oselimg: So...Dpreview is largely followed by 4/3 users. That's fine but please don't call a smaller sensor cameras as "innovation" and compare them to bigger sensor ones. It's not because 4/3 is bad, not at all but they are simply governed by their physical structure which can be advantage or disadvantage at times. Neither camera group is a replacement for the other.
@oselimgMy argument is still valid. Innovation is not tied to sensor size. Any innovation regarding sensor technology, autofocus or whatever can be applied regardless of sensor size.
I didn't get the impression from your original post, when you said that a small sensor camera can't be innovative, that you talked about the behaviour of sensor/lens combinations, but that you were talking about technical innovations in cameras.We all know about the limitations imposed by the laws of nature, and those apply to FF sensor cameras too. It's just a question of where you draw the line of "good enough". For many people, m4/3 is already good enough.
And no, you didn't mention any brands, and I didn't imply that you did. I mentioned specific brands only as examples to make my point.
Greg VdB: So, the Pentax K-3... First impressions on October 7 last year, still no review. Despite the "explanation" R Butler once gave me (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-df?comment=1981666761), I can't shed the feeling that something went very wrong with that review(er?).
Yes, sometimes there is quite a long time between announcement and availability of production units. The previews that are published on the announcement date are usually based on handling a pre-production unit. And since DPR receive their review units from the manufacturers, they can't begin a proper review until the manufacturer decides to send them one.There may be other factors influencing the time it takes to complete a review too, and priorities that aren't necessarily tied to the brand name.
beavertown: Dpreview should also have had "vote for the worst cameras of the year" award.
Nikon would have won tons.
According to some, the Leica X Vario is one of those rare cameras that looks worse on paper than it is in practice. I haven't tested it myself, though.
And I have to wonder how many of those who voted for the EOS M2 as worst mirrorless actually had used it? It was only released in Japan and China, after all.I know, I know, it was all for fun, but I think you should have tested the products you vote for, no matter if you vote for the best or the worst. At the very least you should have read a number of reviews or user reports.
There were some 6 000 people voting, which is only a fraction of the total number of people visiting this site. I think we can say that, among the enthusiasts who are actively participating in forums and comments threads on DPR, a large number use m4/3 cameras. But that DPR "is largely followed by 4/3 users", isn't necessarily true.
And then, why can't a camera with a 4/3 sensor be innovative? Is there some magical border between 4/3 and APS-C, that makes innovation impossible in the cameras with the smaller sensor? And is all innovation tied to sensor size? Would the AA-filter simulation in K-3 lose its status as innovation, if used in a camera with smaller sensor? Weren't the Olympus 5-axis IBIS innovative at all, because it was used in a m4/3 camera?
sgoldswo: Fantastic lens and achievement for Sony with this lens (note how I didn't have to knock any other lenses in saying that?). It's actually a bargain relative to the performance it gives.
A challenge for Sony/Zeiss: can you produce a similarly exceptional 20/21 in FE mount? I think we would live if it were F2.8...
Sony Zeiss lenses are not true Zeiss lenses. The Panasonic Leica m43 lenses are neither designed nor made by Leica, but they are manufactured using equipment and quality control methods approved by Leica. I don't know what kind of requirements must be fulfilled before you're allowed to put the Zeiss logo on a lens, but it's probably something similar.
B-rad: 50mm at $999.00 to do macro? I can see many insects leaving town with how close you will need to get to get a good close up of something small. What a joke.
75 mm equivalent is not that short, and not all macro subjects are mobile. Plants and inanimate objects, for example.
completelyrandomstuff: This lens has only 0.1EV less transmission than the F1.4 otus, according to DXO. It's probably one of the best (the best?) low light setups out there - you get slightly more depth of focus, with practically the same transmission as F1.4 lenses, superb sharpness wide open and lack of mirror slap means you can get use shutter speeds (like in rangefinders). Then add a rather good high ISO performance on top of that. Looks fantastic.
I don't know about the lens tests, but if it's the same as their sensor tests, the margin of error is 1/3 EV.
Macist: Without GPS, it's useless as a travel camera.
Fail, since superzooms are mostly bought for travel photos.
So before the GPS was invented, all cameras were useless for travel? We never saw any tourists with cameras before that? Just because something is useful, it doesn't become a necessity.
nekudza: Could somebody tell - does it have low-pass filter?
Imaging Resource also claims that the E-M10 uses a sensor without an anti-aliasing filter.
Plastek: Well, at least it doesn't look like a complete, dedicated hipster camera. Good start. Though I still don't get why they can't build equivalent to Sony NEX 6 - it takes full advantage of being mirrorless - truly small size. Why Oly can't do that and need to pretend that they build a DSLR instead?
Some people prefer a camera with a viewfinder in the middle, because they think that it both handles and looks better, than one with a viewfinder in the corner. Personally, I'd choose a faux DSLR over a faux rangefinder any day.
Jim F: I'm trying to figure out what's the point of Roger disassembling this body? What's the objective here? Not being critical. Just curious.
How about curiosity?
(unknown member): I'd like to express my concerns regarding DpReview progress on some outstanding and Not completed Previews of many cameras.
Even if these pictures are very interesting they have Zero-value ( at least for me ). I clearly see that after DpReview launched GearShop number of reviews went down and DpReview is No longer a site that does fast reviews for new cameras.
For me, you're like some kind of "Proxy" of news related to digital photography.
A little bit more and Cameralabs.com with Imaging-resource.com will be my primary websites.
DPR has never been about fast reviews, and they have never aimed to review every new camera. But the cameras they do choose to review get very thorough and comprehensive reviews, that involve using the cameras extensively for several weeks. Much like Imaging Resource, in fact, who aren't exactly the fastest in the business either; neither do they turn every preview into a full review, and they also publish a lot of other content besides previews and reviews.
Peiasdf: So it is a crappier E-M5 for $50.00 cheaper. Hmm. Don't like these updates when there really isn't any improvement over existing products.
This is not an update, it's a new model that sits below E-M5 in the line-up.
mpgxsvcd: This is a camera no one needs but some will want.
All we need is air, water, food, and perhaps clothes and shelter in harsh climates. Some people need medicine. Everything else is luxury.
peevee1: Why do they need 2 unmarked dials when everything needed is already on marked ones? Well, some X lenses lack aperture, so one nice to have sometimes. But two?
If you want to set shutter speeds between those marked on the dedicated dial, and use a lens without an aperture ring, then you need two.
Lucas_: "World’s fastest AF of 0.08 seconds" - does that include DSLR's or is it among mirrorless? How does it compares with Sony's A7/7R?
Well, the footnote that goes with that claim reads:
"Fastest AF speed among digital cameras equipped with an APS-C or larger sensor. Measurement conducted by Fujifilm research based on CIPA guidelines using the X-T1 equipped with XF14mmF2.8 R lens in High Performance mode as of January 2014."
Mark B UK: I have just two questions not answered by this otherwise very thorough and helpful piece: how many PDAF sensors are there, and what proportion of the frame do they cover?
With the X100S I believe there's just one, central one, which to my mind is of little value; the E-M1 has a diamond of sensors covering perhaps half the frame.
What I'm really hoping for is a mirrorless manufacturer that covers the entire frame with PDAF sensors. That would give real potential to beat DSLRs for action.
Canon could do that with their Dual Pixel AF, since the same pixels can be used for both PDAF and image capture. With the dedicated PDAF pixels that Fuji and others use, the more of them you have on the sensor, the less pixels you have for image capture.
Shiranai: I think Fujifilm wants to compete with the 6D here. They share similar flash X-syncs and max shutter speeds as well as the wifi smartphone connection.For the biggest con of the 6D, the missing flash, they bundle a flash with their model.
The 6D is not "squarely aimed at professional photography". It's a consumer body, which is obvious from the price point, ergonomics and feature set. Canon markets it as an enthusiast camera, not a professional one.
topstuff: Frankly, this is all the camera most people will ever need.
I am glad it is not full frame - the lenses would be too large.
I am happy that it is APSC - because in size it can rival m43 while offering better IQ. I think many people prefer the 3:2 format over 4:3 anyway.
EVF looks exceptional. I would take an EVF like this over OVF every time.
The mirror box is dead ! We can look forward to a time when cameras are smaller, our backs are stronger and we only need a small camera bag rather than a big one.
Fuji seem to have nailed this. Well done.
I agree about this looking to be a fine camera, but how will our backs get stronger by carrying less weight? I thought bodybuilding worked the other way around. ;)
Kodachrome200: I dont want to be to negative about innovation but fuji has invented a myriad of wied and useless sensor technologies all of witch were out performed by the standard bayer sensors of there time even in the areas they were meant to be superior. so its hard to be thrilled that fuji has another idea for a weird sensor. more useless reinventing of the wheel
@RanfordYes, I agree, and I think both the Canon and the Fuji/Sony approaches are valid, although I can certainly understand people getting frustrated with the "let's try something new"-approach, as well as others getting frustrated by the "let's use the same sensor for five years"-approach.
I also think that in forums like this one, where a lot of commenters are people who try to reduce photography to only numbers and formulae, who can't see the picture for all the pixels, who think that the gear is more important than the person who uses it, and are seemingly uninterested in the aesthetic qualities of a photo, too much is made of the technological differences between different camera brands.
Btw, I'm glad you mentioned Monty Python. At their best, they were truly brilliant. :)