snapa: As soon as Pany/Oly come out with a new and improved sensor, (better than the GX8) and a camera the size/shape of the older Sony NEX rangefinders, I'll get excited about it. Oh yeah, and a price of much less than 1K!
@snapaI just compared your 5T to the E-M10II RAWs at ISO 1600 and 3200 in the studio scene. Sorry man, I have no idea what you are seeing but I see at least a solid one stop advantage for the E-M10II here at 3200ISO.
While it is nice that Canon seems to have successfully updated this lens to match the competition, I can't help but wonder who would pay $1,800 for this when the fantastic Sigma 35mm ART is about half that price at $900.
Joseph Black: Everyone should be thrilled about this news whether you think Canon survives on its marketing department (plenty of those comments below...very useful, by the way) or you see Canon as an innovator. Making a huge market open to a type of camera body means that corporate hq is going to have to take that market segment more seriously. That means the M4 might include some of Canon's newer technology and the lens lineup will expand (or is about to expand anyway) much more quickly. All that means competition, and that's good for every photographer. I happen to see Canon as an innovator that bolsters its reputation as a reliable camera maker by rolling out extremely reliable technologies, making cameras with excellent usability, and resisting the urge to jump on the gimmick bandwagon for the sake of marketing to the tech junkies. Operating under the delusion that they do nothing to innovate requires willful denial of the important technologies they develop and implement in their systems.
What is the last meaningful Canon photography innovation?
This camera and system is completely half baked compared to the competition... especially for its price. It survives soley on name brand and those that have lots of Canon glass that want to strap their 70-200 f2.8 to a second body.
I say this as a person who has used Canon products for years, back when they truly DID innovate. The day will come when Canon will have to get off its fat butt and do something better than whats already available. They won't be able to survive off their existing users forever, though I'm sure they will try to prolong this as much as possible.
Mike FL: It will be great if DPR can find the real reason of "significantly less noise than its predecessor"
It seems impossible if Olympus does NOT apply something such as "Smoothed" as DxO called for some cameras.
Again, we'll appreciate DPR for finding out the reasons behind it.
@AndrooleThe E-M10 has two potential big advantages over the G7 in low light: 5-axis IBIS and electronic first curtain shutter to eliminate shutter shock with virtually no downsides... unlike using the e-shutter.
tkbslc: This has so few serious updates, it's a good time to take advantage of the discounts on the original E-M10.
@RevenantNot to mention the 1/16000 shutter speed option (e-shutter only). One of the biggest drawbacks of the original E-M10 is the 1/4000 max shutter. I've run into it many times with mine, and wished for at least 1/8000. Nice to see Oly delivered on that one too. This cam is as good as it gets when it comes to shooting features for this price range. They threw everything they could at it since they know they can't up the sensor yet.
vesa1tahti: Can't beat the Nikon D7200 (excl. size and weight).
Nikon's liveview touchscreen is pretty half baked, and doesn't compare to modern mirrorless cameras in terms of speed.
Lightcapture: Yes, the colour rendition is very pleasing.
The iauto JPEG shots looked horrible... with unnatural color shifts, reduced shadow info, and poor white balance. The ACR versions look great, but man, is that the best Panasonic can do with JPEGs?
technocamper: If he's going for the fantasy/computer game look, he could learn something from Dimitri Depaepe:
Yeah no. While I like Dimitri's images, they go a bit overboard for my taste compared to Ratcliff.
Jim Evidon: Can a new 20 MP Leica X Vario be far behind?
I wonder if Panasonic will allow Olympus to either use or license this new sensor? Any claimed deficits in performance are likely the result of firmware rather than sensor design and are likely to be be ironed out with firmware updates.
As to advantages of 20 MP over the very fine 16MP sensors in both Panasonic and Olympus cameras, I have long ago found the upper usable limits in the 16 MP image cropping and the new 20 MP sensor should allow these limits to be stretched; a definite advantage.
But in terms of high ISO noise, neither MFT sensor can hold a candle to the FujiX Pro-1 or the XT series, which is to be expected from the larger Fuji APSC sensor.
Disclaimer: I own the Olympus E-5M and the Fuji XPro-1 as well as the Leica M9P (CCD sensor) which blows the other sensors away in resolution, but fails in noise comparisons to the others above ISO 1000 or so.
@JimRight, that is why I specified based on the DPR studio scene. I have downloaded the XT-1 RAW file and the E-M10 RAW file both at 3200ISO from that scene, and the Fuji image is lacking detail. It does sharpen up pretty nicely, though its not as resolving as the E-M10 and the noise levels become the exact same once you sharpen it up.
It is possible that DPR screwed it up, and I will redo the test using the X-10's studio scene with the E-M10. If its DPR's issue, I highly doubt they would mess up the studio scene for both cameras.
I still don't understand why people think Fuji does well in the DPR studio scene. There is clearly a huge sacrifice in detail to retain low noise levels... even in RAW output.
aliasfox: I think I'm seeing that the GX8's RAW file is slightly better than the E-M5 II's RAW in terms of detail retention, but that the GX8's jpg engine still isn't up to the Olympus standard and falls behind. I'm using the ISO 6400 test images, and I'm specifically looking at the paint tubes, which are more legible on the GX8 to my eye in RAW.
Surprised that neither one is really that far behind the A6000 in RAW, and how far ahead the X-T1 is ahead of the other three.
To my eyes, at least.
The X-T1 does horribly in all these studio tests... instead of noise, it just smears detail giving your photos that nice impressionistic painting look. I'd like to believe Fuji's sensor can do better than this when properly processed because, the results on DPR look terrible.
Adam Savage from Mythbusters?
ttran88: How many times have you heard someone say, I want to upgrade to APSC? LoL
@tkbslcThey pick APS-C because of its price-to-performance. If Sony would just keep the first gen A7 sensor around, yet toss it into a more capable body with better AF (ala the A6000) and price it in the lower-midrange DSLR market, I think the APS-C market will shrink pretty fast.
tkbslc: Here's the problem with this from my point of view. Say you are Joe-Iphonographer. You want to get a bit more serious and add some flexibility in terms of lens options. So what does Sony offer you (Assuming APS-C dies)?
-A $1000 compact camera-A $1200 chunky compact camera with a bigger zoom-A FF system where you are going to have to drop $2000-5000 to get started.
Hard for a newbie to swallow, I think.
If this little article is to be taken as gospel, it sounds like Sony will likely go all-in on full frame for their ILC cameras. If this is the case, economies of scale will likely drive down the cost of their sensors and I could very easily see a first-gen A7 sensor in something more like the A6000 retailing for under $1,000. The high end will be served by the A7RII, and now, Sony only has to make lenses for one system.
joyclick: Why let Adobe enslave you and tether you and make you do everything at their bidding,without you having any say/choice in the matters?
@BadScienceBeen there, done that with Quark. Used it back in the day at design school. At that time, Adobe was JUST releasing InDesign 1.0. I actually ended up using InDesign at home more than Quark precisely because it was more intuitive to a Photoshop user.
Also, Quark may be viable, but its ridiculously expensive.
AshMills: Presumably DNG converter will still let CS6 work just fine? (assuming your current lenses are already supported)
That will work up to a point. DNG conversion does not create a 1:1 clone of your particular RAW file. It can make some of them look like utter garbage compared to the native RAW format.
girlperson1: Adobe has always been a bit greedy and now, they will hold your images hostage....LOL!!!
Laugh as you may, but at least Silkypix is software specifically designed for RAW files AND.....you get to keep your images on YOUR hard drive AND the software won't cost you an arm and a leg.
@Just a PhotographerConverting to DNG from a different RAW file format is not without serious issues. My ORF files converted to DNG look god awful, with a very strange noise pattern that looks like my picture is covered in pepper. The worst part about it is that the added noise from the DNG conversion is perfectly uniform. If I open the ORF natively, even with NR completely turned off in ACR/Lighroom, the image looks fine.
No viable alternative to InDesign on the PC.