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
Don051348: Interesting concept, but sometimes these so called "revolutionary" technological advances typically only yield minor, very minor, or something the average person could not even see improvements in IQ. Sort of like the new "revolutionary" curved LED TV's. For the life of me I cannot see how a curved TV screen will improve my viewing experience.
What about improvements in size/weigth/price/reliability of the lenses ? I think such improvements are valuable as well
The name Petzval was mentioned. There is a nice museum dedicated to this industrious and creative man (to whom photography owes its theoretical foundations) in his birthplace: http://www.stm-ke.sk/index.php/sk/pobocky-2/muzeum-j-m-petzvala-v-spisskej-belej
Enthusiasts of history of photography finding themselves in the region would cetrainly find some material of interest there.
There's one point I missed in this otherwise well articulated opinion : the historical perspective. Several ears ago, "bridge" meant something completelly different than the "superzoom" of today. Compared to today's superzooms:
- the sensor sizes were bigger, at least 1/1.7"- the reach was much more limited (to around 300-400mm)- lenses were faster- optics manufacturing quality was not of cheap feeling and reputation.
I'm talking about devices like Sony F717, F828, Fuji cameras (S6500fd, S9XXX, S100fs, S200exr), Panasonic FZ30, FZ50, Minolta AXXX, etc.
Sadly, this category of devices died out - the last one of them was probably Fuji X-S1 (but that one was unfortunatelly hampered by the overambitious lens design). Their extinction coincides very well with the advent of mirrorless, but also with arrival of their low-cost (but high zoom) siblings - the superzooms.
It seems that the true "bridge" category is back. But the ingredients are still the same.
W5JCK: It's hard to believe today is the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion into Normandy. A good day to remember all the sacrifices that were made on this day so long ago, and all the sacrifices that were made throughout the war on so many beaches throughout the SW Pacific Islands, the Far East, North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. Most of the veterans are now gone including my Dad all my uncles who fought during WWII. May they rest in peace. We should be so thankful that they sacrificed so much to stop the world from destroying itself.
I would like to assure you, that there awlays will be many people in every nation, who will pay due respect to Russia's holy sacrifice in years 1941-1945.
sonics: We should always remember the sacrifices made that day. If it wasn't for the allied landings in Normandy Stalin would haven conquered the whole of Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium and prolly part of France.
@Zzzorki: Im with you in this. Had Stalin wanted the western Europe, why did he then repeatedly urge the western allies into opening the western front. He wanted his buffer zone. The availability of the strategic depth proved crucial many times in the Russian history.
Anyone performing apologetics for this product: please have a look at samples of its predecessor, ZS15. Then you'll see that 1/2.3" can be done right.
No extreme highlight overexposures, no unpleasant corner softness.
webrunner5: God, those are pretty terrible. Imagine going on a vacation of a lifetime and coming back to show the shots to your family, friends. Jesus, who thought this camera was a GOOD idea to make in this day and age?
Barney, I disagree. Do yourself a favor and look at gallery of ZS15 sample images. You won't find all the painful overexposures, no pronounced corner softness abundant in this ZS40 gallery.
Probably because Panasonic still respected their customers and wanted to provide a decent camera in 2012 (as opposed to 2014 ?).
In 2012 they considered 12MPix sensor and lens with 4.6-68.8 mm focals to provide a good balance of specs vs IQ. In 2014 they obviously don't care about balancing anything.
Man, this looks like m43-envy. Think of white Lumix G3.
Excessive NR - at it's worst. The details of the hair around the guy's ear are unacceptably wiped.
I'd say they didn't utilize watercoloring noise reduction (Fuji style) but rather their NR involves (besides other things) significant reduction of local contrast. The result exhibits haze (in the luma channel) and bleeding (in the chroma channel) in quite significant amounts.
Overall - the camera offers the usual small sensor output, rather slow lens (also usual in the dying market segment of small sensor travelzooms). Nothing ground-breakiung, besides the advanced 5-axis IS. However, efficiency of the stabilization can be hardly judged from the sample images.
minzaw: Compact=?? definition
It is compact, iff every open cover of it has finite subcover.
If we're talking Euclidean, then it's the same thing as being closed and bounded at the same time
radissimo: For a second I was thinking about this kit, but why not get Canon G x1 mark II with nice bright zoom lens, bigger sensor and for less?
Neviem, ako je na tom G1X2, ale jednotka mala šeredne pomalé ostrenie. Naopak, Panasonic má ostrenie bleskurýchle.
The cams manufacturers went crazy pricewise lately.
BTW, I'd like to ask the ones who remember 1980s: how much did an average Joe have to work to buy a decent film camera ? I've got a feeling that photography (if one doesn't want to go P&S pinhead way) has really become unaccessible to average population of the world - as opposed to much of the 20th century.
Judging by this : have we really progressed as a civilization ? As a child I was told that in 21st century we'll live in some kind of futuristic paradise. Instead, buying a decent photographic gear has become inaccessible to most.
rfsIII: In my opinion DPReveiw is leading readers down a dangerous dead-end path with all this "equivalent aperture range." The whole silly business started with a post on one photographer's website and has now grown into a weird cult of people who are angry all the time about f/stops and love to argue with anyone who doesn't profess unwavering faith in their precepts. And worse, it completely misses the point of the exposure triangle. To get more out of your camera you need to understand the relationship between f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO but this new religion you people have adopted throws that out and makes readers think that the surface area of the sensor is in some undefined way related. Converts go on and on about twice or four or 16 times as much light hitting a larger sensor than a smaller one as though that matters. Unless you are dealing with bellows or other real exposure-changing variables, from an exposure point of view it doesn't matter what size sensor you use.
@rfsIII: partly agree.
I myself believe there are two sides of the issue : absolute one and relative one.
In absolute terms (and that relates to better IQ for a given ISO & f-stop), larges sensor is really hit by more light then smaller sensor.
In relative terms, an unit of the sensor area is hit by the same amount of light (given constant ISO, exposition time and f-stop), regardless of sensor size. This is the exposure triangle thing you mentioned.
The readers with basics in mathematical "measure theory" are probably better prepared to grasp the nuances of the concepts related.