DStudio: Thanks for the mock photo with that disgusting logo on the back!
DPR could at least use the current Windows logo if they're gonna stoop to that, just saying...
Menneisyys: I've very thoroughly tested it on my (factory; no rooting) Nexus 7 2013 and found out the following:
- the new panorama support is GREAT, particularly if you enable maximum resolution (the default is high-res). Up until now, Google's implementation was a joke - far-far inferior to either Apple's one on the iPhone 4S+ or Samsung's implementation in their Android handsets. Even Nokia's WP (but not Symbian) implementation has been significantly better.
- blurring worked just GREAT in my tests. While some people did complain about it being slow(ish), I haven't noticed speed problems on my N7, which, while "only" having a 5 Mpixel sensor, has a, compared to the SD800, significantly slower CPU.
What's wrong? Most importantly, all manual modes have been removed, which is a BIG-BIG minus. There's no
- scene selection- manual WB and ISO setting- timer
The first two is particularly painful as, with the new Camera app, you in no way can force the system to shoot at high shutter speeds.
Why would they, or how even, doesn't the depth map rely on data gathered during the unique photo taking process where you swivel phone over the subject? Without that the blur effect would be worse still.
JordanAT: Wow, that's fast enough - and large enough - to be a SSD drive in a small PC. Pretty soon we're going to need faster USB ports.
Not really, those are merely the max sequential transfer speeds, most decent SSD now hover at the SATA bottleneck when doing sequential read/writes (near 500MB/s, or about 2x), but that's not really what makes a SSD drive great for an OS/programs anyway... It's their speed at random read write operations, which isn't merely 3x or 5x faster that of an old HDD but several orders of magnitude faster.
SD cards are usually not optimized for random operations, and they could never be optimized to the degree than an SSD's controller is since those rely on many more channels (of communication to the NAND) than what's available in removable media. Regardless, USB 3.0 is still more than fast enough where these cards wouldn't be bottlenecked by it.
Impulses: Seems to produce a 2.5MP image (out thereabouts), Lens Blur that is. How does that compare to the HTC/Samsung implementation? I only tested it briefly, in low light no less which produced some clearly visible edge artefacts...
Frankly I'm not all that interested in what changed and got added or removed, as a phone camera it's still serviceable for what I use it, BUT you missed by far biggest improvement... The preview FINALLY displays correct aspect ratio instead of a cropped 16:9 view!
That was my biggest issue with the old UI, nevermind the circular menu, the preview made accurate framing impossible. They also added grid lines FWIW, lots of people still asking for 3:2, 16:9, and even 1:1 output crop modes tho.
Android Central has a really good article covering all the changes in detail. The settings button is really easy to miss on the opposite corner of the modes menu btw.
Yeah I think it was a waste for them to sink so many resources into it and go as far adding a second camera, not to mention dropping OIS... Hopefully they'll give up on dual sensors next time, again.
Seems to produce a 2.5MP image (out thereabouts), Lens Blur that is. How does that compare to the HTC/Samsung implementation? I only tested it briefly, in low light no less which produced some clearly visible edge artefacts...
Vitruvius: Looks and appears to be just like the Olympus E-P5 but no interchangalbe lens and much worse specs.
OTOH, everything's a compromise, at 60mm you might have to walk back or might even run out of room indoors etc; whereas with an ILC you might miss the shot reaching for the 45 or 60 in your pocket if you aren't using a fast pricey zoom. :p My original point stands, the G1 X lens isn't particularly fast at anything but the widest angles, granted it's fast enough and long enough for some reasonable DoF control at max zoom (reasonable by DPR's own definition in that article btw, not trying to slight it).
That still leaves more common FLs (35-50mm equivalent) underserved but that's really down to personal preference, a M43 camera with the smaller primes (f1.7-1.8) wouldn't do super strong background blur at those FLs either; although it falls under either limited or reasonable by that writer's definition (depending on how close you get, 1.1-1.9% using something like my 20/1.7 from what I'm seeing).
The G1 X MkII definitely goes further in regard than any compact P&S ever, that's very obvious, it deserves credit for that. I'd take one over an RX100 personally, but I'm odd and I still put a smaller/cheaper P&S in one pocket and a smartphone in other!
If you go by the simplest boiled down formula in the second DPR link it concludes they would both provide identical degree of background blur... 60/4=42/2.8 I'm probably missing something obvious tho, I'll look at the formulas their last simplified equation are derived from and the graphs on your first link again.
My earlier statements were based off on the fly fiddling with a DoF calculator. I had basically just entered 60/4 & 42/2.8 and set them at 13 & 10 feet, which gave a shallower DoF to the f2.8 zoom, that was a mild guesstimate tho and I see that merely closing the gap by 1ft puts them at nearly identical DoF. Not even sure why i used 42mm either since the f2.8 zooms end at 35 & 40. I take it you agree they're pretty close regardless?
I think the comparison vs the f2.8 zooms is rather pointless anyway, as you said earlier, they're moderately large (certainly eclipsing the G1 X) and usually more lens than many ILC users with small camera bodies would wanna carry... Smaller 45/1.8 & 60/2.8 primes would come out well ahead but you're back to the original argument at that point, added versatility at the cost of bulk etc (I didn't bring the f2.8 zooms into the discussion btw!).
A lot of people do use the f2.8 zooms with relatively small rangefinder bodies tho, a compromise for the same reasons, to avoid swapping lenses. The G1 X MkII definitely does better on the fly, from 60/4 to decent close up ability which you don't get with a lot of ILC lenses...
The graphs plotted by your first link assume the subject is at the same distance while using different focal lengths Mr. Sincere, if you wanted to compare depth of field control while maintaining the same framing (i.e. standing a couple feet further back with the Canon at max zoom) then 42mm & f2.8 would come out on top...As far as I understand it, distance to subject matters (after all, it's the third value you enter there after FL & aperture, or in any DoF calculator).
If you just want the DoF control and don't care what you're getting in the frame then yeah, 60mm & f4 would come out on top (but it's a longer focal length, duh, so it's more restrictive in certain situations). It's the same reason I've recently seen people suggest a 60mm f2.8 M43 lens can (with similar framing) give you the same DoF control as a faster 45/1.8. Feel free to correct my logic btw, I don't claim to be any sort of expert.
In response to others, I made a comment just one or two threads up suggesting this Canon should be getting at LEAST as positive a reception as the RX100 originally did. I'm not being negative on it nor putting it down, nor am i stating an ILC is a better choice, quite the opposite (they're just... different). There's clearly nothing quite like the GX1 MkII out there. Heck, I even said if I hadn't already invested in an ILC I'd probably be giving this a serious look.
120mm equivalent & f4 won't produce a thinner DoF than 84mm & f2.8 (let alone a prime like the 90mm f1.8) unless you're standing at the same distance to the subject but then you're getting a very different crop (just a head vs chest up etc)... If all he cared about was 24mm he could pick up either a pancake zoom like the Pana 24-64mm equivalent (a stop and a half slower at 24mm but Oly bodies have IBIS which would make up for it) or the 24mm equivalent f2 lens Oly makes.
We're making the same argument, I think, I'm just saying the Canon lens (as impressive as it sounds) isn't particularly fast anywhere outside of wide angle... So if the seemingly fast aperture is what attracts ya you better like focal length. With an ILC you might require occasional lens swap but if you have an idea what you're shooting it's not much of a problem, and in daylight a GM1 can be just as capable yet smaller.
Price is worth weighing too... $800 buys a GM1 OR an E-PM2 + one fast prime (though not the 24mm equivalent Oly, unless it's used). Ultimately the Canon is far more likely to cross shopped against the RX100 or a cheap LX7, but people should be aware what's available and what focal lengths they're likely to use most.
mamiller: Intriguing camera, very retro-attractive. But 350 shots per battery charge is a show stopper for me. Why is dismal battery life not listed as a con in the review summary? No other camera classified as semi-pro has a rating of less than 750 shots per charge, to my knowledge -- most average even more shots than that.
If time lapse is your concern you should know by now that a CIPA rating that takes screen use and even flash into account is all but useless. Mirrorless cameras often 2-3x the number of shots they're rated for during something like a time lapse. Displays can be shut off or dimmed, electronic shutters change the power profile, etc etc.
Class A: The X-T1 is said to have better performance than the Pentax K-3 (can easily be seen when turning on the "Compare" mode for the subscores).
Yet, the K-3 manages 720 shots per charge vs the 350 of the Fuji X-T1.
The K-3 also has a higher frame rate (8.9 vs 8.2) and a deeper JPG buffer (68 vs 40).
So the X-T1's AF must be sensational to compensate the above performance disadvantages. Unfortunately, the X-T1 has not been subjected to the AF-C test the K-3 went through. Why not?
Finally, how can you claim that the X-T1's focus accuracy (& metering) is better than that of the Pentax K-3, if you haven't looked at the AF accuracy of the K-3 in a systematic manner at all (this was one of the aspects you dropped)?
BTW, the X-T1's electronic viewfinder may be very good compared to other EVFs, but to rate it better as the optical pentaprism of the K-3??? For sure, in terms of "performance" again, the K-3 will do much better in a pan when burst shooting.
While I couldn't care less about the K3 comparison (sweet camera tho), I do wish there was a site doing more systematic testing of AF and tracking... It's seldom evaluated in anything but the most subjective of tests, and it's particularly relevant in mirrorless reviews. Hasn't that been their one Achilles heel vs DSLR? Should be testing rigorously and scientifically any time any kind of improvement is claimed (E-M1, A6000, X-T1, etc).
Apples and oranges, the G1 X MkII (terrible name btw) isn't gonna afford you much latitude past 50mm equivalent or even 35mm equivalent, you're already at f3.5-4 past anything but wide angle... So if you're after low light shots or DoF control it's not gonna be very optimal, he could go out with his Olympus with a 90mm equivalent f1.8 lens mounted and a 40mm equivalent f1.7 lens in his pant's pocket, maybe even the 28-84 pancake zoom for daylight shots in the same pocket. The G1 X MkII lens looks impressive, and it's better than most other fixed lens alternatives; but it's not the end all be all of portable solutions.
Looks interesting, has some faults but I don't understand why it isn't being received with at least half the optimism of the RX100 series... Both of them kinda introduce new compact categories, and the RX100 (mkII particularly) barely passes as pants pocketable anyway. A Canon S120 or Pana LF1 are thinner and they still leave a bulge in my pocket (and I'm skinny, 5'10", and DON'T wear skinny jeans).
If I hadn't jumped into M43 I'd probably be in the market for a G1 X MkII... If you're going super minimalist you really aren't gonna beat the Canon's lens versatility with any one lens, from ANY system. However, it's only particularly bright around 24-28mm, I hope you favor group shots or indoor/architecture shots if f2 & 24-28mm is your optimal range...
The speed advantage drops as you zoom, and though there is still one it's not really enough for great low light shots at 50mm equivalent, or DoF control, let alone at portrait lengths past 70mm equivalent. With a system camera, or with M43 at least, I can have a small 90mm/f3.6 equivalent lens, along with a pocketable 40mm/f3.4 equivalent lens, and a pocketable 24-60mm or 28-80 equivalent slow pancake zoom .
Heck, I can toss in an 18-36mm f8 equivalent ultra wide or replace the 90/3.6 with a 120mm/f5.6 equivalent lens. Can't have ultra wide on a compact, and you're looking at f7-f8 equivalent past 50mm. Carrying more lenses sounds like bulk, and it is to an extent, but all four lenses I named along with the camera could fit in a fanny pack. Two would fit in your pant's pocket, all would fit in a jacket pocket.
Point is, something like this Canon doesn't make small mirrorless ILCs irrelevant; nor does it even compete directly with them unless you're mostly concerned with shooting at 24 to 28mm, or daylight (in which case something like the GM1's pancake zoom isn't an issue, and it's only a stop and a half slower at 24mm anyway).
I don't have a GM1 btw, too small for me... :p Kidding, too pricey/lacked features I wanted, did buy it's kit zoom tho. Ultimately I think this Canon competes with the RX100 (even tho one can be squeezed info pants, barely), as well as cheaper/older lines like the Pana LX. Plenty of people cross shopped the RX100 against much cheaper P&S like a Canon S100, it's just the same here.
BelePhotography: pictures - found here http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n140416.html
Not showing up on mobile view btw.
Not a bad solution, albeit a bit overdesigned or overthought... I guess it's slightly more convenient than the existing strap clips, a little more profitable for them too since you need an extra magnet for every cap. Looks a little wide/big for smaller cameras & straps. Having the inside of the cap facing outside entire time seems like a good way to accumulate dust and grime too.
Impulses: I don't have much of a problem with a cloud model or cloud services being offered as a subset of LR, Adobe's shaky security practices notwithstanding... But the price has gotta be right. It'd cost me $80 every year to upgrade LR, so for $40 more per year this isn't worth it to ME (nevermind that I'd have to wait for Android support anyway).
Sure it includes PS, but I'm fine with PS Elements, which I only upgrade every other year (and can be found as low as $80, even bundled with Premier for that price). I don't need LR to import some photos unto my tablet for browsing or even to play around with the RAW files a bit, there's already apps for that on Android.
Catalog sync and 20GB of cloud storage would be nice, but not at $40 more per year. Specially when I already have 45GB on Dropbox and 25GB on Skydrive & Goggle Drive for free (thru various offers & promos), plus 50GB on Amazon for much less... Adobe's gotta up their storage game or lower prices to convince me. I imagine 20GB would be worthless to pros too.
$40 isn't a deal breaker per se, it's just not a good value proposition for ME, I said it a few lines into my comment well before you reiterated it. I can easily afford the $40, and I'll never make a penny off my photography, but it's just not a good value proposition compared to the alternatives (even if none accomplish quite the same complete package).
I'm sure it'd be worth it for a pro, but I'd imagine most pros would need far more than 20GB so I do question whether this is truly aimed at pros. Heck, if I were a pro I'd just get a Surface Pro and be done with it, then you can use whatever service to sync your catalog(s), host it on a server, etc. No need to futz with an iPad unless it's to export a few photos to show a client and you don't need LR on the iPad for that.
I don't have much of a problem with a cloud model or cloud services being offered as a subset of LR, Adobe's shaky security practices notwithstanding... But the price has gotta be right. It'd cost me $80 every year to upgrade LR, so for $40 more per year this isn't worth it to ME (nevermind that I'd have to wait for Android support anyway).
h2k: They keep shying away from a super wide angle prime.
And, yes, as a Pana shooter (except GX7) i'd rather prefer this one with IS.
Yeah, an 8mm or 9mm rectilinear prime would be awesome, even if only f2.8 or 3.5, as long as it's modestly priced... Too slow or too expensive and we might as well stick with the 9-18mm which is already pretty small.
Dimit: People,have you realized that m43 is an expensive system afterall??...an ''ok'' performance with profound limitations??...a system worth getting it ALWAYS in fire-sales period??...preferably combo...
Conversely, I'm getting far more use out of my M43 system than I ever would out of even an APS-C DSLR... I can fit my entire system plus accessories in a waist/shoulder bag that's not any larger than my sister's T3i + 24-105L (bare). That is worth any amount of money for some people, to me it's the difference between having an ILC at all or not bothering.
Not sure how the price of one premium lens reflects on the system as a whole anyway. Plenty of nice sub $400 primes and kit zooms to choose from...
Whenever I look at the EF/EF-S lineup, the only area where I see any kind of huge price disparity is when it comes to the cheap 50mm vs something like the Oly 45mm (performance and 80 vs 90 mm equivalency aside). Everywhere else the difference seems to be <$100 and not always in favor of APS-C.