Nuno Souto: Memo to all companies who pretend to "redefine" the mirrorless market:the market is micro-4:3rd. Full stop. Don't waste any more time with "parallel streams" and other such marketing devices to make you waste money and resources. And FIRE the nincompoops who keep telling you to "redefine" the market!No? OK, keep running to the edge of the abyss...
I would get an SLR camera if it was free, but I'd sell it and buy myself another M43.
If only they could put out as many good lenses as they are unveiling new generations of camera...
BobYIL: Dear Nikon,
You offer the 24MP APS-C size fully equipped D3200 with kit lens + 55-200 zoom for $796 and this point & shoot V2 with kit lens for $896. Hard to understand..
... except size.
OttoVonChriek: It will be great to see what 4/3 can do with a decent sensor ;-)
The OM-D E-M5 already has a decent sensor.
Nikonworks: f4 landscape?f2.8 counter crew:f2.8 flower?
Is this how one takes pics to show the capabilities of a lens?
Seems you let a 'pancake' tester test a 2.8 Constant Aperture Zoom lens.
Next time please get a photographer, a well rounded photographer, to take the samples.
At the top of the page, one who is so inclined can read: 'Preview'.
One thing I'd like to see on these cameras is the ability to tweak all those settings on a computer and then load it up on the camera.
1 billion of market psychiatrical money.
Sweet taste of napalm!
That's all I can say about fanboyism on either side of the frontier.
Doug Pardee: CFast was never intended for consumer applications — it's intended for industrial equipment — so I guess this is CFA's attempt to get back into the consumer world. Given the almost universal adoption of SD/SDHC/SDXC in current consumer devices, CFA's got quite the up-hill struggle. Maybe in some of the pro equipment. I guess we'll see.
And I have to agree... "SD" was inexplicable but at least pronounceable. "XQD"? Really?
It's a kind of magic.
d3xmeister: I hope you all do realize there is no innovation whatsoever. This is just a fisheye lens software corrected. Practically is a P&S lens with a mount. There are reasons why the ,,big boys,, are sticking with classic lens design. One is uncompromised image quality.
Also, the power zoom is ALWAYS gonna be slower and not that precise compared to mechanical zoom.
Hmmm.... another thing: Do you know the #1 reason why compact cameras aren't very reliable ? You guessed it.......it's lens mechanism failure.
And the last thing........... $400 ?????????????????????
So what about it software correction? The ultimate goal of photography is image reproduction fidelity. Means to get there are irrelevant ( for same performance and fidelity ), unless you are a big romantic who finds it more poetic to get the final image from photons hitting directly the sensors instead of going through some software process, paying twice the price for the lens for the same image quality in the meantime.
tkbslc: $400 price tag seems steep for such a slow lens the more I think about it. And yeah, it's small. But it's only 16mm (0.6") thinner than the original Olympus 14-42mm when closed. Those are like $150. You also get a real focus and zoom ring on that lens. So it's a pretty good premium in dollars and usability just for being the smallest
If you find the new Olympus 14-42mm lens expensive, I agree with you. Otherwise, given the compactness and (I would believe) superior optical quality of this lens, I hardly see how it could have been made cheaper.
Photato: Wonder though how much of an optical compromise this compactness entails?Is it optically inferior to a good compact camera with non-removable lens?
I would personally believe even the cheapest interchangeable lens has better optical quality than any compact digital camera's builtin lens. There is also the fact that a bigger sensor will capture more details for the same lens quality. So compact cameras are no match for ILC ( not considering Pentax Q ).
I already regret not being able to change my E-P3 14-42 order for E-P3 body only + this lens...
Given that Panasonic has better 14mm pancake and now probably ( yet to be seen in reviews ) better 14-42mm lens too, I guess they won't hurry the sales of E-P3 body only.
Olympus should have a bundle with their new 12mm prime...
I love competition, Olympus will probably have to come out with a trick of their own now.
Tee1up: I agree with D.Spreen's comments. Any camera without a viewfinder of some kind is completely off my shopping list. I would have liked to have seen Nikon take the 7100 and dropped in an APS-C sensor. In spite of the specifications, most of these small sensor cameras become unusable (IMO) above ISO 800. As for the looks of the camera, I have no issues at all. Like the G12, I expect this would feel very good in the hands.
IMO, you are generous by including ISO 800.
What I'm wondering is if all the megapixels are usefull for such a lens. I would believe the 12x lens in the thinnest camera of its class has suffered some optical quality tradeoffs.
@ RestyF (Aug 23, 2011 at 01:07:06 GMT)( regarding ageing sensor )
"how can they achieved improved image quality compared to older models"
In the conclusion, Image Quality:"This does mean that the images are slightly sharper than those from the E-P1/2, due to the use of a slightly lighter anti-aliasing filter"
" how can they achieve better video compare to older models?"
The new Dual-core TruePic VI processor explains it. Format like AVCHD is a processor intensive task.
" I don't get why dpreview tag them as ageing sensor."
Have you looked at the sections on noise, resolution and 'ComparedTo'? Have you read the conclusion. Actually, have you read the review at all?
Julian Kirkness: Lovely camera - just like the '1 - but this time fast and you can have a viewfinder. No one really needs more than 12MP, it handles beautifully, is well built and now has a great range of lenses. Got mine today - can't wait to really try it out.
" No one really needs more than 12MP"You don't really need more than 12MP.
"Got mine today"You lucky. Still waiting for mine. Not even shipped yet.