[wim]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284567466' post='2810']

Another point of attention is that when a manufacturer applies any kind of NR to the RAW data, they will always score higher, as it simulates a higher dynamic range. All that is left of that in the DXOmark data is curves with angles.



Take the DXO ratings with a grain of salt, and be careful with interpreting the data.

[/quote]

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I don't actually. I did peek a few times when this was new, but I gave up as it just doesn't make a lot of sense, not to me anyway.



I do shoot quite a bit of handheld semi-macro, at 3200 iso, and actually the pictures look great printed at 60 cm X 90 cm, with relatively little work. That's what counts to me.



I've shot APS-C, FF, and various formats of film, and I appreciate all of them for what they are and can do <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[boren]

It's difficult to find RAW files of the same subject taken with the GH1 and the original 1Ds, but the JPEG's available in imaging-resource.com still give some picture as to how close these two are (the Panasonic is actually better in most of them, thanks to its better, more modern, JPEG engine):



http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EO...DSPICS.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DM...MAGING.HTM



As for the Mamiya, medium format cameras in general are not really intended for high-ISO photography, so it's not that surprising that the ZD provides better quality than the GH1 at low-ISO, and fall a bit behind at its highest ISO:

[Klaus]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284564129' post='2804']

At times I just love your tone. But maybe you miss how "how can you" actually is meant In English.

[/quote]



I had the impression to have received some strange vibrations. If this impression was wrong please accept my apologies of course.



However, I still disagree with you regarding the 70-200L. :-)



cheers



Klaus

[joachim]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284537158' post='2780']

It's smaller & more rugged. Body-side IS as you mentioned. And more important than anything else - Pentax has a complete dedicated APS-C lens lineup. Nikon has merely isolated solutions here specifically regarding primes.



As for the rest - these are minor differences. Regarding the sheer specs there're also few differences towards a 60D so why would you choose a D7000 over a 60D ? The mid-to-upper class DSLRs are all darn close spec-wise.

[/quote]



Hi Klaus,



I am a bit surprised (understatement) to see you being so positive about Pentax, in particular their lenses. From the comments you made while testing their lenses I thought you were not to fond of them. I sort of remember you having quite a few QC issues with (if my memory serves me right) the 16-50/2.8 and then there is the (in)famous 80-200. Did I get you wrong on this?



Ta

Joachim

[admin]

[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1284583993' post='2816']

Hi Klaus,



I am a bit surprised (understatement) to see you being so positive about Pentax, in particular their lenses. From the comments you made while testing their lenses I thought you were not to fond of them. I sort of remember you having quite a few QC issues with (if my memory serves me right) the 16-50/2.8 and then there is the (in)famous 80-200. Did I get you wrong on this?



Ta

Joachim

[/quote]



Well, the QC disease is a common issue in the industry. It took me three samples of the Sony 18-200mm OS to get a decent one just to give you a recent example. The Pentax primes were not affected but the zoom lenses are/were a problem, yes.

As far as DSLR are concerned - the K-x was already a good shot and the K-r is fixing the remaining issues in this class. The K-7 is superb camera ... with a bad sensor. The K-5 should be next to perfect (albeit expensive).

My biggest concern is the long term perspective of the brand but they keep on releasing new stuff - as opposed to FT for instance.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284505400' post='2766']

I do not get why some have to make out as if the SOny A55 is an amazing machine.



It is just a DLSR-like camera, from the bottom end (compact consumer end) of the DSLR market.



Does it really offer 10 fps, as we know it from DSLRs? No. It offers 3fps that is comparable, and a strange 6fps mode that does not offer a view of the moving subject

[/quote]



That's flat-out false. Rob (a pro sports photographer) used A55 10 fps to shot a tennis game, and his conclusion was that it's perefectly usable (out of 400 shots less than 10 were out-of-focus).



You can view a short video about using the camera here......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suqFcXaU5W8



You can see the images here......



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphotorob/5002118928/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphotorob/5002121532/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphoto...otostream/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphoto...otostream/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphoto...otostream/



And here is a video demonstration of 10 fps. It's no worse than black-out that you get from mirror flip





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8b7isSlnhQ

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284530590' post='2772']

> I do not get why some have to make out as if the SOny A55 is an amazing machine.

These are the key features. The fps rate was already a gimmick in the A550 as far as I remember.

[/quote]



Sorry but there is nothing "gimmicky" about A550/Nex 7 fps. Yes, the AF is fixed on the first shot, but there are many situations where the subject isn't moving towards/away from you where you can use 7fps. You can also always release the shutter button and press it again and the camera will AF again with the first shot. Plus the fast frame rate is used for many other features (hdr, sweep panorama, hand-held twilight mode). I am not sure by what rule of logic you have declared that a "gimmick." Moreover, on A55/A33 AF is fully functional with 10 and 6 fps.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='evilthought' timestamp='1284886597' post='2910']

That's flat-out false. Rob (a pro sports photographer) used A55 10 fps to shot a tennis game, and his conclusion was that it's perefectly usable (out of 400 shots less than 10 were out-of-focus).



You can view a short video about using the camera here......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suqFcXaU5W8



You can see the images here......



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphotorob/5002118928/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphotorob/5002121532/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphoto...otostream/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphoto...otostream/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sportsphoto...otostream/



And here is a video demonstration of 10 fps. It's no worse than black-out that you get from mirror flip





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8b7isSlnhQ

[/quote]

Right. he is shooting a static standing "tennis player". That is not a situation where the AF would get to have trouble, now would it?

The rodeo pics... not taxing for any AF system either, he uses a HUGE DOF there too, so any focus slowness would not show. Dpreview who actually TESTED bicycles coming towards them noticed the failing capability for predictive AF. It is funny how all the time people link to not taxing examples, from subjects moving sideways. One can shoot those to be sharp without AF.



With mirror flip you get a blackout, yes. And after that you see the subject. Not so with the A55. You see what HAS BEEN. No problem with that static tennis player. A big problem when you pan to track the subject, obviously.



I guess you do not understand the downsides of its implementation.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='evilthought' timestamp='1284887530' post='2911']

Sorry but there is nothing "gimmicky" about A550/Nex 7 fps. Yes, the AF is fixed on the first shot, but there are many situations where the subject isn't moving towards/away from you where you can use 7fps. You can also always release the shutter button and press it again and the camera will AF again with the first shot. Plus the fast frame rate is used for many other features (hdr, sweep panorama, hand-held twilight mode). I am not sure by what rule of logic you have declared that a "gimmick." Moreover, on A55/A33 AF is fully functional with 10 and 6 fps.

[/quote]

You express well yourself why it is gimmicky. No AF during bursts. Exactly the same reason why the 11fps "DX" mode from the Nikon D3 is gimmicky.



And as I pointed out, the A55/A33 burst modes are NOT fully functional. They have an AF tracking system that is less capable than it should be (not able to do good predictive AF) and offer a slide show of what has been, not of what is. Not very handy when panning to track the subject.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284891103' post='2914']

You express well yourself why it is gimmicky. No AF during bursts. Exactly the same reason why the 11fps "DX" mode from the Nikon D3 is gimmicky. [/quote]



And I explained to you why it's not gimmicky. There are many situations where you can use 7 fps without need for continous AF, like here







Besides, you can always release the shutter button and press it again and the camera will AF again with first shot again.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284891103' post='2914']

And as I pointed out, the A55/A33 burst modes are NOT fully functional. They have an AF tracking system that is less capable than it should be (not able to do good predictive AF) and offer a slide show of what has been, not of what is. Not very handy when panning to track the subject.

[/quote]



That's outright nonense. You claim to know that without ever even touching the A55/A33. According to IR review, A55/A33 AF tracking matched that of 7D in their tests (and A55/A33 do have AF in 10/7 fps modes).