Dutchphotographer1: Interestingly, if you select full size instead of comp size in the DR comparison (comp size is the default view for DR comparison, but full size is the default for the studio comparison), the per pixel noise it equal to the Sony. The sony's advantage is only from the downscaling due to the higher megapixel count. On a per pixel basis, Canon has fully catched up with Sony (although with slightly larger photo diodes in this comparison, which gives a bit of an advantage). If canon is able to maintain this per pixel noise on a slightly higher megapixel count for the 6DII and 5DIV, they will be on a level playing field DR wise.
Anyway, I think that far all practical purposes, the image quality is so close, that it is irrelevant in real world usage.
Great, so we all just have to wait 2 or 3 more years for Sony to have an even competitor in the market they dominate... s/
Biggs23: This is pretty much what I expected based on early reports on the choices made by Canon. They've made a good first step into a higher quality sensor but will need time to refine it to the level that Sony/Nikon produce. It seems like, for its intended audience, this camera is a miss, but we'll have to wait and see on that front. It will be very interesting to see how the autofocus performs. If it's not at LEAST as good as the D5 I suspect there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Canon side.
I wouldn't call it a miss. Not all sports occur in unlit caves. As you said, let's wait to see how well its AF works.
Except that Sony's pixels are close to half the size of the pixels on the Canon...
Good on Canon for improving, but a lot of us were really hoping they would significantly outperform their competitors, if for no other reason than to improve overall market competitiveness.
Suntan: These look like mere pictures... Alas, from the hype, I had expected more.
Don't know if you caught it or not, but I was being sarcastic.
These look like mere pictures... Alas, from the hype, I had expected more.
Ansel Spear: Why do some of you across The Pond insist on referring to lenses and bodies as 'copies' of lenses and bodies?
They are not copies of lenses and bodies. They ARE lenses and bodies in their own, original, genuine bona fide right.
There isn't a 'master' lens or body from which all others are copies. You don't buy a copy of a car or a copy of a can of beans, so why a lens or a body.
Not that I feel strongly about it! :-)
Although I find this whole argument pedantic, in that spirit I will correct some misinformation here. As a design engineer that has built many prototypes, and supported the production of many different products that have came after those prototypes, I can assure you that you don't want to buy a "copy" of a prototype.
Reality is reality. Many changes occur between prototype and production. Further, many additional changes occur through time as production progresses.
In short, production units are not copies of "an original prototype."
If this did make it to a commercial production, I wonder if people will reject the "fake" looking video, similar to some people's rejection of high frame rate, on the grounds of "knowing" what a proper film should look like.
Put simply, if a director starts dinking with extreme aperture differences across the screen, people could be quite turned off.
vadims: I'd give Lytro all props in the world for innovation, but to say "product requirements had been firmly cemented in the minds of consumers by much larger more established companies" instead of a humble "we screwed and are going to learn from our mistakes while starting over" is a bad omen... I can see a quote like "Hollywood got brainwashed by larger companies and did not appreciate our excellence" in their future.
I was thinking about getting original Lytro to just play with it, but what finally stopped me was their insane inertial zoom touch-slider. I can barely live with anemic zoom ring of my Sony RX100II, and zoom-by-touch is definitely too much for me. Taking into account all the other craziness of the design, my weird-o-meter went into red zone, and I bailed out.
Sure, it's more noble to think they went against Canikon et. al., but fact is, they got lucky to be able to "compete" only with themselves, and still lost.
Agreed. He makes this out to be a case where the average customer was just "hoodwinked" by the canikon entities. But he never once stops to wonder if people were just straightup turned off by a camera that had the form factor of a bag of saltines...
Sonyshine: To all those folks who deny photography is a middle aged male hobby may I suggest you study the group of middle aged male Nikon executives above....
....then ask Nikon where are the rebellious young designers? The creative women?
The mobile phone thing isn't that hard to understand, and really has little to no relevance to the camera market. Simply put, the Japanese mobile phones (aka Sony phones) aren't competitive. As for why they do well in Japan, there is a very big dislike for Korean products in Japan. As such you will find a lot of Japanese that would rather buy an inferior Japanese phone than buy a Korean phone.
Regardless, Japanese companies are exceedingly insular. They always have been, for thousands of years. Don't expect large Japanese companies to start promoting "young" or "female" employees into positions of real importance. Like it or not, it goes against their entire culture.
Yeah, maybe some day Nikon (and maybe Canon too) will expand to selling their products worldwide...
Sonyshine: "While we suspect that - as usual - the comments beneath this interview will be packed with people criticizing us for not asking harder questions, and Nikon for not really answering some of the ones that we did ask"
Another pointless interview from Nikon.
If they really want to leave their customer base feeling deflated and depressed then this is exactly how to do it....
Actually I thought this was refreshingly open, for coming from a Japanese company.
The fact that they acknowledged the D500 being a product that was developed after they couldn't get people to take to the D7000 series is actually quite an admission.
Likewise, the fact that they mentioned they "have plans for more DX lenses" was quite open (again, for a Japanese company.)
Lastly, the mention about SLR sales declining while mirrorless is not declining was very overt.
So you've never worked with any Japanese company before I take it?
Suntan: Don't care how good this lens may be. I can't take a company seriously if they label something as having a "neutrino coating."
--"Who cares what coating it uses as long as it takes good pictures?"--
Normally I would agree with this mindset, except that the actual lens has it printed right on it, in quite large font. No dice.
Same reason I would never own a vehicle that actually has the word "Sport" decaled onto it.
Good improvement Canon, but get on parity with Sony. They need major competitors to keep them honest.
Way to copy the first definition that google pops up. Snark aside, it doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing as a commercial coating made of neutrinos.
mosc: I'm too lazy for a manual focus only lens. Maybe I'd buy a manual focus macro lens but otherwise I demand AF on any lens.
For most lenses I would agree. BUt for these UWA lenses, it is't a big deal for most uses. Even wide open at f2.4 the hyperfocal distance is 10 feet. By f4 everything from 3ft to infinity is in focus.
Don't care how good this lens may be. I can't take a company seriously if they label something as having a "neutrino coating."
matthew saville: Haha... For a fraction of a second, I thought that "color scheme" might possibly be some sort of new processing profile that better matched my in-camera colors, but no. They changed the *skin* of the ACR interface. Yay.
Yeah, I thought the same thing too while reading the title. Looking at the change list is telling. The only thing that looks mildly interesting is the change to outputing histogram values to the colorspace of the chosen file, which I thought it already did.
Of course, you've got the necessary camera hostage list that is added to this version to still make it valuable to people...
sunilkumar: I wish sony update few of its lenses. 16-50 and get us few pancake lenses.
Agreed. If Sony had some decent priced, decent quality primes for this camera, it would be a really compelling second system.
AstroStan: As a forum observer I knew immediately from the "Leica" in the title that there will be complainers regarding the price. And then there will be the car analogies (Ferrari vs Kia). Here is another perspective:
The equipment costs incurred by advanced amateurs doing "real" astro-imaging (not nightscapes) is probably shocking to most amateur terrestrial photographers here. A good amateur scope can easily cost $10k to $20k and requires a mount that costs $5k-$15k. Good CCD cameras (CMOS is a joke for real astro) start around $5k and various accessories (e.g. color filter wheel, AO) add several more thousands.
Sure there are cheaper ways to do astrophotography but the results are unambiguously objectively inferior (it is easy to objectively qualify and quantify astro-images). But, at least in this arena, you pretty much get what you pay for...
No thanks. From your snide comments here, to the handle you give yourself, it is pretty evident that you identify your sense of self worth with this hobby of yours. As such, nothing you will be told/shown will be taken objectively.
Never-the-less. You keep thinking what you want and I'll keep thinking that this Leica system is overpriced for what it is.