Probably looks ok on a camera-sized screen. Full size on a monitor, excessive NR. Especially noticeable on the tree's foliage. Disappointing that there is no RAW, and I don't think that there is user control on NR level in camera. My LX3/5/7 took much better photos at wide angle.
On long telephoto, the fact that you get such extreme zoom is the only redeeming feature, and might be useful for wildlife photos - if in full sun.
Nikon is strange. Must be completely separate engineering groups - the DSLR and the Compact groups. They must never look at each other's photos.
KShape: 28-300mm constant F2.8?! I need a lens like that!!!
Id rather have a 24-200 f2.8!
Does not look too great at f2.8 (sample 15) in the corners.
The sample 15 (f2.8) shows pretty poor corner sharpness. I was hoping for better.
Hopefully, Nikon will cover the shipping for the camera (both ways). I should not be out $40.
nizar ghosn: how could you justify the better iso performance in the d610 in your comparison line on this page, despite the comparison chart shows that the d750 is better .. and why you have the handling of the d610 is better than the d750 in this page ??? is it ???
Agree. The comparison (conclusion page) does not reflect the studio comparison images at ISO 25000, especially in dim (incandescent) lighting. The D750 has less of the blue channel speckling than the others. The D750 is certainly NOT worse.
As far a handling goes, I don't see what would make it any worse than a D610.
Artistico: If image quality is on par with the specifications, this is going to be an amazing little camera. I'd also be interested to see whether lowering the megapixels from the MFT "standard" of 16 will affect noise and dynamic range. Makes me tempted to trade in my GM1 and get this one. It hinges a bit on image quality too, of course.
The noise (when printing or viewing full screen) is determined by the overall sensor size, not the resolution. It is a big disappointment that Panasonic only has 12 MP, when the RX100-3 has 20 MP in a smaller sensor. That 20 MP is also USEFUL resolution at base iso - nice for cropping and large prints. Not sure what sensor tech they are using - maybe not as advanced as Sony BSI. The dynamic range of theLX100 remains to be seen but may inferior.
Sviz: It looks like the range and speed of this lens comes at a price. Optical quality not in the same league as RX100M3.
Actually, the wide angle don't really look much worse than my RX10, at similar settings.
Vamp898: Is everyone of you really not able to read?
"JPEG Tone Curves / Dynamic Range"
They are testing the Dynamic Range of the JPEG and so in fact testing the JPEG Engine.
They are testing the JPEG Software on the Firmware of the Camera.
This test have absolutely nothing to do with the Dynamic Range of the sensor.
So the D4s have worse JPEG Engine than the OMD-EM1 have, that _doesnt_ mean the D4s have less Dynamic Range at all!
But it should be mentioned that the Toshiba Sensors in Nikon Cameras have less DR than the Sony Sensors have, thats why the D800 have more DR than the D4(s), even if it produces more noise.
Actually, the D800 is better below Iso 800. And the difference above is not vast - 1 stop at 6400. See DXO.
davids8560: Would you guys say a Sony RX10 or an Olympus Stylus 1 or a Panasonic FZ200 can deliver comparable or even perhaps superior quality to a typical consumer DSLr equipped with this Tamron lens?
I expect that the RX10 will probably have better corners and edge, Just keep the ISO at half of a DX camera.
Almost exactly the same weight as the Nikon 16-85 vr (F3.5-5.6). The nikon is probably the best DX zoom that covers 16mm. So, either Tamron has pulled off quite an accomplishment, or has made a piece of rubbish (worthless at its extremes).
And these are the "good" photos! Hate to see the rest.
Lack of talent + crappy equipment + poor PP = rubbish.
1) I also miss the color change on previously clicked links, which makes it hard to know if you already looked at a post.
2) Also, when you reply to a post, it would be nice to still be able to see that post directly below the edit window rather than having to scroll a long ways down (made harder by the problem #1 noted above).
3) I also agree that one should not really have to read a manual to do basic stuff - other wise it is an indication of a poor design.
4) Too much wasted screen space on the thread view.
5) It would have been better to release this as a beta test, while keeping the old forum in place. Then use user comments to perfect the final release.
The idea of a $600 camera in your jeans pocket is pretty dumb - unless you have too much money. The life span under such conditions is probably pretty low (be sure to get an extended warranty covering accidental damage!) I always use a case, even for small cameras.
They compromised so much usability to get a small footprint is rather disappointing. A LX7 with a similar sensor would be a killer.
Those who think that no viewfinder is no big deal, don't shoot outdoors in bright sunlight. The lack of decent macro, crippled (28mm vs 24mm) wide angle, no provision for filters (e.g. polarizers), limits this for serious outdoor photographers. The loose control wheel sounds like a real bother. Cab you can really operate this camera with gloves on.
Maybe the target market is DINKs taking snaps of their friends in dark restaurants.
Hopefully a more usable version will follow.
I hope they have improved it. I have had mine replaced 2 times. Probably not well sealed against dirt. Eventually it stops responding to turning. Extended warranty well worth it.
I have also had some issues about inadvertently pressing it while turning it.
Strandlaeufer: The problem in low light situations is that the maximum resolution is no longer limited by the resolution of the optics but by the number of available photons (quantum noise). You can compensate for this by a longer exposure time or a larger lense aperture but not by a larger sensor. The Sony RX100 has a maximum aperture that is roughly twice as large as that of the Canon 100/95. One can therefore expect an considerably improved low light behaviour at maximum aperture, but at the expense of a lower depth of sharpness. There exists however a relationship between sensor size and maximum lense aperture for wide wide angle lenses. This is the reason why one needs larger sensors with larger maximum aperture. It would be no problem building a fast (low noise) tele lense on the basis of a tiny detector size.
It seems to me that a larger sensor has more surface area, thus picks up a larger number of photons under low light. This is why FF cameras like the D4 are better than a RX100.