Dazzer8888: Looks pretty cool, not sure why people are bitchin' about it......sure, you won't fnd many serious filmmakers using one because of the low resolution, but i like the look of those shots from the demo vid, and i imagine it will be quite cheap.
Agree, no sense complaining about this little lens adapter. What I scratch my head about, though, is if this isn't for the "serious filmmaker" then it has to appeal to the non-serious filmmaker who likely doesn't care about stretched aspect ratio anyway. Maybe there are a few that will.
Marry this a relatively compact Pentax DSLR and you have a pretty good street photography combo.
CarVac: How does the DOF scale work? Is it only for the 40mm end?
Yes, I think the DOF scale is for 40 mm.
Segaman: hey guys DSLR are going to be a rare breed, the stats are telling us that in the next five years, things will be hard, so lets keep the spirit alive, specially for Nikon, which I love their products!Christopher Chute from market intelligence firm IDC predicts Nikon may be out of business in 5 years if the trend continues.
“You’re talking about a 10-15% decline in DSLR shipments all over the world. Which is kind of shocking because that market’s been growing double digits for almost ten years. Nikon recently said they have a five year plan to address this. And my view is, that five year plan should have come out five years ago. They’re not going to be around in five years.”http://www.eoshd.com/content/11409/consumer-dslrs-dead-5-years
Stats don't tell us about the future, only the past.
AbrasiveReducer: I'm sure this is an excellent camera but it doesn't seem to really excel in anything except maybe AF. That's fine, but if this gets the gold, what would a real breakthrough camera get? (This is not a "fan" issue; I own Elphs, Rebels, G1X, EOS-M and 5D3.)
Even if it produces results nearly identical to the D7100--and I'm sure it does, to everyone except Nikon fans--that just means both are above average.
I don't think people are "bored" with the lack of live view during continuous shooting. Instead, they'd be really on their toes trying to figure out where to aim the camera.
Will Gerrits: In 2013 when everything electronic is minimizing , compare cellphones in 2005 and now, in the department handling there should be more focus on size. In that aspect this Canon is big, very big. Moreover if you consider the enthusiast photographer is not carrying just a single (zoom)lens but a few lenses : the size and the weight you have to carry around for a longer time is a problem that's not taking into account in this review. Please DPReview addept your reviewing aspects to 2013 -2020 standards and don't stay in the low 2000's
Despite all the miniaturization going on, hands aren't getting any smaller.
I read many of the posts but admittedly not every one. Anyone know if the Sigma 18-35 lens used was micro-AF adjusted first? If it wasn't, what would be the point of comparing conventional PDAF to on-sensor focusing?
kwa_photo: I think Apple will do a 4.0 of Aperture X in the not too distant future and when they do...it will be done very well IMO. It's just a matter of how long do we want to wait. It's similar to the Mac Pro with no updates for years....
dual12, what file format are your medium format files?
I think it was basically an iPhoto update and Aperture simply inherited the changes.
MayaTlab0: "One point worth noting here is that the X-E2 doesn't just allow you to select a minimum shutter speed - it forces you to select a single fixed speed, and unlike Nikon's recent SLRs, there's no 'Auto' option that takes the lens's focal length into account."
Oh dear. Why can't they get it right ? Is it so hard to create a few lines of codes to just copy what others are doing ?
Pentax's system is somewhat similar to Nikon's. The camera adjusts the minimum shutter speed based on focal length of the zoom and can be skewed by the user toward faster shutter or more DOF.
Richard Murdey: I hope the engineer who had the flash of inspiration "hey, maybe the sensor shift mechanism can be used to mimic an AA filter" got a nice bonus for his troubles.
Yes, he's just guessing. The real answer will be in the test photos but moving the sensor a fraction of a pixel is not exactly the same thing as introducing blur in the classic sense.
Zvonimir Tosic: Regarding lack of tilting screen: I see that this may be seen as a drawback. But lets think again, like guys at Pentax: at least it seems they think twice about every gizmo others introduce without a second thought. If a camera can be controlled comfortably from any distance via smartphone, which almost everyone has, and have a live preview too — then what's the point making a rugged, weather-proof camera that has a weakest part in its tilting screen while the screen substitute/extension is in your pocket? I don't say it's best solution, but is tilting screen any better?
Junyo, I think I'd rather have the remote option than the tilt/swivel LCD on the camera. Clearly the first is better for any kind of studio usage.
Surprised DPR didn't mention a rather unique feature of this camera -- variable or segmented white balance. For example, you have natural light in one are of the image and tungsten in another and the metering system adjusts the WB in each area individually. I'll wait to see some real sample of this working but it does sound interesting.
Jim in Hudson: My recollection is the iPhone DID have a two-stage shutter button under iOS 6. First stage was touching the button icon and second stage (capturing the photo) was releasing your finger from the button. Doesn't seem that way with iOS 7 unless I'm missing something.
It's not just the 5s... seems to be any iPhone under iOS 7. I guess that's the price to pay to get multi-shot bursts.
My recollection is the iPhone DID have a two-stage shutter button under iOS 6. First stage was touching the button icon and second stage (capturing the photo) was releasing your finger from the button. Doesn't seem that way with iOS 7 unless I'm missing something.
108: Very nice camera, nice samples. Now the american Amazon retail price new is 546.95 usd, whereas on Amazon germany and france it sells for euros 561. At today conversion rate ( 1.35 dollar for 1 euro ), that puts the" european" 7800 at 757,35 usd equivalent. Given all the talk about free trade and fair treatment to all nations, anyone can explain to me this discrepancy ? Assuming some kind of adjustment for whatever economic/standard of living reason, let's say a 1.15 conversion rate to be nice, that's still 15% more than US retail price. What are we european customers ? Idiots to be milked dry by austerity measures while our american counterparts continue enjoying better prices for the same goods paid with paper printed at will by the FED ?
What in the world does health care have to do with the price of a camera?
RStyga: Thank you, Fujifilm! WHEN you develop the right RAW S/W for your X-Trans technology there will be no need for conventional sensors in your cameras. Good move.
malteser01 -- are you sure you know who's refusing whom? Maybe the ball is in Fujifilm's court.
Henry M. Hertz: you don´t need a long preview for this camera two words sum it up...
i would never pay more then 500 euro for a m43 camera.for me m43 will always be only a "second" camera.and as most m43 user i only have a kit lens for my E-PL3.yes most m43 buyer, as statistcis show, have only a kit lens.we speak about the majority here not some enthusiasts.
the real money goes to my much more versatile (yes it IS bigger and heavyer... i don´t care) DSLR system.
that´s why i doubt this will be a big financial success for oly.it´s a good camera.. sure.
The buffer size issue is ridiculous. No one is going to fill that up, especially when the camera/battery combo is only rated for 390 shots. THAT is far more important to 99% of photographers.
Jim in Hudson: I am so clueless about this AF fine adjustment. Why would any on-sensor AF system, whether CDAF or PDAF, need any adjustment at all? If the system is in focus and the system is on the sensor, what is there left to adjust?
Also, what about low light AF sensitivity limit that never gets mentioned? That is where CDAF has always been behind PDAF and so has this new on-sensor PDAF closed the gap at all?
CharlesTokyo -- many thanks but I think most everyone here already knows how CDAF and PDAF function. Traditional PDAF has sometimes required micro-adjustment precisely because the AF sensor module is NOT on the image sensor itself. However, when the AF sensor and the image sensor are the same "thing", it remains to be explained what is actually being achieved with an adjustment. All I can think of (though I've not seen it mentioned anywhere) is an error in the beam splitter. Perhaps the two beams are converging on the image sensors AF pixels when the overall non-split image itself is not converging on the sensor. Just a guess.
I am so clueless about this AF fine adjustment. Why would any on-sensor AF system, whether CDAF or PDAF, need any adjustment at all? If the system is in focus and the system is on the sensor, what is there left to adjust?
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review