le_alain: Why UNCOMPRESSED !!they read too much DPReview !The good alternative was losless compressed raw instead of lossy, or choice between lossless, lossy, uncompressed
@Rishi"For the record, we at DPReview have been stressing how lossless compressed is quite clever, based off of Emil Martinec's excellent work here."You're right Rishi and totally agree with you, U was not speaking for DPR writers, but DPR forummers.The PB is not HDD space, but time to write and SD space when you are on events, such wedding where you can shoot till 5000 time a day.Whan I useds Nikon I always choose lossless RAW compression, it was the best "no" compromise.
Why UNCOMPRESSED !!they read too much DPReview !The good alternative was losless compressed raw instead of lossy, or choice between lossless, lossy, uncompressed
Alan Aurmont: The patch isn't magnified like that, is it? Instead, the whole viewfinder is. Correct me if I'm wrong.
On a Leica camera?The patch is not magnified, and the magnification of the viewfinder between 0.58x to 0.91x, 0.68x for the M240, so can't tell it is "magnification";)
Arff Peter was faster to write ! :)
JohnnyP1: Why didn't you test the C-Af for itself? C-Af + Tracking doesn't work, which is well known.
Also i don't understand the following statement: "The menus are incredibly complicated"This is just not true. The Menu is extensive, but it is for the most part not complicated and should be, especiallly for a experienced photographer, easy to setup.
"It is illogical too"
Try a Sony one to say 'illogical"( ex Nikon+Canon+Olympus+Fuj owner, now only Sony an Fuji X20)
Robert Holloway: Another great article team DPR! I have an a7r2 on back order and am excited by the potential of the camera. Can anyone explain why Sony would load a camera with all these innovations and features and simultaneously not provide lossless RAW? I don't know if it's a real world problem, but just don't understand why they travel this route. Thanks
just to have the choice, like on Nikon's ..Lossylosslessor no compressionand you choose when you want performance or (skight) better IQ
AbrasiveReducer: The takeaway is that great lenses can be built anywhere but it's too expensive in Germany. While Sony squandered most of what they got from Minolta (and yes, Minolta had some superb lenses including several re-branded for Leitz) they wisely saw they needed assistance with lenses. Of course, Zeiss is not new to this, having a similar arrangement with Kyocera for their Contax-branded cameras.
Cosina is amazingly capable especially with short runs, producing everything from budget film SLRs to Zeiss lenses but apparently they are not producing some of the most recent Zeiss.
"Only the Touits arent made by Cosina AFAIK"nope,
only the "M", "ZE", "ZF" are made by Cosina;)
johnsmith404: Calling a resolution increase of just around 12% a 'leap' is pushing it a bit.
For the remark obaout Olympus 45 1.8 resolution, as it's sensor shift, and always a 16Mpx sensor, I don't understand why the lense should limit more the total resolution ?
For the sample I saw, it was more that pixel shift was not equal to a real full res sensor .;)
electrophoto: If only they would have added a 35mm lens ;)Well I'm glad they didn't - otherwise I'd find myself tempted.Never been a big fan of 28mm in a fixed lens camera....I've used some - and always found my X100 23mm (=35mm) lens far more useful on a fixed.
nice camera so... especially throwing in some modern...I'm not much a leica shooter (used to shoot some film Leicas years ago, but the price tag never was my range... ) but I can see why the Q is an interesting product.
If you do a crop, you are at the same working disatnce, you only keep what is the angle of view of a 35mm at the same distance-> so same perspective.But If you want to have FF the same framing than the 35mm, you have to reduce this working distance with your 28mm, and that change perspective ;)
I prefer the original coolpix 4500 :)-
Artak Hambarian: ...and also please at least a modest zoom like 20 - 40 mm f/2.8. In that case I would pay even $6k. This would help me not to change my lenses on the dslr so frequently. If you like this idea, give me a discount, Leica!
VARIO-ELMAR-R f/3,5-4/21-35 92-63° 9/8 - 0,50 500 VARIO-ELMARIT-R ASPH. f/2,8-4,5/28-90 63-23° 11/8 - 0,60 740 VARIO-ELMAR-R f/3,5-4,5/28-70 76-34° 11/8 - 0,50 450 VARIO-ELMARIT-R ASPH. f/2,8/35-70 64-34° 11/9 - 0,70 - 0.30en positionmacro 1000 VARIO-ELMAR-R f/3,5/35-70 (II) 64-35° 8/7 - 1,00 450 VARIO-ELMAR-R f/3,5/35-70 (I) 64-35° 8/7 - 1,00 420 VARIO-ELMAR-R f/4/35-70 64-34° 8/7 - 0,60 - 0,26en positionmacro 500 VARIO-APO-ELMARIT-R f/2,8/70-180 34-14° 13/10 - 1,70 1870 VARIO-ELMAR-R f/4/70-210 35-12° 12/9 - 1,10 720 VARIO-ELMAR-R f/4/80-200 29-12,5° 12/9 - 1,10 1020 VARIO-ELMAR-R f/4,2/105-280 23-8,8° 13/10 - 1,70 1950
and with an M Mount .... :)
arphoto: Though, it lacks a second sd port, for events and wedding shooters.what is AF performance in low light ?I expect -3ev with this sensitive sensor,that would be great
-4 is A7s territory
Well done, and fun :)
Alpha Photo: Now if Sony could only get rid of the fake prism box on top of their cameras....
I bougt A7, A7s, A7II, only because of this wonderful box.Sony A6000 look is so .. so.. :(
forpetessake: When will DPR stop publishing misleading numbers? It's NOT "a mind-blowing F2.8-6.5 24-2000mm equivalent zoom".
You either provide conversion for both f-stop and focal length, which are mind-blowing F14.6-33.8 24-2000mm FF equivalent. Or provide the physical parameters, which are F2.8-6.5 4.6-385mm.
It's hard to believe DPR continues making honest mistakes -- writing a F14.6-33.8 4.6-385mm would have been an honest mistake, and I've never seen that.
@mosc, not totally exact:Use a FF200mm f2.8 on FF or APSC, full open you always use the 71mm aperture, and it's what give the light on the sensor or film by area unit, so You can use the same result of an external lightmeter to setup both cameras.But as you say, the APSC sensor is 43¨of the FF sensor, so the total of light light/area*area is 43% less. That's why you for a similar picture, you have around 1stop more noise. Then for DOF, with the same physical aperture, as the angle of view is shorter, you have to go back 1.5x the distance to get the same shot, and so the DOF is 1.5x the one of a FF body, because you don't shoot the same picture at the same distance. If uou shoot at the same disatnce, you have exactly the same DOF if you shootyour 200mm at 2.8, but you have not the same picture.
"By forpetessake (4 hours ago)Please refrain from the silly f2.8 is f2.8 comments. It's good to know the subject before commenting and embarrassing onesel"perhaps you don't know the difference between physical f2.8, and the quantity of light the sensor gets per area unit or in totality ?Sorry 2.8 is 2.8. Then you can speak of equivalent for focal, DOF or overall quantity of light the sensor gets.
En Trance: Finally, a manufacturer correcting shortcomings for free. Wish there were more out there.Too bad, I do not like Nikon. Don't know why?
@ En Trance I love Nikon, I dislike Sony, but I love the A7 line, size and look, and I sold my Nikon gear, bought A7 and A7II and try to live with all their shortcomings...As you say, many persons and many roads
Wow !What a cool garage ... ! :)
Stigg: hmm, no matter the weather you just keep taking boring snapshots. even antsy bad-breath adams could make more interesting mediocre shots than these. try throwing your camera at some rocks or off a cliff. they'll definitely be more lively than your usual.
hmmm, boring unintersting comment, threw your keyboard against the wall, it will definitely be better than your usual.http://www.dpreview.com/members/296810275/comments