Joseph S Wisniewski: "The multiple perspectives captured mean you can generate 3D images or video from every shot at any desired parallax disparity"
Except that single point cameras are essentially useless for 3D video, because the occlusion is only correct from the single viewpoint. Moving the viewpoint means that you now need background that was blocked from the single viewpoint.
The end result is that the images look like bad automatic 3D conversions, until a skilled artist retouches all occluded areas.
Blah, blah, blah. Read the article, watch the video -- specifically, the fifteen seconds' worth of the 2014 interview that prove your assumption wrong... if you can bear to spare the time.
Bernard Carns: Luminous Landscape did the same thing a few months ago and it stinks.
Now the main page will be blow your eyes out bad like the phone webpage.
Welcome to better.
Simon Joinson: yeah, right. which site are we on again?
MikeF4Black: Well, there you have it. A huge camera with a tiny sensor, capable of 25x zoom. For the tourists.
MikeF4Black: "1 inch, measured in any way imagineable, is tiny."
Except, y'know, relative to every other superzoom bridge style camera in existence, with one exception .. in which case, as other people have pointed out, it's about six times less tiny than the next best thing.
ptox: Yeah, and how much -- that is, how little -- of the sensor is covered by the lens at its widest focal lengths?
As we saw with the FZ1000, the easiest way to get this kind of zoom range is to produce a smaller imaging circle at the wider end, then upsample to generate the expected 20MP image. In the FZ1000's case, out of 13MP of data.
I wish DPReview would publish FL-to-sensor-coverage graphs of these ultrazooms. That'd be an illuminating (ha) metric.
Okay... but in the FZ1000's case, at its widest setting the lens's image circle _doesn't_ cover the entire sensor. Otherwise the corners wouldn't be black.
Digital distortion correction is old hat, you're right. But it's a question of degrees. It's true that the center suffers less correction than the corners, so images can still look good... but advertising these camera/lens combinations as generating an unqualified 20 megapixels strikes me as somewhat dishonest.
Where's the line? I don't know... but for me, anyway, it's somewhere (well) above 13.
noirdesir: It's sad but true.
There's a pretty good thread on the subject from August 2014 -- http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54173076
Yeah, and how much -- that is, how little -- of the sensor is covered by the lens at its widest focal lengths?
etsetse: the most innovating feature on this phone seemed to be the apple logo that match better the different colours of the device.......all other specs are already available elsewhere for half the price......
Come on. What phone for $200 has internals even remotely comparable to this one?
nimrod1212: Quote: "It's also the widest member of the Art lens family". 'scuse me awl over the place, but I thought Sigma already had a 19mm "Art lens"?
It's the widest by FOV, which is probably the more relevant metric--assuming, that is, you care more about the final product than you do about arbitrary numbers. (Never a safe assumption about DPreview members, of course...)
Geodesiq: No integrated grip??? Not even a little bump like most of the other Pens and virtually every other camera??? How stupid. Sacrificing function for fashion.
Yeah, it's so stupid to make a beautiful camera that people want to buy and be seen using. Let's all be tedious wannabe purists and mope on about "functionality" instead.
MFiftysomething: A triumph of style over substance; and priced to compete with full frame and fuji Xpro 2 - that is just NUTS, it is really sad that m43 is just going for fashion consumers!
"it is really sad that m43 is just going for fashion consumers!"
m43 is going for an extremely broad set of consumers. The PEN-F is aimed at the fashion plates, sure, but there are loads of m43 models that aren't.
Fretting about all this awful, awful variety is just silly.
Word problem: "discrete" is used where "discreet" is meant.
NicoPPC: Fujifilm is doing good stuff but I can not image shooting a whole day with a poor digital viewfinder. I would prefer a small dslr.
Hey guy, can't you build a DSLR in the form of an old Olympus OM ?
NicoPPC wrote: "To my eyes, EVF still do not match the sharpness and clarity of an OVF."
... and an OVF will never match the EVF's ability to represent the final output (WB, exposure compensation, etc).
OVFs are nice to look through, but they're nowhere near as useful as a modern high speed high resolution EVF.
Yves P.: It is outragously expensive for a 300mm F4 lens. I don't care that it acts as a 600mm on any camera with a 4/3 sensor. Olympus is stealing its base Customers IMHO.
In Canada it will retail for 3200$, are U kidding me ...
When you start blaming Oly for the weak Canadian dollar, it's time for a chill pill. Dude.
aramgrg: Sounds like there was no other name left for optical image stabilization for Olympus :-)
Do you have some special experience or information that makes your conjecture worth consideration, or are you just imagining everyone else thinks the same way you do?
I mean, what's the point of your post other than looking for validation for your already fixed opinion?
And why do you even care?
EDIT: Erasing your original post was probably the mature thing to do. After all, writing (para.) "I just can't imagine any professionals using this lens" is a bit of a reach. :-)
I find it amusing and annoying and more than faintly ridiculous that after years of hundreds of tiresome and repetitive and pedantic threads about equivalence that anyone thinks they have anything useful and/or original to contribute re the value of m43 lenses relative to their counterparts on systems with larger sensors.
It's all been said before. Rest well, be at peace, go find something else to do.
Boss of Sony: Canon 100-400L IS or 400 f5.6L on APS-C would offer same focal length, similar performance for half the price.
Similar performance? Are you prescient?
matthew saville: Too bad this "sharpest lens ever" is probably sharpest at its wide-open aperture and maybe ~1 stop down, thanks to diffraction on the 2x crop sensor.
Pentax is finally making a full-frame camera, will Olympus seriously spend the rest of its days dedicated to the 2x crop sensor size? Seems a shame... But then again there's a whole new generation coming that has never stopped down their lenses more than one stop, since they're obsessed with bokeh. Too bad 2x crop is counterproductive to that as well. 'Round in circles the debate goes...
Dead giveaway for photographers stuck in the past no. 431: use of the term "2x crop sensor".
This is the digital era. Get over it.
DPReview, would you consider adding a sensor coverage over focal length graph to fixed lens camera reviews?
To recap: some cameras achieve their focal length extremes only via dramatically reduced sensor coverage, relying on the usual digital correction to transform the image to the target size (e.g. at 24mm the FZ1000 uses approx 66% of its sensor to produce the final image; see http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54173076).
Considering the relatively small size and wide range of the Canon's lens, I'm guessing it's for the same reason that its output appears quite soft at certain FLs...
It can be argued that the proof of the output is in the viewing, or something to that effect, but I think this metric would be useful for other reasons to do with value for money and honesty in advertising: if a camera advertises a 20mp sensor but its lens generates only 13mp of data in its rival-beating wider FLs, you could easily argue you're getting less than you paid for.
Excellent shot! And these are much more elegant birds than their close cousins, the Beefwings.
melgross: What I would like to see is a version that is being hinted at here that compresses from a TIFF, or even better, a PSD. After all, compressing an already lossy JPEG is much worse than compressing a non compressed file, or one compressed with a lossless scheme.
There's no reason they'd require JPEG as input if it wasn't operating on the JPEG data--i.e. not the bitmap.