lukx: It's good feeling that the camera we bought is so good they after 3 years Canon though that it doesn't need better hardware and only software adjustments !
There's no "hidden memory" and I seriously doubt the 7D was crippled (which I admit cannot be said for some other bodies)
CF Rev 5.0 and 6.0 have both appeared since the 7D was launched. It's most likely that the new FW takes advantage of these standards e.g. 32MB block transfer speeds vs. 128kB which is *huge*.
Read this release for Rev 5.1:http://compactflash.org/2010/compactflash-association-announces-new-cf5-1-specification/
Now where's the Nikon FW update for my D700... ;)
Is that like "flair" from Office Space?
Much like how o-rings and spaghetti seals are now "lips and bungs" - I will restrain myself from commenting further on this colorful and suggestive turn of phrase ;)
This looks like a great camera, especially for the price. My only disappointment is the small RAW buffer but that will only affect a tiny percentage of buyers (though with RAM being so cheap nowadays you can't help but wonder if buffer size is artifically "adjusted" to provide more model differentiation)
I also like the colors - they have an Imperial Stormtrooper version, how about olive drab, camo or day-glo orange? That would look way cool! :)
topstuff: All very lovely, but this is'nt really an F2.8 lens is it, compared to APSC or FF?
What would be the equivalent APSC lens? A 17-50 I guess? And if my understanding is correct, would this 4/3 lens have to be a F1.4 to have the same light gathering as a F2.8 in larger sensors?
As said somewhere below, I don't think it is a simple as simply doubling the focal length to get a "FF equivalent" and keeping the max aperture the same.
I am not sure if this really a f2.8 as we know it. I am sure the people at DPR can clarify !
A lovely thing though I am sure, especially with an OMD EM5.
Okay, so, the total light is 4x greater for a 24-70/2.8 lens in 135-format. But... wait for it... the sensor is 864mm^2 vs. 225mm^2, (26%), so the *luminous flux per unit area of the sensor* is only 4% different - in fact, it's (slightly) in favour of 4/3.
Consdier this: if I cut a 17.3 x 13mm section out of a 24x36mm negative (yes, film), the exposure is (obviously) still the same. The degradation in image quality is related to other factors (relatively coarser grain structure, tonality, etc.), not "total light gathered". The difference in sensor tech makes such a direct comparison between different format (or manufacturer or generation) digital cameras a dubious exercise.
The only *real* difference worth worrying about for actual shooting comes from DOF considerations, which cannot be wangled away.
An articulated screen designed for taking Facebook-style arm's-length self-portraits seems like the most pointlessly hipster-oriented "feature" I've seen on a camera since "art filters" (it ought to come with a "duck-face" AF detection mode). I would rather they made the camera simpler (and cheaper) with a fixed screen than do it this way, or do it properly and make it a reversible, side-hinged tilt-swivel screen like Panasonic and Canon (and some Olys and Nikons).
What I *really* want to see is the NEX-F5 come with a built-in EVF rather than a huge, expensive plug-in wart that costs more than half as much as the body (even if it's 800x600x3 SVGA rather than XGA). I don't care if the body is plastic or magnesium. The 16MP sensor is great and works better with wide-angle RF lenses than the 24MP. Price it like the A57 (why not - there's a lot less in a NEX than even a basic DSLR) and I'll be there!
How about the Kodak DSC Pro 14n from way back in 2003? 24x36mm, 4,500 x 3,000 pixels, and also available as a monochrome version?
I am sure the M-M will be a very nice camera and it's also a relief to see the price has not blasted off into the stratosphere like the new APO-Summicron. But I would really like to see one of the mainstream mfrs to bring out a dedicated monochrome DSLR. Like Canon, for example, who already have the 60Da... wouldn't it be nice to have a "60Dm" for under $2k?
Raist3d: I must say fuji came out with this in record time. Doing new hardware revisions is not easy. I am assuming new x10s are heading to retail as we speak?
Just occurred to me when I read your post - will the new X10s be easily distinguishable somehow from the originals, either by a suffix to the serial no. or some obvious indication on the packaging?
If Fuji provides a swapout-upgrade for existing X10 owners they deseve the absolute maximum props for dealing with this by actually *fixing* it insead of fobbing people off with firmware band-aids and unworkable work-arounds.
If they *don't*, well... this might just create a flaming-torch-and-pitchfork-wielding mob of justifiably infuriated X10 owners.
Which will they choose???
Once again, "no good deed goes unpunished"!
Rubenski: I sympathize with the 'other' brands and mostly they offer great value for what they ask but you'll never get the best results. If you can afford it buy the best, you'll feel much better with every shot!
In this particular case, this is "the best" - by definition, since neither Nikon nor Canon have seen fit to put VR/IS in their f/2.8 standard zooms. One can only hope it's optically up to snuff. Even if it only gets *really* good from f/4 on up (throughout the range), I would still seriously consider this lens as the VR ought to be good for at least 3 stops which would make it far more useful (for what I shoot) than a "perfect" 2.8 zoom with no IS. YMMV, of course...
designdef: This may be a great camera but... it is badly let down by it's 'retro-rangefinder' styling. What is it with the Japanese? Designers are being churned out of educational establishments by the million and all Fujifilm can come up with is more 'I wanna look like a Leica'. This has just go to stop, put your faith in new and talented designers, stop churning out this retro rubbish, create a product that is worthy of the technology inside! (please:)
You mean like Pentax did with the K-01? (cough-cough)
scott_mcleod: Slightly OT but is it safe to assume that since you're using the new 85/1.8G for the still-life shots, a full test of this lens is coming (soon)? The published MTFs are just unreal for a $500 lens...
Thanks for the detailed D4 info - I look forward to the full review even though I'm not in the market for one!
Awesome - thanks! IMO, DPR lens reviews present what you really need to know to make buying decisions - without getting any weird/unpleasant surprises - in a very usable way.
Slightly OT but is it safe to assume that since you're using the new 85/1.8G for the still-life shots, a full test of this lens is coming (soon)? The published MTFs are just unreal for a $500 lens...
With the new sensor, and if the lenses are as good as the previous versions (i.e. very, very good), the DP2 M could very well be on my shopping list for a carry-everwhere camera, provided the speed is at least comparable to an "average" compact (and the price is not outrageous). I hope the much greater amount of data to be processed off the 15.4MP chip hasn't made it worse... 45mm was always one of my favourite FLs!
kbphotography: Ahhh, why only 6 FPS! 8 frames to match the 7d would have been a much desired upgrade. This might be a decision killer for me.
For certain specific applications, more fps *is* better (even 1 or 2 more). I shoot fast-accelerating rockets and if I could afford a 1DX that would be even better than the 8fps of the 7D. With these things, a lot can happen in 1/6 of a second...www.pbase.com/smcleod965/rockets&page=all
scott_mcleod: $500 too expensive, 1fps too slow (at least you can shoot for 3 seconds)
I was *so* hyped that this could replace both my 7D and D700... so much for that idea... :(
I upgraded from a D300 to a 7D to get access to Canon's excellent medium-tele lenses, 26% more resolution and more fps without the added bulk and weight of a $500 grip.
If the original specs (6.9fps - almost the speed of the 7D) had been true, and if the image quality turned out to be at least equal to the D700 in low-light, the 5DIII *would* have been a good replacement for both cameras (the 200/2.8L would get me the same image magnification as the 135/2L on the 7D). What's so hard to understand about wanting to consolidate two cameras with different mounts into just one? Is it also hard to swallow that the price seems a *bit* OTT compared to the (slow) D800?
And why is it so difficult to believe I have gear from 2 manufacturers? Not everyone who isn't going into spasms of ecstasy over the 5DIII is a troll... sheesh...
It would be nice if every hotshoe-mounted accessory for Canon bodies (not just flashes) had a built-in AF-assist lamp instead of that awful strobe (or for bodies without a flash)
$500 too expensive, 1fps too slow (at least you can shoot for 3 seconds)
Percival Merriwether: Don't worry, Adobe will come out with the "Fuji Big White Blob Remover" tool in their next version of Photoshop.
Or an emoticon... or something equally useless
Marty4650: I suppose this will kill the popular and often expressed theory that Dpreview shills for camera makers.
It sure looks like they are trying very hard to be objective and to provide the most accurate information they can.
I'd like to think so too but conspiracy theorists are pretty hard-core - they'll just spin it to "Ah-HA! I *knew* that Canon/Nikon were trying to torpedo Fuji! Now we have PROOF!!!" and similar lines of utter BS :(