phazelag: So Panasonic makes the LX100, FZ1000, GH4, and GM5 all of which are innovative and they make one camera with one feature possibly aimed at a younger market and people act like its a photography apocalypse is happening.
I have been told the photography doomsday has been here since I was 16 years old with my Minolta X370. These days any young whipper snapper with a disposable kodak can take photos. What will the world do with "real" photographers!
OMG with a flip screen people will actually be able to take photos of themselves to remember important moments. Whats next robotic cameras that follow us around with their helicopter wings? Oh yeah we have those too.
@ gandulfc: OTOH, my father says: "why do you show me this Colosseum picture? There are thousands of postcard photos taken from every angle! I want to see YOU there!"
Jump mode? Cool!
Whitesands: It doesn't surprise me...Smartphones are so small and light and folks have these things with them all the time they're bound to be a lot of photos taken with them...
Are they good photos ? Well, they are certainly good considering what they are...But they are by no means as capable as the nikons they have overtaken...
@ Mark Alan Thomas.Logic has nothing to do with it. It's a testimony that many people will not miss an opportunity to take a picture only because a better tool for it is available elsewhere. They will use whatever is the most convenient.
It's the typical case of "the best camera is the one you have with you".
mpgxsvcd: Samsung has the exact opposite strategy as Canon. Samsung knows that if they build a quality product with lots of features their customers will still be willing to spend the same amount of money and not ask for rock bottom prices.
They also know that if they are not leading the industry then there will be no catching up. It is lead or simply get out of the way and die by the roadside.
Canon on the other hand believes that its customers are for life. They believe that as long as they don’t change things too much their customers won’t want to change too much. Canon’s market share will be drastically reduced by the end of this year thanks to innovations by Sony, Olympus, Samsung, Panasonic, and even Nikon.
@ Impulses: "a few things DSLR still do better"? How many can you name?
Sessility: What really annoys me about the first photo is that it's so obviously a composite (the reflection doesn't match the stars in the sky). I know the technical reasons for it (light level of sky vs. foreground, and long shutter speed needed), just saying that I find it quite distracting.
It's a badly done perspective correction during panorama stitching. You can find the process description in his earlier article http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2776702380/behind-the-shot-lost-in-space
Anyone, who tried to paint or photograph purposefully reflections in water knows, that they are always parallel to the line of sight. The reflections in the foreground show a pretty strong wide angle perspective distortion, while there is no corresponding distortion in the sky, and to an observant person that creates a dissonance, or a fake look.
zakaria: Great work dpr. The XT 1 is a beautiful camera but still expensive. I wonder how the mirror less cameras are expensive and near the price of some wonderful full frame cameras. Still wondering why manufacturers of mirror less cameras insist on the small size of the body whereas the lenses are huge.
1. The price is determined by the market. Every company will try to get the highest profit they can with any product, so they will price the cameras as high as the market can bear.
2. There are also both large bodies and small lenses available for the mirrorless systems. Anyone can find whatever feels great in their hands.
THIS does not make sense, not Gursky's Rhein II. At least Gursky has created something that did not exist outside his mind. Images of the light pillars in the Antelope canyon is something that every tourist takes. The tour guides will even throw a handful of sand into the light for you.
I can't see how light source less than 1 inch wide could possibly be discussed in terms of softness. Without a modifier, you'd have to keep it just 1 inch from the subject. What's the point?
Robert Soderlund: In the last balloon picture, doesn't it take few milliseconds for the sound to reach the flash at a meter or two? How did it fire in time?
That's why in the photo the rubber is shown already shrunk, rather than at the very instance of rupture.
Saasmul: Have we already reached April? - I thought a wide angle in combination with an arms length always ended up with a too big nose ;-)
If a shot is taken from the same distance (arms length), then the nose distortion will not depend on the focal length of the lens. Only the amount of the visible surroundings will be affected. At least for a rectilinear lens.
oldfogey: Please Note: My DPR Nov. 2009 suggestion to Olympus - Now I hope they look me up and at least offer me a free body for making the suggestion!
"An Ultraresolution Consumer grade SLR from Olympus?Nov 19, 2009
Now Hasseblad have done it - offered an ultraresolution camera which combines 4 images shifted by 1 pixel to generate full colour resolution matching the sensor resolution. The only drawback is the need to keep the camera and subject completely motionless during the process. Clearly Olympus (and Pentax/Sony) have to make a response - they already have sensor shift image stabilization - all (?) that is needed is new firmware to enable a similar mode of operation in their consumer grade cameras - and why stop with full pixel shifts - why not 1/2 pixel shifts? Providing a lense with the needed resolution is mounted and a sufficiently stable tripod is used we could see the introduction of a practical under $1k 40mp landscape/still life camera."
Actually, I am sure this can be done hand-held within a large range of exposure speeds. The IBIS compensates for the camera shake pretty well – Olympus has already built a stellar reputation on it. And many subjects move slowly enough that the feature is practically useful. Not in every single case, but often.
vladimir vanek: OMG, now everyone's going to produce "selfie" cameras to support that ill idea to shoot oneselves. Human vanity must have gone a long way to reach today's levels.
Vanity has reached mythical proportions already in the antiquity: recall the original Narcissus.
The tripod mount is not gold, the lens mount is not, and the flash mount isn't either. Totally not a deal!
red fuji: Egypt was definetly more prosperous in the old days under British rule than now under the Isalmic rule; sorry to say.
By what criteria?
Leaving "Nikon" on the lens cap makes it look cheap...
Boss of Sony: Apart from video, I can't understand the 4/3 sensor thing, especially in a camera this size. Sony is making the same size cameras or smaller, with APS-C or full-frame sensors.
This camera was created bigger on purpose for better handling. There are plenty of miniature offerings in the system, esp. the GM-1.
Please bring it for E-M5 too!
Peter Evans: @DPreview
Could you possibly find an interviewer whose speech is at least in some way intelligible?
@Barney Britton Would you be so kind as to find an interviewer who speaks clearly?
MrPrime: These are nice cameras but they are simply too expensive.
Remember the film days - low cost cameras with decent lenses, light weight, no batter charger to worry about. Entry price was low because nobody figured a lifetime of film expenses into the equation. And the short lifecycle of digital cameras means a $1000 compact camera is worth half that in a couple of years. Too expensive, waaaaaaaay too costly. A smart phone is a must-have and if it comes with a decent enough camera the step-up cost for the cameras shown above is simply laughed at.
These compacts have to be good enough to replace an SLR to get long term traction, and they aren't there yet. But they are getting closer.
There is no need to sell or replace a $1000 camera after a couple of years. One might want to, but there's really no need, as the IQ of the current cameras is already very high. My last film point-and-shoot was a Minolta Freedom Zoom for about $200. If you consider savings on the film and processing, a $1000 camera will have lower cost of ownership after about 100 rolls of film. If you shout about 2 rolls every month, it's only about 4 years of ownership. My first digital camera actually lasted 7 years before it got stolen, otherwise I probably would still use it.