Johan Krüger-Haglert

What they need to fix:
1) AF-speed as fast as the Panasonics or better.

Why I don't buy it:
2) I want a bigger sensor for shorter DOF since I like the out of focus blur in photos.

What would make a good camera great:
3) Real buttons for any settings such as iso, aperture, evf, WB and so on instead of having to go thru the menu.

@flameswater They are just like DSLRs (from Olympus atleast) except they have removed the mirror box and optical viewfinder and switched AF-system.

The smaller sensor of four-thirds found in these cameras and Olympus DSLRs make it possible to make smaller lenses, "get more zoom" on your tele-lenses and get more area in focus at a bigger aperture (more light/better performance in dark scenarios), the problem is that sometimes you WANT a smaller area in focus (for instance for portraits) and your lenses won't be as wide instead.

Beyond that you lose the instant view in the optical viewfinder but gain electric/computerized functionality in the viewfinder and in the case of the Olympus micro four-thirds as of now you get slower AF performance (The Panasonic ones are performing as entry level DSLRs even though they use contrast-detect focus.)
Focus speed and EVF resolution and such will of course become better over time.

So in the case of the Panasonic what you really lose is instant view in viewfinder and the wider DOF, you gain manual focus magnification in the viewfinder and the possibility to adapt almost any lens in the world to the system since the flange distance is shorter in these cameras than in the DSLRs, so it's possible to make adapters for most of them.

@DetlevCM So say the 5DmkII make 6400 iso and this one 1600 iso.

What say you can't use 1/4 the shutter speed on this one at 1600 iso, get a underexposed image with a worse S/R-ratio than at the needed shutter speed but then just stretch it out using levels in Photoshop or the equivalent. Sure you got more noise than what THIS sensor/camera would give but not necessary more noise than the 5DmkII @ 6400 iso.

All sensors runs at a baseline sensitivity. The rest is just higher amplifications I think with degrading image results. Eventually you could just shoot everything at iso 100 with lower and lower exposure and then boost it in post-processing instead. Don't know if that's much worse than raising iso in the camera.

@219 Oh, and BTW. FF sensor = 35x24 mm, right? Say for convenience a smaller sensor is 1/5 that on each side for 1/25 the size. If there's a 2% chance that you get a fault in one of the smaller ones then in 25 of them the chance is 50% you need to throw one of them away, right? So in 50 you need to throw one away.

With the FF sensor the risk of flaws haven't decreased so you still got a chance of 2% in that area, and 50% on the whole sensor, so now you need to throw away 1 of 2 sensors ..

So you would be using 25 times more silicon waffer area / sensor and throwing away 25 times more chips (or do I make a fault now?) 49 small sensors would take up the same waffer size as 2 full format-sensors if you count in that way while 49 full format sensors would take up the same size as 98 of them. 98/2=49 times less efficient and hence 49 times higher price (+ the extra waste at the edges of the waffer, so say 65 times higher price or something)

Maybe I make some mistakes, dunno.

@219 The silicon waffers varies in sizes but say they are 45 cm in diameter and round (not to mention expensive.)

While it cost time and research to get smaller electronics and money for equipment and new factories I don't think the actual production using a smaller process is much more expensive. Just look at all the processors for instance:

MOS SID, 7 micrometer (sound chip in Commodore 64 (released 1982))
UltraSparc IIs, 0.35 micrometer '(1997)
AMD Athlon XP Barton, 0.13 micrometer
Intels manufacturing process is down to 32 nanometers now

While things have shrunken by a factor of 4 (16 in 2 dimensions?) I doubt low-end Intel chips will cost more now than the Athlon XP did back then. You could put plenty of Athlon XPs on the same waffer using the new technique but the chips gets more advanced using more transistors and therefor they don't necessarily take up less space.

A full-format sensor is much larger than say a 1/2.3" sensor and hence you get much fewer of them from the same waffer. You will also get less efficiency along the edges since they are round and have to crop away more.

I'm too lazy to count on it but say you can get 30 FF sensors from one waffer than maybe you can get 300 smaller sensors on the same waffer. Using state of the art technique to build them both then the first ones may cost 10 times as much .. And if we where talking about CPUs then the fastest ones would really be pushing what could be done currently and just a few percents would live up to the necessary quality and hence those few will be more expensive (plus the people who really want to greatest are willing to pay more ..)

I don't know how much crappier manufacturing process can be used for less dence sensors but I assume that maybe one got benefits from using the latest methods even if they won't be that dence.

But mostly it's about the surface area used and nothing else.
(Demand high performance/quality chips (in the case of processors) and you need to throw away more which don't perform good enough == more waste.)

Oh how typical of Apple.

First it took forever for them to fix it, and then they did they only care about the latest hardware. So anyone with a GPU or chipset which can decode H.264 but isn't in the latest of Apples computer models? Suck to be you!

Apple suck so bad :/

Only bought by complete idiots who can't understand better.

What about: "I won't buy it at all"?

Yeah, one would though so, but then wouldn't it have been easier to just keep on using Redhat, Debian and Slackware? Oh no, all hail Debian-based Linux dist #1100! This one will surely be the one!

Check the thread on gbatemp about the video, somewhere among the first 5 or so pages there is a link and some quote about how tiff uses pointers within the file for it's data or something such. So I guess as long as you trust the file to be valid you'll get into troubles.

And libtiff has had multiple buffer overflows so if they use that instead of implementing their own I guess they will all be affected once someone find a bug.

Of course Nintendo can't FORCE you to download a firmware thru wifi. I doubt they would try but even if they did you could easily block access to the server in question in a packet filter and be done with it.