mpgxsvcd: That lens is unusable even a 1/3 of the way through the frame from the center. Absolutely terrible. This camera should be on the “Don’t Buy” list if these test images are any indication of its performance.
Will Dpreview comment on whether these samples are indicative of what we should expect from the camera or were there outside influences like camera shake that caused the blurriness?
This comment from Barney:
"As an experiment, take a picture with a wideangle lens of a wall from relatively far away - a few meters, say. Then walk closer and take another picture. Then walk closer and take another. And so on. You will see corners looking softer... and softer... and softer... because they are physically further away from the imaging plane relative to the center as you move closer to the wall. "
Is completely wrong. Lenses are suppose to have *flat* fields. This "closer to the wall" problem Barney is erroneously describing would happen with a *spherical* field - an extremely undesireable characteristic!
The typical issue is that field curvature *changes* with focus distance and often gets worse a closer focus distances - but not always, for instance macro lenses usually are optimized for flat fields at close focus.
Anyway, Barney has given a totally BS explanation for soft corner behavior. Look up some basic optics.
Marcus Antonius: I would have tried their product if not the owner (Graham) of that company was such an awkward and non-commercial person. Tried ordering with them when e-mail conversation went south pretty quick.
Short story: Product i ordered was not in stock (after i ordered), owner insisted on getting the previous version, or wait at least for another week (couldn't tell me when new stock would arrive). While at time of ordering the item was in stock. Anyways, after a few e-mails he just became rude and respectless. I asked for a refund.
I would not recommend them.
Yes, and if you follow people's experiences with Graham you'll find that as soon as anyone complains about not being shipped the right product or any other error on his part he "fires them as a customer" (his words). The guy is a total tool, don't waste your time funding the insanity.
AndreSJ: I'm I the only person confused about the actual market that the GM1 is aimed at?? I know its quality is great and I'm a fan of the product but it seems to be aimed at a very small market of people.
The price is high due to it having the same sensor as the GX-7 and it seems like all the lenses being dedicated for it are just as highly priced (yes great quality).
My question is who (if your spending the amount of money that you would have to) wants a camera that small??
They definitely targeted the camera, the 12-32 and the 15/1.7 at the "enthusiast" crowd. So yeah, poor fit price wise if you are on a budget. But the system is awash in slightly older models targeted more at P&S upgrading as far as interface and feature set goes. The GF series and E-PM series are nearly as small and available at a much lower cost.
Will the market bite on the GM1? Time will tell I guess, but really if someone said my priority is size AND price I'd point them at the E-PM2 which can routinely be had with a kit zoom for under $250. If they wanted a small prime the 14/2.5 can be had for around $150-$175.
I've never quite understood Panasonic's product placement, but they've had quite a few "niche" successes (e.g. GF1, LX3) that everyone said were too expensive. GM1 might be another, don't know.
Digitall: At actual conversion rate, £549.99 = €658,35 = $906,81 !? They are crazy for sure, a 15mm for this price tag for M4:3?!
15mm is a focal ranges that use more, but, this price is absolutely crazy.
As an introductory price $599 seems in the range I'd expect based on their pricing of their other high end lenses.
In the past most Panasonic lenses see a street price drop sometime in the first year, often not huge, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it on the street closer to $525 by the end of the year. Other question is if there will be significant savings in de-kitting it from GM1s in which case "new in box" E-bay listings at good prices might show up.
I'm very interested in this lens myself, but given past Panasonic price trends and the question of de-kitting bargains I won't pre-order and will see what happens. I've got a 17/1.8 already that covers this focal reasonably well.
"My question is who (if your spending the amount of money that you would have to) wants a camera that small??"
Me. When out with my kid I need a tiny camera and depending on where we are going I might bring any one of a number of small lenses I already have for m43. I certainly don't want to shoot my GM1 in the house or on dedicate photography outings and I use my E-M5 then.
If you've already got a stable of m43 lenses and want a much more flexible and capable "pocket" camera the GM1 fits the bill perfectly.
As to price, well it will be a lot cheaper in a year or two if you can wait.
Rachotilko: The cams manufacturers went crazy pricewise lately.
BTW, I'd like to ask the ones who remember 1980s: how much did an average Joe have to work to buy a decent film camera ? I've got a feeling that photography (if one doesn't want to go P&S pinhead way) has really become unaccessible to average population of the world - as opposed to much of the 20th century.
Judging by this : have we really progressed as a civilization ? As a child I was told that in 21st century we'll live in some kind of futuristic paradise. Instead, buying a decent photographic gear has become inaccessible to most.
Ummm... Maybe you want to apply a tiny bit of logic to your dystopian "oh the good old days" logic?
The Canon AE-1 kitted with a 50mm lens cost $275 at introduction in 1976. That is $1135 in 2014 dollars (remember inflation?). Worse still it didn't come with any film. Film purchase and processing back then cost more than $25 per roll in 2014 dollars.
So in your "good old days" you'd pay $1000 for a camera and then at least $1 per shot to learn how to use it.
Today cameras are vastly more capable, shooting costs are free, and they cost no more when you bother to include inflation.
In fact, in the past these SLR models held their list prices and nearly the same used prices for year after year. Model introduction was very slow. So these days your poor supposedly aspiring photographers priced out of the market can purchase a camera that had ground breaking technology just two years ago for less than $300 and then take thousands of photos for free.
Which is better?
Interesting article. In the current model lines it would be worth considering the 13" MPBr carefully compared to the Air. Much nicer screen, more processing power, 0.5lb heavier, same size and not much of a hit to battery life either. Good enough to be a dedicated desktop machine for lower volume shooters as well. So for some a 13" MBPr might be all they need, and even those with a dedicated desktop setup might still prefer the 13" MBPr to the Air. If an extra couple hours of battery life and 0.5 lb are critical and you already have a desktop then the Air is still a good choice.
Pointless. This app does nothing that any of the apps available in iTunes do and do better or just as well. Yes jailbreaking lets you do interesting things, but this app isn't one of them.
Really like this image. I wish it had placed higher. Great work!
That's a good well thought out roadmap. If they really get those lenses out in that timeline and improve AF in the next FW or body then they may be the fastest manufacturer to produce a true system out of the starting gate yet. NEX has been ridiculously slow and still isn't there (still is more of an interchangeable body system than an interchangeable lens system). M43 has had a lot of time and two manufacturers to get where it is.
Anyway, best of luck to Fuji with this - it looks good on paper so far!
Great composition. To me this is a different and very successful take on the over-shot Alabama Hills/Whitney.
Hopefully these pictures will show that IS *does* work at 9FPS. I need to protect the honor of this little beauty :)
Yes, I just tested IS 1 and IS off at 9 fps with the 45/1.8 and IBIS most definitely does function in Sequential High at 9 fps.
djec: "'5-axis' image stabilization system"?!
ffs i hope the rest of the science behind the camera is slightly more intelligent.
In control systems translational and rotational controls are counted separately. That's why there are more than three axes. This is the standard nomenclature used in science and industry.
Thanks for the compliments!
@Laszlo: This was taken at sunset just after the sun had dropped below the horizon. A storm system was passing but there was some open sky to the west that allowed a nice twilight glow from the western sky.
Russ Houston: Many of the comments here sound just like the film forums when the first digital cameras came out.
Yes and no. When digital cameras came out they were low resolution, but nothing limited their resolution in the future. Now sensors that "out resolve" lenses are common and everyone expected them to eventually get to where we are now.
This is a bit different, physics and information theory tell you there is a fundamental limit to the resolution that has nothing to do with the sensor and everything to do with diffraction. So the resolution isn't going to improve much. You'll always be stuck at resolutions significantly lower than "normal" cameras and there really is no way around that.
That isn't necessarily an issue - it doesn't need to hit the same market. It is a different thing. Digital cameras though are very much a replacement of film by comparison and that's where your metaphor breaks down.
So after downloading a flash update, closing my browser, installing it, and coming back I can finally see the images...
Anyway, nice review DPR. I think you about hit the nail on the head in a fair and balanced manner. No surprises really, did just what everyone thought with the limitations everyone expected as well.
50*1.5 = 75. 50 *1.6 = 80. These are pretty useful portrait focal lengths, I don't understand the "no-mans land' comments about them. Sure, maybe 56 would hit the venerable "85" spot on...
Jogger: Basically heres how it works. It has a VERY small sensor. ie. everything is in focus, for each pixel you also know its depth.
In post process, you can selectively blur based on the depth of the pixel... i.e. the out of focus areas you see are digitally created... i.e not real.
As mentioned already your analysis isn't correct. There is a very well written thesis on the topic, you might consider reading it.
I think the spray and pray mode that auto selects the better images will be big hit with their target market. I suspect we will see that feature move into compacts though, on it's own it doesn't seem compelling enough to justify the rest of the system compromises.
Thanks for the initial thoughts. I think these short articles prior to full reviews are a good new feature to the site.