Isn't this kind of pointless? I can wait for the real news release...
Nice! Didn't think anyone would be saying 'I shot my zoom lens STOPPED DOWN at f/2' any time soon :) Sigma is bringing out some interesting stuff these days...
michi098: Would love the 30mm 1.4 but I have mostly moved to Canon full format sensors. (Still have a 7D but not buying any more APS-C lenses). I think that quite a few people are doing the same. Kind of a shame Sigma is ignoring a growing market with their new lenses.
I was thinking the exact opposite - at least someone is paying attention to APS-C and smaller formats and making dedicated primes :) I'm impressed with the direction Sigma is heading in lately!
Just curious. You've stated several times that "jpegs don't matter" or something along those lines. It is obvious to me that the jpegs from the E-M5 are much better than the jpegs from this camera. I encourage anybody to compare the jpegs from the D5200 to the E-M5, starting at base ISO.
There have been several threads in the past here where some pro shooters have weighed in and expressed their preference for jpegs. Not the kind of shooters who spend all day taking 3 landscape shots, but wedding shooters, for example, or sports shooters, or other types of documentary shooters, who take a lot of shots and don't have time to process raw.
I have no doubt that some wedding shooters, etc. prefer raw, but is it accurate for you to say that raw is all that matters, jpegs don't matter, etc.? That isn't my belief, and it isn't the belief of many professional shooters.
While I prefer to shoot RAW, jpg performance is as useful as anything to compare. I make use of JPGs at family events or other occasions where I might take a lot of shots at once, and be unlikely to want to print them large. JPGs have a lot of detail if you are only going to be using them for web use or small prints.
I agree with BobBarber - I see little advantage to the D5200 over a MFT camera for what I use it for. Even if it is better at an absolute level - the real question is if that translates into any difference in my photography. The ability to carry a small, lightweight kit with me trumps absolute image quality - but we all have to evaluate and weigh the trade-offs and make our own decisions...
howielenny: Good to see Tamron investing into M43. Having used Tamron lenses with my D7000 along with Sigma and Nikon, this will be a nice addition to m43. I'm more of a prime man myself so will eagerly await to see what primes they come out with :)
Agreed - while this lens doesn't appeal much to me, both Tamron and Sigma make lenses that do. Any signs that 3rd parties are producing lenses for MFT are welcome...
bcalkins: Well, I'm glad I downloaded the RAW and took a look. I can't see any problems with the LR 4.2 processing of the Fuji file - compared to the MFT camera I'm familiar with I'd say the files out of the Fuji look great, though the difference is not huge. The samples above really don't do the Fuji or ACR justice... Posting default ACR is an OK starting point for a comparison, but it certainly doesn't come close to showing the capabilities of that combination. I'd get the impression you are better off with jpgs and should avoid ACR from these samples above, which is not close to the reality. Not impressed with this article - using defaults gives you some ground to claim you don't have a bias, but misses the whole point of what cameras can do photographically. Is C1 better just because the defaults suit this camera better than ACR? Hardly...
Good points - I guess I see value in both, a comparison of the defaults, and then some results after tweaking with a display of those results and settings. I personally use Lightroom and spend some time tweaking and then make that a preset for importing, so I'm not going to live with the defaults for long - but it does make it hard to evaluate the software's capabilities given that you need some time invested to really understand the differences. But that goes for just about everything you would ever buy!
Well, I'm glad I downloaded the RAW and took a look. I can't see any problems with the LR 4.2 processing of the Fuji file - compared to the MFT camera I'm familiar with I'd say the files out of the Fuji look great, though the difference is not huge. The samples above really don't do the Fuji or ACR justice... Posting default ACR is an OK starting point for a comparison, but it certainly doesn't come close to showing the capabilities of that combination. I'd get the impression you are better off with jpgs and should avoid ACR from these samples above, which is not close to the reality. Not impressed with this article - using defaults gives you some ground to claim you don't have a bias, but misses the whole point of what cameras can do photographically. Is C1 better just because the defaults suit this camera better than ACR? Hardly...
Timmbits: I find it HILARIOUS to see people here who say they can't wait to get their hands on it so that their MFT behaves like, or becomes as good as, an APSC... and up until yesterday we were still reading comments in from the MFT crowd how good (or better) their cameras are than APSC.
Hopefully they are two different groups of people :) I'm an MFT fan, know the strengths and weaknesses of MFT versus APS-C and full frame, and am in no rush to go out and get some EF or Nikon lenses and this adapter. I can't think of any lens I'm longing for that isn't available in an MFT mount (which is a much different statement than saying that all full frame lenses have MFT equivalents). Maybe it is a different story if one is running both an MFT system AND a dSLR system with two sets of lenses...
I can't wait until I have to upload 33MP images for 'web use' :) Nikon D800 here I come!
Fixx: Looks like tool for portraiture and maybe product photography. Less a toy for amateurs (who insist on interchangeable lenses).
I don't think 'toy' was meant in the context of toy camera, but rather a want instead of a need. I agree that an amateur (who could indeed be very skilled and a buyer of expensive equipment) is less likely to be interested in this camera as it fills a very specific niche. In my opinion that niche is product photography - don't need a viewfinder, AF isn't an issue, don't need true 1:1 macro, buffer is a non issue, price is similar to a high end macro lens, no moire/low pass filter, etc.
Agreed, to my surprise I'm seriously considering this instead of a dedicated macro lens :)
Sounds like a winner! Sigma really seems to be on a roll with their fast primes. Hopefully they roll out similarly fast lenses in MFT format...
clcochrane: Am I missing something, or is there no way of navigating to the review you wish to read from within this otherwise very useful article?
It's a bit frustrating having to guess which page of the article refers to the G15 or P7700, etc. Could you change the navigation to include shortcuts to the individual pages which include the camera's names please?
If you hover over the 1, 2, 3, etc. buttons it has the name of the camera as a tooltip, which helps...
Instagram should add "Terms of Service" as a new reason for deleting an account :)
Adrian Van: While I compliment Sony on a very compact full frame camera, is the price justified for portability $2798 on Amazon? Same price will get you a D600 with kit lens plus extra change, or nearly a D800 body (albeit larger cameras). This camera should have come in at $2000 but it is a niche camera for those that can afford its luxury of FF portability. We will see where the price sits after 6 months. Good job on the small package though and Sony FF sensor.
Its sibling RX100 is now 678. (with much smaller sensor) but that is big difference in pricing structure between the two. However, I know this new one RX1 has a superior lens and sensor, and likely body.
This has to be worth $800 more than the APS-C Leica X2 :)
Thanks for another useful review that I can read for free !
I don't understand why people are so fixated on the silver/gold award. Read the review, draw your own conclusions based on what is important to you. Everyone has different needs.
shaocaholica: Is front/back focus really an issue with the lens? Generally speaking of course. I don't see how a camera with perfect sensor registration, perfect AF sensor registration and perfect viewfinder screen registration would front/back focus with any lens. The AF module keeps turning focus until it sees light in phase at the given focus point. Can someone explain how the phase detect AF module would think its in focus while the image projected on the sensor would not be in focus and all this the fault of the lens?
Have a read of this article: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy
Then this follow up:
It seems that AF systems can be open loop (calculate and then go to that point) or closed loop (double check if the lens made it). The fact that we need lens microadjust proves that even if it is an iterative process it still has tolerance that can lead to focus errors.
ulfie: Even Oly's "ancient" E-PL1 w/ Panny 20/1.7 runs circles around this Canon's IQ.
I don't know about 'running circles' around it - but having shot Canon and now owing only an OM-D system I don't see anything from the EOS-M that would make me regret my choice if you are looking for a compact system. The 22mm lens doesn't seem anything special, so you are basically headed into bigger (and more expensive) lenses to get noticeable IQ improvements over MFT... With Canon's new IS primes all starting at $899 on release, even the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is starting to look like a bargain! While the sensor size in MFT is going to mean you can't get more DOF for a given lens choice, I find I have more 'creative control' with MFT simply because the fast primes are so much smaller that I take them with me.
Word of warning - updating can take a lot longer that you might imagine :) I had visions of a bricked camera after I stared at a black screen on the camera and spinning 'updated' wheel in the software, but after 10 minutes it went to OK and works great. Nice to not hear the camera anymore - was wondering why IBIS can be silent in video, but not when NOT in use ! Now they've silenced it - thanks Olympus...
hoggdoc: @ all - If you check the following link to Olympus USA there is no mention of an update beyond 1.2 which was withdrawn from the downloads after install issues came up.
So what gives, DPreview says there is not only a 1.5 vers, but 1.3 and 1.4 are these not for North American consumption? How frustrating is that! :>(
Don't let that link bother you, just run the updater and it will update to 1.5... (I'm in Canada, it updated to 1.4 from 1.2, then to 1.5)