Greynerd: I would like a sensor half way between 1/1.7" and 1". This would create a pretty high performance zoom compact without creating the gigantic beasts that have appeared with equivalent focal length 200mm+. They have tripled the area of the sensor when doubling it would probably suffice for compact purposes.
2/3" might meet your requirements. Examples: Fujifilm X-10/20/30/F1/Q1/S1.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format
dynaxx: The Lumix LX100 is a very interesting design for serious photographers looking for a more portable camera ; people that care about IQ and don't give a fig for touchscreens. Best to compare it downwards ( to DSLR's ) rather than upwards ( to P&S's ) and the focal length range becomes its achilles heel. Not using the full sensor area matters not a jot. I think the Leica equivalent model ( D-Lux type 109 ) deserves a mention as the price differential, for once, is not absurd.
Sony deserve some credit here too ; without their pioneering camera designs Pansonic/Leica would not have pushed to create such a good camera.
I must agree with the post below that criticised the writing style. I am sure I have seen Damien's work before ; the graffiti on the walls outside Victoria station, possibly ?
Well stated...fully agree. A very captivating article for its topic & content, but I kept tripping over the prose.
cjep1: Fuji should be afraid as well.
It's really a bummer that LX100 hasn't touch'n'tilt LCD screen. That would make it a no brainer to me.
@Doug...well stated. I could never understand the point of having a high-end compact w/o a built-in flash.
misha marinsky4: I see we have many visits from Debbie Downer and her family.
Indeed ! funny link too.
This release makes me believe Tamron might have been the contract developer for the original Oly 14-150mm u4/3 lens, and the exclusivity clause expired, or the market for u4/3 10X zooms is on fire, so Tamron is simply capitalizing on it. Methinks the former is more plausible. Unless this iteration has amazing IQ somehow, what's the attraction here?
Beautiful, clever images, even though a few seem a bit over-saturated. #3 & #7 definitely trick the eye at first glance. That said, it makes #8 one of my favorites of this group. Congrats to the winners.
Scottelly: They took away the GPS?!? WTF?!?
Though I am glad they have made a new, updated version of the A77, I can't understand Sony. I won't buy it without GPS. I will get the old one instead . . . or I'll get a Nikon D5300. I don't really need the speed shooting capability, and until I see that Sony is committed to this line of cameras by making three or four new, kick-ass lenses for them, I will stay away from their newest cameras. The mirrorless cameras don't have two of the features I have come to expect from Sony - in-camera image stabilization and GPS, and now Sony drops GPS from their newest A77! I think they dropped the ball too.
I was thinking Sony should make one of these without an anti-aliasing filter. Hopefully they will make an A79 with that and GPS . . . and a bigger buffer . . . and two memory card slots (fast ones - maybe UHS2).
I wonder how fast the memory card slot in this camera is.
Totally agree...no GPS, no sale. GPS 'was' one of the defining features of this line of cameras.
I might jump for 16-160mm for the same price, but with slightly better IQ, but this lens portends to be quite the compromise. Who knows, maybe it will surprise us.
J Parker: This might be the best interview of this type I've ever read. The fact that Fujifilm draws on the expertise of an engineer who helped develop its Provia and Velvia films is an advantage that very few camera companies can claim (thank you Barnaby for asking that question!).
I use primarily Sony Nex and Panasonic mirrorless cameras -- but for my most important portrait work, the Fujifilms still have no peer. The Fujifilm portraits are the only ones where my clients continuously ask what camera was used to take them. They're the only cameras I have where I've never needed to shoot RAW (or post process at all) to get outstanding images, saving me tons of time to shoot more pictures instead of sitting behind a computer. I ended up giving away two Nikon DSLRs -- the Fujifilm's color rendition is just that good.
Thanks DPReview for the insightful interview.
Agree. Remarkably candid compared to many other manufacturer interviews, which come-off as overly cautious and defensive.
samfan: Well if they can pull off a 16mm , why wouldn't they rather make a decent 16-100 or something?
All these superzooms are rather tiring. 'Either get a crappy megazoom or deal with prime lenses' seems to be a message of the day. What happened to good zooms with moderate range and moderate speed? Not pushing the envelope much lately.
Agree. While we have 16-80, 16-85, 16-105, and 15-85(?) already, they are not 'super' zooms. Superzooms are 10X and up. So 16-160mm, would make a better compromise s-zoom than 16-300mm!
Franz Weber: I wish they would also develop such a lens equivalent for micro four thirds: 12-225mm would be nice
Or even 12-120mm would be fantastic. There enough 14- XXmm zooms in the Micro 4/3 space now. Fortunately, some 12-XXmm have started to come on the market recently.
This focal range has to give in to some optical compromises. Handy? Yes. Low distortion & 'sharp' ? We'll see. I would have preferred a 16-180mm (or 15-140mm?) with potentially smaller size & higher IQ for the same price. The 16mm end is the seller on this one, so it should do well.
We know ''Super' zooms often require chromatic aberration, distortion, vignetting and contrast corrections, and bodies do not internally compensate third party lenses (except for CA, sometimes). So will this lens be convenient? Out in the field absolutely. But the post processing required somewhat cancels out this convenience. My congrats to Tamron for offering this unique product.
nandadevieast: I feel the review is good but over-critical on small issues.Jpegs?? For a RX100, it could be a valid point. But for a FF camera? If you think Jpegs are so important then as well give it extra points for having all the dumb modes (scenes/hdr/auto/auto plus) :)
You should also put things in perspective. Exceptional image quality from EM1 is not half as good as very good image quality from A7. Dont we know that?
This review reminds me of good old dpr, when reviews used to be critical enough. Wish it was true across the brands.
@Shawn: Yup I see posterization in the Space Needle images, as you noted. Point taken.What caught my eye was the "Rough Edges" section where the review demonstrated that in-camera JPEGs at ISO 16000 showed obvious sharpening and NR artifacts. But at ISO 16000 one might presume most would choose RAW recording. That said, the D610 has obviously superior JPEG. Thanks for the comprehensive review.
Good points, makes sense. But...some buyers of this camera will indeed shoot JPEGs, for travel or snapshots, etc. One small gripe with the review: if conditions require ISO 12800-25600, smart owners will use RAW. Though I appreciate DPR's candor here, downgrading the A7 for poor JPEGs quality at 12800-25600 appears to be an oxymoron. I'm not a FF shooter but do most FF cams yield excellent JPEGs in that ISO range?
Thanks for this compendium. That said, we all know there are many other places that focus on lens reviews if 'your' fave lens is not listed.
But I look forward to more lens reviews here...especially those that allow the side-by-side comparison view, which is great.
FWIW: Tokina, how about other mount options for the 12-28mm?
mpgxsvcd: I bet there are plenty of people that will buy this camera. I just don't think this camera will make their photographs any better.
It's no longer about better images any more, really. It's about size , compatibility, portability, price, and yes...appearance. Virtually any modern digicam can capture great images; (except perhaps indoor sports or BIF). Anyway looks like a cool unit nonetheless.
KariIceland: not 1"? no thanks.
@ccm & JM: Indeed. A 500 hp sports car that gets 75mpg ?
The old scene was quite good, this new one even better. I see the advantages to be:
-improved relative skin tone evaluation-off-center, identical, symmetrical objects, and corner charts; useful for evaluating lenses in fixed-lens cameras-'green fuzzies' are great for evaluating jpeg renditions and/or cameras with small sensors-true-black background, for tone & noise (is it true black?)
But truth be told, charts like this are now most useful for comparing lower cost & smaller cameras since high end camera sensors have become so good in just the last few years (notwithstanding the very subtle, pixel-peeping variations of high-end sensors at high isos).
It's a superzoom cam without the superzoom lens. IQ should be excellent , however.
Some very nice photography here. Many of the images in this challenge show the natural beauty one can find off of paved highways & roads, but at the same time respecting those images where paved streets might be a welcomed benefit.