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.
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.
Fuji seems to do everything right, as of now. The whole X sytem makes the impression of a completely different (higher) level of perfection than the other mirrorless systems, better thought-out and much more consistent. Why do Olympus or Sony fail to design such lenses? They have nothing comparable, and what they have sometimes is still even more expensive.
On the other hand, the X system bodies do feel slightly plasticky in hand, and while the X system lenses look nice and solid, their internal mechanical parts are completely made of plastic (i've seen several cut-in-half lenses on display), so we don't know yet whether the stuff will be as durable as it looks.
I'm not in the least sure that I understood the principle correctly, but wouldn't such a device, no matter to what specific setting it was configured in a specific moment of time, always somehow act like a polarizing filter screwed onto the lens, procducing more or less unnatural images?
BJN: It's too bad that modern DSLRs are lousy for manual focusing, except in live view. The retro manual focusing lens needs a camera retrofitted with a 1970's style focusing screen.
@yabokkie: No, compared to decent SLR finders like the ones in Minolta SLRs made in the 1970s (XD7) and 1980s (X-700) it clearly isn't. Even with aids like "focus peaking", in many situations you still need to activate a zoom-in feature, too, to be able focus correctly, making manual focus a no-go for everything that needs quick reaction.
That said, I haven't yet tested the latest generation EVFs myself (Olympus VF-4, Panasonic GX7).
I wonder whether there will be a more advanced, but still compact ultra-zoom camera with a viewfinder one day. Until that day, I'll stick to my ancient Olympus C-70Z/C7000Z, for the occasions I want some focal length range (even though it's only 36-180) but don't want to carry the bulk of the mirrorless gear I'd need (let alone the DSLR gear).
Well, could be an alternative to all those mediocre 10x+ zooms out there, including Nikon's own, as long as it doesn't come out mediocre, too, image-quality-wise.
While the APS-C world will still be missing a better-than-mediocre 10x+ zoom, though. In contrast to Full Frame (which has the venerable Canon 28-300L, while Nikon's attempt is, again, only mediocre) and FT (not MFT), where there's the really good Panasonic/Leica 14-150. Which may actually become a real option again, if the rumored mirrorless Olympus high-end camera which is supposed to be announced in September will really fully support FT lenses.
Dimit: Nice little thing,it seems to have everything accumulated over the last couple of years.By the other hand Pana always seems not to have this little ''something''.Call it ''put this on and this and this..'' syndrome but never go ahead of their competitors.Just 3 thoughts: Any good reason for the existence of G series? GF,GX and GH seem to cover the whole spectrum.And..what on earth this tilting vf is useful for?Really,anyone?The whole 90 degrees angle of the tilt can be easilyhandled by the respective movement of the camera WITH the eye on the evf.Last and least: Better looking and similarly equipped with its direct(uglier) competitors EM5 and EP5,the latter being damn expensive,considering the luck of built- in evf.For the time being best choise seems to be nex7,since most of e mount lenses are OSS,disregarding the 5 axis feature(overated?).It will sell well.Besides Pana prices tend to drop faster than those of Olympus and Sony,no?
Tiltable finder: Imagine macro photography close to the ground, or any other case that would call for using the tilted monitor like a waist-level finder, and then imagine a situation that would make using an display suboptimal (like extremely bright light or just a need to better see what's going on), then the tiltable finder is a real gift.
I've heard some people prefer the NEX-5N with tiltable clip-on EVF over the NEX-6 and NEX-7 for the same reason.
In-body stabilizer: Beside the ability to stabilize non-stabilized system lenses, there's the ability to stabilize adapted legacy lenses, too, something the NEX cannot do.
The only advantage I still see for the NEX (and the Fuji, for that matter) is being able to deliver more shallow DOF with suitable lenses, and adapting legacy lenses usually makes more sense FOV-wise.
I stopped considering Flickr as a serious option to present my work years ago after it was acquired by Yahoo and users' pictures all of a sudden showed up in Yahoo ads without the users' consent. Many people left then. I stayed, but let my Pro account expire and practically stopped using Flickr.
Changes are always incentive to rethink one's options. But this change will probably make me delete my account completely.
I don't want ads around my pictures, and 50 dollars just to prevent them is too much. Especially if I have such little options to control how my images are presented and Flickr can force any new layout idea they want upon me. I don't like that.
On the other hand, if Flickr was more trustworthy and would give me more presentation options, I might even have considered a 2 TB account for an online archive of my stuff.
How come, for APS-C, at 70mm sharpness *decreases* from f/2.8 to f/4? From there to f/5.6 it increases again, as would be expected.
EOSHD: Imagine this in video Ex-Tele mode on the GH2/GH3. The extra crop factor would make it a telephoto over 9000mm!
@Poweruser: In principle your objection is valid, but for video, which is what the original comment was about, you really can crop quite heavily from a sensor's megapixel count until the resulting resolution drops below the actual video resolution, even for Full HD, which is still only 2 MP.
Mssimo: I wonder if the OMD IS will dial up to 2520.
Focal length of this lens is 1260 mm, not 2520.
When the day comes for my Four Thirds DSLR gear to become replaced, I'll be open to all offerings.
If mirrorless systems will evolve significantly until then, I might go mirrorless. As the state of mirrorless is now, I wouldn't, though, so another DSLR system would be the probable choice.
Back in 2005, I did choose Four Thirds for a reason: high-quality telephotography with portable gear of limited size and weight. And while Four Thirds failed to deliver on many promises, that was one it didn't and still doesn't.
For the same reason, while an APS-C DSLR would be an alternative, a full frame DSLR rather would not.
So if Canon doesn't want to sell me a decent (meaning: at least semi-pro) APS-C DSLR, then fine, it'll be Nikon, Sony or Pentax then. It's as easy as that.
Hubertus Bigend: If the Tamron is good, that would be one obstacle less for me if I should want to buy into Micro FT some day.
On the other hand, what I'm using now is the Panasonic "Leica" 14-150 FT lens, and neither of the two existing MFT superzooms seems to be a match for it. So the Tamron would have to be better than both...
@bimmerman: I haven't really tested that, but I'd think it would be still somewhat slower than the 20/1.7, even though it was officially cd-af compatible right from the start.
@Iskender: Right, the lens is about the same size and weight as the Olympus 12-60. The only other really good superzoom I know of is the big Canon 28-300 L for full frame.