JWest: Is there an awful lot of point in dreaming up concepts that are physically impossible to realise?
I could knock up a 3D render of a cool looking compact camera, and write things like "8-400mm f1.4 lens" underneath it, but does that really get us any closer to a useful product?
Yes, but my point was that sometimes what is thought to be impossible actually turns out to be possible.
It is only by striving for the impossible, that one reaches the highest level of the possible.
Michael J Davis: Er... " in a design reminiscent of the company's old Four Thirds SLRs." - have I missed something? When did Panasonic do 4/3rds SLRs?
They did make a couple of models back in 2006 or 2007. They were called L1 and L10, and the former was also available in a Leica version, the Digilux 3.
Revenant: The difference between professional and consumer cameras, has nothing to do with the ability to take good or bad pictures, or with image quality.
The real difference between pro and consumer cameras, mostly has to do with build quality, ergonomics and performance. Consumer bodies aren't built to the same standards; they are (to a large extent) made of cheaper materials, have less extensive sealing (or none at all), the shutter and other mechanisms aren't made to last as long (or at least aren't as thoroughly tested), and they have fewer dedicated, physical control points. Usually, they also have simpler AF and metering systems, shorter battery life, and generally slower performance.These are the reasons for the price gap between pro and consumer cameras, even when the IQ is the same. You pay more for reliability, durability and responsiveness. Of course, there are entry-level cameras with great IQ, if that's the only thing you want or need from a camera.
To be continued...
Pro cameras are designed to be working tools for working photographers, who use their equipment 24/7, and expect it to be reliable and not getting in their way, whereas consumer bodies are designed for hobbyists and enthusiasts, who may use their gear more sporadically (and leisurely).No one said that a pro camera can't be used by an amateur, or that a consumer camera can't be used by a pro "on the job", but in general, pros need more reliable, durable and better performing equipment than most regular consumers.
The difference between professional and consumer cameras, has nothing to do with the ability to take good or bad pictures, or with image quality.
Deleted pending purge: No such thing like Pro cameras, there's only Pro photographers. And what makes them Pro (besides being obvious where their bread comes from) is sometimes the fact that they can do good photos with any camera. Otherwise, mercantilistic lore or not, there are only expensive, less expensive, not expensive, and cheap cameras. Technically, these will do what their specs say, if you either need or can afford to use them. But in the end, it will always be 10% equipment and 90% author - at any price level.
"What a tired and abused term "professional" has become. We're really talking about commercial photographers, people who's main source of income is selling images."
That's what "professional" means. If your profession (i.e. your job) involves taking photographs, then you're a professional photographer. If photography is not your profession, but your hobby, then you're an amateur.
"Pro" does not mean "good", and "consumer" or "amateur" does not mean "bad". Those are value connotations that people for some reason seem to use in everyday language, but when a company markets a product aimed at "pros" or "consumers", they use those words in a value neutral way.
Neodp: GH3: Fail.
Thanks for the info! It's greatly appreciated. With all the trolling going on in these comments sections, it's a breath of fresh air to read such an insightful analysis as yours.
Don't know if it's global, but the NX300 comes with Lightroom in Sweden too, so I guess other EU countries get the same deal.
Mssimo: GH3 seems to have same sensor as OMD..so if the GH3 does not have a sony sensor, does the OMD have a panasonic sensor?
They do seem to be the same if you look at performance and DXOmark.
So...Sony or Panasonic or maybe different sensors with similar performance?
Although some people believe that Panasonic would never use a Sony sensor in their flagship camera, I think they are wrong.
Probably the same sensor as E-M5, E-PL5 and E-PM2, but maybe with different filters on top, and different signal processing.We will hopefully know who makes that sensor soon, when Chipworks reveal the results of their analysis of the E-PM2 chip, that someone in the m4/3 forum donated to them.
yabokkie: D800 + standard zooms and f/1.8 primes should be way better.
For low-light photography and high DR, absolutely. But not for studio work at base ISO, where 645D should be better in terms of resolution and micro-contrast.
Fotonaut: Copyright laws should be scrapped in their entirety. I hope someday future people will look back in disbelief at this intellectual failure just like we look at those who supported slavery or blasphemy laws.
"Intellectual property" = "dark matter" = all the moronic things people conceive when unable to deal with reality.
Really really sad how much otherwise productive energy is wasted on this nonsense.
So you think you should have the right to display others' creative work as if it were your own, or earn money through others' work without their permission? And that those who think this is wrong are comparable to supporters of slavery?
Cideway's analogy was correct. The photographer did not get paid for her work by the radio station. She does not want money over and beyond what was agreed, because there was no agreement to begin with. That she got paid by the person who originally commissioned the work is irrelevant. It doesn't mean that the photograph now belongs to everyone.
digby dart: Nikon is still playing games, this presumably has aperture change within live view - something not available below the d800 in their dslr range.
This 'A' offering is more akin to what the v system should have been, apsc based, this new offering by Nikon is far too little too late. The camera is carefully designed not to interfere with Nikon's lucrative camera tearing and interchangeable lens strategies - the hefty price without optical or electronic viewfinder reflects that too.
Moreover, taking the anti-aliasing filter away as if it did not have a purpose in the first place, while keeping the Bayer pattern, is odd to say the least.
As far as value goes, I feel Nikon have just been trading on their name of late and that is not a sustainable long term market strategy.
"a purposeful omission in models below a certain level."
If the cheaper models had all the features of the high-end ones, they probably wouldn't be cheaper.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: An MF system or a brand new yacht: you choose.
Actually, many of these are sold to rental houses, whose customers aren't exclusively filthy rich people.
ThePhilips: So. After all. They CAN produce a sensor with meaningful number of pixels.
I don't think colour resolution is that important for the extreme low-light applications Canon has in mind.
steveh0607: As a XE-1 owner I can say the review is fair. The camera delivers great image quality but does have a few quirks, like every other camera. It's not designed to be an action/sports camera so don't judge it for what it isn't. Fuji designed it to be a great street/travel camera, and it excels at that.
But I did find the comment in the "Cons" section: "Large and chunky build won't suit everyone" to be strange. The camera is boxy, sure, but it isn't large or chunky: It's just about the same size as my FE-2, minus the mirror box. I wouldn't call that large or chunky.
The E-M5 is not as large as many people think, about the same size as the E-P3 with the addition of a hump. It's certainly smaller than the X-E1.
Marty4650: "despite it's sub-par movie mode and less than stellar autofocus performance, it earns our coveted gold award, by a whisker"... and this is also despite all the times it locked up and crashed.
Every camera has pluses and minuses, but these minuses aren't minor issures. These are very serious and major flaws. And it seems Dpreview overlooked them because the camera was "thoroughly enjoyably" to use.
I'm looking forward to the new Dpreview Platinum Award for cameras without any serious flaws. Because Gold is now the new Silver.
@CabSav & Marty4650As DPR explains, the scoring system and the awards are two different, unconnected things:
The first is supposed to be as objective as possible, being based to a large extent on tests and measurements. However, some things are subjective by nature, such as ergonomics and handling, so it can never be 100% objective.The awards are meant to be subjective. They give the reviewer an opportunity to express his personal opinion and feelings about the camera, based on his personal preferences and priorities. It's like the "Editor's choice" in a review magazine; not necessarily awarded to the best-in-test products, but the personal recommendations of the editor in question.
rhlpetrus: Well, I don't see the "great jpeg" IQ that DPR sees. There's a definite softening of detail even at base ISO, compared to the other cameras included. RAW is even worse. Am I the only one seeing it that way?
chillgreg: So lets see: vs Sony NEX 5R/6
The NEX's are
- much, much less expensive- same (similar) IQ- significantly smaller & lighter (+pancake kit zoom & 16/20 f2.8 WA)- adapters take almost any legacy lens- better articulating LCD- proper sweep panorama- 10fps burst inc RAW- extensive video controls- wifi + apps (eg intervalometer, remote control via mobile devices & multishot noise reduction etc)- touchscreen or similar spec EVF- faster AF + PD AF- focus peaking
One must REALLY like Fuji or retro styling to throw as much as twice the money at a bigger, heavier arguably less capable mirrorless camera. The price Fuji's asking buys a LOT of DSLR.
Food for thought.
PS DPR can you please review the Sony NEX 5R/6 and also add the 5R to the image comparison database.
It's not only the UK, high prices is a European problem.The current prices for enthusiast (EVF-equipped) mirrorless ILCs in Sweden, converted to USD (prices are for body only):
X-Pro1 $1860GH3 $1630X-E1 $1400OM-D E-M5 $1400NEX-7 $1240V2 $1160 (with kit lens, not available body only)NEX-6 $1090NX20 $960G5 $780
Well, at least the movie mode really is a minor issue in a camera that's clearly aimed at stills photographers. Not every camera has to excel at everything.And as for the gold award, the awards are supposed to be totally subjective. They are meant to show you how the reviewer feels about the camera. If he enjoyed using the camera more than most cameras, or thinks it represents great value for money, then a gold award is perfectly reasonable. You may read it as a recommendation of the camera, for those who agree with the reviewer, that the video and AF issues are not major flaws. You don't agree, and I don't either (in the case of the AF), but others might. It's all subjective.
forpetessake: This is essentially the same idea as multiple exposures using electronic shutter. For example, you take 4 normal exposures and merge them into a single image, you get 2 times better SNR (and dynamic range) and effectively pushing ISO 4 times lower. You can do it today with cameras like Sony NEX, except the shutter is not electronic, it's mechanical, so there is problem with moving subjects.On the subject of the dynamic range. The displays and prints have a lot more limited dynamic range than modern sensors. In order to display higher dynamic range you need to compress it, the more you compress, the less natural image looks. Until displays with much better dynamic range are built, increasing dynamic range of the sensor has little advantages.
At the pixel level it really is multiple exposures, the resetting of the pixel acting as an electronic shutter. But at the sensor level it's just one continuous exposure, since not all pixels are reset at the same time.