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.
Compared to 1/2.33", better sensors are inclined to produce visibly better images under almost all imaginable circumstances, completely regardless of whether someone knows what they're doing or not. Trying to sell beginners an extreme and hardly handleable zoom range plus bad image quality instead of a sensible zoom range with at least acceptable image quality is nothing but bogus. Why should beginners have to start with a crappy camera just to find out later what they could have known (or could have been told) right from the start?
But do beginners really need bad cameras? Most beginners would profit from a camera design that would have traded some of the extreme zoom range for better overall image quality, too, even if they might not know enough yet to care.
With all the effort they put into making such a camera (which I find nicely designed, by the way), I wish they'd strive more to find a more useful balance between versatility (i.e. zoom range) and compactness on one hand and image quality and low-light capability on the other, until by some miracle someone invents a 1/2.33" sensor with acceptable image quality some day. With a slightly larger sensor and a slightly smaller zoom range I might even become interested in a camera like that XG-1. As things are, I'd rather use this older camera that was named XG-1, too: http://www.rokkorfiles.com/photos/XG-1-image.jpg (via http://www.rokkorfiles.com/XG%20Series.htm).
Modular or not, I really cannot see how a camera that can only be used with EITHER a viewfinder OR a decent flash "would appeal to enthusiasts". I will never understand why every manufacturer in the world seems to feel obliged to copy that incredibly stupid idea from whoever it was who originally devised it (Ricoh?).
Hubertus Bigend: I wonder how a smallish EVF with 462 x 346 effective RGB pixels can be "respectable" for a camera that offers 24 MP, let alone so many years after the first mirrorless camera has appeared on the market. Even the best EVF available today still lacks the clear image of a good optical SLR finder that allows precise manual focus without the nuisance of having to switch into a zoom-in mode. But an EVF like the current Olympus finder and probably the Fuji X-T1 finder, too, is at least a step in the right direction. New electronic finders should improve on that, not deteriorate.
@Scott: I see the point, and the A6000 probably is a capable camera if you don't mind using zoom-in with manual focus. The problem, though, is, that having to zoom in makes it near-impossible to use legacy lenses for snaphots.
@quezra: I've actually used the NEX-7 and NEX-6 EVFs and found them too low-res for my demand. I'm quite sure I don't need to actually use an A6000 to find out that less pixels lead to even lower resolution.
@Zeisschen: Using old manual focus lenses of all kinds is one of the most important application for mirrorless cameras. The worse an EVF is, the less a camera is fun for that purpose, because the more often you need zoom-in to get the focus right. With a good finder, you shouldn't need zoom-in.
I wonder how a smallish EVF with 462 x 346 effective RGB pixels can be "respectable" for a camera that offers 24 MP, let alone so many years after the first mirrorless camera has appeared on the market. Even the best EVF available today still lacks the clear image of a good optical SLR finder that allows precise manual focus without the nuisance of having to switch into a zoom-in mode. But an EVF like the current Olympus finder and probably the Fuji X-T1 finder, too, is at least a step in the right direction. New electronic finders should improve on that, not deteriorate.
I had some hopes this camera could become the successor of my ten years old Olympus C-70Z, with the additional benefit of a longer zoom range, but now I see it cannot, because even scaled down to the Olympus' 7 MP the Panasonic images are much worse. Having looked around some more, I'm not even sure the DMC-LF1 can be that successor, as its lens shows some image quality issues, too. I'll be checking that again, though...
Joking aside, all of it of course only works as long as those images will be published with EXIF data intact..
Nice, and probably well worth that small an amount of money, but without TTL I'll probably not become interested myself.
cseiler: Reading this is like hearing that a very nice meal I just had was full of glutamate!- I guess sometimes its better not to know the recipe.
Reading the comments in favor of the substantial amount of PP that was applied here, people seem to forget that back in the days of film we used to have a thing called slide film which was used by many a landscape photographer for good reasons, and with slides there was no such thing as PP. More than that, if capturing a natural view of a scene is the goal, you cannot use a polarizer, either - it's as simple as that. Then again, I do like Erez' picture very much, even though I tend to find it slightly overprocessed for my tastes.
Great images, great effort! But, just curious, given how much intelligence and work they invested to recreate those images in the best possible quality, what made them stop before eliminating the heavy banding that is still there to see?
samfan: I stopped bothering with front caps a long time ago.
Either the camera/lens is in the bag and doesn't need a cap, unless you keep your keys and knifes in the same bag.
Or it's in your hand and you're shooting.
OK, there's a 3rd option when the camera is hanging on your shoulder and you may bang it into things, but in that case you don't deserve a camera.
Before I stopped using those caps, I did wonder why no 1st party manufacturer doesn't simply provide some strings to attach the cap to the lens. I guess they really hope that people will not only use them, but buy their $40 original ones instead of $1 copies.
"unless you keep your keys and knifes in the same bag" – well, i thought I didn't. But there was that one occasion when I didn't bother to put the cap on the lens before putting it away into the bag, and I scratched the front glass of my most expensive lens quite badly, because a minute earlier I must have unintentionally dropped my keys into the bag. Bummer...
I've no intention to use anything like that hack thingy, though.
Peiasdf: I really don't see the point of these lenses. If you don't care much about IQ, just get a superzoom compact. If you want some IQ and are willing to pay for it, Sony RX10 is much better buy.... way smaller with way faster lens. I think this is for people that wants a DSLR but don't care to learn how to use a DSLR.
Good superzooms do exist, like the Panasonic/"Leica" 14-150/3.5-5.6 with Four Thirds mount, or the (albeit huge) Canon 28-300/3.5-5.6 L for FF bodies, even if these two may be the only ones. The problem is, other superzoom lenses are made to be cheap, not good, even though they could have been. And why should I buy and carry a superzoom compact, when I already have my DSLR?