Hubertus Bigend: If dpreview wants to start basing results of camera reviews on cameras' video capabilities, they ought to open a new 'dvreview' site and do it there. For people interested in 'digital photography', not videography, results significantly influenced by video capabilities destroy all comparability.
Then again, 'overall scores' have never been too meaningful, anyway...
@jkoch2: Your comment completely misses my point. I never claimed they wouldn't say the camera is video-centric, that they do is why we know that the score is not comparable in the first place; believe me, dpreview scores cannot, ever, in any way, make me feel 'threatened'; I never said video wouldn't 'add' something to a camera or would be a 'detraction'. I do shoot video with my own cameras, too, by the way, and the universe knows what touch screens and armies have to do with this. I just think that a 'digital photography review' website which is photography oriented should not suddenly start to base their review scores, for one camera, on photography, and for the next one on video capabilities. There have been other video-centric cameras which could have gotten a higher score if they would have been gotten a video bonus. A third camera might just as well get a new high score for its outstanding sound recording quality.
All this goes to show that overall scores as such are dubious.
If dpreview wants to start basing results of camera reviews on cameras' video capabilities, they ought to open a new 'dvreview' site and do it there. For people interested in 'digital photography', not videography, results significantly influenced by video capabilities destroy all comparability.
Zvonimir Tosic: Make is simple, yes, but not simpler than that. Where is ISO control? At least film Leica camera had a simple ISO wheel on the back. If sensitivity control is not simple and intuitive as shutter speed selection, all this brushed aluminium is a waste.
I never had a digital camera with an "ISO wheel" and I never missed it, either. Come to think of it, what I actually need most in terms of ISO is a usable auto-ISO setting...
J A C S: "With no mirror action and no mechanical shutter in electronic shutter mode..."
Does the OM-D E-M5 ll have a fully electronic shutter (2nd curtain) or his comments are about future cameras?
There is nothing preventing the mirror in the dSLR to stay up with similar high resolution implementations.
" He said that resolution lost to camera shake in DSLRs reduces the advantage of having more pixels."
Unless you shoot with an electronic shutter, which is what you do with the Oly anyway for higher res. That was a really cheap shot.
"Does the OM-D E-M5 ll have a fully electronic shutter"? Yes, it has, the 8-shot-40-MP mode already works without mechanical shutter actuations between the single shots.
If there will be a good EVF to clip on, hopefully one that isn't too bulky, the camera might become a winner. That lens is incredibly compact for a 600mm equivalent zoom for a 1" sensor; I wouldn't have thought such a lens could be made in that size. Maybe they're using diffractive optics? Ok, when zoomed out to give 600mm it will probably be two or three times as long as what we see here, but nevertheless...
I do like the rangefinderesque design; much better than all the other bulky DSLR-style superzoom compacts.
Then again, it clearly isn't pocketable anymore, so for a compact camera I'd probably still prefer something with a slightly smaller sensor, liker 1/1.7" or 1/1.8", and a slightly smaller zoom range, like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 aka Leica C (Typ 112).
If the G3X lens is really good, for some it might be an alternative worth considering to a supertele-zoom solution based on a DSLR or mirrorless camera.
alexander kooistra: always surprised about the pricing, 3699 dollar retail and 3999 euro. 3999 euro is about 4580 dollar us.Look like a great cam for a specific market.
The pricing comes from different import turnover taxes, namely US: none, EU: high.
Matt Kolberg: Greedy S.O.B. is Mr. Rentmeester. Let Nike build the substantial worth with this image and then go after them when it's worth a ton? It wasn't worth a few bucks to sue back then, but now it's worth so much more. "I might as well get my fair share now". Despicable.
Really? Why shouldn't the creator of the original art feel entitled to a small, in contrast to almost none, portion of the profits the big company generates with it?
Tungsten Nordstein: Nike's is a logo. They're not using a reshot photo, they're using a b&w drawn logo. They may have been inspired by the original photo and produced an intermediate photo in the process, but it's no longer a photo. Much as I personally dislike Nike, the copyright claim seems a bit thin.
I have my doubts regarding the viability of his claims, given the differences between his original work and the reshot image, but then again, a court ruled in his favor in 1985 in that specific aspect. Regarding the logo/photo thing, even if the logo would have been drawn by hand and not, as it would be standard today, a post-processed version of the image, it would be a copy of the image, albeit altered. If someone would take one of your photos and make a high-contrast black&white version out of it, wouldn't you think your copyright was infringed?
While those stats could be interesting if interpreted correctly, and while smartphones including the iPhone are used by more and more people to take more and more pictures, so the headline is something that would have to be expected some day, the big question is, how representative is Flickr?
I still have a Flickr account, but I've stopped actively using it many years ago, shortly after Yahoo acquired Flickr and started using users' images for their own advertising without asking anyone. Many pros and enthusiasts already left back then, so their cameras don't show up in the stats, either.
(Since then, things have become worse. Starting in 2007, Flickr search results are censored in many countries including Germany, Romania, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea. Beginning late 2014, Flickr commercially sells users' images without offering profit participation. Which is only legal because many users unknowingly uploaded their images under the CC BY licence which allows just that.)
Retzius: Are these lenses made in Korea or in China?
Right, I expect it to be really good, too!
Hubertus Bigend: The text says that the flash can work as a slave in a wireless setup; does that mean it cannot work as a master? I'm not up to date there, but I remember earlier Metz flash units having such a limitation. In that case, it could not replace the small separate flash unit that comes with many mirrorless cameras, I would still need to carry both (plus the big flash I sometimes need, and which I'd like to trigger remotely).
Thanks to Peter 1745 for the explanation. As I thought, the Metz is no full replacement for the Olympus FL-LM1/2, either.
Right – and actually, it's about *caring* about people in other countries of the world, too, and how they get along economically.
This isn't a subject that would justify bad-mouthing "PC" per se, though.
If we agree that quality doesn't need to be an issue of manufacturing country, one might still want to ask that question out of pure interest. Anyway, why should anyone think manufacturing quality was worse in China, compared to South Korea? Or vice versa, for that matter? I find it interesting that many people react with such an expectation in mind.
The text says that the flash can work as a slave in a wireless setup; does that mean it cannot work as a master? I'm not up to date there, but I remember earlier Metz flash units having such a limitation. In that case, it could not replace the small separate flash unit that comes with many mirrorless cameras, I would still need to carry both (plus the big flash I sometimes need, and which I'd like to trigger remotely).
ealvarez: Is this manual focus lens? $599? I can get 135mm f2L canon for about $600 used and Nikon 180 f2.8D even cheaper used.. I don't share much of the enthusiasm. Maybe I would if I was Sony E-mount shooter.
One of the significant differences between the Canon and the Samyang is that the Samyang offers excellent image quality whereas the Canon is not nearly as good.
Hubertus Bigend: What a stupid, trivial article. Photography is an individual matter. Of course the "upgrade path" plan is not a good plan for everyone, but of course for some people it indeed is. Case closed.
@Joseph Black, @Babka08: I don't know where you're from or what photographic communities you follow and the ones I follow might be somewhat non-mainstream, but I cannot see a full-frame upgrade-path dogma out there in any way except for some people buying into a system considering that they may or may not want to buy a full-frame body too some day. Which is perfectly alright. The article says absolutely nothing an average prospective DSLR or mirrorless camera buyer was too stupid to know. Really, the article insults the intelligence of its audience. Or am I too optimistic there?
What a stupid, trivial article. Photography is an individual matter. Of course the "upgrade path" plan is not a good plan for everyone, but of course for some people it indeed is. Case closed.
shadowhumper: On the RX1r "No built in viewfinder" how is this a con in a compact full frame? Do you take points of DSLRs for not being as compact as well?
Sounds like you are trying to find something else what is wrong and could not so started nagging about other things.
Another con: doesn't come in pink
I'm glad finally someone points out that not to have a built-in viewfinder is a major disadvantage for a camera, no matter at all what size it is.
By the way, if manufacturers would offer built-in viewfinders for more of their compact cameras, that might be a real reason for some people not to be content with their smartphone.
simpleshot: When somebody claims "equivalent", most likely, it is not.
The word is wrong here, because if it's anything like what Hasselblad does, it would be perfectly real 40 MP.