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.
mcshan: All that matters is fast glass. The era of the 1/2.3 sensor (best ever!) is here. Hopefully any future Sony RX2 will have a FAST lens and amazing 1/2.3 sensor because it is amazing. Sensor size no longer matters. Hopefully the amazing 1/2.3 sensor finds it's way into next year's DSLRs. It is that good.
This is the oldest problem with sarcasm on the Internet. Sometimes people are so incredibly stupid that it's hard to see the difference.
aaaja: one only can take this poll with humour. AND it is allready 2013 - 'snow of yesterday' we would say in our country.
DPReview is in many aspects a intersting source for information - but most of the time. for me at least, a bit entertainment and definetly not when it comes to cameras and lenses - i found many valuable information about many aspects - software, gadgets etc..
unfortunately the site wants to be a source for serious (at last that is my understanding) - it is obviously hard to have material of interest to many on a daybase? so lets laugh about that grand endyear (-joke)
Yesterday's snow is what we use for skiing. Last year's cameras are usually still competitive next year, especially since the prices tend to go down. I don't understand the point of your rant at all, DPReview is the most comprehensive and most technical source of information about photography hardware on the net.
Airless: Most of these choices are pretty lame. Any snapshooter could take a picture of someone crying or a sick person, or a posed gymnast. Nothing special there.
I agree. Those photos are completely forgettable. Especially the "secret" shot of Obama preparing for a speech. Obama obviously knew that the photographer was there, and the smile looks completely fake, more like "how did you get in here? Please get him out, I need to prepare for the speech".
kecajkerugo: up to ISo 6400 it keeps up with the OM-D...later on it takes lead ...not bad!If it only was smaller...
I have an E-PL5 (same sensor and optics as OM-D) and I don't notice any extreme drop in quality between ISO1600 and ISO5000. Both look quite nice. Of course, ISO200 produces the highest detail level and the most punchy colors. At the max ISO of 25600 the results are acceptable in the sense that the photos would be happily accepted as evidence in a court case, but not as something you would want to show off to anybody.
On the other hand, with the max ISO I almost managed to snap a photo of the passengers in a crossing high-speed train a bit late in the evening. Unfortunately I had some issues with the focus and of course releasing the shutter at the right time, but I'll try again another time and see how it goes.
joharis: The specs say: rangefinder-style and some of the comments also talk about the rangefinder look. A rangefinder camera has an optical system that helps to focus manually. The Pen has nothing of a rangefinder and even the original analogue Pen was not a rangefinder but a SLR camera.Why all these confusion with rangefinders???
OK I do see your point :)
You can focus manually with focus peeking, it's no problem at all to do this. I think it kinda does look like a rangefinder, but this is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder.