CameraLabTester: I guess space travel now belongs to Museums.
The "PIONEERING SPIRIT" or whatever you might call it, is just LOST.
Space Shuttle... Now the Nation... in SHUTDOWN mode...
Get back in your tea cave, rb59020.
Musicjohn: The G serie powershots have always been way too overpriced rubbish, are still way overpriced rubbish and always will be way overpriced rubbish. There are many other (even cheaper) cams of this format which make just as good a picture, if not better.
I am a professional photographer with 1D-mkIV and 5D-mkII and I have always had the need for a 'pocket sized' little cam which I can have with me all of the time. I have had several G-series from Canon, but always sold them again within a few weeks because I was disappointed with the image quality. About 4 years ago I even preferred a Casio Exilim to the G11.
The reason why people would buy a pocket sized cam is the need to get any picture as fast as possible onto a blog or a newspaper or news website. Considering the resolution size in which the final picture will appear (usually no larger than 600 pixels max.) one could argue that ANY compact camera would fulfill that job, even the lowest price compact cam available today.
What utter nonsense. Canon's G-series is unquestionably superior in both flexibility and, more important, image quality to just about anything similarly priced or cheaper. Maybe that's why it sells so well.
Raincheck: One of the most striking things about all these shots over at flicker is how hard it is to find pictures of hordes of fat pigs wallowing around at the circuses and fairs, dressed in tee shirts and stretch pants. With the notable exception of The Fat Lady, of course. I'm jealous of a time where you could get candid shots of Americans enjoying leisure time without filling the frame with round blobs all dressed the same. Ahhhh... the colorful gayly printed skirts and dresses blowing in the breeze...
Beam me back Scotty.
AlpCns2, what an ignorant, Tea Party-esque statement, blaming the government's health initiatives for American obesity -- instead of the private sector (Coke, Burger King, etc.) that literally fuels it. At the same time, you guys criticize the efforts of Bloomberg to combat the insidious effects of sugar in Big Gulps and the like. If you're going to spew reactionary nonsense,you could at least be consistent about it.
Dazzer8888: Great photographer, cheesy subject matter, horrible camera.....
By "cheesy", Dazzer8888 was referring to the subject matter, not the phone, and my comments followed accordingly.
Greg Henry: People whine too much.
Reduce the photos to around 6 megapixels. Adjust the levels a bit. Poof - they're better than any other phone camera on the market today.
Their biggest problem? They're taken with a camera that's attached to a Window's phone, and one that's exclusive only to AT&T at that.
Hooray for Windows phones, and any other ones that compete against the dull monopolies of Apple and Android.
Conventional to the point it may seem overdone? Sure, but that doesn't = "cheesy". Cheesy means bad, whereas this stuff is so good that it's obvious/boring to you. Hey, this scenery is amazing, and it's not its fault it's highly photographed. I can't tell if it's your analysis that's off or just your vocabulary. Either way, the comments in this section seem like an exercise of one-upsmanship in perfunctory negativity.
Roland Karlsson: Very skilful done colorings, but ... she needs to pay more attention to reflections. The red of the fire in the burning monk image should light up the ground and make it redder. The water under the mushroom cloud should be grayer etc. At least if she wants to make it look realistic. But ... I really like most of the portraits. They get more 3D.
But 1) the ground isn't lighter in the immolation, and 2) the mushroom cloud shouldn't make the water any grayer than do the regular cumulus clouds in the same photo (plus the mushroom cloud is principally over an island far in the distance and not entirely subject to water reflection). Realism in this case must be determined not by what you might EXPECT in the (redone) photos, but by what's actually IN the (source) photos.
TN Args: Despite the confidence of some comments on this article, it is impossible to spot the biased/faked reviews unless they are badly faked. You think they haven't thought of readers who ignore 1-star ratings? Think again.
I ignore them completely. Especially with regard to reliability or breakdowns: even if the reports are true, they give a completely unrepresentative and distorted view of the odds of you having a problem if you buy one.
It has even gotten to the point where the main website reviewers will mark a product down for not having some feature that a different model has -- they assume everybody wants it. Why won't they review the product (camera) for how well it does what it does, not how well it does what it doesn't??
I mainly read reviews not for the number rating, but sometimes users come up with some really interesting ownership or usage aspect that I had not thought of, or read elsewhere.
Sorry, chaos, but I ROUTINELY encounter the very sort of reviews described by TN Args.
Rod McD: Quote from the conclusion :- "Details are smudged at base ISO (though likely not an issue for target audience)"
Why is there this ongoing assumption that people who like the outdoors aren't interested in better IQ? In my experience, people who want tough, WR cameras to take to wild places greatly value where they go and the images they bring back. Perhaps the target audience who buy these cameras do so because there's simply nothing better available. It doesn't mean it isn't wanted and wouldn't sell. And no, one shouldn't have to carry a D4 in housing. We need something in-between - a modern day Nikonos with a fixed wide to standard zoom.
Surely someone could make a better small WR camera with a 1"- APSC sensor, a WA zoom, and real O-ring seals? Yes it would weigh more and cost more, but many would be prepared to pay more for a comprehensively better outdoor camera.
I agree with the OP. This needn't be an either/or(I learned this from Goldilocks). I'm quite sure a good many people would prefer something like the AW110 but with a 20% bigger sensor and a 20% bigger lens -- and pay 40% more for it without complaint. It's not as though there are any technical barriers to such a camera.
DotCom Editor: Seems they got it bass ackwards. "Pentax" has brand equity in cameras, "Ricoh" in office equipment.
Ah, but most of the brass in charge are Ricoh men, not Pentax (remember that big Ricoh bought fledgling Pentax). Let's hope their pride doesn't goeth before the fall.
Jack Simpson: Different name .... Same Great Products :) EDIT: I really can't believe some of the comments below ????
Are you telling us you can't believe some of the comments below, or asking us if you can't believe some of the comments below? (Question marks can be a dangerous thing!)
Zebooka: "Sky is falling, we are all doomed!" :)In fact, I do not care anymore about Pentax. It is like first love — sweet memories, great photos left, but it was in the past. Mature love is not of bells and labels, but of process — taking photos. That's where all brands unite.
What the h*ll does any of this mean?!
rocklobster: Pity that there is a pop-up flash where an EVF should go. But I suppose that if you really want an EVF then you should buy an E-M5 and anyway I prefer the ergonomics of the E-M5 with the two control dials that readily fall to the thumb and forefinger of my (albeit) small hand.
Also, I would hope that the in-built flash performs better than the clip-on 'kit' flash.
Your small hand probably explains why you're not bothered by the OM-D's lack of a substantial grip (and, yes, I'm aware of the grip attachment -- but I'm also aware of the EVF attachment).
bobbarber: The Nikon A is too expensive, and not sharp in the corners. The GR seems to have solved both of those problems, awaiting further review.
The images look very nice.
In these test shots, the Nikon shows greater detail clarity in almost all points OTHER than the extreme corners. So I guess you have to ask yourself: what's the most important part of your composition -- the 95% at the heart of it, or the outlying 5%?
rsf3127: I liked the specs and the body design, except for the fixed screen.But @ 800 usd, I don't see why would I choose this over a NEX-6.It is the same price, has arguably the same sensor, an awesome VF, a tilting screen that makes a lot of difference to me AND I can put any lens I want in front of it. Even one that is retractable and is a zoom.Maybe when the price is right, some months from here...
The selling points of the Ricoh and Nikon are a faster lens and pocketability. If those points aren't important to you, then, yes, the NEX is a better option.
baconsandwich: I'm an LX-3 user and while I have been really satisfied with it overall I would like a little more reach, and a little more than the LX-7 offers. I'm a Canon DSLR shooter and may have to purchase my first G-series soon!
Saijem is right though. If this is your first foray into the "premium" p&s market you really can't go wrong with an LX-3 for as cheaply as they are selling these days...
@ Timmbits: the G15 is "very bulky"? -- really?! It's truly pocketable, and seems downright diminutive next to its direct competitor, the very nice P7700. Have you actually handled a G15? I have, and found it astonishingly light. If you describe that camera as very bulky, what words are left to describe larger cameras -- like everything in Sony's NEX series, or Fuji's X series, let alone DSLRs (and last I checked, DSLRs seem to remain pretty popular)? Seems your reference point is a smartphone.
stratplaya: This girl has made some bad choices in her life.
Clint, it's only lopsided if the OP asserted that the abuse victim's poor choices somehow exonerated her abuser -- and he asserted no such thing.
Sam Carriere: About half the comments find the photos the best thing since sliced bread and the other half find them mediocre to awful.Which proves once again that you simply cannot assess photographs posted to the web with any degree of credibility. There are too many variables, starting with the calibration or lack of it of the viewer's monitor. This kind of posting -- and the comments -- are useless.
digby, do you really mean "trances" (vs. trounces)?
The reason I ask is because it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that the X100S trounces "...any Nikon Full frame (sic) except the D4". Consult one of the best test-points of the comparison tool, the pink dots within the feathers at the lower right of the test scene; @ ISO-100, the D800 undeniably "trounces" the X100S -- precisely as we would expect it to.
zakk9: Thousands of photos have already been published of this fiasco of a war. Why show more shots from what was little more than a giant killing spree, organised by a gang of misguided politicians and generals? At least a couple of million innocent Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians were killed during the the event and the three involved countries are still suffering from the results of the bombings and the killings.
One photo is called "Charlie Haughey poses with a group of Vietnamese school children." How many Vietnamese school children were killed by American bombs during the Vietnam War? Nobody probably knows. I guess a smiling American soldier with the kids looks nicer than tiny corpses mutilated by bombs and napalm.
In the interest of clarity: 1) the US government does NOT = Americans; and 2) generally NO one defends the Vietnam conflict -- neither Americans nor even those in US government during that time -- so you, zakk9, are beating a dead horse...instead of discussing photography.
zakk9 wrote:"At least a couple of million innocent Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians were killed during the (Vietnam conflict)..."
Then I wrote:"do you know how many 'innocent Americans' died in (that conflict)?"
Then zakk9 wrote:"The responsibility for the Vietnam War is very easy to place. If the Americans hadn't been there..."
Here you go again, conflating the US government with Americans. Are you really suggesting that American soldiers who were drafted into Vietnam service against their will were somehow responsible for their own deaths in that conflict?!
Here in the US, I don't know of any Americans who are always in agreement with every single thing their government does (but maybe you're in agreement with everything your government does, like the Thammasat Massacre?). Then again, I understand this sort of distinction gets in the way of your simplistic blather.