brownie314: to all the people complaining about the "adds for Canon". Lets assume - worst case scenario - Canon is paying DPR to get some space in the articles section. So what - you are getting all of this content for free. So you have to skip over a few articles that you are not interested in - what harm is done? On the up side - they are funding reviews of other equipment. So lets say Canon is behind this - get over it. Doing all of this equipment review isn't cheap.
You mean it is stupid to sell ad space on your website? Not sure how else they would make money.
I suspected as much. But there will always be people on here who think that is the case. I was just saying - if they are - who cares.
to all the people complaining about the "adds for Canon". Lets assume - worst case scenario - Canon is paying DPR to get some space in the articles section. So what - you are getting all of this content for free. So you have to skip over a few articles that you are not interested in - what harm is done? On the up side - they are funding reviews of other equipment. So lets say Canon is behind this - get over it. Doing all of this equipment review isn't cheap.
Boss of Sony: Apart from video, I can't understand the 4/3 sensor thing, especially in a camera this size. Sony is making the same size cameras or smaller, with APS-C or full-frame sensors.
BarnET - yes whichever resolution is needed for 4K in 16:9 mode - that is the one I meant. I think you are right - it is 12MP. That is the 1" sensor Sony should make. If it had clean ISO 3200 (or even 1600) I would be on board with that sensor.
BarnET - yes, I am on board with 1". I think the lenses can be made small enough and the IQ is good enough for most situations. I just wish Sony would do with the 1" sensor what they did with the A7s - make a 10MP version that has super low noise. 10MP is more than enough for most things - and noise is the problem right now with 1".
n4/3 makes perfect sense. It's about the lenses. Considering most people who are advanced amateur and up have most of their money tied up in lenses - not bodies. And the lenses for m4/3 are much smaller than aps-c or FF. So you can buy an army of lenses for m4/3 - then have a nice big body like the GH4 when you need all the external controls and ergonomics. Then also have a body like the GM1 when you need something small and discrete. All with the same lens mount. I don't know of another lens mount you can do this with.
brownie314: So p1ssed that Canon could not find an engineer on the EOS-M team that could figure a way to get this mode dial + exposure compensation dial on the EOS-M. Would have made a world of difference.
rrccad - agreed - I don't use exposure comp that much either. If I have a situation where my meter can be tricked, I just use manual exposure, or I point as something where the meter won't be tricked and use exposure lock.
Is this better than the camera in the phone? In my opinion 1" is the new normal - anything less is pointless in a stand alone camera.
Countdown to:"We have considered better sensor tech but - it is impossible".
timo: There's something not quite right about some of those samples. Surely the softness away from the centre can't be inherent in the lens design? Having downloaded some of the originals and looked at them on my large iMac screen, some of them are awful. And definitely there are some where one side is quite noticeably softer than the other. Just to make sure I was not imagining things, I then looked at some X20 shots I took today. Honestly, I think the X20/X30 lens performs better. Where the LX100 is sharp in the middle, it's probably better. But taking the image area overall, I am not at all sure. Oh dear. And I don't think it's only a question of jpg vs raw.
I guess this is to be expected with such a radical lens design. It is smaller than almost all m4/3 lenses while being one of the brightest - AND A ZOOM! I would have been happy with a wide(ish) fast prime. Like a 35mm equivalent. But I appreciate the effort.
Are you saying you are seeing poor lens performance wide open? Or stopped down some? Because if it is just wide open - I don't think that is a big deal - I would be happy just to have access to f/1.7 if I ever needed it - in a compact this size.
Beat Traveller: Like:-The dynamic range, really good for landscapes.-The colour rendition.-The blur falloff, very pleasing. Almost film-like.
Don't like:-Insane noise reduction at high ISO. Makes this camera look like a cheap compact.
But then, there's always RAW.
I don't think any photographer would shoot high ISO in jpg only. So the "insane noise reduction" isn't really a concern for most.
But good to know it is possible - in case you need to stop some action in almost no light.
Erik Johansen: This is nothing for the showroom :-(My OM-D M 1 with the 25mm will still be in the bag.
OK. I am in the same boat as you - I don't see what everyone is complaining about - these shots don't look terrible to me - look about on par with other recent m4/3 bodies - which is a good thing.
Hawaii-geek: Hope there is going to be a AF-C Test between the APS-C - 7D m2, D7100, A77 m2 ... ALL with there 70-200mm f2.8 zooms ... 1 minute BURST.
And see which has the BEST Balance of fps and HIT Rate. So, it's MOST HITS in a 1 min. Burst. :)
What we need is an AF range "torture test". And just set the camera to its highest continuous rate and let it go till buffer full. Then check the statistics on in focus vs. out of focus shots. Then give weighted results with weight given to higher frame rate bodies.
munro harrap: I wont buy one that has no manual zoom at all, because I want to decide when I change focal length-not have to wait for some icle electric motor to zoom slowly and inaccurately instead (they never stop where you need them to!).
And I do not buy things that have automatic battery-dependant lens caps.
Really, one would think that with the added expense and the battery drain manufacturers would avoid all such like the plague, but then one HAS to have something that goes wrong... to get you back to the shops to buy an "upgrade".
I am sure that you can put a full-frame sensor into a body this size now, with decent lenses, as the Leica's lenses are still to scale, so one fine day very soon Sony will do just that- with all those Contax G lens designs just awaitingits "creation".Would you want zoom lenses? Yes, obviously, and they do not have to be huge either now, as the scaled down zoom on the LX-100 shows us, just f2.8or F4, since big sensors are so good at high ISOs now.
Problem is - aps-c sensors are so good now that what's the point of doing the engineering gymnastics of shoving a FF sensor in a compact? I have shoot current model FF bodies - aside from the DOF issues - there isn't a huge difference in IQ when using good lenses on both. I just don't get all this FF lust. Aps-c is not to the point where it is so good, we are into the point of diminishing returns going to larger sensors for all but the very most demanding of photographers. And those people will move on to MF anyway.
HowaboutRAW - so you are saying this Pany is at least as good as the other latest m4/3 system cameras (in IQ terms)? If so - that is good enough for me.
Anastigmat: $1,500 for this camera practically guarantees that it won't sell many copies. In comparison, the Pentax K-3 and the Nikon D7100 have the same sized sensor, and they both cost less than $1k. The Canon 6D FF is only $400 more and the Nikon D610 FF is only $300 more.
This guy is a joker. The NX1 has a different feature set than the other bodies he is comparing to.
Timmbits: @Canon designers: shame on you! this is an ugly plain-vanilla design, that should have been left with the lower-end tiny sensor models. look at the Fuji X30 or the Panasonic LX100, those are good-looking cameras. This thing however, has a smooth, slippery featureless envelope, that really should have been forgotten a long time ago. Instead you keep on torturing us with it. It is NOT a successful design... the design succeeded because of what was inside, not because of the outside, that reminds us all of the cheapest of the cheap. It looks like a $100 camera that might slip out of your hands. If it separates itself from the rest, why not make it look the part?
Noup - other way around. I t think we are on the same page now. But EOS-M isn't that bad - and for $319 with 22 f/2 - can't be beat.
Wait. You are the same guy that could not seem to understand when I asked for this mode dial and exposure comp dial on the EOS-M. And you want the G7x to look more like the LX100 or the X30 (both of which are LOADED with dials)? You are all over the map dude.