To continue loving video games, their programming while doing & improving my professional photography, punish the guilty, reward the good, educate kids and fight for all that is good. :-)
Lightcapture: Epson should be the Netherlands' national symbol: CLOGS (lots of them).
Well, I can only speak for the 2880. No issues there. Have had it for several years and just printed an exhibition for the July month.
Maybe rather than trusting the internet I trust my own direct experience?
exapixel: It should be noted that Sony's quote-unquote raw files never exhibit 14-bit precision. At best, the precision is 13 bits.
Another way to look at it: each pixel has at most 1793 possible values (2048 values of an 11-bit coding, less 255 redundant black codes). A real 14-bit raw file would allow at least 8,192.
Sorry, looks like I stand partial corrected if not full corrected :-) . I thought the original OP had said 11 bits instead of 13 bits. I mixed the second paragraph bits with the first. Apologies to both.
But do keep in mind where the values are encoded and sampled, it's not necessarily the same as having a natural 13- i.e. the sampling even with "buckets missing" could be offset in such a way that it could sample luminance values correctly in a region (or more correctly) than a natural 13.
I am sorry but Epson solved that issue. When they have happened on my 2880, it can self clean itself to perfection. That used to be true *a long time ago* but not anymore. At least for the pigment pro photo level line.
Given the Sony impression is relative I don't agree with your statements. What you say would be true if the data was not taking into account offsets from the burghtest and darkest pixels in the compression stripe. It effectively gives you closer to 14 bit than the 11 you propose.
bernardf12: Can you please measure the level of light it needs to focus in at f2.8? Oly was way behind Panasonic here. Also cannot find the RAW bit depth. (Or did I miss these in the review)Thanks
RAW bit depth is 12 bit. Why would it be any different from the flaship models on an entry level model?
Raist3d: I would really love for DPREVIEW next time they are interviewing Olympus to ask two questions:
(i) Are you considering working on the menus and the UI to make it better/simpler to use?
(ii) If (i) is correct, are you considering a firmware upgrade for current OMD cameras to do so?
Wrong with the menu? You guys haven't read almost every single review on Olympus camera? I have a share of usability issues to point out myself and I am "used" to the Olympus menu.
- Many things aren't grouped properly -like display settings/shot preview- Change how you select drive mode for silent/self timer shutter. It's unnecessarily long- Many menus are organized in such a way that it yields into unnecessary sub-menus- There's a bunch of other stuff to pick here. There's a you tube review of the OMD EM MKii that highlights in very concrete terms 2-3 scenarios where it's easy to see some of the issues.
dpreview/Dan- a comment on the ISO 8000 shot- it does look nice but it's also F2.8 @1/320 shutter speed. That's pretty much equivalent to shooting a camera at ISO 1000/ F2.8 / 1/40. I find that when shooting high iso at short shutter speeds on any camera because the light of the state (in this example) is strong, the camera performance benefits immensely.
Try something like a restaurant scene with indoor lighting that requires something like F2.8/ 1/30-1/50 @ ISO 6400 or more and see how it looks.
It still looks nice, but a lot of cameras do much better shooting in that condition too, particularly with the strong stage light, keeping that detail and making the blacks go darker.
I would really love for DPREVIEW next time they are interviewing Olympus to ask two questions:
JMichaelsPhoto: I would love to see a full-frame sensor, personally. If Fuji, and others, don't want to invest in full-frame sensor technology because of the cost of also developing an entire line of full-frame lenses, as Sony did, it makes the most sense to develop a fixed-lens full-frame compact, as Sony did with the RX1r, from a competitive standpoint. That's just my opinion. I'm okay with the 35mm equivalent f/2 lens, but a camera designed around a 35mm f/2 full-frame lens that says Fujinon on it would be pretty sweet. I'm just saying...
Photo perzon- you really need to try Xtrans conversions on a current raw converter. It's good. Overall I see better output than Bayer. Bayer with no AA has much more color moire and sometimes when it happens is very nasty to remove.
So dpreview reporting on the rumor = rumor is true ;-)
As for lenses an f1.7 higher quality would be great if possible to keep size small.
I would go one step further. I would love a medium format camera like this. But not holding my breath. F2.8 or even f4.0 would be fine.
I think at the asking price/body only, this is really good.
@DPreview- thanks for making RAW files available!
Any chance you could test vs the Pentax K-5ii (or I would think K-3?) DSLR? The AF of that camera is rated at -3 ev, as noted by Pentax, and as noted by your own review :-)
Gollan: I've been reluctant to see the new Mad Max movie because I felt it would be swamped with cartoonish CGI in an effort to top the wonderful, practical special effects in Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. These photos make it look like computer imagery is being used to complement acting, rather than replace it. If the whole thing is like that, I really should give the move a chance.
And that's how it was. Most stunts were all real. And it shows. It's truly a quality film in its class.
Go see it. Same director of All Mad Maxes says something.
photo perzon: I would pay exactly twice for any Fuji camera with Bayer than with Trans.
I prefer they keep on Xtrans. I have seen moire from AAless bayer and it's not fun when it happens.
Great news for Olympus after several years of Imaging Division loss. They should really party all night over this. Good for them.
Caerolle: Lol, highly entertaining review. I guess we now know the absolute definition of what a 'real camera' is, versus an electronic device that takes pictures. Funny how I feel so engaged when taking pictures with my Canon and Olympus abominations.
Seems to me this camera is mostly a JPEG camera for hipsters and nostalgia buffs to play around with, at least based on this review. Which seemed to be about the X-100T as much as the X-T10.
The review loved the JPEGS, but they also clearly mentioned RAW advantages, when it comes to how Fuji implements amplification, higher ISO and the extra DR modes.
And honestly I don't know what you mean by "more choice" I mean, Fuji gives plenty of choice. As do other brands. Seems again, you are acting pretty defensive here. Its' a review. Go and look at the OMD EM5 MKII review here. Someone with your attitude could pick plenty here too.
And you keep hampering on "based on the review" yet you are getting replies from people with direct experience. Anyway...
nixda: I highly recommend having the comments here read by your computer. Lean back and enjoy! It's just totally hilarious to listen to all that "Sony is better, Panasonic is faster, Fuji has the best lenses, you suck, no you suck, you have no idea what you are talking about, mine is bigger", and so on.
I would suggest an obnoxious military-style voice. Also try a sultry female voice for extra kicks.
Not defensive? Read the comments you wrote but shift the brand names and see if you don't read anything but that into it. If you are saying the X-T10 is "mostly for hipster and nostalgia" it's pretty clear you are quite blind to the possibilities of it.
If you don't like the review thats one thing, but that's independent from the camera. Your very hyperbolic first paragraph has "defensive" spelled all over it.
It's really good to not care about brands and care about photography. Really.