mosc: Here's a "real" example of equivalent aperture and it's purpose for those who are having trouble. This camera calls itself 1248mm at the telephoto end, but how physically large is the aperture? If it's a full frame, we can use the f5.6 quoted and we get a physical aperture size of 1248/5.6 = 222.9 mm. Of course this camera doesn't have an aperture anywhere near that size (that's almost 9 inches, as wide as a car tire). If you want to know it's aperture size, you can use the equivalent aperture. Equivalent aperture is aperture times crop, or 5.6x5.6 in this case. A diffraction happy f31. This is a "real" number though because now we know how big the physical aperture of this camera is. It's 1248/31, or 40mm.
Just stick to the results. A lot of people reading this know at least the same maths you do, dearest. Don't bother...
W5JCK: Super yawn....Another camera with a small sensor and little to offer. Putting a long zoom on a lackluster camera doesn't make it good or make it worthy of being on this site. This kind of cheap camera is going to be bought by people who don't read sites like this, or they would know better. I'm not sure why DPReview still brings us information on these little sensor cameras or for that matter smartphone cameras. Maybe their newest members have been dumbed down to that level. This used to be a site for enthusiasts and professionals, not so much now...
@Entropius:I use a lot of cams from APS to FF. I still keep as my personal cam for every occasion a Pana FZ 30. I am quite familiar with all PP staff in pro level. Some pix I liked were processed with ultimum care and printed in A4 and A3 Ilford and Epson photo papers, then framed. A lot of my friends are pro photographers with serious FF equipment and some of them are so freaks that they carry their gear in vacations. We share images and they argue for hours that my framed ones are their files till the time I prove to them that they aren't and after making them bet 1 euro to see the evidence. I have earned more than 15 euros so far...
FDD5: I think it's quite a nice little camera!, A bit faster at the long end then some other superzooms, weather sealing , attractive pricing.
And as shown in the imaging resource superzoom review comparison it has quite pleasing look , and performs better than most others (maybe not the nikons with jpg...). It lacks a little in reach compared to some of the latest offerings and was actually tested a little shorter than the advertised 1200mm, something to be aware off!They do seem to process the jpg's quite heavily , giving that 'pop' , somewhat smearing details a bit ..., and unfortunately you cannot change the jpg processing. But it offers raw for those wanting to adjust the image to their own taste.
I think this camera is under appreciated (most seem pick nikon/canon), which is a pity !, should be more users out there
I've owned several superzooms (canon/sony/panasonic), and to date this is my favourite...
I generally agree, but I think Panas are in another class overall, mainly because of their lenses. Even FZ20, back in 2005 in most cases had better results than the recent predecessors of S1.
No matter if older bridge Fujis had some interesting specs they all sufferd from intense lens chromatic aberration. Not this one. Kudos to Fuji.
mediasorcerer: So what video looks better, 4k from a mft sensor, or 1080p from a ff sensor, just wondering anyone?
400$ and there is no certification that the animals which leather came from, have not injured from any barbed wires or if they took antibiotics or not organically fed or that they 've been well treated in their life..? Nah...I' ll rip the hand sewn front seats made from reindeer's skin of my friend's Bentley and I ' ll make a bag out of them instead...
I am not wondering...
Wouldn't be interesting enough to see some pics in this gallery taken with the kit lens?
Great new lil' devil...10 days old manicure not great...
Allen Yang: I used to like Panasonic, but the skintone of indoor portraits and high ISO noise were hideous! I took a picture of my aunt in a restaurant and showed her the pic. What a horrible mistake, she almost killed me! Her face looked sort of purple in that picture. By the way, the camera I used back then was a Panasonic LX3.
Two options available are...Change aunt...Learn shooting pics with a compact cam. Easier than making pics using Dslr's...Yoda that is...
Mean and lean by all means..!
tabloid: Sensor is half the size of full frame....hmmm
Simple elementary school geometry...
Ιs this camera taking good photos?
QuarryCat: even smaller and lighter - and the X-T1 isn't really big and heavy - I don't think it is the right way for serious picture taking.To small for my hands.
Not my style, to retro and to ugly.I like the X-T1 a lot more - it is more Contax, more good propositions.
I don't see a big market for this camera.
Yep! Marketing needs just to gain again from gained reputation out of XT 1.
sneakyracer: Worked with the RAW files using LR and right away I could tell that the file quality of the 5DSR is excellent. Best I have seen from Canon to date. No question about it. The files, even the high iso ones, are extremely workable in LR. They retain great quality (noise and color) even when making pretty wild adjustments. They are similar to 5D3 in look and feel but better. I can't get into specifics until I use the camera with my own lenses and lights but initial impressions are great.
To my eyes Nikon's color rendition is more suitable to my likings, back from the days of Reuters Nikon/Kodak hybrid of 6Mp. Proper PP of course can deliver the desired results from both manufacturers, but not in all cases. FF and APS of Olys, Pentax and Panas are usually rendering more pleasantly (sometimes quite idiosyncratic in PP) while Leica's rendition seems too "firm" and absolute and Minolta/Sony's are expressing their hidden unexpressed love with greens. As said it's a matter of taste and serious PP.
I' ve tried and used intensively some of the Canon's monsters the last dozen years from D1s I to Fivies. I always had an issue with the way they render whites. Maybe it's my idea, sensors' s quality definitely allow whites restoring as you like (that's more than obvious given pixels number and headroom), but I always have this feeling.It's similar to my confidence that in low lights conditions these monsters behave better than anticipated.
Forget selfy pics. Here comes the selfy vids!
Paul JM: There is nothing novel about this at allI married one about 19 years ago
Awesome battery performance!
Superb lenses in the line of quality of Oly..!
Maturity is expensive... A good glass!