AD in KC: Gotta weigh in.
I think it's perfectly fine that a guy is taping a phone to his binoculars and posting the photos to a blog. Why not. My only worry is that there is a strong popular pressure to accept everything as "good enough". It's an extension of the "anti-intelectualism" we've been famous for since Andrew Jackson's time. And it's not just in photography, but in English - you're just being arrogant if you worry about using "your" in the wrong place. Or go to Home Depot and look at the quality of building materials available. These athletes spend a great deal of their time and energy and resources getting to the olympics. I'm happy to see Canon and Nikon rolling out their best for the occasion as well.
>> My only worry is that there is a strong popular pressure to accept everything as "good enough".
> This is just to balance off the standard sentiment here: nothing is good enough.
It's never a good idea to balance one nonsense with another one.
Color Blotch: Hey, great shots, I'm going to put one as wallpaper on my desktop! Oh, snap, the icons on my desktop are smaller than pixels on that image...
I admit I wasn't scientifically accurate (if that isn't painfully obvious). It doesn't change the fact that people who appreciate photography outside of web-sized snaps going to feel some limitations with pictures taken with i-something.
Hey, great shots, I'm going to put one as wallpaper on my desktop! Oh, snap, the icons on my desktop are smaller than pixels on that image...
Doug Frost: Why is Panasonic going in the wrong direction with sensor size? They should be building larger sensors into their high end compact cameras, not smaller ones.
Sensor size is irrelevant unless you consider it as a part of optical system as whole. Camera's performance ultimately boils down to how much light it can gather. For the size of this particular camera I'd say it does pretty well in that regard. There's no guarantee that increasing the sensor size would result in better overall light gathering for the package of same size.
Cheap FF seems closer and closer every day...
Michael Uschold: It is both true and highly misleading to say that "everything you see in the world around you is in HDR". It is true because human eyes can see much higher HDR than film, and HDR can sometimes bring an image closer image to what the eyes saw.
It is misleading because many HDR photos show what they eye cannot see. In bright sun the shadow in the lower left in the image above would be much more contrasty - so the image shows us what the eye never saw. If you were there, you could only see the detail in the shadow by blocking the bright light and wait for the eyes to adjust. There is no human eye that can see both the very bright and the very dim at the same time.
A more extreme example of this is a photo from inside a dark room looking out a very bright window with detail visible throughout.
Galen Rowell sometimes used 4 stop ND filters to do the same thing using different technology. People liked the photos but to me they looked unrealistic for the same reason.
Actually human eye's DR is much inferior to what most digicams of today can capture. Yet I do not see things washed out when I look through window from my dimly lit room. This is because I don't make photographs with my eyes. When I'm looking at something my eyes constantly scanning the scenery, adjusting to the changing conditions as they go. What you see *in your mind* isn't what your eyes see at any given point in time. This is why the impression that a real scene would make on you is better conveyed with HDR. You don't expect to see washed out or blackened out out parts when you look at things normally, and you're not getting those with HDR.
Still I wouldn't readily agree that "Using HDR software and processing tools is the only method a photographer has to deliver precisely what he or she witnessed at the time of an image capture", since there's hardly a way of delivering anything "precise" when human impressions are involved. Nothing is perfect.
If they were trying to go for cheap toy camera look with this one then they definitely succeeded.
Jogger: theyre both terrible photos, i wouldnt pay for them
Right, but now thanks to the court decision you know exactly who you're not paying to.
Anastigmat: Surprise! Olympus finally figured that it needs to break the straightjacket it has imposed on itself when it chose the 4/3 format. That small sensor puts an upper limit on pixel size and number, so it must be abandoned if Olympus were to stay competitive with Sony and Pentax, instead of scraping the bottom of the marketing barrel for sales. More competition is always welcome. Let's hope that the new entry will finally result in so much more competition in the crowded APS-C sensor market that it will force manufacturers to bring out more low end, affordable full frame models. The days of full frames selling for less than $2,000 may be near.
"The days of full frames selling for less than $2,000 may be near."
Oh god, it never gets old.
Color Blotch: Again and again Nikon 1 looks like a good showing of technological potential wrecked by a marketing decision. Using a smaller sensor doesn't reduce size, doesn't reduce cost, and it doesn't really help with anything that is good with these cameras as all the remarkable results that Nikon managed to get with them could just as well be achieved with sensor of bigger size. It's a kind of loss that gives you no gains in return, something that is pretty difficult to overcome when fighting for customers on increasingly crowded and competitive market.
The same argument was used before as justification for Four-Thirds standard as compared to APS-C. No, it didn't work.
Again and again Nikon 1 looks like a good showing of technological potential wrecked by a marketing decision. Using a smaller sensor doesn't reduce size, doesn't reduce cost, and it doesn't really help with anything that is good with these cameras as all the remarkable results that Nikon managed to get with them could just as well be achieved with sensor of bigger size. It's a kind of loss that gives you no gains in return, something that is pretty difficult to overcome when fighting for customers on increasingly crowded and competitive market.
Optimal Prime: Interestingly, unlike last month's news report on Nikon share price rise caused by rumours of a mirrorless system camera, DPR's editorial team didn't see fit to report the dismissal of Olympus CEO and the subsequent scandal involving nearly US$700million paid to an undisclosed party in the Cayman Islands as a News item when the story first broke out last Friday (Oct. 14, 2011), nearly 5 days ago. Nor the fact that Olympus shares have tumbled by close to 50% since the CEO's dismissal.
One could certainly be forgiven for thinking Amazon (DPR parent company) prefers to dispense such damaging bad news as sparingly as possible in the hope of delaying any negative impact on their web-based sales of Olympus branded products...
I think you're not digging deep enough. DPR might even played a part in the whole shady scheme as well. Who knows, they could even been behind that mysterious company at Cayman Islands. DPR have been so late with reviews lately. Could it be they were actually busy packing the $700 millions they got at Caymans and thus couldn't keep up with their schedule? Everything adds up man, we totally cracked this one!
jagge: Sorry but why bother. Its been 3 months since the preview, Sony has put forward at least 4 cams in the meantime that deserves much more attention, the nex5n and 7, the a65 and a77.
I can for the life of me not understand that you dont make a editorial rule out of candeling all the reviews you could not get done within 2 months instead of dragging a stack of unfinished reviews along. The result is that you will put out a lot of uninspiring reviews out MUCH later than everyone else, and leaving the true groundbreaking cams on the shelf forever.
With this speed none of the new Sonys will be reviewed on this side of X-mas is that good enough ?
I for one prefer the DPReview's meticulous approach even if it takes a lot of time to produce. The result you get is well worth it and while you can read those oh so fast reviews everywhere, the kind of review that DPReview provides is unique to this place.
Lan: I suspect the reason they're using one colour, rather than three, is that generally the different colours in an OLED display tend to fade at different rates. Over time that can become a significant and uneven colour shift.
Some common failure modes for OLED can be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oled#Disadvantages
The different colours of a standard LED generally require different chemical compositions too. It's much easier (and no doubt cheaper) to produce a single colour and then filter it later.
If you're interested, some info about the different compositions of normal LEDs can be found here:http://donklipstein.com/ledc.html
Different filter colors are also different chemical compositions. Still it's much simpler to control which wave length you filter than which one you emit. There's always a bit of hit-and-miss with semiconductors, not so much with filters.
I think it would be pretty nice if most of the 'menus' and 'displays' parts of the reviews were covered as videos. Those are awfully repetitive from review to review when presented in text form and for the most part fail to grip reader's attention. A point on how fast a camera is in actual use can be so much better illustrated with a video as well.
Razgriz: Just another 'Viewfinder less' carbon copy of another manufacturers product.
When will these Corporations realise that real photographers prefer usefull additions not omissions. Have any of there R&D people ever spent a day outside in the blazing sunshine and attemped to manually focus whilst composing the image on a bleached out reflective surface, obviously not.
We all know that the real reason is just pure manuafacture cost cutting and technology sharing.
The Sony NEX-7 has made the first real attempt to alter this, by building in a proper 'useable' viewfinder.
One Corporation launches a product, and the rest just rush to copy it.
Sorry Samsung, already lost interest, even before I have seen it in real life. Now explain that to your Marketing bods!!!
My god, that's horrible news. I guess people in Samsung's marketing are running around their office in desperation now as they know that Razgriz lost his interest.
Jason Butler: "The telephoto zoom carries the company's 'Lumix X' branding that it will be using to denote premium quality lenses."
Really? An f/4-5.6 variable aperture lens hardly seems like "premium quality" to me. Slow & needs to be used @ high-ISOs for decent speeds and on m4/3 that = NOISE. OIS is useless for subject movement. A constant 2.8 or even an f2.8-4 would be better.
And with $1000+ price tag along with 1 kg weight it would sell like hot cakes.
Color Blotch: So basically for $750 you get an lx5 with 28-84mm equiv lens and effective aperture of f1.7-2.5, plus blazingly fast zoom, snappy autofocus, as well as the ability to change lenses (and bodies). Where do I sign?
I know. That's why I say "you get an lx5" and not "you get a lens from lx5".
So basically for $750 you get an lx5 with 28-84mm equiv lens and effective aperture of f1.7-2.5, plus blazingly fast zoom, snappy autofocus, as well as the ability to change lenses (and bodies). Where do I sign?
Color Blotch: No kind of " interaction between the vibration frequency of the strings and the frequency of the video capture" can produce such asymmetrical effects on strings. Regardless of capture frequency, any single stopped frame shot by a camera that captures the image as a whole represents the actual shape that string has at that particular moment. A camera without rolling shutter effect would have captured strings as slightly curved lines. No kind of complex "oscilloscope-like" shapes actually run through strings, those are capturing effects caused by the fact that upper lines of the image represent different moment of time than the lower ones.
Sure, it doesn't. There's actually a mysterious physical process that transforms string vibrations into a progressing wave that also matching the shape of the oscilloscope graph. And the proof of that is because you say so, how could it not be true, right? And in this video
this isn't visible only because 1000fps is too slow of capturing speed. It's not for no reason that iPhone is widely known as a shutter speed champion.