Love the comments bashing the bashers.
It's basically "You don't know 'cause you don't own it and you can't afford it!!" (Somewhat reminiscent of the comments about Leicas.)
But. When discussing the m43 gear it is: "I don't have it, I don't want it, I haven't even tried it, but it is still *beep*!"
Wonder about the overlap between the two groups of the commenters. Should bookmark the lot for the next m43 camera review.
P.S. Another nice piece of gear coming from Sony. Though if I were to buy anything Sony right now, it would have been the RX100 hands down: RX1 is way too large for my tastes (or rather: lens protrudes too much) while still having no EVF. Also IMO with such excellent sensor, they could have went with a darker lens.
Priaptor: You have to love all the hoi polloi posting their inane negative comments. None of you cretins even own one. It must suck to be just another wannabe.
"None of you cretins even own one."
May I quote your comment in the next *beep*-fest over m43? Thanks.
cooldavy: I owned NEX-5N and E 24mm f.18 which offers a 36mm equivalent focal length. I end up sold most of my NEX gears due to unreliable AF performance at low light environment. I cannot even get one well-focused shot in a 4-hour event!
Then I started looking for a mirrorless format with fastest and the most reliable AF in market, no doubt I got the MFT. I first got OM-D with Panny 20mm f1.7. Panny 20mm pancake is razor sharp, as it's what it gains reputation for. But I still failed to achieve my goal of switching from E-mount to MFT.
I preordered 17mm f1.8 at the very first day it showed up on websites. I am happy with the blazing fast AF speed. So when we talk about lens performance, please be take AF speed into account.
Panny 20mm AF speed is a known issue and many reviews/hands-on mention that. Sadly Panny doesn't seem to be planning an update. Even the older Oly 2.8/17mm, though optically inferior, focuses faster than the 20mm.
Peter Heckert2: Possibly this must be calibrated to the lens in use and so could prevent usage of arbitrary lenses. So is this for fixed lenses only?
@BJN: "The sensor should be agnostic to the light it receives."
But not to the angle of the light hitting the sensor. Deeper the wells are, worse the light capture at edges. And now we got here also the splitter and anyway you look at it, it would be sensitive to the angle.
mpgxsvcd: Think about this as a financial decision for a company. Why would they want to implement a feature that helps a few customers use an antiquated procedure(Manual Focusing) with lenses from other manufactures?
My guess is that management and marketing said “No” because they would much rather have the resources work on better Auto Focus tracking so they can sell more of the $1000+ lenses they are making or plan to make in the future.
The fact that he mentions resources at all indicates that they just didn’t think adding this feature was worth pulling their engineers off of something that is easy to advertise about(Fastest Continuous Auto Focusing in the World) for something that only a very select group of users will ever understand its value(Focus Peaking).
Just because 90% of the requests are for focus peaking doesn’t mean that 90% of the people want it.
"Why would they want to implement a feature that helps a few customers use an antiquated procedure with lenses from other manufactures?"
That was said in the same context where they have talked about zebra. The MF and the zebra are norm for the video. Focus peaking came later, but people were nagging Panny about zebra since the times of release of the GH2. And now to say that they basically forgot about all the feedback when designing the GH3?
Like you I can dismiss the management/marketing decision to push the expensive AF lenses, but lack of zebra (and lack of 4:2:2 output) to me says plain and simple that (like many other manufs) Panny simply ignores the user feedback.
I would say they choose the baby steps to maximize the profits. (And left themselves vulnerable to competition.)
"We want to offer a product that allows people to take beautiful pictures by just pressing the shutter - even without the knowledge of a complex, intricate camera."
Wrong. Ask pros and enthusiasts: many would gladly forget about the intricacies of the DSLRs and concentrate on the artistic aspects of photography.
One of the most interesting D800 user feedbacks was from a guy who said something along the lines: "you just set parameters as you wish, set ISO to auto and snap what you wish: the camera manages everything you throw at it." IOW, it takes power of D800 to liberate photogs from the intricacies. I can only dream that we would get eventually something similar in a P&S package...
b33g33: This seems to have all the benefits of Foveon with none of it's weaknesses.
Wouldn't this also improve color rendering and resolution over Bayer?
(From the press piece: "The result is highly sensitive and precise color reproduction. For example, if the structure separates light into a certain color and its complementary color, color pixels of white + red, white - red, white + blue, and white - blue are obtained and, using the arithmetic processing technique, are translated into normal color images without any loss of resolution.")
Hopefully they can get it to actually work outside the lab.
@plasnu. I wonder if that Panny sensor can be somehow combined with the Fuji X-Trans...
If it brings us even a step closer to the Foveon-like true-color sensor, I'm all for it.
Actually, this is a first time something what appears to be easy to manufacture is proposed.
But I'd love to hear how that "fine-tuning" of splitter supposed to work though. And the "white + red, white - red, white + blue, and white - blue" thing sounds to be quite prone to clipping in both directions.
Kodachrome200: I love m43 camera. I think the 42.5 is very interesting. but i dont get these enourmous m43 lenses. these are compact cameras. useful only where dslrs are inconvenient. If i can easily use my d800 i am gonna do that.
more compact lenses. and please more wide lenses!
"these are compact cameras."
GH3 is pretty biggish. E-M5 with optional grip is also reportedly OK with largish lenses.
Thorgrem: I see that the DoF-Gestapo really takes m4/3 as a serious threat now. Al this deliberately wrong calculations are just so funny.http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/
"but good luck finding a 25/1.4 macro"
LOL. Ever seen a crowing duck? quacking chicken? Have you EVER shot macro??? Apparently not, because then you would have known why there are no f/1.4 macro lenses.
Some seeds of truth are in there.
m43 (or mirrorless in general) is the new "APS-C", the next mainstream thing.
Front line has moved to enthusiast compact, exemplified by the RX100. I'm hopeful that this year we would see more of the cameras to compete against it. And probably I would finally dump my interchangeable lens camera for good.
Otherwise, let me repeat what I have said 2+ years ago: Oly, talk is cheap, show us the cameras!
tkbslc: Why do mirrorless lens makes seem so fixated on remaking somewhat boring lenses that already exist. Do something different for a change! This is the 3rd or 4th 14-xx superzoom for m4.3. Sony has like 27 different 18-200's.
I hope that Tamron's super zoom would be cheaper.
In Germany, Oly's 14-150 goes for around 500€ and Panny's 14-140 for 600€. Unlike the APS-C, there is no 300-400€ super-zoom for m43. OK, literally all of the cheap APS-C zooms are *beep*, but as a vacation lens they are pretty OK.
ThePhilips: Comparison of expensive, big-name tools. Not immediately useful. Somehow I never doubted that if I had plenty of cash to throw around, I can pump IQ easily. That's not a challenge. So to my point:
How about shedding some light on cheaper or free alternatives?
LR4 costs $150.
That is a price of decent s/h lens.
Relatively speaking: it is expensive. Because, given free cash, I'd rather get a lens.
Comparison of expensive, big-name tools. Not immediately useful. Somehow I never doubted that if I had plenty of cash to throw around, I can pump IQ easily. That's not a challenge. So to my point:
> a 2/3"-type version of the X-Trans CMOS
Studio test for image comparator? Please please?
marike6: I've had good luck with the X10 as some of my favorite images are from it. It's a blast to shoot with and with the improved PDAF it should be even better. So I'm sure one of these new Fuji cameras will find a place in my bag soon.
> and with the improved PDAF
You surely mean "and improved by PDAF."
X20 has PDAF, X10 - not.
Auke B van der Weide: Great little gem.Anybody any thoughts about a comparison with the Sony RX100?
Oh I wish Fuji will deliver one day a digital Xpan rangefinder! Just make it half the size a fullframe :)
2/3" X-Trans sensor vs. 1" Bayer sensor - might be very interesting.
Cameron R Hood: Wow...been up for almost a DAY now and Samsung hasn't copied it yet...
DPR, why no down-vote button??
Pat Cullinan Jr: Time to shut down this poll.
All previous stories prominently featuring the E-M5 (preview, review) broke 1K comments.
I want this poll to break to 1.5K comments.
Let the troll troll! :)
Mamiya6crf: I would have voted RX1 or maybe at the other end the RX100.
I am eagerly waiting for the NEX FF 32MP announcment hopefully at CES becaause I dont think the Nex7m will comparatively pack enough punch even though it is rumored to have a lot of upgrades (Think RX1 with interchangable lenses). :)
2013 is going to be a great year!
> I would have voted RX1 or maybe at the other end the RX100.
RX100 would have been a fine choice in the poll. IMO this year it is just "very good camera," but in 2013 I'm pretty sure it would see competition, what hopefully would improve greatly the enthusiast compact market.
> I am eagerly waiting for the NEX FF 32MP announcment [...]
Oh no. Please no. I'm tired of the MP race. If Sony goes to 32MP in middle range, then many if not all would follow. Even 20MP RAW is already a burden: slow to write to the card, slow to upload to the PC. And in the end most of the images are converted to web resolution (2-4MP!!!) anyway.
Though I would be OK if the cameras, as an option, would do some MP-reducing-IQ-enhancing magic in the hardware and produce RAW file of half/quarter size/resolution. So I can transfer it quickly and still play with the RAW development parameters.