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.
Jogger: Not sure what the point of the PEN line is now that the OMD line has EM10. An entry level body would make sense, but, a mid-ranger.. might as well just get the EM10, esp. given the cost of the EVF attachment.
the pen are the mid tier consumer lines. these are going to be sligjtly more compact, less complicated cameras while still retaining features at cost to ergo and controls. non enthusiasts will likely never get an em10. it's relatively afgordable but it is also more camera than consumers can handle.
if it means anything i see a lot more women using the PEN cameras than the omd models. they are just friendlier, simpler devices and more approachable to the consumer.
em10 upwards are designed with bells and whistles because enthusiast and semi pros want that level of complexity.
everytime i give my wife my em5 or em1 to handle, she chokes and gets overwhelmed even when i tell her how to simply take a shot. hand her a point n shoot format and no matter how advanced, she takes it and shoots, no worries.
its the smae when i hand em1 to a waiter to take our photo. they just stare at it, flip it around not sure what to do with it.
AngryCorgi: I don't hate this camera. I think it "looks" sexy with the grip on it. But the price remains stupid given its performance. It simply is outclassed in terms of IQ by just about everything.
i dont hate the 1 series like some ppl but come on, you're talking about paying that price for handling and ergonomics? you're better off getting an OMD and still have enough left for glass. you still get supern af, superb IQ AND handling and ergonomics are better all around.
this particular camera may fill a niche for some ppl but frankly the price does not justify whatever you get with this camera.
about the only thing it is competitive on is AF speed and FPS burst. at $400 i'd consider it a good buy. at $1000++, no way in hell. not when the competition outclasses it in nearly every respect and does it at better prices.
CameraLabTester: Posted the alleged apology on it's website.
Test case: DPReview news item release.
Ruse NOT working.
OK, no further escalation.
DPReview please delete article.
What? You can't?
i dont think this has much to do with more demand. from the wording, it seems to be an apology for slower than expected production. as in they estimated to have X amount in stock by Y date but production delays made the camera more scarce than intended. had they met the predicted X shipments/stock, there would be no cause for an apology.
Fabio Amodeo: Interesting article, but… If I think to real life situations, the equivalence matter seems to me much less important. Let me explain. Situation A. I'm at a concert, with very little light. I'll take out the fastest lens I have, and bump up ISO. In theory FF is better, because it should give me better high ISO. But the faster lens I use wide open might have too thin a focus. My problem is not how much out of focus is the background; my problem is to have something in focus at all. So I'll stop down, and lose the ISO advantage.Situation B. I have to shoot food, and I want all the food creverly prepared by the occasional masterchef to be in focus. Here a smaller format should have an advantage, due to bigger dof given the same perspective. But I know I'll be in full diffraction-danger zone by f/11, where many FF lenses are still good. And I know tilt lenses were made for this, but I'm too lazy or too poor to own one, Conclusion? It's always a compromise we live in.
richard, i think that was his point, no? there is an equivalence but for practical shooting we tend to end up shooting at similar overall equivalent settings anyway.
i finished a wedding shoot on my em1 shooting from, mainly f2.8 to f5 despite having lenses that could go as fast as f1.8 and f1.4. had i been shooting on the FF, i would have stopped to f5+ anyway to get enough focus in the frame to capture the couple who may be at different planes for focussing. even in low light venue, i would have to stop to f5 to ensure i can get both the couple when they make their entrance.
while FF may give you more lattitude for working in various types of shooting, for practical purposes, at least for some or many shoots, what's important is making sure our subjects are properly in focus and there is enough dof for them to be in focus. so we end up shooting with the same equivalent settings regardless of format.
veroman: Equivalence is important to understand. But, in the end, I don't think the choice of tool should be based on equivalence but, rather, on the very basics of photography and acquiring photography gear, i.e. budget, subject matter, whether amateur or enthusiast or pro, size and weight one is willing to carry, etc.
I've owned full frame for most of my digital years and am now primarily a micro 4:3 shooter. I'm at a point where the end result hardly looks any different than when I was shooting with the 5D and 1Ds II.
One area where equivalence matters to me and that I do take into account is the ISO setting. ISO 200 is really ISO 400 on my M4:3 gear, and that really is important to the end result.
I think the handwriting is on the wall. I believe that the traditional DSLR is slowly but surely being replaced by these smaller, highly capable cameras ... in the same way that 35mm diminished medium format, particularly 2 1/4".
it's actually not true. the phone camera will not look as good as m4/3 by a long shot even at the phone's best setting. where the phones perform adequately and more similarly for IQ to low to mid range point n shoots, is in good day light.
the scene/lighting range it performs at is far more limited. m4/3 have far more allowance to shooting in various light conditions right down to dim light. its performance in end IQ is on par with apsc cameras. FF has larger leeway still for shooting.
but in general images you can get from m4/3 to apsc to FF vary only a little within their shooting parameters. only once you exceed each of the individual's parameters does the larger camera start showing obvious signs of superiority. aa phone camera, even at its best, in perfect light, still shows obvious signs of lack of total IQ.
depth of field is highly personal and does not at all make it a consideration when IQ is on the table. it's an effect that is more useful in some circumstances than others
b craw: What a ****storm this comment thread is. Where is yabbokie to set us straight?
yakkobie takes truth and draws highly questionable conclusions from it. that is still wrong. that is why no one listens to him.
his comments generally boil down to : an m4/3 50mm f2 lense is equivalent to FF 100mm f4, thus you cannot take photos with m4/3 cameras. lawl.
why would anyone listen to that dribble. having good facts placed in wrong minded statements and wrong minded conclussions still ends up with him being wrong.
vFunct: Lightroom is awful and simply not as good as Aperture. Lightroom focuses on garbage features like Lens Correction, when the features like metadata workflow is FAR more important to a professional photographer than any "lens correction" ever could be.
No client in the world has EVER cared about lens distortion & correction. They don't even NOTICE it. So why the hell does Lightroom even include that as a "feature"? They should be trying to get their metadata workflow to be as good as Aperture's.
Really, Lightroom is only for high-end amateurs and other prosumers. It really isn't a professional calibre photo tool like Aperture is.
Meanwhile, looking over the Photos demo from WWDC, it does look like it's more Aperture than iPhoto, so that is a sign of relief. Also, it looks like we'll be able to move the Aperture database over to Photos, so that probably means it has Aperture's feature set, maybe including stacks and so on... dunno... we'll see.
@vfunctit's quite obvious you dont care for quality nor the clients you produce for. there are plenty of clients out there that do care for quality and they will take notice of it. most of the ppl i work for and with will absolutely notice it. they will say something or get me to make corrections if it is not up to snuff. plenty of art directors WILL force you to correct what they see as a problem.
let's not pretend like you can speak for all professionals or all clients.
when i pay a photographer for work, i expect it comes to me fully corrected. When i use photos for my design works, i will ask the photographer to fix any problems. i am not paying him so i get the pleasure of making corrections on my end.
difference between you and me is the difference between a professional and a scrub.
photogeek: People are missing the bigger picture. In another 2 years or so, tablets will have CPUs comparable to those currently found in laptops. For laptops the Moore's law is over (actually, not Moore's law, but Dennard scaling is over, but let's not get too technical). For tablets that's not the case. They are not held back by having to support software written 20 years ago. Their CPUs are much simpler, and they are being developed taking past (very expensive) lessons on how not to do it into account. Laptops will stay about the same, just as they did in the past five years. Tablets will take over for most people, with pros preferring laptops and desktops, 5% of the overall market. Put simply, there's not enough money in this market for Apple to be interested in it. Apple is about focus. They are betting on a different horse, nothing more, nothing less.
it is still at least 5 years away before tablets can really handle heavier loads. they will also be hanstrung by capacity and memory. what apple is doing is aligning and following consumers. that is all there is to it. this group is less demanding and can be catered to with less resources at maximum profit. ios software even in 5 years will still be relatively simple, basic suites catering to the lowest denominator. it's a far easier market and makes more sense for apple.
@vfunctand that is why i would never hire you. as a professional, it is your duty and job to give the client what they want/need at the highest calibre you are able to. it is professionalism amd ethics.
when i design for a client, they will never see the code. they will never see the difference if their brand colours are off by a bit. but it is my job to ensure that i do the best i can for them. make sure things are right, not do as little as humanly possible just to pass muster. you may see the business as an assembly line but you do not speak for all of us. you may cut corners, i won't. they get the best from me, they get... meta data workflow from you.
that you sit there laughing and mocking other professionals for having pride in their work says more about you as a professional than about us being wannabe's.
Richard Murdey: I still find it head-scratching that the RX10 and FZ1000 are praised for their performance and image quality, while a Nikon 1 camera with either of the 10-100 superzoom lenses is held is such low respect it doesn't even warrant a word of disparagement.
the nikon 1's are being compared to its mirrorless rivals, which produce better general IQ. this superzoom is being compared in the superzoom range, to which its IQ is great for its class. you'll note that they compare m4/3 IQ to apsc IQ within its mirrorless category. the sensor size is not really a factor. it's the category that's being compared against itself.
gabriel foto: Interesting to see the comments. I am sorry for all who had to go through some trouble and pain to get things right but
- PLEASE -understand that there were in fact those who never had a problem. Please do not oversimplify things. This is no fanboyism, no nothing. I simply never had any spot problem, be it dust or oil or marmelade or whatever.
I am now at over 11 000 actuations with my D600 and have used a blower twice.
This does not diminish the fact that Nikon could have been more clever in addressing the problem.
As for the number of problem bodies vs no problem, I don't have a clue. By reading these threads, one could get the impression that almost all bodies were affected. This may be very far from the thruth, though. I guess nobody knows but Nikon.
if we estimate that it takes roughly $100 in parts and labour per affected unit, we're looking at 170,000 D600 affect. that's a lot of cameras. you're lucky if you werent affected but somewhere in the realm of 170,000 ppl were. i mean, if it's 10,000 affected, meh, but anything in 100k range is a huge problem. whatever profit thry made probably went straight to fixing this, which for nikon, is bad for business.
Mssimo: I have a D800e and sigma 120-300 f2.8 sport. Something I started to notice is that the bigger your gear gets, the less pictures you take.
James is absolutely right. you use the tools that work for you and what you're shooting, and i'll add, with the budget you have.
the cameras of today are much better in output than cameras from several years ago. depending on what you shoot, its entirely up to the photographer to get that image.
i think it's short sighted to imply that only FF is the right tool for eveything. it isnt. sometimes you are better of with a smaller sustem, sometimes you are better off with a larger system.
you get the shots. the shots are good. that is all that matters.
that's interesting stuff. the two biggest advantages over a more traditional setup seems to be the high resolution at a lower cost and the mobility to move the photographic equipment around at whim. the OIS falls under mobility since it is what allows them to hand hold the shots rather than set them up on brackets.
those are some rather alien looking images...
retouching is not photography. it is a part of post processing and only just one of many steps in the photographic process. you put in a crappy photo, it still comes out crappy. ppl hire photographers to take well composed, critical moment shots at high quality. go find any random soccer mom blog, take an image from there and process it. it still will be a bad shot, just now it has been toned properly.
G3User: The demise of photography continues. Now, all the soccer moms don't even have to worry about someone blinking. We are now creating images where the contents never even happened, the truth in photography is over. How sad, you may has well be constructing images with a paint brush, leaving all contents up to the picture creator. Now, given the power of a service like this, it will further decline the number or people hiring paid photographers, why hire someone if I can do it myself and then fix them later. Too bad Dpreview is promoting such a concept. I wish Phil was still in charge here.
Michael Pardee: If anyone is curious as to the pricing but doesn't want to create an account just to see it, here it is. I would be surprised if they can do a quality job for these prices.
COMPLIMENTARY SERVICES (PICK ANY OR ALL FOR $5.00)Adjust brightness, contrast or exposureAdjust or enhance color: Entire PhotoAdjust or enhance color: Selected AreaChange hair, eye or skin colorConvert to B&W or SepiaCrop and/or ResizeRemove blemishesRemove Red-eyeRemove wrinklesSkin SmoothingSoften focusTeeth Whitening
SPECIAL SERVICES (ADD EACH TO THE BASIC $5.00 FEE)Digital Makeup (+$3.00)Background removal and/or replacement (+$5.00)Body Contouring (+$5.00)Open Eyes (+$5.00)Remove braces (+$5.00)Remove object (+$5.00)Complete Creative Retouch (+$20.00)Photo Restoration (+$20.00)
looking at those prices, i am going to assume they will cut corners. probably good enough for general web use but at higher res, you'll likely see quality drop off.
20$ complete retouch... not sure how much others charge but those can take a day + to do. even using indian/chinese shoppers, it'd be razor thin margins. unless of course, you drop quality of the retouch, thrn sure, you could probably bang it out in an hour.
straylightrun: How are they able to unblink a person if both their eyes are closed? Do they just photoshop a random persons open eyes in place? That's kind of unsettling.
well, ideally it would be a bit more complex than just cloning. cloning can be very imprecise. what i tend to do is just cut out a large section with surrounding skin. flip it, move it into position and arrange to suit the perspective. i then copy out the destination image and place it as a layer on top of the source cutout.
thrn i will manually blend the two layers together with a brush, making sure the grain and details blend together seamlessly.
sounds complicated but depending on the image, it could really just take anywhere from 5 minutes to a few hours. i just had to do this for a wedding shot where the bride's left eye closed when soneone popped a flash to her side. my the shot was otherwise great so i decided to save it. took me 1 day to replicate the open eye over the closed one. made triply hard because the light sources were different and the open eye was in heavy shadow. it had to stand up to zoom scrutiny so it wasnt going to be a 5-10 min job.