Rascati: Upon initial reading of this review I was under the impression that the reviewer did not like this camera. In two instances (Aperture control and O-Ring Protector), the reviewer did not take the time to read the manual to understand how the camera worked. While the operation of this camera may not be to the reviewers liking, knocking it down because he didn't read the manual does not seem fair. Additionally, the photos that were used in the review were nowhere near the quality of the photos in the gallery. The use of some of the better gallery photos for the review would have given a better example of what this camera can do. To be fair, Jeff did indicate the conditions in which he took the review photos (Less than ideal conditions). Overall, it just seems like the reviewer highlighted the negative aspects of the camera vs. the highlights. If I had a trip planned to Hawaii with a new camera, I think I'd take a few minutes to read the manual first.(I don't own this camera) Best Regards
I can only speak for myself, but having handled plenty of cameras that come through our offices, you come to expect cameras to work in a seemingly logical way. On most cameras aperture is set with a control wheel or the 4-way directional buttons, not the playback zoom buttons.
Yes there is the argument that the manual should be read front-to-back, but the likelihood that this would be done by the average user is next to nil, even if they're buying an expensive interchangeable lens system. I certainly didn't pour over the manual when I bought my Canon DSLR.
And though Jeff did figure out where the controls were in the end, something has to be said about Nikon placing aperture controls in the last place a reviewer would check.
Jerry Ci: Devin -- you repeatedly refer to connections to an iPad, rather than tablet. Are you saying that Sandisk Connect ONLY works with an Apple product? Or, instead, are you simply an iTard that doesn't recognize there is a universe outside of Apple products?
Sandisk's Connect app is available for both iOS and Android operating systems.
duchamp: line 5: "put your media on a Samsung drive"
Have you meant Sandisk?
Corkcampbell: Is this going to be offered for free by the Creative Live website? Right now it says "Enjoy this free workshop!", but they could just be referring to the rebroadcast going on now. I keep missing the first segment because of my schedule.
Sorry, just saw a reply below that says it will be archived and available.
And it's now available here: http://www.creativelive.com/courses/dpreview-live
Jim Salvas: I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I haven't seen TV this geeky since the early days of MSNBC, when Soledad O'Brien chatted every day with virtual reality character Null Dev about computer software.
I didn't even know that was a thing. Wow. The 90s were a really strange decade.
harold1968: Looks like the RX1(R) doesn't get a look in anywhereStrangeAs it's the best compact
The RX1(R) is not very pocketable though...
idnab: Nikon P330 - "F1.8-5.9 lens" ?
What is actually indicated on the ring at the base of lens is "1:1.8-5.6", not a major difference, but what is stated here by DPR should be consistent with the product spec.
Fixed the typo. Thanks.
Love it! Great format!
I'd like to suggest it be on the "Buying Guide" drop-down menu at top. :)
We're working on a more permanent home for all our buying guide / roundup content. Thanks for the suggestion.
lester11: Nice! Going Shooting, capital G capital S. Yup, the E-M5 is round my neck and the backpack is full of lenses and I've got my Goretex on and yup, I'm Goin' Shootin'. Now when I'm not Going Shooting, I'll be in my suit and tie mainly, and I really really want to have something unobtrusive but good in my jacket pocket. Darn it, I don't think I have what it takes to pop a Cath Kidson handbag on my arm...
I carried a 5D2 and 24-70 f/2.8L while climbing a mountain, and besides the fact that it was inaccessible in my pack most of the time going up, I would've loved something that was 4lbs lighter...
Russell Evans: I setup the camerasize.com webpage with the GM1 and Sony Nex-3n on it and asked my wife which one she would like. She indicated the GM1 and said, "of coarse that one, as it has that old camera look". I then told her the GM1 is US $750 and the other is US $450. She then said the looks weren't $300 more important. I asked her about size and she replied she is happy with the 5n with the Sony 16-50mm she has now, and the little bit smaller camera isn't really enough smaller to interest her.
I have to admit I like the looks of the GM1, but even with my small hands, really small for a guy, I find the 5n too small and have to have a half case on it to have it be somewhat comfortable for me. My wife likes it without the case, of coarse. I also looked to find photos of the 3n with a half case on it, and that look is almost as attractive as the GM1 to me.
Crazy, after all that, I still would like to buy my wife the GM1. I might not be stylish, but my wife is still pretty hip and happening.
Admittedly I have not shot extensively with the GM1 like Allison has, but my first reaction upon seeing and holding it for the first time was, "Really? They made it *that* small?!"
Sizing it up on camerasize.com is one thing; holding it in your hands is something completely else. It may be too small for "serious" photo work or, as Allison puts it, "Going Shooting", but my sore shoulder wins out over my cramped hands when walking around with non-serious photography.
And then when you factor in that you're not sacrificing sensor size (didn't say image quality, as I haven't scrutinized the photos) it's really amazing what they've done.
thx1138: Google Nexus 4 has very ordinary battery life and the Nexus 5 uses a larger 1080p screen that'll require even more juice. The 2300mAh battery is a bit of a joke and given how little Google spends on battery optimisation, the Nexus 5 should also be poor.
As for the camera, who cares, 8MP is about 7MP more than most people need for their facebook snaps.
An unlocked Note 3 also costs $300+ more than the 32GB Nexus 5, at least in the US. $300 can buy quite a bit of electronics.
HappyVan: "In what may end up being a more infuriating than entertaining attempt at appealing to photographers, Google has released a video of people using their Nexus 5 smartphones to capture weddings. Since smartphones seem to be the #1 enemy of professional wedding photographers, we thought this was a funny choice for a promotional video."
Actually, this is wrong. Pro wedding photog don't fear smartphones.
Pro wedding photog provide value in a package. Pictures are nicely presented. Video is smartly edited and audio mixed.
Clients hire pro because they depend on the photog capturing the key moments in focus. Does that matter?
I'm guessing Lauren meant that smartphones are the #1 enemy by getting in the way of shots taken by professionals.
John McCormack: Anyone else having a problem viewing the samples gallery? I've tried a couple of browsers but they seem to be offline. ???
And we're back. Sorry for the inconvenience.
sdribetahi: Why don't they ever test AF with moving objects. It's not even discussed? If I don't shoot still life scenes, what am I getting with AF, or AF tracking?
Did you see the Continuous AF/Tracking section on the Real World AF experience page? <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/8">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/8</a>
CyberAngel: Picture text"… but it’s nothing compared to the detail in this frame from the 4K mode (3849 x 2160)."3849 -> 3840
groucher: Could you please rename Connect to 'Do Not Read this Naff Article' please.
On dpreview, above the news there is a "Filter news" option where you can uncheck Connect posts.
Torsten Hoff: >> "equivalent to 30mm on a Micro Four Thirds body"
Shouldn't that be 30mm on a 35mm camera?
All correct. I've added the better wording though. Thanks.
DavidKennard: Not sure why you'd upload a RAW file to Gplus?
Even if people are uploading RAW files, surely extracting the embedded JPEG would be good enough for web size sharing, and give a result similar to an out of camera JPEG? Or do not all RAWs include embedded JPEGs?
As would I. The amount of money spent on cloud services could be put towards a new hard drive every year, hopefully negating the fear of catastrophic hard drive failure. You still don't have the security of redundant backup though, something that I'm terrified of losing 10+ years of images.
As for Google using my data to sell me things, I don't really care about that aspect, but that's besides the point.
David asked why people would upload Raw files to G+. Backup is one of those options. I don't speak for Google but they never advertised this update as replacing your Raw editor of choice; they were saying, "Hey, look at all these Raw files you've been storing; well their thumbnails are going to look better now."
Legalities aside, Flickr is not a viable backup option since you cannot store RAW files on there and you cannot easily download all your JPEG files at once without using a third party application.
If you're storing the full-sized D800 JPEG, why not take it one step further and backup the original Raw file? If storing the JPEG is your cup of tea, then G+ gives you unlimited storage for pictures of 2048px on the long edge, good enough to view on just about any device except 4K monitors. But if you're only storing JPEGs and you want to store the full version, then Flickr may be a better option. Choices are great, no?
You can also use Google+ as file storage with their underlying Google Drive service. They give you 15GB to start with and then you pay on top of that: <a href="https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en">https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en</a>