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.
The "honorable mentions" here are confessions of failure and gross evidence of incapacity for dpreview. What, you publish a "roundup" and announce a winner, but you want to tell us with an "honorable mention" that one or more other cameras might just as well have been winners if you only had completed their reviews in time, while those cameras have all been out for many weeks now?
In it's heyday, this site was usually one of the first to publish a complete, professional review of a new camera, whereas today it very often posts reviews after everything is already said and done in the rest of the net and people have long since made up their mind whether to buy that camera or not. In fact, many will already have bought it and what they're going to say is oh, they've finished the review of my camera, time to look out for a new one ;-)
PedroMZ: what was very irritating and frankly unhelpful of Olympus is that they did not install the means by which you could AF the older 4/3rd lenses despite the cost of the OM-D-5, yet 6 months later they offered it on the OM-D 1 . Few of us could afford to trade in 6 month old kit, worth half its initial value, for this facility.
The problem was, "the means" is a completely new sensor that still needed to be fully developed when the E-M5 came to market. Other than the E-M5 and E-M10 with their Sony sensor, the E-M1 has a – possibly more expensive – completely different Panasonic sensor which includes elements to perform phase detection AF, which is necessary for the task. By the way, this still is the only existing imaging sensor fully able to drive the AF of conventional DSLR lenses in the world. Not even Sony has something similar yet, even though it would tremendously help them to get their A-Mount and E-Mount lines of products closer together.
Tal Shachar: Sony & Hasselblad can't work togethe because they have different size sensors.
Hasselblad should join companies like Mamia and Sinar (double full frame sensors) and Sony should join companies like Canon and Nikon (full frame sensors) so their accessories will fit all 3 camera company brands. (like Olympus and Panasonic did with micro 4\3)
isn't it nice that if you want to buy a new body from different brand without buying all the accessories again?
Indeed it is, which is one of the reasons I'm using Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds cameras. That notwithstanding, Sony does make sensors in all kinds of sizes, including the latest 50 MP medium format sensor used by Phase One, Pentax and, indeed, Hasselblad.
It's good, though, that the Hasselblad versions of some of Sony's consumer cameras are stopped. Not enough value for their ridiculously high prices.
Interesting camera. For one who uses not-too-huge DSLRs and mirrorless cameras for his usual photography and who wants something versatile with significantly less size and weight as a compact camera while expecting some, but not too much compromise in image quality, I come to find 1/1.7" hitting just the sweet spot in sensor size. Actually, that's why I'm still using an Olympus C-70Z the design of which is ten years old: it offers a decent zoom range in a pocketable body, a viewfinder and a RAW option. The only wish I had for the Stylus 1 is to be even smaller. As it is, I find the Panasonic DMC-LF1 (which has probably the same 1/1.7" 12 MP sensor) even more attractive, although its lens only goes up to 200mm equiv. focal length and isn't quite as fast.
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?