Optimal Prime: Er... Isn't there a more recent Q10 announced almost a year ago...? Why is DPR only receiving the Q7 at this late stage? Strange...
And even stranger still, that people love commenting on the internet with no idea what they're talking about. Makes it such a useful place for getting information.
Apparel may be different than technology. In technology forums there are definitely paid shills.
I won't name who, except to say a well known competitor to Apple left a very clumsy audit trail of their smear campaign.
A trust was set up funded by the research arm of the competitor.
That trust then set up a research project (a further separate entity funded by the trust) to 'study the impact of social networking on brand image'.
That entity hired interns and 'earn money from home with your computer' responders who were unaware of what they were really being hired for.
These employees were paid to join social networks and forums and then given scripted disinformation, targeted at chipping away at Apples brand image and products. The more posts they got from their script, the more they got paid.
If you are interested, the audit trail is out there, but you may need to use a variety of search engines to find it because, curiously, the trail doesn't show up in all search engines.
schaki: The lens is not a very good copy. The left side is sharper than the right, looking at the two chess-lika squares to the left and right side of the top and also the silver-watch in the right lower corner is not very sharp either.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews_data/pentax_q7/boxshot/imgp7101.jpg
@marike6 - I agree. I've gotten so used to DPR testing with excellent lenses I assumed it was standard practice and was surprised to see these poor results. I guess it could be a simple case that they don't have a better lens for Q7.
D1N0: Entire scene looks out of focus, or has poor resolution. The difference with camera's with the same sensor zx-2 mx-1 is just too big. What lens was used? the 5-15 or the 8.5 prime?
@marike6 - The problem is that currently there is no alternative higher quality standard zoom. For other formats these are available or announced, so you're not stuck with the kit one.
I too would keep a better prime on it most of the time, but I read it's only been released as a kit with the zoom, and based on this I really wouldn't want to feel I'm spending any money on this zoom.
Another comment, just to add my voice to the choir. Those samples are seriously very poor. Certainly wouldn't encourage a prospective buyer, in fact quite the opposite, it's really put me off it. They just can't be right with it's new sensor, must be a bad lens (but bad model or just a bad copy?).
On the plus side, it's a timely reminder just how good a job Nikon did with that P7700, at least on the IQ side. I remember being impressed with the real world samples you made with it and the studio samples bare that out. I'll have to check if it got a firmware update to iron out the quirks.
Njphoto1: The new sensor certainly has an impressive spec with the dual pixel Af and is an good advancement in technology. Thank you canon for trying to push the sensor tech once again after so many years; but has it come to late and is it enough to hold back the competition? Personally i would have preferred canon to focus on more dynamic range and colour depth as well as the new on chip Af. can't have everything though right...
Anyway, i have to disagree with this comment - "It really takes DSLR shooting and filmmaking to a whole new level." It does for canon but overall, not really when comparing it to other manufactures... take Sony for instance; back in 2010 Sony created a camera that has full time Af even in video mode with TMT (for their slr style cameras) and still is known for having the best LV performance even in their mirrorless range (their evf still needs working on but that's another story).
Shame to say it but canon you seem to be a couple of years behind everyone else. Give us something to really shout about!
Every sales figure I see says Canon is dominant. They have been late to mirrorless, but they have produced both a MILC and a mini DSLR, and with this technology they could sweep up many of those with GAS with a single announcement. And remember, Canon's forte extends even more-so into lenses. That 40mm pancake they produced is stupidly good. It puts the vast majority of MILC lenses to shame yet lives in Canon's bargain basement. And Sigma's new 1.8 standard zoom breaths new life into APS-C.
Take the 100D size, the sigma zoom and the 40mm pancake, replace the mirror with a top quality EVF, and the competition won't know what hit them. All from a 'sleeping' giant.
DanCee: just a thought.. this dual pixel, apart from helping AF in live/movie mode.. Canon might use this method to improve sensitivity/DR?? A 40MP sensor in disguise?? .. just curious about the IQ
That doesn't 'sound' right. Each pixel is getting half the total exposure because it is half the size. The right/left feature is a technique during CDAF processing, not exposure. (but it equates to the same light gathering)
The way it works in EXR is one pixel (half of the dual pixel) is read early and doesn't receive the full exposure. This means you can increase the exposure, by say a stop, to capture more shadow detail, but at the risk of filling other pixels (blowing the highlights). But the companion pixel that was read early doesn't fill up and allows the highlight to be recovered. This is what combines to give the extra DR
In theory this deign could support something similar, but there may be some technical details that prevent it being done in this first generation sensor.
In theory, they could implement an EXR type process where one pixel is given half the exposure to allow for more exposure range.
In practice, there may be many technicalities stopping it, such as available processing power. It only needs the dual pixel read during AF so the area can be restricted to just the active AF zones, or even 2 reads, one for left and one for right for its PD. But at capture, it would need all 40 million which could currently be beyond its processing limits.
mccltd: I bought the RX-100 to replace my DSLR but being Sony dont bring out firmware updates I shall not be buying another.They ought to support their products as well as bringing out new ones.
I had a Sony Vaio laptop with DVGate video software installed. When XP service pack 1 came out to fix a bunch of critical security issue updates DVGate stopped working.
10 hours on the phone to Sony, 9.5 trying to find out the right person to speak to, 30 minutes being told they wouldn't be making an update available (to sign a driver with a new certificate, if I recall) and I'd have to pay £500 for a new copy of the software. I bought a Mac instead.
Then they tried to copy-protect CDs by having some software that loaded when you played it on a PC, but the software broke many of the computers. They refused to fix it until a class action lawsuit was filed, won, challenged, upheld. I was really glad I'd switched to Mac, avoided that mess, and enjoyed listening to my CDs.
In the west, they became known for their appalling customer care more than their great products, and when you consider how great their products used to be, thats a huge achievement, but in a really bad way.
Can I be your new joke writer for your headlines. I promise I'll never use Carl and Ice in the same sentence again.
Najinsky: I have no issue with any of this. The LX7 is a fine compact camera. The D-Lux 6 adds the Leica improved colour processing, a copy of Lightroom and the red dot branding.
This designer special extends the idea further giving the very fetching leather trim (making it a fine looking camera to me) and the designer case and strap.
My ex-wife often blew a grand on some overpriced fancy designer bag. It was part of her costume to help her feel at ease in the various social circles she mingled in. It wasn't my thing, and could have thought of a hundred other things to blow the money on, but it made her happy.
The best camera is the one you always have with you. One approach is a good compact camera. But there's no doubt these have a consumer electronics or tech-geek look about them.
This is a very smart looking camera which could help the stylish, who would normally shun carrying a gadget, to enjoy the benefits of the camera you have with you.
It's always easier to knock something down. But the realities are simple:
For JPEG shooters, the colour response is important. Fuji, Olympus and Nikon all have a strong following based on their high quality JPEGs.
For would-be RAW shooters, a copy of Lightroom may have material value.
So the D-Lux 6 benefits may be tangible for some (perhaps not many, but enough for a viable product).
DSLRs get left at home when socialising because of the inconvenience of carrying them, and because of being very conspicuous.
A stylish compact allows someone to say, I like my photography, but don't want a geeky looking device that will alienate my friends who are not into photography.
This (clearly) niche product lets you make your statement, but rather than alienate, to be more engaging your friends who may appreciate fashion and design much more than camera specifications.
I don't invent these social etiquettes, but I do recognise they exist.
SETI: Not bad but I see better IQ from Olympus E-PL5 + Panny 14mm f/2.5
Without being disrespectful, I don't really care if you disagree. DXO metrics are based on research from the international standards organisation (ISO), experts in human vision and imaging experts from the European Space Agency, incorporating imaging research from NASA.
I have 9 cameras and about 20 lenses, and all combinations that DXO have tested give results that I agree with from my own shooting experience and pixel peeping. It's a metric I now trust.
The excellent PanLeica 25/1.4 (Which I Own) scores 9-10p-MP on a 16MP M.4/3 sensor. The Ricoh GR scores 13p-MP.
The highest scoring M.4/3 lens is the Olympus 75/1.8 (WIO) which scores 11p-MP.
The 14/2.5 (WIO) is a very fine lens (for it's size and cost) which hasn't been tested by DXO, but based on MTF comparisons (and my own pixel peeping) it's at most a 9p-MP.
Some people here have strange opinions. They post 1MP downsized images to 'prove' resolution arguments, and out of focus images to show how good their CDAF camera is.
The Ricoh has about 40% more resolution, and about 9% (average) better DR, Colour Depth and ISO performance.
E-PL5 + the 14/2.5 is excellent and you'd be hard pushed to see most differences (except the resolution), but the metrics are quite conclusive in giving it to the Ricoh.
The Ricoh is much slimmer and has a much better twin dial control interface. The resolution advantage also means you can use the 35mm equivalent crop and still match the E-PL5 + 17/1.8 for resolution without a lens change.
But the E-PL5 + 14/2.5 is excellent too, and has the advantage of interchangeable lenses.
I have the 14/2.5 with my OMD and was contemplating getting the E-PL5 for a more compact option with the 14/2.5. But the Ricoh is now a much better option for me. I've had several Ricoh's and the shooting experience is second to none (for compacts). E-PL5 is much more fiddly by comparison.
ginsbu: The GR looks to be a very nice camera. One negative I didn't see mentioned in the review (if I understand the camera's specs correctly), is that face detect AF is only available in Auto mode. For photographing small, active children face detect AF is very useful — as it is when passing the camera to non-photographers — and I use the feature heavily on my Olympus E-M5. With the GR, it would be frustrating to give up control of shutter & aperture to take advantage of it. Still, Ricoh beats Fuji which didn't include face detect AF in the X100s or X system cameras at all.
I don't know if that's the case, but if it is; A number of Ricoh's firmware features were suggested by DPR members who were/are active in the Ricoh user community.
Ricoh have stated that new features will be added via firmware updates, rather than releasing small incremental hardware changes. So suggest a feature and there's a better than normal chance it could be included in a future feature release.
I agree, face detection is a very useful feature in the quest to make CDAF as useful as PDAF.
A gift from the camera Gods. DSLR IQ in a pocket, without the compromised operational quicks. Finally. Bravo Ricoh.
motobloat: DPR, any idea when you'll get the Fujifilm X100S review done?
The X100S is in the same category (APS-C fixed lens compact) and is probably what people want to compare the Ricoh GR and Nikon Coolpix A against more than anything.
I think you maybe underestimating how small and compact the GR is in comparison to the X100/s. And at almost half the weight it's much easier to carry discretely.
I have no issue with any of this. The LX7 is a fine compact camera. The D-Lux 6 adds the Leica improved colour processing, a copy of Lightroom and the red dot branding.
You forgot the update for Sony for their RX1. Oh wait, it's Sony, there isn't one.
meland: The only thing Leica are perhaps guilty of is in bothering to send their press release on the X Vario to DPR and in doing so exposing themselves to the ridicule of people who have little understanding of Leica's real business and who naively think their opinion on photographic minutiae actually matters. It's a bit like trying to market a Riva launch to someone who lives in a council flat. This camera will probably sell quite well to its intended market. It's just that it's intended market isn't most of you, however some of you are unable to appreciate that.
70/6.4 is not impressive, but it's not a deal breaker. I have many shots at higher F stops.
F/3.5 is disappointing, because on a fixed lens camera, I want at least one FL with a wide aperture to get some low-light shots with a fast enough shutter speed to stop motion blur, without pushing iso too far. Still not a deal breaker.
But take these two extracts from the press release:
"..combined with its fast and precise autofocus offers even the most demanding photographers maximum creative freedom – for spontaneous shots.."
"it allows photographers to concentrate completely on composing their subjects and choosing the decisive instant to shoot in any situation"
These press my buttons; important things I lost when moving from DSLR to smaller cameras. It must be a really impressive new AF to achieve all that. Very exciting.
If genuine they may have me even @ F3.5-6.4 / £2KIf false, they're deceitful snake oil sellers.
First reports found oil. Perhaps guilty of more than you think.
Najinsky: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,The courage to change the things I can,And wisdom to know the difference.
It's that last bit that's giving me issues.
Take the bare faced lies of marketeers, abusing the hard earned reputation of a once great brand, with the sole aim of seducing and milking those guilty only of trust.
Is that something I can change or can't? Should I even try to get involved, if people want to buy it, it's their money.
"fast and precise autofocus"... "allows photographers to concentrate completely on composing their subjects... decisive instant... any situation."
Yet reports say 'reasonable'. Reasonable CDAF means, sometimes it locks, sometimes on the subject, but maybe the background.
Is this not deceitful? Are DPR complicit in this?
Should marketeers have to prove they are not trying to deceive buyers before DPR gives it free coverage?
Is that something we could change?
Should announcements be moderated?
Here's a specific example for you.
Ricoh is known for their respect of their customers, designing the features they believe their customers truly want, not half-cocked features just to to grab headlines.
This shows in their press release:
For sure is has some hyperbole, but they make an effort to qualify things with figures, "can focus in 0.2sec", or footnotes.
And clearly there will always, for all brands, be a marketing spin on things where they may focus a little too much on what they set out to achieve rather than what they managed.
But for me, the Ricoh GR announcement is acceptable and doesn't cross the boundaries of customer respect.
This Leica one I find has too many customer-disrepecting barefaced lies. It crosses the boundary of intentionally deceitful in some areas.