exm3racer: Got mine a few weeks ago and have taken it on a couple vacations. RAW was the major selling point for me as I only shoot Raw on my D600 and use LR/PS. Pretty happy overall, looking to see what comes next in this segment.
Biggest surprise for me was the macro mode, it takes killer close up photos. It's like I just got a macro lens. And it does wide angle macro, very cool! Image quality while using macro is much better than I expected... as long as you don't crop too much.
Good things:(ran out of characters)
Improvements I'd like to see - realize these may add to a more costly product, but I'd be willing to pay for them:
rear screen needs to be anti scratchLens flare easily - better lens coatingWould like CPLMore aperture incrementsBetter ISO performance starting at 800Don't know if it's possible but I'd love a viewfinderLens is OK sharp and sharpens nicely if you are shooting RAW, but could be better.Burst shooting in RAWsomething approaching RX100 in quality..
You can get CPL with the adaper. Not ideal, but it works.http://www.olympusimage.com.sg/product/compact/accessory/conversion_lens/clat01.html
photoguy622: The addition of RAW support is great, but why not also add a shutter priority mode?
Meanwhile I just bought a refurbished Nikon 1 J4 with the waterproof housing for $275.00. Hopefully it won't be too bulky.
If the Nikon's too big I'll stick with my Canon D20 and wait until someone adds raw and a full suite of manual controls to a waterproof camera.
Why is this so hard!
I wish they provided manual control of the (3EV) ND-filter in stead of a "fictional" aperture. DOF isn't that narrow even for macro with the smallest aperture, but at least one more real aperture would have been nice.
Also, I think the ND-filter is a good solution for getting slow(er) shutter speeds without diffraction problems.
What about lens flare? I got a TG-4 and it's easy to get flare in backlit/contrasty scenes. I haven't seen any comments about this. Would be interesting to see some examples on high contrast scenes if dpreview still got the camera.
The problem with shutter priority is probably that the TG-4 has only three apertures. You can't really do shutter priority well without more apertures to choose from. I guess it could work by using Auto-ISO to compensate for the missing apertures, but it would be confusing if changing shutterspeed also forced a change in ISO.
MayaTlab0: I have a question : is the metamerism score really that relevant, i.e., can we find examples of pictures that show some correlation with the score ?Regarding dynamic range, it's quite easy to see the effect of measured DR performance in pictures (and even more so since you added a specific page and test shots - thank you for this !), but is it as easy with the metamerism score ? I know this is very anecdotal, but so far the camera I spent the least amount of time correcting its colours either in LR or C1 was my 5DIII. My EM1 has a higher score, and yet, in comparison... well I tend to spend quite a lot of time correcting colours.
Interesting question. It would be nice if someone with enough knowhow could make an article about this, and the consequences of low metamerism score.
whtchocla7e: 2/3" sensor... Did you really listen to customer feedback now, Fuji?
Retro camera, retro sensor
Philidors shadow: I have an earlier Gitzo GT1541T Traveler and Markins Q3 Traveler head. The Gitzo is for practical purposes perfection itself (the Markins isn’t far off either). No other photographic item I own is as good at its job, as beautifully designed and made, or as satisfying to contemplate. If you’re at all susceptible to good industrial design a Gitzo Traveler will make you happy.
P.S. I positively despised using travel tripods before I got the Gitzo, though I acknowledge Gitzo may have some worthy competitors today.
I've also got the previous Traveler-model (the older head didn't have quick release) and the Markins head. It don't fold quite as compact with that head, but the Q3 Traveler head has seperate pan knob and is generally a much better head - heavier though, and it increase the price.
Rachotilko: There's one point I missed in this otherwise well articulated opinion : the historical perspective. Several ears ago, "bridge" meant something completelly different than the "superzoom" of today. Compared to today's superzooms:
- the sensor sizes were bigger, at least 1/1.7"- the reach was much more limited (to around 300-400mm)- lenses were faster- optics manufacturing quality was not of cheap feeling and reputation.
I'm talking about devices like Sony F717, F828, Fuji cameras (S6500fd, S9XXX, S100fs, S200exr), Panasonic FZ30, FZ50, Minolta AXXX, etc.
Sadly, this category of devices died out - the last one of them was probably Fuji X-S1 (but that one was unfortunatelly hampered by the overambitious lens design). Their extinction coincides very well with the advent of mirrorless, but also with arrival of their low-cost (but high zoom) siblings - the superzooms.
It seems that the true "bridge" category is back. But the ingredients are still the same.
@Rachotilko: I completely agree on your "historical" perspective, and there's always been some overlap between superzooms and the (original) bridge class.
I wouldn't categorize one of todays superzooms with 1/2.3" sensor a bridge model though, but Canon's G-series and G1 X are bridge cameras IMO (even though the G1 X II lacks a viewfinder). Other current bridge models are Nikon P7800, Fuji X20 and RX100 III.
The FZ1000 is both a superzoom and a bridge model, and currently the only one IMO. RX10 is of course a bridge model, but I wouldn't call anything with less than 10x zoom a superzoom, but there are of course no official categories.
nidri: The actual sensor size is 44x33mm. Same size as that of the Pentax 645D. So. How long before Pentax (sorry, Ricoh) announces a 645D II featuring this new CMOS sensor?
Pretty close to Leica S format too
RichRMA: A BSI sensor that large? Should be interesting.
The info says 4/3", not mFT. Not sure if that's the same or some new format.
Erik Magnuson: BTW, OVF phase detect autofocus *can be* as accurate as CDAF - but it takes improvements to BOTH the lens mechanics AND the camera sensor/algorithms. See the charts from http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new where the 5DIII with the new 24mm f/2.8 IS has the *same accuracy/consistency in either mode*. Yet the old 24mm f/2.8 lens on the 5DIII does not. Neither does the new lens on the 5DII. The entire "Autofocus reality" series is worth a read.
Agree, the lens rentals test indicate that 5DIII has better accuracy than other Canon bodies, except for the 1DX. It would be interesting to see comparisions with the 5DIII in addtion to the 70Dvs70D test.
mpgxsvcd: My telescope is only an 800mm lens! Why in the world would an entry level user ever need a 1200mm equivalent camera? They can't possibly hand hold it at that focal length.
At least Panasonic is pushing the limits of reason in a good way. 20mm @ F2.8 is much better than all of the other super zooms.
I just wish they would make a simple 8 megapixel 20-400mm F2.0-F4.0 small sensor fixed lens camera. Give it the true 1080p @ 60 FPS video from the FZ200 and make sure it has RAW. That is a camera that would take great still images and videos.
Eentry level users don't mean that they can't have special interests that require long tele. The Canon SX50 HS (and models from Sony and Fuji) already have 1200mm equivalent. I've used the Canon and it wasn't particulary difficult to handhold at full tele outside during the day.
J C Brown: I was very surprised when I came across Jeff Keller’s description the Extra Optical Zoom feature in the DC Resource review of the ZS15 and even more surprised to find an almost identical description in the DPR review of the ZS20 in which he wrote "....so you'd top out at a whopping 67.5X if you used both at the 5MP resolution; don't forget your tripod!”
When statements such as these appear in "official reviews", it is hardly surprising that there is confusion about the true nature of Extra Optical Zoom.
As can be easily demonstrated, the use of EZ does not increase the need to use a tripod to prevent blurring due to camera shake.
With a camera set for a full frame image at maximum zoom find the lowest shutter speed at which the camera shake warning is not displayed then select a much smaller EZ image. As that does not cause the camera shake warning to appear it is obvious that the focal length is unchanged and the use of EZ has not increased the need to use a tripod.
J C Brown
The focal length is not changed, but the area of the sensor that is used for the final picture is. So given a fixed output size then you'll need a bigger enlargement using EZ-zoom and sharpness is more critical.
If you compare with a crop similar to using the EZ-zoom then there's no difference, but given that both images are used "uncropped" (I know EZ-zoom is cropping) then you actually need faster shutterspeeds (or a tripod) using EZ-zoom.