plantdoc: Living in the photo mecca of San Francisco, I was disappointed with Calumet. I expected a well stocked, B&H type store. However, the store always seemed very light on merchandise but with plenty of space. I expect this is the handwriting on the wall for all brick and mortar stores. Even my clothing and shoes must be ordered online because I have special needs and no one stocks anything suitable.Change always happens...good or bad... time will tell I suppose. Now it's order, wait for shipping, and hope you get what you want deliver safely. Greg
Or go to the newish Samy's South of Market. I also found Calumet disappointing on several visits in recent years. Not being a pro, they had no interest in me. The staff preferred to stand around and gossip instead of finding out what I needed. I've only been to Samy's a couple of times, but they were both friendlier and more helpful.
Richard Murdey: On lenses:
The 32/1.2 is a oddity, its a cost-no-object lens for a sensor format that is deeply compromised. However if you are fully invested in Nikon 1 and insist on that level of compactness, it is a fantastic thing.
There's the cheap and perfectly serviceable 10 mm and 18.5 mm primes, various standard kit zooms, an extremely good 30-110 telephoto zoom, an ultrawide zoom, two superzooms, and now a, what, an ultra-tele-zoom?
Most of these lenses are absolutely tiny for their effective FOV, and most are very cheap as well. That's the promise of the CX format delivered: You can take an FX dSLR and one lens out of your bag, and stick a Nikon 1 camera, 3-4 lenses, mini tripod, flash, and wireless remote in the same space.
The 30-110mm is an excellent lens that in no way resembles the lackluster 10-30mm. They have nothing in common. What's remarkable is that the very sharp 30-110mm has often been available in two-lens kits for all of $100. This is a very nicely made lens, as are the others, with very solid construction and metal mounts. The 18.5mm f/1.8 is a good standard prime, and the wa zoom is a honey. Yeah, it isn't fast, but it's adequate for that sort of lens, and it is optically excellent. I wish there were some more fast lenses in the lineup, but they seem to be emphasizing size and price (the only really expensive lenses being specialty items that will sell in small numbers.) The mainstream lenses are all quite reasonable.
Jogger: How do the micolenses work on this set-up?? Wont the micro lenses be really wonky? Rectangular lenses?
BSI sensors still benefit from microlenses. A significant portion of the sensor's area is still occupied by circuitry, but flipping the sensor over means the circuitry isn't on top of the detector layer, where it reflects/absorbs some of the light. In a BSI sensor the light has to pass through a thin layer of silicon only.
tinternaut: Does it come with the E-M1's PDAF?
I suspect it would have added quite a bit to the cost. This is the bargain camera in the OM-D line. If there is a next-generation E-M5 coming, I'd be expecting it it to have the on-sensor PDAF as one of the features to differentiate it from the E-M10. Along with the 5-way IBIS, and maybe a 24mp sensor (and weatherproofing, natch) . That would be my wish list, all very achievable. Oh, and have the power zoom as the 'standard' zoom, with the other choice being an improved weatherproof zoom to replace the underwhelming 12-50.
Tripeiro: In Norway the EM5 with the 12-50 will only cost 200NOK (25€) more than the EM10 with the new kit lens. Yes, the EM5 is at the end of its cycle, but the EM10 is pretty much just a downgraded EM5. Unless you really need Wifi or a built-in flash, I find it hard to justify to buy the EM10 over the superior EM5. Weird price policy from Olympus, at least in Norway.
You give up weatherproofing that few rely on, a little-used accessory port, and ibis that is only slightly better. You get the convenient, if low-power built-in flash, a rear screen that is both slightly higher res and also brighter, a newer generation of processor that should speed up most operations at least a bit, and a very good WiFi implementation. All of that in a smaller body. For those of us who don't subject our gear to harsh weather, the E-M5 has not much to offer over the new camera. The fancier IBIS is fairly irrelevant except for hand-held shots at short distances, and then only for longer exposures. And even for those shots it is only a little better, not magic.
sean lee: Hi, Guys. I have a question. I am not professional photographer. Just like to take pictures.
Now I am using Canon t2i with EF 50mm F1.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 and Sigma 10-20mm. I am satisfying with their IQ but I want to have little smaller body in retro style. I was waiting if canon announce retro style SLR so I can keep the lenses I have now, but I don't think canon will announce and I am tire to keep waiting.
If I switch to Olympus E-M10 or Panasonic GM1, am I down grade or up grade? or just same grade in IQ? Thank you,
Modern CDAF autofocus in strong light for single shots is excellent, very fast and accurate in modern mirrorless cameras. What it isn't good at is tracking moving objects because it doesn't k ow whether they are closer or further, so it has to hunt until it finds the subject again. If it's moving fast it probably won't. They're also not great in low light because CDAF relies on contrast to determine sharpness (and thus focus). As light levels drop CDAF autofocus systems slow down, have to hunt more, and eventually may be unable to, confirm focus. Low contrast subjects are worst for this (unfoetunately that can include faces).
Anyhow, if you do most of your shooting in strong light and don't expect tracking of moving objects, there's a lot to like about the AF pwrformance of these cameras.
Beat Traveller: That's a damn good price for a mirrorless camera with an EVF, stabilisation and a small-form body. I like where the market is going.
Panasonic prices usually drop quite a long ways during the product lifecycle, with Olympus prices staying near list for most of their product lives. The G6 prices have been holding up better than many other Panasonic models (possibly because it is basically quite nice), but I expect this to drive them down. The G5 was down to $500 well before it was replaced. While their current prices may look them look like direct competitors, they are only in their positions within each maker's lineup. This should also drive down the price on the E-P5. I'd have a very hard time buying one of those over an E-M10. Even with an evf it is quite small, and certainly much more shapely than the E-M5. This is the first of the Olympus MFT cameras to seem like a bargain at list price. Very attractive, but I do wish they'd offer that tiny power zoom as an alternative kit lens. That would be a great travel combo (though I like the zoom range of the Sony 16-50 better).
JDThomas: "JK doesn't have a booth at the show, but we visited them in a hotel suite..."
Pssst. Hey kid, wanna see some top quality camera gear? Meet me in the back alley behind the Rio Hotel. I'll cut you in on a good deal.
If it's reverse engineered, it was done in record time. No, I don't think that happened. What more likely is they heard such a product was being developed and decided to build a competitor. That's a long ways from reverse engineering.
gerard boulanger: To really penetrate the market, a more reasonable zoom (28-60) with good IQ, not too much noise until ISO 1600 and a 1/4000th shutter speed would be needed.Those extreme zooms will be perceived as gadgets very quickly
Having said that, I like the concept.
Patent infringement from Kodak here? Sony QX...
No, I think this lens is perfect for this camera. It covers the most useful focal lengths without swapping. Starting wider is a very good thing that is starting to become common (probably because of Sony's compact 16-50mm kit lens) The slowness at the long end is a bit of a worry, but I guess I'd rather have the extra length, even if it is slow. The telezoom also looks rather nice. I wonder who is making the lenses for them (unlikely they're doing it themselves) because they don't closely resemble any existing MFT lenses. My guess is Olympus, which would be a good thing for both companies. But it could be almost anyone.
JDThomas: The most interesting thing about this announcement is the collapsible kit lens. Nikon is taking a page from the Leica book with this.
I'd like to see this feature on a higher end FX lens like a collapsible 16-35 f/4.
Maybe Leica originated the idea, but Nikon has no need to copy anyone for this lenses. The Nikon 1 zooms are collapsible (not just the standard zoom, but also thw tele and wide angle zooms.) The release button even looks similar.
Jacques Cornell: Note to DPR - The slideshow stops at slide 8: everything after that just jumps to a page on the Sony Store. Bleah!
Yup, still doing it on Chrome to me. The entire lower part of the page, incuding the area where the navigation buttons are, sends me to the Sony store. I got around it by editing rhe URL, but it would be nice if it were fixed. I suspect it's something at your end as Chrome is othwrwise behaving correctly.
expressivecanvas: Finally... a viewfinder! That alone is worth rewarding Panasonic with a sale!
Sarcasm? What did Panssonic do to deserve this? They offer three MFT models with vfs and only one without (not counting the GX1). This isn't OLYMPUS where everything is an optional add-on. Panasonic has been good about offering vfs. What's surprising is that it's a field-sequential unit when the cheaper G6 finally dropped that technology for OLED. If the refresh rate can be made high enough. Field sequential could work well, but this seems just a little better, not a major breakthrough. The lack of a mic input is unforgivable. They just end up steering video customers to the cheaper G6 (if they find the GH3 too dear.) It would have cost them hardly anything to include it.
beavertown: Canon and Nikon should start professional grade mirrorless/mirrorless size cameras and lenses or they will die in 10 years' time.
Well designed mirrorless systems do, poorly designed ones don't. The issues are very much the same. I have a Nikon V1, very thoughtfully designed for a glasses wearer as the eyepoint lets me see the whole screen and it has a diopter adjustment of sufficient range. Many EVF designs are bad for glasses (Sony NEX among the worst). Some Fujis stupidly omitted the diopter adjustment. This is still a relatively new market. They're making mistakes that were made (and solved) in the slr world years ago. In this case they should have done better since the problem is no different.
CameraLabTester: Of course Aptina will blurt out whatever spin will give it advantage.
Sales wise, Ad wise, Awarness wise.
Before these "Aptina articles" on DPR, did you know they ever existed?
Well, yes, I did. They make the very interesting, advanced sensors for the Nikon 1 cameras. Aptina included so much processing right on the sensor that Nikon was able to build an electronically simpler camera around it. If they can improve the dynamic range a bit and get the pdaf working in lower light than currently, this will be a lovely sensor. Supposedly next generation Aptina sensors have 4k video and other goodies.
AlanG: I think this design of a mirrorless camera with a built in viewfinder (yes I know this is not the first) is the trend for many "serious" cameras for the foreseeable future. The new Canon sensor based type PD AF combined with better EVFs may make DSLRs obsolete before long.
This won't be a problem forever. It won't be too long before true global sensors are available that read the data super fast. Then mechanical shutters will mostly disappear.
BeaniePic: Great looking camera. Just would never use the images that Panasonic produce. Noise issues at medium ISO, bad colour reproduction just to start. Pana are trying, but have a way to go to give me what I need. Also DSLR will never go. CSC sales have reduced 2nd to DSC's. DSLR's are still going strong...
You know this how? Every generation of Panasonic has been an improvement on the one before. The image quality a couple of years ago was poor, with off colors, especially skin tones, and lots of ugly chroma noise. But this is a very different sensor. Even the G6/GF6 are nothing like the G3 and before.
Charles C Lloyd: I would be very proud to make such fine images. My only issue is that the tiny people on the horizon are distracting. Are these pictures about the waterfall, or the tiny people?
There is a long artistic tradition of including people in majestic landscapes, both to show scale and to contrast puny humanity with vast, powerful nature. Once we got so we could thoroughly wreck/control nature, that contrast didn't work so well. They are still useful for showing scale.
lmtfa: The bridge builders, then and now, must have testicles the size of bowling balls.
I don't much like that image (though I know what you mean). Bowling balls would be very much in the way. At least now the safety standards are much higher.
Sean65: Note how, in spite of all our advancements in photography, the photos from 1935 are so much better. The framing, depth and clarity are all way more engaging.
Stackpole's father, Ralph Stackpole, was a once prominent painter best known for his work on WPA murals. Peter grew up surrounded by art and artists. Fewer people studied art seriously then than do now, and being exposed to it daily has always been the ideal way to learn. I met Peter Stackpole once, 30 years ago, in conjunction with the restoration of a mural by his father, of whom he was very proud. Seemed a delightful man.
erichK: Where are the other eight? I'm bracing myself for them. If the rest are like these two, most especially the first, then it shows that, sadly, that the pretentious world of art speculators is the last place to look for meaningful feedback.
BTW, the Rhine is likely the most important river in Germany and runs through most of it. It has inspired some of ther greatest literature and music ever written. I grew up on its shores, and can assure anyone interested that it is much more attractive and interesting than this pompous monstrosity of an image and artifact would suggest.
UPDATE: Have found the other eight, following the link, and whiler noting that a couple of them are esthetically more pleasing, still cannot fathom why they should command the prices they to do, orders of magnitude higher than what some incomparably better images from the like of Sebastiao Salgado, W. Eugene Smith, Ansel Adams etc. have sold for.
We live in a world that commodifies everything and values nothing.
Rarity also determines value. Gursky and Sherman are selling one-of-a-kind or at least very limited numbers of these works. Older photographers sold much larger numbers, often as many as they could sell. An Ansel Adams, however beloved, with hundreds or thousands of copies won't sell for as much as a huge, unique Gursky. If you added up all the money spent buying Adams prints each year it would dwarf the amount spent on Gursky.