marike6

I'm also glad the Andrew decided to write about the two new Fuji X cameras as they are both high on my list for next camera purchase.  I haven't shot with the RX1 yet, but clearly it has one of the best FF sensors available, scoring just below the D800 and D600 on DxOMark, no small feat (of course it's likely that the RX1 and D600 share the same 24p Sony sensor).  As far as X100s vs RX1, I think the built in OVF/EVF of the X100s make it a nicer, more compact package.  As far as AF performance, the X100s with PDAF should provide significantly better tracking and low-light AF than the RX1 at least on paper.   For me, since I already own a FF DSLR, the D800, a high quality (and less expensive) mirrorless like the X100s makes more sense.  If I had a larger budget for a second camera it's likely that I'd choose the X100s, but then if money were not an issue, I'd probably have already pre-ordered the Leica M.     As far as comments below re: the X20 vs RX100, I've used both the X10 and RX100, and clearly the RX100 has a great sensor, and superb video quality, but for still photography, there are several things that make the X10/X20 a nicer camera to use:     the X20's VF (which will be even better with the X20 as it has shooting data).  Composing on an LCD is not difficult except in bright sun, but the shooting stance with arms stretched out in front of you is not very stable at all.  As with run & gun DSLR video shooting, the extra point of contact of the VF against your face is extremely important.  better macro ability (I was somewhat disappointed with the RX100's macro abilities) much prefer the manual zoom, which is just faster and more precise for applications that require speed like street photography.  high ISO performance is not all that different.  If I remember the DxOMark scores, the RX100 score 390 ISO, similar to the Nikon V1, and the X10 254 ISO, the best of any compact other than the RX100.  Not a huge difference.   With the removal of the OLPF, the X20 should be capable of superb resolution the f4.9 at the long end of the RX100 actually removes much of the DOF advantage that the 1" sensor of the RX100 provides vs the 2/3" sensor of the X20.   Lastly, the Fuji colors for me are a huge advantage for the X20.  Anyway, this was an exciting announcement and upgrade from Fuji and one or both the X20 or X100s will definitely find a way into my camera bag.  Thanks, Andrew. 

I like this video a lot, and thanks Andrew for your excellent summary of the camera. Some of the comments on NoFilmSchool about "Genesis" where that it had a distinctly "digital look". I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. It's certainly not a cold, sterile look, but a more cinematic, pleasingly subtle look, at least to my eyes. I think the key with the Panasonic m43 cameras is you need to avoid native glass, and use vintage lenses or the 2 Voigtlander, the 25 and 17.5 lenses. Lastly, a quick question to the commenters on the first page of this article. Since when is showing someone in the Southern California sleeping in shorts or getting down on one knee to propose sexist? I get the whole PC, gender parity thing, but don't you think you may be taking it a bit far? I mean Southern California is hot in the summer. Did you think the actor should be wearing flannel PJs? Thanks.

[quote name='TC' timestamp='1343130954' post='14409'] Yes, it is not a complete disaster. It may even offer the best image quality (for stills) of any camera of its size currently on the market. [/quote] How is it going to offer the best IQ of any camera of it's size when, as you just mentioned above, the Sony Exmor cameras (NEX-5N, NEX-7) absolutely destroy it for IQ, particularly dynamic range and color depth? And the Sony's have the advantage of the excellent E-Mount, where virtually any used lens on Ebay from a $20 Helios 44-2 to a Zeiss Planar will work perfectly on it.

Andrew, nice video short and interesting camera which I had a chance to use for a day. I do like the sound of the shutter. But for still Images? I much prefer images from the Fuji X-Pro1 or D7000, and not by a little, by a mile. E-M5 images, especially with native lenses have a somewhat clinical look, raws are OK, but JPEGs are simply not good with heavy NR. The D7000, which you call outdated, is just a nicer camera to use because of the deeper grip (E-M5 without the add-on grip is an ergonomic nightmare), better DOF control, and cleaner images with better colors. The 14 EV of DR the D7000 is give us is not too bad either. Honestly I wanted to like the E-M5 and some things I did, but when it came down to it, I prefer images from the most APS-C cameras. In looking on Flickr at the respective camera pools even a D3200, with its 24 mp Sony sensor has better looking images with really nice colors, and great resolution. (The D3200 scored extremely high on DxOMark so it clear that once Nikon puts this same sensor in a better body, D7100?, it's going to be a killer camera). A search of the E-M5 and D3200 images on Flickr the Nikon colors look dramatically better to me (in particular nicer greens and blues), and similar to the GH2, greens are somewhat week on the E-M5. And as a system camera the Nikon has many more lenses - fast primes, wides and telephotos. In fact the superb 50 1.8 G Nikkor will cost you only $200, and on APS-C will give you better DOF control than an Olympus 45 1.8 on an E-M5. If you like slowish telephoto zooms then I guess you can make m43 work, but that anyone would prefer such a system for photography is a bit puzzling, but I guess everyone has different needs, and size seems to be a big factor for many even though most ground men shouldn't have a hard time handling an enthusiast DSLR like a Pentax K-5 or D7000. I can see having an E-M5 with three primes, but I won't be selling my D800 anytime soon, and for a small DSLR for photography I prefer images from my new K-30 with Limited lenses. So what is the impression of images from the "outdated" D7000 vs those from the wiz-bang E-M5? E-M5 Flickr Pool http://www.flickr.co...om-d_user/pool/ D7000 Flickr Pool http://www.flickr.co...ith/7628581490/ For video I'll stick to my GH2 and hacked GF3. Thanks Andrew.

Superb video Andrew. I haven't been to Berlin since I was there in the 90's with The Fleshtones playing my saxophone, but the city is as striking and interesting as ever. And those are some hauntingly beautiful cityscape shots from your RX100 video, and the slow-mo gives it a kind of dreamlike quality. Really impressive work. Am really excited about this camera which I ordered the day it became available. I'm hoping Sony's release here in the States goes smoothly. It's a camera I have dreamed of owning since seeing work people were doing with the hx9v. And even though the hx9v is a camera I never got around to owning, this one will be in my bag really soon. Thanks for the best RX100 video sample yet by far and for an enjoyable review. All the best, Markus

Do you have Canon glass? If not, how about a D800?  It has considerably more crisp video images than both the 5D2 and 5D3, albeit with moire issues similar to the 5D2.  For low light shooting the 5D3 would be the obvious choice.  If you plan to do any photography, and want an extremely capable FF HDSLR camera that doesn't that the HDMI scaling issues when used with a field monitor like the 5D2, has uncompressed HDMI out, headphone jack, etc, a D800 is well worth a look.  Besides that it's a beast of a still camera probably the best currently available. 

This is surprising considering the 40 2.8 is marketing it as video lens.  But maybe the video posted above wasn't made with an STM compatible camera: From B&H EF 40 2.8 Preview: "Most importantly for video shooters; STM technology is a camera-body based attribute that, when paired with an STM designated lens, offers smooth and silent continuous autofocus while capturing video." Apparently the 5D3 Firmware Version 1.1.3 will: 1) Support the single focal length EF40mm f/2.8 STM lens that is to be released at the end of June, 2012. So it's likely that's what's going on in the video above - no support for STM in the camera they used to test the 40 2.8 - although it's not clear as the review explicitly mentions STM. 

The Kern Switar 10 f1.6 wont' come close to covering the m43 sensor and will have darkened corners.  Some of the longer focal length Kern lenses like the 26 1.1 Macro Switar basically covers with some vignetting.  I suppose you could use it in 1:1 crop mode, something I've done with my 25 1.8 SOM Berthoit Cinor.  Here's a list of C-Mount lenses and their image circles https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p9kkgjwEQQQ-HJwvNDobeEw Seb Farges has many video on Vimeo with quite a few C-Mount lenses on the GH2, including one with the Kern Switar 26 1.1, so you might check these out.  https://vimeo.com/6429907 And tons of other cool C-mount lenses including some wider that the 10mm your inquiring about.  Good luck.

This sounds crazy but looking at the D3200 footage, I think it's crisper, and likely has better resolution than the 650D. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVq62xX9NE4 Don't know what kind of manual controls it has, but clearly Nikon is getting closer to producing a usable APS-C HDSLR camera.

Do you have all four .ini files in the directory with ptools.exe, and the firmware .bin?  For example, setg.ini, seth.ini, seti.ini, setj.ini? 

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=849.msg6138#msg6138 date=1339831872] GH2 is rubbish for bright daylight. It really is prone to highlight clipping and the DR is just rubbish giving its a very consumer look. Sure it renders details very well but if you only shoot in low light and indoors it would excel but definate no no for sunny outdoors. The Rebel line dead for video? Don't make me laugh :D Canon has just included in the 650D its first hybrid AF combining both phase and contrast detect for video to make it work with the new video optimised lens. Remember these lens arent like the ones you take stills with so they are pretty clever a lot better than the video lens from Lumix and GH2 video AF combo. I believe dSLR prices are 90% geared towards taking stills hence the price. [/quote] Neither the GH2 or the 600D are wonderful for DR. If, for example, you compare their DxOMark numbers you see that the 600D only managed .2 EV better (11.5 vs 11.3) at base ISO.  Bright daylight, for photography and video, like a fast oncoming Mack truck should be avoided.  Flat, contrasty light with no shadows makes for extremely so-so images, IMHO. 

[quote author=TheOats link=topic=288.msg6072#msg6072 date=1339672517] I read somewhere that there was a little "slack" (or whatever you call it) in the focus ring on this lens. Is that true, and how bad is it? [/quote] I read that too in the Lenstip review, which didn't like the lens nearly as much as Andrew did.  I've been thinking of buying the excellent Samyang 35 1.4 for some time, but after reading the below test I think I'd pass on the 24 1.4. http://www.lenstip.com/330.4-Lens_review-Samyang_24_mm_f_1.4_ED_AS_UMC_Image_resolution.html

Andrew, Why is aliasing and moire an issue when it's a Canon 650D produces it, but not an issue when it's from the Olympus OM-D that you seem to be recommending all over the place?  The GH2 is obviously a better choice than the 650D, but I find it hard to believe that you are on such a soapbox for the OM-D.  That is truly a head-scratcher, knowing that there is no mike input, and only 30p.  The IBIS is nice but that doesn't make up for its extremely limited video feature set. And IBIS doesn't work at all with any manual lenses like the Voightlander 25 and 17, et al, so what good is it? Plus all the OM-D samples I've seen have looked over-sharpened, almost brittle with aliasing and moire, and fizzle in details.  Tons of people use the 7D for quality video work, and the 650D has essentially the same IQ, yet for some reason, you want people to believe that the Rebel line is dead for video. And for some reason (I guess your raison d'être for video cameras is resolution) you seem to be constantly pushing the E-M5 even though it has it's own issues.  Tons of people use the 7D for quality video work, and the 650D has essentially the same IQ, When you suggest that EFS lenses, the brightest being f2.8 to support your argument it obvious that you are purposely leaving out that EF lenses, which offer 2 f1.2 lenses, work perfectly on every Canon body, the 650D included.  I'm not a Canon user, but fair is fair.

The video images from my D800 have been getting better and better.  The key is obviously to shoot with a neutral picture profile with sharpening off.  Aliasing is much more rare with these settings, and I don't seem to be getting nearly as many instances of false color and moire.  I'm absolutely in love with the FX to 1.5 DX crop switching, as I can mount my 85 1.8G, and get more reach if need be.  In short you do have to coax great video images out of the D800, but it is capable of them for sure.  I'm absolutely ecstatic over the increase of apparent resolution and crispness over my 5D2, there is no doubt about that.  For stills, what can I say? Images are awesome, and it's easily the best DSLR I've ever used.  Thanks Andrew. 

The main sore spot for me regarding the E-M5 is the heavy aliasing.  This is seen clearly at the edge of the leaf at 1:37. This level of aliasing surprised me.  It not as bad as the absurd levels of aliasing on my X10, but it's extremely prominent.  I first noticed the heavy aliasing in this E-M5 video. The second shot with the girl reading the magazine is not pretty.  https://vimeo.com/groups/em5/videos/41555946 It's kind of sad, because the IBIS is so excellent.  I was considering buying an E-M5 to use when bringing my D800 was not practical, but after seeing videos like these, I'm definitely going to either buy another GH2 or wait for the GH3.  As far as aliasing the D800 is not perfect, but it's considerably better than what I've seen in the E-M5 samples on Vimeo and on this D800 vs E-M5 Comparison.  The moire on the D800 has ruined a few shots of mine, but it happens no more than with my previous camera, the 5D2.  And the dynamic range of the D800 is simply a joy to work with - way less ugly blown out skies, highlights, etc.