Greg Pavlov: I would really like to understand this: why the 5-6 articles about this "pocketable" camera "with a "large" sensor when during the same show Panasonic released a camera (DMC-GM5) that is smaller, has a larger sensor, includes a built-in viewfinder and accommodates multiple lenses? Compared to that, why is this Canon "One of the exciting new cameras here at Photokina?"
My suspicion is that it is simply because it is a Canon - DPR seem to give Canon a lot of latitude - remember their review of one of the S-series where they needed several samples to avoid poor quality lens and made the final rating based on a good lens?
sailorman: I am not as young as I was, so it is quite possible I am easily confused.However, for the life of me I am having difficulty with absorbing information the 'Equivalent comparison aperture chart'.
I recognize the horizontal scale is somewhat unusual in greatly compressing the longer focal lengths.
However, it seems to me that the line length for certain cameras (eg Canon & Nikon) extend beyond the '200' mark on the chart (whereas the lenses max out at only 135 / 200 respectively)??
Richard,Thanks for being so polite - but I still feel a more than a little stupid.
However, on the basis that there is no such thing as a 'silly question' - compact cameras (and apparently those using 1" sensors) quote focal lengths as '35mm equiv', whereas DSLR lenses do not.Is there a simple rule of thumb to use in determining whether a quoted focal length of a camera/lens is 'absolute' or '35mm equivalent' - or does one need to read the fine print?
I am not as young as I was, so it is quite possible I am easily confused.However, for the life of me I am having difficulty with absorbing information the 'Equivalent comparison aperture chart'.
ChrisKramer1: Absolute nonsense for the simple reason that the version DPReview will eventually test will not be representative of the quality of the camera on sale to the public.
I was going to buy an S100 but now I am going to buy a new a bed instead. And I bet it will take better pictures too.
Sorry Barney - IMHO your 'precisely' response is ... simplistic?
You have stated elsewhere that the studio testing identifies issues likely not apparent to the majority of 'real world' users.Assming that is true ( I have no reason to believe it is not) how can the majority of people not having this problem indicate your three 'defective' samples are unrepresentative.
I am intrigued by this situation - I believe you have tried to do the right thing in posting the updated review. Unfortunately I see no simple solution re way forward IF dpr continue to get the 4th S100 from Canon.
If the 4th camera shows better results, what confidence can anyone have (in the unique circumstances / publicity around this issue) Canon have given dpreview a standard camera?
If you continue to emphasise the extreme nature of your tests do not reflect real world usage for the majority of users, does this not tend to reduce the importance of your tests to the majority of users?
Randy Benter: I bought an S100 and returned it because the lens was VERY soft. Maybe I should buy 10, keep the best one and return the rest. Even if I did buy 10, I probably would not get one as good as the one that will eventually be provided to DPR.
Where did DPR get the 3 samples tested so far? Where are you going to get the one that finally makes it in the review? I recommend that DPR go to the local camera store, buy another S100, and if the lens stinks, then report the truth. If DPR allows Canon to provide a special S100 that is better than we consumers can buy, then the review is worthless.
Thanks for the 'impressions' review.
I think Randy has raised a very important point - there is something wrong with the process if Canon provide you with a 'special' unit that customers are unlikely to get.
IMHO your response may not properly address the issue - the real issue is whether the camera used in the final review is one the public can buy.
If you do not buy the camera independently (if necessary using a filtering mechanism to rule out early production - which criteria you publish) then what does the review demonstrate? IMHO your test would merely indicates the potential, not the real world. If your studio test is more rigorous than 99% of the 'real world' needs, this should be pointed out in the review of a 'normal' camera, not masked by using a 'one-off' camera.