Is anyone using the Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom w 20MP BSI sensor? It seems to only be selling in the UK http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/mobile-devices/smartphones/android/SM-C1150ZKABTU#
Surprisingly sharp for 1/13th sec exposure!
The lovely detail in the eyelashes shows the sharpness this lens is capable of, as well as the sensor, which seems to be superior to any of the samples shown on the Panasonic G7. Notice that this is shot at f/4 and is still plenty sharp. In the other samples here at f/10 there is noticeable softness.
Diffraction is a major issue for Micro-Four-Thirds, especially for photographers coming from full-frame where f/8 through f/16 are acceptable apertures. Here is a great discussion by Gordon Laing of cameralabs.com on diffraction specifically on m4/3 and the E-M5II. (at the 47min mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojq29oY0o34
This image is a classic case of diffraction, details are there but not crisp, just beginning to soften. F/11 is WAY too small an aperture for Micro-Four-Thirds and I'm surprised that the photographers for DPreview are not aware of this. Here is a great discussion by Gordon Laing of cameralabs.com on diffraction specifically on m4/3 and the E-M5II. (at the 47min mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojq29oY0o34
This image is a classic case of diffraction, details are there but not crisp and beginning to soften. F/11 is WAY too small an aperture for Micro-Four-Thirds and I'm surprised that the photographers for DPreview are not aware of this. Here is a great discussion by Gordon Laing of cameralabs.com on diffraction specifically on m4/3 and the E-M5II. (at the 47min mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojq29oY0o34
A bit soft overall. Is it diffraction at f/7.1? Sure looks like it. That means that in going from f/3.5 to f/7.1 is not ideal for this lens.
Nice shot. Shows off the potential of the 12-40mm by avoiding diffraction issues and exhibiting sharpness to the edges and excellent depth-of-field.
Lightroom's way of forcing you to IMPORT photos before being able to work with them is often time consuming and unnecessary. Adobe Bridge on the other hand is much easier to work with, and much faster. It not only that it allows you to open images seamlessly into Photoshop, do PhotoMerge or HDR. You can even do Searches and assign keywords (meta tags) for your searches. Creating masks on-the-fly in Bridge for contrast, or color control, or color balance is easy. And all it can be saved into a DNG file. I came across this link which I found really useful:http://design.tutsplus.com/tutorials/top-10-reasons-you-should-be-using-adobe-bridge--psd-17633
Nikon did take huge step back by increasing the pixel count from 14MP (of v2) to 18MP. There is noticeably greater noise in the daylight shots of the v3 as compared to the v1 or v2. When they fix one thing in the series 1 they ruin another. Perhaps they just had a mental block of creating a decent mirrorless right from the start?
Theelderkeynes: Olympus have now posted the much awaited anti-shock firmware 1.1 upgrade for the OM-D E-M10 here:
This implements electronic first curtain below 1/320 sec shutter speed, thus reducing vibration, in theory, from the shutter.
Perhaps comnsumer pressure does work!
Thanks for the update link. I do see a clear but subtle difference in the E-M10 output with anti-shock enabled.
After using the E-M1 with it's fabulous grip and button layout, I found the E-M10's lack of a proper grip and the close layout of the top deck's F2, Movie Record button (which I reassigned to ISO), and the F1, to be too awkward to use. I don't have large hands but found that I had to twist fingers and shift my hand position in to order to activate those controls, especially in using the camera with manual focus lenses, which meant using Magnify. All in all, very disappointing handling. I found that Allison Johnson also complained about “grip” issue in the Handling section, so I see that I am not alone. I did find the image-stabilization to be very effective though. And image quality was excellent.
Has anyone with an E-P5 had a positive experience with this “Anti-shock” delay in actual practical use? Or is it too intrusive?
Frank C.: Great camera but sensor is too small to control dof or generate bokeh properly, I'll stick to my iPhone for everyday shooting and my D610 for the serious stuff
Panasonic's 35-100mm f2.8 is sharp wide open and will give you great bokeh on the E-M1 as will the Olympus 75mm f 1.8.
Augustus Urbex: Are there any updates on the hot pixel/extreme noise issue in long exposures on the E-M1 yet? I havent heard anything new in a long time. Has Olympus fixed the issue? Were only early EM-1s affected? I want to buy one, but with this issue, that is unlikely.
For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, it is well known that the E-M1 produces an ocean of hot pixels on long exposures of 30 seconds or more at base ISO, and the exposure time needed to make them visible drops by one stop for every stop you bump the ISO. Turning on dark frame subtraction almost eliminates the issue, but this makes star trails, fireworks, bracketed long exposures impossible. Examples can be seen here : http://www.seldomscenephotography.com/2013/11/14/the-olympus-e-m1-and-long-exposures/
DPReview : PLEASE update your review to include information on this issue with sample images. This is a HUGE problem that big review sites need to address and let be known, or Olympus may never fix the issue.
Excellent link, thanks for posting. I too have been on the fence regarding the E-M1. I have rented it and loved it, loved the image quality, EVF, and handling, but this hot pixels issue affects more than just stargazers.
While I really like the idea of the mirror less Nikon v1 I found the sensor to be a bit too small, and with v2 noise definitely increased in the shadows. Now they have boosted the number of pixels again from 14.2 to 18.4 without increasing sensor size. That is just foolish. The excellent features they had in v1 (i.e., silent shutter, intervalometer, etc.) they eliminated from v2. Did they restore them in v3? Nikon is beyond conservative, they ARE afraid to challenge their own line of DLRS with a premium quality mirrorless while at the same time misjudging who this camera is for. Overpricing it does not help.
I should also say that I've used the v1 and v2 to photograph wildlife with the Nikon DX 55-300mm. And while they look ridiculous with normal size lenses the results can be impressive at 16 x 20 inches. Nikon really does not have a clue who their potential market is.
While I really like the idea of the mirrorless Nikon I found the sensor to be a bit too small, and with v2 noise definitely increased in the shadows. Now they have boosted the number of pixels again from 14.2 to 18.4 without increasing sensor size. That is just foolish. The excellent features they had in v1 (i.e., silent shutter, intervalometer, etc.) they eliminated from v2. Did they restore it in v3? Afraid to challenge their own line of DLRS with a premium quality mirrorless? Nikon's motto: running scared.
The sense that I came away with in this interview that Nikon is extremely complacent. For instance, Nikon does NOT want to create a high quality mirror-less camera because it might detract from their DSLR revenue so instead they blame the American public. Denial to cover mediocrity. They ignore the fact that the move towards mirror-less is a growing market, and that the picture quality of Nikon 1 v1 and v2 is indeed INFERIOR to APS-C and even Micro Four Thirds. Nikon has not been an pioneer in the digital age for over 15 years, but the recent falling-off of quality (as shown by problems with the D600) is troubling, and is a shame for those of us who have used Nikon equipment for decades.
Nikon has been reactive rather than pro-active for decades. Regrettably, they are NOT an innovative company, (look at sensor backside-illumination, or sensor-shift technologies, or fast response 2.3 mil dot EVF's) and their poor effort shows in the Nikon 1 v1. I purchased both, the v1 and v2 hoping for something better. Both models have great detail for their sensor size and have some excellent features, but are generally bested by Micro Four Thirds in a shot-by-shot comparison, especially now with the Olympus OM-D E-M1.
Nikon is so afraid to compete against themselves (DSLR's) that it stifles anyone who wants to cheer them on. In the mirror-less market as well as lens construction (in many lenses) they settle for mediocrity.
the point of the comparison scene is to COMPARE between cameras across the board, OLD AND NEW. The most logical way to do that is to expand the current scene rather than delete it and start with a clean slate.
the old scene is preferable because it gave a better mix of detailed actual objects (like the bottle label and Mickey) and printed objects (like the engraving lines of the Apollo). The vast majority of the new seems to be printed objects. Why not just expand the existing scene to give you more distance? That would make it a lot easier for us to compare older cameras (5 years ago) and the newest because it would retain some of the older objects.