T3: I don't mind the $10/month fee, but I'm worried about what they'll do to the price after your 12 months is up. I just don't trust Adobe anymore. They'll jack up the price, and you'll be jacked in the process.
I'm currently using LR for 0$ a month, having paid £60 a little over 12 months ago. Sure, I'd get PS with this, but I don't actually want it or that clusterfuck that is Bridge.
wootpile: Should be the same sensor as in Nikon p7700 but these samples suck. Not a single crisp image.. Let's hope it is just another a case of Dpreview manhandling. (why post pre-samples taken without sample-value content?)
I like the styling Oly is using - angluar and tight.
If the IQ is better than the sucky samples seen, I can see this one being a very good macro machine for bugs
I genuinely don't understand, a lot of these images are pin sharp, especially the portraits.
I have noticed that my system sometimes shows images as blurred when I expand them (after waiting for them to load) but they then load properly after being closed and re-opened. Maybe people are seeing this? Because this is not a blurry camera.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: They both lack sharpness. I'm sorry for the people who think they'll make great shots with these expensive gadgets, but both of them are short on image quality. Yes, the 808 is better - at least if you can take your mind off the considerable levels of chromatic aberration -, but what's the point? For the price you'll be better off with an enthusiast compact camera like the Sony RX100.
Please, Manuel, tell me more about the "typical smartphone consumer". :D
vesa1tahti: Oly is from the past. Buy APS-C or FF- Nikons, and you are happy. Cheers.
I love how every comment is bookended by trolls talking complete bollocks. Olympus lenses, blurry? Hahaha! Go home.
massimogori: 1) The quality of the camera depends on the area of the sensor (corollary: IQ/surface is a constant for all sensors)
2) Any marketing effort made by anybody other than the maker of my own camera is a nonsense
3) The price of a camera I cannot afford or from another brand than my own camera is too high.
(...lots of experienced photographers, here...)
bok3h, I think you missed the intended sarcasm in massimogori's post. :)
fz750: I do wonder what the real market is for M4/3 and even for similar cameras like the Nex range. I live i a pretty touristy (Switzerland) place, so see people shooting lanscapes and buildings and stuff all the time, have been on various holidays or trips this year (europe, switzerland, austria, germany, uk, france and once in Israel) around, but I have **not once** seen a M4/3 (other than my own) or Nex, just canikon D-SLR basically, 98% APS-C but some D6/800 and Canon 6D (ignoring all the mass of compact cameras obviously)
I have a E-PL2, use it most of the time it seems (in preference to a canon Eos, despite missing a viewfinder..) and really like it, so am interested in smaller format camera like the OM-D but wonder who is buying all these M4/3 & Nex cameras?
I doubt my subjective sample is representative of total sales! perhaps they more prevalent in some markets?
The sad fact is that the people trolling in here about Full Frame are also the sort of people who stridently recommend DSLRs to people who don't need them. "Buy the Canikon with the expensive lens, then you can upgrade to Full Frame later for *list of irrelevant traits*".
So a lot of folks out there don't buy mirrorless because they don't know it exists, or get told by some gearhead with half a brain that they're inferior because *insert daft reason here*
Jogger: Id like to see a continuous series of photos with the 75/1.8 at 1.8 of a runner running towards the camera.. .or maybe the 35-100/2.8 at 2.8 and 100mm. Just spot focus on the bib number and fire away.
The CAF samples so far have not proven anything. Also, what is the point of 9fps without focus.. .when would you ever use that?
You're right, Jogger, you use bracketing mode - which incidentally operates at a 9fps speed without autofocus. Your photos are taken (exposure length permitting) in roughly 1/3 of a second instead of, say, 1 second at 3fps. Great for handheld HDR.
You also completely ignored the skater comment, which is a shame as that sort of speed is useful in any sort of blink-and-you'll-miss-it scenario. It's fairly a cheesy way of getting the shot but in the end it's still about getting the shot, not how you got it.
CortoPA: Its almost as good a camera as a Pentax K-5 IIs
Thanks for the trolling Plastek, but as a former Pentax owner I know from bitter experience that your statement is complete hogswash. M4/3 + 4/3 = >Pentax lens range. That's without getting into how using legacy MF Pentax lenses is easier on M4/3 than on Pentax's own cameras...
JerryKraut: Folks, may be I am getting old and may be some lenses (not the Long Toms I use a lot) have no manual focus ring anymore, but I never understood the fuss about AF. Who needs this feature, really? Press and sports photographers, OK, and blind people, who should not be taking pictures in the first place. All these people who send their lenses back and forth to have them serviced because of perceived front or back focus make me laugh. I remember an article in AP, I think it was, when Heather Angel said she only bought her first AF Nikon body, an F4, because of the superior metering and that she would not swap all her big glass for the new AF versions. I had a Dutchman ridicule me once for taking photos of a pack of timber wolves with an old manual telezoom lens. Pity I could not show him the best pictures I took that day. That would have shut him up.
I'm pleased for you that you can focus so well manually, that's wonderful - what does that have to do with anyone else? My eyes are such that it is impossible for me to ever get an accurately focused image via manual focusing through anything other than luck. But I guess I just shouldn't be taking photographs.
olyflyer: The focus is OK in the first sequence with the slow riders but in the second I would be worried with the AF ability.
In the second sequence the aperture is severely stopped down, everything from the nose of the horse to infinity is in focus. What would make me worried is the fact that nothing in front of the horse is in focus, so the rider is always on the edge of DOF. I think if the camera was set to use larger aperture then the rider would have been out of focus.
I tried to download the second sequence images but it seems that only the first image is downloadable, so my conclusion might be wrong, but it is not likely that it is different in the other images in terms of the used aperture and the very deep DOF.
The AF tuning abilities are really impressive but who else other than a very few diehard Oly fans have the time and knowledge to tune properly? No, in my opinion the AF tuning should be done by the factory, not the user. I would not be happy to have to do that tuning at home.
Thanks for the quick response Andy. Those examples are much more useful!
Raist3d: Well see how good (or not) the sensor in this camera is, a Panasonic new design. Hopefully no banding. If the sensor is ballpark as good (ditto if better) as the EM-5/Pen5, I just can't see anyone in their right mind picking a Pen 5 over this model.
The superior IBIS on the P5 might still sway me. I'm looking for a camera that will allow me to manual focus my 300mm mirror lens with some degree of accuracy; having a stabilised viewfinder would be a huge boon.
Based on preview shots elsewhere it's possible that the P5 still has the edge in image quality, too, but we'll have to wait to see final models for a proper judgement.
igorek7: What's up with an attitude in DPReview towards any new Panasonic MFT cameras? GH3, G6, GF6 and now GX7 got some rather negative pre-reviews w/o even seriously testing them. GX7 incorporates many features which so many people were asking for: build-in EVF in the left corner, sensor-shift "in-body" image stabilization, improved sensor, better grip, etc. Taking each feature separately, one may argue that "few of the GX7's specifications stand out as revolutionary", but incorporating all of the GX7's features in the compact user-friendly camera-design is outstanding.
"Overall, we like what we see."
Yes, very negative! :|
vetsmelter: "Nokia's second attempt at a 41-megapixel camera phone" -> Ok the actual image size is only 38MPix but I think you should not call this an attempt since "attempt" is the action of trying at something. What they aimed at is to use a large sensor's excess pixels to create a cleaner digital zoom and small 2, 5 or 8MP (808)And while we are at the sensor: the first "attempt" had a larger sensor. The 808 measures 1/1.2” in size, and the 1020 has a 1/1.5” . The price of making it thinner and cheaper I guess.Photography wise, the only added value of the 1020 over the 808 is the shutter control.
808 over 1020:
Larger 1/1.2 sensorND FilterStronger flash8MP supersample mode = best format on 808 in good lightNatural colour reproductionMicroSD card expansion & swappable battery , like a self respecting camOS
1020 over 808:
Better F2.2 lens (w/o ND filter!)OIS & 6 elements lens (vs 5)Dual image capture & newer algorithmsConfigurable audioBetter camera UI?Camera grip (Optional)
I'd argue that OIS has significant photographic value, too.
philinnz: horrible noisy images even in good light. It seems it must be difficult to hold the camera level so you would lose 10mp straightening and cropping. I think I got better results 12 years ago with my old kodak dc-280
Why must it be difficult? :/
jondh: Poor image quality. My Iphone4 gives me better image and sharper with its 5MP sensor
Given that the iPhone 5 in this test has worse image quality than the 1020 and a vastly superior camera system to your iPhone 4, I'm not entirely sure what you're smoking to come to that conclusion.
Fr3lncr: At full resolution it seems the shots aren't as nice as the S4 whereas at 5MP, it takes the edge. It still seems the super high MP is a bit more of a marketing gimmick than anything else, or at least more of a tool to get better lower resolution shots.
Would have been interesting to know other specs about the camera which affect usability like autofocus speed, autofocus accuracy, cycle time between shots... A high resolution camera is all fine and dandy but if you can't take a shot quick enough, its use is limited.
It's a tool to get the better low resolution shots. I'm not yet convinced that it's better than having a 5 or 8MP sensor with larger pixels would be, though.
Lea5: If someone would enter my room with it, I would kick it from his face and smash it on the ground (many of my friends would do the same) I hope they ban this spy-glass in the EU. Enough spying through he NSA and British Intelligence, no other stuff like that needed.
I hope you'd at least have the decency to ask them to take it off first. Or are you merely looking for an excuse?
tkbslc: Or you could put a $100 Takumar 50mm f1.4 on a NEX......
tkbslc: That statement is only true the premise of identical sensor technology.The sensor technology between FF and M43 cameras is not identical.Thus the statement is invalid.
Clear now? ISO 1600 output on an E-M5 is not, for example, identical to ISO 6400 on a Canon 5D Mark II - it is superior. So there is no equivalence to be had there...
Terry Breedlove: Perfect portrait lens for me. Fast aperture to keep shutter speeds up and iso numbers down. Perfect DOF at my favorite f2 FF eq for the fine art black and white portraits I do. I am buying the OMD em5 next week with the 17 f1.8 and I can't wait to join the four three crowd. :)
Yabokkie: Low light at low ISO. It can do that a lot better, especially if you're happy to risk a little motion blur and use the built-in optical stabilization on an Olympus model.
Thanks for playing.
timedrun: I dont know how much a yen is worth precisely, hopfully not a lot. but only a muppet would pay more than 200 quid for this.
I think EssexAsh was actually complaining about his free healthcare, unless I'm mistaken. It's a favourite pastime here in Britain, knocking one of the best things our nation still has going for it.