Does anyone know if the depth measurement is to the back of the screen, or the viewfinder eyecup?
Patman888: This is getting ridiculous. What is the point of going so small? It would still be highly irritating to pocket for most people. First the GF2 gets stripped, then the G3, then the GF3, and now even the lens line up?
Let's hope the GH3 doesn't get the same treatment.
Ha ha ha to me. I did actually, as I suggested, imagine that. :-)I meant the GH2. Egg > Face.
dccdp: After the perplexing lens releases from Sony (for NEX), this is indeed a lens that proves which company knows what mirorrless is really about. Small size is essential, and it is the very factor that justifies the segment's existence.
Sony didn't get it. They only seem able to release huge and awkward lenses (e.g., the 55-210 is a bad joke: 10cm in length, ugly and very slow), which makes their small bodies look like monsters. (I own a NEX, and sadly find myself without real choices in dedicated lenses)
This small Panasonic lens is an excellent idea for the segment. If the quality is good, it will change everything. About the "power zoom", yes, it's different to what we are used to, but I believe it will be easy to change our habits a bit.
Good work, Panasonic!
Oops, the 12-35.
So then get the 16-35 when it comes out Patman.
Who wants to buy the gigantic 18-55 Sony lens that comes with a bit of a camera ? Looks like Sony got to go back to the drawing board immediately.
Well, when it does, hopefully Sony will also drop its mindless pursuit of more and more megapixels too. Those who do not agree with me on this point, please bear with me - I know you are not happy.
"Funny how the small brigade is still attacking the NEX lens size. They must be really spooked."
Brigade? Spooked? So now people who want a small, high quality camera are somehow some kind of organised militia, out to destroy the lenses of the world? Patman, come on now, get it together.
"their entire line"
Hmm, I thought they came out with a camera called the GH3, did I imagine that?
KACTET: These lenses are NOT compatible with GF1. This is just stupid.
The GF1's firmware will be updated to work 100% with this camera.
f/2.8 - f/5.6? If they are going to make the camera as large as they have, they could at least put some marginally fast glass into it.
After having Epson inkjets for a few years, and then Canon Pixma printers for the last couple, there's no way I'd go back to an Epson. Maybe they have refined their printers in recent models, but the Epson printers I had were messy, prone to blockages, and unreliable. The Canon printers have been the opposite and "just work". YMMV, obviously.
JustSomeDude: I'm curious if DPR generally gives camera manufacturers a mulligan on a bad review result + an updated firmware, of if this was a special favor to someone at Fujifilm?
What other DPR camera reviews have (quoting Andy Westlake) "been substantially rewritten to take into account all of the improvements with the new firmware, and highlight useful new features"?
If this was a special case one-off for Fujifilm, won't that further encourage them to release substandard cameras before they are ready, knowing that they'll get a free pass later to fix problems found in production cameras and getting another shot at the review later. And will the same "generosity" be extended to Panasonic/Canon/Nikon/etc. in future reviews?
It just smells fishy to me. Bloggers are forever complaining that they aren't treated like journalists. Perhaps if more of them *acted* like journalists, that wouldn't be an issue?
Remember that a reputation takes a lifetime to cultivate and a moment to ruin...
They do it all the time. You are turning this into something it is not. The reason it makes such a difference in this case is that they fixed 20+ things, whereas normally the update might be 4 or 5 things.
mpgxsvcd: I see it this way. The X100 has this going for it.Essentially silent operation
And all of this going against it. deeply buried Auto ISO in menu
Camera locks-up certain key functions for several seconds while writing to card
Requires fastest possible SD cards to give tolerable write speeds when shooting raw
Several key features buried deep in the menus
Autofocus not quite as fast and accurate as the best MILC
'Focus by wire' manual focus slow and unresponsive
No face detection AF system
Inconsistent button operation for secondary controls
Eccentric and buggy firmware, poorly organized menus
Relatively poorly-implemented video mode
4-way controller can feel laggy and imprecise
Menu/OK button too small and not very positive
Lens gets very soft at large apertures and close focus distances
The high ISO RAW files appear to have some noise reduction applied to them.
And yet, you keep on reading the reviews, even the updated ones, and bother to post here a long comment on it? Just buy one already, you know you want one.
Doug Frost: Did Olympus upgrade the CMOS sensor in the E-P3? From the press release it sounds like they merely upgraded the image processor. While that's all well and good, it doesn't do a thing in terms of improving the sensor's dynamic range. Also, I suspect that although you can now crank the ISO up to 12,500, the image quality at high ISO will not be very impressive unless the CMOS itself has been improved. Enhancing high ISO performance through in-camera image processing alone tends to produce pictures with smeared details and limited dynamic range.
The CNET review is talking about default JPEGs, not sure how that translates to "obviously" worse image quality, or that artifacts have gotten worse ...
aardvark7: Ultimately, most digital camera users are 'lazy' and want instant gratification.This will likely mean that results will only ever be used to show what has just been taken, on the camera LCD, or posted on-line for others to play with.Anything else and it turns every user into a RAW photographer, having to process all their pictures, and there is great resistance to that among the vast majority of users.Indeed, to add choosing point of focus and perhaps depth of field to any adjustments of exposure, white balance and cropping makes the task of post-processing far too long-winded or intimidating for all but the keenest and I think the novelty might soon fade.I'm certain it will have it's place, as with 3D cameras, but it won't be mainstream anytime soon.
You can change the focus point /after/ you've taken the photo?
What makes you think you'll have to wait for post-processing to see the results? I think that eventually (that is, not any time soon) there will be a consumer version of this with a touch screen, you take a photo, and then choose on the touch screen right then what you want in focus. Save, done. My idea, PM me in 2020 please, for details of where to send the royalties to.
Nearly 100 comments, and not one person (that I've seen) saying they would buy this. Who did Pentax market research this on?
If they made it weatherproof, then maybe ... if the sensor was bigger, and the lenses smaller, then maybe ... but as is ... huh?
So confused. Why would anyone buy this over an XZ-1 or LX5?