Sammy Yousef: Why wait to find out what it's actually like. Ken Rockwell already has a review, complete with conclusion. *shakes head*
if you don't like (or care) what he has to say why do you read it? Besides, I checked saw no reference as to him claiming he actually handled the lens. So, please..
Rob890: If it works well for what its intended use, then how could it be dated? If you are always chasing specs and features then there will never be a camera or device that could satisfy.
yes, but an electronic viewfinder and a bit more resolution (to crop for narrower framing) would have been nice
buybuybuy: Just about anybody with a decent camera could pull of shots like these. The problem is that, for most people stuck in a 9-5 M-F job, these trips are few and far between--if ever!
well, what counts is not the potential but the actual results. Since there is no way to prove your statement, and we have evidence that Mr. Wolfe have already done, why don't you just enjoy the pictures
so, one can patent the cube shape, priceless
Marty4650: I just don't get it, as many others have rightfully pointed out.
Since this is a single focal point fixed lens camera, why wouldn't an optical viewfinder that slid into the hot shoe make more sense? Like the ones Leica and Voigtlander make for rangefinder cameras, or the one Olympus made for their 17mm f/2.8 lens?
Of course it would... but that would be simpler, cheaper, and much less grotesque. Which would defeat the whole "Quattro Concept." And it wouldn't get enough laughs.
The camera does have a hot shoe, so why not provide a slide on EVF like so many other manufacturers have? That would also be simpler, cheaper and much less grotesque, and it would provide an eye level EVF that would provide the added benefit of tilting upwards.
It is not for framing but for confirming focus. Taking advantage of extreme resolution is only possible with perfect focus for which this gadget seems to be designed for. An optical finder would be useless for thatK.
kemal erdogan: I love these pictures.
However, if the photog has made any post edits on these pictures, then he must be the owner of the pictures; unchanged originals remains public domain.
@Greg LovernThanks for the explanation, I didn't know that.
And, it actually makes a lot of sense and it ought to be that way otherwise people would simply make small changes to protected work and sell as their ownK.
Nice shots, but all the pictures look like the ones we saw elsewhere.
In what ways these pictures are different?
I love these pictures.
what a pointless exercise!
Besides, the same could be done by simply using an old school large format camera for exposure and then by scanning the film at high dpi without a robot arm and without torturing the models.
But, that would not make news for dpreview, I guess
I believe the name change marks that a full frame K-1 is on the corner
would have been a better article if it was only a collection of quotes from Klein. He is quite clear when he expressed himself, why try to translate what he says? I am sure most of us are able to get something to takeaway ourselves.
psn: I would really love to see Sigma SD1 studio samples to compare with all these other cameras. Would have bought an SD1 if Sigma wasn't so stupid and greedy. Anyway, I still think the image quality of that sensor is the one to beat. Not Fuji, Olympus, Sony, or those other guys.
Damn it, Sigma, why do you have to suck! There are many more dumb@ss photographers like me out there. You can make money, just don't try to cheat us.
For now, I might get another NEX.
wow!, at base iso SD1 outresolves even D800
kemal erdogan: The Fuji site says that the 12MP sensor use the same technology as XPRO1 and X100S.
it is likely that the sensor is exactly the same APS-C sensor used in the X100S.
I come to this conclusion by the fact the X20 supports all of 9/16, 2/3, 3/4, 1/1 aspect ratios, which implies that the sensor is at least as large as the diameter of the image circle both in height and width.
Least costly option to achieve this is just to use a bit bigger sensor and I think Fuji took that path. Lower pixel count is also consistent with that possibility.
And, I am thrilled at the possibility of having the low light capabilities of Xpro1 in such a small camera
yes, indeed. The difference is surface area is much bigger than the pixel count. sorry my bad
OH, yes, I checked again the sensor sizes, 12MP vs 16MP warrants not that much difference in the surface area, the X20 pixel density must be higher but it is indeed possible to use a larger sensor on the front of a lens with a smaller image circle
The Fuji site says that the 12MP sensor use the same technology as XPRO1 and X100S.