I want a very small camera (much smaller than X100) with a 21mm fixed lens, a viewfinder and a B&W sensor of around APS-C size (m43 is fine if it's 3:2 ratio).
Hmmmm. I've been waiting for M10 II and I jumped on my chair when I learned it already exists. I like the M10 but what's been putting me off was the EVF, so I was waiting for mark II with a 2+ mil. dot EVF.
Now it's here and I find myself being put off by AF-C performance. Eh... M10 III I suppose?
EISA is a joke and it's more of a popularity contest more than anything. At best, the gadget with most blings gets the prize.
It often seems that most instagram users try to achieve the effect of the very last example. Don't encourage them.
Kinematic Digit: Sadly it does not surprise me that shipping was one of the major factors.
We have a real issue with shipping in Canada, and sadly, Canada Post also owns Purolator a courier company that is 10 times better, but also twice the already expensive postal rate.
ThatCamFan, you send your friends in packages...? How many packages per person?
Looks like a great cam. I know, other models can be better in this and that but any camera in this class is pretty great anyway.
What I always find odd is why are these 'young sibling' cameras smaller and lighter than the top model. Or rather why is the top model bigger and heavier, despite there being very little difference in features and tech. Why can't I get the best AF and the best EVF in a small package?
Jorginho: SO we have a G& which does AF well for tracking subjects, has excellent video. Has good photo IQ. It scores 80% and gets a silver award. But if I remmeber the reviewer correctly he was confused by the cam because what was it...
Now we have an XT-10, that is very poor in video and no good in action shooting with a 16 MP senso. And it scores the same?
Some sensors of camera's are getting long in the tooth, but this subjectivity is too.
Is it too hard too read the review and come to your own conclusion? Or do you just go by the percentage at the end?
SimenO1: I don't understand how this work.
1. If the top layer catches the color, what photons are left for the layer underneath?
2. If there is some light passing through the top layer, it has to not capture that light. Meaning light loss in the color pixels.
3. If the bottom layer pixels only capture one polarization direction, where does the 90 degree different polarization go? Is it lost in the filter, reflected outwards increasing flare problems or somehow directed to other oriented pixels?
4. How can the CPL-layer know what exact polarization direction i want to block? Just finding the orientation is not enough to actually block a specific direction.
5. A normal sensor captures blue light close to the surface, green a little deeper and red still a bit deeper due to different penetration depth of different wavelengths in silicon. Meaning that if the top layer catches much of the light, the bottom layer will catch almost only red. Making the filter useless for deepening of blue skies.
I was thinking much of the same questions. Without any tech details, my guess is that the top layer passes through some of the light (10%? 20%). The bottom layer in the meantime records the polarization information in the manner that will allow you to change the polarization effect afterwards, in post. An emulation basically.
But maybe it's something different. In any case, I don't really believe this will ever see the light of day. Interesting tech ideas like this don't get made in reality. They just remain in patent limbo forever.
Nice, 200-500 is something very interesting. I didn't expect that. Or rather, I'd expect Nikon to price it at $5000 or something.
CameraLabTester: Every serious brand new camera has a RAW converter for FREE in the bundled software.
It's time to dust off those camera's software CD's and give it a try.
If you don't want to be a monetary zombie, there are other ways around it...
I'm one of those crazies who use camera-provided converters: Samsung's Silkypix variant, Sigma Photo Pro and ViewNX.
I really don't know why all the hate for Silkypix. I think it's just fine.
SPP - also fine, plus had some nice capabilities (last time I've used it anyway) and nothing can match the output.
Nikon - okay that one is absolutely horrible but you can't get the IQ from any 3rd party software.
Can the profiles for newer lenses etc. be updated using some 3rd party methods?
Rishi Sanyal: Fun little thought experiment:
If we go by sensorgen, the 1D-X's pixels have a full-well capacity (FWC) of 90,000. Since the pixels on this sensor are 7.5x larger, we can extrapolate that given similar sensor capabilities, the pixels on this sensor can hold ~675,000 photoelectrons.
Now, since each doubling of ISO halves the FWC, ISO 4,000,000 will yield a FWC of roughly 675,000/40,000 = 16.875. Let's be generous and round that to 20. That means white is made from 20 photons.
If we generously place middle grey at 3 EV below clipping, that'd mean midtones are made from 20/8 = 2.5 photons, which itself yields a signal with SNR of 2.5/sqrt(2.5) = 1.6, which is already below most reasonable DR cutoffs. In other words, you'll have ~3 EV dynamic range at best, assuming no read noise whatsoever (bad assumption).
So, either my calculations are *way* off, or there's a limit to these insane ISOs. :)
With ISO of 4 million, i wouldn't be surprised if white was made of 20 photons. DR of 3 EV wouldn't surprise me either.
You really can't expect such a high ISO to have decent quality at all. It's probably similar to a 1/2.5" compact camera having max. ISO of 10.000: yes, technically it's there but hardly usable.
On the other hand better cameras are capable of squeezing more out of crappy input. I've seen images from APS-C sensors where the flash didn't fire, the image was completely black yet could be salvaged to something very decent in a RAW converter. High ISO in these high end cameras are betting on it.
Not interested but I'm loving to see m43 becoming such a default go-to standard.
cdembrey: **"enthusiast-targeted"** What does that mean??? The "casual camera" has been replaced by the SmartPhone.
Today, a camera has to be "enthusiast-targeted" or it won't sell.
It's actually a fair point. At this age I would argue that almost anyone young enough to know how to operate a smartphone who uses a regular camera must be an enthusiast. Of course, by 'enthusiast' we may just as well mean 'anyone who can use a zoom lens' but it still applies.
CameraLabTester: Chunky and beefy.
There are many users who prefer this ergonomic configuration, regardless of sensor size, and Panasonic is taking the punt that these users will incline a liking to this product.
The other end of the scale offers cameras so tiny, like the Olympus E-PL3 that it literally slips out of your hands, no matter how big or small your paws are.
Good to see more choices being addressed.
Nothing slips out of my hands because I'm not a clumsy bear.
Nice tech but still and ungodly ugly camera and now it's also big. Good thing Oly makes nice and small cams, hopefully the M10 successor will be good.
The Photo Ninja: I personally love tilt screens! The flip out screens are annoying and detract from usability.
Agreed. Most of the time I just need the screen slightly tilted to shoot from the belt and fully articulated screens force me to take apart the camera every time I take it out, and then look at a different angle than the camera is looking.
In comparison, how often do I need to shoot around the corner?
960 fps looks damn good. My Nikon V1 is crying in the corner.
It looks great. It has pretty much the kind of rendition I like in a lens, and being a wide angle, that's even more cool. Though personally I'd opt for a cheaper, slower and smaller one.
This really might be the perfect camera. I've waited for ages for a small compact with an EVF and a fast lens.
III was already it, but its price in Europe was outrageous. This one's is too, but is in line with the US price which is funny considering the $/€ rate went the opposite way.
That said, since Sony is putting so much love into this range, I wonder how great will V, VI, VII... be, heh.