photoguy622: Those pictures are atrocious. I thought the Olympus was bad at detail retention, the Nikon is even worse.
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!
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
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.
LA Headshots: photos number 2 and 8 are the only good ones. Everything else looks very amateurish
You wouldn't want an amateurish-looking photo of the "classiest sport on earth!" ;)
These photos - starting with number 1 and continuing through 10 and 11 - elevate the sport in my mind. By the time you get to number 12, this parting corny shot doesn't take away from the positive impression.
retro76: The pictures are good, but the limitation of a smaller sensor really shows it's big disadvantage - the crowd is still somewhat in focus taking away from the subject matter. I use mirrorless myself and while DOF doesn't always bother me, it's apparent this is a limitation to the format.
The crowd doesn't have to be unrecognizable for the subject to stand out. Photo #8 is an example.
And sometimes the people in the background who are observing the action enhance the photo, like the teammate on the bench in #4. She's blurred enough that a viewer won't mistake her for the main subject, but rather is portrayed exactly as she is - an observer. And observers point back to the importance of the action. Interestingly, this is similar to the amount of blur that an painter might use here. McDaniel may not have been consciously aware of her inclusion when he took the shot, but this naturally shows up in some of your photos when you're using good technique. The background in action photos can help to provide context and a feeling of being there - or at least wishing you were there.
A key reason this amount of blur works is that these are quality lenses (regardless of whether they're "the best" or not).
It's nice to see shots from a photographer who really gets in there and captures the emotion too!
The Name is Bond: hmmm, I hate to say it but the bokeh isn't good enough. It's really not smooth at all, despite the review's claim that it's good enough. Even closed down (which usually deals with bokeh issues).
Maybe it's good enough for closer pics, but we have here the usual bokeh-clueless pics from dpreview. Easy bokeh backgrounds (flowers and vegetation) with just a couple of pics that demonstrate the rough bokeh. They need to get themselves someone long versed in bokeh analysis. .....Like me!!! :)
Get that lens in to a bike shop, dpreview.
Anyway, I actually feel a bit sad. I was totally over excited at the review. ...until I saw the pics (and some pics on the blogs mentioned in the comments).
You don't hate to say it, and it's not hard to see for someone who looks for it. That's the sad part.
Real McKay: This is exactly why, I along with what I believe is the majority, prefer programs to be on our computers.Can you imagine earning you living in photography & this happens - its just not acceptable. I am switching to something where I do not depend on the cloud. LR5 & PSE12 are available still outside the cloud so no great loss of functionality for 99% of what I need.I also believe that this will hurt Adobe more than they think.
@Craig76 - I didn't realize stealing software was on the table.
But I put no words in your mouth - this is actually what you're saying.
You can't use CS5 forever unless you want to stand still.
You said NEVER, but Adobe will probably make subscriptions your only option some day (they certainly want to).
The idea that you're dependent on Adobe software for your work, yet will never upgrade, is patently absurd.