stevelatinner: Why are all these reviews incomplete? They've remained useless first impression reviews for months with no update. Not like the Dpreview I knew for years.
We have a limited number of writers available and have quite a substantial backlog to work our way through. There are three reviews currently in progress, which is the most we're currently able to do.
aandegoons: A new low... DPR Anti Nikon trolls rooting for the thief.
Sakar is actually using the molds from the Nikon 1 system.
I hope you don't believe I'm 'rooting for thievery.'
I'm just pointing out that your statement that 'Sakar *is* using...' isn't supported by evidence. It's possible but almost irrelevant - the court will decide whether Sakar has infringed the design rights (and it certainly looks like Nikon has a case). It's 'whether' that matters, rather than 'how.'
Hogan *speculates* that Sakar *might* be using the molds. Note that the image we've used differs more from the J1 than the ones on his site - as do the images of the prototypes we took at CES (lens release button and AF illuminator in difference places, for example).
samfan: I really don't like these patents and lawsuits. Why just throw money at the lawyers instead of... Well I don't know, how about engineers? Or quality control? Or common sense? (Meaning, don't assemble your cameras from the cheapest Chinese parts, sell them at a massive premium and then act surprised that someone else uses the same parts.)
Anyway, dpreview, maybe you should put a pic of J1 there instead of J3. J3 doesn't look so similar, while J1 is quite identical.
Try reloading the page (we already had).
sugardaddy: I couldn't find anything mentioned in the original article. Was the supplied silicone grease applied to the O-ring at all, either first time attaching the lens or before the dip?
I know a lot of people originally wanted a dial of some kind but the zoom buttons act as a dial, which is pretty intuitive to me (I own the AW1). Buttons are a LOT easier to waterproof than moving knobs.
That piece of text is on page 74 of the manual I'm reading.
It says to check the condition of the O-ring "*whenever it has been used under water*" (which this hadn't) - the presumption has to be that it comes pre-greased.
That said, on page 75, in the section about *replacing* the O-ring it says: 'O-rings must be greased before use and whenever the surface appears dry; failure to observe this precaution could result in the O-ring cracking and water entering the camera.'
So, in one of the 85 mentions of the word O-ring in the manual, it suggests it must be greased before use. This may be the case, but I think the vast majority of people could diligently read the manual, believe they have acted in accordance with it and still find themselves owning a fairly expensive brick.
The instruction manual says (p35):
"The O-ring can be lubricated with the supplied silicon grease or with optional WP-G1000 silicon grease, preventing wear and making waterproof lenses easier to attach and remove."
It does not say that you *must* keep the O-rings greased.
linzybel: By my calculations, your "winning" Sony -- with the biggest sensor but narrowest zoom range -- also happens to cost 30% more than Panasonic and Fuji, 44% more than the Canon, and 70% more than the Coolpix.
They're in the same "category" only in a technical sense.
It depends which country you're in. In Europe the RX100 is less expensive than the S120. The price difference in the US is why we listed an 'if you don't want to spend so much' option.
If you want a pocketable camera, the RX100 is the hands-down winner, despite our reservations about it. If it's too expensive, the others will do, but they're compromise choices - we tried to make that clear.
Lee Jay: I'd agree, if it started at 15mm (24mm equivalent on Canon 1.6-crop). All these crop-sensor lenses that start in the 28mm-equivalent range really, really annoy me. Even most compacts start at 24mm by now!!!
@samfan - the EX1 is certainly using digital correction (assuming we're both talking about the Samsung). Your Raw converter may be applying the *same* corrections as the camera, of course.
Not the perfect image to make the point, but the easiest to lay my hands on:
[Samsung EX1 JPEG from camera](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Samsungtl500/samples/RAW/SAM_7447.JPG)
[Samsung EX1 Adobe Camera Raw conversion](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Samsungtl500/samples/RAW/SAM_7447-ACR.jpg)
Note I haven't said anything is bad or wrong with this approach - there are some cameras and lenses I really like that work this way. However, it's something you can't really do with a DSLR, because you'd see very different framing in the optical viewfinder, compared to the output image.
flee2010: Yes, we should thank Sigma for creating a DX dream team. For many photographers, the combination of this lens and the APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM would be all they need for their APS-C camera.
It's just such a shame that the 50-150mm OS has become so big and heavy. The old version was substantially lighter and smaller, making it a nicer lens for portraits than a 70-200mm (both in terms of being less intimidating and easier to wave around).
In fairness, most compacts are only able to offer 24mm equiv through software correction of distortion - which would make composition difficult in a DSLR lens.
Phil Askey: Nice job peeps.
Thanks, Phil. Hope you enjoyed it.
qianp2k: No Canon EOS-M? Is it an entry-level mirrorless camera?
I bought $399 EOS-M package with body, two M lenses - 22/2.0 STM pancake, 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM kit zoom, and 90EX flash that can also be used an ETTL master on Canon DSLRs.
And it delivers very nice IQ, not less than all above ML entries in the list.
As mentioned elsewhere in the comment section, the EOS-M's current pricing strongly suggests it's out-of-production and being sold-off cheaply. We want these roundups to retain their relevance for a couple of months, at least, by which stage the remaining EOS-M stock is likely to have run out.
Despite never being offered one by Canon US, we borrowed one and to shoot a samples gallery. I thought I'd also written my impressions of using it, but I can't find a link to that, if I did.
It's not a camera we could currently recommend. The interface is very good, though so, if the lens design isn't contributing too much to the slow focus, the next generation could be really good.
sono1mito: mah,affermare che le ultime telecamere rappresentano un" grande passo avanti rispetto a 2 anni fa" mi sembra esagerato,certo qualche dettaglio è stato migliorato ma non tanto.Ognuno di noi penso che anche con una camera "vecchia" scatta ottime foto senza inseguire le ultime novità.Ciao
We didn't literally mean 2 when we said 'couple' but rather: more than one, less than several.
Mirrorless cameras, in particular, have improved significantly in the past two to three years and the arrival of the RX100, within the last two years, represents a significant change in the enthusiast compact class.
rube39: What about the Canon EOS M? It is small, easy to use, has two excellent kit lenses, a nice touch screen interface, a large sensor, and after the latest firmware update, it delivers decent enough AF speed.
Given how cheap they're buying sold off, we have to assume they're at end-of-life, so it doesn't make sense to include the EOS-M in a roundup we want to still be valid in a couple of months.
The EOS-M isn't a camera we could recommend. But there's a lot to like that makes us think the next generation camera could be rather good.
ploutakis: I have read some comments in the web about the huge distortions of theNEX 3N's 16-50 lens.They comment that the camera corrects the problem automatically when in jpeg mode.What about RAW.I dont use Photoshop ,so I wish I knew whether the Sony raw converter resolves the problem .
Digital corrections are commonplace in mirrorless cameras - in part because it's possible (since you couldn't preview the corrections through an optical viewfinder).
Any Raw converter that properly supports such a camera - be it NEX, Micro Four Thirds or Fujifilm - will apply the corrections.
King Penguin: I've a D600 and I like the Df, can't afford it but I like the idea of using the aperture ring on my AFD lenses........just like the old days.
King Penguin - if it's F mount and it's got an aperture ring, you can use the aperture ring on the Df. (explained in the 'Further Impressions' section on page 6).
marike6: Question for staff: is there any chance of reshooting these Nikon Df Studio samples?
I know you guys work hard on this stuff, but these Df samples seem a bit out-of-focus.
I'll go back and look at the focus confirmation images next time I get a chance (probably Tuesday, now), but re-shooting is several hours work, so I won't commit to that until I'm sure it's necessary.
miketala: DPR's categories are outdated thus far less useful than they could be.
Mirrorless compete directly with DSLR's and have the same image quality (or near enough so for m43). The biggest difference is the viewfinder and body size.
Say I've got $700 to blow on a camera for my kid who's getting into photography & video. What do I get? DSLR? Mirrorless?
Throw out the mirrorless/dslr/dslt distinction. Use the umbrella description "System Cameras" and then break them down by average price points or desired use: Entry / Intermediate / Prosumer / Pro / Video.
It makes so much more sense, and is far more useful.
There was some debate in the office, with price as the deciding factor or putting all interchangeable lens cameras together.
However, different pricing in different countries (and the constantly changing nature of price), makes that difficult.
Equally, it was argued that a significant number of people might be looking specifically for a DSLR and wouldn't consider a mirrorless camera to be a direct alternative. Equally, anyone looking at a mirrorless camera because of its portability won't consider a DSLR, so we kept the separate on this occasion.
In future, we hope to have a way of presenting both/all methods, but for now, we had to make a decision.
Matewka: Nikon Df announcement: Nov 5, 2013 (3 weeks ago)Pentax K-3 announcement: Oct 7, 2013 (7,5 weeks ago)
So far...Df review includes: first impressions + full ISO range studio testK-3 review includes: first impressions + worthless sample gallery
Either I'm overreacting or some brands are favoured by DPR.
Since the K-3 has this unique "software AA filter" feature, I guess many people (not only Pentax die-hards) are extremely curious what this baby can do. Not mentioning that overall Pentax IQ and NR in recent models are outstanding, even beating some FFs.
The K-3 also has a full ISO range of studio test shots, so there's actually more content about the K-3 than the Df on this site.
Ultimately, though, we have limited resources - popularity with our readers is one of the biggest factors that we have to take into account when prioritising where to apply those resources. The Df has attracted more than twice the attention of the K-3 so, while we hope to review the K-3, the Df is likely to take priority.
LWS2013: Why use the 50mm on the Df but the 85mm on the D610 and D800?
We didn't - that's a typo. We used the AF-S Nikkor 85mm f1.4 G.