Couscousdelight: did they use the same mount ?No ?So WTF Nikon ?
The case was never about technology, it was only about the design (as in appearance).
gusda9: These people are not original gypsies like I am they are Irish people living in a camp Real gypsys spread from India a thousand years ago They don't even speak the Romani language All of you are very ignorant of the culture of Gypsys We speak a very Distinctive language that is understandable Throughout the world by Other Gypsies Its like seeing any Asian person and saying they are Chinese Really people you need to google stuff up
Even if it's right that "new gypsies" aren't "gypsies", gypsies don't really do themselves a favor if they think they're better than others because of where they came from, which is just the same old stupid concept of racism others have been using against them for ages.
Yanko Kitanov: Can you please post some actual photography articles first and then we may look at the "Gypsies and Hypsies" trash?
Can we please have a 'dislike' button? Please?
RichRMA: Given recent events (and past experience), I'm surprised emulators of their lifestyle would be looked at kindly.
True. In many regions, neither emulating nor ethnic gypsies are looked at kindly. Not even in countries denoted by folklore as their roots, like Hungary, where they are the largest ethnic minority and they're being hated and discriminated against not only by the people, but by the state, too.
Right, even the 'Hasselblad' lettering isn't slanted in the way the surface it is supposed to be written on would demand. And just replacing the grip and the lettering and then upping the price tag to $10,000 would be rather bold even for Hasselblad, even after the 'Lunar'...
I think Panasonic has made a vastly more attractive camera with the LF1, even though the sensor is only 1/1.7" and the lens is only 28-200 eq. f/2.0-5.9. If I want bulk, I use a DSLR or a mirrorless system camera. I don't think that a DSLR-sized fixed-lens camera like the RX10 makes much sense these days.
Hubertus Bigend: Sorry, but what's the point of comparing a clearly misadjusted conventional PDAF to a perfectly working on-sensor AF?
When I find my gear producing images which are as clearly out-of-focus as those, I either fine-adjust the AF, if possible, or have the camera and/or lens serviced, but I don't go on shooting with such a setup.
An interesting result though is that the Sigma 18-35, while exhibiting an untrustworthy AF behavior by design, seems to work well with on-sensor AF.
Another thing I find interesting is that Canon seems to think on-sensor PDAF doesn't ever need AF microadjustment. While the test results seem to be in favor of such an assumption, Olympus, on the other hand, does offer AF fine-adjustment for the on-sensor PDAF of their E-M1.
@Shawn: If it isn't an issue with the kit lens, shouldn't the camera have no issues with it either, out of the box? I remember times when DSLRs left the factories properly adjusted, and front or back focus issues with a few unique lens-body-combinations were the exception, not the rule. Has that changed? Has the microadjustment feature finally made the user responsible for what used to be part of manufacturing?
Sorry, but what's the point of comparing a clearly misadjusted conventional PDAF to a perfectly working on-sensor AF?
fibonacci1618: Errm, I think a photo is a photo is a photo... it doesn't matter which camera took the shot. If it is a good photo, captures the moment beautifully, proved useful as a photographic tool to the person taking the shot, it does not matter one bit whether it was a Nikon D4 or an iPhone 5s that took the shot.
Colour, contrast, noise reduction, etc. that are done in post-processing, equally apply to any digital photo, taken by any camera, even in medium format cameras!
BUT... there are limitations to a phone cam, and some pretty severe ones at that, but as always, use the tool to suit the job at hand. If it gets the job done, despite the limitations, well then good on you!
It's great to see phone cams advancing so quickly - I, for one, don't feel insecure with that! Heck, put a 1" sensor in it, and have the option to change lenses too (whopee!), but please.... keep it first a phone, then a camera.
"It doesn't matter which camera took the shot", yes, but that's trivial and almost always not the point. The point is whether the camera perhaps *did* matter when there is a bad photo or not the photo you wanted or when there isn't a photo at all. (Which is, of course, what you're hinting at yourself when you say "but".)
Interesting to see this shutter shock thing coming up again. I remember that there used to be similar reports in forums about Olympus' DSLRs, and I think it were especially the 1/8000s capable bodies which seemed to be affected (although my own E-30 never was, and I'm shooting for four and a half years now with IS turned on about 99,9% of the time).
I do understand the logic behind the "shutter button" explanation, but I still have some doubts, given that something similar has been sporadically observed even with the heaviest digital cameras Olympus ever made.
Did you contact Olympus about the issue? Any feedback yet?
And did you observe anything like that with the E-M1, too, which presumably employs the same shutter?
The most interesting compact camera with such a feature set is neither the G16 nor the P7800, while the Nikon would, for my purposes, come closer than the Canon, but rather the Panasonic LF1, which includes both a 28-200mm (eq.) lens and an electronic viewfinder, and it's so small that it's indeed pocketable, something neither the Canon nor the Nikon really is.
It's a shame that manufacfurers keep thinking people don't need viewfinders anymore. It may be the case, of course, that people really don't need viewfinders anymore. I sincerely hope, though, that many people will buy Panasonic's LF1, the only enthusiast-small-compact camera with built-in viewfinder at this point of time, which, by the way, also has at least a minimum of telephoto capability (200 mm eq.). Why doesn't the LF1 get reviewed, by the way? I think it's the most interesting compact camera on the market today (alongside its Leica branded sibling).
(As for the "award", I couldn't care less, but on the other hand I wonder why cameras without viewfinders get rewards at all ;-)
Hubertus Bigend: What about those FT lenses which, back then when contrast detection AF in live view was added to Four Thirds DSLRs, officially were declared to be contrast-detection-AF-compatible? Like the ZD 14-54 II, or the later Panasonic/"Leica" lenses? Are they forced into phase detection AF like the other FT lenses, or can they be used with contrast detection AF? Do I get to choose?
Thanks for the information! The reason I was asking is that, in dim light and with those lenses, I sometimes switch the E-30 to live view only to put it into contrast detection AF mode, because, while much slower, in conditions like that it sometimes turns out to be more reliable and more precise than phase-detection AF. Even with the E-30's quasi-prehistoric implementation of contrast AF...
What about those FT lenses which, back then when contrast detection AF in live view was added to Four Thirds DSLRs, officially were declared to be contrast-detection-AF-compatible? Like the ZD 14-54 II, or the later Panasonic/"Leica" lenses? Are they forced into phase detection AF like the other FT lenses, or can they be used with contrast detection AF? Do I get to choose?
Anders Ostmoe: Is this a precise observation: "Focus is usually acceptably fast, though anyone coming from an E-3 or E-5 is likely to find themselves disappointed, in comparison"?
Now I have read some other quick reviews and they were far from disappointed. In fact, two of them claimed that focusing was faster with some FT lenses than on the E-5. Maybe they were high on the new camera, but it certainly does sound like the camera focuses as fast as one could expect and hope....
@R Butler: One similarly critical note about the E-M1's PDAF has been posted as part of a quite thorough report in the German "Systemkamera-Forum", and the author noted that PDAF speed was rather good in bright light, whereas much behind the E-5 in dim light (and who used them knows that the E-3/30/5 cameras didn't focus well in dim light to begin with). Perhaps that would be something to consider for further investigations?
peevee1: "The E-M1 devotes every 16th pixel to autofocus duties, arranged in offset stripes of left and right-looking pixels. The focusing pixels sit behind clear sections of the color filter array to increase their capability in low light and do not contribute to the final image. "
That might be a preview of Sony technology soon to be seen in new NEX and Alpha cameras.Not contributing the extra light to the image is just stupid, and using just 1/16 does not seem enough.
While in practice image quality even in RAW still seems fine, approximately as good as that of the E-M5, and PDAF, while possibly disappointing, may still be usable, I agree, and it doesn't forebode well for the coming generation of Sony cameras either, regarding their compatibility with A-Mount lenses. Canon's technology with every pixel being able to both provide image data and work as a PDAF element does seem more sophisticated indeed. On the other hand, in practice, neither image quality nor live view AF performance of the EOS 70D are something to write home about.
This, including its Lumix twin, is the only (1) small travelzoom-format (2) not-less-than-200-mm eq. telephoto (3) camera with a real viewfinder. For me, this really is the first interesting compact camera since the Olympus C-70Z. And while I do think that the Leica does offer something for its higher price, if only Lightroom, and while I do think it clearly looks nicer than the Lumix, too, I'll probably still prefer the Lumix in the end, for pragmatic reasons (don't need Lightroom, don't care too much about the looks). We'll see; one of the two might become the first compact camera I'll be buying after quite some years...
Hubertus Bigend: Rumors about the X-A1 have already been posted in May, followed by correct description (entry-level, no-viewfinder, no-x-trans-sensor) in July, on the usual rumor sites. dpreview doesn't do itself a favor by suddenly starting to post old news as "have hit the web today". Especially if there's nothing at all about a load of even more interesting rumors which keep being published elsewhere, some people already mentioned the E-M1, and the more so since even the regular previews and reviews usually are too late to still be interesting for enthusiasts and early adopters, people who used to regard dpreview high for the timeliness of their reports in its early years.
Even if it was intelligent to only post leaks of that kind, which I don't think it is, it is still stupid to call it news after the information has been out for months. And, after all, those rumor sites do tend to publish quite reliable information these days, whether it comes from official sources or not.
Fact is, dpreview won't become more attractive by posting old news, when it's more reviews, and more timely ones at that, that people are missing.
That's an interesting statement, given that the article's headline is "rumors of camera hit the web". And, actually, many rumors do originate in material leaked inadvertently or even not-so-inadvertently from the manufacturer, so, no, there is no difference at all. Even if the material really was posted on a Fujifilm website, a claim I haven't seen allusions to anywhere yet.
T3: There are a lot of elitists snobs who will turn their noses up at this camera, but Fuji is doing the right thing. Like it or not, pricing is very, very important. Sure, you can have high end models at higher price points, but you also have to have lower end models that will typically sell much better thanks to their lower price point. For every Canon 1DX that Canon sells, they probably sell a couple hundred Canon Rebels, if not more. These lower-end cameras end up being the bread-and-butter cameras in a brand's product line. So if you want a company like Fuji to stay in business and keep making premium bodies, you should really not put up a stink over them introducing a lower-end body that will probably sell very well thanks to its attractive looks and low pricing. Plus, it just makes you sound like a whiny elitist who is naive to the realities of business.
In principle, you're right, but to achieve what Canon does with their Rebels, Fuji would have to create a full-featured entry-level model to sell as cheap as a Rebel does, and, sorry, full-featured would have to include a viewfinder. If it doesn't, many people will simply continue buying the Rebels, not the Fujis.