CameraLabTester: There is just so much limited QUALITY that one can cram into a typical1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) SENSOR that camera companies use (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, etc)
The selling points are then waged on features, menus, bells and woots.
For a sensor size of 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm), the best balance is just 5 to 7 Mp!
But because camera companies have zombied buyers into thinking more Mps is more good, they don't DARE do a 5 or 7 Mp modern camera.
A 5 Mp or 7 Mp P&S with a 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor can set outstanding standards, but they won't do this... (maybe Leica, because they think OUTSIDE the mirror box...)
@magneto shot You're the one who's being ignorant by accepting BS talk while ignoring actual results.
Obviously, you want to believe that more pixels is bad. Believe what you want to believe.
"I suggest you read Cameralab testers links."
Two links from the same joe on the internet? That's the authority you're relying on??
How about some real print tests...
The print test clearly shows improvements with resolution in A3 sized prints, right up to the 14.7MP G10.
Really...in this day only the ignorant go by 100% crops. There's simply much more to it than that.
"When cameramakers would use the technology they developed to still make acceptable pictures with 16 to 20mp compacts, on an 8 tot 10 mp sensor, picture quality would greatly improve."
No, it doesn't. That's not how sensors work. Sensor area is what matters...not pixel count. It is impossible to improve image quality by using a lower pixel count.
"For a sensor size of 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm), the best balance is just 5 to 7 Mp!"
That's as pointless as it is arbitrary. The larger MP count doesn't reduce image quality, and print testing shows that the higher counts make a difference. Imaging Resource actually prints images as part of its testing, and found that the SX230 (SX260 not tested yet) produces very good prints at 16x20. But at that resolution you're getting around 187 PPI...acceptable, but just barely. But that's better than what 7MP gives you, which is 144 PPI and dipping into the unacceptable range.
There's simply no benefit from maintaining low MP counts, except to appease vocal minorities who don't know what they're talking about.
Graystar: Oy vey…another DCResource review.
You know how when you decide you no long like your bank so you switch to another bank but then your old bank buys the new bank and you’re right back where you started? That’s what this feels like.
"published in addition to our usual reviews"
Hmmm...a camera review is in addition to the "usual reviews" of a camera review site...
Let me correct you on this...camera reviews ARE your "usual reviews." This was published "instead of"...not "in addition to." I can see this kind of shortcut for compacts, but it shouldn't happen on such a camera.
No break-down and pictures of individual controls and their functions, no completely listing of all menu items and their options, etc... Your readers were expecting more than they got.
Oy vey…another DCResource review.
Mssimo: My 2 cents
75mm F1.8 has the same DOF no matter what format camera its mounted on.
DOF of this lens is perfect for portraits.
No need to stop it down.
Lots of special glass reduces the need for post corrections.
You get what you pay for and this lens is worth every penny and it will not drop in price for a long time.
That's a misleading statement. Same DOF, but not the same FOV. As you change your distance to get the same FOV as another format, your DOF changes. That's why the crop factor applies to the maximum aperture when equating DOF performance.
They couldn't put the flash, timer, and WB button in the same spots as the K-5? REALLY??
Shouldn't they wait until 2012 is over before picking a winner for 2012?
It's amazing how every article on the Leica follows the same pattern...gushing praise followed by a laundry list of issues.
"It's almost as if...you have to think about the photo you are making"
"forces me to consider options before pressing the shutter button"
What...are you checking your brain in at the door when you pick up an SLR? To me that sounds like a personal problem...not any sort of advantage of a Leica.
Graystar: DPR still doesn't understand the older Auto ISO function. It's already "set and forget".
Nearly all modern zoom lenses have VR. By the 1/FL rule, my 70-300mm needs 1/500s when zoomed in on my D90. But VR provides 4 stops relief...I can shoot at 1/60s (3 stops) and get sharp images if the subject matters allows. So why would I want to shoot any faster? 1/60s is about as slow as you can shoot anything alive...any slower really means a tripod. So it doesn't matter if the short zooms don't have VR...the 1/FL rule doesn't provide a fast enough shutter for handheld shots.
The new setting probably for those pro sports shooters who swear VR messes up their shots (though there's no proof) and so turn off the VR. Shooting sports with that 70-200 means you need at least 1/250s for the subject matter regardless of the focal length so I can't even see the need in that circumstance. There's simply no useful reason for a focal-length driven shutter speed on a modern camera with a VR lens.
And neither does adjusting shutter speed by focal length. However, adjusting shutter by FL could definitely ruin shots of moving subjects...something that won't happen with the Minimum Shutter Speed.
DPR still doesn't understand the older Auto ISO function. It's already "set and forget".
Graystar: "perhaps the most significant of which is a very impressive-looking video specification."
WHAT?? Pass what you're smoking, cause I want some!
At this level, if a pro needs pro video he's going to use a real video camera! The AF operation down to f/8 is far more significant, allowing the 500mm and 600mm lenses to auto-focus when used with the 2X teleconverter. THAT'S important to a photographer! Not video!
I'd think that a featured billed as "most significant" would be important to more than 50% of photographers polled. I'd bet dollars to donuts that every pro sports and wildlife photographer will think much more of the ability to finally have AF with their $8000 and $10000 dollar lenses on a 2X converter, than the ability to have what still amounts to a limited video camera.
"perhaps the most significant of which is a very impressive-looking video specification."
Hmmm...30MP crop sensor for $2300 or 36MP full-frame for (what should end up selling at) $2700...I think I'll go with a D800.
Sorry Sigma...still too little...and way, way too late.
Edmond Leung: This camera is just an example of meaningless trace for pixel count.
It's not meaningless. If the pixels are small enough, then you don't need an AA filter because diffraction does the blurring for you. That leads to sharper images. Nikon is testing this out with the D800E, but I expect we'll need another large boost in MP before the AA filter can be removed and not suffer from false color problems (like the Leica does.)
"It's a shame that the D800's ISO button hasn't been moved compared to the D700 though - right up there on the top of the camera it's a bit of stretch when the camera is held to your eye, and nowhere near as convenient as Canon's now-standard ISO button placement, adjacent to the shutter button."
Oy vey...like we didn't know THAT was coming...
Canon's has to put their ISO button by the shutter because their Auto-ISO sucks compared to Nikon's. With Nikon you set the conditions under which ISO should be increased, and you're done with ISO.
WilbaW: Interesting perspective. I like the EV-S/EV-C thing. I agree - unless you need to hold a particular exposure, you may as well delegate to the camera the trivial task of matching values. I often wonder if people who advocate manual for general shooting just don't get exposure compensation in auto modes. It reminds me of double-declutching with a synchro box... it can be fun for a while as an exercise but it's pointless and tiresome to do it all the time. :-)
Actually, you can hold a particular exposure match with Exposure Lock, and it’s better than using manual mode.
To meter and shoot in constant light with manual mode, you meter on some reference, center (or offset) your exposure indicator and you take your shot. Done. With an auto mode (I'll pick A mode) you meter on some reference, press the AEL button, apply some EC if you want to offset your exposure, and take your shot. Done. Yes, the auto-mode procedure is a tad easier, but the best part comes with the second and third shots. If I want to change my aperture, in manual mode I have to select my aperture and then change my shutter to maintain my desired exposure. With the locked auto mode, I simply select my new aperture and shoot. The camera will maintain the locked exposure. That's just one of several ways that using auto techniques makes your life easier, while still providing precise control over exposure.
In the forum you state you stopped reading at that point. Maybe DPReview should not allow comments from people who haven't actually read the article.
The only reason you think the article is flawed is because you didn't read it.
NancyP: Manual mode is a must for focus stacking, panoramas, and astrophotographic stacking, or any other application requiring merging or averaging of images. Just saying....Manual mode is also necessary for use of certain manual third-party or legacy lenses on certain digital cameras. Those famous Zeiss wide angles so loved by landscape photographers, as well as some cheapo but sharp wide angle lenses, are manual. Yes, with aperture ring on the lens!I wouldn't buy a camera that didn't have a manual option. All that said, I use Av or occasionally Tv for almost all non-stacking/pano stitching/averaging photography.
Long exposures, certain types of flash photography, etc...yes, I agree...there are many situations where manual mode is necessary. However, those specialized uses are outside of the context of my article, which was given in my opening. People are recommending the use of manual for regular every-day shooting, and touting it as being superior to auto modes. That's the problem I'm trying to address.