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. :-)
Marty4650: "Somewhat banal" is a sign of competence. People who know what they are doing put their heads down and go to work when a crisis happens. It actually should be business as usual.
Odds are, they were not discussing amnesty for the terrorists, or any attempt to reach out to help understand the radicals. They were probably busy planning "what should we do next" to prevent similar attacks.
Marty- I wouldn't make assumptions of who voted for who. It's this "it has to be option 1 or option 2" one of the key things that has this country myopically divided.
Mirfak: In general, I think that the G7 is a better buy, even with its stone-age 16mp sensor. Unless you must have 4K, the Fuji X-10 with kit lens is a better buy.
Androole- no, the fuji X-T10 is not outperformed "in essentially every respect except size and price." Dynamic range is better on the Fuji. So is tonality (14-bit raw- where is 14 bit raw in any m4/3rds?) The Panasonic has 20 MP but still has an antialias filter. so there goes that megapixel advantage.
Marty4650: I will sit this one out, and wait for this new sensor to show up in the EM1 MkII.
But, it does seem like a really nice camera and a nice step forward for M4/3.
And for everyone who thinks it is too big... just remember there are around 25 other M4/3 cameras to pick from. Some bigger, some smaller. Something for everyone. Which was the whole point of having multiple models, multiple styles, and multiple manufacturers.
I do understand what the m4/3rds advantage is, thank you very much. I even understand all the way back from 4/3rds :-)
My reply on Nikon 1 holds. You think I would defend the Nikon 1 in areas where I would not. Seen how that pricey V3 has been doing? Not very well and I would agree that's a problem. But you seem to think somehow I would defend that. I wouldn't. So take the brands out for a moment, my comment on the Panasonic has nothing to do with what I think of the brand.
You didn't even mention "my Nikon 1" btw. You don't even know if I even keeping or parting ways with it :-)
I get some people may want bigger. I just think that by positioning the camera at the price it is, with the size it is, many other options in the market will become more ensign by being smaller and having bigger image IQ.
Raist3d: I honestly don't see the point in making a m4/3rds camera bigger. I know you could say the unique combination of features in a camera may still a comelling camera body, but why bother with other bigger sensor options that would match or even be smaller?
Going big size wise was one of the (in my opinion) fatal Olympus 4/3rds mistakes, which they have more than realized after m4/3rds.
Bhma78 - no, it isn't. It isn't smaller than some APS-C's now going around. I guess the lenses still keep it somewhat small and I understand what you mean of ergonomics, thought the GX7 was at a size that covered enough of that without the need to increase that size.
AshMills- it's just bigger in a direction that takes away from one key advantage of m4/3rds.
Marty- No, according to my logic a GH4 is fine :-) The class of camera a GH4 is and what it matters to is still small compared to the competitors. No, I am not saying make every m/43rds camera like a GM1 or GM2. But the GX7 was already a sizable size, making it bigger I don't think that's going to help.
And yes, this is one of the things that killed 4/3rds.
And what does the Nikon 1 has to do with it? You think I would defend a big Nikon 1? Think again. My comment has nothing to do with brands per se. Please let's get out of the "oh that's because you use XXX."
nandbytes- you missed my point. My point is that there are other APS-C cameras that do not have exactly what you said, but have other advantages. If you need all you said you would have to pick the Panasonic but for several areas where the Panasonic would have presented a more compelling advantage now that overlap brings the others into consideration.
No, but there's other APS-C cameras that are smaller that have better image quality, with outstanding eve's. Even if the sizes are the same, a key advantage of m4/3rds goes away in such comparison.
It's a nice camera, but the issue on size is that this is one of the key m4/3rds advantages vs competitors. Lose that, and you are heading the Olympus original 4/3rds path which led them to discontinue that system.
The point of m4/3rds is to be smaller. You give up some IQ vs APSC/FF sensors in exchange for more portability. I don't see the point in losing that.
I honestly don't see the point in making a m4/3rds camera bigger. I know you could say the unique combination of features in a camera may still a comelling camera body, but why bother with other bigger sensor options that would match or even be smaller?
a3dtot: I've been using Canon for years now and it seems that the faults that are found technically have little or nothing to do with actual results. I understand that we have a bias as to which camera brand we prefer and in my own opinion there are reasons. My old 5D mkII gives me everything I want. I have never looked at one of my prints and thought I wish I had more dynamic range like Nikon or whomever. Canon gives me exactly what I want and except for the resolution, which I would like to have 50mp, there has never been anything wrong. I get the incredible color that I feel only canon provides (bias) and I also get great black and white. The detail is as good or better than film, which for me is saying something. It seems to me that many Nikon people find the technical pluses and announce them but I don't see them discussing photo quality as the main plus for their camera. Just saying. (stirring it up a little)
a3dtot- when Canon makes a camera with 2 stops DR over what you use, I am sure you will protest how it is irrelevant for many photographic opportunities and domains.
Raist3d: Amazing how many people are still so attached in their identity to a brand. This is simple- Canon sensors are behind Sony's in dynamic range. That doesn't mean your Canon camera (if you have one) stopped working. It does mean for those looking for a camera, that's one thing to weight against the Canon vs the Canon advantages it may or may not have over what they are considering.
Pick what works for you. All cameras are good now. DR is not a Canon advantage- just put it as a cons in your list vs the Canon pros and make your choices accordingly. If the Canon in the end works pick that. If it doesn't, pick something else. If you already have one and love the glass, get out and shoot.
There's no need to have a heart attack for the performance of a product of a capitalist company.
The point is the "controversy" is self inflicted. There's just some straight forward facts, the rest is all made up.
SmilerGrogan: I don't understand the monomaniacal fixation on dynamic range as the be-all and end-all of a camera's image quality.
The staff at DPR has already proven that you can get gorgeous images out of the new 5D and pros and amateurs will be taking jaw-dropping photos with them for years to come despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the internet, so could we please move on?
badi- sorry for that :-) I misinterpreted the context.
I didn't say they are the end all be all. Please where did I imply that. But how hard is it to consider that a competitor's product that has 2+ DR has a key advantage in that area and just admit that, make choices accordingly.
Bracketing is a work around. It can work, for many things it works, for many things it doesn't
Here's a simple question: how much would those who are saying this doesn't matter or is not important would change their tune if it was the Canon having the 2 stops advantage in DR? And by the way, when I say important- I mean important for those who need it, for those who shoot in conditions where that makes a difference.
I agree with you with viewing all the data, and making the choices accordingly. But surely having good glass on all cameras, and capabilities, if a sticking point is the DR aspect, many would sure- and righty so- consider that when spending so much money, no?
DPreview just reported something with some analysis. People could study it and nod, or do what they are doing. That's not dpreview's choice.
mailman88: Before DxO, the pro's were using Canon's 10D and 20D....customers were happy and nobody mentioned Dynamic Range.Wet Dreamers love DxO
I really love how fanboys defend the notion that somehow this extra DR has no advantages. :-)
Yes, pro's even further back were using digital cameras with even lower DR. Maybe it has to do with the progress of technology vs back then? :-)
Barry Goyette: I think whats not being answered with all this focus on Dynamic Range and SNR is "does 14 stops of DR produce a photo that LOOKS BETTER than one taken at 12 stops. Sure I get that the Nikon/Sony will let you shoot directly into the sun while you focus on your tulips...but when I look at that shot....I see a very strange looking sky, which is where most of that DR is being utilized. I shot some tests with the 5dsr today in stupidly backlit situations and was able to get very satisfactory results exposing for the highlights and pulling up the shadows. The shadows had a bit of noise in them sure, but at this resolution, who flipping cares...you're never gonna see it won a print shy of 24x36.
But here's the thing, when I maximized these images with their paltry 11.7 stops of DR, frankly...they looked a little fake to me. They looked a little like DPR's tulip photo...(HDR anyone?) My question is this. Would stuffing 2 more stops of DR into that shot make it look any better?
That depends on the shot. A shot that can fit in a 11 stops DR won't benefit from having 14 stops DR in the camera. But there are many types of shots out there that do, so yes, it would look better on a 14 stops DR camera assuming ballpark equal quality optics.
RyanBoston: People are missing the most important upgrade to this new camera.
It's the first full frame Pro Body that does not have banding.
A joke surely :-) Maybe he meant the first Canon Full Frame with no banding :-)
It shouldn't be an obsession, just like people shouldn't get defensive. It is what it is, and for a lot of shots out there that are high contrast, this is not the camera to get because of that DR. Doesn't mean it's useless. But just like there shouldn't be a monomaniacal fixation on DR, there shouldn't be a mono maniacal fixation in defending the reality that it's something - a characteristic - of lack acquisition where Canon sensors are lacking vs Sony's.
Make your choices with that knowledge accordingly.
Amazing how many people are still so attached in their identity to a brand. This is simple- Canon sensors are behind Sony's in dynamic range. That doesn't mean your Canon camera (if you have one) stopped working. It does mean for those looking for a camera, that's one thing to weight against the Canon vs the Canon advantages it may or may not have over what they are considering.
oselimg: And here is someone who doesn't know anything about photography, DR by most people's standards here but also doesn't give damn about gear lovers' current fetish. If you can bare not seeing any mention of DR, SNR etc.
Here is some help for those who doesn't want to read it. "His advice to young documentary photographers is, predictably, not technical: “You should have a good knowledge of history, of geopolitics, of sociology and anthropology to understand the society that we’re part of and to understand yourself and where you’re from in order to make choices. A lack of this knowledge will be much more limiting than any technical ability.”
Certainly. You can find great photographers at a Nikon website, a Fuji website, an Olympus website, and a Pentax website. If am going to spend my heard earned cash on a camera system I want to pick the one that matches my needs best. I am well aware the camera doesn't make the photographer but for my money, there is nothing wrong with picking one with better (notably better) DR if one exists and I need that.
And still not give a damn in the end about the term DR.