maikD: Dear DP, you need a website redesign. The width of the photogallery is 590px, the photos are too small. We are in 2014, not in 2004.
Totally agree, the Daily Mirror shows it photographic content better the DPR, The gallery widget could do with a rewrite and simplification, Great pictures though, fantastic location
attomole: So f2 = f2 =f2 after all, only if you want to keep quality or DOF constant between formats it isn't (and why would you want to do that). it took hours or pouring over the Joseph james article and the three Petapixel videos on the subject but I finally came back full circle.
The total light stuff was an interesting revelation to me, the discussion on this and the thought process always gets bogged down in the mix of, number of pixels, pixel pitch sensor size and viewing conditions, the concept of total light captured. nicely sidesteps that argument to explain the bulk effects we see regardless of pixel size and number of pixels (almost) and is nicely illustrated in the graphics in this article)
@Quezra ,slogan wise mine has more snap to it! and yes ISO is a bit of a moving target, in the end you have to do your own tests to understand what your cameras exposure system will get up to regardless of format considerations.
@ quezra Probably i did not make it clear but it was the opposite of my conclusion, f2 is geometric fact regardless, and its a constant to set exposure between formats, but for DOF and Noise it is not as per the article QED. you might compensate to that back on smaller formats with slower shutter speeds or unobtainable (mostly) fast glass, but i don't think its all that useful, more Academic realy.If I get the T shirt printed f2 = f2 = f2, you interested?
So f2 = f2 =f2 after all, only if you want to keep quality or DOF constant between formats it isn't (and why would you want to do that). it took hours or pouring over the Joseph james article and the three Petapixel videos on the subject but I finally came back full circle.
So what is the use of this?
In that there probably isn't going to be fractional F number MFT or 1" lenses equivalent to f1.4 and wider, and kit lenses will generally be 3.5 to 5.6 to be in proportion physically to the camera they are for whatever the format."Smaller sensor cameras are more noisy and offer less depth of field" succinctly sums it all up Petapixel took three videos to say the same.
Now we can all calculate it helps steer your choices at point of sale, and what to take on location or on holiday but the biggest use seems to me to be for trolling forum postings of the MFT users. for this it seems to be excellent
These pictures are pretty good for a gear review ( couple are bit bright for me though) However would be better done with a bog standard 1.8 50 mm Nikon. So if this flawed historical artifact remade, has a creative calling, I don't see any evidence of it here, possibly it needs a B&W atmospheric landscape treatment, Fun to mess around with and find some way to exploit it's weirdness, I like what some have done with the origional 35mm Lomo
Marty4650: It may be unrealistic for anyone to expect revolutionary leaps and bounds from a mature technology.
Digital Imaging is now a mature technology, and we can expect much more of this evolutionary continuous improvement in new models. This might give us very little reason to replace last year's model, but will be wonderful for first time buyers, people switching systems, and people who upgrade every five to ten years. They will be shocked by the sum total of all the small improvements combined.
Just like with cars, no one expects the 2015 Toyota Corolla to be very much better than the 2014 Toyota Corolla, but we all know it will be much nicer (and much more expensive) than a 2003 Toyota Corolla.
The article's premise is that offering several small changes ( which seems to be the new norm) as a new model is not something consumers should automatically sneer at, as it can add up to a significant upgrade, It Is a provocative one (QED). I'm not sure if the example of the 810 was the best one to run with to support that case given that is was not exactly broke to begin with. maybe Fuji's sensor and FW upgrades to the X series would be better.
I think possibly there is a budget issues as well as they are not selling as many cameras. I wonder if that is making the D900 a further out product time wise, therefore debugging and refining the existing one keeps the product competitive. The article gives an interesting spin on this as an advantage to the consumer.
Jon Ingram: I realize that this camera was awarded the gold award. However, I can't help but sense an underlying critical tone to most of this review. Perhaps it is because the author didn't enjoy the shooting experience. However, that one aspect seems to bleed into other sections for a negative tone.
Re-read the very last paragraph of the review which provides the reviewers justification for this apparent contridicion in the content of the article and final rating.
mosc: I would like to see more discussion about the crop capability of this combination. f2.8 70mm 1" sensor is a lot of light, especially with 20mp of resolution to capture it. The lens seems very sharp in the center at the very least, a combination that should lead to reasonable crop results. The chart above includes The S120 which uses a 43mm2 sensor. The RX100 can be cropped down to that size and would offer 1.7x crop, still at f2.8 but now 7.4mp (sufficient) and 118mm, very similar to the 120mm maximum of the S120. Basically, the RX100 still has a huge telephoto advantage over the S120 because it's sensor is so much bigger and it's aperture at max telephoto is so much brighter that even cropping it down it's still f13 equivalent at 120mm at still 7.4mp resolution, far better than the S120.
The RX100's zoom doesn't reach past 70 but it's photos from just as physically far away will contain more photons than several of it's competitors with longer reach.
I agree on the crop given that it's 2.8 and 20M of sony's best pixels it should crop to 100mm no problem , I don't think you get 2.8 worth of light if you crop though, I think this would scale with the crop F4 or something, still probably better than the MK2 at 100 mm but close and with less pixels
attomole: Love it but I have a suggestion. Save yourself 200 quid and get a MK 2 or 350 and get a MK1,
or save yourself 50 quid and reserve a bit more space in your bag and get an A6000 and PZ lens, as once you have fitted your £700 camera in a case it's not very pocketable other than in a voluminous jacket variety
I Have a MK 2 use it more or less as you say, and love it For the money saving yes I am guilty of projecting my own financial disposition onto the populous which is none of my business. Nevertheless I would make the saving. for hiking I would probably take the 6000 or something similar but would check on the performance of the lens under advisement, is it really such a dog compared to this?
Love it but I have a suggestion. Save yourself 200 quid and get a MK 2 or 350 and get a MK1,
Marty4650: I'm really impressed at how good the image quality is coming from "the smallest of the large sensors."
I am also baffled at why Sony hasn't made market share gains against Canon and Nikon in light of all the innovation coming from Sony, and the absence of much innovation from the two market leaders.
I think Canikon still have the professional market sewn up on a system performance basis and Sony can't matchthat even if on image quality they can. The rest of the market, particularly the American consumer is a bit conservative they see pros using Canikon DSLR's so that's what they want, Sony Fuji Pana and Oly have fantastic product but you don't see any used by pros at big sporting events even the photographers I see from the local rag use 1D's. Go to a local studio for a family portrait and il bet the D800 or 5D will come out. At the other end of the market people are using Apple, HTC etc and getting stuff good enough to share on social media, So sony no mater how innovative have got a mountain to climb
tirmite: When will DPReview, the eminent technical blog supposedly, stop playing the dishonest lens equivalency game? So if it's "equivalent" to a 24-70mm then you also HAVE to make the f-stop "equivalent." It is NOT like a 1.8-2.8 aperture. It would give DOF results more like an f4.0-5.6 lens would it not? Being able to shoot in low light is more a function of ISO and sensor noise these days, but for some of us having control over depth-of-field is still what separates a snapshot from a photograph. This camera is NOT a replacement for a 35mm DSLR with a "real" 24-70mm f2.8 lens, although it's clearly a great little pocket camera. How about truthful, accurate marketing both by the manufacturer and camera reviewers about what a lens REALLY is equivalent to if you're going to make that selling point in the first place?
I think people are across these issues. you get less depth of field and more noise with small sensor cameras (even if in the strictest sense it's not a thorough explanation) and stops are not equivalent for light capture and DOF with different sized sensors, DPReview have a nice chart on this that plots 35mm equivalent apertures so I don't think they are ignoring the issue.
The mm equivalent settings are clumsy. angle of view would be better but again most understand them. You could label up the lenses in 35mm equivalent apertures and calibrate the ISO settings so they didn't compensate for total light collected but then the aperture settings would be wrong given that it's set by geometry of the optics the way it is done seems better.
vadims: I think it's about time for ISO to introduce another, logarithmic scale for measuring sensor sensitivity. The fact that the numbers look crazy does not mean that the sensitivity per se is "crazy" -- it's still far cry from the capabilities of the human eye.
BTW, "who needs more than ISO 6,400" sounds to me suspiciously similar to "640 kilobytes should be enough for everyone".
I like the K idea either that or just knock a couple of zeros off .25 .5 1,2 etc through to 2048 and above using the little used hecto prefix 1h ISO is 100 ISO.
attomole: The elephant not in the room is the classic Nikon 35mm f2, available for about half the price
The elephant not in the room is the classic Nikon 35mm f2, available for about half the price
As a DSC 100 user and a recent buyer too boot, there is nothing here that makes me want to upgrade, the lens is better and the VF is a nice addition but for the use I put this camera too it's not that important, in the end it's a small cary everywhere camera and the compromise is it's a bit fiddly to use, startup is a bit slow and nothing here addresses that and what it does have I can do without, it's never going to replace an SLR or Mirrorless system camera for stuff done with serious photographic intent, and I would say if this is a substantial premium at street prices , for it's intended purpose the. m2 version is a wiser purchase.
plasnu: Does anyone still choose DSLR over this at this price point?
@Richard Butler Although recent investment in APSC lenses by DSLR manufactures possibly does not match Fuji and Sony, there is a huge legacy of FX lenses that work perfectly well on APSC and an arsenal of third Party, I like this Sony allot but Sony and Zeiss even Sigma have made some odd chooses when is comes to outfitting it with lenses , why so many 30 Something mm primes? Compare with Nikon 1.8 series of budget primes and legacy wide angles + third party Zooms and Sigma art, I maintain my claim DSLR's have more and better lens options.
DSLR' s still have significantly more and better options for lenses