Does DPR has a film scanner in the office?
It would be interesting to have a film camera or two in the studio comparison test.
fmian: 'Dual lens system for optimised film (6400dpi)'
Highly inaccurate and misleading.I don't know why companies can't list the true resolution...
@csvd: "I just read that the 6400 dpi are just rubbuish. The scanner was tested and real 2300 dpi were accomplished ;("
Let me guess - this was the first scanner review you have read?
All scanner manufacturers (regardless of the scanner type) always state the max peak resolution which isn't really achievable in the real life.
But just like a RAW from digital camera, the higher resolution simply gives you more bits to work with in PP.
Average User: It is nice to see Sony will finally have some fast lenses to go with the A7 cameras. But it's a shame they have elected to produce only f4 zooms; whole reason to buy a full frame is better low light...but then Sony handicaps the cameras with F-4 zooms instead of industry standard F 2.8 and your better off in low light with a Nikon D7100 (or even a d3300) and a Sigma f 1.8 18-35, or a Tamron 24-70 f2.8.
It's either handicap the cameras with the f/4 lenses - or handicap the users with the f/2.8 monster lenses.
IMO, f/4 for real world purposes is enough. For brighter apertures, there would be likely specialist glass produced.
And if you really need the FF f/2.8 zooms, there is always CaNikon.
jenbenn: I dont really understand why people are complaining.
For the last months I have been shooting a 5D III and a sony A7. After testing Sony's "innovative" camera I am utterly disapponted and decided to stick entirely with my 5Ds despite their higher weight. Reasons?:
1. Optical Viewfinder. If you shoot more than the casual amateur, you need an optical viewfinder. Staring through a Mini-TV- Viewfinder for hours a day is not an option, no matter how good the TV is. EVF may have an advantage in near to total darkrness but the lag of the EVF in darkness also makes you miss shots.
2. Operability. Canon handles much better and quicker. Sony takes ages to power on or zoom into a pic for checking focus.
In view of this the 7D II is another solid, camera, with specs you need to get the shot. Sure I would love a Foveson Sensor with 36 Mp and no noise up to iso 102,400. But I happily take the cam as is because I know it will let me get the shots easier than its predecessor.
@jenbenn: "I think mirrorless are not really a replacment of a DSLR and lack the universailty of usages."
They are not replacement for YOUR gear. So much is clear. :)
But they are replacement for 95% of the other DSLRs, with which, believe me, you would have even more problems than with the A7.
Or you want me to believe that a Rebel with a kit lens and tiny, tunnel-like OVF, would do better job for you needs? Somehow I doubt it. Doubt it very much.
DSLR (and now mirrorless) are very mature these days and have lots of different cameras to offer. Blank statement like "mirrorless doesn't work for me, only DSLR does" doesn't make any sense for many years now. Because you can't extrapolate and generalize it like that - even for the DSLRs themselves.
@kangoo1707, actually, yes. Handling is quite important to me. And no, you can't get used to the camera reacting only eventually to your commands. I'm spoiled by fast cameras and fast AF. Panasonic FTW.
APS-C lives on. Take that.
@jenbenn, You basically picked the worst of mirrorless to compare against handling of the 5D3. A7 cameras are way to immature at this point of time. Unless you need the IQ right now, then wait for the mk2. And if you do not need the IQ, then there are other (non-FF) mirrorless which handle better and have better lens selection.
Dimit: I can hardly find something bad or even mediocre in this little thing.Bet it will be the Photokina spot of attention,more than anything else.I am not a Pana fan but this camera will eventually be a huge success,better in every respect than the rx100 m3 which I own.
@Cane: "Once it needs a bag, might as well just take a dslr at that point."
Not really. There is a huge, huge difference in size between dedicated DSLR holster case (to fit DLSR with a kit let) and neoprene pouch (to fit the mirrorless with a pancake).
Gabor Takacs: A few more toughts on this from Middle-Europe.
Anyone who ever tried to shoot basketball or dance competitions knows that the 50-70mm range is essential.
FF body and lens are too expensive (The average monthly income here, in Hungary is $455/Euro354/GBP278!) and thank planned obsolescence (search youtube) you should not expect much more lifespan from FF body than APS-C.
We like the feeling of a DSLR body, so obviously we buy APS-C, but then what to choose for telephoto?
The Sigma without OS does not shine in terms of picture quality and AF. The Tokina quite soft from 100-135mm and is not so fast for fast action. Many Pentax users wish to switch to Canon or Nikon, they claim the AF system is not so good. The Sigma with OS (anyone knows why discontinued?) is superb in IQ and speed, but mine was repaired 3 times (OS module fault).
As you can see now, more users desperately waiting for the ultimate telephoto solution for APS-C, so I am truly happy reading this article.
> because you can adapt older lenses to it.
AF generally doesn't work with the adapted lenses.
wolfloid: This whole article is based on a very basic misunderstanding. The lenses are the 'equivalents of 70-200 f4 lenses. NOT f2.8 lenses. Depth of field on APS-C at f2.8 is 'equivalent to f4 on full frame. Any light gathering advantage of f2.8 on APS-C is mitigated by the larger sensor of FF, which, if the sensors are of the same quality, will have half the noise of APS-C.
So, the Canon 70-200IS f4 is actually the lens to compare these new lenses with, and that, of couse, is smaller and lighter.
"The lenses are the 'equivalents of 70-200 f4 lenses. NOT f2.8 lenses."
Obviously the article about APS-C lenses is written for the APS-C shooters. For APS-C shooters, they are not "equivalent", but normal f/2.8 lenses.
The "equivalency" in the article most of the time relates to the FOV, because the 135 format FL is a de facto standard to measure the FOV.
Thoughts: To compete with FF, they should try to make f1.8 zoom lenses like Sigma did.
> To compete with FF [...]
Why anybody would compete with a niche product? FF are small niche. APS-C market is much much larger and the manufacturers are competing for the piece of the large pie.
> Image stabilisation No> Autofocus No
When it comes to Zeiss, I'm certainly missing the appeal.
Griffo 155: Has a Fuji X series look about it?
No. It has the look of Panasonic LC1 from 2004. Almost precisely same look, btw.
Nukunukoo: I am so angry why Canon and Nikon are still thinking that they are still safe in their comfort zone. Sony, Panasonic, Fuji and Samsung are slugging it out with really good, cutting-edge, products.
@Mike, "Check again, and find out of the supporting data..."
Not going to. Financial reports are boring as hell. Finding the articles with quoted analysts takes too much time.
Last report I have read was pretty clear about Sony/Pana duo: Pana is recovering but uncertain; Sony hasn't yet restructured, highly volatile since only few divisions pull the rest of the company.
"One ore thing, when a given company gets in trouble. You and me do not give the company money to the company, but wall street."
Hu? I game mine to Panasonic - ordered my GX7 from them directly. :)
Wall Street is mostly playing with stock prices - it doesn't give or take anything to others. Those are banks that give money - but only when companies actually ask for it.
Anyway, as finances go, I haven't heard anything positive about Sony. Nothing depressingly negative either, but negative nevertheless: despite managing a profit, they are lagging in restructuring behind Pana by about 2 years.
Samsung, compared to Japanese companies, is a different bag of cats. Samsung is known to mercilessly kill off the units which are not profitable. If NX would fail to gain desired market share, Sammy would kill it. (There were dates named, but I can't recall them.)
All in all, the only large companies which are somewhat stable right now (and have stake in the camera market) are Canon, Ricoh and Panasonic.
(But Canon is expected to have troubles ahead: the printing market, the cashcow, is steadily shrinking. Printing is another victim of the mobile (internet) revolution.)
Smaller companies like Oly and Fuji are somewhat different, since camera business, on one side, is small compared to the rest of the company, but on the other side is irreplaceable part of the public image of the company. Thus the camera business plays more of a PR role, helping sales of other business units indirectly.
@Mike FL, I think you exaggerate and twist things slightly. Last time I was checking analyst columns, there were no word on imagine businesses at all. Cameras, as consumer products are highly visible, but market is small and has very negligible impact on the bottom line of the large corporations.
Now, Nikon is not large enough and camera business is a sizable chunk of the company. Thus the doom and gloom about Nikon.
Panasonic might close the imaging. Or might not. Pana is somewhat traditional company and have a foot in video market. With hybrid cameras becoming popular among pros, it would be hard for them to pull out.
Sony is a different story entirely. I'm not sure what you have read (link?) but actually Wall Street is extremely cautious about Sony since it is still financially troubled and, unlike Pana, hasn't recovered from the slump of TV sales. Several divisions are pulling the whole company, but whether it would give enough time to restructure, is uncertain.
EduPortas: Interesting, but a bit expensive. Samsung does not have the brand-sparkle to compete with big name camera makers. Also, if you are changing systems this suddenly becomes a costly proposition. I'm hopping for stellar reviews on the video side, THEN I'll consider buying this camera. I'm expecting great things at that price point.
"As for lens, Samsung is getting fairly complete if you ignore the exotic ones."
No mirrorless system at the moment has the exotic lenses. (I prefer term "specialist lenses".)
Architecture photographers, for example, are nagging for WA TS for as long as mirrorless exists. Or long macro. And still no dice. At least the tele-end gets slowly covered...
I, as an amateur though, is pretty OK with most of the systems. To me, NX matches the m43 pretty closely: cheap pancakes + decent (collapsible) standard zoom + decent tele zoom.
I went with Pana m43 solely for the AF speed advantage. NX was very very strong second contender.
nix27: So Panasonic is Magnesium and Leica Aluminum? Or is that a mistake. Also, no flash included as an accessory on the Leica? Still leaning toward the look of the Leica, plus three year warranty.
Edit: I guess dpreview changed the LX-100 specs from Magnesium to Aluminum as well.
"So Panasonic is Magnesium and Leica Aluminum? Or is that a mistake."
Probably it's over-simplification for advertisement.
Sole magnesium and aluminium are rarely used on their own - most of the time it is their alloys.
Magnesium-aluminium alloys are very popular for their durability and light weight.
In other words, very likely both statements are right. And both are wrong.
Wilight: I'm OK with the design of LX100, but I definitely prefer this one. And for the first time I can say: $300 isn't that much! Leica should also make a better looking version of the "CM1" smartphone... hehe
Leica made the camera less usable - they have removed the grip.
In my book, worse ergonomics should have lowered, not increased, the price.
raizans: too bad the lens doesn't go to 90 or 100mm-e. i wouldn't mind if the lens stuck out a bit more so i could do closer portraits.
Yes. The "standard" zoom range - 24-70 - sucks. That's why actually most "new" standard zooms now go up to 105-135mm.
But at least the lens has the 24mm eq FOV. Once you get used to the 24mm, it is hard to go back to the 28mm. Tele-end one can compensate, but it is much harder (often impossible) to compensate for the lacking wide end.
webber15: Correction man,,lenses designed by leica,,do your research,,if you all ready have,,your reaserch is incorrect...
People should watch the DPR's Pana interview about the LX100 and pay attention to the description of the "collaboration" with Leica. It matches pretty much all previous official statements about the collaboration.
Leica at most does the verification that the Pana designs and manufactures the lenses to its quality standard. That's all.
There is no "designed by Leica" there anywhere. All work is done by Pana - Leica only approves that the lens may carry the "Leica" label.