zoom when they can get a $250 kit zoom... disregarding that the pro zoom is heads and tails better than a plastic janky kit zoom.
but why stop there when you can get a point and shoot with a 10x zoom clearly written on the barrel..
next time you might want yo try comparing like for like.
keepreal: How good is the EVF, really? If only Olympus were to make a MFT camera with an optical viewfinder roughly the size and weight as in the full frame OM1 film camera.
EVFs are never going to come close to that, but is this one similar or better than the VF-4 or more like the EVF in the Fuji XE-2? The former is poor but bearable, I have one, but the latter is dreadful.
This trend to EVFs by all the leading manufacturers is a substantial backwards step, just as lenses with wild native barrel distortion.
Taking pictures with an EVF makes the job much more difficult to get right than with an optical viewfinder. Why do all the serious reviewers of cameras make light of EVFs and their deficiencies as if they are a real contender in a compact with interchangeable lenses versus a decent DSLR?
Visit http://www.ipernity.com/home/contrajur, especially in the albums for South Western USA and Slovenia. Most shots there with a DSLR. Using an EVF for them would not have been a pleasant experience.
i still don't understand why people keep saying it's more difficult to shoot with an evf. it really isn't. viewfinders are JUST framing tools. it could be in black and white and you could still take great pictures with them.
i sometimes read people even say it is easier to shoot in low light with OVF; like, what??? no it isn't. all you see is blackness, much less anything else. at least with an evf, it boosts the viewfinder scene so you can actually see your subjects for framing purposes.
the only place left where ovf outperforms evf is action/sports. in all other cases, they are on par or in some evf simply wins.
modern evf are wysiwyg and again only fall short on pure action.
FuhTeng: Maybe the reason it isn't a gold is because the E-M1 still exists?
that's a very valid point. mark 2 may have new bells and same tech but the em1 is still the superior camera and more versatile. that and when compared to what is available now, silver is very strong showing.
a camera when compared to its rivals getting silver is a pretty big endorsement. gold would mean it is heads and shoulders above, which it isn't.
the OMD's have consistently been all around great cameras, towing that thin balancing line between features, handling, IQ and delight. nothing wrong with silver and in fact i would say today, if the em1 were reviewed, i'd give it a couple more points but still give it a silver (i own 2 Omd's). no longer class leading, but superb all rounders.
nerd2: Compare the exposure values of two studio images (same brightness)D800e : f5.6/ 1/100s, ISO200EM5mk2: f5.6, 1/60s, ISO200
So again, olympus inflates JPG ISO values by almost a full stop, which gives a false impression of having "clean" high ISO images. I hate this kind of marketing BS. You *have* to use ISO 1600 on oly body to get the same shutter speed of other cameras with ISO 1000 - then Oly ISO 1600 is, for all practical purposes, ISO 1000 and should be compared to ISO 1000 images from other cameras.
to have made it fair, the d800 should have been at f11. f5.6 on the D800 is f2.8 on m4/3 for dof. consequently you compensate via shutter speeds.
that example has nothing to do with ISO. f5.6 on m4/3 =/= f5.6 on FF.
at the end of the day, you backers should know what you're really doing. you're funding a product that may or may not happen and in many cases you are investing in a company for which you will have zero stock.
you are the ones taking the risk for these projects/companies.
personally i fail to see the allure of participating in such. you take the risks, they reap any rewards. you MIGHT get a product in return. you might not.
it's basically another form of gambling which is how i can even think ppl would participate in the fundings.
Steve in Scotland: Shoot raw/jpeg. Choose neutral, vivid, monotone whatever in camera the same way you could choose film type. Submit the jpeg as the entry and the raw file as the proof.
neo nights, any person choosing to enter a competition will do so accepting the stipulated terms. that MAY require submission of raw up front or upon finals or as winning foto. it's generally for verification and any commercial terms agreed to upon competition submission. often organisers reserve some or all rights to use entries for promotional materials.
if you enter a competition you do so to get sometging out of it. usually free advertising and wide recognition of your work/skill. generally a successful entry that results in finalist and/or winner has far more value to the fotog than the value of a single foto. you, the artist, still retain full ownership except in some cases.
really there's no amount of money an independent photographer can spend to get the kind of exposure they can get from being a finalist or winner. that's very valuable and can be used for your own self promotion.
arrr: These dinosaurs need to evolve, many digital effects can be applied in camera at the time of exposure. It's no different than smacking a filter in front of your lens. Cloning out a distracting element shouldn't be an issue either. This is something any talented printer could have done for you in their darkroom. Photoshop aint cheating baby... it's part of the camera.
Photography Purists need to go back to shooting film and processing it a Walmart.
many competitions allow you to do basic editing/toning because you are still manipulating the existent data. what is generally not allowed is when you add of remove data. so really they allow you to tone, dodge/burn your image to taste. just dont clone detail, dont add and dont remove and dont manually manipulate the objects in the scene to something it originally wasnt.
most photographers only really need to tone and dodge/burn any way so that's fair enough. i do not think this limitation negatively affects them at all.
it's like i say, once you start editing beyond basics, you should be entering into a digital arts competition, not a photography competition. as digital art you are allowed max leeway to composit and edit at whim. a photography competition is about what you shot.
fmian: So... Don't buy the MKII cause something better is coming soon...I see...
@fmian, except that's a fact. he's being truthful about it. you could wait. and wait. and when the next camera releases, you know the next one will be better so what? you wait again. and wait again?
every product you buy will improve, for the most part. you buy thrm now because you need them now. if i need to replace my camera tomorrow, it's not practical or reasonable for me to just do without a camera for another 1-3 years until the next iteration.
most cameras now are so competent they will do what you need. if you're just gear heading and not shooting, sure, keep waiting for better and better cameras. me, i make money now with my cameras and i make picture now and tomorrow to capture my life.
when a better iteration comes and i need to upgrade, i will. if i don't i wont. my upgrade cycle is every 2-3 generations of body.
Richard Schumer: Now I think I understand why Sony bought such a big part of Olympus a little while ago....
we knew this when it was first announced. i was very excited as i thought sony had great cameras but olympus had really desirable features like IBIs. I'm still hoping Olympus can lend Sony some of their jpeg rendering engineers. Sony jpegs are really meh.
jhinkey: Let's face it - there is no generally accepted definition of what constitutes "pro" gear. A competent photographer (pro or not) can make fine images with an array of digital camera formats and lenses. Be that as it may, I think we all tend to think of "pro" gear as being more durable with faster glass at more exotic focal lengths (from ultra-wide angle to long telephoto) as well has higher performance in video, stills, and action than "consumer"grade gear.
I've made fine images with my m43 gear that anyone would have a hard time figuring out which format I used. Other times full frame was really necessary to get an acceptable image.
Assuming the image quality is excellent from this new 7-14/2.8 I'm sure it will be able to make professional images - I will certainly buy one if I can as there are many times my FX "pro" gear is too heavy/bulky to make the trip (and maybe even unnecessary).
pro generally denotes overall quality, fit, finish and reliability/durability. outright IQ should be good but that's a given but i would not buy a pro lense with janky construction or unreliable performance.
take the 45 oly vs the 12-40 for example. the 45 is a great lense but it has a weird plastic bit that can drop off and it's completely plastic apart from the connectors and glass. and despite its great IQ, the 45 doesnt reliably focus.
the fit, finisg and construction of the pro lense as well as its overall performance and reliqbility is why i would consider buying it and putting it into the pro category.
neither is the panaleica 25 comparable to the 12-40 pro dewpite it being fast and stellar IQ.
is the term arbitrary? sure but pro usually denotes general high quality and reliability... for a price to match.
Jonathan F/2: It's a phone. Big whoop.
@pavi1 so basically, it's just a phone.
brianj: It provides a very expensive P&S camera without any zoom, I wonder why people fall for it.
all smartphones are classed as communicators. this is a mobile computing device with native connectivity and internet based device. when psion and nokia first made these populars they were the first true smartphones not much different from modern smartphones. the term smartphone only came later. the class of device was called a communicator because it was a TOTAL communications platform.
great pictures and glad you made it out ok to tell the tale. next time be more careful!
uhh i dont think you need to "hack" flikr. as long as the high res pic exists there, you can get it. it doesnt matter what protection is built in. it is quite elementary.
the best solution, if you really fear you high res being stolen, is not to put it online.
marc petzold: Sadly, some ppl just don't get it - the V3 isn't the ideal system camera for everyone - but for some people it'll do way fine it's job, it wasn't designed for ppl looking for the best IQ & the lowest price, of course. For instance - i'm way happy with my older V1 Nikon 1, the sensor isn't great "says DXOMark", so goes the same for the Lumix G1 - and i've made good pictures with both of them, technical specs, facts are one thing - and the other half, or truth is, what you'd make out of it. Good light, i'd consider to go out and make photographs, instead of discussing this thing here.
your logic is a little odd. you seem to be implying that if picture quality isnt a concern and high price isnt a concern, this is a great camera.
frankly, if the food isnt good and the price is high, i simply wouldnt eat at that establishment. if the price was commensurate with the food quality, sure it makes sense.
i have nothing against the nikon system as it can fill a need for some, but your logic seems way off base.
wansai: while applaud dpreview for doing this article, i have the distinct impression all it is doing is confusing more ppl than it is helping.
camera settings for any exposure of a scene is done for your respective sensor/camera. it's not useful to consider its equivalence, only what focal length/reach do you want, how are you framing it and what settings on THIS camera do i need to get the exposure.
equivalence is purely academic and is being used almost entirely by fanbois to support either of their cases for superiority.
when taking a shot, what does it matter what the Ff ewuivalence is? here, now, my camera, i need my f stopped to x to get a certain amount of dof. i need the iso and shutter to be set at xx. i expose.
that's all that matters.
absolutely it is. I'm not saying otherwise. I am just finding that the article seems to still be confusing the whole lot. That's not really your fault.
But perhaps it would be more helpful to include an intro to that matter.
while applaud dpreview for doing this article, i have the distinct impression all it is doing is confusing more ppl than it is helping.