Woodlink: I'd be more impressed if they were photogs who became famous actors and not the other way around?
Sure, some of these folks take great pics, but darn, they also get access to places and people that NO ONE else does.
Bryan Adams site is virtually a People magazine shoot.
Fun, sure, but big deal.
Vogue isn't big on rice paddy shots. It's just a different segment of the business. He's been a success because he'd good.
photo_rb: I'm surprised no one has mentioned Alan Arbus of M*A*S*H fame, who died the other day. He and his wife Diane had a photography business before he became an actor and she went on to a solo career.
He had an interesting life. I always liked the MASH episodes he was in, the ones where he was listening to their problems. He was remarkably convincing, and seemed a lot younger than he was. I was very surprised by his age when he died, and had no idea before then that he had been married to Diane Arbus.
Beat Traveller: Finding out that Bryan Adams is an awesome photographer reminds me of the time I found out Clint Eastwood was an awesome jazz pianist. You just got *that* much cooler.
Eastwood is more than just a good pianist. He has written the scores for quite a few of his films. Very capable guy, Clint.
crisotunity: There is pink- and then there is Samsung pink! It has to be a knock off. No major electronics manufacturer would ever attempt to sell anything that looks like this.
As for the price - no worries: it will be available for $399 by mid-July 2012 with a free Android tablet thrown in.
I'm a bit surprised to see the pink, but they offered the NX1000 in the same shade, so I guess it must be selling. What surprises me is that they made the matching pink lenses. More sense than Nikon. The J3 comes in a different set of colors than the earlier models, and they have matching lenses, too. So there are two different pink lenses in that line, and two reds, etc. I guess they hired a new color consultant. Best I can tell Samsung has stayed with the same repellent shade. I know I'm not who it's aimed at, but I don't think many women are going to want a camera that looks like a Barbie accessory.
Joerampi: The cons"Video quality not as good as other high-end compacts"
this camera has 60fps for video, which camera is high end that Dpreview mention?
also for me strength in "optics performance" x10 better then X20" (compare the result) both camera using same lens, but why X10 highest poin with x20
anyone can help to explain?
It's a completely different sensor design. The novel color filter array allows the elimination of the anti-aliasing filter. That alone will increase sharpness, even using exactly the same lens. Unfortunately, possibly because of the unique sensor, the results are still a bit blurry. The Olympus XZ-2 looks much better, despite its more conventional design. I really liked the X10, and the X20 looks good, too, but I'm disappointed they aren't getting sharper results. These images are too soft and too noisy.
SylvainBdg: hum..85%...Nikon and its delicious GREEN skin tones...I am wondering what % is allocated for colour reproduction...my wedding was shot 3 weeks by 4 photographer using 4 different gears..Canon 7d, Nikon D7100 and D700 and Sony A77..guess which camera produced the most natural pics? (apart from the noise pb)..well it was the Sony..I am always surprised to see how much Nikon cameras score...Nowadays people just seem to care about pixels and sharpness..what a pity!!!
He could have made a more reasonable complaint, as I'm sure the camera isn't perfect, but skin tone problems (in jpegs) seem to have been solved by all makes now. Even recent Panasonics have very pleasant skin tones, where ones from a couple of years ago were hideous.
Zerg2905: Thing is, Canon should do a proper 7D Mark II. If they do, it will not probably get the Gold Award here (and probably that will generate much bla-bla like comments), but many of its users will be rather happy. I am, my 7D is a "wreck" but it shoots high velocity RAWs and, if properly tuned, even low ISOs are acceptable. Not the 2013 quality, but acceptable and printable on A3. Canon, I hope you listen. Well. Cheers! :)
That's nice to know. Pretty much irrelevant in response to a review of the D7100. I'm sure many would like to see a proper followup to the 7D, but at this point Canon is just treading water until they get a new sensor (a proper modern one.) I expect we'll see that by the end of the year, and then the competition can begin anew. I don't have great respect for Canon's product strategy, but they still sell just fine even without great products. For now, the D7100 is a highly attractive camera Canon can't match.
Harmless bit of fun. The perfect birthday present for the young princess with everything. I'd take the one with the nifty tweedy squiggles, if I were a princess.
yabokkie: would like to learn the theory that O-LPF-O delivers higher resolution. my understanding is that it only delivers more noise (artificials).
I wish I understood this comment. An OLPF intentionally slightly blurs the image, in a controlled way, to minimize moiré. That slight blurring always reduces detail, so removing the filter increases resolution.
marike6: Good job, but I can't understand the conclusion about the OLPF considering that in the RAW Studio scene the D7100 image shows better sharpness, most obvious in the Lira note, the purple and green fabric, for example.
The D7100 image also shows superior micro-contrast than D5200 images.
Still it's good that the D7100 received the Gold Award that the D7000 should have gotten a couple of years ago.
The differences in the studio shots were noticeable, but still fairly modest. You'll also note that they only found those clear differences in very specific circumstances, and not in many others. I certainly expected more noticeable difference, but Nikon has reputedly been using light AA filters for a while, and this bears that out.
If you only shoot with the very best lenses, at their sharpest apertures, in great light, then the differences would be apparent, and nice to have. That sounds like studio conditions to me. In more compromised circumstances I'd not find this an important difference. It seems more of an marketing advantage than a technical advance.
Simon97: Good color and decent sharpness at 55mm (for a kit lens). Early kit lenses lacked sharpness and contrast wide open at the long end.
I still have some criticisms. Some focal lengths show pretty strong color fringing. Is the correction function not used or does the camera even have it? Some shots are very soft on one side. Finally, why only a mono mic? Even many P&S cameras had stereo sound for years now. Seems like an SLR should have stereo sound if they offer video on a camera more advanced than a P&S.
Sometimes the remedy cures the disease. CA correction is quite effective because CA is a straightforward problem.
WildSammy: what? "We weren't particularly impressed by the Nokia Lumia 920" ? for me the pictures from Nokia looks the best from the rest of junk..
Then you've found your next phone. I found them over-processed to a distracting degree. Oversharpened, too contrasty, just ugly. The HTC images lack detail, but are otherwise quite pleasant. For a phone, less detail is fine with me. I have a real camera for serious photography. The phone just needs to give nice-looking low-res pictures for viewing right on the phone, or on a Facebook update. The HTC has plenty of detail for pictures of my dinner. But overall the Samsung seems the most capable. I was very surprised the iPhone had so many problems.
Aleo Veuliah: Good improvements, It has all the G5 has but better.
Well done Panasonic. The G cameras line is very good and less expensive than the GH's.
I like better the G6 design.
Possibly a better buy, but not a better camera. I don't expect it to fall quite that far. It dropped almost immediately to $500, where it stayed. If the G6 holds its price better (at least $700), the G5 would still zell at $500. Indeed, if the G6 gets hot, as it might, the G5 may even benefit.
Interesting accessories. The pictures of the flash and the microphone made me snort and giggle. Golly, do they really expect to sell any of those? I assume those are standard accessories designed for other models, but they look incredibly foolish on this little p&s. Even the evf looks a bit oversized (and too expensive), but that mic is really something. Ridiculous.
nathondetroit: Yes! This is the best form factor for EVF compacts. No need to smudge the screen with your nose! NEX7 nailed it, now lets see this used across the board...
I could use my 'wrong' idea if needed. I'm not blind in one eye.
SergioNevermind: I just don't like reflex design on an EVF mirrorless. I prefer Fuji's (and Sony's) approach Leica like lateral finders, with or without the OVF.
Just a personal opinion.
The GH3 offers better build quality and far more advanced video specs. Not that this isn't very good, too, but it's not specifically aimed at pro videographers.
This is nice, and if the price quickly drops, like previous G models, it will be a massive bargain. Instead of a sweet deal, which it is already. I only had a few quibbles with the G5, and this addressed all of them. I know people love the OM-D E-M5, but this offers more features for a lot less money, and even bests the NEX-6 in some ways. OK, the sensor isn't quite up to Sony standards, but it isn't far behind anymore. I do wish Panasonic would dump the clunky faux-dslr styling for something cleaner, but that's about the only remaining problem. If I were shopping this would be hard to resist.
Mssimo: Very creative but am I the only one that thinks the internals look like a bomb?
People ship electronics all the time and nobody blows them up. On x-ray this is just some kind of camera. Or scientific instrument. Or high school science project. Shippers do not have people minutely examining packages or the price of shipping would be astronomical. They can detect explosives with more sophisticated equipment that wouldn't get upset over a circuit board and some components. They're looking for the stuff that blows up.
Mescalamba: Guess we will see it in next Nikon 1? :)
No, I don't think it's the same, though it likely shares a great deal. If they can combine this with the exiting Nikon 1 hybrid autofocus capability, it will be a great sensor, at least for video. The problem with the existing Aptina chips has been inadequate dynamic range. The sensors are full of clever technology (a true global shutter, a lot of processing right on the sensor, pdaf af that works), but without better image quality the Nikon 1 remains an incomplete camera.
My V1 is a lot of fun to shoot with because it is so fast and accurate, but I regularly run into the sensor's limits. Maybe this new chip will offer other improvements, too. I hope so, because for a still camera that was already speedy, the announced improvements aren't what was needed. I don't shoot video, though I've been impressed with just how good the existing Nikon 1 models are at video, given the limited press they get. The V3 could be a real GH3 competitor, or a lot more.
kaiser soze: Too much confusion surrounding the EVF resolution. When I first skimmed the review, I could swear that I read them saying that it is a field-sequential display. Unless I was dreaming, they realized this was a bogus inference, and edited the text. They now say that they "know" it has resolution of 853x500 pixels. How? Panasonic claims 1.7 million dot equivalent. Display resolution is ordinarily spec'd as full-color pixels. Dot-equivalent is compliant, albeit counting full-color pixels that are virtual owing to time-sharing. An OLED with 1.7 million dot equivalent has 1.7 million full-color pixels (full time). It is stated as "dot equivalent" only to facilitate comparison with field-sequential LCD displays. The improvement in resolution, compared GH2, is less than 15%, which is not significant IMHO. The advantage of OLED is blacker black, and thus vastly improved dynamic range. This advantage is significant. Too bad about the hue being off, but I wonder if it occurs in all situations.
I don't know what to make of Panasonic's claims, but other past displays have made 'equivalence' claims, like PenTile. I wouldn't be surprised if this display uses a matrix something like that, with more green than red or blue dots. It does give the appearance of greater resolution and could explain the unfortunate shifting of the display towards the green.