Gary Martin: Offer a wide prime and I'm interested.
They allready have an fisheye. They need a rectilinear lens. Somewhere around 4 to 5 mm.
Reactive: Had the zoom range been just a bit more practical for day-to-day use... let's say 18-70mm... this would have been the perfect 'always-on' lens. Considering that a 50mm f1.8 is so tiny and light, surely 70mm at f1.8 is possible without the lens becoming too large or expensive? But then I know nothing about the physics of lenses!
There is an 18-85 1.8 from Fuji:http://www.fujifilm.com/products/optical_devices/cine/35mm_pl/hk_premier/#hk47x18 the problems with this one are the weight of 6.9kg and the price of 87,300.00 $.
Klindar: This is evidently an excellent camera from the standpoint of image quality. The problem for me is absence of an optical or electronic viewfinder. Out-of-doors your are stuck with the point-and-pray method of composition/framing or, as I call it, "zombie photography" with arms outstretched while squinting and walking slowly toward the subject. You could always purchase one of those stick-on "loupes" and I have one of these for shooting video with the D800. These work extremely well but seriously compromise what many will see as a prime attraction of this camera - compactness.
I have the LCDVF from Kinotehnik. This solution is quite good if the screen is apropriate. If the resolution is too low you see excellently sharp pixels.
CameraLabTester: This will have the same fate as the Nikon "1" system... Oblivion.
Sometimes, great big companies like Canon and Nikon make really huge blunders... but they are too Jurassic in thinking, they just run the useless idea to the ground, at the expense of the suckered consumers...
Kodak introduced the pocketfilm 110 in 1972. My father made lots of slides in kodachrome with his Pentax Auto 110 (SLR) until they stoped produktion in 1982. That was 2 years fun with kodachrome with this camera. Some 110 Film was available until the end of the century but only in ISO200. An even greater flop where 126 film and Kodak Disc. And then don't forget APS-film!
goloby: Or just shot film!!!I have tried both earlier versions of Dxo Film Pack and current Nik Software and, as a film shooter, none came even close to the actual films. I used raw D90 files. I think it all boils down to 3 insurmountable things:1. how can you create a plug-in that will make a D4 file and a D5000 file to look exactly the same. Only way to do that is to have different settings for different cameras and I have not seen that. And there are a few hundred digital cameras with raw capture. I would not even mention the others.2. film captures light differently than digital. To mention a few differences: more tonality, wider dynamic range for professional films. For a digital sensor it is just not there to begin with.
continued in replies
"wider dynamic range for professional films" Do you really think so? Look at this: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dynamicrange2/index.html
Benarm: Leica should take notes from Zeiss on how to survive in a digital age :)
@Mescalamba: Hasselblad is made by Fuji.
vodanh1982: corner = 1/2 center. Is it Nex-7 or lenses characteristic?
I had a Minolta Weathermatic ones. (No wait! It is still there.) That is a yello tank (armoured) wich uses 110 cartridges. That thing was fun.
h2k: The camera with the floral print reminds me of coffee cups that have the word "coffee" printed on them. I think they should sell a camera that has "pictures" printed onto it.
Pentax allready did that: http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/compacts/pentax_optiors1500
utomo99: Manufacturer need to study eagle eyes and other animal eyes. to create great lens. I believe new lens technology can be found by study the animal eyes
Hm, just studied eyes from an octopus. It turned out to be a pinhole camera. I think we can not learn much from that one.
white shadow: It is unlikely DPR would be able to give us folks a review until probably the end of July 2013. The production units won't hit the streets until early July. I have tried the pre- production unit and found it to be very attractive. It is very well made with a lots of useful features, weighty and fit snugly in my hands. This is probably the best micro 4/3 camera so far.
However, don't expect this unit to be cheap. The body alone would cost about USD1,100.00. With the 17mm f/1.8 lens it would cost about USD1,500.00. So there you are. I wish the body to be cheaper too, maybe around USD750.00 but it won't be. That said, this is a very capable premium model, what one would need to pay for the Nikon 7100 body. It maybe worth it. Having tried it, it is definitely an excellent camera to have while travelling or going backpacking.
Hope DPR can speed up a review on this model. Cameralab.com has done a more detailed preview on it. Unfortunately, nowadays there are not many good websites.
But it is (for me) a much better camera than the D7100. Maby not in pure IQ but in usability. Has the D7100 a tiltable screen? No. Have you tried to use the D7100 in LiveView? It is a mess.
Timmbits: One thing DPR seems silent on is MENU HELL according to some.
For those of you discontent that there's no FULL REVIEW, here's one: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-epl5/olympus-epl5A.HTM
What do you mean? Press OK and just select the thing you want to change! Maybe this will help:
There is the Leica MD (1964 bis 1966) wich has also no rangefinder.
If you don't have a rangefinder use this:
it is a realy great product.
LJ - Eljot: "As you can see, in terms of design philosophy, Canon hasn't changed the fundamental recipe much in 13 years."
Please! Look at al the Gs between them! After G6 the Gs got worse. Where is the articulating rear screen gone?
P7700 vs G15 is essentially VF vs articulating rear screen.
Oh, and G15 has got a brighter Lens.
"As you can see, in terms of design philosophy, Canon hasn't changed the fundamental recipe much in 13 years."
Why did they use a Nikon Lens for the video?
cfgphoto: What kind of ugly made-up word is weatherization? Whatever happened to weather-proofing? I know one of the great joys of English is its free and easy approach to adopting and adapting but this may be a step too far. It's right up there with turning burgling into burglarization. Stop it!
That is right. A light breeze or even sunshine might be harmless but when struck by lightning most cameras get damaged.
Without that "expensive" rangefinder part you have to order one of these http://www.kinotehnik.com/products/lcdvf/overview with it. (99$) It is great, I ordered one for my VF-less camera. Unfortunalty my display sucks. Resolution is too low. But I can see all the subpixles really sharp.
Mssimo: "depth of field control of an 86mm F3.2 lens for a full-frame system" Why not just say this is a 32mm f1.2. It has the same DOF on a FF or a Crop system. Bokeh and light intensity of a f1.2 is also the same.
So you if like the Bokeh or DOF you get with a 32mm f1.2 lens...it will act the same way on a crop than a FF.Only thing that changes is the crop/FOV.
Hm, right and not right. What you forgot is that with the smaller format the desired circle of confusion is getting smaller. If you say the acceptable circle of confusion can be 1/1500 of image diameter than you have to chage its size when you change the image diameter. When you crop the image you reduce the diameter of the image.
alexander kooistra: crop or no crop the aperture stays 1.2 is it not? I see people multiplying aperture by crop, but thats not the case. So it's a 32mm 1.2 lens with a price that suits a 1.2 lens...
That ist right. It stay's really the same. A 32mm f/1.2 stays the same, no matter how you crop the image. The only thing that changes when you crop format is the angle of view. exposure values and depth of field are the same. But if you compare different lenses with the same angle of view on different crops then some things change. on a smaller crop you need for same angle of view a shorter focal length. A f/1.2 stop is always a f/1.2 stop regarding the exposure values. But as it says f/1.2 (focal length divided by 1.2 equals diameter) the diameter of the aperture changes with the focal lenght and therefore you have a different depth of field with different focal lenght, regardless what crop (sensor size) you use. If someone says a 1.2 stop on one format equals 3.5 stop on another format then it means you have different focal length for same angle of view and the stops have the same diameter and therefore you have the same DoF but different exposure values.