Own or have owned...Casio QV 300Canon A5Casio EXlim7Nikon Coolpix 5000Nikon Coolpix 8800Panasonic Lumix FZ18Canon G9Canon A570 ISCanon A720 ISOlympus E510 - w/kit lenses, 70-300, Panny Leica 14-50 f 2.8Panasonic Lumix LX3Fuji S100fsFuji S2 ProFuji S5 ProNikon 50 1.8, Tamron 90 2.8 MacroOlympus E330Olympus E520 w/kit 40-150 (new), Zuiko 18-180, Zuiko 50 f2Canon G11Pentax K-x w/kit 18-55, 55-300, FA 50 1.4, multiple old K and screw mount manual lensesCanon G7Sony R1Canon EOS 10DOlympus E-PL1Panasonic G1mZuiko 14-42, 17 2.8Panny 20 1.7, 45-200Sony TX5Sigma DP1sFuji S200EXRPanasonic LX5Olympus E620, kit lenses, 50 f2, 14-54 Mk I, FL36ROlympus E420Sony HX100VOlympus XZ-1Panasonic G2Panasonic 14-45
James70094: I love all the people posting that this is the same sensor as the GX1 or even the GH2. The GH2 sensor is a bit oversized and the E-M5 sensor is not. That's a known fact at this point. The E-M5 sensor also has a different amount of sensor sites and pixel count that both those sensors. That means it physically can not be the same sensor as the GX1 or the GH2. Some other sites already have confirmation that it is not.
As the for the performance. It's a major leap forward for Olympus. I only care abot comparing it to my current cameras. I don't care how it stacks up to another system because I won't be changing anytime soon. And the RAW results put this camera on par with the NEX5n. To get a real feel for it, several of us got together, printed out the test images. We marked the back of the images with a sticker containing which camera and setting was used. Then we took turns picking out the best and laying the images in order on the table. That produced some startling rtesults.
We can't be certain yet that they are different.Mazda gets more horsepower out of their little engines than Ford does out of the very same engine. Maybe Olympus is modifying the Panny sensor...or maybe it is completely new. I don't think there is anything out there yet that indicates one way or the other with complete certainty.
ZecaMuzzio: I have also downloaded the files from Canon EOS Mark VI to compare. Guess what? Olympus OM-D beat it! all the way from ISO 3200 up to ISO 25600!Amazing!
Can't wait for that EOS... what was that # again? It's going to beat everything.
HowaboutRAW: Odd that the review doesn't mention banding in large areas of shadow, nor is there mention of artifacts in photos with large area of skin tone. (I've seen both problems in a real world demonstration of this camera.)
Have these problems disappeared? Will DPReview be doing a fuller review?
It did mention banding at the end. Noticeable at high ISO.
mjoshi: Am I the only one or others are also feeling same, between HX200V and HX100v only difference I see is increase of MP from 16 to 18, apart from that everything else is exactly same. Atleast they should have gone 24mm wide from 27mm.
Hopefully another difference is the LCD screen... a lot of the HX100v screens were oversaturated with red tones...almost unusable. Hopefully they have figured that out in this new one.
MonkRX: The last 5 years of Casio Cameras have already been doing this.
How to do it:Step 1:Set to lower than max resolution. Step 2: Zoom.
It will show you three different types of zoom on the graduated zoom marker, in this order:
1. Optical Zoom. All images here are "over sampled", then resized to the chosen output resolution.2. Digital Crop. All images here are crops of the full size image. Less "over sampling" as the zoom level increases.3. Digital Zoom - Classic "enlarge to output resolution" mode.
GJ Nokia for making it sound like a brand new concept.
To be honest, I think Nokia should be offering even lower resolutions. If their "over sampling" isn't some basic software algorithim, and actually has some excellent hardware/software pixel binning and noise reduction... Nokia could be creating the perfect Facebook camera. Low resolution with excellent low light sensitivity. (40MP down to less than 1MP). Imagine all the drunk clubbing showing up on FB, super sharp.
Shhhh...don't tell everyone here. They think this all brand new technology. No one has ever done pixel binning before and no one has ever cropped the sensor to achieve a different zoom level.
Onlyrgu: There is a camera inside a hole of the Image: Street view in RioYou can find it at the corner of the news paper 'TAGARELA' on the painting.
I was looking at the details of the image and its pretty good and i guess they kept the camera for reason
Im using Nokia N82 for 3 years.Because i love the camera
The first Nokia phone with xenon flash, the N82 has a 5 megapixel camera with Carl Zeiss Tessar optics. With f 2.8 Aperture.
I loved nokia only beacause of this phone.
The N8 and N808 are some karizma for Nokia phones.
I can find some distortion at the corners like my N82 and Sony CS T99.I think the image quality of N808 is comparable with a normal point and shoot
Wow...you really need to start using a real camera before making such a ridiculous statement. According to you all the camera manufacturers should just go home and hide their tails because Nokia has managed to outdo everything ever achieved in photography.The new camera phones are 'great' but they are not as good as any of the better compacts out there. There is a lot of 'crap' out there too but most manufacturers have premium compacts that seriously outperform this Nokia.The iPhone 4s takes great 1080 video and decent stills but it's still no where near the output of something like a Panasonic LX3/5, Olympus XZ1, Fuji X10 (orbs and all)... the output of this Nokia looks really good...but still not as good as a REAL camera.
waxwaine: Stupid nostalgic design for snobs. Why not make a Ford T hybrid. Live now and proyect to the future.
Keep grasping :-)...and you get weather sealing, smaller size, an actual viewfinder, more features, an IS system that outperforms anything that Pentax has come up with so far... the list goes on."extra-aditional-disgusting 35mm lens adapter" ...you sound like a 12 year old. Oh, I know, you mean the fact that m 4/3 users need an adapter rather than having it incorporated into the body of the their cameras making the camera twice as thick as it needs to be...great bit of form/function in that decision by Pentax.
Sounds like Sean Elliot still thinks his digital watch is a pretty neat device.Fact is anyone that has ever developed their own film and spent a little time getting the best out of their film shots has done exactly what he seems to be so against.I guess ignorance is bliss...
Gordon Urquhart: Should these people be sued as well?
C'mon! it's in plain view! Plus, the images do not even look the same! Concept - yes. Accurate reproduction - Absolutely not.
Bad example, you are right... but there are millions of other examples that could have been used with the same point.The fact remains that he took a photo of a red bus in London from a different position than the original and then he highlighted the colors in the bus. And to say that this judgement was based on him copying that exact image doesn't hold water because his image is significantly different By that argument he should now be able to purchase a much more similar image by a completely different photographer as long as that photographer didn't intend to copy the image in question when he/she originally shot it and I'm sure there are a lot of them out there. Many of which were shot before the image in question.The color highlight function is part of the scene modes of millions of p&s cameras available today and there are a number of computer and smartphone apps that could reproduce this image in mere seconds.Too much credit is being give to this piece of 'art'.
So with that logic then if I paint a bad reproduction of the Mona Lisa with a frown on her face and from a different angle and use it in advertising I should be stopped...and sued of course. Oh wait a minute, that HAS happened about a million times already.Even if he was attempting to 'copy' the original he obviously did a terrible job because they are nowhere near alike. It's also a PHOTOGRAPH of a PUBLIC bus in a PUBLIC place... who the hell believes that they have some right over that property over anyone else that has a camera?!
Overall sounds like a half decent camera but this 800 ISO shot doesn't look too great. Not sure how this would be better than m 4/3 at 800 ISO.
These shots do look really good! Even better in RAW I would think.If the lens stands up to scrutiny it may be worth picking up.
capanikon: Wow. Just wow. Big chip and a great price. This is great.
Not crazy about the way they've implemented the controls ... the Fuji X-1Pro does it better. What's up with the ginormous exposure compensation dial?
It's the same exposure dial that has been on the G series for a while...nothing new in that design or implementation.
sh10453: This is very disappointing, Canon!What a shame to mess up such a nice camera, especially that you gave it a better sensor, which deserves a camera with better features!
Several issues will make me pass on considering this camera (although I have been a Canon fan and user for over 30 years):
1- Ridiculous zoom (4X).
2- Unacceptable macro distance (20 cm, just when I hoped for 20 mm or even 10mm macro distance).
3- USB 2 is old news now. Why in the world would you do that when USB 3 has been out for a while now?
4- 1.9 frames per second, Canon? Isn't that embarrassing? Shame on you!
5- f2.8 is no longer great. It is time for f1.8, or at least a compromised f2.0.
I am really bummed and very disappointed by this news from Canon, and without a doubt I'll have to consider one of Fuji's new products for a pocket camera (perhaps the f770 EXR).
I'm about to start renaming Canon to Cannot.
All those years of Canon experience and yet no experience in photography... at least by those statements.The sensor is 6.3x the size as the previous generations of G series cameras...what kind of enormous lens would you want attached to it that has a longer zoom than 4x and brighter than f 2.8? I'm sure the Fuji will be a cute little camera but don't expect the image quality to be anywhere near what the Canon will produce.
Alberto de Harenne: after this test, I have a question for the Canon people:
Hi Guys, are you Kidding?
look at this !!!!!
I think though the question is WHY is it out of focus. Should we assume that DPReview performed the test wrong more than once even though they have done it a thousand times correctly?...or is there some focusing issues with the S100? It would be nice to get a fair comparison but if they can't manage to get the camera working properly then there is a bigger issue than just simple edge softness with the lens.
Pretty impressive...you can still read the tiny numbers on the board below. Good detail at ISO 6400.Fuji really knows how to handle noise reduction!
Cy Cheze: The HX100, HX5V, HX9V, and HX7V share the same slow control characteristics. To switch modes or change settings takes time. When you use the movie button, the cameras need about 5 seconds to go from standby to run, and then even longer to stop the video and be ready to shoot a still. The delay between individual still shots is much slower than with their great grandmother, the H1. The 10fps burst mode is not much help if you aren't lucky to pick the right instant to shoot and the camera needs a rest before it is ready to shoot again. To shoot video may be more practical for action sequences. In fact, the HX series rate best decent videocams, forgiving their "stammer," shoot better stills than most videocams.
If people can put up with this slowness, and don't share certain folks' obession with NR at high ISO, then they rate well in their class. An HX200 migh take the prize were it to operate a bit faster and have a bit fewer megapixels. That's not begging for any miracles.
I think you might be exaggerating by about 4 seconds or so on the standby time.You press the movie button and there is a short pause before it starts recording. When you press the button to stop it stops immediately but it takes the camera a couple of seconds to process before you can do anything else.
bobbarber: I'm a m43 user and where this camera fails for me is price point.
I do think some of the features are interesting and the image quality is "good enough" for me (and I'm sure most of us, except, well, pixel-peeping is the life blood of this forum).
I also like the idea of a very small sensor camera with interchangeable lenses, because of the advantages for telephoto.
But this camera is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too high priced, especially considering all of the excellent dslrs in the used camera market.
And if it is for non-enthusiasts, then why are they trying to sell it with a couple of esoteric features that even the majority of enthusiasts care little about?
If it were a $300 or $400 camera, maybe.
You can also pick up a Nex 5 now for $500... Much bigger sensor. The Nikon is way over priced.
Rachotilko: Dear DP,
this being my first post, I could not resist but to write down my utter dissapointment with this review. The IQ assessment is just embarrasing, as Panasonic FZ-150's output is just so obviously superior at any ISO level. Even people interested in buying superzooms are not that much psychovisualy impared so as not to recognize texture armaggedon left by overzealous noise reduction in HX100's output.
I mind you, I own no Panasonic and am no fan or adversary of any brand. I am just sad for HX100 being yet another megapixel race victim. I am equally dissapointed by this review, probably marking the end of DPreview's reputability. 73% ? No way !!!
Come on... spend 5 min looking at the Sony talk forum and find me all the disappointed HX100v owners. I'm a pixel peeper and I own DSLRs and m 4/3 cameras. I wasn't narrow minded enough to expect the HX100v's output to be detailed at 100%. It has a great zoom, sharp lens and unbelievable video quality. The only people that have been disappointed are the ones that think they need to view a 16 Mp image at 100%. If you can't manage to print a good image from the HX100v at A4/tabloid size then you are doing something wrong. If you are also trying to print such images at 600 x 600 then you need to rethink your workflow. Glossy magazines are usually printed no higher than 300 x 300 and anything over 150 dpi is perfectly acceptable in advertising. The HX100v is more than capable for my needs and many others. I miss the days of the Fuji S100sf which had a decent sized sensor and low enough pixel count but those days are gone.
harrisoncac: Dear DPR audience:What do you say about HX100V against NIKON P500?
There is a reason why the Nikon is over $100 cheaper in most stores right now.