Joel Benford: "Allison was quite emitted with this orange E-M10."
Is "emitted" spellcheckereze for "smitten"?
Yeah, what did she emit, I hate to think...
I'm looking forward to seeing the reviews for this camera, I don't much like it in silver though, it looks cheap.
Yep it's cold, but surely there are better pictures around from that era?
Antonio Rojilla: I'll tell you what I need: a site that doesn't hijack the browser history!
And no, we don't need the X30. It's nice and all, I like it, but it can't offer the quality/options and handling pleasure of the X-Pro1/X-T1 (with their shutter speed buttons, aperture rings -in some lenses anyway-, lens options...). It even lost the OVF, that while not that practical as the new EVF, it was a distinction.
And compared to compacts, which is what it should be compared to, well, the RX100 III set the bar. Fast lens, EVF, tilting LCD... and a larger sensor... in a more compact body. If Fuji don't want or just can't match this, at least they should have gone for the 'traditional' experience of the bigger brothers, keeping the OVF (improving it if possible) and adding even more 'manual' controls. It has lost soul and looks subpar compared to the latest Sonys.
No, I suspect what you need is a decent anti-virus program.
I wa really looking forward to the x30 but to be honest I'm a little disappointed with the sensor size. i would have prefered a bigger sensor even if it meant a smaller zoom range or even using a less "beautiful" viewfinder to keep the costs down.
tmurph: This is going to be my travel camera of choice as well as everyday useage.I have Pansonic G6 for my main camera and I love it but this FZ1000 ticks all the right do daas for the time when I don't want to schlep all my gear around also, I only shoot in raw and from what I've read it seems to do well in that department.Well done Panasonic.
Have patience though. Knowing Panasonic the price will halve pretty quickly.
G3User: The demise of photography continues. Now, all the soccer moms don't even have to worry about someone blinking. We are now creating images where the contents never even happened, the truth in photography is over. How sad, you may has well be constructing images with a paint brush, leaving all contents up to the picture creator. Now, given the power of a service like this, it will further decline the number or people hiring paid photographers, why hire someone if I can do it myself and then fix them later. Too bad Dpreview is promoting such a concept. I wish Phil was still in charge here.
You are very naive if you think there was ever truth in photography.
Great subject, laughable editing.
Like many photographers I come here for reviews, not nostalgia.
Digital Photograph Review, the clue's in the name.
Has anyone read the terms and conditions of CC. Onerous isn't the word.
Examples:"Adobe may modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Services or Materials, or any portion thereof, with or without notice. You agree that Adobe shall not be liable to you or anyone else if we do so."
"You agree that any claim or dispute you may have against Adobe must be resolved by a court located in Santa Clara County, California, United States of America"
"You agree that Adobe may display advertisements adjacent to Your Content, and you agree that you are not entitled to any compensation."
"You agree to receive updates (and permit Adobe to deliver these to you with or without your knowledge) as part of your use of the Services."
"Adobe may require you to create a unique URL, such as your_name_here.adobe.com. Adobe may permit another User to use the unique URL previously selected by you."
Welcome to the future.....
Might as well stick a phone in it and have done, with Apple's permission of course......
Just think if you used a modern camera with a flip-out screen, you wouldn't have got your feet wet......
I have to agree with most of the comments on here. Yes it's a perfectly capable camera but where's the innovation?
It's expensive and offers nothing that isn't available already from other manufacturers.
ppastoris: To DPReview : a suggestion. Could you guys please post equivalent F-numbers (in terms of DOF and light gathering ability) when you post equivalent focal length numbers? E.g. LX7's 4.7-17.7 F1.4-2.3 is the equivalent of 24-90 F7.2-11.7, not of 24-90 F1.4-2.3; similarly for FZ200 it's either 4.5-108 F2.8 or the equivalent of 25-600 F15.6 in 35mm standard.
Being one of the most influential camera review websites on the Internet you could really help your readers to understand what a lens designed for a smaller than 35mm sensor is actually capable of photographically. Clearly posting the equivalent angle of view (by posting an equivalent focal length) is only half of the story.
"1) I don't know why everything has to be compared to 35mm."
It's for the benefit of us oldies, we need a reference point.......
Decent spec, apart from AF but looks like a toy.
No Raw, no sale for me.
Shame really looks a nice little camera otherwise.
boyd2: Again NO DECENT OPTICAL VIEWFINDER!@$% And this should appeal to DSLR owners? Forget it Canon ...
"Bifocals are irrelevant. They don't change how the camera was designed to be used"
Actually they are not irrelevant, they change the way the camera has to be held and therefore how it is used.
It is very uncomfortable to tip your head back to look at an LCD screen through the "reading" part of your glasses and many people need a viewfinder to use the camera comfortably.
Clearly you don't use Bifocals.
And still Canon can't make a viewfinder that is not partly obscured by the lens at wide angle..........