I'm a software product manager, and I've long wondered why more camera companies don't take this tack. I know, I know, they want you to upgrade, but continual improvement builds brand loyalty - and neglect does the opposite (I'm getting ready to sell off my Micro Four Thirds investment; one big reason is Olympus' "Feh, we already got your money, who needs ya?!" attitude...)
Ricoh and, in particular, Fuji seem to continue enhancing and evolving their products, even as the hardware is already in customers' hands. I like that commitment on the company's part and it makes me more confident in making another purchase from them when I decide I'm ready to move up to a better body.
"Flickr's privacy setting faux pas has us wondering: Are images shared via the web ever really private?"
If you are really wondering that, I'm on the wrong site. This is supposed to be DPReview, albeit a mobile-focused subset; it's not some Facebook/Instagram page. Anyone who thinks about it for more than about three minutes knows that your online photos are not and can not ever be entirely secure. You should never - EVER - post something to the Internet that would get you fired or cause your mother to be embarrassed when her bridge club finds it. The fact that some people don't know this is all well and good, but an author for DPReview? That's embarrassing.
I hate to pile on but... add me to the negative voices vis a vis blue titles on black backgrounds. The title is just too important an information block to "hide," even a little.
On the other hand, I'm solidly behind the "Question" concept - 80/20, it's what I use the forums for, so it will both direct my reading and simplify my searching.
Likes/dislikes? Don't really care much. I use a system whose related forum is a hotbed of cliquishness, so I easily imagine this going awry very quickly. Presumably it will be easy to look past so I suppose that's what I'll do.
On a related note, I don't see mention of what we old school types call a "killfile," a list of users' names whose post are simply not rendered. The infighting in "my" forum is perpetrated by no more than a dozen people who, in my experience, don't add anything else of value. I'd be very happy if I could just keep their posts hidden.
Overall: great job, solid move forward.
increments: Be nice to see some images of shots with and without the converter to see how the image quality is affected. (Obviously the FoV would be different, but it'd still be interesting... At least for me.)
I'll second that request. It needn't be an extensive set, just a couple comparison shots, with and without, to help visualize what you're talking about.
Thanks for this, Mr. Krieger. I appreciate the insights into a pro's thought processes.
larrytusaz: Thank you Kate Bevan. Are you available? (Ha ha.)
I would go further & say "iPhone Photography" etc is most definitely debasing photography. I'm sorry, but if you have access to a Nikon D5100 or D3s etc, what in the WORLD are you doing practicing "photography" with a stinking camera phone? You expect me to take you seriously as a photographer when you're lazy enough to use a camera phone rather than a REAL camera? At least use something like a m4/3rds, something like an Olympus E-PM1 is VERY small but absolutely embarrasses any camera phone photo, & it's hardly the most up-to-date model (like a Sony NEX-C3 etc--imagine what THEY will do).
If you're just taking "fun snaps" of everyday goofy stuff without the pressure to get something "artistic" (heck we all do that), sure, by all means. But using a camera phone ON PURPOSE as a "photography" tool? Puh-leaze. If I were a chef, I sure as heck wouldn't claim Chef-Boy-Ardee was "real food." It's mediocrity in a can.
Basing your perception of a photo's "value" on the means used to create it is inherently stupid. To play out the cooking metaphor, you are the equivalent of those morons who go to Williams-Sonoma, spend $1,000 on a box set of All-Clad pans and another $1,000 on a dozen Global stainless knives - the purpose of which you do not understand. That doesn't make you a "chef," anymore than buying a Canon 5DIII makes you a "photographer." A real chef could, in fact, create a dish using a can of Chef Boyardee and a microwave. It's obvious from your comments you couldn't take a real photograph if Ansel Adams held the camera for you.
Nmphoto: Come on people. Do you really think these photos would be released looking like this if it wasn't some sort of publicity stunt? If if he did come unprepared, surely photoshop could have been called upon before the photos were released? Maybe someone don't want Klamar working for them anymore, and are using this as an excuse to move him on?
Something smells fishy here.
I felt that too when this ridiculousness burst forth on Reddit - which is owned by Conde Nast and therefore perfectly positioned to launch this sort of faux-outrage-campaign. The guy's a well-respected professional and i believe if the shots turned out this way it must have been intentional. It doesn't take much to read these as a direct rebuke to the American culture of glorification via image manipulation, which speaks directly to the lowbrow vitriol being served up icy cold by "experts" both here and elsewhere across the net. At the end of the day, though, you'd have to reach pretty damned far to find a place where this actually MATTERS - a little perspective on the lasting importance of this set of pictures really should be in order...
joe6pack: When you have something that is feature rich, refined, yet free. I have to be skeptical that those development cost has to come from somewhere. Maybe this will eventually become a paid app. But more worrying is the privacy. Will this app use the photo we took and some how turn them into revenue, and I am not talking about copyright. Just like facebook, our app requests permission to read your SMS but we don't really do it, for now.
Well the app is free to download, and you do get 9 each of the filters, frames, etc., but the other 250+ effects are purchased, in packs of 9 for US$1 a pack. Presumably thats where the revenue will come from.I suck at math, but the whole enchilada is going to set you back, what? Over twenty bucks? Of course, this is like the Photoshop desktop plug-in market - you get enough to get you started, and you add on others as you need/want them...
RMillward: Would someone mind taking a moment to explain how the large black control wheel on the right-top panel works/is for...? I'm coming from an E-PL1 and all I really want is the built in viewfinder - I trashed one EVF-2 and I'm for sure not buying another one! - but the functionality of that dial is not immediately apparent to me. I'm in lust with the manual aperture/shutter controls on the Fuji X-Pro1 (but not at twice the price...), so I'd be very happy to hear the EM-5's unlabeled dial is somehow related...
Thanks to all you guys for the clear descriptions. I hadn't been photographing in decades when I bought an E-PL1, and it took quite some time (and frustration) to finally "get" the digital interface (which, as a software designer, I have to say is particularly clumsy and non-intuitive...). What I REALLY can't live with is shooting using the LCD, hence the wasted $200 on the add-on viewfinder that snapped off and my insistence on one built-in; getting true analog controls just seals the deal. Again, thanks so much.
Ah - so actually I pretty much CAN mimic the Fuji X's... I can set up Manual Mode so the large dial sets the F number for the aperture, and the smaller one around the shutter button controls shutter speed...?
Would someone mind taking a moment to explain how the large black control wheel on the right-top panel works/is for...? I'm coming from an E-PL1 and all I really want is the built in viewfinder - I trashed one EVF-2 and I'm for sure not buying another one! - but the functionality of that dial is not immediately apparent to me. I'm in lust with the manual aperture/shutter controls on the Fuji X-Pro1 (but not at twice the price...), so I'd be very happy to hear the EM-5's unlabeled dial is somehow related...
Thomas, thanks for the enlightening and detailed report. It certainly encourages experimentation to know that I don't need "the truckload of lighting" I assumed was required to create that uniquely natural-yet-highly-stylized look. I look forward to reading more of your articles like this.
Wow. It's never been clearer to me that casual readers of DPReview really need to take the comments on this site with a HUGE grain of salt... All the loathing of this little camera - from people for whom it was not designed!
#1, everyone's judging it SOLELY from a list of specs, which anyone who uses a camera knows is a rubbish way to make a good judgment.
And #2, how about bearing in mind that just because a camera doesn't suit YOUR niche needs doesn't mean it's not of value to people with other goals? Do you have no sense of how incredibly pretentious you sound when you declare a camera - completely sight- and output-unseen - "a monstrosity" or "the stupids will love it"?! What you MEAN is, "Based on the specs, and without having seen shots from it, this new Olympus isn't something a serious photographer like myself will consider."
N Shafkat Choudhury: How can this camera "boast the world's longest zoom in a compact camera"? To the best of my knowledge, Nikon Coolpix P500 also has a 36x optical zoom and it was launched quite a few months back!
Actually, DPreview.com didn't "say" anything at all - the above is a press release, presumably prepared by Olympus and/or an agency. DPreview is simply posting this so we can see it, so to be fair, any calls for validation of claims should be directed to the manufacturer, not this site.