Najinsky: Well, I'm (genuinely) happy for you guys who can make use of this but unfortunately my X100 is an ornament.
It's an ornament because it developed Sticky Aperture Blades and I can't get it fixed.
I can't get it fixed because Fuji won't publicly acknowledge the problem and insists it goes via warranty repair.
It can't go via warranty repair because the required warranty card and receipt were in a document wallet that got stolen in Thailand (all it had was receipts so the thief got nothing but deprived me of a fix).
They were being carried in the wallet in the vain hope of finding a repair centre while travelling, who spoke enough English to understand the problem in the absence of any public acknowledgement I could show them.
I know some of you get annoyed with me for beating down on Fuji for this, but you know what a great camera it is and I bet you'd feel the same if YOU lost the ability to use yours because of an unacknowledged manufacturing defect and bureaucracy.
andywhoa - It's very rude and dis-respectful to call me a liar just because your experience differed. You have no basis for making that claim.
Good job you made it from behind your keyboard, if you'd done it in person I'd have knocked you out cold.
Well, I'm (genuinely) happy for you guys who can make use of this but unfortunately my X100 is an ornament.
The Photo Ninja: I just posted 29 pics regarding shutter shock here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52273869
This comment section of DPR doesn't create links from the URL.
To open the link, simply use your mouse to highlight the link (drag from the start of the link to the end).
With the link highlighted, right-click it and your browser should give you the option to open the linked page.
Robgo2: Anyone who cannot see the superor output from Photo Ninja is either in denial or needs an eye exam. And this superiority holds for other cameras and sensors as well.
I did extensive testing with Photo Ninja and it became part of my standard toolkit, but it's not top dog, just very good at default conversions which are heavily enhanced. This may suit some but not others.
For example, highlight recovery enhances the colour by guessing. When it guesses right, it does a great job as can be seen in the photos above on the blue skies. But sometimes it guesses wrong and gives false colours so has to be turned off and then it's not so good.
When I put it up against Aperture, it produced nicer initial conversions, but that's because Aperture defaults to a very neutral image and leaves it to you to add the sauce. Once I tune the images to my preferences, I still find Aperture the better tool.
But I see no reason to limit myself to a single tool, after all I use multiple cameras and lenses. So I use Aperture as my main processor but revert to Photo Ninja, DXO or Lightroom for those images which benefit from the strong features of those other tools.
Jinks81: How come Fuji cameras are the only ones with practically no chroma noise in RAW?
Either they changed physics or remove it during processing
CameraLabTester: Shutter shock?
Oh come on!
Get a leaf!
Sergey Borachev: This camera should not have been made, now that a better top camera, the E-M5 has already been on the market. Olympus should just update the E-M5 and forget this E-P5. It is too expensive but lacks an EVF. Once the real E-M5 replacement appears in a few months, with a new sensor, this camera will be left on the shelves, if not already.
(The E-M1 is a different camera for 43 users and those with special needs.) There is simply no room between the E-M5 or its replacement and the E-PL5 to slot in this E-P5.
I disagree Sergey. The PL and PM series have stripped down features to keep the cost and size down. The P series is full featured without going to an SLR style body.
While I personally prefer SLR style, I know a lot of people for whom the P is their ideal choice, and I don't see why they should be left out just because of my preferences.
Celebrate the difference!
Image Shake / Shutter Shock.
I've had the EM-5 for over a year now and it's a fantastic balance between size and performance. Shutter shock was also a widely discussed topic when the EM-5 came out.
The 'fix' on the EM-5 is to engage Anti-Shock from custom menu 'E'. I use the fastest setting of 1/8s (shame there isn't a faster setting of say 1/32s) which essentially introduces a 1/8s delay to the shutter.
I was concerned about this delay but after a year of shooting, it's truly a non issue for me. Where split-second timing is critical, I use continuous drive anyway to capture 3/6 frames per second.
In rare cases where single frame and split-second timing is needed, ISO 400 or 800 give great IQ.
I suspect the reason it's a little more prevalent on the P5 is due to the new ISO 100 setting, leading to lower shutter speeds.
In short, if you wan't the performance/size benefits, don't let shutter-shock put you off. All cameras have compromises, and this issue is an easy work-around.
Well done. I've been calling for a feedback forum on numerous occasions over the past few years, I really think you need it. I think it will sometimes be hard reading for you, but ultimately will lead to significant improvements as you get a better handle on users issues.
Rockaw: It's still a capable tool, but I've given up hope for 4.
Lightroom keeps piling on innovative features and very solid improvements each year. So many, that it's no longer a fair comparison between the two. Didn't used to be the case.
Apple needs to keep the loyalties of the pros and super-enthusiasts.
I think it will probably come around the time of the new iPad, hopefully within a few months.
They are known to be working on a companion iPad App for it (they hired the development job about 18 months ago).
The new 64bit A7 chip in the next iPad along with 64bit iOS 7 will give it the horse power needed for a serious companion App.
It all makes sense.
- Develop the companion App- Update Aperture for the companion (and other features)- Release when the performance is available
Laszlo13: I'm happy with version 3 - except for 1 missing feature: ability to remove lens CA effectively. Currently, I need to use DxO Optics Pro 8 to process images with CA issues, and this is annoying (especially since I can't get the colors that I love in aperture out of Optics Pro).
Why not use the CA adjustment tool to remove CA ?
Aperture is not abandoned. It has had a huge number of updates to release 3, which as 'point' updates means they are free. It seems a small but vocal group want it called '4' so they can pay more money for it. I'm happy with free.
I think I can see (and appreciate) Apple's approach as clear as day. So maybe I'm the smartest person in the world, but there's an abundance of evidence to the contrary on that score, so it's more likely I'm just not as blinkered as some.
Good to see the recruitment drive for a new editor finally bearing fruit. Meanwhile, over at Gearshop....
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.