newworld666: Who needs to underexpose more than 2Ev ? for a while those comparison at -5EV or -6EV are just ridiculous and useless ..The king of such feature is unable to keep correct colours at any iso level ...
who cares to use -4, -5, -6 EV pictures with totally wrong colours ?
Nikon managed to make 25600 as good as possible
and better than 1Dx https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Pbx77Zf/0/O/i-Pbx77Zf.jpg
This just mean in 8bits JPG files you can get 8EV full dynamic at 25600 iso which sounds just amazing never reach before with true colours.. much more important than the ridiculous -5EV at iso 100 ..
It is not underexposure that is the object of this high dynamic range, but rather the ability to lift the shadows that landscape shooters are looking for. That said, typically, you don't typically need to use more than+3 ev to do that. Occasionally, when shooting s silhouette against a bright sky you might need considerably more.
The high ISO improvement over the D750 is less than 1/2 ev at most - which is negligible. Any ISO over 50K is useless - except maybe for surveillance purposes (or abstract art, perhaps). Does not appear that they have changed the Bayer CFA or gone to BSI - which are about only areas to improve sensitivity.
This also does not bode well for a significant improvement in the D500 sensor at high ISO. We are in the era of photon limited sensors.
Strange - what were they thinking?
Seems like there is no cohesive design approach in the video area.
Here they add the dual pixel on chip PDAF that should be great for video. Then they leave out the "... several video making tools that seem to be par for the course when it comes to other manufacturers, are absent in the 80D, specifically: Focus peaking, zebra stripes and a clean-HDMI out option. There is also no C-Log gamma option (a very flat tone curve useful for color grading)."
And no 4K.
Guess they don't want to impact the sales of their dedicated video cams.
piratejabez: Decent detail, acceptable noise for such a small sensor, but RAW doesn't appear to be able to add any useful benefit apart from exposure (and ACR doesn't know what to do with the colors). I think it's a great option for casual or traveling JPEG shooters.
Also, totally wrong to say that small sensors benefit more from RAW than large ones. The DR is so low in the 1/2.3" sensors, that the ability to lift shadows is minimal, as is highlight recovery.
I would not agree it is acceptable. Especially at full zoom , quite bad. Agree the raw can not perform miracles, though it does allow one to easily adjust color balance and optimize nr to some degree.
BJN: Carbon fiber is also better at vibration damping than aluminum, in case you need another reason to sell that arm and leg.
This is just not true.
FBoneOne: I think the technical term here is "holly crap" - the wildlife shooter's wet dream comes true (unless you can afford the D5 ). I can see this puppy and a 200/500 as the "does 99% right" combo for wildlife. I will give it 9 months to let the usual Nikon QA issues resolve themselves and next Christmas I am all in :-)
The D7200 may better for wildlife as it does have more pixels, giving greater reach. We will have to see how the D500 sensor compares with respect to noise. D7200 is roughly half the cost, so FF shooters who need the crop factor for their telephotos might prefer it.
chromnd: Can someone explain me, what "AF-P" exactly stands for?
Hopefully for PDAF - if they add this to the sensor chip.
haiiyaa: Seems like a great camera that's really fun to shoot with which is the most important thing. The constant menu diving with the rx100's really isn't a enjoyable experience. The Panasonic lx100 is better in that aspect, and I having used the canon m3 for a couple of days I have no doubts the canon g5x is much better at that also. That said, 1.2 raw fps is very poor and so is the battery life.
I agree with Rishi that the issue with Sony should improve onthe user interface is " (1) adding a 'My Menu' and (2) by allowing more features to be assigned to Fn menus and buttons, and (3) actually organized menus." Even so, I prefer the Sony interface allowing greater control than the Canon.
I disagree that Sony menus are worse than Canon - at least on non - DSL cameras. Have not tried the G5X but have the G3X, as well as an RX100M3. Canon is frustrating on the things they leave out and the lack of customization. Sony almost has TOO many options: their problem is more of having an almost random ordering of items. Function Assignment on the Canon is much more limited than the Custom Key settings on the Sony. The function menu on the Sony can be changed - can't do that on the Canon.
Another thing missing from the Canons is Zebra - very useful for setting exposure to avoid highlight clipping.
Att Slangas: I miss some aspects of current 4K limitations in this article:
1. Limited Framerate: I always shoot 1080@60fps. I have trouble shooting hand held in 30 fps or lower without getting unbearably strobing videos. To get smooth output in low framerate (30fps or lower) you need to pan around very very slowly and keep the exposure time at around1/60s. In 60fps I don't get particularly annoyed even if I shoot at 1/1000s. Which leads to:
2. You need to decide, when shooting video to extract stills, if you want to use the output as stills (then use fast shutter times and get stroby video) or as video (1/60 or 1/50 s)
3. What is the dynamic range of the 4K output? What are the compression artifacts in a 4K video.
Would be interesting to see some side by side comparisons of these aspects.
Agree... 4K/30fps is definitely choppy for fast motion, though improved if you use slower shutter (1/60). Also, the combination of higher def and low frame rate make hand-held shooting difficult for still scenes (you get a jiggley image), even with lens stabilization. A tripod works a lot better.
The studio comparison looks a bit out of focus in the center. The RX10 sample looks better than the RX10m2.
It appears that the A7RII has slightly lower noise than the D810 in RAW at high ISO. OTOH, at low ISO, the D810 looks a bit sharper than the Sony.
As is pointed out in the article, the stage 2 compression (a run length encoding process) is the one to create artifacts near high contrast edges. This is the part the worries me the most - it might well interact with USM and cause issues similar to Jpeg near edges (i.e. "mosquitos").
I think Sony sticks to compression mostly out of stubbornness and the need to save face. There is no excuse NOT to give the user the option of uncompressed RAW on any camera that offers RAW. Other than larger file sizes (and maybe slower writing). Let the user decide what they prefer. Sony could still offer compression as an option, like Nikon.
As to Sony not doing firmware updates, they do sometimes (like the improved CODEC in the RX10m1). Certainly anyone with A7xxx should complain to Sonny support asking for them to do an update.
I believe that DPR, by escalating attention to the issue, has done us a service and perhaps will get Sony to act.
Jabs767: Great shot with a very minor point.
Why is it that a lot of non-aviation specialist photographers shoot prop-driven aircraft at too high shutter speed thereby freezing that beautiful blur of a prop with a contrasting coloured tip that would otherwise describe a beautiful coloured arc?
Having a frozen prop detracts from what otherwise would have been a FANTASTIC shot. Sorry!
And what shutter speed would you suggest to get that, without otherwise getting too much motion blur?
nicoboston: For less than 400 USD, we can get the tiny EOS 100D body, which can be used with dozens of amazing lenses and generates infinitely better images that this pixel jello.Whatever the brand, all these "premium compact cameras" are just a joke IMO. They are not small, not versatile, not cheap, not convenient, very slow, and generates files that are technically put to shame by any entry level DSLR, as well as a growing number of smartphones.Save your money and have fun with a good camera! Take time to study what you can get for... $999.
Show me any smart phone image of equivalent quality.
Claude Ganter: Interesting article. Thanks!
However it would have been worth mentioning that the higher resolution images from New Horizons spacecraft are actually coming from another camera called LORRI, working in black and white.
As for RALPH you get multispectral color information but the resolution is in fact much lower.
LORRI is a 1K X 1K CCD array (13mm wide). RALPH is 5KX32 TDI CCD (65mm wide). The focal lengths are 2630mm and 657mm respectively. It would seem that the spatial resolution is about the same. RALPH operates in a scanning mode and is used during close in flyby. LORRI is a frame capture and used for observations at greater distances.
CameraLabTester: Impressive output for a 9.5 year old imaging device.
If this were launched today, I reckon that the same sort of camera would be used (TDI/CCD) as it is well suited to this application.
olypan: Remember the weeks of hype over the Canon 750/760D. We had pre previews, hands on, preview, review, post review, Canon littering the top of the news page day after day. DPR are dropping the G7 like a bad smell.Oh I'm imagining all this of course?
The RAW still image quality of the canons is distinctly better than the G7 in the DPR studio scene. Even more so at higher ISO.
So it depends on how much you value such characteristics.
This has happened on my LX5, and mt lx7 is showing signs of it.
Serial numbers are bad enough, but the labels on the various buttons on several camera bodies (and lenses) also wear off. I have taken to covering them with clear coat nail polish (very carefully). This is disappointing on otherwise expensive and well made equipment (like a D800 or GH4).
In the not so distant past, labels were engraved and filled with colored paint - even on inexpensive products (look at old Nikon manual lenses). At one time, plastic buttons were made by a (more expensive) two-shoot molding process, where the lettering integral to the part. Early computer keyboards were made this way.
Seems like manufacturers are cutting costs in trivial ways. I am sure that with modern technology, making wear resistant labeling is not impossible.