Waterfalls are all the same when using long exposure.It's a pity and it's also too easy.
My eyes see a much better studio photo from iPad5 than from 1020; but I am looking at them as a camera owner and user.
Reg Natarajan: With every camera capable of ISO 12800 these days, tripods are about as useful as slide rules to me. (I'll bet some of the younger people here don't even know what a slide rule is. Trust me, you're not missing anything.)
Who needs a tripod and understands enough about photography has no need to know how well it's camera works at 12800 or 25600 ISO.He needs a tripod and most likely, a well made, space saving tripod! I need it too rarely to buy and bring one with me.Nevertheless I know what it is for.What many people doesn't know is that a well optically stabilized image is allways worse, to some extent, than an image taken with a tripod and IS off. The reason is simple and intuitive: A moving sensor ( or lens) is not the best solution if your camera is steady.
Hauer: Remember the ugly duckling that turned into a swan?!
Yes, but the swan I prefer has no need to turn into a swan.
eckhardrichter: Simply call them camera - because it's the future .....
I agree with Bruce; but I hope I will never hear somebody say: "my enthusiast camera" :-)
I have a fine name for a connected and app-based washing machine. Are they interested?
Only $599 for the optical viewfinder!I feel very stupid, I paid near the same for my camera (28 / 400, Electronic viewfinder, OIS) ignoring that spending a little more now I'd be the owner of this wonderful Viewfinder!
I heard that Nasa engineers are very depressed after reading these comments! They will never again go to Mars without an iPod.
I'd like better to phone with my DSLR.
GirinoFumetto: If, taking a portrait, I like better to focus on a shoulder, a good camera must let me do it. In any of my photos, if the shoulder is in focus and the eyes are not, I think "my fault' or "too difficult with that short DOF" and discard the photo. The same if in a bouquet the only flower in focus is in the left low corner.It's difficult for me believe that OM-D or any lens (not broken) could make this kind of errors.
Now I understand how hard is for me to express myself in english.Sorry, I am not a OM-D owner, I'll be. I badly used a paradox to say that for me these photos are simply wrongly taken.
If, taking a portrait, I like better to focus on a shoulder, a good camera must let me do it. In any of my photos, if the shoulder is in focus and the eyes are not, I think "my fault' or "too difficult with that short DOF" and discard the photo. The same if in a bouquet the only flower in focus is in the left low corner.It's difficult for me believe that OM-D or any lens (not broken) could make this kind of errors.
Sam Carriere: The fact is, looking at this kind of "sample" on a computer doesn't tell anyone anything. It's always really funny to read comments from people who like to pretend otherwise and who try so, so hard to sound like they know what they are talking about. They don't.
They... who?. Maybe somebody somewhere is able to understand something.But, if you are right, we might warn DPReview about their useless efforts!
Dougbm_2: Seems pointless. Might as well buy an X-Pro-1. Only 28mm?? Fuji got this one wrong. It should either be 24mm or a 3 x tele or preferably a 28-112mm.Anyway the whole point of the original camera appears to have been forgotten - by it's creators. A simple and light weight form with fixed lens that is the digital equivalent of film rangefinder style cameras (with the added bonuses newer technology brings). Won't be buying this for my X100.
mhike!"it's" is not a verb of "to be"! It is the third person singular present indicative of the verb to be that is a form of the verb to be. But, if you are only able to say "is a verb of to be", I am so lucky that I understand just the same.Sorry, but english is not my language.
This is a "Digital Camera resource page" review.At last! Too many opinions could confound!
Part of the label is reflective: so you can see in it the reflection of the lights and the shadows that are in front of it (like a very irregular mirror)! No camera is able to add such an artefact at 200 ISO. It should be too expensive! I think that I will never take a photo of a bottle like that!
Sorry, this had to be a replay to "Test setup flaw or camera flaw?" by derfla1949
I read in a post "How can Olympus issue a firmware update for a camera that isn't yet available in the shops?". I think that a camera has to move in the spacetime to navigate from the manufacturer to the customer and Olympus doesn't use quantum teleportation, too expensive.
bradleyg5: I don't understand how Ricoh is even still in business. Who is buying into this system. How are they even making back their investment?! All of there cameras are ungodly expensive, have brutal image quality, and the worst headline features.
It's like they make cameras for people who don't want a good camera, they just want a camera nobody else will have. They make cameras for people who keep them on a shelf.
It's like they come out with this retarded system and they don't even push the boundaries, it's like none of the lens/sensor combinations do anything unique. So you go, oh it's flexibility you can just buy one system and it can do all these different things. BUT the cost is so high you could just buy a whole bunch of other dedicated systems that each would be better suited.
Like how could they possibly sell over a hundred of these? of the almost 7 billion human beings on this planet, I cannot imagine more than 100 would actually pay for such a thing as this.
Like any other manufacturer, Ricoh sells its products to those who like them. So simple. This Ricoh is made for those who need or simply understand its positive, unique features and not for you that, as you say, don't understand them. Evidently, I am one of that 100 people and you one ot the other 6.999.999.900.
At last! With this camera I'll be able to take a vertical picture! Now I am waiting for a camera that downloads a picture from internet knowing where I am!
GirinoFumetto: OM1 was small, its lenses where small and it was, obviously, full frame, had prism and mirror and was small.How many years have to pass before the new technologies can make something similar? OM1 was a jewel to hold.
In the space occupied by one of the big OM1 internal gears, today you can fit more than one cpu. OM1 is jam-packed of mechanisms. Beyond, my OM1 is 35 years old and it is still perfectly working; my digital Oly C2100 in 5 years forgot what she was doing! Anyhow, let's hope that the new Olympus will resemble OM1.
OM1 was small, its lenses where small and it was, obviously, full frame, had prism and mirror and was small.How many years have to pass before the new technologies can make something similar? OM1 was a jewel to hold.