JeremiahL: Is it just me, or are the full size images incredibly noisy? I have a several year old Fujifilm X-Pro, and get less noisy pics. And the images in the D810 sample gallery blow this out of the water at comparable ISOs.
I know they're huge images and can be resized, but what's the point if they *have* to be resized due to noise?
I'm a little disappointed because I've been waiting for this camera to come out so I can decide between it and the D810. At this point it's looking like not much of a decision :-/
"Sample galleries are not for comparing noise levels across cameras."
That's what Rishi said. Now, surely noise isn't the only thing that interests you in a photo? Surely there are other aspects of a photo that these sample galleries are meant to convey?
thx1138: Wow that Batis lens is quite ordinary. Not a single sharp image. You certainly wouldn't want this to be a true indication of what to expect from the camera. I was hoping to be wowed by the landscape shots but instead you got entry level all-in-one zoom level quality. Having said that some of the images are very nice from the point of view of the photographer.
Drawing conclusions about lens sharpness from images viewed in a web browser isn't unproblematic. I see no reason to doubt Rishi's statement that the Batis is very sharp.
Jim Evidon: Can a new 20 MP Leica X Vario be far behind?
I wonder if Panasonic will allow Olympus to either use or license this new sensor? Any claimed deficits in performance are likely the result of firmware rather than sensor design and are likely to be be ironed out with firmware updates.
As to advantages of 20 MP over the very fine 16MP sensors in both Panasonic and Olympus cameras, I have long ago found the upper usable limits in the 16 MP image cropping and the new 20 MP sensor should allow these limits to be stretched; a definite advantage.
But in terms of high ISO noise, neither MFT sensor can hold a candle to the FujiX Pro-1 or the XT series, which is to be expected from the larger Fuji APSC sensor.
Disclaimer: I own the Olympus E-5M and the Fuji XPro-1 as well as the Leica M9P (CCD sensor) which blows the other sensors away in resolution, but fails in noise comparisons to the others above ISO 1000 or so.
Panasonic very likely uses the new Sony sensor that was announced earlier this year, and Sony is probably happy to sell it to any company that wants it.
Not sure why Leica would use it, though, since all of the X series models so far have used APS-C sensors. And Sony does make a 20 MP APS-C sensor too, so Leica is more likely to use that one.
Francis Carver: Finally, at long last, something real and innovative and all-around cutting edge and affordable. Unlike, for instance, the overpriced retro junk Canon seems to be bringing out and/or threatening us with.
Kudos to Fujifilm for the X-T1 INFRARED. Hopefully the UV/IR portions of the spectrum will be recorded in the videos also, not only in stills.
It's not THAT innovative, considering that Fuji already did the same thing several years ago, first with the S3 Pro UVIR, and then with the IS-1 and the IS Pro.
ecka84: Actually, 4.5-108mm f/2.8 is equivalent to 25-600mm f/16.
Yes, but it's not a lie because the f-number is wrong, it's a lie because the focal lengths are wrong. The front of the lens states 1:2.8/4.5-108, which is entirely correct.
FF equivalency isn't helpful to all those who aren't familiar with that format. It's better to state the physical FL, and then explain how that relates to angle of view on the particular format in question.
phazelag: Another Olympus in a Casio body.
The Casio EX-10 and EX-100 share the exact same sensor and lens specs with the Olympus XZ-2 and Stylus 1, respectively, although the processors are likely not the same. The Pentax MX-1 also likely used the same sensor/lens combination as the XZ-2.
It's not at all certain that the lenses are made by Olympus. All three companies could very well have sourced it from some third-party manufacturer, such as Asia Optical. Who knows?
Cheng Bao: What's the last time that dpr reviewed a casio camera?
Casio doesn't sell cameras in North America anymore. Perhaps that explains the absence of reviews on most American review sites.
Francis Carver: Let me see now if I get the lowdown here.
First, I buy a M4/3rd camera. But no lenses for it.
Next I buy a pricey Metabones lens adapter.
Them, I buy some Canon lenses.
Shake or stir and pour over ice, maybe?
Why do you assume that no m4/3 lenses were bought for the camera? And that the person in question doesn't already own Canon lenses, that he also would like to use with his m4/3 camera?
Nathan Cowlishaw: It's going to be fun watching the Micro Four Thirds Consortium eat the rest of the photo industry alive and position themselves at least as a leader and authority that will make all other companies wonder why they didn't follow suite. ;) I love Micro Four Thirds, with all the selection of lenses and manufacturers really chiming in: Panasonic, Olympus, Leica, Kowa, Voigtlander, SLRMagic. Man, the sky is the limit with this open standard.
It's not really an open standard, because a company has to join the consortium to get access to the mount specifications, communication protocols etc. Non-member companies, like SLR Magic, have to do reverse engineering to make lenses for the mount.
Skipper494: A poor imitation of the Pan FZ1000, more money and extra for a VF, I don't think so.
Those declining sales are seen by every camera manufacturer, since the entire market for dedicated cameras is shrinking. And since Canon's market share has been pretty much constant throughout this market contraction, their decline isn't steeper than any of their competitors'. So while saying that Canon's sales are declining is true, it's a tad disingenuous to not put it in context.
maxnimo: Well, for a small, cheap super-zoom the pics look not too bad.
It's subjective, of course, but to me a typical entry-level DSLR is a small camera, and so is the G3 X.The sort of camera that you can put in your pants pockets isn't small, it's tiny.
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?
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.