babalu: The single, most important message this camera sends out, is that the era of the optical viewfinder is coming to an end. Adieu mirror. Welcome EVF, preferrably tiltable .
"On sensor phase detection AF has to become just as fast and accurate as the dedicated phase detection AF modules for both static and moving subjects and in all lighting conditions."
This problem has already been solved by Sony which has PDAF with an EVF on the SLT's.
"Isn't that the single, most important message the EM-5 sent out? The optical viewfinder is superior in most regards and isn't going anywhere."
Well I use a Sony A77 and I can tell you optical viewfinders are inferior to EVF's in most regards and the main reason why is we are talking aps-c (or for Oly 4/3) sized sensors and even the best OVF's on cameras with these sized sensors are like looking down a tunnel.
On full frame OVF's work and I doubt Canikon will be switching to EVF's anytime soon but for smaller sensor camera they simply knock spots off OVF's and that is before you consider the inherent advantages such as the fact you have a WYSIWYG representation of the photo you are about to take.
I'll never buy another OVF camera again.
kecajkerugo: yet another good (but bulky) DSLR from Canon.Taking ocasion I am trying to attract your attention to the Oly E-M1 latest machine and want you to see that the high ISO OF LATEST M4/3 SENSOR IS RIGHT ON PAIR WITH THE BEST DSLR LIKE THIS ONE.
"If the exposure value (ie the amount of light reaching the sensor) has to be twice as much as other cameras for a given ISO, then it's not really a performance but more likely that you should compare ISO 6400 from Oly to ISO 3200 of other manufacturers."
Why? The exposure value at a given ISO gives you an EV number. So for example at ISO 100, EV 13 which is a typical daylight scene, clouds but bright and no shadows should mean the camera sets an exposure of 1/125 and F8.
If that is what you get when you meter this scene with an Oly why would you NOT compare the output at this ISO with the ISO 100 output from any other camera assuming the other cameras also correctly metered the scene to mean1/125 at F8?
If the Oly set an exposure of 1/60 @ F8 @ ISO 100 for an EV 13 scene you many have a point but I bet it doesn't.
retro76: DXO is total BS, I wish someone would sue them into oblivion, all they have managed to do is turn a great hobby into a constant debate of image quality which has absolutely zero merit. I have shot with Nikon, Canon, Sony, and Olympus and can say without an ounce of doubt their tests are total garbage. I wish we could just move on, I miss the good old days when taking pictures was a gauge of image quality and not a bunch of questionable numbers..
I'd be interested to know why people think DXO tests are not BS. What are they based on? Their own made-up methodology? Has anyone put it under scientific scrutiny?
I never really followed the evolution of DXO as a web site and don't really know its origins. I always read this site when Phil Askey owned it and Imaging Resource. I often commented tests on both sites were not scientific in their rigour and I wonder if the same applies to DXO.
DPR, IR and DXO have been around for some time but just because they were fortunate to be the first in on the digital revolution doesn't mean they have the scientific rigour to be held in as high regard as they are. The fact camera companies have to pander to these sites and hope to get good reviews just shows the power of the Internet not that it contains accurate or well derived data.
I am not a Canon user and I am making a general point about all self proclaimed "expert" sites.
new boyz: EVF is the future. OVF, you can start dying now.
@Sdaniella "evf is fine for smaller sensors prevalent in video/tv cameras where dof is much deeper and thus closer to 'focus free' and far less demanding on any AF system, even CD-AF, particularly in good (tv broadcast, studio, arena, stadium, or day-) light
one could spend most of one's time panning and tracking, and less time with any AF faltering when contrast is quite high that is common to well lit scenarios already listed above
but once one ventures into low light, with much wider apertures, the dim lower contrast bogs down every video/tv system such that AF is monitored much more carefully to avoid the classic loss of focus or auto-hunting syndrome"
EVF's have nothing to do with how a camera focuses. The Sony's A series use PDAF for example. A camera's ability to focus is affected by its AF system not the fact is uses an EVF.
In low light EVF's are easier to focus manually as they gain-up and have focus peaking (also makes them easier to manual focus in good light also).
@By photo nuts "I HATE EVF. Have been using it for close to a year, so I know what I am talking about."
You mean you know what YOU prefer. Or because you have decided you think they are rubbish based in a sample of one you think that is the definitive opinion on EVF's?
What EVF based camera have you been using? There are poor EVF's and there are good EVF's just as there are poor and good OVF's.
DVT80111: Live view AF is still useless for still picture until Canon add a EVF.The screen is too small and my arm is not long enough.
By waitformee:"evf is even smaller then the screen?"
Not sure what you mean by that but an EVF on a Sony A77 gives a view as large as an OVF on a full frame d-slr and larger than the view you get from any aps-c OVF.
Looking down an OVF on and aps-c dslr after a well using a well implemented EVF such as on the A77 is like looking down a puny dark tunnel.
Some people don't like EVF's period and that is fair enough but one criticism that can't be levelled at EVF's like the A77's is small size.
I use EVF over LCD every time except when I want to use the LCD as a waist level finder or need to shoot at awkward angles.
I can't think why anyone with an EVF based camera like the A77 would use the LCD as their primary viewfinder even when doing video. On a 70D when shooting video you have no option but to use the LCD. How awkward is that!
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in the concept of a 1 inch sensor system. The quality delivered from sensors of this size is quite good.
I think Nikon's problem was the models they produced tended to fall between two stools.
For example making the V2 with its kind of mock pentaprism misses the point. I don't think there as a need to ape a different form factor and all that happens if you do is raise expectations that it's going to perform like a larger camera.
I think a fully featured rangefinder type of camera would have gone down better with enthusiasts in the same way I feel the Oly EP cameras do.
chj: All these comments about marginal differences in IQ which only pixel peepers care about. The feature set in the 70D opens up so much when it comes to TAKING PHOTOS. Fast accurate live view AND a fully articulated LCD with touchscreen focusing at 7 fps?! Do you realize how must faster and more flexible that makes shooting? You can just whip the camera around at any angle, it's not glued to your face anymore. No need to focus and recompose, just touch the screen. And you can do it in the rain. There is no other camera that offers this feature set. You'll be able to catch shots that you otherwise would have missed. Who cares about barely noticeable IQ differences if you missed the shot?
Whether Sony abandons the SLT technology or not is irrelevant to the point the existing A77 has had fast focus in live view for some time. It's also got a higher standard frame rate of 8fps and if you want it 12fps as well.
I would also say it's got many other features that mean while the new Canon is pretty innovative for Canon the A77 isn't eclipsed by it on features and remains competitive which is pretty impressive given the rate of change in technology these days.
If Sony does drop SLT technology I would imagine it will only be if it can provide an alternative at least as fast focusing-wise or that would be a step back but even if they do manage this, the current SLT cameras won't stop working overnight.
Panasonicus: For decades photographers have demanded and been given excellent viewfinders to see what the lens sees or close to with parallax devices. Then along comes the marketing teams to convince us that viewfinders are old school and everyone is better off with a LCD. The trick worked for awhile as we battled with sunlight washing out the screen or struggled with our eyesight issues that could not be corrected on camera. Then, suddenly, Panasonic began to reverse the trend and give us small DSLMs with built in viewfinders that cost no more than their sister products with a rear screen only. Now they are getting really serious by giving us a camera with a high end EVF included in the price of the camera. Give it a couple more years and the era of the rear LCD without an accompanying viewfinder will be over and we will all wonder how many of us were so easily conned. How many viewfinder-less Canon EOS-Ms have been sold?
People may get on fine with their LCD and more photos may be taken this way than with cameras with viewfinders but that doesn't mean they would not get on better with a camera with a viewfinder.
Just because you can use devices with just LCD's to take photos doesn't mean its ergonomically that good to do so.
I have just got back off my summer holidays and sure enough in the tourist spots I noticed many people waving their phones about taking photos. When it was sunny they were usually squinting and it clearly wasn't a particularly intuitive thing to be doing.
I think for many it is what you have never had you never miss but give them a small camera with a viewfinder like the GX7 and I will guarantee people will gravitate naturally to using the viewfinder when they see how much easier it is to use particularly in bright light.
The fact people use phones and cameras with just LCD's is in my opinion a case of there is little alternative not that it is an intuitive user interface.
As a Sony A77 owner I can tell you IBIS is a great addition to any camera. You can take shots in places like museums with wide angle lenses at amazingly slow shutter speeds.
I am also totally sold on high-res EVF's.
Years ago I was an Olympus OM4 shooter and I have always had a soft spot for Oly cameras as they tend to know what photographers want ergonomically but this Panasonic, which doesn't need an external EVF, seems to have the edge on the latest PEN's for that reason.
I positively hate framing photos via a rear LCD so a PEN would require me to buy the add-on EVF whereas this Panasonic has solved that issue and the pleasantly surprising addition of IBIS has also removed another objection to systems that rely only on in-lens stabilization. I would never buy a Nex for this reason and in m4/3 Oly was still my preference despite the external EVF because of IBIS.
I am quite surprised they added IBIS but I think that shows some real thought on Panasonics part.
LFLee: I guess most ppl here have no clue that there are many sudden-rich ppl in the east that have no idea about camera but as long as the camera is named Leica, or in this case Hasselblad, they will buy it without a blink. For them, is a show of status, not taking pictures.
Simply said, you are not their targeted customer. :P
I think plenty of people realise there are some very wealthy people who fling money about like confetti on blinged up versions of various products but there are also quite a few who aren't stupid enough to fall for this.
Being ostentatious is one thing. Buying a product that labels you as a fool easily parted from their money is another.
This is even worse than the Lunar. At least with that they could argue machining it from solid aluminium was expensive even if electronically and as far as imaging goes it got you nothing you could not get with the Nex 7.
This one is faced with the fact the RX100 is already a quality bit of kit with its aluminium body and you can see that they have done nothing to change that or any of the controls. It's an RX100 with a wooden grip!
The fact it doesn't look like its an RX100 II either just adds to the "why on earth bother" sentiments!
jfjal: The reason you are doing this is obvious: Your owner (Amazon) thinks there is more profit to be had in gear selling than in gear reviewing, mnabe even more by combining them.
This may be wrong - those are two quite different business propositions. It is common knowledge in business consulting that combining different business propositions often breeds failure.
I'd agree with that. It's not new that anything offering a supposedly impartial review service has its integrity questioned on a fairly regular basis. Amateur Photographer magazine in the UK has been accused in the past of not wanting to upset camera makers because it carries adds for their products.
It is VERY hard to avoid accusations of bias and even harder if you then start selling stuff you review. So if you combine the consultancy arm with a retail arm the former immediately falls under suspicion. Just the way it is.
Will that ultimately harm the business as a whole? Who knows.
michaelp42: Until this day I always thought that DPR was a UK based site...
It was when Phil Askey ran it but he sold it to Amazon.
Phil was very clever IMO in that the site always catered (as far as I can remember) for our US cousins by mentioning US launch dates and prices etc.
It never looked UK-centric to the extent I am certain some US readers thought it was a US site anyway.
louslens: I would question a little more closely any of your recommendations. If you expect us to believe that they will not be skewed in favor of products you are trying to sell, I have a bridge to sell. BAD DECISION on the part on the part of DPR
Option 3 was missing from Andy's no doubt sincere reply. No gear shop!
Why is it there at all? One reason only and that is to make money. As soon as you do that it is simply impossible to get round the suspicions and conspiracy theories already aired.
A big issue is DPR sometimes takes an age to review a camera or even never gets round too it. As such it won't be in the Gear Shop and is effectively damned by faint (well no) praise.
Gear Shop is not actually needed anyway from a users point of view given all the extended information is already on DPR. People use DPR and other sites to aid their buying decisions and unless they then go to the local camera store will 99% of the time buy from the cheapest reputable place on net.
If Gear Shop is competitive people will buy from it but its existence comes at a price.
gnewsch: What's the deal with the US shipping only? You'd think that an e-commerce giant like Amazon would have the know-how to help set up an international shop from the start. That would have been vastly more interesting than this test run in a market that is already saturated with a lot of good online shopping camera stores.
ABDurbs "Nothing to do with Amazon not wanting to or being able to ship internationally. It's about brand licensing in Foreign countries where Nikon, Canon, Sony etc have brand licenses in place."
You have that completely wrong. It's everything to do with Amazon and I suspect it's to prevent customers taking advantage of exchange rates to get a lower price than the local Amazon store. It is already possible to buy stuff shipped from the US and have VAT applied from other retailers.
B&H will even calculate the VAT and import duty up-front.
That said for the most part it often isn't worth it. I would be more expensive to import a Nex6r + lens from B&H than buy here in the UK for example but you can do it.
However sometimes products are only available in the USA and it would be nice to have the option to buy and vice-versa I presume. Amazon prevents this.
Doesn't it depend on who is writing the reviews? I read a customer review of the Sigma 70mm macro in Sony A-mount on amazon uk.
There is just one review for this lens in A-mount and it is by a Nex user who compared it to the E-mount 30mm F3.5 macro.
He got poorer results with the Sigma but the review was written in a pretty authoritative manner. On reading it I immediately could pick several flaws not least of which it could have been things like camera shake that spoiled his tests with the longer Sigma so for me this was an easily dismissed review given the reputation of the Sigma.
However there is at least one review site on the net written by a self proclaimed expert who I know for a fact has "reviewed" stuff he has never used. That is far harder to spot and more dangerous than user reviews at places like Amazon. People are IMO much more likely to give weight to a web site review than a simple product review. It's the old it is on the net so it must be true syndrome.
MichaelKJ: "This highlight capability is paid for in the shadows, where the RX1R clips to black rather sooner than some of its rivals."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the graph would appear to indicate that the only camera that doesn't clip to black as soon as the RX1R is the D600.
"There are more cameras on heaven and earth, my dear Horatio, than the three we've picked in the default comparison window ;)"
How bloody patronising is that, wink or not! Out of order Barney Britton.
The primes are all (bar the CZ 24) the wrong focal length to my mind.
Why persist with 50mm focal as a portrait lens? Back in the day of film there was plenty of debate if 85mm was a bit too short for a portrait lens never mind 75mm.
Sony had the luxury of starting from scratch with the E system so no need to press gang old 50mm standard lenses into service as a portrait lens. Yet they still seem to pander to outmoded focal lengths. The 50mm should be a 60mm, the 20 mm ought to be 17mm and so on.
Why not be more radical and offer a standard lens focal length related to the diagonal of the sensor? A true standard.
Look at Oly. 45mm portrait lens with f.o.v of 90mm on FF. That is how you do it!
And no I aint an Oly user but an A-mount user.