W5JCK: Bridge cameras like this one and the RX10 or still what I consider to be sub-enthusiast level. The 1" sensor is too small to deliver quality IQ at any low light level. That f/2.8 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a f/5.0 lens on an APC-S camera. Pretty darn slow for wide open, and thus rather lacking in low light capability. A f/4.0 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a f/7.1 lens on an APC-S camera. So this camera basically has a f/4--f/7.1 zoom lens compared to APS-C DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Meh! For the price of the RX10 you would be better off with a a6000 and a few good lenses. This one is cheaper, but still not worth the price for anyone who wants an enthusiasts level and above IQ. This is a mom/dad camera used to take little pictures to post on the internet. Again, meh!
There is still some relative merit to the equivalency once you factor total light gathered by the sensor tho... I wouldnt put the camera down because of that, because its still a quantum leap over most any other bridge camera outside of the RX10 tho. It may not match an ILC with a brighter lens indoors, but itll definitely blow away many smaller sensor compacts even in daylight. Much more room to crop etc... If DFD has brought the AF up to snuff I could see a lot of people shooting action preferring this over many ILC. Theres room for it in the market, specially if priced aggresively in light of its only competitor.
The fact that they implemented DFD on this camera is pretty interesting, I hope the AF system and CAF is thoroughly tested to see how much of a difference it makes vs previous bridge cameras or even something like the RX10... Panasonic execs/engineers had said just a week ago they would be implementing DFD across lots of other cameras, even compacts, and sure enough they have.
JustDavid: is this still a review update or a part of direct advertising? 4 articles and one huge banner for one camera on front page in one day? this will surely break the record of Sony RX100 III :)
Your opinion is that the articles are superfluous, yet you still wasted the time to click thru and comment, thus negating your opinion. You basically achieved exactly what DPR wanted, they grabbed your attention and sold a few more page ads. While I agree that the 4th article seems a bit extraneous I dont really see the point in complaining. Im not interested in this camera but I still find the content worth reading, and if I didnt itd just be an extra click of the scroll wheel to look past it.
Karroly: I do not understand why DPR reviewer is bothered by the vertical black bars on the rear LCD when shooting 3:2 stills. Obviouly, given the body size/layout, Sony designers could not make the screen taller with a 3:2 ratio. So why not use the available space on the left and right sides to display a larger picture in 16:9 movie mode ?
@Karroly, I actually view most of my pictures on 16:10 displays (tablet, PC, etc), sometimes 16:9 (TV), but I'm not always watching it across the length of the display... The tablet is sometimes in portrait mode, the desktop has 3x 1920x1200 displays which are sometimes in PPP mode (so 3600x1920), etc etc. I'm an Android user 100% but Apple still owns a large portion of the tablet market and their tablets are definitely not 16:9...
Regardless of viewing habits, the sensors aren't 16:9, so if mainly shoot stills then a 16:9 display is absolutelya wasteful design unless you're shooting in 16:9 crop mode (in which case you're just wasting a chunk of the sensor's pixels all in the name of not seeing black bars). It's really not about the black bars, it's about the valuable surface space on a small camera body.
hydrospanner: Sounds like Zuck is losing Instagrammers to VSCO Cam...
Heh, I almost forget FB bought them... I doubt it matters, they've got such a strong brand recognition by now... I've never used it btw, and it's obviously overused at this point, but this is still welcome. Maybe people will be more subtle with the filters now... Naaah.
tomatoketchup: Excellent... more tyros holding their gigantic pads out at arms length will now be able to swing their monstrosities from left to right, looking even more like complete tools.
I just don't understand how you leave home with a 10" tablet but not your (far smaller/cheaper) phone... I think it's safe to assume the vast majority of people with tablets also have smartphones, I'm sure there's exceptions but they don't account for the number of dimwits we see using iPads as their camera. Grandpa using a tablet to take pic might be ok, some soccer mom or young dude just looks bad.
Brev00: It seems to me that all the cameras referred to in this review scored 80 points. If they are scored relative to one another, that would seem to indicate that they are all mediocre. I can see the score if it were relative to a more advanced body. But, if scored against other similar bodies, the scoring seems harsh to me. Is 80 the new 100?
The scoring system is just pointless and weighed counter intuitively, very nice review tho, just ignore the scoring. I can see the usefulness of a scoring system for individual aspects like IQ etc, but the overall score just incites infinitely more noise than aid (no pun intended). They should just stick to the awards IMO, have three award tiers, bronze for anything competitive and without major flaws, silver for stuff that innovates somehow, and gold for best in class. After that it's up to the reader to decide whether they value lens choices more than video or video more than ergonomics etc. Not like most of the ILC cameras they review aren't all solid choices.
sdh: To those who are making a fuss over the level gauge: WHY?
Activate the grid, pay attention to horizontal or vertical elements in the composition and visually align them to the grid.
In my experience a physically level camera yields an image that looks tilted, more often than not.
Sometimes you want to represent the true decline in the environment and a level would be more useful than the grid in those cases... Personally I agree with having it as a Con, even cheap P&S have level guides sometimes, seems silly to omit it when previous models had it. My own camera lacks one btw (GF6), and it bugs me there too because my pocket cam and a G6 we also have do have the gauge so I'd gotten used to having it.
Why do people take issue with any small con, are they not reading the review as a whole? It was a very positive review, no camera's perfect, they can always benefit from tweak and/or copying competitor features. The pro/con list if there to summarize what it lacks relative to the competition and what it does well, not as an absolute gauge of how pleasant the camera is to use, read the review for that (and ignore the pointless score).
Heck, I even appreciate them pointing out even more insignificant stuff like USB charging in the pro/con list. They list it as both but to me it's totally a positive, I don't care about having to buy a discrete charger separate for faster charging, having the option to charge in camera off a phone car charger or a USB battery pack is huge when traveling. I wish more mirrorless cameras with relatively small batteries featured this.
justmeMN: DPR: "The a6000's kit lens isn't great from an image quality point of view, regularly producing images with very poor corners ..."
That's a significant flaw, that should have prevented it from getting a Gold Award.
Kit lenses get refreshed pretty often too, I don't agree that it should reflect on the score for the body. That'd make it a very fast moving target, Panasonic has had something like 4 kit lenses in nearly as many years (with significant changes, sometimes for the worse but recently for the better) without even counting other types of zooms that get kitted besides the normal zoom.
The A6k was sold with ands without it from the start, and it remains a valuable choice if you crave portability and/or just want a tiny zoom to throw in the bag as a backup amongst a few primes. Those collapsible kit zooms add a lot of appeal to any mirrorless system even if it rankles the enthusiasts and experts.
Rod McD: Why is not having a touch screen a "con"? It's just a statement of fact. It seems that the position being adopted is that all cameras SHOULD have a touch screen. Sure some people like them. There are others who don't. I personally don't want a camera that does have one and this would put the A6000 higher on my list.
"The only good thing about it is it makes screens bigger. "
I'm guessing you were alluding to phones there, I'd dare say it applies here too. They're using screens with a wider aspect ratio than sensor, it only makes sense that it should be a touchscreen that offers additional programmable soft buttons on the wasted space... Otherwise they might as well have gone with a smaller screen and additional hard control points.
This in addition to the big advantage in placing an AF point accurately (particularly when using CDAF). It's a valid negative IMO, one of the few this camera really has, but no camera's perfect.
They could alter the body design? There's lots of other mirrorless bodies with more square screens you know... It's a valid point in the Con list IMO, up to the user to decide whether it bugs him. I think it's less about black bars per se than just getting a smaller usable screen than what the specs say (for stills anyway). Many would probably prefer more control points if a chunk of the screen is often being wasted, for instance, or even a touchscreen that makes better use of that space with programmable soft buttons.
photosen: Good review; it's an interesting camera, I don't see the interesting and affordable lenses... But I'm willing to be illuminated!
The UWA zoom is in line with most UWA zooms in the market ($750) and you can get f1.8 primes at 18mm, 50mm, and 75mm equivalent for $300-400, some of those even feature IS which is not often the case for lower priced primes. I've probably missed some other key choices, I'm not sure if there's an inexpensive 35mm equivalent prime that's brighter than f2.8. I'm a M4/3 user l, I was just looking out of curiosity this morning.
M4/3 definitely has a lot more choices at most FLs, especially if you're looking for longer teles or faster zooms (not to mention more body variety), but they're similarly priced for the most part. Fuji's X system is pricier across the board... E mount is really not that lacking in choices IMO, better off than I thought it was, future development is just in doubt right now. There's also the f2.8 Sigma primes at $200-240, great values, specially the 60mm (90 equivalent).
If you're comparing prices vs an APS-C DSLR it's not that different either, with the exception of the cheap 50mm (75 equivalent) primes there really aren't HUGE disparities, and you usually end with less prime choices and more odd focal lengths with most DSLR system, since Canikon are focused on full frame designs primarily (no pun intended). There's other exceptions here and there, like Canon's new $300 UWA zoom, or Pentax's prime line...
Tonkotsu Ramen: If it hits the US unlocked for $450, it could be nice. Knowing HTC though, it will be $600+ and carrier locked or something. DOA again.
Could be a pretty big deal for that price, that's only $50-100 more than something like the 32GB Nexus 5 or the OnePlus 1... Less storage but you do a removable media slot and other upsides like the speakers etc. Who knows, this might be HTC's entry into the rumored Android Silver Program, going plastic would save them a lot but still participate with a high end attractively priced device, yet it doesn't completely eclipse their existing lineup.
HowaboutRAW: Since it runs Android 4.4, does that mean the camera software can be tweaked to shoot raw?
Can I pop the case open with my finger nail so as to swap the battery?
AFAIK the promised RAW capabilities haven't really made it to any Android build yet have they?
They made a big announcement about that and about the new camera API after the Nexus 5 launched but I only remember seeing a couple bug squashing maintenance updates since then (4.4.1 thru 4.4.3 which went live yesterday, and 4.4.2 was only an emergency patch to fix things 4.4.1 broke).
They might be holding that off for a future release that isn't a minor point upgrade, possibly at Google I/O soon, or later.
Leandros S: Polycarbonate is cheap **** (self censored). You really want metal. The lower price is a second hint that the megapixels may not be up to much.
That's laughable. Plastic dings and wears less, weights less, and absorbs an impact better. Metal merely feels better to some (assuming you don't live anywhere cold) because of the way certain brands have created a fetish out of metal construction. There's very few things inherently better about an all metal build.
Metal does have one key advantage, better thermal conduction, typically not a big deal on phones but if you're playing a game for an extended period it's been proven a metal phone will perform better over time than a plastic one which is forced to throttle down a bit to maintain proper temperatures (see: Anandtech's prolonged SGS5 vs M8 benchmarks).
HTC's duo cam and ultrapixel approach have mostly been proven to be inferior to more conventional camera builds, so I don't see how you can confidently say the new more conventional camera module would have "pixels that aren't up to the task", what's that even mean?
Maverick_: Very disappointed! Perfect reason why no one uses the MF4 for stills professionally. The images are just a couple of notches above my cell phone pics.
Top MF3 cameras will only be used professionally for video use. And hence the top grade video features on this camera.
BTW, I use a Pana GH and totally dislike its image quality, but it's great for video.
Persistent troll is a persistent troll. You keep reminding us over and over how all cameras will soon disappear and there will only be phones and "pro gear" (which from what I've gathered you define as full frame or bust), but if that's the case the so called pros better start hoarding equipment now because it's ultimately enthusiasts and consumers that pad manufacturer's profits.
ThePhilips: Seeing how the camera units inside the phones has gotten so small, I'm surprised that no manufacturer has yet put three-five of them inside.
Image a phone with three cameras/lenses: 35mm eq, 50mm eq and 90mm eq. Or even better: 24mm eq, 40mm eq, 90mm eq.
I imagine it's pretty hard to get longer focal lengths to fit in the typical body style... I'm surprised no one's gone for something closer to normal than the typical 30mm-ish FL tho (which is ironically terrible for selfies yet no one seems to mind).
$10/GB... That's some time machine pricing right there.
p5freak: "I did it all for the bokeh." And he uses MFT. LoL.
I got into M4/3 for better low light shots, because I wasn't happy with what my past P&S cameras could manage, let alone my smartphone (the amount of noise in the majority of friends' pics that flow thru my FB timeline would make many here weep)... I also knew I wasn't dragging a DSLR absolutely anywhere tho.
Due to several recommendations and a good deal the first M4/3 lens I actually bought turned out to be the 45/1.8 tho, for the shallow DoF, because it's one more thing I couldn't do with compacts and phones. Kinda stumbled into it while learning more about photography tho...
I think people (and the industry at large) underestimate the level of potential interest there is in mirrorless amongst younger generations, smartphone users, etc. There's more interest in photography today than ever before, most people are just really obvious to the options available.
Caleido: Technically speaking, 16:9 is not a wider format but actually narrower vertically on a 4:3 sensor.
Cropping it afterwards because you like those dimensions - and don't mind loosing parts of your image, sounds more logical.
But it's less simple, I presume.
People just like taking pictures that (or using a crop mode that) will fill the screen of the device they're taking it on as well as other common devices where it'll be viewed (laptops, TVs, many tablets outside of Apple's, etc). I've seen people pick 16:9 on a P&S camera for the very same reason, and they usually don't care that they're throwing pixels away even if you go thru the trouble of explaining it... Some folks just have a deep seated hate for black bars. :P