I've just noticed that there is no D1x review. Wow!!! The main competitor. DPreview could have, at least, compare if D1x unpacks in low light as good.
Ok, Nokia raw gives slightly better DR but slightly grainier/noisy look than Nokia jpeg, it's a trade off. But how about technically comparing it to an ordinary DSLR or M4/3? I can't imagine people suddenly shedding their cameras for Nokia phones even as hobbyists. Another gimmick for wannabes.
oselimg: Good drum roll on breaks Mike Perlman but more work needed on your grooving :-))))) On a more serious note I've yet to hear a good bass recording from tiny equipments like the GoPro is. A good microphone alone would cost as much as the camera itself but then you'd need recording chip capable of handling high sound levels too. I guess some corners have to be cut.
@ Mike Perlman...I'm fully aware that you don't claim to be the last word in drumming and you make that clear in your article too. No offence meant at all. I was just trying to put some humour in my comment at your expense. On the contrary I whole heartedly support you or anyone else to get involved in creative hobbies which would make the world a much better place to live.
Good drum roll on breaks Mike Perlman but more work needed on your grooving :-))))) On a more serious note I've yet to hear a good bass recording from tiny equipments like the GoPro is. A good microphone alone would cost as much as the camera itself but then you'd need recording chip capable of handling high sound levels too. I guess some corners have to be cut.
oselimg: A camera (K3) never revieved by Dpreview wins it. Isn't this a proof that people don't refer to this site when buying a camera or at least a DSLR? Can infantile trollheads and gearheads take some lessons from this phenomenon and finally grow up or is it a wishful thinking?
@Andy Westlake...How admitting that a lot of people don't necessarily refer to this site first when buying a camera is a counter argument to mine which suggests the same? If this is your way of blurring lines it's not very successful at least wasted on me. Voting for a camera one's never bought or even touched is also bizarre. What my comment also suggests in small prints that this site is fast becoming a playground for troll heads and gear heads battling against each other and also a site for hungry technology junkies counting numbers, pixels and functions they will never use to take a picture. If this direction is bringing in more clicks and advertising it's perfectly legitimate. But there is no guarantee that it will stay as a photographic web site or photo enthusiasts' web site
A camera (K3) never revieved by Dpreview wins it. Isn't this a proof that people don't refer to this site when buying a camera or at least a DSLR? Can infantile trollheads and gearheads take some lessons from this phenomenon and finally grow up or is it a wishful thinking?
oselimg: So...Dpreview is largely followed by 4/3 users. That's fine but please don't call a smaller sensor cameras as "innovation" and compare them to bigger sensor ones. It's not because 4/3 is bad, not at all but they are simply governed by their physical structure which can be advantage or disadvantage at times. Neither camera group is a replacement for the other.
@Renevant...6000 may be fraction of visitors to this site but Dpreview in total is a fraction of photographic world. One must not take oneself too seriously. By the way when I say bigger I refer to 35mm sensor and above. No innovation will ever make a small sensor behave like a big sensor lens combination. Particular Camera functions is a different subject. One more thing; did I ever mention any brands on my original comment? "Bigger sensor" isn't a brand name.
@paulo79...yes it does, that's exactly what I meant. I draw the conclusion from your comment that you didn't deliberately misunderstand my comment.
So...Dpreview is largely followed by 4/3 users. That's fine but please don't call a smaller sensor cameras as "innovation" and compare them to bigger sensor ones. It's not because 4/3 is bad, not at all but they are simply governed by their physical structure which can be advantage or disadvantage at times. Neither camera group is a replacement for the other.
I think the cliche is in the photographer's mind. The pictures would be ok as part of a specific subject assignment with supporting articles but they don't speak to me as photographs only. Subjects are either human beings or human creations but without any relationship to their environment be it human to machine/matter or machine/matter to human. OK some pictures have good light and technical look but is this all what photography is about? It's almost like describing poetry as line of words to rhyme together to create linguistic beauty without a coherent context.
There are more photography executives/experts on this comments section than entire photography industry can afford.
Muus: Dear DPR staff, this may be nitpicking, but: 1/4000th sec is not maximum but minimum shutter speed. Please.
To be exact; 1/4000th is the maximum speed of the shutter consequently the minimum exposure duration. @Muus=totally wrong statement, @Samuel Dilworth= Your agreement with Muus is wrong and illogical because your explanation is correct. IMHO the terminology is satisfactory and correct also.
Frank C.: for 500$ I would consider it ... but barely. That sensor is not worth the money they're asking for no matter how you slice or dice it
And why should we take notice of people who pass "writer's" opinion for himself and let market forces dictate their opinion. What a sad counter argument...
DogsareGodsgifttous: GREAT VALUE! This Olympus OM-D E-M1 is the best camera I've ever owned - BLOWS AWAY MY CANON 5D system in terms of size, functions, image quality, and ease of handling. I'm a professional studio portrait and wedding photographer for 31 years and started back in the film days. Don't let anyone fool you- sensor size, prime lenses, go ahead and spend on this and spend on that. This is the best bang for the buck in years for the amount of quality you get for the price. Go ahead and spend thousands more on a "better" system, only to be outdated in 2 years or less anyway. It's not the equipment- it's how you use it folks! Great images do not have to come only from spending 5k or more for the body and lenses. Thank you Olympus for giving us high quality on par with the Canon spenders!
Photography isn't about blowing away systems. It's rather about making use of the gear you have for the sake of photography. And when it comes to comparing image quality of the Olympus to a full frame camera?Please don't, because there is more to it than overcooked jpegs with sharp edges.
Nowadays Leica can take pride in their cameras from the past only.
Judging by the picture quality this camera is a glorified Android telephone without the telephone and costs more than 1000!!!
oselimg: Greedy but not retro at least.
Greedy means consumption more than necessary/needed. Dual pixel focusing is a great function especially in live view mode coupled with touch screen focusing, granted. But charging 500$ for just a software update is greedy in anyone's dictionary. If dual pixel function costs 500 how do you explain the price of 70D? I'm not advocating free update for a new functionality. Your justification/attitude is the reason why some companies can afford to charge over the odds.
Greedy but not retro at least.
oselimg: This so called"retro" trend must be a very effective way of milking the vain and the shallow. Why not make even older looking cameras and put even more absurd prices on them.
Making a fashion statement has never been my strong point ;-)
Lardinio: I was reading this in an article defending the camera "This isn’t a camera to grow your business. This isn’t your second or third wedding body. This isn’t your do-it-all camera. This is the “grow yourself” camera. This is a gift to yourself for a job well done. This is a camera to remind you why you are a photographer"
Say, I'd love a camera for the sake of it, a nice little toy to play with, but I don't have $3k to grow myself. Neither has 99% of people who buy Nikon.
If I want to grow myself I'll stand in a bag of fertiliser, much cheaper.
except that it's not as usable as other Nikon cameras.