photoguy622: Those pictures are atrocious. I thought the Olympus was bad at detail retention, the Nikon is even worse.
I'm pretty sure your blind grandmother couldn't care less.
But I suspect your grandmother with good vision (perhaps wearing glasses) would say it's impressive how good it looks - "even close up." "It never looked this good in 4x6 (or rather 3 1/2 x5) prints!" Perhaps the blindness of a child of the digital age is at play.
The bottom line is the Olympus and Ricoh have the better lens. Then just choose which features and JPEG engine you want. The Nikon lens isn't performing well wide open - quite noticeable near the borders. The Canon lens is so much slower I'm not sure it's even a fair comparison - they're apparently embarrassed to even advertise their lens speed!
splendic: No examples of the INSANE MACRO this cam is supposed to be able to do?
Here's the only example I could find in a quick search: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-tg-3/YP5150135.HTM
That's a cool option too - I didn't know about that. Too bad it's out of stock at 2 of the 3 top US retailers right now - better to have it built in, I imagine. I wonder which one works better - aside from "the one you have with you!"
Hopefully DPR will get a LG-1 and test macro flash on both of these cameras!
peevee1: And... nobody cared.
"Identical to its WG-4 GPS sibling in almost every way"
Don't forget it is identical to WG-3 in every way. :)
He duplicated a lot of the scenes on each camera, so I think that's fine.
Jarola: I hope you also took photos of your vacation with a real camera....the quality of this camera is just terrrrible.
What's wrong with vacation-looking photos when you're on Vacation!?
Or maybe some do.
You can't directly compare it, since the same photo wasn't taken with the other cameras, but photo #6 in the gallery (inside the library) is probably the most interesting picture in all the galleries so far.
The expectations of digital photographers today is astounding - Astounding!
Little camera, little lens, little sensor, little JPEG files, little price tag, little sense in the evaluation.
You have to be pixel peeping at 100% and expecting perfect results. Don't expect the same level of detail as RAW files from $1000+ equipment.
oselimg: Oh dear!!! All the underwater photographs were taken on short telephoto setting. Reveal the name of the photographer please. Couldn't have someone from Dpreview at least tell the "photographer" that underwater photography is very much prone to haze if telephoto lens is used? As if someone tried deliberately to make pictures look bad.
Blame the photographer - it couldn't be the camera! Indeed, Jeff must have suddenly gained competence when he used the other three cameras, right?
In fact, this probably has more to do with Canon's tendency to saturate the colors less - supposedly for a more "natural" look - where photos look more like they were all taken at noon in summer. The effect underwater with tropical fish just isn't very good.
Flying Snail: D30 ? Sounds like an old Nikon entry-level DSLR.
That was my first thought when I saw the post, Richard - I actually wondered if it WAS about the old camera, even though that didn't make sense!
sderdiarian: The Ricoh looks the best for above water scenes, even if a bit punchy and some magenta cast, while the Olympus looks best for under water. The Nikon's in the running, the Canon disappointing. And, yes Ben, totally subjective!
It would be helpful to have some portraits included for a more rounded sampling of each camera's capabilities, and Splendic, thanks for the link to theTG3 macro shot.
On MP, I agree it's a shame all 4 companies have gone to 16 MP when 12 MP would serve these p&S small sensored cameras better.
I agree with this general assessment, although I'd say underwater is where the Canon really falls short - not so much on top. It's pretty amusing how in the Canon comments section the photographer gets blamed!
And the WG-4 might be even better, considering it has the same lens and a built-in macro "ring light" flash.
DStudio: So far no comments about the gravity of the situation - just cynicism, attempts to redefine terms, etc.
I visited Hiroshima and the museum and monuments over five years ago. It was good to see it, but also a difficult experience. I imagine these photos would have a similar affect.
It's hard to describe, but it was sobering. It was the first time I can remember wanting to leave a museum before I had to.
I'd also researched the bombing before going to get a better understanding of the situation.
After much thought I think I know how to summarize it. As you learn the details they reinforce an understanding that the bombing was necessary, while simultaneously you're deeply experiencing the horrors of it. Emotionally it's impossible to reconcile the two.
And then you learn that there were many genuine humanitarian considerations that were followed (e.g. inhumane military torture methods were believed to be developed there; many of the children had already left the city for safety), which is good, but you're immediately faced again with the facts of how horrifying the bombing was for those in the city, and you still can't reconcile it.
Furthermore the area and nearby Miyajima is beautiful, while imagining the bombing just seems so awful!
So far no comments about the gravity of the situation - just cynicism, attempts to redefine terms, etc.
The problem is it sounds like a stupid buy even for those who can afford it.
KW Phua: From the data above, "I own it = 20, I want it = 165, I had it = 12", can I say 12 out of 32 owner sold away after owned it. (37.5%). Is this data true?
Anyone who "owns" it would have a pre-production model; Anyone who "had it" could be someone who never owned it because they were lent one of these for testing.
jackpro: Was super interested after seeing comparison with G1X but colour is blah sorry but canon nails colour with no tweaking necessary :( wanting a new travel camera will keep looking)
I'm so glad to hear from you that Canon "nails" the colors when no one actually does. You just have to decide what you like.
It's ironic that you characterize the colors of the Canon as more "blah" because I'd say it's the other way around. Apparently Canon's idea of realism is to make colors slightly dull. If you look in real life you'll see some colors are actually more vivid than Canon portrays (for example some green leaves in the late afternoon).
It's largely up to taste, how you view the real world, and how artistic you want the photos to be. For example, do you want to reproduce the scene as analytically accurate as possible, or is it more important to reproduce the way you felt looking at it?
To me the "better than real life" photos from some cameras still look natural, while others don't.
Lee Jay: This wouldn't be necessary if Apple weren't such a bunch of morons.
I still can't figure out why anyone buys anything from them. Their devices stink and their "our way or the highway" attitude is repulsive, and always has been.
HowaboutRAW - the post we responded to was a little off topic already, because it was about Apple in general, but I don't see how your remarks have anything to do with the discussion.
FWIW I haven't ever been happy with the sound quality in any Apple device I can remember (and Apple's not alone in this). But I happen to be particular in this area, and furthermore neither this nor a temporary software problem has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Ron A 19: So basically what everyone is agreeing upon is that the Zeiss and Sigma are so close in performance in sharpness that Sigma should be lauded for having created an affordable autofocusing Otus. I for one feel empowered that I can afford something so amazing, and can't wait to find an excuse to upgrade my current 50mm.
AbrasiveReducer - I'm not sure what you're saying in the first paragraph.
Then again, I'm not sure I should care, because someone who describes a $4000 lens as costing $5000 in a comparison is purposefully distorting the facts. Furthermore you imply there's shame in buying it compared to the more "sensible" investment of $3000 for a camera which will start rapidly depreciating next month when a new model is released.
To say that only rental or bragging rights count is silly. Many photographers can afford either one, so they want to BUY the one which gives them the performance they're looking for.
Apple is the only one who's come close to the promise of computing. The way we always thought computers should work. Perhaps what we imagined when watching Star Trek or something.
The anticipated iWatch is likely to be another example of this. Even if they can't convince everyone to put wristwatches back on, it will probably come close to the promise.
So they're not there yet (and probably never will be), but they're close.
Maverick_: Very disappointed! Perfect reason why no one uses the MF4 for stills professionally. The images are just a couple of notches above my cell phone pics.
Top MF3 cameras will only be used professionally for video use. And hence the top grade video features on this camera.
BTW, I use a Pana GH and totally dislike its image quality, but it's great for video.
You misunderstand. I think Maverick_ means his cell phone pics are just as good once he runs them through Instagram ... ;)
RichRMA: Very few of the shots were of people moving, close to the camera. m4/3 is not at the DSLR level yet when it comes to action.
I suppose you'd need to know how much of a crop was used to know how close they were to the camera. So, do you know?
From what I've seen, the majority of photographers using "the better equipment" get lazy. Perhaps not the few that are regularly published professionals in major national media. But most of the rest, including some who are published in major regional media.
Using equipment that's more challenging forces you to constantly be thinking about what you're doing. Your instincts come into play and get honed. You feel a part of the activity - not just an observer, but a part of the event as well. When you can't "lean on the equipment," you don't!
I think shooting action will make you a better photographer. If you can learn to repeatedly anticipate and get the shot with only 1 or 2 seconds to prepare, it becomes instinctual. Wedding and event photographers can especially benefit from this. With action, emotions are happening, and they're happening fast.