ecm: I know a lot of folks already really love this camera - but I am unhappy; I guess because I was expecting too much.... With a 1" sensor and a much limited but useful-range zoom, I thought this might be it - a large sensor camera with a sharp, usable wide to moderate telephoto lens. After all, Panasonic makes darned good fixed long zoom lenses, my old ZS15 attests to that.
But, "soft"? "Noise reduction obliterates detail"? This does not sound like the Panasonic I know.... I already get that from my ZS50 - why would I spend so much for what sounds like exactly the same problems? Very disappointed.... going to cry in my corner now.... :\
But, "soft"? "Noise reduction obliterates detail"?
...as compared to what other small camera (with big zoom, preferably)? Have you actually reviewed the test photos?
Rock City, Chattanooga! Bushi was there :)
hell yeah! Nothing like fireworks in the forest!
apart from that apparent stupidity, great idea.
Good job, Carsten, I am immigrant in Ireland, and am always looking for spots to visit - thanks for the ideas!
BoFiS: Ugh, STOP IT, basically everything 4.3" and above is too big to hold and use in one hand...our hands have not grown in the last couple of years, why have our phones?! Also all that extra space is silly if you're just going to fill half the home screen with an even-larger clock/weather widget.
Bad Samsung, BAD! Too big phones, unnecessary, ridiculous, blahblahblah.
...meanwhile, Samsung laughs all their way to the bank, cashing in from their diverse product portfolio, that SOMEHOW, most consumers find attractive - and at the end of the day, that's what matters most.
zodiacfml: EVFs are going to have a story similar to the megapixel race.
...there was a rational, technological (and human perception) reason for megapixel race AT THE BEGINNING of it (ie, where cams started to appear with 1MP, 2MP, 3MP sensors etc.), just like there is one now for EVFs - until they reach resolutions, that would make it's further increase meaningless (i.e., beyond the capabilities of human eye, to resolve pixels, or at least have perception of something "unnatural")
JackM: My Tag/Heuer watch has a sapphire crystal, it is unscratchable!! Nice move Apple.
My Citizen watch also has one, and of course it IS scratchable - it all depends on the amount of pressure and the type of material that scratches against it ;). Ceramics and minerals tend to be very hard, so these can scratch sapphire, easily, if you are not careful.
It is rather tough, though!
jtwz8975: The updates went great on my X-Pro1. After reading about 1000 forum comments over the last month I have concluded that most of the naysayers out there are arm-chair-generals who have never even held the camera or owned one, (or they're just whiners). AF is a little slow compared to my D700 but only in some situations. I'm sure it will get faster with future updates however in the meantime I have gotten several action shots of my kids after only a days practice. I'm lovin' the IQ on this thing and the lightweight rangefinder handling is so refreshing.
all people who are so "sure" about "future firmware updates" and all the goodies that they will "most certainly" deliver, apparently don't follow too closely Fuji's track record in this regard, I am afraid..
simon65: I was aghast to look through the electronic viewfinder of a Sony NEX-7 recently and be told it represented the "state of the art" and was recognized as the best in the market.
What I saw was lots of noise and pixels and colour distortion.
The Sony guy explained that, "Well we are inside".
Hmm, well, defintely lots of room for improvement there by MicroOLED and then some, before electronic viewfinders can claim to replace optical viewfinders as found on DSLRs or indeed on Leica and Fuji's rangefinders.
"What I saw was lots of noise and pixels and colour distortion. The Sony guy explained that, "Well we are inside". "...and how that same scene looked like through the OVF? Was it completely black, or were you able to recognize at least contours and shapes?
See, that's but another advantage of EVFs: they can gain in ultra-low light, giving you (noisy and laggy, yes, but still) some picture to frame, versus OVF, which would display mostly darkness.
JJMacks: Is this technology going to be able to display a view at the speed of light like an optical viewfinder or have the annoying image frame delay I see in current electronic viewfinders? IMO best suited for video recorders and be better large so you don't need to hold the recorder to ones eye.
"Is this technology going to be able to display a view at the speed of light like an optical viewfinder "of courser it will - the day after you will be able to react to changing scene in less than 1/100th of a second (which is, to say, both: never, and not needed)
DFPanno: No EVF is going to be superior to the human eye and that is what an OVF is (in essence).
Of course an excellent EVF stands to be better than a poor OVF but that goes without saying.
The substitution of one for the other may create the opportunity for other design advantages but that is a tangential conversation.
you gotta love this kind of definitive statements.... and why shouldn't it? Is there any physical constraint there, that I am not aware of?
It is just silly, it sounds like someone pronouncing "no man can ever fly" in 17th century, or "no machine heavier than air can ever fly", hundred years later.
And of course, there were many that were saying just that, back then.
gleung: when consumer digital camera first came out the 90s, the resolution was 640x480 (by Kodak i think?).. if internet forum was popular back then, i'm sure many people will laugh and say no digital camera will be superior to 35mm film.. but of course everything changes now (with some exception cases). people need to realize that EVF is still an infant technology and it will only improve in the future.
this also goes to any analog vs digital comparison. digital always start off much lower quality than analog counter-parts, but as technology improves and if there's market demand, they will definitely surpass it.
"digital always start off much lower quality than analog counter-parts"of course not, digital starts off much lower quality than its CONTEMPORARY analog counterparts, which were evolving for decades to their CONTEMPORARY forms. But look at the original analog pioneering counter-parts, and you will se the fair picture. For example, compare first commercially available digital cameras, to first commercially available analog cameras. I would take digital any day of the week :).
low earth orbit: No doubt EVFs have a lot of potential for useful things that can not be done with OVFs like exposure simulations/information and manual focus assist.And will be better than OVFs for a lot of people for certain applications.
But who ever says EVFs (no mater how good) will "spell the end of OVFs" clearly does not understand the basic principles and physics of electronic imaging.There are a lot of pros and cons but...
For an EVF to work you need continuous readout from the sensor and that will always mean heat.Heat will always mean noise.Unless you have active cooling,which would of course require a lot more energy.
An EVF no mater how efficient,will always consume more energy than an OVF.
Well, it is all true, until the advances in technology render all these three arguments into the category: negligible, negligible, and negligible. Throw in lower price to boot, as fourth, when eventually achieved.
AT this point, we will be firmly in the "spell the end of OVFs" realm.
I daresay that particular display, if indeed delivers what it is saying on the tin, is a darn close to make a good attempt today.
english_Wolf: Actually, regardless of perfection in the electronic view finder I avoid them like the plague.Why? I have thick glasses and my eyes cannot adapt (no dioptic elements is able to correct my vision). The result is that I purchase only DSLR cameras whose view screen can change to prism adjustment. When what I need 'snaps' into place as I focus, I do not seen the image but feel the difference. Then I snap.I do not see any electronic capable of doing that so, for me, at least, my answer to this progress is 'blah'.Would love to see this technology applies to my computer monitors thought.
"Would love to see this technology applies to my computer monitors thought."...gosh, speaking about unnecessary technological progress?? And why on earth would anyone like to have a computer screen with pixel densities like the above - where the whole 1280x1024 (good resolution for a 19" monitor) fits in 0.61 inch diagonal? That is, frankly, a big nonsense.
Edgar_in_Indy: I really wish the LCD screen makers and the camera makers would stop referring to how many "dots" their displays have. Nobody ever talks about "dots" in the real world, and this causes confusion for people who think they must be referring to pixels.
It would be like somebody stating their salary in pennies instead of dollars, just so they can throw around a bigger number. I blame it all on the marketing department.
A while back, I was thinking of upgrading from my Pentax K-x, to the K-r, partly because the K-r boasted a new LCD with "920k" dots. Well, 1280x720 is 921,600, so I mistakenly thought that the K-r screen could display the full resolution of 720p video, which would help with manual focusing during video. Luckily, I found out about this "dots" business before I bought the K-r on a mistaken premise.
...well, the pixel resoluton notion is in fact misleading, number of "dots" is absolute, and number of "pixels" is prone to trickery, as Samsung Galaxy S owners should know best - in that screen, Pentile GRGB pattern is marketed as 800x480, ie standard Android hi-res screens of it's days, but unfortunately, unlike traditional full-RGB pixels, they have conveniently (for them) counted each RG, BG pair as a full pixel. So, the stated resolution was in fact "algorythmic, sub-pixel rendering" BS resolution, and the actual, physical number of "dots" was significantly lower (and perceived visual sharpness, too), than competing traditional RGB LCDs of the day.
VadymA: I could hardly find any difference between ISO 100 and 12800. Very impressive. One picture worth a thousand words indeed.
;) if you can hardly find any difference between ISO 100& 12800 here, I doubt that you need a camera THAT good :). I could quite clearly spot the difference between ISO 3200 & 12800 here (not to boast or anything, but it is pretty obvious).
Still, insanely good opictures from a COMPACT cam, I think I am in love!
Ruy Penalva: The 12800 ISO seems very good but took the advantages of very fast shutter speed when compared to the 1 second speed of ISO100. I wish all photos were hand made photos with no tripod. DP shoud indicate also the ambient lux.
....you would like your test images to be hand-held??? For what reason, you want to test the cam, or the photographer's steady hands???