Johannes Zander: This is a very infomativ video.The camara is very interesting.
With what camera did you shout the underwater footage?
I think as a gear review site, you should mention all the gear used in the "production." E.g. along with the people who made the video, also mention what they have used.
For example, I wish to know what was the camera which tried to join the salmon in the water?
Pana FZ1000: "Very quick focusing".
Can we please stop calling it "quick" or "fast"?
It is "normal" speed of AF. As it is supposed to be.
No, waiting for a camera to confirm the focus, or the lens motor to hunt back and forth, is not acceptable in this day and age anymore.
ThePhilips: As cameras' high ISO performance improves, a need for a proper flash lessens.
Otherwise, as an amateur, I was always surprised by the lack of advancements in the lighting equipment. Flash designs, and the accompanying technics, are very old. The problems with them - are as old. Yet pretty much nobody tries to improve something there. Flash is still the same largish expensive-ish clunky device I have hard time to justify to buy and dedicate the space in my bag for it. As if interchangeable lenses weren't enough of the hustle.
Pana m43 uses the same flash system as the Oly 43/m43. And of course GX7 has a proper hot shoe. (Or you are mixing up the Canon G7 X and Panasonic GX7?) And as far as I know, the built-in flash of GX7 can be used as a master to trigger slaves, up to 3 groups. That I "know" - but from spec sheet, not personal experience. I bought GX7 mostly for the ergonomics - but it is an enthusiast level body with piles and piles of bells and whistles. Including the built-in flash which can be thumbled back by 90 degrees to fire at the ceiling.
@ecube, I'm aware of the flash unique capabilities and occasionally use the built-in flash of my Pana GX7 for fill-in, and also for the portraiture when the background is too bright. But only occasionally. (Though most of my experience comes from the old times with a Canon P&S. One could extract magnitude more of IQ from the camera when one knew how/when to use the flash. Not much of a problem with the GX7.)
What I wrote above, reflects most of the decision process which went on in my head when I decided against buying a proper dedicated flash.
Though there are now some (smallish) flashes (e.g. Nissin i40) which seem to be OK for my wallet and also for my bag. So I might dabble eventually into the flash photography.
But honestly I prefer the unfiltered (however unflattering) look of the things as they are in the available light. Flash often changes the scene too much.
As cameras' high ISO performance improves, a need for a proper flash lessens.
LionelA: Now this looks like a real camera, not like those fragile mirrorless ones
"Now this looks like a real camera, not like those fragile mirrorless ones"
Yes, it's funny how the look sells. Bigger is better!
Rod McD: Should we assume that all the existing FE lens image circles are big enough to allow for IBIS?
Read on interwebs, that people have measured Olympus 5-axis IBIS to move sensor in XY plane at most about 3mm.
But this is a smaller sensor. With larger sensors, it is unlikely that the latitude of the sensor movement would increase, it is likely to decrease. (Heavier sensor, larger motors == harder to maintain the precision of the movements.)
Stu 5: So will there be a new kit lens without I.S as it is no longer needed and improved optics. They will find it hard to justify selling this camera body with the current kit lens.
In-lens IS costs next to nothing. There is nothing wrong with having both.
In m43, with Pana stabilized lens and stabilized Oly body, you can choose where IBIS or In-lens IS should be used. Might be redundant, but definitely better than no stabilization at all.
So Olympus has designed the IBIS for the Sony.
All what's left, is for Sony to persuade Olympus also to design Zuiko lenses for FE/E-mount,.
photo perzon: I returned this inferior camera. The EVF wheel was stuck not giving adjustment until I rocked it by force. The jpegs are pathetic, not in focus. I took 400 pictures and less than 5 were sharp. And I have not one complain of my other 40 cameras including RX100, RX100III, Fuji X100, D700, D7000, D40, Coolpix A, GR, E-PL7, PL5, PM2, Stylus 1, GM1, etc., not 1 complain. I have heard of a bad batch in the forums, but I just never saw a more pathetic camera.
OK I am not a pro, but I have taken 90,000 pictures and only the LX100 was OOF jpegs OOC. Many have also complained.
BTW, owners on the Pana User Talk suggested to dial down the NR to -3 and set i.Resolution to standard for better sharpness.
I'm pretty sure Pana softens the JPEGs by default to compensate for the lack of AA filter.
> It's clear you've messed up
I always found it weird when people buy a new camera to replace old, configure the new totally different camera like their old, and then complain that (surprise) nothing works!
Otherwise, let's look on the positive side: there is somewhere now available a cheap refurb LX100!
Pat Cullinan Jr: We're doomed.
Relax. It's Google. They never finish anything.
ThePhilips: From LC1 to GX7, GM1, and now LX100. Pana definitely knows how to wow photographers. I wish they were doing it without decade long delays and without waiting for a crisis in the industry.
Marty and all. I'm well aware of all the innovation Panasonic introduced. Fastest CDAF FTW.
The problem is that Panasonic very often likes to cripple their products in unexpected ways. Just recall their Lumix G series. They were all good - but from model to model, some common features were simply missing. G6 is pretty the first of G series which is NOT handicapped in some notable fashion.
In other words, Panasonic, despite all the innovations, always manages to make a sub-par product. And the only explanation which comes to mind are the stupid business marketing decisions, rather than insurmountable technical challenges.
LWanTeD: "The Lumix DMC-LX100 is a small but not pocketable camera"
Many previews made it look pocketable, especially when comparing it to the Sony RX100 series.
Camera size comparison:
Heck, LX100 is even larger than the GM5.
As pocketability goes, it is a loss. But as a usability goes, it is a bonus.
With a solid build, it is definitely a camera made to survive 24/7 inside the backpack.
From LC1 to GX7, GM1, and now LX100. Pana definitely knows how to wow photographers. I wish they were doing it without decade long delays and without waiting for a crisis in the industry.
To solve the JPEG softness, as Pana users have found out, it is sufficient to set NR to -3 and i.Resolution to "Standard". See the two images in the thread:
with new settings: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54742335
deerings: Can someone explain aperture before I decide to get this camera? My decision is between adding a superzoom 18-300 Nikkor to my old Nikon D60 DSLR or going with the fz1000. But as far as I can see, the fz1000 only has a minimum aperture of 8, where the nikkor 18-300 superzoom lens has minimum aperture of 32. The dp review only mentions the maximum aperture - I don't understand why. thanks
"the fz1000 only has a minimum aperture of 8, where the nikkor 18-300 superzoom lens has minimum aperture of 32."
It is purely technical limitation of how small the aperture can be made. Beyond the limit, mechanics becomes very tricky, while the IQ deteriorates too much (due to diffractions) to be of any use.
The minimum apertures for systems are: m43 - f/16, APS-C - f/22, 35mm format - f/32. That means, the lenses designed for the system *must* allow closing aperture to this diameter.
Generally, smaller the sensor, larger the min aperture f-number would be. E.g. on m43, the aperture diameter of f/32 (if it had allowed one) at 25mm would be (25/32 = ) 0.78mm!
It is simpler for the fixed lens cameras. Here, manufacturers have the free hand how to design the aperture. Some decide to make the aperture closing to a very small diameter - some not. Why the FZ1000 has min aperture of f/8 is the question only Panasonic can answer. E.g. Sony RX10 has min aperture of f/11.
Raist3d: I don't understand why this is big news. Or why so important. Wow, and older camera model going out of production? Really?! Never heard of that before in the market.
And reporting a rumor? (!) Not that it makes a difference true or not true.
> but they are NOT in continuous production.
True. But I also think you are off by quite a lot regarding the size of the batches.
Most consumer electronics vendors use the "slow phase-in" method. Initially small batches are produced, to iron out the initial manufacturing QA problems (thus the long wait after the launch). Then, after initial QA is finished, big batches are produced to satisfy the initial high demand. Later on, only small batches (e.g. once per quarter) are produced to satisfy the projected demand.
Just a Photographer: Its not going that well with 4/3 at the moment.Hope they'll be able to come up with a game changer.
Many people looking for a small system are now looking towards Fuji due to their APS sensor, retro look and more or less same weight and AF performance.
"Many people looking for a small system are now looking towards Fuji due to their APS sensor, retro look and more or less same weight and AF performance."
This gearhead perspective is not even funny anymore.
You compare an average Fuji X combo to carefully cherry-picked m43 combo to support your opinion.
Fuji lacks cheap small lenses and small bodies with VF. If you own only Fuji X, you can't scale down as much as you can with the m43.
Scrapping a camera model before xmas sales season?
A very sound business strategy. /s