ThePhilips

ThePhilips

Lives in Germany Germany
Joined on Oct 5, 2010

Comments

Total: 756, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Hex144: The LX100's colors are so muted, even in RAW. Is there a way to "crank 'em up" a bit, in-camera, for raw and jpeg?

Pana typically doesn't "boost" images by default, erring on side of precise detail/color reproduction.

Those who see the images as "muted" and "bleak" should switch from the "Standard" to the "Vivid" image mode.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2014 at 12:54 UTC
In reply to:

Buena Vista: Damn! I really wanted to like one of the pocketable cameras. I'm tired of lugging around even my relatively compact Samsung NX300. But I've just spent 20 minutes comparing point after point on the "studio" format for the three new cameras and my existing camera, and none of the new cameras is consistently equal to or better than the Samsung. That makes sense of course. An APS-C sensor is much larger and, all things being equal, gathers more light, and therefore, produces a more detailed image, which is principally what I observed. IMHO the Canon consistently produced the least detailed images, and the Sony images were the best of the three new cameras more often than not. But I'm not sure I'm ready to give up the inherently better IQ of the APS-C sensor camera for the convenience of a smaller, fixed lens camera. As I said - damn!

Hey DP! Let's get the new Panasonic DM5 in the "studio!" Maybe a 4/3 camera will measure up better than these three newbies.

> Let's get the new Panasonic DM5 in the "studio!"

I assume you mean "GM5". It has the same sensor as the GM1 - probably with the few usual tweaks. But otherwise they would display almost identical performance.

> As I said - damn!

Absolute performance often is an useless metric. Just open the folder with your images, and check what high ISO you actually need. It's not like Samsungs are the low-light monsters...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2014 at 08:19 UTC
In reply to:

TheWhiteDog: REALLY! DPReview is doing a major disservice here. Who would buy an a5100 and use it with a $1000 prime lens in a mount that is not even native to it. I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of a5100 purchasers will only ever use the kit lens that comes with it- and that is how it should be tested. I understand you want to show what the sensor is capable of but that has no basis in the reality of how the camera will be used.
So throwing that out of the mix, I like the Canon least, its lens performance has compromised the sensor, I guess getting an extra 30mm on the telephoto end compared to the RX100Mk3 has had an effect on IQ. As for the SONY vs the LX100, the SONY has more detail(expected with the extra pixels) but the LX100 has much lower noise, especially at higher ISOs(again, expected). If choosing, I like the LX100 best, it is an "all arounder". Great job, Panny but the SONY is no slouch. Love the Panny's controls far more though(no PASM dial needed)!

"As a general principle, studio photography with interchangeable lens cameras is intended to show the potential of the camera's sensor."

And yet you moved m43 tests from SHG 50mm to the cheapo 45mm lens....

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2014 at 07:55 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1864 comments in total)
In reply to:

historianx: Hmm looks like panasonic saw the success of the Fuji X line and copied the top panel layout for shutter speed and ec dial....interesting camera....

> and copied the top panel layout for shutter speed and ec dial....

It's Fuji who has copied Pana.

Check the Panasonic LC1 camera - from year *2004*.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 10, 2014 at 18:32 UTC

IR posted first images of their LX100 studio test. Looks reassuring.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/10/06/panasonic-lx100-first-shots-posted-the-first-four-thirds-fixed-lens-camera

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 21:43 UTC as 61st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

regis3: LX100 - Let Panasonic sell a tele converter of 1.3 or 1.4 (or even 2.0) and we're good.

Well, looking at the IQ presented here, I do not think the images have quality to space on the TC/WA converters. :(

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 21:09 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: IQ was compromised. So much is clear. No room for cropping or PP in those JPEGs.

Still, the images from normal looking distances look pretty good. There is definitely some Leica magic dust in that lens.

"Barely" is better than nothing.

If one has the excess of resolution, one can easily PP JPEGs too, and downscale them afterwards to hide the PP artifacts.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 13:33 UTC

IQ was compromised. So much is clear. No room for cropping or PP in those JPEGs.

Still, the images from normal looking distances look pretty good. There is definitely some Leica magic dust in that lens.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 09:18 UTC as 86th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

marc petzold: For 500-600 $ the LX100 would be a steal...if the price would come down that way in 1-2 years. Hey Guys, i know DPR is a gear review site, and i do suffer myself sometimes from G.A.S. - but what about pictures? I still have fun & enjoy my D90, for instance. Be happy with what you've got - and get your gear out - don't pixelpeep always, that eats up the fun of photography.

@cainn24, of course you do. It is in the *first* sentence of your comment.

If that was a $500 camera, I bet you wouldn't have even bothered to compare it to DP2 or D800.

As I said, fixed lens cameras are only for those who can appreciate what the whole package can offer.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2014 at 13:11 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: For 500-600 $ the LX100 would be a steal...if the price would come down that way in 1-2 years. Hey Guys, i know DPR is a gear review site, and i do suffer myself sometimes from G.A.S. - but what about pictures? I still have fun & enjoy my D90, for instance. Be happy with what you've got - and get your gear out - don't pixelpeep always, that eats up the fun of photography.

"Why spend $900 on a camera if you don't care about what things look like at 100%?"

The value of the package as a whole? AND I'm not pixel-peeper?

Plus, you forget that you complain about the MSRP, comparing it to the street prices of the currently available gear. Or you have already forgotten the MSRP of the RX100?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2014 at 12:44 UTC
In reply to:

crinosil: What's missing from the LX100 and frankly all of the super compacts is water and dust resistance... You would think that given that the lens doesn't come off they could engineer this in....especially in a $900 camera.... but without this, I'm sticking to the EM1... yes its bigger, but at least I can bring it with me in the rain and mud while I'm hiking without worrying about bricking it....

@jhinkey, I actually have thought about it before mentioning the smartphones.

The thing is, there are lots of weather resistant cameras, even with more buttons than the LX100.

Even lenses. Previously, for example, it was said that expandable zooms can't be made weather sealed - yet that was done too already.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 16:48 UTC
In reply to:

crinosil: What's missing from the LX100 and frankly all of the super compacts is water and dust resistance... You would think that given that the lens doesn't come off they could engineer this in....especially in a $900 camera.... but without this, I'm sticking to the EM1... yes its bigger, but at least I can bring it with me in the rain and mud while I'm hiking without worrying about bricking it....

Collapsible lenses make it hard to add weather sealing. Yet it was done before.

The weather resistance is truly great omission of many cameras.

Ironically, it is a highly advertised feature of the premium smartphones.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 12:28 UTC

"The longer I look at the Lumix LX100 the more convinced I become that the time hasn’t yet arrived when we no longer need the advanced compact."

You should look even longer at the statistics of how many people never buy a second lens and shoot exclusively with the kit lenses. Dumbfounding.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 12:47 UTC as 87th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bicycle snap shooter: I shoot stills but a few of my friends are into video and they are ga-ga over 4K in such a tiny package. For them this is a Huge difference.

I think it is interesting that neither the Panasonic LX100 nor Canon G1X Mk2 use their entire sensor.

And even more interesting is that the area of the Mk2's 1.5" sensor that's used is virtually the same size as MFT.....but none of the reviewers note this.

G1Xmk2: sensor - yes, a f/2.0-3.9 lens - not so much, the slow camera itself - is even less.

Canon significantly undercut my interest in the G1X series (as an enthusiast cameras) with the initial camera, which was just too slow.

Yes, G1Xmk2 is faster than G1Xmk1 - but the rest of the market for several years now is even faster.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 08:15 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: The LX100 made me realize what's missing.

No matter how hard I look at it, I see LX100 as nothing else but a m43 camera with a premium 12-35 zoom glued to it. There is no point for me to buy the LX100 as a camera - (if I decide to buy it) I would be buying it as a "lens" for my m43 collection.

And that made me realize: the missing are an LX101 with 100-300mm eq lens and an LX102 with 7-20mm eq lens. If Pana engineers have managed to cram the 12-35 into such dimensions, I'm pretty sure they can also do some magic with the longer and the wider lenses. LX100 is targeted at pro/semi-pro/enthusiasts. But to cover the market better, they also have to differentiate with the lenses: some users like it wider, some users like it longer. I'd definitely buy the LX102. And very likely the LX101. But LX100? I have already two lenses covering the "standard" range...

@BarnET: "A 100-300mm on the other hand is impossible."

Everybody said the same about the 2.8/24-70 eq lenses. OTOH, I do not expect a miracle: even if LX with 100-300 would be "only" twice smaller than the m43's 100-300mm, it would be already a win.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

zakaria: why buy a fixed lens camera at a 800$ or more when I could buy PENTAX K3 AT this price.

You mean the K-3 is sold with a 2.8/16-55mm as a kit lens!? Where?? I'm sold!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 20:11 UTC

The LX100 made me realize what's missing.

No matter how hard I look at it, I see LX100 as nothing else but a m43 camera with a premium 12-35 zoom glued to it. There is no point for me to buy the LX100 as a camera - (if I decide to buy it) I would be buying it as a "lens" for my m43 collection.

And that made me realize: the missing are an LX101 with 100-300mm eq lens and an LX102 with 7-20mm eq lens. If Pana engineers have managed to cram the 12-35 into such dimensions, I'm pretty sure they can also do some magic with the longer and the wider lenses. LX100 is targeted at pro/semi-pro/enthusiasts. But to cover the market better, they also have to differentiate with the lenses: some users like it wider, some users like it longer. I'd definitely buy the LX102. And very likely the LX101. But LX100? I have already two lenses covering the "standard" range...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 20:02 UTC as 147th comment | 4 replies
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II: Real-world samples (beta) article (268 comments in total)

One of the best sample galleries I've seen here recently. Kudos, DPR. Go on vacations more often! ;)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 19:47 UTC as 88th comment | 1 reply
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II: Real-world samples (beta) article (268 comments in total)

Wow. The IQ is almost on par with my 1yo Pana GX7. Now I see why people complain about the Canon sensor tech...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 18:46 UTC as 95th comment
On Photokina 2014: Quiet but significant article (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Piziak: I get the feeling that an entire industry is slowly dying before our eyes.

@Michael

Stagnation is not a bad thing, per se.

It is what happens when stuff "just works" and is "good enough".

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 23:05 UTC
Total: 756, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »