new boyz: Some say it is correct for short term.. as you can recall details later from the pictures you have taken. I think this is exactly the point of the study. We are confident that all our memories will be safe in those hard disks. As a result, we didn't enjoy the moment and busy taking photos instead. This is especially true during concerts - people raised their iPhones(even iPads!) to record the concert. It makes me wonder - If you don't enjoy the moment, then what's the purpose of coming to a concert? Isn't it better just to buy the CD of the concert? Because that's exactly what they are doing - making CD of the concert.
Now, some may argue that in 10 years, even the one who didn't take photos will forget everything and photos will be useful in helping us remember things. True, but who will remember better? I bet the one who enjoys the moment. But, if nobody takes photos, we will not have photos to look at in the future. Well, true again but that's what an official photographers is for.
Sure, but hopefully very few people spend nearly 100% of their time looking at the back of their camera/iPhone/etc! You can watch the concert (or whatever event) *and* take the occasional photo.
And to answer your possibly-rhetorical question, being there is obviously entirely different from listening to a CD, even if you spend 10-20-wahtever% of the time taking photos or video.
Czechster: The 7800 gives me the applity to add a 40.5 filter. Can you do that with your $800 Sony RX100II?
Stop the press! Camera A has a function Camera B doesn't have, THEREFORE IT MUST WIN!!
BJL: He overlooked the classic"Circle of Confusion: a bunch of photographers sitting around a table arguing about depth of field".
"...arguing about equivalence".
RichRMA: Why do lenses still contain so many elements? I thought the introduction of cheap aspherics would eliminate the slew of spherical elements in these lenses? I don't care how good the coatings are , 20 elements is crazy. Apochromatic telescopes produce a flat field image (fixed focal length) with four elements. I can't believe 16 more is needed for a zoom.
You're right! They only put them in there to confuse you :)
J.K.T.: As someone shooting with Canon crop bodies I really would have appreciated f/5.6 at tele end - even at the price of somewhat shorter max length. Otherwise...
Err.. well, don't zoom past f/5.6? And then you get the rest of the zoom range slightly darker, as a bonus.
HetFotoAtelier: Compared to Leica and Sony, this will be a good buy! and good build quality camera! it will be my street body and my D800 the studio body :-)And don't forget: 50% of the reactions here are dumm shooters or canonists ;-)
The Sony is ugly and on this Nikon fit's more than 80 millions NIKKOR lenses without those f#cking adapters ;-) and the EVF's are horrible.........Sony is for amateur Leica for SNOBS and Nikon and Canons for the Pro's ;-)
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
RPJG: Are any of these cams designed properly, such that their battery life is greatly extended in timelapse mode (i.e. shutting down between shots to conserve battery power)?
Thanks.. but I'm thinking of a case where I'd be wearing it for around 36 hours (and therefore there would preferably be no external batteries etc).
You'd think that would be easily possible when set to 30s or 60s timelapse, if it can last 2+ hours when constantly on, taking video.
Are any of these cams designed properly, such that their battery life is greatly extended in timelapse mode (i.e. shutting down between shots to conserve battery power)?
KariIceland: Thank you Olympus very much for just stabbing the E-M5 users in the back when you said back in 2012 "this is our highest range and will be the top in our range of mirrorless cameras, and low and behold then you bring the E-M1.
I am leaving Olympus after years of dedication since the E-PL2 and going back to my roots the company I started with.You don't even know if you want the lenses and cameras to be silver or black. you release a silver lens and say "we will never make this model in black" then you bring a black model ask for twice the price & then you lower it effing the customers who already bought it.
If there are two things olympus are good at, it's making good primes & effing it's customers over and over.
Bwahahaha. Poor baby.
Jogger: Prob $1000 going by the other "Leica" lenses for m43.
Don't feed the troll.
Just another Canon shooter: DPR, your description is misleading as always.The lens is 8.8-73.3/2.8, as seen from the picture. Those numbers do not appear anywhere in the specifications??? If you say that it is equivalent to 24-200, which is fine, you must say that it is equivalent to f/7.6. F2.8 is nonsense, it is f/2.8, and if you multiply the top by the crop factor, you should multiply the bottom by the same factor, like saying that the lens is 8.8-73.3/2.8, which is what it is, equivalent to 24-200/7.6, which is true.
Just read the comments to see how many people you fooled into thinking that this is a 24-200/2.8 lens.
Maybe, and I'm obviously just guessing, lots more people are interested in getting a feel for the equivalent focal length (FOV) than are interested in trying to assess the light-gathering capability.
Not to say that getting a feel for light-gathering capability isn't useful. But whilst FOV is FOV is FOV, calculating shot noise will just be an estimate, and you're better off checking out actual sample images when trying to assess noise performance.
Thanks, but I understand all this. You can change tack and start talking about how f-stops relate to image quality, but that's not the point your original post was making.
Anyway, it's pretty standard to talk about equivalent focal lengths but actual f-numbers, because... that's just how it's generally done. Then everyone knows what's being talked about, and can make their own calculations re angle-of-view and DOF and light-on-sensor etc.
Maybe you don't understand how f-stops work? For exposure purposes, it is f/2.8. For DOF-equivalence, it is f/7.6.
So all you're complaining about is that they're referring to the actual f-number which determines exposure, instead of the "equivalence" f-number that only applies when comparing the DOF to a full-frame camera.
Waleed Alzuhair: I think the minimum sensor size for any camera unit these days, should be APS-C. Smaller sensors are available in mobile devices, and there should be a tangible difference between the two.
True, the 24-200 lens is tangible, but not at that price tag.
Right. Because 1" and 4/3" sensors give terrible results (for 99% of users), and who cares about the benefits of their smaller-yet-often-great lenses?
zodiacfml: It's only now I realized why it is isn't APSC sized sensor. They don't want to compete with their NEX line.
Bzzt, wrong answer. How big do you think this camera would be with an APS-sized sensor and a 24-200 f/2.8 lens?
rfsIII: This isn't a pro camera. It doesn't even have mirror lockup.
Renzokuken: I wonder how much of this technological improvement will translate to better stills??
Canon seems to have their hands full on video and their cine-line recently...
yabokkie, you make a lot of "interesting" comments on this forum, but that takes the cake!
Juck: I thought the whole point of MILC systems was to reduce size? This behemoth is practically the same size as a Canon T5i,,, it's also double the price and has less resolution than the T5i. Heck,,, you could pick up a 70D for less than this thing.
Definitely one for the fanboys.
Yes, because this is so much bigger than a 70D.
Lovely! Handheld or tripod?
RPJG: Why do I continue to read the comments on DPR, when I know it'll be full of nonsense from no-hoper negative-nancies?
Fail (inframan). Way to miss the point.