swankFoto: Aperture not included, seriously?What value does this review have without Lightroom's biggest competitor? Aperture wasn't even mentioned in the intro.
No, and nothing I said implies it.
We've covered software that works on BOTH the most popular platforms. We're not excluding either group.
Aperture isn't a cross-platform piece of software.
photog4u: Richard and/or Lars:
Can you give us a rough idea on when this review with score will be posted please.
Within the news two weeks.
tkbslc: So it is micro four thirds as the title says, or "Mirrorless" regular 4/3 mount and the body of text suggests?
No problem - just wanted to make sure it wasn't ambiguous.
Thomas Kachadurian: There was a time when DPReview was the source of news, now they just report what we've already seen elsewhere to have content on their page. Maybe they need to pay attention to what's happened to Kodak.
#1 is something you have to earn everyday.
In fairness, Thomas, we don't have an office in China so we don't get invited to press conferences there. Kodak hasn't made any public statement about this.
tkbslc: See, it only took the Chinese a week to figure out how to make money with the Kodak name in Digital. Kodak could have done this 3-4 years ago.
I can't find out enough information about JK Imaging to know what work is going to be done where.
What part of the text are you interpreting to mean full Four Thirds without a mirror?
Everything points towards Micro Four Thirds - discussed below.
patoth66: Really hope they put a Kodak sensor in it! I mean whats the point calling it Kodak without there sensor technology in it? its like calling a intel based computer for Amiga!! I also like the Kodak sensor, like I like the Foveon sensor!
Kodak doesn't make sensors anymore - its former sensor division was sold off in 2011 and is now called Truesense Imaging.
3systermuser: what is the sensor inside of it?really a Sony as Mirrorless rumors site reported ?if it is really a Sony sensor , I wont get one , I do not like Sony sensors , especially the way they render skin tone.I hope it will be a REAL Kodak CCD.Kinda tired of boring CMOS from Sony and Canon.
With respect, sensors don't render skin tones. A combination of their colour filter array and the configuration of the image processing defines that.
sphexx: So why has this not been announced by Olympus and Panasonic who own the closed microFT standard or have they given that up. There is no mention of the latter on mFT web site. Could it be mirrorles four thirds instead?
G Sciorio - that's not quite true - Micro Four Thirds is /a/ mirrorless system that uses a Four Thirds sensor. Noticeably it's a different mount specification with a different flange-back distance.
I think what sphexx is suggesting a Four Thirds mount camera that doesn't have a mirror. The camera shown here isn't deep enough for it to be that, though (and I think the lens shown here is too close to the Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42mm II design for it to not be related).
And, although the logo on the front of the camera is too small to make out in detail, if you measure it, it's closer to the 16:9 aspect ratio of the Micro Four Thirds logo than the 4:3 design of the Four Thirds one.
Kwick1: I don't see any update to the impressions either. Also, you may want to remove this sentence, since they're readily available now:
"This is further complicated by the fact that, in principle at least, you can buy (or at least order) a D600 today, whereas the 6D won't be in the shops for some time yet."
Excellent. Sorry about that.
Francis Carver: I guess this thing is okay for taking stills, not so good for videography, though.
1. No functioning viewfinder in video mode.
2. H.264 codec.
3. No 1080p60 video recording ($250 cameras have that feature now, Canon!!!!)
4. Mono audio only.
5. No external microphone input possibility (as per specs listed here).
NOTE: specs say nothing about any external microphone connectivity, although on the image of the camera, there is a little door with a MIC logo on it, don't know what that is, as the door is closed, he-he-he.
6. No headphone jack.
Gotta look elsewhere, dang....
It does have a headphone jack - it's just that our database doesn't currently allow us to include that information.
It's also incorrect that it records mono audio - I've corrected the error.
mpgxsvcd: I don't see the new data. Where is it?
Can you not see the dynamic range, noise, resolution and test scene images? We were having server problems earlier but I thought they were fixed now.
Where are you seeing that? It sounds like you're seeing an old version of the page. There were server problems before we posted, but I thought they were fixed.
Henry M. Hertz: this is a major camera.. how long do you need to test it?
nikon cameas are reviewd much faster here at dpreview.. or i am wrong?
hell.. all i read about the 6D is -> good iso noise but resolution worse then 5D MK2 and DR also worse then 5D MK2.
i really want to read dpreviews findings.....
We were supplied with a Nikon D600 on the day it was announced, whereas there was a two month gap between the 6D being announced and becoming available.
We've had the camera for less than a month, so far but have just published all the testing we've been able to do.
Rachotilko: Mistake spotted:
in high-ISO studio comparison, SX50 shot is ISO800, while other cameras have ISO1600 selected. I doubt it was intended.
That should be fixed, if you re-load the page. Thanks for pointing it out.
Ulfric M Douglas: Capture1 looks way too harsh where Adobe is smudgy and bleedy.Somewhere in between would be good : do Fuji not ship a converter that does the exact same job as their Jpeg in-camera engine?
That hasn't been my experience.
TomUW: Thanks DPReview for opening up this subject with some initial tests.I wondered what issues would emerge with RAW conversions on this non-Beyer layout when the sensor was announced. Having a workflow that produces fairly consistent images WRT moire/color independent of the image is a great time saver. I personally do not want to go back to the bad old days where I had to assess an image with several RAW processors to figure out which gave me optimum, or sometimes even acceptable, results. Nor do I want to spend time tweaking settings on images to correct artifacts when it is something that could be more effectively done by sensor aware software.
I take your point, but I have to suggest printing these files or downsizing them to the size you use them before worrying about this too much.
Personally this isn't a big enough issue to stop me being very excited about the X100S.
Gary H: Given that people that use RAW do so in order to obtain the best that they can from a file makes it so very strange that you didn't demand the best that C1 could produce, but rather used canned settings. Show us the best that you can produce with C1. I appreciate that you asked for settings that others found useful, but from my perspective you should be showing what C1 can do. The canned settings people mostly use JPG.
Please explain what 'the best C1 can produce' is.
How do you propose we find 'the best?' There are too many combinations and too much of it comes down to taste for their to be a perfect answer. Here we've used the settings Phase One feel most people will be happiest with, most of the time. We investigated some settings but, had we published those we'd still be criticised for not matching someone else's ideal.
At which point, all we can do is solicit suggestions of alternatives.
cristof974: SO ! Adobe and Capture One are all two very bad with FUJI's !Fuji must give us a "Fuji DNG converter" !!
sgoldswo - rather than making blanket criticisms, why not suggest a combination of settings that give the excellent results you're seeing?
We provided the Raw files and asked for better settings because we didn't have an infinite amount of time to find the optimal settings. We couldn't significantly improve on the ones chosen by the writers of the software, in the time available, so we published those and asked for suggestions.