SteveY80: I'm surprised they haven't included stabilisation, like they did with the 42.5mm 1.7.
I'm not saying that OIS is essential on a fast standard prime, but it would have done more to set it apart from the 20mm 1.7 or Olympus 25mm. It might have made it a little bigger, but anyone who cares that much about a few extra mm/grams would probably go for the pancake lens option anyway.
"People keep saying that Panasonic is using IBIS henceforth but I've seen no evidence of it!"
My GX8 has IBIS. That's rather compelling evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Could be a new standard . . . Arca Turkish.
holyfan: Full-Frame sensor with 34 f/1.4 lens with fast silent focus, on-sensor steady shot. 36 megapixel.
Also, 1080 60p and 4K video.
lacikuss: A fantasric litlle camera with a good selection of high quality Canon affordable lenses.
Thanks Sparky, what a swell comment!
This just in . . . both the Smithsonian and The History Channel just ordered one.
Well hey, at least the Canon loyalists have a little encouragement, something to look foreword to, and may even be able to reduce their depression medication dosages.
mpgxsvcd: The GX8 is a nice camera. I just find it hard to overlook the fixed lens offerings from Sony at the moment when the price of cameras like the GX8 is so high.
I can buy a GH4 for the price that Amazon lists the GX8 at right now. That decision is a no brainer.
"I can buy a GH4 for the price that Amazon lists the GX8 at right now. That decision is a no brainer."
I agree, I can buy a Polaroid 600 at the Goodwill Store a lot cheaper than the GX8. Now that's a real no brainer!
But anyway folks, I pre-ordered the GX8 from B&H yesterday evening which was in stock and will ship today. Most of the YouTube reviews on the GX8 show it to be outstanding.
Putting it back together is not as easy as disassembly due to the fact that it is almost impossible to re-align the six hydrocoptic marzul vanes with the malleable logarithmic casing which would result in exposure duractance.
Valiant Thor: This family of dysfunctional sociopaths, originally Nazis from Germany, changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor and are no more "royal" than any of us. The public and paparazzi should stop giving them any attention.
@BadScience "But, what exactly has this got to do with anything with people living now?"
Everything. The current Royal Family presents themselves as the House of Windsor (a pure English Family) when in fact they are not, which is why they changed their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gothe. Most people like to know when they are being deceived.
"Valiant, I am English and you are entitled to you opinions but the Royal Family are not Nazis and your comment is one of libel, ignorance and an idiot not a Scientist, by all accounts superb at your job!"
Comments like this show the lack of clarity and mental confusion of some posters. I did not say that the Royal Family were Nazis, it was the original Saxe-Coburg-Lineage as historically documented genealogically.
Why are so many offended as if this were my personal opinion? The Saxe-Coburg-Gothe Royal Family Nazi ties are all genealogically and historically documented:
This family of dysfunctional sociopaths, originally Nazis from Germany, changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor and are no more "royal" than any of us. The public and paparazzi should stop giving them any attention.
Valiant Thor: The HDR (cartoonish) hater photography purists are simply exhibiting their ignorance. They assume that just because they can't see certain colors and elements of the light spectrum with their eyes, they don't exist.
If you were to visualize the entire known light spectrum as stretching from coast to coast, that which we see with our eyes would be about the width of a dime. In terms of seeing what is really out there, humans are almost blind. Maybe HDR can be thought of as a step in the direction of seeing more of the wonders of creation that exist beyond the limits of human perception.
I applaud Trey and his excellent techniques which attempt to show our world in a new and different "light".
Your user name says it all. It's obvious that you don't understand that electronic camera sensors and filtering techniques can "see" more than you can with your eyes.
My job is a scientist in electro-magnetic bioresonance and I develop frequency and resonance technology for NASA AMES and others and I can say without equivocation that you have no idea what you are talking about.
re: BadScience: Yes, I'm sure. I'm merely saying that HDR can be used to enhance what is at the ends of and slightly beyond our normal ocular capability.
Also, your first comment indicates that you totally missed the point of my original post. Your tirade regarding radio telescopes and distant galaxies was not related to the scope of the discussion.
Dazzer8888: You might as well just show us some stills from a Pixar movie, that's about as much as this technical exercise has to do with reality.
Although to criticise these as "bad examples of HDR" is over-simplifying the technique involved. I think the multiple exposures taken were really just a small part of the process........obviously hours were spent photoshopping every pixel of these images, and the multiple exposures simply gave the photog the "best" exposure to choose from for photoshopping each area of the image.
Neither, just go to his website and he shows you how he does it.
"He has not exended the visual spectrum of humans - thats impossible"
Oh really sparky? If that's what you think then you are the clueless one. Still and video cameras can clearly see beyond what you can see. Just look through an electronic viewfinder at the end of a TV remote control IR emitter with the button pressed. The camera can see it lit but your eyes cannot.
Also, the possible spectrum can be extended even more with the proper coating on a filter. Intelligence agencies have known for years that by coating a filter with Dicyanin A, it will allow you to photograph the complete bio-electric field around any living organism (and NO, I'm not talking about the fake aura cameras used at new age fairs). Don't try to purchase any Dicyanin A however as you need an above top secret clearance to get it.
Not so Sparky, he uses simple presets in Photomatix Pro and Lightroom and all is accomplished in a matter of minutes.
aekn: Why not just use a paint brush or crayons? Not a fan.
Because then it would be crayon or paintbrush art, not HDR photography. Make sense?
The HDR (cartoonish) hater photography purists are simply exhibiting their ignorance. They assume that just because they can't see certain colors and elements of the light spectrum with their eyes, they don't exist.