SomethingBeautiful: Not one thing is sharp in this picture.
Any time you shoot through that much atmosphere, that is to be expected.
Honey, did you remember to feed the trolls?
Tonkotsu Ramen: How do you not take even one low light shot in all of those samples?
The picture of the sky in low light doesn't count.. because it's a picture of the lit sky..
What's going on over at dpr?
Barny,I also thank you for your explanation.I also second other posters: I would like more low light photos; both at high iso and low iso (using tripod). Remember Fuji's X-10 and its superb low light performance? I am always eager for a camera that can approach that level of performance, and if all test photos took similar subjects in similar light, then comparing one camera to another would be more of an apples to apples (Washington apples of course) experience.Thanks for posting.
Hi Barney,Can you tell me why DPR seems to always gravitate towards bright light shots? I know they were all done in one day, but what about shooting golden hour?
I assume the answer is you intentionally take shots in less than ideal light to push the camera and see what it is capable of doing in less than ideal conditions. Is that a conscience decision? Take the elephant shot for example. Bright light and shadows in one shot?
rikyxxx: 1380 comments!!!Olympus products still grab people attention and that's what drives someone mad...
Google the youtube clip of William Shatner on Saturday Night Live. He is at a trekkie convention, and he tells all the trekkies that are idolizing him to go out and "GET A LIFE."Seeing all of these comments kind of reminds me of that clip. I guess that makes me one of the trekkies. Time for me to get away from my computer and go shoot some more photos.
Here is one version, but it is not the complete one. If I find the full version I will post:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaB_G1WNT70
Jun2: Seriously, I don't look at sports photos that much. I watch games or video summary of games, and read the articles. Photos is the last thing I care about the sports.
and yet you are on a photography website.I don't look at sports photography either, but I appreciate the well shot photos.
tkbslc: They should stick with their unique sensor types. That's what sets them apart.
I also don't get why they would target low end consumers with a cheap body when they only sell expensive lenses.
SHood,I would have to slightly disagree.That is a little like saying the average consumer does not have parents or grand parents (my 100mm ssc was a hand me down from my Dad), and don't even get me started on the quality glass available on the used market (source of my 50mm and 200mm SSC lenses).
I think a lot of people do not even realize the quality of glass at their disposal. It is a shame if it does not get put to good use. The legacy glass market is big business among micro four thirds users. In fact, I got my Olympus pen camera specifically so that I could use my old lenses.
I own a bunch of Canon SSC lenses, which was the predacessor to the L lenses. On my micro four thirds they are spectacular. Imagine what they could do on a Fuji APS-C sensor?
I think that is one demographich to which this camera will appeal to in a major way. That demographic being the user with some quality old glass that they can now dust off and use to its potential.
(unknown member): The problem with many forums today is that they are run and moderated by too many people that are politically correct lunatics that are biased, petty and immature. They like to portray themselves as liberal, fair and openminded but in fact they are the opposite of that. DPreview is guilty of that.
Nathebeach: I am curious if and how comments have contributed to improvements in dpreview and even in product manufacturing.
That is my point. Remember the Toyota Echo? That was the result of Toyata doing exhastive research to see what young people want. They did their survey's at schools and rock concerts and the result was the Echo. More retired people bought it than youts. It screwed up Toyota's target demographic (the idea being that young buyers become repeat buyers). BTW it was a good car, just not stylish.MAYBE more useful info can SOMETIMES be gleaned from comment boards than by conducting expensive market research.
I am curious if and how comments have contributed to improvements in dpreview and even in product manufacturing.
jcmarfilph: none of the above.. Those silly ideas of attaching lens to a mediocre camera phone with sensor smaller than a pinhead are worthless.
Also, attaching a lens bigger than a phone itself defeats the purpose of mobility.
I'd rather see more travelzoom or bridge cam with WIFI or 4G capabilities than make my self look like a dork with a slippery brick in one hand and another hand holding the lens.
The RX100 is smaller than many phones. That is why I thought of it; that and its superior image quality. If it is still too thick then think more along the lines of an S95 by Canon.
Maybe instead of converting a smart phone into a camera, the approach should be taken a proven camera and converting to a phone. Imagine the RX100 as a phone. Mmmm.
Paul Storm: a lot of evan's works are fairly flat, most subjects are in a single plane. there seems to be an obsession with structure & form. interesting but limiting. i just can't see why, nor buy into the idea of him being some sort of understated / objective genius.
Maybe sarcasm was not the proper word. More of a though provoking comment.
KariIceland: Has ANYONE else noticed that compact cameras are being made WORSE in image quality on purpose the last 2 years? Canon powershot SX150 is being one example, this camera being another?I can't help but think camera manufacturers are using WORSE hardware and selling at the same price just to reduce loss & in turn pushing customers AWAY who would WANT to buy a compact camera.
Well said W.S. I wish these whiners would stop whining and go out and buy the Pentax 645 if image quality is that important. Besides full telephoto over the water magnifies the atmosphere; that does not mean it is a bad camera. It is not the fault of the (camera).
I guess nobody picked up on my sarcasm. I was implying that they are good strong photos regardless of the fame of the photographer's status.
So are you saying he is just famous for being famous?
mike051051: >...PEN sales had fallen 12% in the first quarter, but that it expected the > year's income from mirrorless models to be consistent with last year's > figure <snip> ...said the camera business is on track to break even this > financial year. <snip>...but Olympus says its restructuring plan will allow it > to 'move to a cost structure suitable for the scale of the business.'
Ouch, this kind of talk makes me nervous for Oly's camera business. This is the exact same line of rhetoric used by Kodak Senior Management about two years before the Chapter 11 filing and the dissolution of their camera business.
I sincerely hope that Olympus's senior staff and directors are more focused than were Kodak's (pun intended).....
Kodak was in a different boat. They made so much money on film (processing, not selling film) that when that dried up they did not have a back up plan. they were a victim of being too successful. What were they supposed to do? NOT take the money that flowed in from processing? I don't know if it is a valid comparison, but that does not mean Oly cannot learn from it.
xmeda: All you need is Pentax K5II + DA18-135. Still quite small and easy to carry, while it covers 90% needs.
and Pentax has more compact primes to choose from than the others. CaNikon have some nice compacts, but not as many as Pentax.
ZAnton: I don't know what is the purpose of this article.Of course DSLR cann't be a "always with me" camera. If I go shooting, I take DSLR, if I go cycling/hiking/walking I take a pocket camera.So that's it.
Gosh ZAnton. I thought it was a lovely article, great even.Not all of us are rich and able to afford lots of gear like some people. For someone looking to make a buying decision with their hard earned money, this article can be quite useful.