Which photograph would you rather own as a work of art: (a) Gursky's Rhein II, or (b) Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl? My choice is (b).
rowlandw: Full moons have the least contrast and interest because the overhead sun washes out most detail. Much more interesting are half-moons where shadows reveal the lunar topography.
"The best point made in this article is to include something in the composition that shows relative size." True, but you may also need to make sure the sun has not yet set before the moon rises. This is a critical point that's never mentioned in such discussions. If you adjust your shot to get the bright moon properly exposed, the foreground will be underexposed; if instead you adjust your shot to get the foreground properly exposed, the moon will be grossly overexposed ( the contrast is so great it exceeds the dynamic range of your camera). On the other hand, If the sun is still up as the moon rises into view, the fading sunlight on objects in the foreground may be bright enough that they, the sky, and the rising moon can all be properly exposed at the same time. Tonight is one of those nights when the sun sets after the moon rises and so it is ideal for shooting pictures of the "supermoon." Tomorrow night will be too late, since the moon will rise long after the sun has set.
The body is a close copy of the Panasonic FZ200.
Handheld, manual focus through wire cage
brkl: It's been mentioned, but I'll mention it again in case they're listening. Proper DNG support is a must. I would have bought the thing when 7 came out if it read my DNGs.
What Axel wrote at 22:11:28 may be somewhat misleading for people who are unfamiliar with Optics Pro. Optics Pro supports the native raw files generated by certain brands of cameras, e.g., NEF raw from Nikon, but it does NOT support Adobe style DNG files that are created by other raw converter programs like Adobe's ACR or DNG Converter. In fact, if you process a camera raw file within Optics Pro and create a DNG file as output, Optics Pro cannot read the file it just created if you wish to process it further.
I purchased Optics Pro about a month ago and have installed version 7, which I run on a first gen Mac Pro under OS 10.6.8. The installation was flawless, the UI is actually pretty logical, certainly no worse than Lightroom which I use constantly, and the processing speed on my machine is quite good, almost frisky. As it happens, v7 has modules for all of my cameras and lenses, including the Panasonic G3 that was just delivered to my door 10 minutes ago!
wb2trf: I think this is a pretty fair overview, generally speaking. I take issue however with the degree of disadvantage with shooting young children. I think if someone were reading this and interested in buying a camera to photograph young children they might lean toward a dslr, which I think would be a mistake.
I don't think the AF issues are as bad as you characterize for this subject. Even in poor light I usually have no problem with the Nex and kit zoom. The "child in swing, shot from front" is the extreme. I don't deny that there is some adaptation of photographer to equipment that occurs, but I find that the AF speed issue is not a large one for this class of subject.
You rightly note that dslr's can be intimidating to subjects. For children the strong issue is that you need to stay engaged. Viewfinders are inimical to engagement. Live View on dslrs is dog slow. The mirrorless lets you stay with the child keeping the camera away from your face. This is the biggest issue by far.
I appreciate your comment about the AF issue when taking pictures of moving objects, since I was wondering how serious the problem is in practice. I'm truly puzzled why there should be any problem at all since the online camera reviews I've read claim that the AF SPEEDs of most mirrorless cameras are almost identical to those of the DSLRs, at least in normal light if not in low light conditions. For example, reviews of the NEX and G series cameras claim those cameras autofocus as fast as the Nikon D7000. But such results are based on controlled studio tests, not on actual photography of moving subjects like children or race cars or basketball games. So it's good to hear from actual users how their mirrorless cameras perform in different situations beyond the confines of studio optical tests. Thanks for posting your impressions. I hope others do the same. It's very useful to the rest of us.
A Bull: Can't anybody else do maths?The sensor in this camera & the X10 is: 2/3" That Equals= 16.933mmSo easily bigger then the Nikon V System Plus most offer Bridge & compact cameras.Stop be so stupid as to think that you could make a lenses like this to go on a full frame or APS-C size sensor.It would be big & heavy plus very expensive.So This camera fills the cheap super zoom market sector with the X-10 as a high level compact.Fuji have done there homework very well.Also keep in mind that Fuji have already said they well do an interchangeable lens X version next year.As they do not have a lens mount made for anything other than medium format now.I could see them using the Leica M mount, as it is not licensed.This would mean a full frame interchangeable lens rangefinder. Cheap M9 anyone?Or make a APS-C mount, So a cheaper option.Again they have done there homework.
The sensor in the XS-1 is not 16.9mm along its diagonal. Its sensor has dimensions of 8.8 mm x 6.6 mm, which corresponds to a diagonal of 11mm. The designations given to camera sensors do not specify the diagonal dimensions of the sensors but are only historical holdovers from the days of TV tubes: see
It is only a coincidence that the diagonal dimension of a sensor is typically 2/3rds the size specified by the sensor's designation. This is true in the case of the XS-1 sensor, which has a 11mm diagonal.
Baba Ganoush: For those of you who think the sample pictures posted by Fuji are fine, I suggest you download the full-sized pictures and look at them with some care, for example, the picture of the lion. If you look carefully at that photo, you'll find that the whiskers and teeth of the beast aren't even in focus. Ditto with the picture of the bridge: at full size, you'll see that the focus is fairly soft. When I compare those early pictures released by Fuji with pictures I can take with my Panasonic FZ28, the Fuji comes in a poor second best.
What I'd like to have is a 2/3 sensor in a compact fixed-lens body like that of the Panasonic ZS5/6/7/10 series, which has a small P&S 1/2.3 sensor and 10X zoom. The ZS cameras are great travel cameras.
How far away from the XS-1 camera do you think the lion was? I estimate 80 feet, maybe 100 feet tops. At that distance and at a focal length of 480mm (35mm camera equivalent) for my FZ28, a tack sharp picture would have been a slam-dunk.
For those of you who think the sample pictures posted by Fuji are fine, I suggest you download the full-sized pictures and look at them with some care, for example, the picture of the lion. If you look carefully at that photo, you'll find that the whiskers and teeth of the beast aren't even in focus. Ditto with the picture of the bridge: at full size, you'll see that the focus is fairly soft. When I compare those early pictures released by Fuji with pictures I can take with my Panasonic FZ28, the Fuji comes in a poor second best.
Snapshot7: It looks okay except...
- No IBIS (like the E-P3 has)- No Tiltable LCD (like the NEX-5N & 7 have)- No Built-In EVF (like the NEX-7 has)
What I'm hoping for is an E-P4 with an improved sensor over the E-P3, Tiltable LCD, and built-in EVF. Or even better, a Sony NEX-6N with all the features of the NEX-7 and the sensor of the NEX-5N.
Nikon has offered a strong argument that it's better to have the IS/VR built into the lens instead of the body. Go figure. The G3 comes with a built-in EVF and an even more flexible LCD screen at a price that undercuts its GX-1 as well as both the Sony NEX cameras. If you want to wait for a NEX-6N, then you might be able to put in a pre-order for it sometime around Thanksgiving Day 2012 once Sony is able to recover from the floods in Thailand and get its factories up and running again!
M Aryan: Am I right? Is this camera competing against Sony NEX-5N with about same size and megapixel senor BUT has:1. APS-C size sensor (micro 4/3 for GX1)2. ISO range of 100-25600 (160-12800 for GX1) with really low noise and very good detail on ISO 1600 and above3. Tilt touch LCD (Fix On GX1)4. 920,000 Pix True black or whatever (460,000 on GX1)5. 1080 60p (1080 60i on GX1)6. Build in EyeFi Compatibility (No on GX1)7. 12 m build in flash range (7.6 m on GX1)8. 10 fps full resolution continuous shooting (4.2 fps on GX1)9. Optional OLED EVF with 2.4 megapixel (1.4 Megapixel LCD on GX1)and in defense:1. Hot shoe external flash (some sort of accessory flash on NEX-5N)2. 60 sec Maximum shutter speed (30 on NEX-5N)3. And damn cool and useful pancake(compact) 14-42 mm X series (No on E mount Sony “it is so blamable”)with “SAME PRICE”?In my opinion: with huge disadvantages and few not so important advantages (except one) again at same price, “not acceptable!”
Actually, there are only slight difference between the size or weight of the Sony vs Panasonic lenses, at least for their zooms. The physical dimensions and weight of the Sony 18-200mm lens are virtually identical to those of either the Panasonic 14-140mm or the 100-300mm. The main difference between the two cameras, for me at least, is that the 5N has fewer button (hardware) controls, which is why I would only buy the NEX-7 if I were to buy a NEX instead of a G3 or GX-1. Coming from a DSLR, I prefer to have hardware (or dual hardware + software) controls for the most common shooting settings like aperture, shutter speed, EC, ISO, metering mode, and focusing method.
JPEG and RAW images are available for download on the web from earlier reviews of the Panasonic G3, which shares the same sensor as the GX-1, and also for the NEX-5N. Looking at a few RAW pictures for both cameras in LR3, I'd have to say there's very little to choose from in terms of noise of either camera at high ISO, 1600 and above. A priori, I was expecting the larger APS-C sensor of the NEXie to have a slight advantage in noise and "resolution" but the truth is I saw little if any difference in IQ between the two cameras. They are both good performers. Given the same lens, I'm assuming the GX-1 will perform about the same as the G3, of course.
Lenses from both Leica and Olympus can also be used on the GX-1.
Because of its smaller sensor size, the GX-1 has a larger crop factor than the Sony NEX and so a lens of a given focal length, f, has a longer reach on the GX-1. At its extreme, the Panasonic 100-300mm telephoto zoom is the 35mm equivalent of a f=600mm lens. In addition, if the GX-1 offers the Extra Tele Converter (ETC) mode that's available on the previously released G3 camera, the reach can be extended even farther to f=1200m, at the cost of a smaller image size. You can't do that with the NEX.
If the optional EVF is used, won't that affect the capture of sound in video mode? It appears to me that the EVF covers up the stereo microphone, which is located directly in front of the hotshoe.
"Images captured with this new sensor exhibit striking colors, vivid hues and rich detail so lifelike, it's the next best thing to being there as memories unfold."
And no mention of noise levels with that sensor? Pardon me, aren't you forgetting something? An "original concept," a "breakthrough platform"? Hyperbole much? Is there anything revolutionary about this camera? The mid-size sensor? Oh please, this is pure advertising puffery. Give me my NEX-7! I need it (and my future D800) to replace my D7000.