kociasek: The caption under the photograph of the four lenses seems to be wrong. It says:"These four lenses are all 85mm equivalent F1.2s. However, this does not mean they're all 85mm F1.2 equivalent."Unless I'm mistaken, "equivalent" should be dropped from the first sentence.
@NigelhtYou're introducing another element, exposure time. Those equivalences are stated for the benefit of comparing DOF. Your argument, while valid, is a bit off the intended scope of the current " equivalent" f stop discussion.
Richard Butler: It's been suggested to me that people would be happier if we used the term 'Equivalent F-number' rather than 'Equivalent Aperture.' Is this the case?
Equivalent f number is fine. Why sweat it and argue semantics.
Sven44: Heh, I've just spotted the following on a review of Fuji's new lens (which I'm just a little bit excited by....):
"We've been shooting with the Fujinon XF 56mm F1.2 R - the fast 85mm equivalent prime lens for Fujifilm's X mount mirrorless cameras. Its F1.2 aperture means it gives similarly shallow depth-of-field to an 85mm F1.8 lens on a full frame body, making it an useful portrait lens"
Makes 100% perfect sense to me, and a great opening paragraph to the review. Does anyone not see it that way? How else should hey have described it?
Nigelht? Maybe a "56mm 1.2 lens which you're going to mount on a normal camera but then you're going to take a crop of it so you have the FOV of an 85mm lens, but let's not talk about the depth of field or sensor gain for that matter because no-one wants to have to multiply anything by 1.5..."?
Good point. Still, no harm in spelling out the "equivalence". So I really don't see why object to it.
Alejandro del Pielago: I´m putting the eye on the A7, but the news are not very well :(((((
You'll have to give up the eye, to buy this.
The only thing I get from this is that ten race for full frame is on.
For me this is right on the money. Great camera and pix but not photographer centric. I sold my rx100 because I never enjoyed using it. It felt like a bar of soap, amongst other annoying traits.
Sosua: Is this a new kit lens? Looks tiny?
That's the new 20mm f1.7
I'm coming to dp less and less. Cell phones? Really? What a shame, you used to best the best photo site in the world.
pentaxfun: The second I saw the news item for this camera on the front page, I instantly perked up and got all excited and clicked on it, hoping that maybe this one would finally break the trend, and actually be a RAW-capable underwater cam, for once.
So I clicked it open immediately and was quickly scanning through the paragraph, and seeing how it was having a high quality fast lens and various high quality features and whatnot, and I'm thinking like AWWWW YEAAAA baby, this is gonna be the one, there's no way they are gonna be idiotic with this one and STILL somehow not give this one RAW ability.
I feverishly, sweaty-palms-ishly scroll down to the specs, like a rabid animal, just waiting to erupt into celebration when I feel sure I am inevitably about to see those three beautiful white letters on black backgroun of "R" "A" and "W".
My eyes scan from left to right, and it hits me almost as if in slow motion:
::instantly starts sobbing passionately::
Get a life
Pedro Caminante: Well... I can only say that I have had the RX100 since September and apart from no optical veiwfinder I really cannot fault this amazing machine. Getting used to managing without veiwfinder and it really doesn't bother me at all now. Size and build quality are superb, perfect even ! The image quality is fantastic, even low light high ISO shots come out brilliantly. A friend of mine has the Nikon and he is considering changing. This is my first Sony camera ( Nikon DSLR ) and it is an ongoing great experience, still learning from it and I love it !! For me it is the perfect combo, pocket size and DSLR image quality, and with a zeiss lens and great build.... well ! I did a lot of research before parting with my cash.... and I am not dissapointed at all, money v well spent ! Get one !
Just sold mine. Hated it.
Nikguy: I can understand the two leading cameras excellant and state of the art. However as we all dream of a pocket camera that can statisfy 80% of the needs of a big camera heavy (I know the Oly is somewhat small) my vote is with my RX100 the fun begins with pocketabilty and great photos. There are no losers to me in the list but we keep trying to pit one system against another, That keeps them all making better equipment and WE enjoy the results. Isn't the free market great!
I'm selling mine. Sony has no photography DNA. Can't seem to get to enjoy using it. Even the rounded corner shape bothers me.
It's like cooking a chicken in the microwave.
justmeMN: As for the physical appearance of the camera, at least they didn't follow the lame retro-look design cliche.
Retro look is nice. It has buttons.
Bryan Costin: Gads, that's a horrible decision. When I create an image, I have certain rights regarding the image I created. Not the image you create. It's of absolutely no relevance whatsoever if you set out to make a new photo which looks somewhat like someone else's photo. Because what you have created is not, in fact, someone else's photo. It's your photo.
No rational claim of copyright can grant Justin Fielder, whoever he is, some magical monopoly on pictures of buses or buildings or any combination thereof. That's just idiocy.
I agree. Just Google Big Ben Red Bus, see what you get. Hundreds of defendants.
remeife: This is the most stupid I'v ever heard
OleThorsen: So basically Mr. Butler tells the family father who's a photography beginner: "We at dpreview firmly believe it's perfectly OK that your only solution to capture your playing children is to shout: Stand still children - father want to take a picture of you!", instead of learning to use Shutter Priority.
This sites IQ has gone downhill since Askey left the business.
I agree. This site has changed dramatically since Phil left. In small increments, to be sure, but the "sharp photographic edge" is gone.
hammerheadfistpunch: Just a little note (hopefully not loaded) and many people may already know this, but doing the math the fast prime (f/1.8) works out to about f/9 in 35 mm f6 in APS-C and f/4.5 in 4/3rds. I bring it up for the sake of informing those that want to know what DoF characteristics will be like, not to pass judgement on these samples. the zoom (2.8-4.5) works out to ~ f/14 - f/22 for FF, f/9 - f/15 for APS-C, and f/7 - f11 for 4/3rds.
So no blurred backgrounds then, correct?
Caplin: Sorry for saying this, but mobile phone has better picture quality then Pentax Q
No need to apologize. Say what you have to say - however stupid - with conviction. But be specific. We all need to know what wonderful phone you might have.
For me, spelling and typo issues are so minor and lame. I focus more on content. But, that's just me!
Content is king, no doubt, but one of the pleasures of reading dpreview - for me - has always been the care with which articles were written, as well as the general level of most discussions in it. Getting careless is a first step towards degradation. Sounds dramatic I know, but there are standards for a reason.
Alberto Battelli: Please help me decide. I already have the Samsung, LX5, and Oly, and for Xmas I just know I'm getting the X10. I can see Santa with my X10 in his bag, travelling.The question is, what do I do in January, when I should really only keep two at the most? Pick two for me.
I know, I agree. It's a transitional phase I guess. Ever since I dumped all my heavy glass and gone "compact" ( my smallest camera is the Oly Epl2), I seem to be on a quest for the perfect small package. Which of of course doesn't exist and possibly never will..