Give Oly credit for introducing a new tracking tool. Long zoom is hard to use with moving objects. Let's hope the reviewers check how well it works. Perhaps it aids if the zoom is 600mm or less, but hand-held shots at any longer setting are probably difficult to keep steady or track at all. No mention if the SP-100 has the 5-axis stabilization of the OMD-EM5. Nice if it did, but maybe not.
The 1/2.3" back-lit sensor is all the bigger one can expect and also have a 24-1200mm equivalent focal range. The RX-10 has a 1" sensor, but is bigger, has a much more limited focal range, and costs almost 3X the Oly. 1200mm equivalent range with an APS-C sensor would cost a fortune and require the size and weight of a RPG launcher.
John Miles: FZ50 rating (-3) http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52339583
A dedicated front wheel would allow instantaneous EV adjustment whilst the right thumb assisted in steadying the camera. A hot shoe for standard accessories does not appear to be present. The screen does not look to articulate to allow waist height composition.
The first Non Fuji 2/3" sensored superzoom camera of this generation. This camera has enormous potential, with broadly speaking double the typical superzoom sensor area. An excellent contender for the superzoom enthusiasts cash; a fitting "camera bag in a camera" release.
FZ50: a 12x 1/1.8" CCD Panasonic model sold in 2006, which DPR rated 7.5 on a 1 to 10 scale.
Al Valentino: No RAW option unlike some of Fuji's Bridge cameras like the new S1. This difference can mean a lot to get the best out of a tiny sensor.
RAW is not high on the priority list of people buying an ultra zoom to track sports action or birds in flight. Key question here is whether the "dot sight" and AF are efficient enough to perform those tasks better. A shoot-off comparison of the Oly and S1 would have to be based on outdoor action, not a studio still life with bottles of cordials, schnapps, and brandy.
mrdancer: I don't think they shot IR to eliminate haze - they could wait for a good weather front to take care of that issue. I think the IR was for several reasons: 1) easier to pick out veg, 2) easier to pick out water vs. cloud shading in the distance, 3) I think IR reduces or eliminates cloud shadows (though I could be wrong on this) which would make for clearer image interpretation by those versed in IR reading.
For public viewing purposes, I agree that they should have monochromed the IR images for those who aren't used to dealing with IR imagery. For their (research & science) purposes, IR is definitely better and would serve as a good baseline for future IR "re-taking" photos.
Imagine the howls, though, from peepers enraged that the IR had been "manipulated" (monochromed). The red areas would either appear very dark, or require selective lightening.
joe6pack: Used infrared "to reduce the hazy effect of pollution and keep land formations in the distance visible. "
Okay, I don't get it.
Pollutions in National Parks? It is not Los Angeles we are talking about here. How does all the other landscape photographers "get by" without infrared?
How is comparing photos between B/W and Infrared not apple-to-orange?
Pollution raises ozone and haze, but both have been around along time. Look at Hudson River paintings from the 1820s. Smog or wild fires make Grand Canyon or RMNP appear hazy more often than not, at least in recent summers.
Paul Farace: I accidentally found myself standing on the very spot that Ansel Adams shot his famous "Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM" (1941) in 2012... he used an 8x10 I used a Canon 50D... point is that except for the church and a few headstones in the cemetery, little was identifiable... what was flat ground in 1941 had become heavily forested (trees and scrub) and homes and structures. Earth and man are dynamic... constantly changing... also the choice of format and lenses are crucial for making comparisons. Adam's print shows the mountain range... my shot couldn't... a bit too wide.
Easy solution. Next time simply accidentally find yourself in the same place ... in 1941. "Hey, Ansel. How come I didn't see that Burma Shave sign, or junked car, in the print?"
Smeggypants: I went straight to the pics, thought the modern versions were cap and came back here and found out they were in IR. A goodidiea ruined. either use proper colour or do them black and white for an even better comparison.
Oh and dont' forget to stand in exactly the same spot next time.
Very poor 1/10
Then boycot Amazon, stage a hunger strike, and hold your bladder.
Glacier National Park's big controversy is whether the receding glaciers reflect a cyclical trend or unusual global warming caused by CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. Vegetation could shift, either way.
How do photos taken in recent months of August compare, on average, to those taken in the same month of the same scenes decades ago? There is certainly no shortage of photos, but perhaps only variance in month or time of day. Dated tourist or NPS shots could be assembled into an extensive time lapse sequence of many landmarks.
Marques Lamont: She'll make MORE MONEY on these photos if she licenses them for stock. More money than MANY on here have ever made from photography. Like it or not, her photos work.
Commercially, if she makes images of toddlers with barn animals and etc her niche, she wins. She WILL be in demand. NOT the critics who've made not a dime.
She can't please everyone. But she can probably make more money than you can with a camera, if that matters.
Everything is post processed today! It's a part of TODAY'S toolkit. This is DIGITAL photography! If you like shooting manual, winding your advance, and keeping rolls of film in the refrigerator, scanning slides and clearing dust bunnies in Photoshop, go ahead! Cheers to you.
Commercial failure does not equate with beauty either. What you or I like, or don't, is only wind. Meanwhile, if stuff sells, at least something must be working right. Van Gogh merely lacked proper market outlet. His sunflower paintings eventually became quite popular and fetched plenty at auction. Replicas sell right along works of the late great maestro Kinkaid and so on. He and Van Gogh both died rather young and (paradoxically) agonies arising from a surfeit of over-saturated genius of sorts.
Samuel Dilworth: This rampant kitsch (which runs amok on sites like 500px) is destroying our ability to see. It’s like the ‘loudness war’ in music: everything is turned up to eleven to attract attention. More is without exception more in this world.
So it follows that if a dog is good, and a pot-bellied toddler is good, putting the two of them together at sunset on a misty farm is even better. (Duh!) If you formulaically combine:
• fluffy pets• children• sunsets• snow• backlit mist• flowers• bucolic artefacts• fabrics blowing in the wind• blurred backgrounds• very warm, highly saturated colours
… you arrive, as Shumilova did, at the apogee of this aesthetic – the equation can’t be denied! – even though you’ve truthfully created an absurd parody of beauty.
As this garish view of the world becomes normalised, it becomes harder for people to see other, better possibilities.
Tut-tut. Surely Dilworth meant only that "better possibilities" would require these additions:
• fluffy pets: tropical fish• children: grandkids• sunsets: sunrises• snow: warm sand or glistening grass• backlit mist: front-lit mist• flowers: fruits• bucolic artefacts: tidy suburbian gardens• fabrics blowing in the wind: fabrics donned by models• blurred backgrounds: crisp landscapes• very warm, highly saturated colours: B&W
UnitedNations: Basically this is a mess up by Sony just like Nikon messed up with the faulty DF.I never felt this happy in my whole life for not buying a product. I am glad I waited for this review.
A7 is a camera with some very disappointing weaknesses.Hope the A7r is better!
"Mess up" perhaps a tad cruel. The modest DPR score of 80 may owe to the need to distinguish it a wee bit from the 83 to be assigned to the A7R. However, perhaps it has wobbly AF in low light or video too. I would rush to buy either, if the primary appeal is compatibility with old lenses I don't have. There are good cameras that are more compact, cost less, or both. Sony itself will announce alternatives too.
People ought to be happier in general about toys they don't buy: waste not, want not. Pain, more than happiness, compells a forced "love" of non-essentials we buy but shouldn't. The pain is obvious by the touchiness towards any reservations (blasphemy) about the product. Price may have something to do with it: the higher the price, the more consuming the buyer's need for affirmation.
A good thing professional reviewers get merchandise on loan, or they too would be consumed by buyer self-affirmation.
Jogger: Normally i would be very skeptical... but, Sony is using 1/2.3 sensors across their flagship phones. Its basically the same sensor as found in their superzoom compacts like the HX9, HX50, etc. These compacts have very good video quality. The one major area where they drop the ball in the Z implementation is in the poor codec choice they employ.
There are trade-offs. AVCHD is simply the least bad of choices.
How much battery consumption, sensor heat, memory card space and speed would it take to use 50mbps ProRes instead of 28mbps AVCHD2? Can ProRes burn directly to Blu-ray? Would hand-held videos of kids, bashful relatives, tourist traps, and pets look any better?
Eigenmeat: Sony/Samsung can make a cell phone do this. Yet, for example, a $1300 Sony RX10 cannot it. It just shows how much manufacturer intentionally cripple their camera line to create "product tiers".
4k / high bitrate on larger sensors entails problems with sensor heat and agravated moiré and aliasing. Higher resolution would also heighten attention to the rolling shutter problem in pan or fast action shots.
FocusPuller: Because what the world needs is YouTube videos of cats, babies, and people falling down in 4K? Thanks, Sony.
There are no YT 4k videos of cats, babies, or people falling down---yet. The only reason is lack of phones with 4k video to capture these subjects we all crave.
YouTube bitrate of 1080 HD video averages under 4mbps, which is a fraction of the native (usually 17mbps or higher). If YT employs similar degree of compression of 4k video, the video won't look much sharper than ordinary or bad 1080 video, or else require more buffering than people will endure to see those cats, babies, or people falling down.
What is the product and managerial dossier of the new CEO? Can this Ian Rawcliffe be the rugby veteran and promoter? Perhaps Hasselblad will market luxury cameras designed to feature the color and mascot of top teams, or perhaps the engraved signatures of star players.
We can presume the company was generous to the prior CEO, given all the contributions to Lunar exploration and sports car design. Such credentials will be sure door-openers in this hot shoe world of cloud.
Seriously, though, can the company be more sure of making money on a sober MF camera than on whimsical models that appeal to folks with lots to spend?
Brilliant. A phone with a "me too" 4k video feature for people without any 4k displays, and before Sony offers 4k video on any of its traditional <$1.5k consumer Handicams or Cybershots. Granted, "me too" is a sort of trump argument. But the compulsion to add new imaging capacities first to phones tells us something about the eclipse of dedicated cameras.
Wouldn't people have more use for a phone that gives readings of temperature, humidity, altitude, or heart pace, blood pressure, HDL/LDL, triglycerides, and glucose? Or are such functions too mundane or depressing?
agentul: i am surprised that no red-blooded romanian has revealed that this whole so-called "art" is sponsored by a dummy corporation funded by George Soros, Gazprom, RMGC, Chevron and Bechtel with the sole purpose of discrediting Romania and promoting shale gas fracking and cyanide gold extraction. it's pretty obvious, when you think about it.
on a serious note, it's really shameful that this article has generated such an exaggerated xenophobic reaction. this only reinforces the claims made by other xenophobes that romanians are a gang of savages that have no place in modern society. this is how you chose to represent your country in an international community? did you notice how no hungarian said anything defending the photographer in question, much less anything insulting?
Xenophobes and neo-Ceauşescuans see foreign conspiracies in everything. The "nationalist" mining and industry, for which you have so much nostalgia, was not particularly clean, safe, or efficient. Could firms you allege to finance a Hungarian propagandist have possibly done the job as bad?
Mining, energy, and financial fortunes have subsidized artists, galleries, museums, and the private art market for centuries. Are the results so bad? Or do you also pine for the days of state sponsorship? Look at it this way: take away private sponsors, the only choice is either are state art agencies (cronyism or political agendas) or the popular tastes catered so masterfully by the late T. Kinkade. A "none of the above" null option tends not to lead anywhere.
jkoch2: Mount St. Helens erupts every 300 years, more or less. It has erupted roughly 1,000 times since first appearance in "Ape Canyon." Sasquatches failed to capture pictures of the earliest events, perhaps because late Pleistocene (hand) imaging technology equated to ISO of only 0.01, and the operators perished under hot ash and pumice before completing the work. Witnesses to the next eruption in 2250 (or therabouts) may have the advantage of 480 fps plenoptic 4000k video. However, some believe that some horrific human goof-up in the interim will extinquish all knowlege, meaning that the challenge will revert to some future species using chistles or hand-daubed pigments.
There were significant forewarnings of the eruption and many of the victims were there by choice or refused to evacuate. The 1980 eruption was not the worst on record, either. The geologists who set up camp too close made a statistical wager that proved spot-on: it was a once-in-lifetime event. Had the volcano merely sputtered, might they have been less fulfilled?
Stalwart mountaineer Harry R. Truman probably figured his time had come: either go out with a firey blast, or die laughing if the experts were wrong. Either way lead to the immortality of legend.
Anyone who resides or builds in proximity to volcanoes (or large fault-lines) must accept the risks and self-insure.
In any case, whatever is inevitable must be considered with some grain of humor, or else heaven is a pretty boring or horrific place.
Mount St. Helens erupts every 300 years, more or less. It has erupted roughly 1,000 times since first appearance in "Ape Canyon." Sasquatches failed to capture pictures of the earliest events, perhaps because late Pleistocene (hand) imaging technology equated to ISO of only 0.01, and the operators perished under hot ash and pumice before completing the work. Witnesses to the next eruption in 2250 (or therabouts) may have the advantage of 480 fps plenoptic 4000k video. However, some believe that some horrific human goof-up in the interim will extinquish all knowlege, meaning that the challenge will revert to some future species using chistles or hand-daubed pigments.
RichRMA: A bit ridiculous. m4/3rds, 16mp for $2000 versus FF from Nikon or Sony for the same price. What exactly makes the Panasonic worth that kind of money? At $1000 a body, premium m4/3rd cameras were ok, not for $2000.
If Sony's FDR-AX100 4k video entré is priced at $2,000, then Panasonic will insert its 4k m4/3 in the market at the same price, and assume that buyers will ignore the cost of lenses or already have them. 12 months from now, however, the prices will fall, or there may be poor man's versions available. Canon and Nikon may take their own sweet time: live and let die. No proof, so far, that Sony, Oly, or Panasonic will turn profits on cameras, even after cutting P&S operations.