wootpile: 1.4... not enough to make sense
Cudos to Fuji for keeping their systems fresh and alive. But.. the jump from 35 to 50mm is marginal and is certainly something within crop range in edit. (a crop your 16 megapixel image to about 11.5 mpix)
I would have liked it to be a 2.4 instead, offering just over 80mm equiv, and wouldn't mind sacrificing apertures to get there.
Sorry BJL but you are counting backwards.
It's a 1.4 multiplication not a 1.4 division.
if 35mm = 11.5 megapicels a 1.4 converter makes it 50mm at 16
16 to 11.5 is not a 1.4 crop - it's just 0.72 :p
Hugo808: Great, that'll save you taking a step closer...
only by a tiny margin
1.4... not enough to make sense
"Will its slimmer proportions and Wi-Fi be enough to sway consumers toward the mini? We'll be interested to find out."
Time will tell.. but in comparing, you forgot the price factor. Nikon 1" system is ridiculously pricy.
Poweruser: Although 15/1.7 sound spectacular on paper what you are really getting is a moderate wide angle (35mm terms) with almost no option to work with selective depth of field. Unless you really close up, compact camera / phone style.
Would it matter if this lens was f2.8 instead? A fast aperture at this focal length helps the smaller m43 sensor to gather enough photons in bad light. Picture-wise at 15mm it doesnt make a difference at all.
I agree. i would have liked to see a slower and more pancake-designed 15mm somewhere between f2.0 - f2.4. Such a lens could hve been made more affordable without compromising IQ.
Fast lenses is the new megapixel race. Too bad because in many cases, all it adds is bulk and price.
The more in support of the format the merrier of course, but...
this might sound strange considering the generous lineup.. what I want to see are more mft lenses. yes I know there are loads, but many are old designs, and there are also gaps.
More 15mm. More macro. More updates of existing zooms.
nr.1 wish. 15mm pancake (2.0 is ok) good mix of quality and cost(the upcoming pana 15 1.7 is neither a pancake, nor "affordable")
I would have liked to see this sensor in a Nikon p7800-ish package with 650 buck pricetags.
Just a Photographer: Too bad these 'real world' samples were made by a bad photographer.With these pictures shown you can't judge the camera - what a missed chance.
@Barney you are always quick to bite. I'm surprised at the defensive and arrogant nature of your reply. Hundreds of complaints about the nature of dpreview samples can't be wrong.. can they? Or perhaps you guys have become invicible and incapable of fault? You surely do seem incapable of taking critique.
iShootWideOpen: You guys need to put this camera in capable hands to get a good impression. These snaps make the camera look bad.
I agree. It is always the same. Dpreview staff don't know how to use cameras. These images follow the trodden trail of downplaying the camera capabilities from lack of photographic knowledge. Take a look at the reflection in the glass doors of the stadium. That's the stance and grip of a shooter who doesn't care. It is unfortunate and uneccessary to post snaps like these, what's the point? It is also disrespectful of the gear and brands.
375 gram, 13 ouncessweet!
Dpreview: What lens did you use?
A flipscreen would have made it more useful, and more of an update.
Not a single macro?
Re-use of the G1x sensor.
Really nice camera... but 5 years too late. And over the top. I could'nt take this on the street without getting mugged.
Want retro? Make it smaller, simpler. I would like to see a FM.DX or even better a FG clone. No need for AF, seriously. Just give it a big bright F3-class viewfinder.
How about that... A truly manual digital camera with F-mount :p
Nothing new. ALL darkroom work was manipulation of some sort. Time in the bath as the simplest example.
vFunct: Has anyone ever seen a professional photographer at a press event use anything BESIDES a Nikon or Canon?
All other manufacturers are a JOKE compared to these kings.
Mirrorless camera's are even WORSE than jokes.
There are absolutely ZERO Photojournalists in this world that use a mirror less camera. They are completely useless!
The only people that use mirror less cameras are measurebators! HAHA!
Really kiddos, stop playing with your mirror less camera and get a grown up camera like a Nikon.
Seriously, has anyone actually ever seen a photographer at a press event that uses anything besides a Nikon or Canon?
Of the 150 photographers at Fashion Week or a Sporting Event, I noticed that ALL used Nikon or Canon. HAHA!
All the other cameras must be used by girly weaklings.
But are press photographers photographers? I was one for a year and a half. I quit because there was nothing photography about it - just stress and lugging heavy gear around that did it all on auto. High fps, superb AF, mega-long battery life and enough pixels to crop heavily. That's all that was needed.
"Photography".. is something else. That's why retro is cool. But this new camera is a mashup. Not retro enough, not light enough. It's like trying to make a "pro retro". Still... I want one :)
I am sure both the 7r and the 7 are fantastic cameras, but I'll wait until some other site provides "samples" before I start pepping.
wootpile: Should be the same sensor as in Nikon p7700 but these samples suck. Not a single crisp image.. Let's hope it is just another a case of Dpreview manhandling. (why post pre-samples taken without sample-value content?)
I like the styling Oly is using - angluar and tight.
If the IQ is better than the sucky samples seen, I can see this one being a very good macro machine for bugs
well, there's your answer - you're experiencing them as sharp because you are looking at them in reduced format and not their real format. Expand them to 100%
photofan1986: If IQ was on par with XZ-2, it would be nice, but from the samples here it does not come close. I wonder why the images are so soft.
I agree. It has to be the same sensor as in the xz-2 and the P7800. Samples are not worthy of posting imho