Daniel L: she is cute.
@karlwunsch: "I don't like his original comment very much. But I found your reaction far more concerning, than his action" – well, looking back at the thread, you're at least as rudely and aggressively defending your position as he is his, while all you're against is a person correctly, if somewhat strongly, criticizing an event of sexism in a forum. If anyone, you've been the one to escalate the discussion which could have ended shortly after Joseph Black had made his statement. And in demonizing his statement, you _are_ implicitly defending the original issue of sexism, whether you're making a point of not much liking the guy's comment or not.
And I think that you're factually wrong and completely misguided denouncing a criticism that was, except maybe for that f-word in the very first reaction, absolutely civilised, as a "spiral of hysterical escalation". Yours, sir, is a massive overreaction, if anyone's.
@Daniel L: Being born in the seventies obviously doesn't keep you from cultivating an attitude befitting the fifties. No false assumptions here at all, and it doesn't make things better if you start comparing the fair criticism you got with beating up people or calling the authority.
Publicly commenting on a photographer's looks in the context of a professional article is inappropriate in most parts of today's civilised world, and that's a good thing.
bmcdad: Its like saying AT&T will restart production of Rotary Phones... Art does not require a time machine. You can't reminisce evolution to a halt.
@bmcdad: Why should my pictures compete with anything? I shoot for fun and pleasure, not for competition, and technical image quality is not the most important aspect of what makes a photo good and has never been.
misha marinsky4: Ferrania house label films were generally lower quality. They made the Walgreens house brand, IIRC.
I have been reading the comments with amusement. To paraphrase Zone Zero, 'A film camera is like a mortgage, with payments for life.'
With a digital camera, it costs zero to press the shutter release. With a film camera, it costs even if it's a dud. I can't delete the shot for another. I still have to pay for development and a contact sheet. A memory card is quite literally an unlimited supply of 35mm film.
Like the look of film? There's DXO Film Pack, for starters. There's Kentmere, an inexpensive Ilford line. There's Freestyle, which sells inexpensive silver halide products.
With the Pentax MF, bodies have dropped below $10K. It's still not cheap, but Moore's Law applies to them, too. Sometime in the future, MF will compete with 35mm FF. The Mamiya ZD used a Dalsa chip; it was only usable at ISO 100, and they're cheap on eBay.
No one can stop the relentless march of technology.
Everyone knows the technical and economical disadvantages of film compared to digital. Nevertheless, film can still be fun, because technical image quality and money isn't all there is to photography. Seeing that the Ferrania funding didn't even need half of the funding period to succeed does show that there are some people who still think so, too.
AlanG: I'm trying to understand the economics and business plan.
With only $250K they plan to rescue this equipment, modify it to run smaller batches, presumably move it somewhere, lease space, hire the technicians and chemists to make all of this work, fund the materials and chemicals they need and do the testing, packaging and marketing? Thisfilm will
I have my doubts, too, whether the $250k will be enough to get everything going again, but my understanding is that they will reactivate the equipment on location, and that with the funding secured the buildings which are still needed won't be demolished after all.
Artistico: I find this slightly amusing, for what's ethical and sustainable about being a camera business these days? Not much considering that all cameras have - in effect - become disposable cameras, most of which will only be used for a few years before being thrown away. Like most other things it's become a consumable rather than something built to last "forever". Building things to last is bad economy as it doesn't create the imaginary growth of money that people seem to want despite the fact that it is eating its way through finite resources at an alarming pace.
I suppose making a limited collector's edition camera is the only way to keep people from disposing of their cameras. A bit like buying a small patch of the rainforest to prevent it from being cut down... Except the resources going into making the limited edition will never be used for or recycled into something more useful.
On one hand you're right, on the other hand many cameras which become obsolete for their owner will be sold to and re-used by someone else. In contrast to only a couple of years ago, virtually all of today's cameras have reached a quality level many people will be content with for many years to come.
Funny that there's only one compact camera I can buy today which would have all these features my Olympus C-70 Zoom had ten years ago: pocketable size, (at least a simple optical) viewfinder, (at least) 1/1.8" sensor, zoom up to (at least) 190 mm: the Panasonic LF1 (or Leica C Typ 112).
Unfortunately, the LF1 doesn't have a tiltable display, which is something I'd really like to see in such a camera, today, even if the C-70 didn't have one, either.
----------By the way, on smaller screens, be it a tablet or a smaller laptop, it is a complete nuisance to read these picture story style articles! Why not put everything on one page, like in a normal text and like everyone else does? At least optionally? Bandwidth can't possibly be the reason, given the amount of imagery used everywhere else on this site.
duckling: Next time you visit an exhibition put a polarizer in your pocket. It might help with them reflections.
That's what I tell myself everytime I visit Photokina, and so I did again this time ;-)
ManuelVilardeMacedo: You nay-sayers are tiresome. Want 4K? Buy a dedicated video camera, or the Panasonic GH4. Olympus makes photographic cameras with video as an afterthought to satisfy people who want to make a clip every now and then. And rightly so. Besides, what part of "photography" did you miss in "Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review?"
By the way, Olympus makes excellent portable digital audio recorders which can be used alongside a camera.
Not to be "aimed" at something doesn't make _unnecessarily_ leaving basic options out any better. And "aimed" or not, there _is_ an avid group of hand-held-shooting videographers who specifically like the E-M5 and E-M1 for their image quality and, most notably, extremely effective in-body stabilization which works with any lens including legacy lenses of all kinds. Not to offer 24/25/50 fps means deliberately denying European videographers the ability to use the existing potential of the camera.
Problem with Leica is, they have only one really interesting camera, and that's the Leica S, which is even more expensive than the rest of their offerings and only a case for a very small group of people, and it's not really new, either. If a new Leica S with updated sensor came out (I'm thinking in the lines of the new Sony 50 MP medium format sensor here), that would probably be something different.
Peiasdf: Wow, for the price of these adapter, might as well pick up an extra Rebel SL1 when you want to shoot Canon lenses.
Yes, but carrying and using a set of lenses with a Micro Four Thirds camera while simply needing an adapter for some of them is much less of a nuisance than carrying und using those lenses with a Micro Four Thirds camera and having to carry another Canon camera, too, for using some of them.
"For now, autofocus is listed as unsupported" – does that mean there are hints that autofocus may be supported in the future?
Easycass: Small issue for some maybe, no Fuji X-Trans RAW support, as far as I can tell...
PSP never was the tool of choice for a RAW converter, anyway. Before I'd use PSP to develop my RAWs I'd use what came with the camera to produce an intermediate TIFF for further processing in PSP, for those cases the RAW converter itself wouldn't suffice.
(BTW, isn't Silkypix what comes with current Fuji cameras? I'm shooting Olympus and Sony cameras and contrary to the general public opinion I'm quite happy with Silkypix Pro 5 and 6, which I've actually and voluntarily bought ;-)
Sergey Borachev: There is little need for this model. Same IQ as all other current models. Only about $50 cheaper than the E-M10 which has a nice EVF. Even if its price should fall more and the difference becomes $100, the EVF alone make the E-M10 more worthwhile. Having to mount and dismount an EVF and the flash in this E-PL7 (which means you can only use one of these accessories) is a clear disadvantage in comparison. I suppose there will always be those who love selfies and who would buy this, even though the E-M10 is so much better.
For some, while clearly not for me, either, the E-PL7 being significantly more compact than the E-M10 may be a much more important feature than having a viewfinder. Personally, I'd wish Olympus would try harder to include a viewfinder in their "rangefinder-style" mirrorless cameras, like Panasonic and even Sony with their larger sensor managed to.
Ok, the one Olympus camera that fits virtually all my needs is the E-M1, and that's what I'll be buying in the foreseeable future. No other MFT camera yet came as close to my highly regarded E-30 for me as to consider buying it, not even the E-M5 or E-M10 or the Panasonic GH3/4 or the GX7, the latter of which I nonetheless find very appealing, it's just that I either need more and faster and better native lenses in the long telephoto range - or, alternatively, the FT compatibility so far only the E-M1 offers.
Nonetheless, with the E-M1 now being on my path, I still keep looking what else there is, as l might very well consider buying a PEN as a second body some time. But would I want a camera without a built-in viewfinder even as a second body? Never!
Furthermore, I ask myself whether Olympus will someday offer a compact, PEN-like body with the PDAF-capable E-M1 sensor, so that I could use my FT lenses on the second body, too, because that' what I'll be using for some time to come.
aandeg: Why does the panasonic have so much noise? The A7s raw at iso 3200 looks like the Gh4 at iso 400.
What I see is A7S at ISO 3200 equals GH4 at ISO 800, regarding noise. And that's exactly what is to be expected, since the A7S sensor is four times as large as the GH4 sensor.
These tests are no good. Comparing GH4 and E-M1 in the start-up view, the GH4 image is sharp, whereas the E-M1 image looks extremely blurred. Looking at other parts of the scene (the 20 Schilling bank note), though, the E-M1 is actually slightly sharper than the GH4. Something clearly must have gone wrong here.
JamesD28: I think far too many people are forgetting that this camera's aimed at beginners.Yes, the sensor is tiny.Yes, the viewfinder is under par in terms of resolution.No, the pictures aren't going to be brilliant above ISO 400.
But are beginners really going to care about this?
@Andy Crowe: (1) Yes, but does it? (2) Even if it does, there still is the question why they don't use a slightly larger sensor (it wouldn't even need to be a full 1") and a slightly shorter zoom range (rather than 52x which noone, let alone the beginner, can make sensible use of anyway) to make the difference in image quality and the money spent worthwhile.