MPA1: I don't know why they even test these things on DX. It was not really designed for DX. Indeed, I think in 5 years time DX will be a memory.No dealer in NZ yet lists this lens. I dread to think how much it will be here.
Yeah but as things improve, DX should still be better sized and priced. Therefore probably the standard. At least about APS-C, and those sized lenses. Even if less flange-back mirror-less smaller designs.
clburton2: hello, will sony build the rx100II with a longer zoom range? why is this so difficult to find? I want a compact point and shoot camera with a larger sensor but more zoom range. is this impossible?
Yes balances; but then these have been repeatedly broken before and "limits" or "physics" have been worked around. This is true photographic progress. That's history and will be the future. What's not been done well or in more than tiny progress is putting it all together in one camera and well. Including affordability and size. Where's that balance? Given the mass market scale then That's no where near unrealistic.
Not impressed with any new camera offering.
Thank you for posting this article.
Aak! Windows! Pass.
Neodp: US$ 23,900 really?! Does it include a wife or something?
Well, originally I used a much more humorous word than "wife", that started with a "v"; but it didn't pass the filter. Parts is parts.
Neodp: This sensor is not up the best of APS-C sensors. I personal compared the A3000 to a D5100 (what was there to compare) in the shadows, all other things equal, and noise was noticeably worse, even at base ISO. That lead me to believe that Sony is passing-off a poor substitute for other, best APS-C sensors on the market, in their A3000 model. So if this is the same sensor....
Both DPR and DXO (he said) show the A3000 with less noise than the better Nikon APS-C offerings and I note the DPR one here used the Sony prime f/1.8, so that would be the difference. Unless it was the tester models sent to DPR, and DXO, compared to the store model (and affixed crap kit lenses) I tested. I'm agreeing the internet tests don't look that bad. Mine did. Check it yourself. That's all.
US$ 23,900 really?! Does it include a wife or something?
Oh yeah, you really need to hear the shutter on these models. You will run, if you do. Shutter (real) sound, not being high-up there on my list of must have goodness, is *that* bad. Really, really scary.
Sony's trying; but no cigar. It also helps to be not evil; but search "Sony rootkit" and make up your own mind. If Sony ever wins top spot, we're screwed. Yet I evaluate by model, not brand. I just never forget Sony's character
I would think DXO would show the difference more also. Agreed.
I did match the exposure settings and used base ISO. You have my word, it was a good test, if only by "some guy" AKA me. I can only suggest checking it yourself.
The test was done with their respective kit lenses, so perhaps the lens actual light-in yielded more A3000 noise. It was a low light test. Perhaps stricter than DXO's standard. No one could match DXO's exact methods. However, it looks like our conclusions are similar enough. I do consider DXO a reliable estimate; but just one view.
Just be wary of the sensor, OK? ...Before you plunk down your cash. Closeout, or not. We must ask ourselves, how many crappy cameras do we need, right? Yet, if it blows your skirt up then have fun.
Marty4650: It must be a test, to see if people are stupid enough to pay $100 more for less camera.
Or maybe it was just designed to make the A3000 kits fly off the shelves?
Excellent catch there. No real new camera. Old dog gets moved out.
It's NOT the low price, that was the problem; but that what they will say.
Plus, there is no limit to what a low-priced; but still very profitable camera can do. They just desperately keep feeding us propaganda about their expenses. The tipping point on prices is us. Not their profit barrier. Not with such massive volume. Mass produced products cost less folks. These are not hand cut diamonds. Heck, even those are cut by little children and for mere pennies.
Tonio Loewald: Sony obviously felt it wasn't going in enough random directions, didn't have enough different bodies, and hadn't released enough bad kit lenses.
This is an insult to Australia, and their ability to discern noise and color sensitivity gradations. Not in every shot does this subjectively matter, mind you; but it will mean less keepers. It also means makers and some testers can hide these quality degradations (vs state of the art; not historical IQ's) by using non-challenging scenes. That does indeed mean it gathers light worse and light is job one of a camera lens and then sensor.
Of course manufactures know this; they just also know many buyers don't. You probably already do, or you would not be reading this. It's just, what have you bought? Was it a trend, a first adopter brag, or was it purely a better camera. You know, we can wait them out; if there are enough buyers waiting for overall state-of-the-art balanced photographic quality.
This sensor is not up the best of APS-C sensors. I personal compared the A3000 to a D5100 (what was there to compare) in the shadows, all other things equal, and noise was noticeably worse, even at base ISO. That lead me to believe that Sony is passing-off a poor substitute for other, best APS-C sensors on the market, in their A3000 model. So if this is the same sensor....
Neodp: The subjective quality is ether there or it isn't. Brand matters not to the wise.
There is no reason we can't have higher quality, general (scenes, conditions) need cameras. Current exiting cameras and their new technical benefits prove it. Yes, some things won't balance; but that not what's happening. There is still room for state of the art progression. Much room. We must collectively demand total balances; else we simply will not see it.
Defend it as you see fit; but I do not like current m43's [it's best] lack of color sensitivity(against the best released APS-C and they are not all the same); which shows across facial tones, for just one example. Value (lens costs) is also often worse. This will improve. Then m43 will have the advantage, for size at some subjective "good enough" level.
I'm saying APS-C will get better too though. If historical patterns continue to creep instead of leap it will be a long-time coming. Maybe a few years. Maybe 5; who knows?
FIlm emulsion is not the measure of where digital sensors can go, and so we need to not judge sensors, based on the cons, and the pros, of film.
As the standard for digital cameras, digital cameras need to find their own quality improvements, irrespective of films. Because these quality metrics stand on thier own, no matter the pro's and the cons of film vs. digicams today. That's like saying I can't be a doctor; because my sister is a nurse. Be all you can be. No excuses dear makers. Make a better camera. If you don't, then some other enterprising company will. That is as it *should* be. Why would this not be our reality?
But then there's current reality. People buy (photo) imbalanced cameras (and all manner of temporary accessories) and effectively use them as disposables. I suggest a better way. This includes affordability, and *is* in no conflict, given such a mass produced product. The idea, manufactures can't make profit on cameras due to certain technical expenses is a myth.
The subjective quality is ether there or it isn't. Brand matters not to the wise.
Richard Murdey: ...because Nikon 1 was so successful, Samsung knew the world needed another 1" sensor format ILC...
Wins "Cupie doll" (Prize) for best summary..
pew pew: the pricing looks good, if I was on the market for the sony rx100 or nikon v3 I would have a look at this camera.
... not legally anyway. ;)
Can't do good ISO 3200 in JPEG?
Can't do good video?
Is this a joke? Don't let this suggest to anyone that mirror-less can't be better. It's just not yet.
I'm boycotting both mirror-less and DSLR's, until makers combine the best of both worlds.! Enough is enough.
Time for Nikon and Canon to give it up.
Low Budget Dave: I don't even understand how camera companies are able to lose money. The markup is huge, and they come out with new products every 20 days or so.
Canon and Nikon make a pretty reliable profit even in a down market, but everyone else breaks even. I don't get it. It costs them a couple of hundred dollars to make a product that they are selling for a thousand.
Where is all the money going? Those commercials with Ashton Kutcher must cost a lot more than I thought.
Note: It is about the sensor quality(one thing of total quality and after lenses), at any size, that really matters. It's just easier to obtain light quality, on bigger sensors. It's a balance; I know.
They say go smaller (less than m43 for example) to "make" it affordable, like that can be the ONLY way to reduce costs. It is only *their* preferred way. It is more profit for less camera. If we would collectively raise the bar(education), then the larger ones (perhaps APS-C, or FF for one balanced example) would in fact be affordable! Why? Because we are massive! Their profits would still be sky high, even when reduced. It's your choice.
Who says that (wafer costs and expenses); but camera industries, and their propaganda campaign believers?
They point out multiples of tiny sensors are exponentially less expensive (per area), than the relatively much bigger sensors per round wafer. They are getting away with excessive profits on relatively poor performing tiny sensors. It is no real limit to stellar profit on larger sensors, nor any reason to kill some good affordability. It's profit only.
They want you to believe a company couldn’t survive with somewhat lesser larger sensor profits, and the numbers say differently. The truth is, they are pumping the uninitiated masses; because that pays better, and you buy it. My only issue with a company doing that, is it's corrupt to fail quality, with miscellaneous often non-photographic technical feature distractions, and short lived products, with artificially inflated prices.