How can you not include the most innovative enthusiast camera by far, the Panasonic Lumix GX7? It can't be due to "timing" since you've already reviewed it. Or is this a case of "we need to pick one from each of our advertisers"?
pdelux: Olympus on a roll. Love it or hate it, one must applaud the sheer audacity to put a sensor half the size of 35mm in a Pro body and compete against cameras twice the weight/size (some of them). They delivered the IQ, the body and the finally the promise of m4/3 is fulfilled. It took 5 years but they got there. Bravo.
Which camera are you referring to? m43 is 1/4 the size of FF.
I love this bag, my favorite. Highly recommended. Found perfect padded inserts for it too (it comes without). I'm not packing when I'm shooting though.
Chris Noble: How fast is that lens? f22 or so? Not impressed. Resolving power is a solved problem for most photographers.
I don't think so. A big spherical lens would be impractical.
How fast is that lens? f22 or so? Not impressed. Resolving power is a solved problem for most photographers.
Comment: Articles written in the 1st person singular should be signed.
bigdaddave: What self-indulgent nonsense. Why does this deserve to be here?
Big Dad Dave: Your post is self-indulgent nonsense. Why does it deserve to be here?
Japanese Panasonic makes lenses in China and stamps the German name Leica on them. All legal of course, "brands" have huge value in a world-wide economy, and the brand owners are very careful to do licensing deals that don't dilute their brand. I saw a Polaroid (bankrupt many years ago) camera in Barcelona last week; made in China of course. Swiss law stipulates that to put "Swiss Made" on a mechanical watch, at least 51% of the manufacturing "value" has to be in Switzerland -- the rest is usually in China, and since the Chinese workers get paid a small fraction of the Swiss ones, most of the watch assembly is done there before the last few wheels are added in Switzerland.
Paul Farace: I prefer SKIPPY creamy! With Welche's grape jelly on soft white bread and a glass of milk.
Whole wheat is better for you, and tastes better as well.
Hilarious! I love the "digital lens". And "Wetzlar Germany" on the viewfinder. The Chinese workers who make these must get a chuckle out of it.
The plural of deer is deer.
TimT999: I think I'm going to avoid these "hands-on" features from now on -- especially for these over-hyped consumer devices.
Every other paragraph seems to start out with a feature straight out of the company marketing materials and then says, "...but we didn't get to actually test it to see if it works properly."
A bunch of marketing specs are of absolutely no interest to a thoughtful reader. I want to know if the "feature" actually works as promised and how useful it would be in a real life situation. If you didn't test it, it's barely better than vaporware.
The same goes for the specs. The fact that the unit has 13 MP sounds great. Wow, it must be as good as a lot of point and shoots out now -- almost as good as a 14 MP DSLR. Oh wait, but what if the sensor is the same size as the old 8MP one -- some tiny chip that can't touch even a point and shoot. If that's the case then the added resolution is almost useless. Of course DP doesn't give us that fact. Just more corporate marketing.
I would not object if DPReview continued to review enthusiast digital cameras. As it is, the reviews have slowed to a trickle, many months after intro, to be replaced by breathless "hands-on" marketing blurbs (as pointed out by many other comments) about new cellphones.
Lars, snide and rude answers to a reader's very reasonable comments are not a virtue. You've had a testable production Lumix G5 for months and you have not found the time to review it, but you jump on the latest toy camera because it's in a cellphone?
This artist seems to have discovered something that everyone else already knows. Is he aware of an object called "the automobile"?
OldArrow: I hope people can cope with their automatic associations and think photographically. This creationist vs. evolutionist banter is just laughable.
Old Arrow, it is quite clear from your previous posts here that you are one of us who is unwilling to "cope with your automatic associations and think photographically". This is a photo contest with a very clearly-stated religious agenda, and for you to claim otherwise now drips with hypocrisy.
William Woodruff: Indeed, this is a photo site, not a religious one. That was true until the attacks began on the host. When a challenge topic is "sexy," should we protest that this is a photo site, not a cheesecake site? "Ferraris" -- nope, not an auto site. "City of La Habana?" Nope, not a travel site. Cockpits? No, not about aviation. Etc.
Further, while it is true that there are many religious assertions that are, or appear to be, incorrect. Does it necessarily follow that all aspects of all religions are invalidated? Shall we apply the same logic to the sciences? Oops. In the end, there is no real conflict between science and religion. Scientific study is man's attempt to answer the question, "How?" Religious study is man's attempt to answer the question, "Why?" Both are important questions that warrant serious consideration.
In the meantime, why don't we let the host present a topic for interpretation, without the bickering.
Now I'm out of here, you may have the last word.
Borno said: "order never comes from disorder, or random chance."That is true but not complete. Evolution through natural selection is a combination of three processes: (1) Inheritance of genetic code by the next generation. (2) Random chance (genetic mutations); (3) Survival of the fittest.
William Woodruff: Mr. Rea, respectfully I disagree. 2+2=8 is a standard arithmetic equation, and under most circumstances would be accepted as simply, and demonstrably incorrect. (Note: I suspect that there may be exceptions in the world of quantum physics, but we need not go there.) Other aspects of our existence are not so neatly reduced to formulae; to pretend otherwise often suggests lesser, rather than greater of thoughtfulness. You seem to be suggesting that there were no insulting posts (except, of course, mine). Please consider the following:
"Intelligent design is a concept that belongs in the trash can"
"The OP hijacked a photography contest"
"I wouldn't be sorry to see the back of you and your challenges"
"It does not require a superstitious and paranormal explanation, except for those who can't accept that we are a normal part of nature"
"clear to educated adults who have put away the childish theory of a god or multiiple gods up in the ether tinkering with the natural world"
To take but one example among a great many: supernatural interventionists hold up the human eye as an example of the work of a divine engineer. If so, he or she should be fired. The human (and many other mammalian) eye has a myriad of design flaws: a blind spot, optical sensors behind the nerves rather than in front of them, protein deficiencies that cause cataracts. These would have been quite easy to fix if the eye had been designed by a god. However, each of them is obvious (I don't use the term lightly) to someone who has studied the step-by-step and 100M-year evolution from photo-sensitive skin to an encapsulated and focused light-gathering organ.
I can certainly comment on the quotes you extracted from my previous posts on this subject.
"The OP hijacked a photography contest": The OP chose to construct a photography contest whose purpose was not to produce the best photo, but to try to prove a religious superstition. That certainly looks like hijacking to me. This is a photo website, not a religious one.
"clear to educated adults who have put away the childish theory of a god or multiple gods up in the ether tinkering with the natural world": I agree with you that this statement was rather rude. I should have been more diplomatic. However it is an honest opinion. This is a subject of some philosophical as well as scientific interest to me, and I am struck at the lack of knowledge of genetics, the DNA mutation process, statistics, geology, and/or anatomy among the die-hard proponents of divine intervention (a different question, I am sure you agree, than the one concerning the existence of one or more deities).
Chris Noble: I thought contest entries are supposed to be anonymous?
It is a nice picture! Makes one appreciate an aspect of "vegetables" that non-gardeners seldom see.