Welcome to our studio test scene

After many, many months of design and testing we are happy to announce the official unveiling of our studio test scene. The new scene was designed to address certain drawbacks with the previous test scene, as well as providing the opportunity to show more real-world relevant information about how cameras behave. We've increased the number of cameras supported to 23 and we'll be continuing to add models (old and new) in the coming weeks.

You can read a more detailed explanation of the scene, what it offers, how we shoot it and why we needed it in an article by our Studio Manager, Kelcey Smith.

Click here to find out more about the studio scene

Here you can see the studio scene based around our reference camera - the 80MP Phase One IQ180.

The Phase One is included to showcase the scene, rather than the camera, so will remain in daylight mode, even if you switch other cameras across to low light mode.

Comments

Total comments: 274
123
jdu_sg
By jdu_sg (7 months ago)

Very impressive ! A lot of thought and effort obviously put into the scene. Great web interface as well - I have always enjoyed the DPR page layouts and widgets.

One of my favourite elements from the old scene was the Bailey's label. The foreground tree was good for seeing detail loss to noise reduction, and the background hills became more numerous across reviews, as the sensor resolutions starting climbing ( from 3 mp ). I would have liked it if the new scene included a Bailey's label somewhere, just for nostalgia's sake.

And to add my 2 cents, for historic cameras, I'd enjoy seeing :
Coolpix 990
EOS D30
Fuji f31fd
Powershot G6
Nikon D40x
Panasonic G1

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (7 months ago)

D800 is great.

0 upvotes
Tom Schum
By Tom Schum (7 months ago)

The resolution lineset now goes to 50, but since the phase 1 IQ180 easily resolves this, my impression is the resolution lineset is going to soon be useless.

0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (7 months ago)

I'm not sure that the bird feathers that you've used are likely to show up moire - the old parrot (I think?) feathers were better for this. It also strikes me that as the Phase One resolves every detail in the scene perfectly, it may not be particularly future-proof.

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

The bird feathers were more about natural detail, rather than moiré.

And yes, the resolution strips are only set up for up to around 80MP so, as soon as consumer cameras can match the IQ 180, we'll have to start all over again.

2 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

When the day comes that I've got a small, portable $500 camera that can match that Phase One... I don't think I'll be too worried about upgrading anymore. :D

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (7 months ago)

Yes HelloToe, still shows medium format totally blows FF out of the water. The difference between medium format and FF is much larger than the differences between FF, APS-C and M43.

0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

Agreed. Now we just need people screaming about how full frame can't do shallow depth of field like medium format can! ;)

3 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (7 months ago)

@R Butler: that may have been YOUR intention, but it isn't MY interest. I need to see moire performance on bird feathers. I don't really see any piece of blue cotton shirt, either. Am I to understand there is no "real life" moire test in this scene?

0 upvotes
duartix
By duartix (7 months ago)

Almost no saturated textures in this test and it's even worse in the center third.
This chart will be great however for those who make a living by taking photos of concentric circles. :P
Well let's hope and pray that you finally solved the recurrent focus inconsistencies...
Now, for how long will you keep the old one?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

The plan is to continue to provide access to the old scene, we just won't be adding cameras to it.

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (7 months ago)

It would be nice to know the lens used for every camera

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (7 months ago)

The "i" button shows you that. Just hover over it.

2 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (7 months ago)

Got it, thanks !!!

0 upvotes
sixtiesphotographer
By sixtiesphotographer (7 months ago)

Are items from the old test scene for sale?

I am interested in the globe, the robot, and the watch. :-)

3 upvotes
canondslrlover
By canondslrlover (7 months ago)

It's funny that when you compare cameras on the part of the scene with the family photo line art sketch, severe aliasing shows up, which in most cases results in illusions that some cameras have more detail than others. For example if you compare Canon EOS 5D Mk III with Canon EOS 700D on the upper right part of the line sketch, 700D seems to have more resolution (you can see the lines) where in 5D mk III you can't. But this is actually an illusion caused by undersampling, where low frequency alias (sparser lines) appear. So be careful when comparing cameras at this part.

I like the new test scene, it seems quite real world test case. Thanks dpr team.

0 upvotes
CarVac
By CarVac (7 months ago)

The color resolution chart is very revealing.

The X-Trans sensor really kills the color saturation in regions of high detail. The smaller blue/red target is rather dramatic.

So do the antialiasing algorithms featured on cameras with bayer sensors and no AA (like the D7100).

The demosaicing algorithm Amaze seems to pull a tiny more color detail out, though.

0 upvotes
CarVac
By CarVac (7 months ago)

Another thing of interest: the IQ180 has pretty bad aliasing on the woodblock print in the upper-left, and surprisingly Amaze actually makes it worse.

Hmm...

0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

Yeah, I've noticed several areas where color saturation is weak with Fujifilms. Try the blue backs of the playing cards, especially in low light.

0 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (7 months ago)

Due to nostalgia, I still like the old one. That's not to say this new one is bad. It sure beats taking pics of a brick wall which so many photogs post in their threads.

2 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (7 months ago)

Those aren't "dots on the playing cards." They are atoms! ;)

1 upvote
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

Wow Phase One can resolve printing dots on the playing cards

2 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 months ago)

Well it has 80 mp at 6*4.5cm it bloody well should!

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (7 months ago)

Those are not printing dots (halftone, which would be dots exclusively but there are clearly sharp lines), it looks like the surface is textured, you can tell because it's consistent even where there is no color. The white dots would be specular highlights.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

we deserve several times of 80MP, maybe more.

0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

As M Jesper said, it's not the printing, but rather the surface of the card. The cards have a texture to them, with lots of tiny dots pressed into the surface, sorta like some types of wallpaper. It makes them slide over each other better without sticking.

Still pretty impressive that it can resolve that level of detail, though.

0 upvotes
sixtiesphotographer
By sixtiesphotographer (7 months ago)

The new test scene is excellent: there is so much detail, variety, contrast, and color.

I'll miss the charm of the old test scene - though I was surprised to learn how much depth was required for it.

Time will quickly show you made the right decision, just as it did for Canon and EF lenses back in 1987.

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 months ago)

The images aren't refreshing properly (at least not in firefox) sometimes after a lot of clicks and settings changes they all respond to a switch of the loupe view. Also I get low light for one camera and illuminated for another. Kind of hard to compare.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mckracken88
By mckracken88 (7 months ago)

someone forgot to add:
D800 RAW ISO 1600

1 upvote
wwick
By wwick (7 months ago)

Well done. As one who's complained about the last couple of iterations of the test target, I think you finally have it right. I particularly like the tungsten light option. It was a good choice to use a household bulb on one side to create the fall off. It's just the the kind real-life condition we need to evaluate. I also like having a medium format reference shot. Might you consider including Hasseblad multishot (200 megapixel) back as well? I've often thought it would be useful to have the current resolution champ (whatever that may be) as a reference that could be automatically down sampled to any camera in the data base, but that may be too much to ask for. : )

0 upvotes
Jerodequin
By Jerodequin (7 months ago)

Any plans to add raw file downloads for everything?

1 upvote
Felix11
By Felix11 (7 months ago)

One of the easiest tests with this scene (that I have found so far) is the details on the coins and the hair.

Unfortunately both of these appear only once.

What distance is the camera from the scene?

0 upvotes
Felix11
By Felix11 (7 months ago)

In full screen mode I think you could usefully reduce the percentage of the screen given to the whole scene and increase the area given to the comparisons.

I notice that in the page header Reviews > Studio Comparison Tool still links to the old version.

It seems to me that this new scene is going to result in a decline in the sales of expensive ILCs since it is much hareder to find differences between cameras than it used to be.

I think that this is an upshot of it being more of a real world test. That is to say, to most people the detail of the second hand on a watch shot from 12 inches is not very important!

I'll just nip out and buy a Sony DSC RX100 II

Thanks

0 upvotes
oohaah
By oohaah (7 months ago)

I am going to miss the globe from the old studio test.

3 upvotes
DaytonR
By DaytonR (7 months ago)

I know ! I liked the spirits and liqueurs :)

3 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (7 months ago)

Can you throw in a troll doll into the scene to make the mirrorless hating posters feel more at home?

5 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 months ago)

we don't hate mirrorless, just Oly :p

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

need a constitutional remedy to ban negative opinions against the suspect in court.

1 upvote
Gocan Lucian
By Gocan Lucian (7 months ago)

I'm the only one who thinks that A57 it's superior to 70D at ISO 1600??
Would this be true?
I'm sorry, but I do not like all the new 'test scenes'
selected objects are too small. so ...
details are too smal

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
petr marek
By petr marek (7 months ago)

Great. Missing Foveon/Sigma, very important benchmark!

8 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

The reasons for this are discussed lower down this page - there's no way of presenting Foveon sensors in the same way as all others and no way of warning people that they're not looking at like-for-like comparisons.

2 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (7 months ago)

Well, the OOC JPEGs shouldn't need a warning, and a warning could be added to the RAW images (for example with red letters over the DPR logo in the center of the image).

2 upvotes
petr marek
By petr marek (7 months ago)

It worked with the old scene... And it shows clearly the deficiency in true smooth sharpness and decent color rendering of majority of other cameras. You can ad: "Warning - don´t compare with others, might look not so "digital"!!!"

2 upvotes
petr marek
By petr marek (7 months ago)

To R Butler:
In the next few years we might see different types of sensors - organic from Fuji, layered Foveon-like (Sony, Panasonic patents) etc. Will dpreview really ignore other than Bayer sensors in comparsion scene...? In fact I think it might be interesting to have a classical film example - 35mm and medium format.

2 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

What's up with the highlights on the bottles on the Phase One pic? I can understand being able to make out details in the reflected lights due to better dynamic range, but why are they elongated on all of the shots but the Phase One? Slight positioning difference?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

The Phase One was shot with an earlier version of the lighting - that's the only area in which it isn't representative (of the scene).

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (7 months ago)

Well actually, no, then the entire scene isn't representative from a lighting standpoint. But it will show you details, which is I take it what you used the IQ80 for, since there aren't other ISOs shown.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

The Phase One is there to demonstrate the scene, not the camera.

As it happens, the illumination level is extremely similar, as was the lighting position, but it's not directly comparable.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (7 months ago)

What's up with exposure differences?

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

Please read the explanation article linked above.

The scene is brightness matched, not exposure matched.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (7 months ago)

Yep, read it. There's one paragraph, which doesn't answer my question in full.

"The scene is shot so that the brightness of the scene is consistent, between JPEGs (since we believe most people aim for a particular brightness when shooting)."

So the light is adjusted? Or left static?

"Any difference in shutter speeds used is displayed in the settings information."

Information therein prompted my questions.

"Note that at the very highest ISOs, it is sometimes necessary to reduce the light level to prevent over-exposure."

Right, you'd run out of shutter speeds if everything else was constant--er ISO was constant rate of change. Except, in shots I've looked at so far, you didnt' run out of of shutter speeds at all. And the changes to aperture and shutter added up to an overall EV change/discrepancy.

I'm personally more interested in being able to compare how two different cameras handle exactly the same situation. I'm not sure this new test does this at all.

2 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (7 months ago)

"I'm personally more interested in being able to compare how two different cameras handle exactly the same situation. I'm not sure this new test does this at all."

DxO tests are better for this. I too, find it strange that different settings are used... it favours cameras that over-state their iso values.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> The scene is brightness matched, not exposure matched.

then it cannot be used for comparison of image qualities.
(though we may imaginarily offset it for same exposure)

"brightness matched" should really mean same exposure instead of digital numbers or jpeg values which are really irrelevant (except expression/accuracy).

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

micahmedia, I think you're going to be disappointed if you want to see how cameras handle the exact same situation. This scene isn't designed for that. It's designed to show what colors, resolution, depth of field, noise, etc. the camera is capable of. There are way too many variables to cover even in this scene...for example, they aren't trying to show the resolution at every single focal length and aperture. This is a good reference point, but it is not complete or perfect. Complete and perfect requires more than one test shot and would be a very complex undertaking.
Yab....words can't express what sighs, grunts, and eye/head movements you induce in most people who read your comments.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

@yabokkie - Equally if we posted images of different brightnesses, nobody would know what the images would look like if they'd been shot at a standardized brightness.

Since one of them will be always be wrong, we felt it's better for us to show what you get if you try to get your (JPEG) images to look right, then tell you the shutter speed differences, rather than present visually inconsistent images, safe in the knowledge that they've been shot at the same settings.

We felt that method was more consistent with the way we believe a majority of people shoot.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

we can adjust JPEG values in the post. this is an issue of lower accuracy data expression for JPEGs but try to use different exposures destroy the base for comparison in the first place.

if you want to adjust at shooting, it should be better to adjust camera ISO, try several values and choose one that gives the highest quality at the same designed exposure.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (7 months ago)

I agree with yabokkie. One suggestion would be to show equivalent ISO in the drop down menu, e.g. if you set the camera to ISO 200, and have to over expose 1/3 stop do get it equally bright - then the drop down menu could show ISO 180.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

Under-exposing JPEGs and adjusting in 'post' doesn't sound like the workflow used by a majority of readers. It would also be visually confusing, for very little practical gain (given we're not trying to measure anything here, just show what the camera does).

@ Roland - I agree, it would be nice to be able to specify actual ISO but the problem comes when the camera offers the specified setting. Ultimately, these are the results you get when you set the camera to the specified ISO setting and shoot to get a 'correctly' exposed image.

We now post shutter speed information so that you can make a rough assessment of whether there's some ISO inaccuracy, then we'll discuss that in each review in a more tightly-controlled test, as we already do.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

then just use auto ISO for camera advertised ISO should be one of tested items instead of the base for comparison (I though the purpose of the test was to compare image quality at level ground).

I see the camera ISO based exposure and PH based scene two systematic flaws that make your test not suitable for comparison of image qualities, except between cameras of similarly biased ISOs and same aspect ratios.

again, the response curves in the ISO standard should be ignored. the exposure part is the real definition. the response curves are merely implementation details that really have nothing to do and should not be included in the standard (it could be an upper layer of data presentation).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

we do have an issue of data presentation and to human eyes but please do not let that derail the whole test (or at least make the RAW exposures correct for RAW doesn't have the same issue, and notify the users that JPEG and RAW are tested under different standards).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

R Butler, I have a brick wall here if you need something to hit your head against.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

down to the basics and no need to get personal. we have 24 fundamentally flawed tests now but it'll be only a small fraction of all the tests we are going to see from DPReview in the coming years.

1 upvote
Klaus Weber
By Klaus Weber (7 months ago)

Like the new scene, thanks for it!

I also like a lot that you added the Phase One, although - from now on (for quite some time) everything else will just look sooo lousy in comparison... but will it not be exciting to see how (hopefully) in the future more and more (more affordable) cameras will get closer to it?

But I (as Canon user) have to admit: The Nikon D800 is doing a really great job when you compare it with the Phase One, and consider the huge price difference...!

0 upvotes
Zamac
By Zamac (7 months ago)

The symmetry seems a waste of real estate to me - or am I missing something?

There are too many reflections. Some glints are necessary, but in many cases they just get in the way.

Glad to see the paint tube - they provide important colour contrasts that the old scene did not always have.

I would have liked to have seen more texture capable of producing moire. In various colours.

I don't see the point of portraits in a studio scene. Few of us are going to be doing document copying. They are important in the real-life samples and I wish dpreview would be more systematic in providing portrait photos of different skin types in the review samples galleries.

1 upvote
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

The symmetry is there for the low-light mode (light bulb icon at the top), so that you can compare the same thing in light vs. relative darkness.

As for moire, check the colored concentric circles (toward the bottom, to the right of the bottles). On the smaller ones, you can even see a bit of moire on the Phase One.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (7 months ago)

Is it possible to see which lenses are used?

0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

Move your mouse over the 'i' below each image.

4 upvotes
quitomarez
By quitomarez (7 months ago)

I found the new test scene to be excellent. After playing with it for not too much time, I have to say that I will no miss the old test (though I have used it a lot).

Great job Dpreview!!.

Quito

0 upvotes
Butoa
By Butoa (7 months ago)

And the winner is (drum roll)

RX 100 II (beats Canon G16, Fuji X20)

and will beat all APSC cameras if they were using 2 stop slower kit lenses.

For most soccer moms who never replace their kit lenses, RX 100 II is the winner.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (7 months ago)

Since you mention "soccer moms" I'll mention continuous AF. That's where DSLRs still reign. And you can get a DSLR rig with a long lens for shooting your kids playing soccer for less than a RX100II (especially when you factor in the extra cost of an EVF for the RX100II, since we're talking shooting in bright daylight some of the time).

3 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (7 months ago)

Nice flat scene. Of course, cameras might have a curved FOS (field of sharpness), so the edges might be OOF (out of focus) nevertheless.

1 upvote
otcat
By otcat (7 months ago)

Canon 700D seems quite impressive.

0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

Nice to have a good reference image, to have a better idea of what it *should* look like.

Man, on that gray print on the left, I'd noticed before that some cameras resolved the vertical lines on the back wall, and some just made it look shaded. But I didn't realize the entire image is hatched! Looks like some type of block print?

And on the Phase One, the green fuzz is... still fuzzy, haha. I don't think I'm going to be getting much out of that area.

0 upvotes
Digited1
By Digited1 (7 months ago)

Why don't you leave a link up for the old scene until you get through every camera that you used to have in the old scene. Seems like the only logical thing to do. I am still missing information that was lost when you went to the old scene from the previous scene. I still have an old 20D I use for experimentation, for example, that would like to compare to current cameras.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

We will.

We're not going to re-shoot every camera that was in the old system, since it was 3 years' worth of studio work.

2 upvotes
rare wolf
By rare wolf (7 months ago)

I'm still missing items that would show the detail associated with specular highlights. The paperclips weren't perfect, but they did provide some evaluation of specular exposure, and lost detail, relative to the overall exposure.

1 upvote
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

The metal paint pans are probably the closest thing to the old paper clips. You wouldn't be able to see much detail on paper clips in this scene, since it's shot from farther back.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

The paint palettes were included to achieve the same thing, but with a larger radius curve so that you get a better understanding of how the highlights behave.

2 upvotes
SeanU
By SeanU (7 months ago)

I like the new test scene... covers all of the bases. Since everyone misses the old scene... you should include a small photo of it in one of the empty areas... that way everyone will be happy. One thing I do miss from the old test are the thread spools... which gave a good picture of true shadow noise.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (7 months ago)

I liked the old scene better, especially the box with the yarn, the robot and watch in the corner. Over all I just like it better. Granted, there are some good things in the new one, but I would consider the old one a classic.

4 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (7 months ago)

Yeah, the robot, the paper clips, the globe. Sigh....

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

It's not a decision we made lightly - we're quite attached to the old scene too.

2 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (7 months ago)

The thread in the box was great, showed shadow noise and detail very well. I like the new one though, especialy the ability to change the lighting and size with a click.

2 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (7 months ago)

The Fuji X-M1 looks terrible, soft and muddy
At high iso, the K500 have better raw than the Nex6, despite having same sensor.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

Pentax applies RAW noise reduction at ISO 3200 and up

0 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (7 months ago)

K500 files have the same amount of detail as the NEX6 files at ISO 6400 raw, but with significantly lower noise. Your pat answer is pointless ET2, the truth is there for anyone to see.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 months ago)

It's a fact. Look it up.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Reviews/DxOMark-review-for-Pentax-cameras

Pentax applies RAW noise reduction at ISO 3200 and up. That means comparing noise grain at ISO 3200 and up is invalid, as one camera is applying raw noise reduction.

2 upvotes
audiobomber
By audiobomber (7 months ago)

Your objection is irrelevant, because the applied noise reduction is so subtly and masterfully applied that it reduces noise and not detail.

The fact is, a Sony image is noisier, but presents no more detail than the Pentax image. Why would I not want this?

1 upvote
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (7 months ago)

The Phase One laughs at everything else.

4 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (7 months ago)

Not the ideal P&S though is it?

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (7 months ago)

Phase One laughs at that comment to :)

Ouch ... all other cameras are so ... cheap!

1 upvote
Eleson
By Eleson (7 months ago)

T B H, they are the only ones competing in the ISO35 category! :D

But they sure make Beatles look great.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Den Sh
By Den Sh (7 months ago)

Hope that this comparison will finally make people stop saying that D800 is comparable to medium format. It's not.

4 upvotes
huyzer
By huyzer (7 months ago)

D800's RAW and JPEG ISO 1600 is missing, at least in daylight mode.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kelcey Smith
By Kelcey Smith (7 months ago)

Thanks for the heads up. The missing images have now been added.

2 upvotes
Michael Ma
By Michael Ma (7 months ago)

I am going to miss you blue watch, Mr. Robot, that woman with the crown and the lions on the bottle of Vermouth. And that battery with the Japanese characters. It has been a long ride.

14 upvotes
MayaTlab0
By MayaTlab0 (7 months ago)

The low-light mode is a very useful addition, many thanks.

0 upvotes
SergioMO
By SergioMO (7 months ago)

What a monster ! Phase one !

1 upvote
DonSantos
By DonSantos (7 months ago)

Who says more megapixels is a waist hasn't seen these phase one images.

0 upvotes
dweberphotography
By dweberphotography (7 months ago)

They are saying that about smartphones, not necesarily medium forat cameras like the Phase One. I know what you mean though.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (7 months ago)

... as long as you dont shoot over base ISO.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

I don't think anybody has said more megapixels is a "waist".

2 upvotes
jorg14
By jorg14 (7 months ago)

I agree the Phase One is amazing, but if you only shoot for the web, social networking, or max. of 12X18 prints, it is a waste.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (7 months ago)

What is amazing it still shows a little better IQ in Print Mode at the very difficult areas.

0 upvotes
DonSantos
By DonSantos (7 months ago)

But think of the digital zoom possiblities.

0 upvotes
Gary Martin
By Gary Martin (7 months ago)

I want a Phase One for Instagram!

0 upvotes
wherearemyshorts
By wherearemyshorts (7 months ago)

Is there an archive site for the cameras which have been deleted from the Reviews section?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

How do you mean, deleted from the Reviews section?

The old scene and all the cameras in it will continue to be available and we'll make sure links to it are easily accessible.

4 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

Wow, there are a lot of items; something for everybody. I look at the corners, to see if there's anything there before f/5.6 or so but I think the scouring pad with the astrotrurf should make a good comparison, too.

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (7 months ago)

The inclusion of a VQA Canadian wine, very much appreciated:^)

0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (7 months ago)

Scene Dimensions? H.W.D. ?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

height about 1 meter, 4:3 for sensor comparison.
all other aspect ratios are cut off into a smaller 4:3 first.
for example 3:2 will lose 11.1% of area (left and right).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (7 months ago)

I was hoping to find that basic fact in their Test Scene information but is not there.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

the 20 Zwanzig Schilling note should be 132 x 65 mm.
you will see the cut off areas if download tests for 3:2.

0 upvotes
Earthlight
By Earthlight (7 months ago)

Well, I like the new scene better than the old. The low light mode is a very nice addition.

0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (7 months ago)

Some people posted questions on the linked page - would be nice to see answers to those, too.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (7 months ago)

I hate it too...!

0 upvotes
Kelcey Smith
By Kelcey Smith (7 months ago)

“Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

11 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (7 months ago)

yes, lots of pain expressed in thousands of comments here across the forums, time to start running pharmaceutical ads, pain killers, mood stabilizers, a potential gold mine, don't forget to send me a check for this genius suggestion ;)

2 upvotes
Total comments: 274
123