guamy: Good.. but its almost the same size as my new canon dslr.
Compared to the smallest Canon DSLR:
The top view is quite revealing, I think.
Timmbits: wow, talk about a way to put a spin on numbers! "taking only approx. 0.5 sec* to get ready to shoot after startup" what is that supposed to mean? for all we know, it has a one minute startup time so that becomes 1:05 to take the first photo. do they think customers are stupid? Panasonic is really insulting.
10% improvement on color and sensitivity isn't anything to write home about - that's even a lower number than the 25% better signal to noise ratio which isn't newsworthy either - especially when you're up against Oly - I'd be interested in how that compares with Oly, not with a several year-old model.
and "GX7 is a new breed of digital camera suitable for the Hybrid Photographer" wtf? a "new breed" of digital camera, that can do both good video and take pictures? seriously? Panasonic really really really believes that their target customers are ignorant and stupid and have been living under a rock for years.
What the heck is a Hybrid Photographer supposed to be, anyway? A photographer who also shoots video, is he a hybrid?
Panasonic makes cameras for hybrids, Samsung for androids, and no doubt the mutants, zombies and cyborgs too will get cameras very soon.
forpetessake: That's been mentioned many times on the forums that the only game left to increase IQ is increasing sensor size, and given time, the FF prices will go down and virtually all compact cameras will be FF. For some reason this simple fact provokes knee jerk reaction from people with small sensors. Must be a Napoleon complex.
One type of compact camera that probably will live on is the travel zoom/super zoom, because it offers something that smartphones don't. Are you suggesting that those too will go full frame, and that they will still be pocketable?
aris14: We need cheaper equipment of top quality.That said IMO right now is the 4/3 format that allows us to have top IQ and glasses with reasonable cost. I think that current technology suggests that today we can have at least equal with top 24 x 36 mm sensors a couple of years ago. The 24 x 36 sensors may remain for special projects and demands along with larger ones.In less than 5-6 years a sensor of let's say 12 x 18 should deliver the same IQ in every aspect with today's top guns...The rest is marketing...
You forget about photonic shot noise, which is a property of the light, and thus completely independent of the temperature of the sensor.
focuspulling: dpreview digested the news incorrectly on multiple fronts. For instance, the sensor size of the BMPCC is not smaller than the BMCC models. They are all, however, smaller than the BM4K.
Also, there is no software update for the BMPCC "available on the Web site." It's just shipping with the "update."
The press release is written by the manufacturer, and it says: "The new Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is now shipping and there is a software update for it posted on our web site."It clearly states that the update is available separately from the camera. And if the text had been written by DPR, instead of being a press release published as received, then it wouldn't have said "our web site".
Shamael: I have seen it more than a week ago on a German Photo magazine, my first impression was, "heh, Sony goes 4/3". Seems that the alliance with Oly pays off. Sony works with Oly on the Nex FF, Isis on that new camera, Oly works on the lenses for it, and should show up around end of this year.
Stev Huff was fire and flame to anounce a "presumed" body price of 2800$, what left me react and tell him that double sensor size must obligatory mean double price, while you need not much more material to make a FF camera than any Apsc. One nedds to rememeber that RX1 has a lens that is worth the price alone and the body is just a gift in the combo. I wish Sony made cameras that sell and that anyone can pay for. This permanent overpricing of FF cameras to protect the Apsc market sucks. The 1500$ D600 and 1800$ A99 remained a dream and as it seems, sales for those gear do not boom as expected. Maybe one should review prices a bit and sell at affordable ones, not at "special" gear rates for 1% ers.
Sensor cost increases exponentially with size, not linearly. This is because the yield is diminished, i.e. you have to discard a larger area of the silicon wafer due to imperfections, than when you make smaller sensors.
Say that you have a wafer of a given size, with, for the sake of argument, 10 randomly spread out imperfections. Divide the wafer into 1000 smaller rectangles. 10 of these will have to be discarded. If you divide the wafer into 100 rectangles instead, you will still have to discard 10 of those, but the total discarded area is then 10 times larger.
This is one of the reasons why FF sensors are so expensive to make, and the cameras containing them so expensive to buy.
taktak91: I wonder what happened to GX2 to GX6.Or have I missed something?
I think it's also about how people perceive a product based on its name. Why buy a GX2, when a GF6 or G6 is available for less money? To many people a higher model number implies a newer, better generation.
bossa: Seriously, how can a waterfall look like a fog dispenser and still be a waterfall?
And how can a waterfall look like the water isn't moving, and still be a waterfall? As howardroark points out in his reply to the poster below, neither a fast nor a slow shutter speed can replicate flowing water as it appears to our eyes. Neither is more "real".
Also, why must a photograph necessarily show us reality as it appears to our naked eyes? The pictures in the article are not intended to be documentary, I believe.
oselimg: So it seems the author didn't take commercial/professional purpose photos in the last few months. Could this be why he hasn't used his DSLR? Sure it makes sense taking compact point and shoot cameras along when shooting casually. It all depends on what you want to do with your pictures. I don't think it is a case of chosing one over the other.
He did write that he doesn't need his DSLR gear anymore, because he's no longer a professional photographer. That is one of the five reasons referred to in the title of the article. He makes no universal claims, but writes from his own experience.Edit: I see that Barney replied while I was writing, and he didn't need as many words.
Tandua: 13 PRO
17 CON + (less DR etc etc)
Imho = bronze
It's not as simple as just weighing the number of cons against the number of pros. One has to consider the consequences of each pro and con with respect to one's own photographic needs. Obviously, the reviewer thinks that those 13 pros far outweigh the 17 cons.
Johnsonj: Jpeg rules. RAW is for posers.
Only thing missing is face recognition.
Weird exchanges are pretty common around here, I think. I guess we're just trying to blend in. :-)
Well, not my intention to preach, really. I'm just a little fed up with the whole JPEG vs. raw thing. Nothing personal, buddy! ;-)
RedSkiesAtNight: While I am sure the camera is great and the image quality is superb this camera has very limited use. I would think that would know several points off the score.TelephotoStandard portraits (70-135mm)Ultra wide angleThis camera can't do a lot of very common things people do with their cameras.
You can't subtract points just because the camera isn't what it's not supposed to be. A fixed focal length camera is not meant for general use, but for use cases where that particular focal length is appropriate (and that might be more cases than you'd think). If you want to shoot telephoto or ultra wide angle, you should use a camera that is designed to do just that.
Zoltan Csuka: Actually Video IS important today in 2013 and a camera for $1299 should not get Gold award with a completely neglected video feature. Other than that it is a good review.
People don't buy this kind of camera to shoot video. Why must every camera be good at everything? If Fuji had marketed it as a stills/video hybrid, then you would be right, but they don't.
The whole JPEG vs. raw debate is a pseudo-debate. It's not like they are two conflicting image formats.
You do realize that the JPEGs you get from the camera started out as raw sensor data? And that the end result for those who shoot raw is also a JPEG image (or another RGB image format, such as TIFF)? The only difference is that raw shooters prefer to have full control over noise reduction and other parameters, rather than using the limited in-camera controls. Why does that make them posers?
marike6: The problem with cameras like the SL1 receiving a Gold Award because of the "suitable for the target entry-level user" argument is that DPR has traditionally been a website for enthusiasts who mostly would like to see the Gold Award reserved for the very best performing cameras. Such a loose definition of criteria for the Gold Award kind of cheapens it. And the third problem is it calls into question the thinking behind truly deserving class leading or revolutionary cameras like the Nikon D7000 and Sony RX100 getting only Silver Awards.
This is a nice camera, and as a DSLR fan I happy it's doing well, but because it uses older sensor technology, I don't feel it's the absolute cream of the crop. The new 70D may be, but the SL1 is essentially a smaller Rebel with an even smaller 95% VF view and more shallow grip.
Of course one has to consider the target users. No one would make a buying decision between, say, a Nikon D4 and a D3200, or a Panasonic GH3 and a GF6. Sure, the same person could be interested in both cameras, but not for the same purpose. So there's no point in comparing them directly.
If all cameras were to be judged by the same criteria, then no entry-level system camera or P&S compact would be considered good, since they would fall so far short of the quality and performance of the high-end cameras. But, as many people who have bought these cheaper cameras surely can attest to, they ARE good cameras for their intended target users.
white shadow: There are just too many people who are concern over whether a particular camera gets a gold award or a silver award. The review and conclusion is just more information about the camera. Different users will place importance on different aspect of a camera. Ultimately, if you think that a particular camera suits your requirement and budget, buy it and if doesn't buy another.
The 100D is only one of the choices and its good to have them.
I agree. And since DPR clearly state that the awards are completely subjective, and unrelated to the more objective scoring system, there really is no point in arguing with the choice of award. You can only agree to disagree, if you don't share the reviewer's opinion.
The award is given by the reviewer, if he for some reason, whatever it might be, thinks the camera deserves it. It's his personal feelings about the camera that determines if it gets an award, and if so, if it gets gold or silver. You can't dispute someone's personal feelings; they aren't objective facts.Of course, given this, one might question the value of such an award system for the consumers, but that's different from questioning the specific choices of awards.
PeakAction: I have now officially lost count of how many Rebel models there are.
From the DPR review of T5i/700D:
"The EOS 700D replaces the short-lived EOS 650D but the EOS 600D lives on in the overall lineup, to effectively drop down a notch to the position currently occupied by the EOS 550D / Rebel T2i, which will be discontinued."
Juck is right, there are four current models. T5i replaced the almost identical T4i, but T3i is still in production. Canon usually doesn't discontinue the previous model, instead keeping it in the line-up at a lower price point.And then we have the 1100D (I forget what it's called in the US), which is still current, since the SL1/100D is not its replacement. SL1 sits above 1100D in the line-up.