xmeda: FINALLY IBIS is back.. It was a huge fail to exclude sensor based steadyshot from NEX series.. bad sony, bad!
Maybe it made sense, but I didn't buy a NEX because of a lack of IBIS.
Vignes: Looks like Sony spends more $$$ on their mirrorless camera rather than SLT DSLR. These is more of a threat to their own DSLR market. would they ramp down their DSLR in the near future?
Sony hasn't made a DSLR in years.
As for SLT cameras, they just released the A77II not long ago, and rumors abound for the A99II. That's about all they're doing in that market, because they're already dominating mirrorless - most notably IBIS equipped FF mirrorless.
justmeMN: Since I don't live in Japan, I don't get excited about cameras that are only available there. :-)
Blah blah. Buy the thing or don't. Talk of what will 'kill' one camera or the other, or why Sony is doing this or that thing is pointless.
solarider: How true is this TOP comment? "Mind you, they have yet to provide the option of an uncompressed RAW format which is an almost universal wish from those of us who want the option of extracting maximum quality from the A7r."
Overblown Sony bashing nonsense and people who don't know how to PP to mitigate tiny rare artifacts that mainly show up in +3EV bulb exposures at the pixel level.
TurboElephant: "The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 offers more bells and whistles, but you're limited to its fixed zoom lens and smaller (albeit not that much smaller) sensor."
1" sensor = 116 mm243 sensor = 225 mm2
So GM1's 43 sensor s almost twice as big as the RX100, I wouldn't call that "not much smaller" ;)
And yet the 1" sensor scores right up there with m43 sensors at DxO, and the photos are generally thought to be at least on par.
Not all sensors are created equally, aside from their surface area.
If there was an A mount and IBIS, I'd be interested. Instead, SLT has apparently been shelved, there hasn't been a new SLR in years. Just not interested in bulky $300 motorized Minolta/Sony AF adapters to E mount, crop mode E library or buying into a whole new untried lens system.
Guess I'll keep my A57 and lenses for a while longer.
Jeff Greenberg: No image stablization.Why? Shame.Need fast zoom, too.
And yet you see IS cameras with much smaller dimensions. Even pocket cameras like the RX100.
Really, I have never seen a product from a manufacturer I give my money to (several Samsung cameras and phones in the past few years) that makes as little sense as this.
Kromeo: cant' wait to see IPHONE 5S VS S4 , that's cool.
Honestly, I think their weighting in this particular case points to some bias for Apple and against Samsung. They're rather critical of the S4's flaws and rather forgiving of the vagaries and limitations of the iPhone.
"the camera app cannot be opened directly from the lock screen though."
This is not true. You can put a photo app icon on your lock screen and unlock the phone -with- the icon, going straight to the camera.
Tazz93: STAY AWAY FROM THIS PHONE!
I hate to say it, because I liked it, but the fact remains its just too fragile. The plastic body is just not up to par. I broke the LCD in my pocket purely from tension from my jeans and my leg. No contact with anything else. A hard case may help but you shouldn't need it.
Good quality polycarbonate is what you want surrounding a glass screen and fragile micro electronics, not aluminum or magnesium alloy. How many projector carry cases do you see made of solid steel or aluminum without heavy padding? The best are nylon infused high impact polycarb/plastic.
My iPhone 4 shattered when I tossed it underhanded onto a table (wood) with a soft tablecloth. My Galaxy Note, S3 and S4 have all gone through the same treatment (and worse) with no issues. The Samsung is the more durable by a mile, IMO. You can also easily replace the back face if it cracks.
Doctor_K: In my opinion the law goes too far in extending copyright. Allowing a copyright holder to own anyone else's work in a different media is too much. If the copy was in the same media then the story would be different and an infringement would have taken place. Otherwise this will infringe on my rights to depict the item in another way.
What gives with people complicating this with nonsense analogies? It's not a photo of a painting. It's a 'painting' of a photograph of a war memorial.
You don't need the analogue when the actual situation is simple enough.
DaSigmaGuy: This is a total miscarriage of justice in my book because the Copyright of a work belongs solely to the Photographer, in this case John Alli, and no one else. A photographer can licence his work out for a fee but as the creator of the work he will always retain his original Copyright rights. If he dies the Copyright dies with him and subsequently anyone will have right to use his work for whatever use. If anyone should be paid for the infringement then it is John Alli, unless of course he is dead, in which case Gaylord should get nothing at all.
It's an artist rendition of a photograph of a memorial. Not a photograph of a photograph.
At some point, you have to tell yourself to walk slowly away from analogizing everything. Just define it as what it is, not 'akin' to something to bolster a weak argument.
chillgreg: Sorry DPR. Another boring, paint-by-numbers review. Regurgitated. The reviewer lacks even a modicum of enthusiasm, almost as though forced to perform the review as punishment. You really need to lose the hyper-defensive chip-on-the-shoulder attitude when the overwhelming majority of comments disagree with your findings.
Richard, thanks for the explanation.
Javidog, I for one have been here longer and contributed far more to these forums than you have. Complaining about complaints is laughably hypocritical, doubly so when you do it with vitriol. Sycophantic trolling is still trolling.
I couldn't give two figs about whether you guys find it interesting (I have one and I can see how that might be the impression if you don't feel like messing with memory settings and avoiding its various oddities like 1/30 shutter). Or if it got gold, silver or chartreuse.
What I'd like to know is where the nice in-depth DR testing stuff went that we saw in older reviews, why the new (bad) test scene was shoved at us, throwing out years and hundreds of cameras to directly compare to the new ones, and how it is that DPR finds the Nikon V1 blows away the RX100M2 in EV range like that, despite what seems to be contradictory DxO data.
I am voicing no grievous aspersions, and I certainly sympathize with staff when the more egregious and disrespectful types vent their dissatisfaction with their own lives in rant form here. You guys have an unfortunate aspect to the job, dealing with the nerd-u-copia of temperamental self-proclaimed experts.
Agreed. Not to mention no explanation of their finding that the new model clips highlights 1 EV worse than the old one, yet the sensor is supposedly improved...
I really wish DPR had just stuck with the old test scene. You've totally nuked the comparative database of years of other cameras (even if it wasn't perfect). The new scene has a lot of wasted space and lacks detailed skin tones, faces, specular objects, etc. in the center. Why relegate all the useful subjects to the outer thirds of the scene, where many lenses lose sharpness? Almost all you have in the center are black and white patterns.
thx1138: I think the slow tele end of the zoom range should have been mentioned as a weakness and the rapid drop in aperture. It goes from f/1.8 to f/2 just changing from 28mm to 29mm, which is a joke. To really standout form the first version, it should have been f/4 at tele end, 24mm at wide end, placed more emphasis on improving lens quality as it's clearly soft at the edges and corners of the test scene, had 1/4000 shutter speed, at least allowed monochrome filters in RAW+jpg, kept the RAW files used for the HDR mode, bundled it with an EVF at a good discount.
Still a great little camera, but I'm not really seeing much reason to get this over the original
2mm = 'much thicker now'..?
I've never seen so much hyperbole as in this comment thread, and that's saying something on DPR.
TurboElephant: This camera which has "Image quality is at the top of its class" scores 79% and a silver award and the Canon Eos 100/D 78% and a gold award...
No I don't get it
I have the thing and I can attest that it's silver level. Amazing IQ alone does not make a perfect camera. It has issues with the practical functionality of the WiFi feature, in-hand ergonomics and general mechanics of use. It's really a gem in many ways, but an imperfect one.
Hubertus Bigend: It's a shame that manufacfurers keep thinking people don't need viewfinders anymore. It may be the case, of course, that people really don't need viewfinders anymore. I sincerely hope, though, that many people will buy Panasonic's LF1, the only enthusiast-small-compact camera with built-in viewfinder at this point of time, which, by the way, also has at least a minimum of telephoto capability (200 mm eq.). Why doesn't the LF1 get reviewed, by the way? I think it's the most interesting compact camera on the market today (alongside its Leica branded sibling).
(As for the "award", I couldn't care less, but on the other hand I wonder why cameras without viewfinders get rewards at all ;-)
Because not everyone needs or wants a viewfinder on a tiny pocket camera.