I don't reply to private messages.
1) Why is non-kit lens used? Isn't DPR policy when reviewing cameras to use the standard equipment?2) Why nothing is said if the images were post processed, whether they were converted from raw, etc.?
I'm starting wondering how useful the new studio test tool is. There are so little visible differences between various cameras, that one may think they all produce the same image quality, until you start shooting them side by side or even look at various sample photos to understand how vastly image quality varies between them. Just last year I tested 6 different cameras, all of them look very similar on this test scene, all of them have very different image quality in real shooting.I think the old comparison tool was a lot more representative.
And now a trivia question: name at least one superzoom lens that isn't a cr@p.
So slooow, hardly usable. The FF version is so much better.
This FF lens is far superior to the APS-C version. It's APS-C equivalent is 18-200mm f/2.3-4.2, which is quite usable, unlike the slow f/3.5-6.3. Or if you are using APS-C mirrorless put it on a focal reducer and get the same benefits. The APS-C version is just boring and slow.And as an observation, despite all those ignorant posts that crop sensor somehow means smaller lenses, because of smaller image circle, this is just another demonstration that image circle has little or no effect on the lens size.
Robert Garcia NYC: skin texture does not look good at iso 800. Is there a way to disable NR on X-T1?
Yes, but they you'll be complaining about the noise :-)
xue24: "getting a pro to shot the samples!!" are all over the real world samples gallery here in dpreview. personally, i think dpreview is doing a good job in fact, by mistake or not. cause over 90% of us out there will shot exactly like this. a pro will make all sample galleries here look amazing even if it is by a $100 p&s, but is it true for the rest of us? the camera don't make a better photographer.
is dpreview real world samples gallery any good...personally, yes!! cause it is real for many, including myself :P
any camera could be good if it is in the right hand
That thought occurred to me also.
It might be good to have two sections to the review, one like the existing one that would show what an average Joe the photographer could get from the camera. That would cool down the unhealthy hysteria about the new gear. And another section showing what the best efforts from a highly competent person. That would give an idea to the advanced photographers if there is something the camera can do better than what they currently have.
Max De Martino: Somebody is not satisfied of these images, so will be not satisfied also of mine, the first wedding shot with a X-T1...http://maxdemartinocom.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/il-primo-matrimonio-al-mondo-scattato-con-una-fuji-x-t1/
what are those ugly green hallos? http://maxdemartinocom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/dscf9259.jpg
Thou shalt never shoot people in the back.
jeremybarton: I own the E-M 5 it does everything i need it to do! i sold my2 Nikon because of that ! Olympus E-M 10 is on order!
Man, you're not in the shrink's office, it's DPR here!
The Pentax has great colors. Sony has reasonably good colors. The rest? -- just your average P&S.
digiart: All photos on the first page of the gallery are taken @ ISO 400 or higher. The nighttime photos I can understand why, but why use noisier ISO 400 and high shutter speed on so many photos in daytime when you are using a fast lens?
DR200%, etc. only prevents blowing highlights, it has no beneficial effect on shadows, only increasing noise and adding smearing. That's not a gimmick one would want to use in real life shooting.
That's not a samples gallery. It's a collection of random snapshots that demonstrate nothing.The only common theme to all these pictures is cool tones, which may or may not be specific to this camera.
Arahne27: I think that there is a lot of in camera processing of published samples. There is no comparison between these pictures and EM-5. Simply EM-5 is way ahead better. Both situations were on bright days, obviously with different lenses. So, is it possible to run through camera settings again and switch off any in camera sharpening and noise reductions, when publishing review samples? It would be pity that such a nice camera produces low quality pictures.
What's the basis to claim raw files will be the same as EM5? The time when raw files were just unprocessed pixel levels are long gone. Every manufacturer nowadays doesn't serve raw, they cooks raw files, you may as well think about raw as yet another manufacturer specific image format.
Looks nice, but image quality of those samples is average at best. Kit lens, of course, mediocre; but even with better lenses the colors, noise, dynamic range look rather unimpressive.
Fascination with retro will come to an end as soon as manufacturers find out that their new cameras are not selling any better than their predecessors.The fake pentaprism on mirrorless camera is like a saddle on a cow. The 30 y.o. controls is a dead evolutionary branch, discarded in DSLRs many years ago. Fuji would have better return on investment if they finally made a good grip, which wouldn't require attachments, and touch screen LCD wouldn't hurt either.
Anastigmat: A dedicated APS-C camera system with a new lens mount makes as much sense as driving into a dead end street without a reverse gear. Sooner or later the car will come to a screeching halt because there is no way to turn around. Worse, the lenses are useless because they have electronic aperture control so you cannot use them on any other camera. Camera systems like these are destined for obsolescence.
True, but every camera bought today will be obsolete in two years, and lenses will be obsolete in four. So what's the problem? -- Discard the old and get the new.
SergeyMS: Old sensor? What reason in this camera?
That old Sony sensor isn't bad, albeit Sony themselves already using a new 20MP one, probably X-Pro2 will get it.
LaMesa: With all due respect for the photographer's skill of arranging, taking and post processing attractive pictures, I do agree with some of the posters, who are not so enthusiastic about her work.
To me the pictures do not represent real life, but an unreal postcard type idyll of a dream world, not to be found in Russia, nor anywhere else - too sweet, too flawless. As opposed to the marketing claims, these pictures do not represent anything typical of Russian country life.
As an alternative, please find attached a link to a picture of Army photographer Bill Permutter, taken in Spain in the fiftees, one of my favorites forever.http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-523258-galleryV9-dmcr.jpg
Are you advocating taking pictures in the bathroom after visitation? That would be very realistic!
First of all, great pictures. The detractors either have no taste or simply envious. The author, probably intuitively, found several key factors for making these dreamy, emotional photos: isolate few important things and make them evenly lit, de-emphasize the rest by shallow DOF and low light, and let your imagination compose the scene. For people shots you can use any format to get that shallow DOF, as long your effective lens aperture is 30-40mm. Of course, there are plenty of FF lenses that satisfy that requirement, a few APS-C lenses, and a couple of m43 lenses suitable for that kind of work.