Agalliac: Only boys of Canikon need autofocus because they operate their cameras on automatic. Who cares about the video module. I have a camcorder that costs U$20.000 . What interests me is the quality of the image , the sharpness . In terms of image quality, the only camera capable of rivalling with my Pentax K- 3 is my PhaseOne. Sorry DPR but you review are tendentious .
BTW, I failed to mention it before, but I have shot a Pentax (with the FA43 on it) side-by-side with a modern digital Hasselblad. When I was going through the photos later, I had trouble telling which was which without looking closely at the photos or checking the metadata. Ironically, this was a promotional Hasselblad event where they encouraged you to bring your own camera to compare - they provided the studio setup and the model. Neither camera clearly stood out as better when I was culling the photos. There were (obviously) resolution differences, but the Pentax was almost like the same thing on a smaller scale, with beautiful colors and rendering.
So it's actually pretty easy for me to believe someone would use only Pentax and Phase One. In fact, this would be my choice, if I needed a medium format system right now (I was previously Phase One certified). These cameras aren't the right fit for everyone (like the aforementioned "automatic" shooter), but the quality is there.
zw1975: 5DII's poor DR for shooting landscape . . . . I know your pain because I have the same.
If only finding your personal voice were easy. That's the problem, I think.
Although equipment isn't the main issue here, I do think it would make sense to sell everything but the 70-200 (and maybe the 24-105) and get the new 11-24, which I apparently is just becoming available.
Or it might be preferable to try something like a Fuji, Pentax, or Nikon system, where quality mid-priced primes are readily available (this is Canon's weak spot). That might be just the "boost" which would encourage even more thoughtful photography. Canon excels in areas like sports photography, but it almost leads to too much of a commercial attitude.
But the main thing is finding a way to make the photos express more than just the spot you happen to be in when you decide to zoom and click the shutter. Primes at least force you to carefully consider your shooting position, and which focal length you actually want.
It also doesn't help that many of these particular Canon lenses are weak amongst their peers. For example, Sony, Nikon, Pentax and Fuji all have better quality WA lenses than these two Canon models.
Fortunately many other factors matter as much as the equipment.
evan47: brilliant idea. now narcissists can pretend they have more than one friend.
Usually they have about one friend at a time, on a revolving door plan. Every 2-3 months one friend's out and another one's in. Months later a friend may come back for a while.
But now with their new fantasy friend, maybe they can leave some of these poor souls alone!
DStudio: It will be interesting to see whether the CMOS actually creates images that are better (or even as good) as the CCD sensor did.
We shall see.
It will be interesting to see whether the CMOS actually creates images that are better (or even as good) as the CCD sensor did.
Zephir 750: No thanks! No more Leica for me. The loss I suffered due to the M9 sensor failure and Leica's inadeguate approach to the issue (replacement with a similar sensor prone to telapse) was enough for me.
Too bad - when you sell a premium product you have to provide premium service. Your margins should allow it, and it's essential to maintain your perceived value.
Too bad a compromise couldn't be worked out for you.
As an owner of the Samsung Galaxy Camera, I can tell you that these devices have huge potential, much of which may never materialize. While Panasonic may decide to provide better/more Android updates than Samsung, third-party app support can be a problem. Unfortunately, virtually all the potential power lies in these third-party apps. And if you develop your own apps, the time and costs will likely be too high.
For example, it may have all the power needed to stream live video, but even the most popular streaming apps may not support it. Or they may support it without the use of zoom. Or they are buggy on it, while they run OK on more common, "standard" phones. Or they may later abandon support because the non-standard pieces are too difficult to deal with, and the market is too small.
In the end an iPhone can be better in many cases. Even if it has inferior optical capabilities, it has a narrow, well-defined, popular hardware platform.
Petroglyph: Ricoh also claims the SR system detects and compensates for panning. This is a big deal for those shooting moving subjects. Now the SR can be left active while panning and still compensate for off axis shake. Like multi-selection IS in modern lenses. This might prove to be a bigger upgrade than it appears at first glance. Bummer about the flash but cool for astrotracker users. Sensor shift high-rez could be foveon-like but without the higher ISO noise issues. Intriguing .
If Olympus and Panasonic's IBIS works well for panning that's great, but Pentax still has an advantage in that they have a significantly larger sensor, and can use it with Full Frame lenses (without adapters or loss of functionality). So they genuinely have the POTENTIAL to compete with Canon/Nikon's Pro-level IS/VR glass (yet with a broader selection of lenses).
DStudio: "The K-3 II uses the same D-LI90 battery as its predecessor, which can capture 720 shots per charge, though that number isn't directly comparable to CIPA figures for other DSLRs in this class, since the K-3 II has no built-in flash."
Interesting statement. Usually the lack of a built-in flash is a sign of a more "pro-level" camera. Perhaps the lower price is causing some confusion as to its true "class." Let's hope its performance proves this to be true - that the lack of a flash is actually common amongst its peers.
Yes, I understand that was the main point, but the wording is still revealing. It appears its true class is genuinely unknown at this time - this may be interesting. To me it looks like they want it to be a very serious semi-pro APS-C alternative (much like the 7D II) for those who may decide they prefer APS-C for certain applications, even after they release a Full Frame model. In other words, a camera that will still justify the purchase of their new lenses. It also hints at the real possibility that they may release a Full Frame with a reasonably low cost.
Is it really in the class of the D7200, or more like the 7D II (which is more than "a few hundred" dollars more)? That's all I'm wondering. I suspect it will fall somewhere in-between these two cameras, once its performance is known.
Bhima78: I'm starting to think that Ricoh's sensor shift idea is actually better than Oly's as it will require a whole heck of a lot less processing, and can likely be done on the fly much faster. Plus, adding resolution isn't as big of an advantage as adding color information imo. If this works well, it could replace a Foveon sensor.
One of the reasons Pentax is still around is because they've been rather high on innovations and features, especially at their price points. I wouldn't assume Pentax COULDN'T do the 1/2 pixel shift. There's a better chance it was a design decision for what they believed was a good reason. Their implementation of new innovations has been pretty good overall - I wouldn't sell them short here.
TomFid: The language implies that all the features of the pixel shift approach are advantages over the Olympus method.
Not so. 4 shots is indeed faster, but that's it. The noise isn't lower (the Oly samples each point the same number of times), except to the extent that the sensor might be better. Most importantly, the Oly 8-shot approach samples a second set of pixel locations, whereas this does not.
Implementation is important - let's see how the full package works out in practice (before deciding which is better or more useful).
paulski66: Where's the d810 review? That camera has been out for a year now, and here we're getting hands-on previews for just-announced, not-even-released cameras.
Hey, wait - I thought it was supposed to be the other way around - that a Pentaxian is complaining because a new Nikon got a cursory hands-on article while still waiting for an in-depth review on a slightly upgraded Pentax!
"The K-3 II uses the same D-LI90 battery as its predecessor, which can capture 720 shots per charge, though that number isn't directly comparable to CIPA figures for other DSLRs in this class, since the K-3 II has no built-in flash."
Xpharm: This is NEWS?
In case you're wondering, part of the attraction of this (type of) product is that it allows you easily and quickly print quality photos without requiring a computer, in a very portable form factor. No adjustments are needed.
Most inkjet printers seem to require some fiddling to get good prints out. Canon printers tend to print nicely straight out of the camera. You can either use a cable (as pictured) or swap between two SD cards to quickly deliver modern-day digital "Polaroid" portraits.
The SELPHY is a handy little printer. Of course it's news.
But you obviously don't own one - nor do you intend to get the new model - so please move on ...
enenzo: Go get a Minolta MC/MD ROKKOR-X 50mm f1.4. $70 :-)
IF this is anything like Soft lens designs of the past, then no, you can't. It has nothing to do with your imagined brilliance as a photographer.
There are numerous differences, but a key differentiator is the ability to (soft) focus on subjects a moderate distance away (e.g. over 20 feet) and still get a very soft background. You might have to get your hands on one to understand, but it's something you can't do with a 50/1.2.
So, again, you may be able to simulate SOME of the examples here. But if it's anything like Soft lenses of the past, it has some unique qualities you can't create with a normal lens.
jeffc1: Draconian?If someone is within 15ft they are likely getting in the way of the police officer trying to do their job. DPReview should stick with reporting the facts and stay out of making editorial comments/conclusions.
Good luck finding a publication that doesn't share its opinion. If you find one, I'm not sure I want to read it.
At least Brittany's thoughts are out in the open, not veiled.
DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.
However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.
But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!
Sorry, goob, that's a ridiculous example. The police didn't tell him to stop filming; the others have no authority, so if the cameraman listens that's his problem (and he's an idiot).
The fact that a few people might try to game the system may not take our rights away.
It sounds like these two are breaking other laws, and should be held accountable. If "the system" doesn't care to follow up on such people, then too bad. The rest of us still don't lose our rights.
When the Constitution was written you didn't have "official press badges." All you needed was the ability to print - which was almost anybody if you had friends or made a little effort. Same thing today - all you need is an internet account.
You seem to have missed the whole idea behind the Constitution.
Incidentally, I don't suppose you have any documentation on this alleged scam. Care to share it?
The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.