Technologically this could have been done by an undergrad engineering student.Aesthetically this is sh1t. Creating something that ugly actually does have some artistic merit, but not much.
Jose Sentmanat: This is all good as usual with your reviews, I am still hoping that I can get a lot for all of my formerly expensive SLR cameras and lenses to that I can afford to by one decent DSLR or Mirrorless Digital Camera. Sorry I must wait also for a miracle that prices come within my reach. :(
Second hand is your friend, my friend.
I dont get it, how is adding a transparent subpixel better than making the Bayer filter slightly more transparent?
Ben O Connor: The only mistake about the camera is, its sensor size.
It's not a mistake. The sensor has to be small to have this much zoom in a reasonably-sized lens.
parkmcgraw: 1 of 4
Are the lens reviews published by dpReview purposefully attempting to dumb down the readers, habitually 60% correct, or are the writers at dpReview simply and habitually working beyond their subject matter comfort zone and or technical level of proficiency?
This article being another disappointing report and or supplied text that arbitrarily disrespects industry established verbiage, thus convoluting the subject matter of optics and photography, apparently encouraged and or escaping past a management accustom to low performance standards (a.k.a. more apt at providing excuses for mediocrity and ultimately bad behavior).
1] "... portraits with rich stereoscopic effect ..."
No monocular system, forming a singular imaging upon a single focal plane, such that any given point on the focal plane sees an identical image (aperture), does not produce "stereoscopic effect" but rather the "perception of depth".
The formulations that you deservingly criticize have not been written by the DPReview stuff, but have been copied by them verbatim from a Panasonic press release. Not to say that this makes the matters any better, arguably it makes them much worse.
I don't get it, what is the actual dynamic range of this camera? Without the ADL it seems to be a pretty mediocre 10EV, with ADL extra high it's 13 EV. Is ADL actually extending the dynamic range of the captured information, or is it just some "clever" post-processing?
canon person: Nicer images than those from my 5D3.
Photato: DPReview comments about the Nikon D800E (36mp) full frame DSLR:"Pushing these cameras to achieve their maximum level of detail requires an investment of both time (methodical preparation) and money (the very best lenses Nikon makes). "41mp is a marketing gimmick...
@Rage, who says that the lens is small? The aperture is 8.02/2.4 = 3.33 mm wide. The aperture on the m43 14mm F3.5 kit lens is for comparison 14/3.5 = 4 mm wide. Nokia lens has a shorter flange-to-sensor distance. This means higher angle of incidence for the sensor. I heard this could be a problem, but I do know know exactly in what way.
There is a nice explanation about diffraction here: http://tinyurl.com/7zkcd. Nokia 808 is not diffraction limited, due to the relatively large sensor size. On a 1/3'' sensor, 16 MP would be diffraction-limited even with a wide aperture.
Check out this before you throw out your DSLR: http://tinyurl.com/nmp3lc6. This is also a very bad omen: http://tinyurl.com/qzopzlc. But yes, 808 seems to hold its ground against the digicams, at least as long as you don't need the zoom or aperture control.
@Chikoo, Lumia is much closer to the scene than the other cams, so it has a better angle on the text.
Good point, the playing card is simply out of focus on Lumina. On the other cameras they stopped down the aperture.
Are you referring to those nice wave-like patterns on the globe, especially in the oceans? Is it possible to be sure that it's not moiré of some sort? It seems to be much more pronounced on Nikon D800E and actually also on Pentax 645D. Neither of those have anti-aliasing filters. On the other cameras that I checked, the oceans appear uniformly blue.
Also consider the detail level on other locations on the studio shot, such as this: http://tinyurl.com/l2pzpmv. Lumia loses squarely to Canon S110, as it of course should.
rennie12: . . . and I presume everybody knows what happened to the American head of the company who let the cat out of the bag. . . Gee, you don't ? He had to find another job.
How honorable for all concerned.
That's not too bad. I'd love to have him as the CEO in a company where I own stocks though.
Anyone knows what Woodford is doing now, after he exposed the scandal?
draleks: A bit as an afterthought - here is the list of the best news photos of 2012 by Reuters:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think those photos are much more intersting. Almost every one of them have something special about the composition and there is also depth to the sense of drama they evoke. Enjoy!
My personal favourite: http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2012/11/30/best-photos-of-the-year-2012/#a=92
A bit as an afterthought - here is the list of the best news photos of 2012 by Reuters:
Neodp: The EVF is extra, and yet the price is not less, in balance.
The fill flash is not on board, and yet the price is not less, in balance.
The stabilization is not state of the art effective, and yet the price is not less, in balance.
The shutter needs help, and yet the price is not less, in balance.
The fast AF is great; but why have they ignored state of the art C-AF tracking accuracy, and speed. Yet, the price is not less; in balance.
The video lacks quality, and control, and yet the price is not less, in balance.
The lens are great, and yet they cost less to make, without the aperture rings, material weights, nor as much attention to distortion (auto corrected; which is fine), and better CA limiting designs, sharpness in the corners (smaller path glass), and yet the price is not less, in balance.
Hmmmm. Is this less, for more?
Also, the stabilization seems to allow acceptable shots at 1/8 second for 28 mm equiv. This seems to be on par with other manufacturers, but not as amazing as the OM-D.
It is a great camera nevertheless.
ulfie: Olympus's US website says there is no ISO 100 either in auto or manual mode: "AUTO ISO 200 - 25600 (customizable, Default 200-1600) Manual ISO 200 - 25600."
It is true. Normally it's not a problem since you can reduce the aperture and the exposure time to match even the brightest conditions. There are some special applications where you don't want to do that, such as pictures of falling water where you want to create a dreamlike effect by long exposure, for example this one: http://500px.com/photo/22769087 .
Then you will need a neutral density filter.
Zig Ermeson: Lots of criticsism. People defending the Israeli site? This is sad. Why no women in the picture?
@Manuel - Antisemitism is quite rampant in the Arab world, as are most other forms of racism. It is a major driving force of the Arab-Israeli conflict, you shouldn't dismiss it that easily.
dodgebaena: Kim,It's unfortunate that the good work/intentions of the Missionaries are buried under the technobabble. But then again, this forum is with dpreview, not with UTNE.I personally am judgemental because unless the Connect article is skipping some specifics as to funding and who gets what, this event reeks of grandstanding and commercialism. It's like a Western company gives the island population $5,000: a huge fortune over there for medicine and infrastructure. Great! The problem comes when the the rights to these photos generate ten times or more for the "sponsor". Huge problem as far as copyrights issues and fair play.
A good example of capitalism in action. Everybody makes money, although not in equal amounts.