King of Song: So far it seems everybody's enjoyed celebrating the (fact?) that Canon has fallen way behind, and that this new camera is literally DOA. That it's DR is so ridiculously low, that it's basically a write off. Nobody seemed consider the fact that it has the highest resolving 35mm sensor on earth by far! And at least to my eye, after examining these real world samples, quite spectacular in everyway. If any of these shots were taken with a Nikon D810 instead of the Canon 5DS, the only significant difference would be about 40% less resolution.
So I must apologize for disagreeing with all you brilliant tech junkies, u guy's must be smokin crack!
The difference in resolution is not even 40%. Keep in mind that resolution is a linear measure, so the difference in resolution is proportional to the square root of the difference in total amount of pixels.
Ken Yull: Someone has made a mistake! WEX in the UK, and Panasonic UK are calling this a FZ330, with a few other differences. So this begs a question, does this mean two differing models. WEX are stating a UK price of £499.00p. They sell FZ200 at £279, this is with a cashback deal.
No idea. Canon does the same thing with some models, such as the ELPH series, which is called IXUS in Europe and IXY in Japan. Maybe there's some arcane marketing logic behind it?
ecka84: Actually, 4.5-108mm f/2.8 is equivalent to 25-600mm f/16.
Actually, stating it's f/2.8 is not dishonest, because it's exactly what it is. The f-number is just a ratio between two physical measurements, the focal length and the aperture.
The focal length and f-number as printed on the lens are correctly stated, but then the manufacturers use the FF equivalent focal length for marketing purposes, but not the FF equivalent aperture. That's the source of a lot of confusion.
Since FF equivalency is meaningless to people unfamiliar with using that format, the manufacturers should stick to using the lenses' physical measurements, and state the angle of view that corresponds to the physical focal length. The f-number is what it is, and is used to determine exposure. Comparing total light gathering and DoF with a format that the camera in question doesn't use, and that the photographer may not be familiar with anyway, seems rather pointless.
Panasonic sometimes use different names for the same model in different regions. The FZ70 is called FZ72 in some European countries, and their travel zooms and waterproof compacts also have different names in Europe than the rest of the world.
EdBen: You can see it is not quite as good as Olympus pixel shift (on OM-D E-M5 mk-ii) though, but on the other hand the Olympus is much more limited in ISO.
"The K-3II seems to record all three colors at the same pixel site rather than to enlarge hence having razor sharp details and lacking color moire."
The E-M5II does that too. That's what the first four exposures are for, whereas the last four are off-set by a half pixel vertically and horizontally to capture more detail.
If Olympus had given us the option to only use the four exposures taken at the Bayer positions, then we would have got images with superb colour resolution, but none of the artifacts resulting from the processing of the off-set exposures.
Francis Carver: What is to see here -- a few "beauty shots" of a camera? Wow, I guess the camera manufacturers are leaving this job of taking photos of their gear to the likes of DP Review now?
"First impressions?" So, just what are those, please? Where and when can we see those?
How about reading the text that accompanies those pictures?
Samuel Dilworth: It would be interesting if DPReview would spend a few words explaining WHY the GX8 is so big compared to the GX7, despite the removal of the flash (itself not a problem for me), etc. Maybe Panasonic USA can help.
The GX7 is itself hardly tiny. Is the GX8 bigger chiefly because some people want bigger cameras, or is it bigger for technical reasons that can’t be easily circumvented? Clearly the viewfinder is bigger, but that doesn’t account for much.
It is what it is and I don’t write off the camera, but it sure is beefier than I expected.
I don't think that a smaller sensor must necessarily entail a smaller camera body. Surely, for each of us, there is a certain size and shape of camera that we feel most comfortable handling and operating? Do these ergonomic considerations change according to the size of an internal component? I understand that the need for pocketability sometimes trumps ergonomics, but that's hardly the case with a camera like the GX8.
Demon Cleaner: * Panasonic users request IBIS to better enable the use of Olympus and other third party lenses;
* Panasonic listens and implements IBIS, so their users have stabilisation with Olympus and other third party glass;
* Richard Butler lambasts Panasonic for implementing IBIS, and suggests that in providing stabilisation for Olympus and other third party glass, Panasonic are in effect "building walls", and goes on to suggest that "it's sad if you end up being essentially constrained to Panasonic lenses."
Oh common sense, where art thou?
You misread Richard's argument. Panasonic aren't building walls by including IBIS, they are building walls by restricting DFD autofocus and features that make use of it, to their own lenses only. In other words, IBIS lets you use other manufacturers' lenses, but not with full functionality.
Marty4650: I will sit this one out, and wait for this new sensor to show up in the EM1 MkII.
But, it does seem like a really nice camera and a nice step forward for M4/3.
And for everyone who thinks it is too big... just remember there are around 25 other M4/3 cameras to pick from. Some bigger, some smaller. Something for everyone. Which was the whole point of having multiple models, multiple styles, and multiple manufacturers.
Surely this is the new Sony 20 MP sensor that was announced recently. Panasonic has used Sony sensors before, so it's not unheard of.
Jorginho: Complaints complaints complaints. When it concerns the price from what I have seen, I tend to agree on that one. However: get a G7 if price is too steep. Or EPL7. Or Sony A6000. All of these have their up and downsides, none of them offer weathersealing, 4K video, or even an EVF (Oly). No swivle screen either. Etc. But there are other options easily available.
But otherwise:- In general: let's await tests/reviews- Size: zero problems. Panny is the only one with an extremely small alternative with EVF AND tiny lenses of good IQ to go with it. Get that one.- Weathersealed- great EVF- Every one wanted (better) IBIS: it seems it's there- Sensor: 20 MP is a lot sooner than most expected, as some thought OLy would do it. It is Panny- Etc.
The biggest let down to me though is the cropping of the 4K video. I think G7 is a much better solution here.
Surely the 20 MP sensor wasn't unexpected, given the recent Sony announcement of two new 4/3" sensors, a new 16 MP sensor and one with 20 MP. We'll likely see it in forthcoming models from Olympus too.
norman shearer: I really like the tech they are putting into this camera, lets hope some of it ends up in the A7000. An electronic shutter with no rolling artifacts or drop in bit rate would be great for street shooters.
He didn't ask for a drop in bit rate. "no rolling artifacts or drop in bit rate" means that he doesn't want any of those two things. Why that would be specifically great for street shooters, I have no idea, though.
EssexAsh: there should be a term for these cameras, medium format isnt it. "slightly bigger than FF" format maybe?
Come back when they are at least 6x6
Haven't medium format always referred to a range of sizes between small format and large format? Seems to me that "slightly bigger than FF" is exactly that.
Shinsei: Sony have all of the technology, such as WiFi, image sensor, touch panel.If Sony will make a digitalback for PhaseOne, Hasselblad, CONTAX cheaply, then the medium format cameras will spread.
Sony does make a CMOS sensor that's used by Phase One, Hasselblad and Pentax. It's probably very costly to produce, though, and I don't think we'll see it in any MF cameras or digital backs much cheaper than the 'bargain-priced' Pentax 645Z.
Petrogel: If the price will be similar to the IQ, then i'm sure it'll sell like hot cakes......LOL
Petrogel, you are still ignoring the fact that removing something is not the same thing as never adding it in the first place. How could Leica cut off information that never was there? They did not use a sensor with a CFA, that they then removed from the sensor. They use a monochrome sensor without a CFA, so no information is cut off. All the luminance information is there, while the chrominance information was never there.
Pandimonium: That would be a problem with the stepper motor. (controlling the shutter speed).
The only shutter I know of that is controlled by a stepper motor is the one in the Panasonic GM series. Most shutters are spring-loaded, if I'm not mistaken.
ogl: List of changes Wireless connectivityWireless flash supportRaw file burst depth White BalanceAutofocus during movie captureExposure compensation during movie captureCreative effects during movie captureTop shutter speed wide-openMore effects modesInterval Composite shootingIn-camera raw processingBetter image review for raw filesPlayback startupPixel mappingImproved battery life: The Ricoh GR II's battery life is CIPA-rated to 320 shots on a charge, up from 290 shots from its predecessor with the same DB-65 lithium-ion battery pack. That's about a 10% improvement, though we suspect that's without Wi-Fi enabled.
Fuji did add a new film simulation filter to the XQ1 and rebadged it as the XQ2.
straylightrun: No RAW is frustrating. Sony have obviously intentionally crippled it so as to not compete in sales with their 1" sensor RX line.
Sony's HX line of travel zooms has been around longer than the RX line, and it never offered RAW shooting. Sony probably doesn't think that the target market needs that.
Calvin Chann: I hope it solves the issue with defocusing before refocusing. Makes the 40-150 pretty unusable for sports.
And still no HDR mode?
HDR done right gives a better approximation of how the scene appears to the eyes, than an unprocessed photo does.
OzarkAggie: There been some angst in the Powershot forum because the G7X & G3X are using the older sensor but from I can see there's really no significant improvement for stills. Sony does have a bit more resolution yet in real world use I suspect the longer lens will prove to be the greater asset.
To be fair, Canon does offer an optional EVF, so calling the long lens a useless gimmick is unfair. The problem is that Canon expects people to buy an expensive accessory, when the competitors include it in the camera (but not for free, of course).
aftab: RX100 III and IV are noisier than LX100. Quite evident at ISO1600 and higher.
Saying that you can't compare the output from different sized sensors implies that people shop for cameras with a specific sensor size in mind. In fact, those cameras compete for the same customers, which means that they are very much comparable.