jj74e: This might just be me, but I don't see the point of the spec database and lenses database. There is a serious deficiency in lens reviews, and the spec database/brand and category pages seem to lack any real functionality other than prettying up the site with more content- filler content I would even call it.
These are things that can easily and arguably more informatively be found on manufacturers' websites or even Wikipedia articles, although I suppose it helps dpreview cover a more holistic material set if anything, to make the website feel more established.
But again, generic company information and lens specs without any meaningful, unique info/perspective seems rather filler to me. I do apologize if there are certain features I am [unintentionally] ignoring, but these databases seem to simply be catalogs that manufacturers' already have on their websites.
I do like the new comments/likes system, new categories in the forums, and more dedication to articles.
Things I would like to see are an even bigger effort with articles, at least until there is a good amount of material for a certain number of determined areas of expertise. I would also like to see better utilization of the database center that has been created, as well as more frequent polls.
Overall though, great to see dpreview constantly improving its already solid website.
This might just be me, but I don't see the point of the spec database and lenses database. There is a serious deficiency in lens reviews, and the spec database/brand and category pages seem to lack any real functionality other than prettying up the site with more content- filler content I would even call it.
stuntmonkey: Mostly procedural at this point. Imagine if police action had not been taking during the Enron scandal?
fun with dick and jane....
i feel like we're missing a company...oh well.
a trivial thing, but why is the nx200 the only one to not have its preview linked in its description?
I feel this article is a bit late for most people on DPR. I'm sure some new members/guests will benefit from this, but I feel like the majority of us on here- enthusiasts/professionals- already are aware of the info presented here. Well written though.
Hm, I was debating even downloading this because I wasn't sure it'd be of any use to me, being called "wildlife photography," but lots of other helpful insights outside of the conditional wildlife scene.
panacealater: Surely you're not suggesting the wealthy should not have purchasing options that reflect their status. Why should they be confined to the price constraints many of us respect?
While I do not share the attraction to their efforts to remain a viable manufacturer by supporting the needs of their traditional customer base, I see no reason to disparage them.
Now, if someone gave me one for Christmas, I wouldn't exchange it. lol
Uhhh first of all, I was just trying to make a point- that with the money you need to buy this camera, you could be buying multiple other things that give you more use for your money. Hm....a pricey point and shoot or a couple new lenses or bodies?
Second of all, it's a Christmas present, and I'm going to enjoy it. I do help the poor, but like any other person who needs to live a decent life, I SHOCKINGLY spend money on myself as well. I hate when people bring up "Oh, why didn't you buy a cheaper electronic device and give money to the poor?" Well, why did you buy new clothes instead of old ones? Why did you buy a two story house and not one? Why did you buy a new car and not a used one? Why don't you take 3 minute showers everyday instead of 15? Point being, who's to say where the line stops? If everyone gave all they had, we'd all be in poverty, and if some people can live a decent life, why not let them as long as they're doing something to help the poor?
If someone gave me one for Christmas, I'd sell it and use the money to buy some lenses or some new bodies, depending on how much this thing actually is.
Sure, the wealthy shouldn't be confined. But then again, even a lot of wealthy people can't be that dumb to just throw away money like that. Among the point and shoot crowd, the Panasonic FZ150 is already considered a pricey, top of the line camera.
What's the point of these....honestly. To me it just makes Leica seem like a lazy, unattractive brand that tries to oversell itself, but without actually having that much market presence or advertising for that matter. Their rangefinders might be revered, but for someone looking for a bridge camera, Leica is just an overpriced out of the blue Panny.
that's a lot of issues they needed to fix. some that weren't even improvements, but rather actual technical fixes.
+1 to all the posts against this challenge. What a trashy challenge.
At the end, what does it mean by microfocus adjust it? How exactly does one do that?
IcyVeins: Is there anybody who doesn't immediately jump ahead to the number at the end before reading anything else in the review? I doubt it
Obviously a few percentages would be accounted for in the reviewer's own bias (as there has to be at least a little subjective reviewing, both because it's unavoidable and because it's somewhat practical). The bigger differences in % are what matters. Obviously most people would probably find that an 80% rated camera is better than a 65% rated camera.
I don't think a blind test tool is that necessary. Obvious differences in image quality will be obvious, regardless of a reader's mental bias. Smaller differences that can be interpreted subjectively by a reader are probably too minuscule to really matter that much; you'd have to really love a camera brand to be able to see a large physical difference between two cameras to favor the worse one.
Len Schweitzer: Wish there had been a question about what I don't like about DPR. I'd have said I hated, and have from the very beginning, trying to read reams of white type on a black background. It's really offensive, hard to read and causes me to limit the time I stay on DPR. Luckily there's readability when there's a story or article I really want to read.
they did do a survey awhile back, and most users reported in the poll that they liked the current look of the site. only a few said they would want it with a black font on white background, and even fewer opted for the third option i forgot.
i rather like how it is now; i hate having a glaring white background to read black text. it's much easier on the eyes, for me.
BryceM: He kept emphasizing their "premium lenses", but as for their zooms, all I see are the same slow-ass zooms and 2.8 primes as the other guys. 2.8 is not fast for a prime.
The system is still growing- if you look at lens roadmaps, the faster zooms are coming later on. But for now, would it make sense for them to sell more general appeal, cheaper, smaller and yes, slower, zooms? Or more enthusiast, niche, large and heavy fast zooms that would inevitably be more expensive?
Moreover, they only have two prime lenses that are f2.8- the 20mm, which, I agree that IMO is a bit pointless, but plenty of people like it, and it's better to have the option than to not. And the 60mm macro, but in this case f2.8 is a great choice because larger apertures would result in a larger lens and not so useable depth of field for macro work.
Other than those two, all the other pancakes are significantly faster, such as the 16mm f2.4, 30mm f2, and 85mm f1.4. Clearly you didn't do your research first, or even watch the whole video with the part about the portrait prime and 16mm
Debankur Mukherjee: The main problem of mirrorless bodies are the size of the lenses.. the body itself is quiet small and light weight but the lenses will remain big.....No way it can be termed as pockatable or portable.....
For me personally, mirrorless was never going to be able to pocketable in every single situation. You're going to have to be stuck with a telephoto set up, a professional prime set up, a flash set up, or any other enthusiast/pro level set up that any quality and thorough system should provide.
However, unlike DSLRs, at least with mirrorless you have the /potential/ for pocketability. To me mirrorless was always about options- I could go with a small pancake and have a pocketable, powerful system, or I could utilize the more premium set ups that, of course would be a bit more comparable to DSLR sizes.
And don't forget- pocketable and portable and very different for some people. Some people couldn't care less about size per se- a lot of people have health problems and simply can't stand the weight of traditional systems, and so the fact of being lighter in most cases = portability for some people, regardless of the actual size.
photo nuts: It'll be fantastic if their lenses are as good as the NX200 sensor. We'll see. Samsung may very well be the next Sony given the production and financial problems the latter is facing.
Oh, cause Sony definitely came up with an APS-C mirrorless system before Samsung (let alone invent the mirrorless category). And they definitely invented the TV, MP3 player, and every other gadget they now sell. And Apple definitely didn't copy ideas either- it was all fresh of course because, well they're apple- why do i have to bother knowing anything before i can say that these companies are creative and original and Samsung is not?
boring interview...not particularly helpful. but thanks for posting anyway- i'm confused though; i thought samsung was not present at PPE since it wasn't covered in the written articles.
I just rememberd- does DPR know yet what the effective ISOs are for the NX200? Like for the NX10, its labeled 3200 was effectively lower, and resulted in slower shutter speeds. Is the NX200's effective ISOs also lower than the labeled?