Camp Freddy: A pretty ugly concoction, but somehow Olympus ( and Sony therefore as major share holder) are committed to a superzoom and retro PEN / OM styling.|Better off doing an mFT 16mpx chip with a non interchangeable 24-120 collapsing zoom for around the 700 USD mark IMHO. Let Fuji amd Panny fight it out with Nikon following soon after in the superzoom sector.
@ caver3dYeah they do indeed. For the full scoop I suggest this neatly illustrated article, http://www.dpreview.com/news/2008/8/5/microfourthirds
@ Wim1964"mFT16mpx chip" is a 16-megapixel Four Thirds-size sensor on a camera whose lens mount is micro-Four Thirds.
Deleted78792: Once again, the Equivalent Aperture chart shines and informs. The constant aperture F2.8 seems to be the new race after the interest in megapixels has waned- and it's good to see a return of focus (intended!) to optics.
The Stylus 1 does look interesting at almost half the price of the Sony RX10. The colours and contrast look great in the samples, and one does expect that from Olympus jpegs. It would have been interesting to see the size comparison against the RX10.
I also really enjoyed the photography in the samples, much nicer than the cold clinical approach to samples that DPR sometimes prefers. The good lighting and the beautiful season help of course.
AnuragP is right about the equivalent aperture chart.
About the measures, ISO 800 looking cleaner on a (35mm) full frame sensor than on smaller ones is not "an illusion" at all; not only it looks cleaner indeed, but also noise is numerically measurable. That's because, for the same shutterspeed and same f-number, a larger sensor is hit by a larger amount of light -- simple as that.
So, something must be done about spreading misconceptions... ;-)
Burbclaver: I like the sound of Pure photography - Take a D800, but smaller with no video. Set autofocus, aperture, shutter speed, ISO and white balance using on-camera controls. Dispense with the rear display all together (you can review your pictures when you "develop" them on computer). I'd keep the bracketing button, because of this, but I always bracket manually.
Removing the display also allows you to get rid of image review, trash button, image lock button, zoom in and out buttons, OK and live view buttons. Keep the top LCD, so you can see limited menus and set date/time etc. Vastly reduce the custom features and totally remove the retouch menu. I'd keep picture controls for the JPEg shooters.
@ CFynn Agreed, it's just that forgoing those 3 mm might be crucial for the camera to feel like an FM in your hands (and there are lots of happy FM owners around).On a 2nd thought, a possible solution to make up for an extra 3 mm would be to make the lens mount barrel protrude 3 mm more from the front, keeping the rest of the body as thin as an FM. But, alas, then the pentaprism/mirror would also need to be shifted forward...
There is another reason Nikon might want to dispense with the rear LCD.
It's not related to nostalgia/ shooting method/ user-interface aspects; rather, it would allow them to shave off at least a couple of millimeters of the thickness, in order to make the camera look & feel more like the svelte FM/FM2 than like "molten lump of black plastic"-styled DSLRs.
Actually, they didn't really have many trimming options, as current sensor assemblies, with their filters, circuit board, etc, are way thicker than film+pressure plate (see this enlightening photo of a tore-down D600 sensor assembly, http://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/XRu3PELglKpWsdSc.huge , courtesy www.ifixit.com), and I suppose the 46 mm or so F-mount flange distance isn't to be messed with...
cinemascope: While you're at it please bring back aperture control on lens... And please put that on the 58mm before they come out of the oven.It always boggled my mind why they removed that... Isn't it wise to play on the strenghts of you heritage? Too much dumbing down for no reason these days...
The best place (to me) for an aperture control is around the lens *next* to the mount... provided the shutter speed control, in turn, is a ring around the camera body throat -- analog Olympus OM-style!That way you can change both f/# and s.s. with the same hand and the same gesture, yet keeping the same exposure. Think of it as a "manual program-shift" (uh?)
Greg Van Deusen: I've sometimes wondered why cameras aren't made with round sensors to capture the full [round] lens image. It would give you more image area to crop from.
It's the other way around, actually!For these are crop circles-- oops, CIRCULAR CROPS, I mean, FROM squarish sensors, err... negatives.
Loved the opening sentence, "been shooting for SOME MONTHS and have NOW completed the review."(sorry, I know and appreciate how diligent you dpr guys are, but can't help but chuckle at it...)
akjos: More places for people to complain :D ...
Look at the bright side, more places for people to complain means less complaints per place...
thx1138: IQ at base ISO is very nice and looked good at ISO 720. How do they get those weird ISO value BTW? ISO 1100 wasn't so good, but not bad.
Simple, conjoin 2 round numbers: ISO 1000 - 1/2 EV.(Camera under auto ISO, I'd guess; didn't check the EXIF.)
Poor little Lytro, didn't even make it to an "unusual camera list"!
Another sign that the world needs a digital Nikonos... baaadly!
Dave Ingraham: "though he acknowledges the industry needs a better way of describing sensor size than the current obscure 'inch-type' naming system."
You think? 1"? Four Thirds? APS-C? Full frame? None of these make any sense to the average person. What would be so hard about simply describing them by their mm dimensions? So a 1" sensor is 13.2 x 8.8mm, but calling it a 13x9 sensor makes a hell of a lot more sense than 1".
I vote "diagonal" as the most telling measure. Besides being an easily visualized single figure that can be nicely rounded to 2 significant digits (7.7mm for most P&Ss, 16mm for 1", 43mm for FF), its immediate relationship to crop factor and equivalent FLs comes in pretty handy.Ooops it's not a poll...
David Elliott Lewis: The Samsung Galaxy S4 cell phone is already implementing a similar feature with its dual mode video capability. It simultaneously combines its front-facing camera and its rear-facing camera feed for a combined image. It can be shown either picture-in-picture, top and bottom or side by side.
Not the same thing, for the proposed camera allows for two independent points of view rather than fixed back-to-back.
Francis Carver: I have been doing that for years, aiming the camera at a mirror, and capturing both myself and the mirror. Patent infringement?
Not the same thing; the proposed camera allows for two independent points of view.
JEROME NOLAS: So much for stunning IQ....http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-xs1-review-22262
This corner mushiness is typical of zoom lenses that by way of design/cost compromises are plagued by barbarian WA distortions which rely on further firmware-based correction to achieve a minimally presentable photo. (Stretching corners dilutes information.)You can see that the steeple photo @120mm-equiv doesn't show the same softness issue.
chrisnfolsom: -Have enjoyed the Lumix brand for many years, and the quality, speed of their superzooms and ois...-Still though, no articulated rear display - only 460K, and only 202K for the viewfinder? Seems like they lowballed your actual interaction with the image which I believe is important in photography.-Some great specs 9fps, zoom and such - like the attention to sound and they kept the hot shoe although no touch screen, wifi (Eye-fi support?).-Depending on the lens quality they might have a nice travel alternative for a more enthusiast client - perhaps not their target demographic...it seems like with the price point this might give a soccer mom a nice tool to record their children.
Why, they must be saving features such as a higher resolution articulated LCD (hopefully with touch focus, why not?) for the forthcoming successor of the FZ200 -- this FZ70 is meant to supersede the lowlier FZ60.
JJ Rodin: Finally a cam company using DSP to eliminate the wind noise/etc for video, surprised it not already pervasive.
Hope it works as well as advertised, even the slightest wind makes them mic huff & destroy the usuability/suitability of the audio.
Good news. I read it as a fully acoustic approach rather than DSP-based, though. ("the sealed structure prevents wind from hitting the microphone directly and the draft structure suppresses retention of air internally.")
Don Karner: It is bad enough that the regular D-Lux 6 is $799.
What does one get for the extra $400? Not to speak of the extra $600 for this thing.
You probably just glanced at the text as it's pretty clear: for the extra $400 over d-lux 6 you get "a new dot structure on the leather body trim and a leather case with exclusive carrying strap."
Ed_arizona: buy a RED DOT logo on ebay paste it on my LX5
Good idea, but beware of dire developments such as this, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51656105!!!