For people worried about the DxoMark score difference between GR and Coolpix A, please do yourself a favor and look at the SNR and dynamic range graphs and you will see that the differences are pretty much non-existent. As for 12-bit vs 14-bit RAW, the advantage of 14-bit RAW is that theoretically you could capture more DR with it. However as above comparison would show you GR manages to achieve very high DR even with 12-bit so it doesn't matter that it doesn't have 14-bit raw. If anything it is actually better that we get the same DR with a smaller file size. It would also be interesting to throw in the Sony 5N in the DxoMark comparison - another camera with the 16MP Sony sensor. 5N shows a clear drop in DR compared to both GR and Coolpix A and puts in perspective the negligible difference between these two. Now from personal experience 5N already has excellent DR and shadow recovery, so I could imagine that these two cameras could only be even more excellent.
JohnyP: I hate to admit this, but i think your reviews are largely irrelevant now. You can't keep up with volume of cameras and reviews simply matter less. People are quite fed up with reviews and buy what they want and ignore opinions.
I know i do and i believe many others are doing the same.
Interesting that even though you are "ignoring" the reviews, you still found time to visit this website and comment on the review :)
random78: It would also be interesting to have a comparison with the RX100 in the review. While at first glance it might seem to be in a different class due to different sensor size and zoom lens, in reality it can be a direct competitor. At its 28mm end its lens is f1.8 so in terms of DOF control and low light it should be similar to a f3.2 APS-C lens. That makes it fairly close to GR and Coolpix A specs. And it is even more compact. An an RX100 owner I am curious if I would see any real gain in going from RX100 to one of these two.
There is more to it than just the studio scene. The quality of lens, the ease of operation, etc all come into the picture. If I take your approach then I could say that DPR should just publish reviews for Coolpix A and GR and the readers would have all they need to do the comparison. However the fact is that when a reviewer is evaluating two cameras with an intent to compare them then they can provide more insights than you can extract that from comparing individual reviews.
It would also be interesting to have a comparison with the RX100 in the review. While at first glance it might seem to be in a different class due to different sensor size and zoom lens, in reality it can be a direct competitor. At its 28mm end its lens is f1.8 so in terms of DOF control and low light it should be similar to a f3.2 APS-C lens. That makes it fairly close to GR and Coolpix A specs. And it is even more compact. An an RX100 owner I am curious if I would see any real gain in going from RX100 to one of these two.
M Jesper: If they release this i would forgive them for using that same 18MP sensor in everything since the beginning of time. And it would explain why it took so darn long ...
Yes the 4th gene 18MP sensor is pretty much the same as the 1st gen. There has not been any noticeable change or improvement in that sensor
Pablo4: Still no mirrorless with IBIS... :< If only Olympus didn't have such small and bad sensors, everything would be fine... But with the current offerings, SONY, SAMSUNG, NIKON, PANASONIC... all of them tell us, they don't care bout our legacy lenses :<
I don't know why so many think that m43 sensors are "so small". Lets look at the sensor sizes, taking m43 as base.
In terms of linear dimensions we have:
m43 = 1, Canon APS-C = 1.25, Sony/Samsung/... = 1.3, FF = 2
In terms of area,
m43 = 1, Canon = 1.47, Sony/Samsung = 1.62 and FF = 3.84
So the difference between m43 and APS-C is much smaller than the difference between APS-C and FF. In terms of performance, the sensor in E-M5 and other recent olympus cameras is actually somewhat better than my NX200.
It looks like the skies are still overexposed, just like the d7000.
@Couscousdelight - so you really rely on camera's metering to get it right every time?. On all the cameras that I have had, I consider the camera's metering as a starting point and then adjust as needed.
tkbslc: 45mm seems like an odd choice for APS-C. Did they just try and copy m4/3?
Please keep in mind that Samsung already has a 60mm lens. I think the main point of the 45mm 1.8 is to have a compact telephoto option. Once you go to long focal lengths the lens size advantage of mirrorless design goes away and you end up with large lenses for these small bodies. You can see that with the size of the Samsung 60mm lens. So I think they decided that the longest fast prime they can offer while keeping the size fairly compact is 45mm and thats why they chose this FL. I think I would like that lens (the non-3D version).
random78: Does the NEX-3N built-in flash have bounce capability like NEX-6 and RX100 etc?
Perfect. Thanks again!
Thanks! I know that the bounce capability is not official but on my RX100 I use the "unofficial bounce" flash a lot and would like a small NEX with this capability.
However I didn't get the "hold it to prevent it fully extending" part. On my RX100 I let the flash fully extend and then pull it backwards with a finger, which makes it point upwards. Is it different with the 3N?
Does the NEX-3N built-in flash have bounce capability like NEX-6 and RX100 etc?
Chekr: @photo nuts
The fact is that kayone was not correct in his assertion. You being a sheep, jumped on the bandwagon and are now criticizing the author for something that he did actually get right.
You can apologize at any time.
@checkr: Again did you actually read the dpreview text at which Kayone commented? dpreview says "depth of field equivalent to an 90mm F4 on full-frame". Which is wrong no matter which camp do you belong to in the equivalence debate.
kayone: Math is wrong on the 42.5 caption, should be an 85mm f 2.4 equivalent
@Chekr - have you actually read what the original comment was about? Dpreview article says " depth of field equivalent to an 90mm F4 on full-frame". They are talking about DOF not exposure, and have made a calculation error while coming up with the FF equivalent for DOF - I hope you would agree that there is no interpretation under which this lens becomes an F4 equivalent.
Frederik Paul: You can just hope that the 30/1.4 has the same quality than the 35/1.4. If so, it'll a clear winner and better suited for APS-C. The current version is quite mediocre at best, particularly wide open.
@TTMartin: The current version is great in the center but fairly weak in the corners. Wide open at 1.4 it is sharper in the center than canon 35mm 1.4L @ 1.4. However the corners are weak and don't improve much even when you stop down. Also while the center performance is great for f1.4, it does not become very sharp when stopped down. It is a lens which primarily shines in the f1.4-f2 range. If you routinely need to use these apertures then it is an excellent choice. If you mostly shoot stopped down or if you are looking for corner to corner sharpness, then it is not for you. It is far from being optically perfect but for those who need a fast normal lens for their APS-DSLRs, it is great performer. But yes I hope that they have improved the corners and stopped down performance - that will make it much more desirable as an APS-C normal lens.
jquagga: So ... the 60 DN is the only real new lens. The others are the same lenses in new housings. Which Sigma has taken to announcing as "new".
Since everyone has to update to have the uh, stylish new exteriors I'll take all of the old lenses everyone will be binning.
30mm 1.4 is definitely a new optical design (old one was 7 elements in 7 groups with a maximum magnification of 0.09x. The new one is 9 elements in 8 groups with a 0.15x max magnification). Not sure about the 30mm and 19mm DN lenses, though Sigma states that these have also been optically redesigned.
io_bg: The 30mm f/1.4 looks sexy. I'll stick with my cheap but great Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 though.
I liked my Nikon 35mm 1.8 when I had it. However it is a bit too long for my liking as a "normal" prime. 30mm is a bit wider and for me a more useful general-purpose FL. Plus the extra half stop of light and DOF control doesn't hurt either.
Roman Korcek: So Sigma will offer a redesigned 30mm F/1.4 in addition to the new 35mm F/1.4? Is that not overkill?
@suave: It is all relative of course. Being 2.5" compared to 3.7" for the 35mm 1.4, it is much smaller. But yes it is still a fairly chunky lens - thats the curse of the fact that the APS-C cameras share the mount with full frame cameras. So even though 30mm 1.4 is a "normal" prime for APS-C, its construction has to be more like wide-angle DSLR lenses and hence the extra heft.
Prime_Lens: Quite interesting.. but it is a total donkey doo doo.
I am sure it will make it stop faster.More light concentration is more light concentration, after all.
Sharper? Revolutionary?Nah~All they are doing is slapping in a piece of convex glass to an existing adapter.And every time you add more layer of glass to the lens, the IQ goes down, and becomes more prone to internal flare and ghosting. Because it creates yet another glass surface for light to penetrate or bounce off of.
It's a fool's gold guys..
"Every time you add more layer of glass to the lens the IQ goes down" - Right which is why all manufacturers design lenses with a single glass element. right? :)
You are right that having more glass can have an adverse impact on quality. But remember lenses themselves have anywhere from 5 to 20 glass elements. These large number of glass elements are needed to eliminate the aberrations and the glass used is high quality to give high IQ. So no adding glass elements does not always lead to "degradation", it can lead to improvements as well if it is used to reduce aberrations. This adapter is also a fairly sophisticated 4-element design and not just a single piece of cheap glass. Being a $600 adapter it can include high quality glass elements like original lenses (it might even have better glass than some of the cheaper lenses) and by reducing the aberrations as explained in the white paper, it is actually quite plausible that it improves overall quality.
Timmbits: Quote: "This also promises sharper images compared to using the same lens with a simple, non-optical adapter, as the visibility of aberrations is reduced."
I am sure, that if any serious tests are done, this will turn out to be a crock of BS. It is a known fact that adapters with a lens increase chromatic aberrations. This is obviously more marketing spin than science. Maybe I'm sounding a bit harsh... but for $600, which is the price of an apsc camera body, there is no excuse for marketing hype substituting physics!
I use a $20 adapter with no optics in it, and my 50mm f1.4 retains all it's glory in the results it produces.
Not necessarily. At the end of the day if the glass elements used in an adapter are as high quality as the one's used in the lenses themselves then it doesn't have to degrade quality. The loss mostly comes because the adapters use cheap glass elements. But here we are talking about a $600 adapter, not a $50 adapter so it could have high quality glass elements.
Unlike other adapters, with their adapter you don't just take the center crop of the larger FF image circle and throw away the "extra". Instead they are taking all the light from the larger image circle and projecting that onto the smaller sensor. Thats where they claim the improvement comes in. It sounds plausible though we don't know how true the improvements are in reality. Maybe it is just a marketing claim or maybe there actually is an improvement. But why don't we wait until the product has been tested and then pass judgement