Hubertus Bigend: A camera with a 600mm (eq.) super telephoto lens but no viewfinder (and no connector to attach one of the existing external viewfinders) is like a gun without a sighting device. With none of them you'll manage to even aim at what you want to shoot.
Birds in the sky, or in trees, which are not that much easier to aim at, are one of my favourite subjects, so that's probably where my judgement comes from ;-)
A camera with a 600mm (eq.) super telephoto lens but no viewfinder (and no connector to attach one of the existing external viewfinders) is like a gun without a sighting device. With none of them you'll manage to even aim at what you want to shoot.
A waste of time and energy... As much as I like Olympus for stuff like the E-M1, this is just pointless marketing talk. Nothing of substantial interest whatsoever has been said...
Is the on-sensor phase detection AF capable of properly focusing A-Mount lenses, or do we still need the Adapter with SLT mirror?
cgarrard: No raw, bummer.
Right, too bad. Alongside DSLR and CSC, I still use an Olympus C-7000Z/C-70Z, a roughly travelzoom-sized compact with 7x zoom, optical viewfinder and RAW mode, introduced ten years ago, because I couldn't find anything worthy to replace it for a long time. Only lately Panasonic, on the other hand, started to offer some compacts I actually might consider to buy one of (like the FZ70, but more likely the ZS40/TS60 or the LF1).
babalu: "'No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by Photoshop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust on camera sensors and scratches on scanned negatives or scanned prints are acceptable ...
Minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction...'".->Cropping can also be used to remove unwanted details. If nothing is to be added or removed, cropping should not be allowed. It's like telling the truth, but not the entire truth . ;)
There's a difference between cropping to a smaller field of view (essentially the same as if they'd have used a longer focal length on the scene) and substantially altering part of the image to not only hide something that was there, but at the same time to show something that never was there.
ogl: EU keeps killing Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Latvia, Estonia.
@olyflyer and ogl: both of you are only halfway right. While the EU did and does help eastern-european countries to somewhat catch up with industrial modernization, the Euro currency's main purpose was to boost the old export-centered nations' economies, mainly Germany and France, by offering those poorer countries cheap credits without their economies being able to back them. Without the Euro, they could have devalued their national currencies to stay alive. Now, they're being economically crushed, and the big Euro rescue funds serve the only purpose of saving the central european banks that otherwise couldn't get their credits repaid.
"Communist" dictatorship was replaced by the absolute and inexorable reign of capital, of being forced to generate growth and profits or suffer poverty and hunger, even though resources, productivity and workforce exist today in an abundance that was never known before.
@RichRMA: You have no idea what East Germany was like. In East Germany, they built the world's first SLR with an electric mount for reporting lens data to the camera, and infrastructure was good enough to export cameras to the rest of the world for some decades. After the Berlin wall fell, it was the "Treuhandanstalt" (governmentally run privatization agency) that sold out the East German industry to West German companies and capitalists and demolished what they didn't sell, including manufacturers like the renowned ORWO chemical film company (while there still was a market for chemical film, that is to say), as well as the Pentacon camera manufacturer that built the Practica cameras.
It wasn't all roses in the GDR and the overall level of economic prosperity was relatively low, but until it was annected by the West, poverty and hunger didn't exist there. What capitalist country could claim something like that?
Come on, can't anyone report the aperture of the tele zoom? Or didn't they put the figures on the lens at all?
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.