Very nicely photoshopped
Sad to say but now I am actually looking forward to the OM-D E-M1 already because it has on-sensor PDAF so I can actually photograph moving subjects without losing focus. Plus it will have 5-axis IBIS, weather sealing, and the always amazing Oly jpeg engine, and maybe another surprise or two. That said the GX7 is still an amazing camera that puts most DSLRs to shame.
Nothing special about this photo
These pictures are as good as anything I've ever seen from any APS-C censor camera.
Yet another reason to prefer m4/3, where you can use a 35-100 lens instead of the failing 70-200 variety.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: The title is slightly misleading. Mr Ockenfels III didn't mean to make a mockery of film, but to set a reference against which to compare medium format image quality, which he deems too sharp. And rightly so: I, for one, don't like images sharper than real life.As for Instagram, well... I'm yet to read an interview with someone who actually finds something less than glamorous about it here at DPR, but I'm afraid that ain't never gonna happen. Oh well.
"Too sharp" images are a ridiculous thing to complain about, it's trivial to blur or resample them in post. Good luck adding detail to a blurry, grainy film image though.
FILM IS DEAD! Long live mirrorless!
keepreal: This is another example of technology getting out of hand. As I went digital, I had to familiarise myself with all sorts of concepts only to subsequently dispose of most of them, like having twenty two subject modes, none of which are needed for serious photography where the camera operator still knows what he is doing and remains in control.
I am not saying that this Sigma device is unnecessary, just that it ought to be in the labs of manufacturers. If one is using high quality equipment where fine tuning to this degree makes sense, for the exorbitant amounts one has to pay, let them get it right before the user gets to buy anything or, if we are talking about an option like adjusting the autofocus seek range, let them build that into the camera to adjust, where it should be in the first place, so that one is not stuck with one setting per shooting session.
Everything now is becoming so unnecessarily complicated that soon you will need training just to suck eggs.
@Mike but you don't need a separate adapter to do that with OEM lenses.
All this contraption does is solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place - and doesn't, when you buy OEM lenses
Mikhail Tal: Why is Andy Westlake reviewing some obscure gadget that is going to interest a tiny group of people, instead of one of the overdue mirrorless camera reviews like GF6, G6, NEX-5R, NEX-3N, E-PL5, etc? Obviously this is somewhat shorter than a camera review but it seems very strange to prioritize a niche product over a camera with much broader appeal, especially on DPR.
The fact that you are resorting to ad hominem attacks is pretty much the most ringing endorsement you could ever give of my position, since it proves you can't defeat it on logic. DPR is a website that provides digital photography content for public consumption, and you're really going to take issue with me offering them input into what content I'd like them to provide? Go somewhere else if you want to play fantasy moderator.
Oh yeah it's such a unique and innovative product that it lets you do the same thing that you can already do with every other camera maker's lenses. The only reason this extra $59 device is even necessary is because Sigma makes 3rd party lenses.
"Real photographers" oh that's rich, you're going to arbitrarily decide what kind of gear one has to use to be a real photographer? Next time you want to troll go to the Sigma forum where two people will read your post.
Why is Andy Westlake reviewing some obscure gadget that is going to interest a tiny group of people, instead of one of the overdue mirrorless camera reviews like GF6, G6, NEX-5R, NEX-3N, E-PL5, etc? Obviously this is somewhat shorter than a camera review but it seems very strange to prioritize a niche product over a camera with much broader appeal, especially on DPR.
Oh come on that's such a blatant photoshop I can't believe DPR really fell for this.
Rob Camlin: Alright man, that's a little harsh. You're entitled to not like the photo, but offer some constructive criticism, don't just belittle my work. And I'd like to see your portfolio if you feel you could have done better.
But how much "work" did you really do? Not much in the way of composition or exposure control. The lighting is all wrong, way too harsh, making the kid look like two-face from Batman or something. This looks exactly like a snapshot taken on auto mode.
Just an ordinary snapshot, can't believe this photo actually won a challenge. Chopped off the top of the guy's head and blew out the highlights on the kid's face.
Mikhail Tal: This is the review you should have made to begin with instead of giving every single rugged camera its own review. Why do you assign these cameras for review rather than the many mirrorless cameras you have skipped or may be about to skip over like the GF5, G5, GF6, G6, E-PL5, NEX-5R, NEX-3N, just off the top of my head. Not a single one of your six individual rugged reviews got even 100 comments. I guarantee you that any one of the cameras I mentioned would get more than 100 comments if it was still the current model.
Can you be more specific? What I've done here is to refute people's factually inaccurate statements, is that not allowed? Or if I have myself said anything inaccurate in this chain of replies, please explain that as well. Thank you.
Nikon Coolpix AW110 Review: 77 commentsRicoh GR Review: 214 commentsPanasonic GX7 First Impressions Review: 702 comments (and counting)
Want to try again?
If you honestly think that a review with 50 comments and a preview with 700 comments are equally likely to have the most page views between the two, you are completely delusional. More likely is that you just don't understand correlation very well.
Anyone who buys any of these cameras from any of the links on this page must really hate money.
We're talking about cameras that should have been reviewed and weren't, not whatever your definition of "harm" is.