tabloid: We can all whinge all day.....'but the times they are a changing'.
One only has to see here on dp that every DAY, new technology in the camera world comes out.
No good crying about it and lamenting for the 'Brownie 127'.
When i first started as a young photographer, i saw the older photographers using plate cameras, and using those 5x4 for sports photography.Then the Rollie came out, followed very quickly by the mass produced SLR, try-x film and D76 (for those who know what Im talking about).
Shall i go on......I dont think that i will bother, the rest is history......and its still in the making.
A press photographer can now buy a DSLR, and wire pictures straight to his picture desk as he is snapping away......and this is just the beginning.
I think the whole concept of employment is so yesterday. There are ways to do everything with fewer and fewer people and we're just getting started.
Don't take it too hard, Carl; Ernst Leitz had both his first and last name taken off.
ArcaSwiss: Mushy photos = Silver Award ? That's weird
In other words, it does everything except produce sharp pictures. I guess that's why it missed getting the gold award.
Gesture: "Images slightly soft, with mushy detailsTends to clip highlights; chromatic aberrations can be strong at times"
How is that good inage quality?
If "slightly soft and mushy" qualifies for an award, it might make sense to put it in context. "Ok, it's not great, but it's a little better than camera A and a little worse than camera B". Just seems odd that something like image quality does not have to be outstanding to get an award.
Create Dont Imitate: Finally... the end of the AA filter.
The AA filter was always an amateurish fix for a real problem.
The AA filter era will go down as a black spot in the history of cameras... an embarrassment for the engineers who thought of it and used it.
Medium format cameras never had this absurd filter... rightfully so.
Going but not gone. I can recall lengthy posts from engineers giving mathematical explanations of the terrible things that would happen without a blurring filter. Still, I think the only reason this happened is because, like Adobe, the camera manufacturers ran out of new features to add. Prediction: Infrared capability (with a disclaimer about unpredictable results) will be the next feature.
ArcaSwiss: Preordered one from B&H today.
I'm not surprised that people will pay this much, for this level of image quality in a small package. But I am surprised they will pay this much for a fixed, 35mm lens.
Judging by these comments, ISO 3200 is the new ASA 100. It's nice to know it's usable at such high ISO but I'm surprised this is such a high priority.
Jefftan: samples at both ISO 160 and 3200 not impressive at all
ISO 160 sample not much detail. These may be out of camera jpeg, not sure if RAW better
ISO 3200 lots of noise
I want to go back to shooting ASA 25 film.
T3: Beautiful, compact APS-C ILC cameras like this make carrying around a big, fat, ugly, conventional DSLR as your everyday shooter less and less appealing.
I use the 5D3 and TS lenses too, but I don't care what this looks like to anybody else. If I could have a black Nikon SP that did what the the 5D3 + 17 TS does, then I could make a fashion statement and still get the job done.
sdribetahi: The viewfinder crowd is soooooo predictable. Just like clockwork.
The cell phone camera users and the Nikon worshipers are predictable as well but it's no business of mine.
About a million years ago, Popular Photography invited their readers to submit ideas for the camera of the future. One person sent in a drawing of a pair of glasses with a fold-down camera over one of the eyeglass lenses. It wasn't as sinister looking as Google Glasses but pretty much the same concept.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: You know, someday someone will come here and state that this is the future of photography and anyone who thinks otherwise is a narrow-minded silly old fart. Oh well...
Man, are you one jump ahead!
I think small, lightweight cameras are great and when they have the same quality and more importantly, same range of lenses as a full frame SLR, I'll stick all the big stuff on eBay. But how my camera looks as a fashion statement is of less than zero interest. In fact, a camera that looks not worth stealing would be ideal. It's like wanting people to notice your car.
wayfarers: Canon EOS M: "magnesium-alloy body" and no plastic mount lens, X-M1: "body shell and rear buttons are plastic", kit zoom lens with plastic mount. Not saying that Canon M is overall a better camera, but it appears that Fuji could package excellent internals in a better designed body, use less plastic, and still keep the price low.
T3 is correct. Although I would think it's obvious that molding plastic is cheaper & quicker than machining metal.
Scott Greiff: But you have still to review any of the Sigma DP Merrill cameras...
An article is fine. With the reviews, after I finish clicking enough times to get to the review, I go straight to the conclusion and I'll bet I'm not alone. Even then, if it's high-end Nikon, Canon, Sony it gets a gold award; stuff that's fine but not groundbreaking gets silver; stuff with quirks, like Sigma Merrill gets bronze.
white shadow: The debate on which is the better camera, the Nikon A or the GR, goes on. Probably, the difficulty lies in both cameras having the same type of lens and sensor size. However, beyond that there are quite a number of differences which are highlighted by DPR.
The most notable ones are:
1) The Nikon perform better if you shoot colour especially in jpec. The colours are more vibrant especially the "red". Micro-contrast seems to be better.
2) The GR performs better if you like to shoot or convert to B&W often. Its midtones seems to be better.
3) The GR focuses faster in bright light, slowing down in low light. The Nikon has a more even focusing speed which is not that fast.
4) The GR is more user friendly - its shape, simpler control, built-in ND filter etc and more fimware updates to improvd the camera over time.
For those who need additional information can go to:
He is an Oxford graduate at 16 in Theoritical Physics, financial consultant and a pro photographer
We all know people prefer more saturated color. Realistic or unrealistic does not matter. Have a look at the wildly successful Stuck In Customs website--more is always better. But given the ease of increasing color saturation I'm not sure people will pay more just to have it in-camera instead of adjusted afterwards.
This might work for the reporters at the Sun-Times who just became professional photojournalists. It looks like it can replace two devices while being as big as both of them. But as a conversation starter, wow.
marike6: GR RAW files are noisier than Coolpix A files, both in the RAW Comparison tool and on DxOMark sensor ratings scores (GR's 972 ISO vs Coolpix A's 1164 ISO), while colors from the DNG files aren't as good by DPR's own admission (see Con #2) and in the sample images. Yet DPR has RAW IQ between the GR and Coolpix A as the same?
It's can't be lens difference as both lenses scored identically on DxOMark Lens Test (see DxOMark front page for GR lens test).
It's seems fairly obvious that the GR has better ergonomics along with the superb GR menu system. But the A has the class leading Sony Exmor sensor, and seems to produce a better looking files / images (See review samples).
Adorama is an impeccable source of inside information. The manufacturers don't make a move without telling Adorama first.
tkbslc: Man, I want this with a 40mm (equiv.) f2.0 lens.
X100s is close enough, but I want a real compact where the lens folds flat. X100 is kind of a brick you wouldn't put in your pocket.
A matching, 40mm Ricoh would be sweet and probably cheaper. If they could pull off a digital GR21, that would be impressive.