Betarover: The desk top image is fine, but we need more. dpreview should take full advantage of the person on their staff they hired who had the internet camera test site http://www.dcresource.com/. For each camera he tested he posted identical landscapes taken from the same spots in San Francisco and Palo alto. I have saved hundreds of his real world test images.
Lets have the Space Needle scene that dpreview has used from time to time (taken from near the Cancer Center building in Seattle) be one of the standard scenes. The present system of comparing cameras to each other by using shots of a baseball game for one camera and of a leaf laying on the grass for another is not very useful for landscape photographers.
Another site that takes the same landscape for each camera is http://www.steves-digicams.com/
Dpreview did this several years ago for their review of compact zoom cameras. Each had a landscape of the Space Needle in the distance with lots of other Seattle buildings.
They absolutely should have bigger test scene, at least human-sized, with shooting distance and FLs to match.
For E-P5 in the comparison, "Keep Warm Color" was on, wasn't it? ;)
Finally! Finally you use AWB for low light test scene, just like most people will use it. Now, next step please - KIT LENS, just like most people will use it! Otherwise, we will never see better kit lenses! And moving scene. :)
"'Film was never this sharp. It’s sharper than real life. You shouldn’t be able to read a hair inside the tear duct of someone’s eye. On one of those high-end backs, though, you can almost read what someone is thinking. It’s kind of terrifying'.
What he really needs, says Ockenfels, is better low-light capabilities - 'being able to shoot with a medium format camera at ISO 2000 would be really nice. You have to know you can’t have too many dark areas'."
If MF gives you too much resolution but not enough low light, switch to D800E. MUCH cheaper and easier to use. :)
(unknown member): It's amazing to see how complex these lenses are!
Lens complexity is NOTHING compared to, say, a car. NOTHING. Yet some of them cost more than a car.
tt321: Those who think that lenses last longer than camera bodies, think again ...
Those who think that IS in an expensive lens (as opposed to in body) is a good thing, think again. :)
As always, lensrentals provides unique and first rate info. Doing great service to the world by doing so - a lot of big corps would hold this info secret "just in case".
@DPR: at your night scene comparison, Olympus was used at 25mm eq. So why the aperture is f/2.8 instead of f/2?
win39: No company I know of sells an indoor camera. The claim of the camera maker should be taken into consideration. If the finder/LCD can only be seen indoors that should disqualify the camera from consideration, any camera. If the camera which claims to be an underwater camera cannot be controlled or even an image framed in the LCD underwater it should be disqualified from consideration as an underwater camera. I don't think 2 or 3 point differences cut it in this consideration. Don't rate them as overall cameras, but as what they are marketed as: tough, outdoor, underwater cameras. How in the world can a camera with an unusable OLED as the only way to see what you are taking outdoors be rated the number one outdoor camera?
Most sold Android phones (Samsung) have OLED screens and are used outdoors every day by tens of millions of people.
Deleted pending purge: It is a tough job to build a camera that is equally able to take underwater and dry-land photos, mainly because of the flat ports which are added lens elements that can't be avoided. This reduces the quality of the wide end of its zoom, and is also a reason the zoom range of such cameras is usually short.To have a camera which performs well in both mediums, its port would have to be built as a part of the optical system, and not merely as a water-resistant window.Current amphibious cameras are a compromise.Any manufacturer who envisions a properly built amphibious camera should offer a body that is strong enough for usual diving depths, (-50m), and also a range of lenses for various conditions and purposes. It would be way better than those semi-solutions they offer now. These "tough" models can get wet - but not a single one is good enough to dive with, excepting sub-surface work, and some risky apnea. Instead, they are pocketable. Which really isn't important - to a photographer.
"Any manufacturer who envisions a properly built amphibious camera should offer a body that is strong enough for usual diving depths, (-50m)"
The depths like this need strong light which tiny batteries in compacts cannot provide. It would be a totally different class of camera, in size, weight and price, and unusable as beach and snow cam. If you go for big size and weight and price, it is better just to use housing.
johnami: I don't have the the time to read everything, so please excuse me if I'm repeating something, but how does the image quality of these 'tough' photoboxes compare to your average smart phone?
In bright light they are about the same, maybe a little better, in lower light (indoors, underwater etc) Olympus TG-2 and Pentax WG-3/GPS are better than smartphones, while the rest are the same (Panasonic TS-5, Sony TX30) or worse (Canon D20, Nikon AW110).
@DPR: In the comparison table, you market Panasonic lens starting from f/3.3 as red, while leaving D20 and AW110 starting from f/3.9 unmarked. Long end is useless on both of them except in bright light, but at least on Pana you can zoom out for extra half a stop of light. Not cool.
IchiroCameraGuy: Some of the samples for this camera look pretty nice, Panasonic processing is moving up now. Even the yellow and orange in images seem to actually be a clean color now without strange green hue smeared in.
I would caution people not to do EVF viewing majority of the time if you love your vision (photographers usually do right). If you truly hate LCDs then get cameras with an OVF.
"I would caution people not to do EVF viewing majority of the time if you love your vision (photographers usually do right). If you truly hate LCDs then get cameras with an OVF."
Riiight. Go ahead, shoot a scene with sun in the background with a OVF, burn your retina. Or struggle with a dark scene without boost of EVF, strain your eyes.
Timmbits: How about a showdown between the GX7 and the EP5 (or OMDEM5)?
...see how much farther (or not) the GX7 has come compared to the GX1.
Comparison review would be welcome, but with with 1.5 y/o E-M5, probably makes sense to wait for the next OM-D rumored in a few weeks, and NEX-6 (or NEX-7 replacement) for a good measure.
OK, the question is, how quickly Leica will start selling this with triple the price? Or quadruple?
sadwitch: IMO Sony tries much harder to get into the pro market and they probably have flush most of their effort down the drain in the camera market. Consumers, holiday snappers, enthusiasts and semi pro are the much wider market that Olympus should target their effort in selling their system.Contrary to popular believe, pros don't switch or upgrade gears every time a new model is being announced. It's the enthusiast or gear heads doing that and making the most noise and they are the segment most willing to part with their money if the product speaks to them.
The m43 series is an excellent move by Olympus and Panasonic although i hate to admit it as a previous owner of the E-system. They effectively created a new segment for other companies to compete in and to date only fuji showed a strong alternative IMO.
Getting out of low-end compact cameras is a right move in face of smartphones and they're right in focusing on niche applications that smart phones can't do like zooms and tough range.
How is A99 is more pro level than the clearly consumer-level D600?
panoviews: Interesting reading: http://soundimageplus.blogspot.it/2013/08/why-people-still-choose-dslrs-over.html
He has a point about E-P5 and GX7 being too expensive. Although they are not more expensive here in the US than D7100, maybe in Italy?
Timmbits: a 12% drop...
hmmm... I can't help but wonder what market share the new-comer Samsung has gained...
Given that the total mirrorless market lost 18%, probably none. And it is not a newcomer, what, Samsung was the second mirrorless system after m43.
attomole: It should in theory be cheaper to make mirror less, Most are a very simple box construction , No moving parts and smaller and therefore cheaper major components the sensor chip. and lens. But the EP5 is a £1000 over here, its sibling the older ELP5 is £600. They also more than half in price over the lifetime of the product, so the Nikon V1 is 200 Quid but no one wants one because the marketing focus moves on, so really what is the value of this product.
£800-1000 is top of the line APSC DLSR Money. However good they are, better than a Pentax K5, or canon 60d Nikon 7100?. well arguably, but come into my shop and I think I know which I would find it easier to swap for your money for.
Well, sell Pana G5, it is $239 in the states now and better than any Rebel (bigger, brighter viewfinder with preview and digital zoom etc).BTW, cameras you listed DO have moving parts, they are called IBIS and controls (and there are great controls on E-P5, no Rebel comes close, although the price is too high of course).
Vadimka: Yes Mirrorless are pricy, because its new product and unique. But the quickly falling prices of DSLRs are the true indicator that Canon and Nikon are trying to slow down the grows and spread of the Mirrorless system by dumping they product on the market at lower cost.
They are not stupid, they know they if they lose this battle now, they will lose their ground by few years. Customers who go Mirrorless will less likely ever get back to DSLR, (they know that they only have an edge in Pro market, and they know that thats not enough for them to survive)
Canon and Nikon will be glad to sell their DSLRs at or below cost, if they know they can slow down Mirrorless or even kill it completely, because companies like Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus are no longer in DSLR game and completely wested in the Mirrorless business.
Well, mirrorless are not so pricey anymore, unless it is a latest and greatest model. You can get the same exact image quality out of $199 (for the last 6 months) Panasonic GX1 as out of $1000 7D - for many people who prefer using screens and don't shoot fast action it is an obvious choice, most just don't know about that yet. $400 (with kit lenses) E-PM2 or NEX-3n even beat them both in image quality.