40D - 70-300IS 4.0 - 5.6 15-85IS 3.5 - 5.6
Noise removal at full play, yes, still makes it to the album with (literally) flying colours. Valuable stuff this camera, costly or not.
If one can produce let's say a decent, real photo-look 13' by 9' print from this, it's representing nothing less than a breakthrough for the superzoom concept as such! Remember:Making acceptable prints this size, regularly, from a superzoom 3200 ISO picture, has been 'declared' pure utopia for quite some time.
Seems to be a bit challenging lighting conditions, and some CA /flare can be observed. How about using a circular PL here?
Nothing but IMPRESSIVE! (esp. the edges).
MJ Jones: Strange juggies in the hair at full res and noise in the shadows of the face.
Probably a tiny bit oversharpened. BTW MJ Jones: You didn't happen to notice the sharpness of this lens? And the bokeh ?-I can't help thinking of your comment as beeing at least let's say, a bit biased by some unknown reason? ;)
pedroboe100: Real men don't shoot super zooms.
Real men shoot both kinds! :) My dust-gathering FZ10 is still usable! Nostalgic: Such a thrill of starting off as a digital photographer with that cool thing! I have some really fine 11 by 8 prints from the FZ10, usually made from ISO 50 exposures though... :)These days I'm still having fun shooting digital, beeing on a steep learning curve with my newest toy: A 5D MkII with only 5500 exp. on it, and a mint condition C. 24-70 2.8 (Version I). Great! Still I think Panasonic has come up with something really special with the new FZ1000, for shure I will give this one a test-run. Reaaly good superzoom cameras do have some unique qualities, but I think these must be experienced to be fully appreciated.
Impressive! Sharpness, colours, tones, no vignetting, no fringing -one heck of a lens this! Bokeh seems fine in some pics, just ok in others. Me want.
Taken into account: F1.2 Very sharp! Bokeh=ok, but far from "creamy".
'.....and in our experience has little, if any, negative impact on the final image compared to fully-optical correction.'
Note the use of 'in our experience'. Probably carefully chosen, so not to inflict with truth: Yes, it does have a negative impact.
I am not impressed with this kind of work, delivered from a publication which used to present journalism at much, much higher standards than this.
Both man-made and nature's patterns in harmony ... so well observed and framed. I'm impressed with some technical stuff here too: ISO 1000 and just visible noise & grain when 'pixel-peeping' - good news ! (wonder what's print size limitation, still to be rated high quality, from this ?)
Check cuff link (IMG_0037_1): It's a photographer's wedding, yes?
OlavM: Q: What is the exact meaning, expressed in metric units, by the description: "large 2/3-inch sensor" ?(this is a quote from the FUJI website): http://fujifilm-x.com/x10/en/story/story2/page_03.html )
In my world, by my immediate and intuitive interpretation: 2/3 of <something>, is the same as <something> multiplied by approx. 0,666667
However, the illustration at the FUJI website clearly show ANOTHER "story": The diagonal is 10,99 millimeters, the long side is 8,786 mm. NEITHER of these measures does relate to one inch by a factor of : 2/3 ????Why this linguistic mumbo-jumbo ???
Thanks, "Revenant", here's the answer from the link provided: ... stuck (although it should have been thrown out long ago). There appears to be no specific mathematical relationship .....Feel kind'a relieved of my frustration, yes ... but it is stupid, must get rid of this old rubbish language. It's as easy as: % of FF (full frame) in area. Or sq. mm (mm2).
Q: What is the exact meaning, expressed in metric units, by the description: "large 2/3-inch sensor" ?(this is a quote from the FUJI website): http://fujifilm-x.com/x10/en/story/story2/page_03.html )
Something VERY STRANGE, not to say suspicious, about this sample shot !Foreground is outside depth-of-field (focus), same goes for the background, but then - "MAGIC !" : The background is coming into focus again ! See the upper part, in the middle: This should have been at least as much out of focus, as the top of the instrument panel. BUT it is not, it's PIN SHARP .
What is going on here, DPReview ????Sample shots are MANIPULATED ????
This has to have an explanation, and a pretty darn'd good one, too !!
The quality of the ISO 6400 jpg's from this combo is simply stunning ! Seeing materials like backlit glass rendered this natural at ISO 6400, is convincing ! Vivid colours, not exaggerated, seems just natural. It pops into one's mind: Now is the time stop lugging around my trusty old "crop-gear" (Canon), take the mFt-train instead ?
Good ! -Did anyone ask, exposing the brand-name of equipment used THAT MUCH ? A kind of "deal", coupled to the number of "clicks" on this clip, would do the trick here. I do not express any suggestion of the existence of such a deal here, but do point at the rather obvious possibillity of it...
Most interesting: EOS HD's first statement:
The Nikon D5200 is the best mid-range Nikon yet for video. What is more of a surprise is the relish in which it takes on the much more expensive 5D Mark III, Panasonic GH3 and Nikon’s own flagship the D800 and D4.
If I'm going to get some pro-grade video gear, maybe I'm better off going for Nikon D5200 and a couple of lenses, (and sell off my Canon gear), because here in Norway the price difference between a Canon 5D III and a Nikon D5200 is around: $ 3.300,-
(-and then having a 24 SLR capable of producing pro-images as a bonus ...)
Besides hefty colours, does this thing take pictures :-)
hindesite: Oooh! 20MP!!
And "advanced imaging functions"!
Disappointed it doesn't have 35x optical zoom, though.
Why settle for 35 X ? (does exist, remember ?) No, let's demand 60 X ! (its only a marginal possibility that we're gonna need 60X one of these days, but then, huh :-D