perry rhodan: OMG. You dropped a fujifilm from the roundup and forgot to rewrite the P900 part!? Better wake up. And this took 3 writers? This is sooo not DPR. What's wrong people? This is my definitie last remake on this roundup. Feel like I have put more effort in this than the 3 staffmembers already 😨😤Out.
Anyone can be rude online (I know I have been at times). Takes class to admit when you have been rude and apologize. Cheers.
surlezi: Great abilities, gread IQ, too bad it's not mirrorless !
Beauty is in the eye and sometimes hands of the beholder. Therfore, for some, DSLR is better ..
Go find another camera review site and whine there..they would be blessed, you'd obviously be doing them a favor as you are soooo insightful
Even though I own a FF (D750), two m43 (E-M5 and G3), lenses that give me reach and an RX100, I've always found my bridge zoom cameras to be invaluable (have owned an HX200V and an FZ1000, currently own an FZ200). DPR, thanks for the update for this class of camera.
M1963: One for the extra patient. Normally, the use of ND filters results in cheesy pictures made by people who have no taste but believe they master photographic techniques.
Hey there little boys..hilarious and rude comments....not necessarily in that order LOL.
TheDarmok74: I'd wish the assignment would be "take photos that best show the camera's capabilties" and not "show what good a photographer you are".
damned if you do, damned if you don't..
Bram de Mooij: Please stop looking at smartphones as being cameras. They are not. They are phones. OK, they are the reason for the decline of the cheap point and shoot cameras. That only shows me that these point and shoots were not really cameras either :-) They were just toys with limited use. Most obvious shortcomings of those toys was the lack of features like mp3 playing, navigation and making phone calls. Just kidding of course.
The fact that the iPhone is the most popular camera on Flickr is misleading in my view. Since the iPhones and other smartphones exist a lot of people that never owned a camera in the first place started to shoot images. They were never potential enthousiast compact camera buyers. Maybe they will be some day :-)
LOL. I own an RX100, ZS3, FZ200, G3, OMD E-M5 and a D750...and still use my camera phone all the time. Love my camera phone as I love all of my other cameras..IT'S ABOUT HAVING FUN TAKING PICTURES!
Nice video...thanks. In particular, love the placard reading and discovery of content in english...nice add of some humor.
Digital cameras are so old school. LOL. No..more seriously, folks were taking great photos with old film cameras (I'm not taking dSLRs, think Kodiak instamatics)...and smart phone cameras can deliver better quality and ease of use. Most important, the best camera is the one you have with you. Smart phone cameras = the main type of camera people will use, with sales of higher end cameras dropping as the population of photographers increases.
Although I'm quite happy with my FF camera (D750) and expect I'll be a dedicated FF Nikon user moving forward, much thanks to Pentax/Ricoh for the commitment making the K-1..makes the digital camera landscape more robust and competitive. Also, I am very impressed with the features and price. KUDOS!
Geekapoo: Once again, now RAW...no interest. NEXT!
Hi Dave- I appreciate that RAW has much less value for this camera but it is a better option than no RAW at all (already, one takes a hit due to sensor size and any advantage is appreciated). Don't expect to see the type of RAW files I get with my FF, m43 or 1" cameras. Cheers.
VENTURE-STAR: You'd actually think it matters whether a cheap amateur compact like this had RAW. This camera is in competition with the Panasonic TZ80 and will mostly be bought by tourists who will use it for point and shoot snaps. A lack of EVF is the only obvious shortcoming. When the price drops, it should sell quite well.
It won't be of interest to serious photographers concerned with quality. I'd say it's of more importance that so many low-end compact cameras are now being built with phone sized sensors, simply to allow ridiculously wide focal length ranges.
I could care less about whether folks care about whether the camera has RAW. My comment about lack of RAW being a non-starter was in reference to how I feel about the camera. Also...must admit that I'm pretty happy with my FZ200. Cheers.
Once again, now RAW...no interest. NEXT!
I love the folks who don't seem to "get it"..let's revisit this tech in a decade (actually, earlier) and see the extent to which it permeates the imaging capture landscape..
bicycle snap shooter: Intense snap of Steve Huff...like the way his face seems to be lit by the screen of his smart phone.
I think I'll pass on Huff Paranormal...so it will remain "Steve Who?" for me. NEXT!
Oh good...a camera that I can use when wearing my brown jacket, brown pants and matching brown shoes. If I am taking pictures, I want to look my best when doing so!!!!!!!!!
MeganV: It's pretty . . . but for the price it needs to really push the bar, functionally.
Is the sensor really better than what we've had since 2012? It's gonna be hard to see the difference between 16 and 20 megapixels, so how has dynamic range or low-light performance improved? Is this the m4/3 camera that finally bumps us to a 14-bit RAW pipeline from a sensor that can actually detect 14 bits of gradation?
And AF: Olympus has had quick & accurate single-shot AF for five years, now--so where are we with subject tracking and continuous performance?
And no 4K?
Honestly, I think Oly's gonna have a hard time moving these. B&H is now selling the original (weather sealed, 5-axis IBIS) E-M5 for $379. Is this camera $800 and 4 years better? Feels a little stalled, to me. I'd buy the E-M5 and put the $800 difference into lenses.
The E-M5 for $379 is one heck of a bargain! Old sensor? YAWN. Old LCD and EVF? YAWN. No "ART" dial in the front of the camera? LOL. It's not like the E-M5 sucked..it was and remains one heck of a camera. Everyone looking for the latest and greatest tech..LOL. Spend more time actually taking picture AND use that cash saved for enabling lenses!!! Too much GAS for me at dpreview..
Goll dang, what a tough crowd. Talk about nattering nanobs of negativity. LOL
Nice pics Barney...thx for the share.
Geekapoo: YAWN...no RAW, no interest. Tsk tsk Canon.
Well,mi am obviously not the only person who dismisses the camera because it lacks RAW. Given the specs, you'd want that additional information (not compressed) to tweak images via PP. More important, from a competitive standpoint...Canon cannot compete cause no RAW