Comments |
|
USA, NC, United States
|
About us
|
Sitemap
|
Connect
|
Very nice new features. I wish I could get an update like that for my GH3.
I wish this camera had a smaller sensor because it seems like the cameras with smaller sensors than it has produce better results.
The numeric percentage rating seems to be irrelevant to the actual results. It almost seems like the latest camera to be reviewed in this class gets the highest number.
I must need to have my eyes checked because I thought the Fuji studio shots looked terrible. For the life of me I couldn't find what was actually in focus in that shot. That or it was just a blurry mess.
This was a well written article. I just simply disagreed with the conclusions in it.
For 1/2 the cost and almost 1 stop faster lens I can't see anyone buying this over a Panasonic LX7.
Fantastic review and a great camera. I think Canon just folded their hand and went to the bar to rinse away their sorrows.
I was a little disappointed about the video aspects. However, the GH3 really has that market cornered. For stills this D7100 really is hard to beat.
That being said. Compare the Olympus OMD EM-5 to the D7100 in the comparometer. I was surprised at how close they were up to ISO 3200. The D7100 pulls away after that though.
Bravo Nikon. Bravo.
mpgxsvcd: I am waiting for a company to just say the heck with it and come out with a camera with a 1/3" sensor and a 20-1000mm F8.0 lens. They know that the average consumers have no idea what the lens specs mean.
The only thing the average consumer knows are megapixels and 50x zoom and that is what Sony, Canon, and Nikon are giving them.
However, Panasonic and Olympus know that eventually people will realize that the most important thing in a small sensor camera is the lens because that can make up for the fact that the sensor is so much smaller and still has way too many megapixels.
This Sony DSC-HX50V has one of the slowest lenses I have ever seen on a really small sensor. Why in the world do people think that they need telescope focal lengths in a pocket camera?
And the FZ200 is F2.8 and the LX7 is just over F2.0 at that focal length.
mpgxsvcd: It is like a GH2.75.
Then you really must not like the Micro Four Thirds format.
AllOtherNamesTaken: $500 for 1/1.7"...nooo thank you.
The LX7 was $280 just a few days ago. I don't see how Panasonic or the stores stay in business selling it for that low a price.
Why would anyone buy this for $500 when the LX7 was $280 last week. I can walk forward the extra few steps to save $220.
mpgxsvcd: I am waiting for a company to just say the heck with it and come out with a camera with a 1/3" sensor and a 20-1000mm F8.0 lens. They know that the average consumers have no idea what the lens specs mean.
The only thing the average consumer knows are megapixels and 50x zoom and that is what Sony, Canon, and Nikon are giving them.
However, Panasonic and Olympus know that eventually people will realize that the most important thing in a small sensor camera is the lens because that can make up for the fact that the sensor is so much smaller and still has way too many megapixels.
This Sony DSC-HX50V has one of the slowest lenses I have ever seen on a really small sensor. Why in the world do people think that they need telescope focal lengths in a pocket camera?
The FZ200 has an F2.8 lens in this focal range. It is a much bigger camera though. My point is that they shouldn't even offer this focal length. It is a terrible idea to give a novice user a SUPER HUGE focal length with a very small aperture.
mpgxsvcd: I am waiting for a company to just say the heck with it and come out with a camera with a 1/3" sensor and a 20-1000mm F8.0 lens. They know that the average consumers have no idea what the lens specs mean.
The only thing the average consumer knows are megapixels and 50x zoom and that is what Sony, Canon, and Nikon are giving them.
However, Panasonic and Olympus know that eventually people will realize that the most important thing in a small sensor camera is the lens because that can make up for the fact that the sensor is so much smaller and still has way too many megapixels.
This Sony DSC-HX50V has one of the slowest lenses I have ever seen on a really small sensor. Why in the world do people think that they need telescope focal lengths in a pocket camera?
It is much easier to make-up the ISO difference with the lens than it is to make it up by increasing the sensor size.
I would take an LX7 over and RX100 just because of the huge advantage the LX7 lens provides at the telephoto end.
Focus Peaking will be added to the GH3 in a firmware update when the G6 is released.
It is like a GH2.75.
I am waiting for a company to just say the heck with it and come out with a camera with a 1/3" sensor and a 20-1000mm F8.0 lens. They know that the average consumers have no idea what the lens specs mean.
The only thing the average consumer knows are megapixels and 50x zoom and that is what Sony, Canon, and Nikon are giving them.
However, Panasonic and Olympus know that eventually people will realize that the most important thing in a small sensor camera is the lens because that can make up for the fact that the sensor is so much smaller and still has way too many megapixels.
This Sony DSC-HX50V has one of the slowest lenses I have ever seen on a really small sensor. Why in the world do people think that they need telescope focal lengths in a pocket camera?
The old 14-140mm lenses are now worthless. This version is better in every aspect but not really what I am lookibg for.
Spunjji: "The lens will offer the light-gathering and depth-of-field equivalent of a constant F2.7 on full-frame"
Aaaaaaaarrrgh who wrote this?! Wrong wrong wrong.
Andy,
What you are saying is correct. However, people who don't understand that will think that it means that this is actually an F2.8 lens on APS-C systems.
The statement just wasn't fully qualified. It is all in the definition of light gathering which most people don't know the true definition of.
The dpreview comments make it sound like this lens will act like an F2.8 lens for light gathering. It will act just like an F1.8 lens for light gathering.
Now we are talking. That sounds great.
mpgxsvcd: Great review. However, Andrew Reid's video piece has a little too much opinion in it. I actually like Andrew's work. However, it doesn't really sit well with a dpreview review that has always been about facts in the past.
Overall I think the OMD is a better option for most people. However, for people like me that shoot video and stills nothing will top the GH3.
Yes, I stated that I thought the OMD EM-5 would be the best choice for most people because of the built-in IS. For the average consumer IS is critical especially in video and a lot of the best m4/3s lenses don't have IS.
mpgxsvcd: Great review. However, Andrew Reid's video piece has a little too much opinion in it. I actually like Andrew's work. However, it doesn't really sit well with a dpreview review that has always been about facts in the past.
Overall I think the OMD is a better option for most people. However, for people like me that shoot video and stills nothing will top the GH3.
I agree EOSHD. I like your work and I know you did a thorough job with your testing. However, the review had a very different flow when it came to your piece.
Maybe it was just that I wasn't accustomed to seeing some of your wording in a dpreview review. Maybe it was just that Dpreview really hasn't gone into as much detail about video in the past.
Anyway I appreciate your contribution to the review. What I stated is just my opinion about the article. I know it won't change the way you write because you are a good writer. However, feedback is always good.
Overall I think that this is probably the most thorough review dpreview has done. Just the number of controls and settings the GH3 has makes reviewing it a difficult task. I applaud everyone involved for doing an outstanding job.