Biologist by nature, photographer by passion
shadowhumper: On the RX1r "No built in viewfinder" how is this a con in a compact full frame? Do you take points of DSLRs for not being as compact as well?
Sounds like you are trying to find something else what is wrong and could not so started nagging about other things.
Another con: doesn't come in pink
HA! :P Good one...
RX1r came out last year, RX100 MKIII came out this year.
On the RX1r "No built in viewfinder" how is this a con in a compact full frame? Do you take points of DSLRs for not being as compact as well?
straylightrun: Remember when dpreview used to be about actual news instead of rumors?
Totally. It is like saying "it is possible to be a respectable scientist and firmly believe in everything that the bible has to say" OR "it is possible to be The Economist and gutter tabloid at the same time"
fmian: Hopefully they will fix the shutter shock issues.Otherwise what good are 40mp photos if they are blurry?
BUAHAHA!! The "correct settings". Yeah, just shoot in one way all of your photos and they will be like that. ISO 100 for everyone, wohoo.
autochrome: Wow. Talk about a marketing droid... the amount of bs here is just insane. This in particular is truly a gem:
"So in your opinion your sensors are currently the best on the market?
Yes. In the EOS 7D Mark II for example the sensor we’ve used is improved compared to the previous generation, especially at high ISO and in shadows. There’s less noise."
It's true that we don't know for sure yet, but i have a vague suspicion that somehow this 7Dmk.II wonder-sensor won't be quite up to the challenge against present Sony sensors at least. The arrogance is truly flabbergasting
Of course he deserves respect... Otherwise it might be that they wont give an interview to DPReview. That's what they are worried here.
"You won't be surprised to see that the camera with the largest sensor does better. The question is, does it do better in proportion to how much larger it is?"
As if FF cameras in small bodies never existed: Sony A7r, A7s A7 and Sony RX1 are all cameras smaller than many m43 offerings but with the sensor that gives all niceties.
shadowhumper: Not Fuji, Ricoh is the camera maker that deserves most appreciation for their FW updates.
Sorry but faster refresh rate after software update is the ideal definition of bug fix.
You said something about functionality: New functionality is something like the ability to edit raw images in camera, like Ricoh announced. Or if the x100s would not come with the focus split and then they would have added later.
I do not own a Ricoh or a Fuji, Sony guy here, but Ricoh is king in this department and I am just waiting to get a good, used GR.
Which functionality was added by Fuji? That I know of is only bug fix after bug fix.. Things that should have been on FW 1.0
Not Fuji, Ricoh is the camera maker that deserves most appreciation for their FW updates.
Fogsprig: Everybody should wait for a7000. According to some rumors, Sony will release it in two weeks.
So you saying Sony releases many cameras? Here is Olympus: E-M10, E-M1, E-M5, E-P5, E-PL5. Add to that the other creatures that I forgot to name then your argument falls flat.
But good thing, with m43, is that you don't need to overspend on an E-M1 since you are buying the same super tiny sensor with the same paltry 16 mpx :)
bluevellet: Bubububut you can't do indoor sports photography with m43, mirrorless and/or tiny-sensored cameras!
Actually from 12 photos he took, 4 of those contained some sort of movements (which few were of fast paced).
While it is true that mirrorless cameras have improved m43 is not well suited for indoor environments if you are a pro. Period.
Go to one of the indoor sports events and see what they are using. No one is using m43.
Your sarcasm, opinion and trolling on the matter are totally irrelevant. :) Just enjoy your cameras as they are.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: The images look slightly bleached and lacking contrast. From my personal exprience, converters tend to do this. It's a great idea on paper, but the results aren't that good.
I don't think the shots were bad. IMO you were using the converter in a very diverse situation range and it is good that you did that.
However, the converter is still pretty bad. The photos do look indeed hazy.
WOW!!! FINALLY AM I RIGHT?
Can't wait for the unbiased review that will surely come from the guy that couldn't hold the excitement that had to blog about a box arriving. Is it the first camera he ever gets?
Let's see if you guys are going to trash the same of tired looks of the Nikons, as you do with Sony, and call the processor name stupid, because it does make sense to someone.
You guys could try to fake this enthusiasm for other brands like Ricoh and Sony and Pentax too right?
Plastek: Gold award for an interchangeable lens camera that offers next to no lenses? Well done.
hey everyone, look a troll trying to be funny :D
you want a hug friend? it gets lonely in that basement right?
Sam_Oslo: The RAW image quality is the most important aspect of such a camera, why is the reviewer keeping such a negative focus on JPEG quality?.
Do you really think I give a rats behind about your personal opinion or preference?
What I care about are facts and you seem to want to bend the truth left and right just so you can fell better.
It is very sad your life but worry not, you have a very small capable camera. Let me know when you finally go out of the 16mp :)
harold1968: 1. DPREVIEW, please note that the Sony external chargers is available for about £40. The conclusion implies they don't exist.
2. "Very Good image quality" is an understatement. Intentional ? You gave the E-M1 "exceptional", and owning both, I can say the A7 blows the E-M1 out of the water. The E-M1 has noise at base ISO and less DR and less colour depth at the same price and weight. This is totally inconsistent.
Oh I see that you are really after Sony. :)
It is interesting that all other review sites have stated that this camera IQ is leagues ahead of E-M1 but you are still here trying spew crazy conspiracies.
Must either be because you can't afford one or you are just jelly. Are you jelly?
First of all, no one is buying this cameras for the JPEG. JPEGers usually buy cheaper cameras, like the rx100.
Second, all other reviews praise the JPEG capabilities of this sensor. Why not DPReview?
Your tirade against Sony is even more comical. Maybe sensor envy is the problem here.