steelhead3: Russia could have been a great country if it hadn't fallen into its traditional xenophobic ways...so much talent wasted.
1, Being xenophobic makes one's talent wasted ?
2, Russia is ethnically very diverse country. In what ways is it xenophobic ?
3, Russia not only "could " be a great county, it is a great country
Friendship ? The blood of the victims is crying for the justice.
MysteryLemon: I just don't get it.
I didn't get it with Sony's offerings either.
If you want a camera better than your phone, get a camera, don't merge a camera lens and phone body to make some god awful mutant camera that will perform worse and be an ergonomic nightmare...
Think of rat or snake holes.
M4cr0s: Russian made glass in this year and age? If you was the neighbor of Putin, would you buy it?
I really wonder, how a Norwegian-made humanoid can be allowed to comment here.
You are clothed with splendor and majesty, covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent.He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters;he makes the clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings of the wind;
he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire.
The parameter I am interested in (namely the noise level in the dark areas, otherwise called Dynamic Range) is not even mentioned in the article.
Rachotilko: The death of this market segment is several years overdue.
Frankly, does anybody buy these things anymore ?
I assume you meant that P&S has much better low lightperformance than smartphones ? Well, to some degree the sensor size difference advantage is offset by relatively small apertures (high f-numbers) of majority of todays non-enthusiast compacts.
As you probably know, there is a trade-off between the zoom range and aperture sizes. With a substantial simplicifation we can say, that that more space (of the lens body volume) you spend on the zoomng mechanisms, the less remains for the optics
It seems that P&S manufacturers think along the following lines: "smartphones can't zoom, due to the size concerns. So let's exaggerate this P&S advantage, as it's the only parameter prospective P&S buyers understand and care about anyway". The result is that majority of P&S are nowadays equipped with huge zoom ranges (for the size), but apertures start at f3.6. Besides that, wider apertures (smaller f numbers) require much stricter manufacturing tolerances, and that incurrs costs.
The death of this market segment is several years overdue.
LukeDuciel: As of now, there's nothing "Pro" about the Samsung system.
The Samsung body and the 2 lenses might well be on par with C/N offering at this range. However, the "Pro"-ness of a mature system punches at available tool for whatever you need to do.
When I get an event job, I grab my 2 flashes, 1 zoom, 2primes and go. When I am tasked to shoot two pieces of jewelry, I rent a 200mm macro, a ring flash and go. so on and on.
It is never about one body. Samsung needs to have and show dedication in this path. Otherwise, they will get stuck in the "pro"-"sumer" market.
two lenses, yeah:
sebiruns: This is just silly. The details will be smeared. Any 8 megapixel DSLR from ten years ago will out resolve this crappy sensor. Adding more megapixels is just a bad idea. But sure, people will still buy it and think it is the best thing since sliced bread.
1, What's the point in first slicing the image to 21 MPix, if you subsequently *have to* downsample to obtain decent imagery ?
2, Sure, 8 MPix Dslr will in general provide far superior results. Only in special cases (very good light, highly contrasty details), 21 Mpix on 1/2.4 would actually deliver the promised resolution.
Mike FL: "Will be available in Japan only" in Japanese means "The Original mode does not sale very well in US" in English.
Just like EOSM-2 is "Japan only", so does this Stylus 1s...
Might be that both Stylus 1 and EOS-M2 would sell well in US, if they are sized similar to Nikon-D800 .
Gordon L: Let's hope they fail. One of the major reasons why cell phone photography is so popular, and so good, is that it forces the user to adjust their vision the the field of view, not waste time zooming. Besides, modern cell phones have such high resolution, you could always crop.
Mostly agree (I too hope they fail), but I'd put it differently:
One major reasons why cell phone cameras perform acceptably - despite the ultratiny sensors - is their use of highly aspherical prime lens. Such a high optical quality would be very difficult to translate into the realm of tiny zooms.
Imho, one of the major reasons for demise of small sensor compacts was their use of zooms. It is not easy to provide (consistently and very cheaply) high quality of complex opto-mechanical assemblies.
What does the "positive light" mean here ? Some light spectrum property ?
When it comes to sharks themselves, I still see a magnificient & ultraefficient killers. It that positive or negative ?
stdavid: Until very recently sharks have withstood the impressive test of 400 million years of rigorous evolution. Unless humans stop the senseless slaughter of these magnificent creatures many species could well face extinction in our lifetime. Extinction means forever.Great photos
@Just another Cannon shooter:
Surely, the evolution/biosphere will learn not to create an abstract thinking animals anymore, unless it wants to risk the massive extinction event again.
MarshallG: Anybody else a little leery about this trend of removing the low pass and anti-aliasing filters? Surely there were good reasons to use them in the first place.
I am afraid you are missing one very important point: visible moire does not happen with *any* kind of details, but rather with very regular patterns.
so you have to have regular patterns with a certain granularity for Moire to occur. As the resolution increases, the required patterns have to be finer.
So in order for Moire to appear on 36MP sensor, you'll have to take take shots (with very high quality glass) of things like very fine grids, mazes, contrasty textile patterns.
I stick to my estimation that probability of Moire to occur drops significantly with sensor size resolution.
Their usefulness drops as the sensor resolution increases. There are not many naturally occurring scenes capable of generating moire in 36MPix image. And even in case that such a scene occurs, the limited lens resolution would probably kill any chance for moire anyway.
Ignat Solovey: These images should have been seriously edited in terms of constrast and saturation, not to mention downscaling with sharpening applied. Age-old uncoated Tessar just hasn't enough contrast and linear resolution to produce such images on modern small sensor... although the lens here works with very central part of it, and given the sample is good, that seems more or less possible, when it comes to sharpness (precise focusing is not the issue here, I guess). ILC is yet the only way to squeeze absolutely anything from any kind of lens. I think that some time I'll do something like this with EOS 5D Mk3 and Speed Graphic :) Although I was not even slightly impressed when I tried to do something similar. Recent (5-6 years) achievements in lens building render contraptions like this perfectly impractical, except very special occasions when you need non-telephoto lens with telephoto FOV, but I can hardly imagine such case.
I am missing something here: what does the coating have to do with resolution ? I thought the main point of coating was to reduce the reflections (and hence the light loss).
audijam: forget about the technical aspects or someone has done it before blah blah blah...
c'mon guys! this is photography!!!
@misolo: that's their illusion. I bet on peasants to be the actual heirs.
Anyway, I really thing that there are two aspects of this feat: the photographic & technical. And I see no strong connection between them.
In other words: the photographer involved would achieve at least as good results with more conventional setup. And more easily.
Unless the technical side of the project provided extra stimulation to her/his photographic neurochemistry.
The photographic mind and eyes were definitelly involved in achievieving the resulting pictures.
But the thing with old camera & stuff is a pure geekery.
Thank you for the great review.
However, there is one thing I am missing: a sample taken @ 25mm/f2.8 (ie. long end / wide-open) with the whole scene in-focus. I realize that this might not be the most typical use of the RX100III's lens. But given the fact that the anouncement was centered about making the lens more bright @long end, I am curious about the performance.
While there are several shots, @ 25mm/f2.8, none of them shows the lens' edge and corner performance