I don't have a doll house fetish, at least that I am aware of. House on the Rock contains massive collections of things and one of those collections are doll houses. They are almost all behind glass with poor lighting but here is one of the 100+ that are there.
xfoto: I don't care what it does...and I don't give a crap about tiny stuff you can barely hold to comfortably take a picture
Didn't the Lytro make this list too? With that low bar, I'm surprised nearly every camera and cell phone with a camera didn't make the list too.
Button Pusher: A lossy RAW format seems to be a contradiction in terms as isn't the primary reason that you store and keep RAW files because they are lossless so that you can always revert to all the information that was captured in the original shot in the first place?
Would one format/extension for all graphics files of all types would be a good idea? Should all files have the same format (word processing/spreadsheet/programming/graphics) and the same extension? Maybe all files could have the same name and the OS would have to dig into their metadata to figure out what was going on inside. There are reasons we use different filenames and extentions for file and they start with clarity. Call the lossless format of the Digital Negative Graphics format DNG and the lossy DNL or DLG and things are much clearer for humans, who use the files. Less ambiguity. From the PNG spec "There is no lossy compression in PNG. Existing formats such as JFIF already handle lossy compression well. Furthermore, available lossy compression methods (e.g., JPEG) are far from foolproof --- a poor choice of quality level can ruin an image. To avoid user confusion and unintentional loss of information, we feel it is best to keep lossy and lossless formats strictly separate."
I'm not knocking the merit of any new lossy image format, but moreso suggesting that it have a different name/extension so that there is no possibility that anyone would be saving as lossy when expecting it to be saved as lossless. If I save an image as GIF, I know that it will be limited color depth, if I save an image as PNG, I know that it will be a lossless format with certain limitations, and so forth. The DN in DNg = Digital Negative' which implies 'lossless' and has been up until now. The new change is needlessly confusing.
A lossy RAW format seems to be a contradiction in terms as isn't the primary reason that you store and keep RAW files because they are lossless so that you can always revert to all the information that was captured in the original shot in the first place?
Kudos to larger default fonts!
The thumbs down with contents hidden is a good feature, hopefully this will control the 'trolls' and 'keyboard commandos'.
The OP control over selected answer to questions is a great feature.
Thanks for your efforts to make this site even better!
Button Pusher: I think the burning questions that we have or would like to have confirmed by the DPR crew about the GH3 are if the sensor is a Panasonic or Sony sensor and is the GH3 sensor a multi-aspect sensor. If the sensor is not mult-aspect, why did they choose to remove that feature from the GH3 when it was a selling point for the GH1 and GH2?
Not that I don't believe you jambaj0e, but I wouldn't mind hearing a second source confirm that it is a Panasonic sensor. I'd prefer that it be a Panny sensor as that would mean more sensor makers out there competing with each other rather than everyone using one source. DPR, can you ask/confirm this is a Panasonic sensor?
I can live without the multi-aspect sensor, but other than the cost factor, I'm really not buying that they are that much more of a heat producer as the GH1 and GH2 didn't seem to have heat problems when other non multi aspect sensor makers cameras did.
I think the burning questions that we have or would like to have confirmed by the DPR crew about the GH3 are if the sensor is a Panasonic or Sony sensor and is the GH3 sensor a multi-aspect sensor. If the sensor is not mult-aspect, why did they choose to remove that feature from the GH3 when it was a selling point for the GH1 and GH2?
Horrible idea. We need smaller batteries that store as much energy as today's batteries and/or the same size batteries that charge at a much faster rate - not irreplacable batteries for electronic devices that will be guaranteed to fail for good in a limited amount of time because they will not be able to be charged again.
Reilly Diefenbach: Your tax dollars at work. More welfare for the military industrial complex. I really don't think it's for shooting Yosemite.
Welfare is better managed... ROTFL... That must be why there is an overwhelming amount of fraud.
We need an camera app that will just make up the picture of our ideal friends in an ideal world with lots of sunshine, rainbows, and unicorns. It doesn't need to actually take a picture at all, just render some crud for us that is 'perfect'.
eddiephtgrphr: People will still buy them. A micro four thirds camera and a couple of decent lenses end up more expensive than amid range dslr.Ridiculous!
Who told you that m43 was supposed to be cheap? The main benefits of m43 are size/bulk and weight while maintaining good image quality. If you want cheap, use your phone.
D200_4me: Optional lens hood. Come on Olympus....really? I had to pay nearly $90 for a hood for the 12mm f/2.
True Tim, but you have to admit that the official lens hoods from the latest Oly offerings are price gouging at best.
ZAnton: It is very strange that each year Oly and Pana are making accent on progressively cheaper and smaller cameras, but their lens prices are going over the clouds.It looks like a trap for beginners, who buy a kit first, and then start building a system.
A trap because people can't be bothered to look up the price of any other lens than the one that comes with their kit? Or a trap because there are many m43 lenses that are affordable?
Lea5: Too much hate and envy here. If you don't like the cameras why do you feel the need to comment anyway? Just move on. When photographers love their Leica, so be it. They can spend their money for whatever they want and it's none of your business. This "rich guys and dentists" camera is completely ridicoulos and wrong. I know a few of them and they are penny-pinching. They buy a Coolpix at Amazon, cause it's way cheaper to buy from there. All Leica owners I know are photographers. They just love they way a Leica is to handle and most of them own much more expencive photogear than a Leica, like Phase Ones, Leafs, Hassy's etc. My D3X was 8000 bucks and my new D4 almost 6000, so what? It is paid after a few gigs. If I need something to do the job, I buy it and I don't care if people at DPreview or other places tell me it's too much money, old technology, no value, whatever. So I don't care what people say when I buy my Leica. It's my money. Period.
So the only comments you think we should be allowed to make are overwhelmingly positive for all products? Why even allow comments or posts then? DPR could create an AI program to spew praise posts and comments for us. Even better, we could put one person in charge of things and that person could tell us the 'one true way' to think.
Revolutionary! Can someone tell me if there is a new 27" monochrome monitor to properly view these pictures on?
Steen Bay: Would have been nice/useful if it was possible to compare the FZ150 to Canon SX40 (and SX30..) in the studio comparison tool. Hope that at least the SX40 will be added soon.
Tim in upstate NY: What happened to the list of pros and cons in the conclusion?
Please add the pros and cons to the end of the condensed format, single line bullets would be preferable to none at all. Pretty please with sugar on top. :)
raimundo gaby: Are you kidding? I don't understand....
How does a camera like this gets a 76 score and the SD1 a 71? The parameters here are really messed up...
And believe me, I love Panny's cameras. I have a GH2. But please, look the quality of the images on the SD1...
Total BS, and unfairness.
Different classes of cameras. They rate within the class not throughout all cameras ever produced.