Foroa: What means "Secondary reflector with two output settings" ?
Foroa - the secondary reflector is a second flash head (you can see it in the front of the flash below the Metz symbol). Imagine shooting a portrait of someone by pointing the main flash head straight up to bounce light off a ceiling. You get nice soft light, but it's coming straight down, so you also get dark shadows under the person's eyes and nose. That second little flash can fire to brighten up those shadows. You can control the power settings to make the shadows lighter or darker.
Ha... Last year Panasonic copied the form-factor of the NEX-6 with the GX7, now Sony is copying the form-factor of the GF6... It's like musical chairs played with industrial design.
Deardorff: Once again Hasselblad shows their head is still firmly planted deep in their collective ass.
Where is the SQUARE format back?
Deardorff - I think many people underestimate the sheer technical difficulty of making large sensors. While I completely agree that a 6x6cm sensor would be optimal, making them reliably for a price that anyone could afford is probably beyond the abilities of current technology. That being the case, fitting the largest sensor of whatever aspect ratio into their backs is a sensible decision by Hasselblad. What seems to me more of a drawback is the handling problem of using cameras designed for square format with a sensor that has a landscape and a portrait orientation - it's a shame there's no way to build a rotating mount into the back, but I'm guessing focus tolerances may exclude that.
cgarrard: Fuji aren't just building new lenses, they are building confidence with photographers in a camera system.
Take note, very important.
I've been really impressed by Fuji - I swapped from Nikon DSLRs to mirrorless back in 2011, before they were around, but if I was making the move now they'd provide a very tempting proposition
Saldahna: Why don't we just look at this Camera like we do to a car? I have a SUV some others like Porsche an some Ford or wathever. To buy a camera is a very personal decision. The main thing is if you enjoy it, and that you feel comfortable with it. I like my MacBook Pro some may like Windows 8 etc.I think this tests are just guidelines but they don't take you the decision for your personal preference. Don't forget you compose the picture, not the camera. And who is using a tripod ??? There are so many aspects. If I buy a Camera with 100 points and it does not match me, it is useless. Sometimes it is just the Name of a brand that you don't like, but that is no reason for a hick hack like in here. Some comments are just ridiculous. Dpreview is not Facebook! A bit more style would be good for this pages.
Saldana - the problem is, that even within that niche of compact , small sensor cameras, you have a choice of models from other manufacturers that offer better enthusiast features (standard hot shoe, built in EVF), better IQ (including other 1" sensors) and a wider selection of lenses at that price point. I've handled a V3 and it's a beautiful object, but it still seems overpriced for what it is and the results it produces. To follow your car analogy, you're right that it's no good comparing small hatchback V3 to big SUV D810, but the trouble is, there are better, cheaper hatchbacks out there....
Saldahna: I wonder how many of you guys have seriuosley tried to use the V3 and other cameras of the V series. I'm a SLR Shooter but my D800 and the holy trinity stay more an more at home, or will be used for Landscapes. Please try this camera by yourself before you judge.I've tried the Sony A6000 but the back screen is like a mirror....and the Lenses are to big. I want something small with power. That is the V3 with EVF and Grip. I love my DSLR but I also love these small V series cameras.
Oh drat... I tried to reply to this and for some reason it's appeared as a reply to Ryan2007's comment above. Basically, tried the V3 and was really impressed, but M4/3 gave me better features and IQ for a lower price with a much better selection of lenses. If I really needed tracking focus, it might be a different story.
ryan2007: The Cons to the review make this a deal breaker. A proprietary Hot Shoe, that was what the Minolta Film cameras used to be like and the selling point for Nikon Over Canon and Minolta at the time was how backwards compatible Nikon is.
With Fuji X, Sony, micro four thirds out there I think Nikon is banking on current Nikon users or just name recognition in the name Nikon that people will buy it just because of the name and being brand loyal is a #1 mistake and hand in hand with being emotionally attached to gear.
I also think just because others have a mirrorless camera they want a piece of that pie.
I've tried a V3 in store and it finally seemed to answer all the handling issues I'd had with previous V series cameras. I loved the body design, the feel of it, the snappy response... but the fact is, I don't use tracking focus that much and I don't need those high burst rates. I use a Panasonic GX7 that's much cheaper, has a bigger sensor, built-in EVF, IBIS, better noise and DR, proper hot shoe and has a huge selection of lenses (which are pretty small - I own five primes covering 24mm to 90mm FF equivalent, and with one on the camera I can comfortably fit the other four into the leg pockets of my cargo pants). With careful shopping, the whole shebang cost me about the same as the RRP of the V3 plus 32mm (and I know that's not comparing like with like, but I think it does demonstrate how disproportionate Nikon's initial pricing is, especially when you see how badly the Sony 1" sensor shows theirs up.)
Hilarious! The very last one is my favourite.
TylerQ: Still not signing up. Monthly fees for software? No thanks.
The hidden math is what happens if you had already made the outlay for full Photoshop - I bought my copy back in 1998, and for the last 16 years have only upgraded every other version, unless forced by hardware changes. I got on the limited-time version of this offer last year because they promised they'd hold the price for that package - but I'm still paying about 30% more than buying a £140 upgrade every two years or so, for the privilege of losing access to software the moment I stop paying. Worse, there's no equivalent deal for Illustrator, which I occasionally find very useful, but not often enough to justify the Creative Suite or solo rental rates.
tkbslc: I might finally cave.
That's about 5 years of $10 a month to add up to the retail cost of buying the software retail before.
The problem is, once you've made that outlay, upgrade prices were pretty cheap I'm on the original limited-offer deal - same price as this - and it's costing me about 30% more than my previous strategy of buying every other upgrade.
Is there any option to mix and match frames and filters with the new version?
It's a simple way for them to generate a small extra product line I guess, so fair enough.
A Monochrom sensor in a Typ-240 body though… that would be something.
BarnET: I love the technology.The technology might change the way we look at photography or fill a very small niche. How the lytro performs in tough conditions remains to be seen.
Nevertheless i will follow it's developments in the future.
Despite my diatribe below, I really do wish them well. I really hope they can build enough of a user-base to create a niche market - like Polaroid in the days of film. And I agree with MGJA (above) that they need to look beyond variable focus images to post-capture focus adjustment and DoF control. Now THAT sounds like the Future of Photography.
As with 3d in cinema, it's an amazing technical achievement, but the question is, does it really add anything to the photographer's ability to convey an idea or tell a story? In the video, the only shot I thought really worked was the noir-type one inside the car with the girl's eyes and the guy's face reflected in the rear view mirror - that really did blend technique and storytelling extremely effectively, but there are only so many shots like that you can do without it turning into a cliche (cf the endless shots of pointy things looming at the camera in old 3d films).
One thought: is there a way of controlling the extent of your zone of depth of field? Being able to have different foreground planes in focus, but the background completely defocussed might be useful for sports photography (imagine, say, two tennis players either side of the net, both in focus, but the crowd completely blurred out). Equally, can you use this for focus stacking? Imagine infinite DoF for macro...
As an addendum to my previous comment; I now have a copy of this lens and I tried measuring the depth of field scale against results from the online depth of field calculator at dofmaster.com.
Results suggest the scale on the lens is very conservative - it's difficult to be conclusive because there are relatively few points on the focussing scale, but as an example, dofmaster's results for f5.6 appear to come close to the scale marks for f11 on the lens. I tried the 12mm, which appears to show a similar bias.
This is assuming that the dofmaster results are accurate; if so, I wonder if Olympus have followed Fuji down the path of pixel-level sharpness for depth of field calculations? (see the dpreview's Fuji X-Pro 1 review, bottom of page 10, for an explanation of what this means and why it's not a good idea).
Meantime, I've made myself a revised DoF scale out of a strip of sticky label, and I'll see what results I get with it.
There's a sort of Holy-Trinity-plus-one of features that I've been looking for in a compact for years: fast performance, fast lens, hot shoe, articulated (or at least fold-out) screen. Canon's G-line were missing the fast lens, but when they finally added that they dumped the articulated screen. Samsung had all the hardware features but the performance was too slow. Sony add the fold-out screen but take away the hot shoe.
Are these guys deliberately teasing me?
Vlad S: It seems that it only considers OOC images as unmodified, and even resizing throws a red flag, so on the consumer level it's not sufficiently flexible. But I doubt very much that their tests are of sufficiently high accuracy to be accepted as legal evidence by any court. Then what's the point of such a service?
I guess the question's going to be how the system evolves through use. If enough people use it actively (flagging up images for reassessment), they may be able to use a "big data" approach to refine the system and eliminate the current shortcomings.
The problem with this is the inability to distinguish between the sort of processing that has no effect on authenticity (white balance, colour profile, levels/curves) and significant modifications such as compositing.
For the verification to really be of use, you'd ideally need checkboxes that let you declare what changes you've made before evaluation (colour/contrast as above, conversion to black & white, JPEG conversion from RAW), and have the site confirm that nothing ELSE was done.
It's a lovely-looking lens, but I hope it doesn't put Olympus off releasing a 14mm with clutch-focus. '