1996-1999: Casio QV10A1999-2004: Nikon Coolpix 9502004-2007: Olympus C-50602006-2006: Fujifilm F202007- : Fujifilm F31fd2007-2007: Pentax K100D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2007-2009: Pentax K10D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2009-2012: Pentax K-7 (still mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2009-2011: Fujifilm F200EXR2012- : Pentax K-5ii (+ 15mm, 40mm, 70mm Limiteds)Now you know. :)
ballwin12: I bet this is a Chinese company, Am I right? They do nothing, just want to steal patterns from others.
Well, maybe. Sakar is a small company headquartered in New Jersey. But they don't really actually design anything themselves; they basically license different brands (like Polaroid or Vivitar or Kodak, or even Hello Kitty) and attach them to Chinese imports.
Since it tends to be very low quality and *COMPLETELY* unsupported (try getting ahold of anyone at Sakar with a technical question, let alone a support request!), I'm pretty sympathetic to Nikon here.
Frank_BR: Unbelievable, the Nokia Lumia 1020 outresolves almost all FF cameras except the Nikon D800! For example, if you compare the Nokia Lumia 1020 with the Canon 5D MkrIII you'll get the following numbers:
Nokia Lumia 1020: ~3600 LPHCanon 5D MkrIII: ~3000 LPH
This result is even more surprising if you consider that the 85mm Canon lens was set to F/7.1, whereas the Lumia lens was wide open at F/2.2. That is, the Canon lens was operating at the optimum aperture regarding resolution, and the Lumia lens was using an aperture much more prone to degradation by optical aberrations. Even so, the Lumia won.
That's not to say it isn't impressive, of course!
I think you're making a false assumption about the "wide open" lens. Basically, all conventional wisdom is off the table here, since this lens doesn't stop down at all, controlling exposure only through digital ISO and shutter speed. That means it's optimized for the only aperture it has -- there really is no concept of "wide open" because there is nothing else.
fakuryu: Slow lenses? Make those lenses a f1.4 and what do you get? Yeah, bigger lenses.
@tkbslc I don't think you appreciate how small, light, and enjoyable these lenses are to use. I have a set of the older series, and I wouldn't trade 'em for a top-of-the line f/2.8 zoom at any price.
Well, maybe if the zoom were pricey enough to resell and buy the upgraded versions of these.
"Best" lenses as scored by easily-measurable characteristics only -- resolution, distortion, vignetting, transmission, chromatic aberration. Sure, those things are important, but it's a remarkably reductionist way of ranking artistic tools.
Nathaniel George Weir: Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and if you don't agree with me, then check out SLRGear.com and the Digital Picture's "ISO crops" and then compare Canon and Nikon glass. You shall see that Canon lenses are consistently sharper and have less CA.
Sharpness and CA are boring. They are only fixated on as the most important aspects of lens design because they are so easily measured, and the techie population which makes up the core audience of online photo sites gravitates to "serious" and "scientific" reviews based around measurable numbers — never mind that aspects which are not so easily measured are often more interesting and more important.
justinwonnacott: What kind of business model is this! Lomo is cyber begging and people are falling head over heels for it.Hilarious.
So, clearly, the kind of business model it is is "very successful".
Sooo, if we use the 1.6x linear difference in sensor size between this and the Canon G1 X to compare apertures, we get:
Leica: f/3.5-f/6.4Canon G1 X in equivalent terms: f/4.7-f/9.8
As we all know from so much forum arguing, this equivalence is right-on for depth of field effects assuming same-size prints, *and* roughly for noise performance because of the inherent advantage of the larger sensor.
That's last year's competition, I know, but it does look like the Leica isn't entirely wasting the larger sensor.
vroger1: Is it 6.4? I thought it was 5.6- Utterly useless.VRR
Really? The line between okay and "utterly useless" is in that one-third of a stop?
BJN: Raw is not a file type. Raw is not an acronym. Raw is an adjective.
It's also a class of digital files. You might not like it, but there it is.
shakyone: I really enjoyed the article. I'm a long time GIMP user, and it does what I need, when I need to get my hands dirty.
Not meant to argue with the author, but it is worth knowing, GIMP v2.10 will have 16/32 Bit color support. It is working in the development version(http://www.gimpusers.com/news/00422-16-bit-goat-invasion-ready)
You can get GIMP for OSX at: http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html
I'm glad to see DPReview finally acknowledge GIMP as a usable alternative. It much more capable than most realize.
It has a steep learning curve, but so does Photoshop. If you are starting from ground zero, there are plenty of tutorials on the main website and on the web to get you going. There is also a great book by Akkana Peck about how to use it. It is a fantastic reference for novice advanced photo editors.
I like many of the other proposed options.
One more suggstion: A free RAW editor to consider is RawTherapee.
@HowaboutRAW 2.10 isn't 3.0 -- the dot isn't a decimal point.
lspoden: This will cost the average photographer that uses Lightroom and Photoshop around $600 over five years. This is a total money grab by Adobe. They have no competition so they can get away with it.
Here is my analysis: http://www.lenspoden.com/photo-topics/
@CFynn That is typical for a software company, and actually very high for companies overall. The money is _definitely_ "going there".
How does Corel manage it? Well, aside from repeatedly going bankrupt, they've made a lot of acquisitions over the years.
TFD: Everyone thinks the cloud is a great, no one knows what it is. I would not want to get tied into this one. I would guess that the performance would be less than exciting.
Personally I am now using Corel Paint Shop Pro, it as a better interface than Adobe and it does everything I need for about $100.
Here, they're just using the word "cloud" to mean "subscription software", and they're only using it because it's a more-palatable buzzword. The software is still actually installed locally, so performance isn't an issue.
$600 over five years? So, literally, a third of a dollar a day? Really, cry me a river here.
Adobe's R&D takes money, and with digital goods a subscription model makes more sense than pretending you're selling an object.
If you would prefer something else, there *is* competition in for example GIMP, which has a recently reworked user-interface and will shortly gain full 16-bit support.
Sure, it's a little bit behind in some of the greatest cool features in Photoshop — but that is _literally_ the difference that R&D makes.
I wish the Bang! one said Click!
That is all.
Johan Borg: Note: The Sigma DP1 Merrill has only been added to our test scene in JPEG mode, since we're too lazy to fire up Sigma Photo Pro and press Save Image with default settings.
Sigma DP1 Merrill must be the single most meaningless camera to add to a JPEG only comparison, given how much that model benefits from RAW.
@Johan: no, that's not the case. DNG is just a container format. Proprietary RAW formats are *also* just container formats. Once the container is decoded, the actual conversion path is identical regardless of input file type. Bits are bits.
wildeye: It's great that manufacturers are listening to photographers and responding with better image quality in smaller packages. All these cameras look interesting as does Sony's RX1. For sensor tech though, the 'writing' is literally 'on the wall', (or more to the point, you can't see the words!), for the APSC Bayer samples on page 10. So, like others here, I'm wondering why the DP compact cameras have largely been ignored on this site when it comes to serious review to this point? Agreed Foveon is not perfect, but it has had a fraction of the investment that all the other makers have poured into Bayer and it does seem to offer something of genuine value to photographers that deserves some further interest, if not support. The micro detail of the writing from the Foveon on page 10 is truly impressive compared to the Bayer. NB. The last people who tried to sideline a different technology simply because it didn't fit into their existing workflow were the Luddites!
Yeah, but set the ISO to something like 400 and watch the advantage tip _steeply_ to Bayer.
tron555: There is no fine detail in any of the cameras tested. Drag the comparison window over the watch in the lower right hand corner. Then, choose the Olympus OM-D E-M5, Pen E-PM2, or any other "Good" camera and see the difference. Not impressed one bit, especially for the price and features the GR and DP offer.
I think what you're seeing is mostly the effect of Olympus's excellent JPEG engine. Switch to RAW and there's no striking difference.
I disagree. The _value_ of the RAW image samples is that they're all converted with the same software in the same way. If you want to see samples converted using the manufacturer's individual algorithms, that's what the JPEG samples are for. (In camera vs. desktop software doesn't make much difference for this purpose; if that software happens to have different behavior that's interesting but not really relevant.)
Emopunk: Why no A-mount Sigma, why? We really would love the last two aps-c lenses you made, too; the other one being the update 30mm 1.4.
Yeah, no Pentax K mount either. They're aiming at the big two brands because that's where the money is.
And of course their own mount, because, hey.