That map is impressive, but I have to correct the statement about Italy: our copyright law is from 1941, when money was not the one and only concern. It's not forbidden to include copyrighted buildings in commercial photos unless the building is THE subject. If it is a panorama or a background, no problem. And there is even more room if the image has an artistic intent.Of course I would have preferred the initial proposal, which was to harmonize towards the freedom. Some geniuses reverted it trying to harmonize in a restrictive way, you know, power to the powerful and money from everyone else (poors have little money but there are a lot of them).
FreedomLover: Well done review, beautiful sample pictures, thank you. Also many comments offer valuable insights from a broad range of experiences.
Unfortunately shuttershock is haunting this generation of mirrorless cameras, EM1 and A7r included. Manufacturers think they can save money by not offering a global shutter. I guess most don't mind, but it looks impossible to get clean images hand-held between 1/60s and 1/200s at 60mm and up.Look at the central flower:http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2732672/p9160794?inalbum=olympus-om-d-em-1-final-review-samples
@FreedomLover: as you see, I acknowledge the problem. Sorry for the strong wording, didn't think it could be misunderstood, perhaps my pidgin english should be addressed. Sometimes in this forum there is an apparently manic attitude towards pixel level analisys, and on the other side an uninformed denial. Indeed, I would not always connect pixel peeping with the search for quality (or let say it depends on what we mean with "quality")... But in the end I still agree that the linked image is showing some hints of the dreaded shutter shock issue, in the form of some vertical doubling which can be seen in different points.
There is indeed a feeble hint of double image here and there (visible over the the crisper horizontal borders). Where it's visible it always shows the same amplitude, it can't be caused by the wind. It is so feeble not to represent a problem at all in this image; for sure this stuff will be indagated deeply. Those not seeing/not feeling the problem are perhaps less prone to the pixel peeping illness. I would propose to separate the issues: extreme pixel peeping is bad and unuseful in the end, but the technical limit is there. Photo n.24 is another example: 1/60 plus stabilization at 14mm, what for. It's blurry, it's the typical example of the misteriously bad shots this system may give sometimes.
diforbes: Do the dpreview editors actually read these blog posts before publicizing on this site? Duong's writing is terrible. Choosing quality material is what an editor is supposed to do.
Actually, form is perhaps not the best (can't say with my pidgin english) but content of Duong's articles is often extremely interesting and original.
JDThomas: I can't believe how many misogynistic people are commenting are on this forum.
Here's a story about a young woman getting abused by a clearly psychopathic man who has spent more time in prison than out and you are blaming her? She may have made a bad decision and she probably needs some psychological help, but she doesn't deserve to be abused.
Who are you people to judge this woman? You don't know her story. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Ditto. With the difference that I can believe it, because the feeling to have the "right to abuse" is not limited to phsycopaths. I welcome this reportage because it gives visibility to a problem.In fact, look at the update on Time's page: "Readers who feel they–or people they know–need assistance can call the National Domestic Violence hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE"What do you think it means the fact that they added it...
arqomx: I read from DxO's website, it is said that their Optics Pro 8 now also support X100. Given that X100 also utilize X-Trans sensor, anyone here can comment about the performance?
sorry, the x100 does not use the x-trans. that's the new x100s, still to hit the market.
Alessandro63: exactly. It is a "treatment".
ok, now I get it. It's a story of (repeated) infringements between two companies, the images similarity has nothing to do with it. It's a different story.
apart from the treatment, do you think you can claim the intellectual property of an image of a red bus in that very place? Is it the white sky??? Sorry, I don't get any other real "similarity" if not that boring selective color treatment
exactly. It is a "treatment".
So, not only in Italy judges are wasting their precious time.Now, let's institute a prize for the worst taste copyright infringement...Sorry, I have to add: we have cameras that can do themselves this sort of boring effects. Photographer sued can sue Olympus and others, perhaps...