oselimg: Since it's meaningless to pass premature comments on these two lenses I think that it's equally meaningless to call lenses of this type full frame. Are the other sensor formats half/quarter frame. Aren't there bigger formats than 35mm format then, what should we call them? I know this term's found it's way in everyday photographic language but many people who own cameras of any kind don't even know what it stands for. It's non-descriptive. At least, when 35mm film ruled everybody(almost) knew what it was and how big it was. What now called full frame is same size as single 35mm film frame. Can you guys at the Dpreview at least start to challenge the current misleading and non-descriptive trend, may I kindly ask?
When Medium and Large format were called what they were called 35mm format was called 35mm. if now 35mm is the full frame what should 6X4,5 and 6X6 be called. Larger than 35mm formats in film form co-existed when when 35mm digital was produced even 35mm film co-habited the photography world in digital age. Also thank you for informing me about the names of other/bigger formats. Perhaps I should've mentioned my age.
rusticus: Häääähhhhh - Gold Award?why???
Because this is a Sony/Nikon endorsing website ;-)
Since it's meaningless to pass premature comments on these two lenses I think that it's equally meaningless to call lenses of this type full frame. Are the other sensor formats half/quarter frame. Aren't there bigger formats than 35mm format then, what should we call them? I know this term's found it's way in everyday photographic language but many people who own cameras of any kind don't even know what it stands for. It's non-descriptive. At least, when 35mm film ruled everybody(almost) knew what it was and how big it was. What now called full frame is same size as single 35mm film frame. Can you guys at the Dpreview at least start to challenge the current misleading and non-descriptive trend, may I kindly ask?
The summary is; Panasonic want to re-invent the wheel under the Panasonic brand but want it in square form. They sound very confused to me and following on this particular point most Dpreview forum writers appeared to be confused too. If a compact camera is going to do the job buy that, if a m4/3 will do the job buy that why everybody including manufacturers like Panasonic want to convince people they don't need bigger sensors than what they have or make. If I want to work with 35mm format-for obvious reasons-I'll buy that. Some smaller sensors maybe almost but not as good as the next bigger sensor but, for example, the camera size difference between G/GH and most modern APSc cameras isn't huge and can be negligible if you take in to account the sensor performance. Again the users of APSc and G/GH series cameras are likely to be amateurs who can make reasonably informed choices on cameras.Panasonic want enthusiasts behave like compact users and be happy with what Panasonic offer.
Current events tell us there are two main groups of people taking photographs 1. Smart phone shooters(convenience, portability, availability) who are not under pressure to achieve big prints albeit with limited technical ability of the device 2. People who want the ultimate ability to take pictures in most of the conditions( full frame, APSc and to a degree m43). IMHO as the full frame prices come down and with the choice of good and cheaper lens alternatives from independent brands APSc will become obsolete because of full frame being far superior in terms of low light performance and DOF control. I think that m43 will become the format alternative or/and supporting act to the full frame experience. For the compact segment, if they produce models with fast lenses with minimum reach for 200mm for a superior low light photography and flexibility they might be the viable alternatives to smart phones. Also there will always be a room for superzooms for people who want-kind of-all in one
Barring several on this forum rest of you self absorbed technology junkies never get tired of repeating yourselves. No matter how many times you write here the camera manufactures don't take any notice of your adolescent idiocy. The proof is that each time a new camera comes out you complain and whinge like a spoiled child who didn't get the toy s/he wanted.
Pitt&Jolie Co. would need one to entertain the family and friends in their 250m2 living room. Bless their socks...
Because these forums give you the chance to say anything you want to now you've assessed and valued McCurry's work as well and you must be feeling very important about yourselves. Well done! Anybody who is slightly interested in improving their compositional skills will know about some golden principals that work most of the time though not in all cases. But this is only one part of the art. Is it very difficult to see the story his pictures tell or a statement he makes, far removed from petty consciousness about "lines converging in perpetual movement" in a Geisha in Subway picture. I'm sure he was thinking about "how nice and aesthetically pleasing can I shoot this one so the petty critics will approve of it" when shooting the girl in flood waters.
By the way results are best looking jpegs by Sony and even better raw IMHO so far. But isn't the price very silly for a camera and one lens forever? Maybe it's primarily produced for boosting the brands image. Who knows...
Where is that professional photographer/teacher from Finland. Please tell us whether the camera is held correctly or not in the picture above. We need your invaluable opinion to brighten up the day.
FartIng: i bought and returned the G15 for a G1X - Why?Articulated screen, larger sensor, but I found the G15 still has awful noise on photographs and HD video above 800 ISO (like the G12 I had before that).
The only awful thing now I find about the G1X - Macro close up photography is impossible which is heartbreaking.
Now I use my Nokia Lumia 920-which seems to take better photos than the G1X!
It's sometimes "painfully entertaining" to read comments such as "FartIng" writes. He/she has no idea what sort of camera s/he needs but buys the most expensive fixed-zoom compact on the market only to find out it's not the one he/she needs. It's one more salesperson's success story.
@Charrick...With all due respect are yo not being fanatical about not having optical viewfinders. I can understand if you've never used a good eye level viewfinder. I admit the one on G15 is not good nor accurate but even a bad viewfinder at times can be a life saver when shooting at the longer end of the zoom range. Just imagine shooting even at moderate telephoto settings how the camera shake is translated on to the screen whilst trying to compose. Having the camera rested against your face helps you greatly to hold the camera steady. I can personally live with a mediocre screen but not without a viewfinder. Ps. You don't have to be a "real photographer" to use view finders.
Mescalamba: OVF on compact camera might be rare these days, but considering how good are EVFs today I really cant understand reason for using it. Except it might be cheaper.
Image quality seems ok, so its probably usable. Just cant find reason for buying it.
@Mescalamba... I'm so threatened I don't know what to think now. Please share your wisdom more with us. We may feel threatened but we'll become better and wiser people nevertheless. By the way, what cheap propaganda ridden psychology magazine do you read?
Oh yes Canon badly needs you to buy this camera. Pleeeeese buy one. We're relieved that you think the image quality is ok.
oselimg: It seems like that it's possible to make good lenses for a reasonable price. Are you listening Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica!!!!?. I hope someone will do the same with cameras too, especially with the FF ones.
Let's get things in perspective though. Canon and Nikon used to produce good lenses for a reasonable price too and some of their lenses are still in that category. It's just recently they've gone in to craze of charging 3X more for lenses with upgrades eg;inclusion of IS or newer versions of the same spec lenses. For example with the announcement of the new 24mm and 28mm with IS are 3X more expensive than the older but as good models. What is totally unacceptable and arrogant is that they stopped producing the non IS versions. It looks like pure greed. Unless they have a valid explanation.
kadardr: In spite of the Gold Award this camera is a dying species. (With its kins together). There are members of powerful new breeds to replace this type of cameras.
Consider Panasonic GF5 for ca. 500 bucks or the damned Nikon 1 V1 for less than 400 bucks.
@kadardr...How did you manage to compare a compact, pocketable camera with bigger interchangable lens models.
It seems like that it's possible to make good lenses for a reasonable price. Are you listening Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica!!!!?. I hope someone will do the same with cameras too, especially with the FF ones.
Michael Berg: Is it just me or do many of the photos look underexposed?
it's the strong grey overcast makes the pictures appear underexposed. I think it's very cheeky to ask 2000$ for a camera that can't even get the colours right at the first place. The overcast is so obvious and strong they can't get away with "processing style" explanation nonsense either. But I guess there are enough mugs to pay for it because of the brand. Since the advent of digital sensors Leica always lagged way behind the competition. They should stick to making good lenses only.
Is there something we are missing here considering the recent trend that any new model whether full frame or cropped they all cost around 2.000 dollars. They say full frame sensors are expensive to produce therefore cost 3x more but why a cropped camera cost the same. Is the new Leica state of the art with amazing abilities or are Nikon, Canon giving away 6D and D600. Can someone shed a light on how much really a full frame sensor cost to produce. Please no gear head remarks. Info backed up with facts and knowledge would be greatly appreciated.
Great catch. Congratulations. One more slap in the face of gear heads who want and worship the latest of everything without a clue about making photographs.