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.
Rachotilko: regarding equivalent aperture, You have to differentiate :
a, total amount of light - in that case equivalence applies. It means that given the f-number (for example f/2.8), the FF sensor receives four times as much light as m43.Hence for the same ISO, scene, f-number, exposition times, the whole FF image is created using four times as much light as whole m43 image.
b, amount of light *per-area* - in this case equivalence does NOT apply. It means that given the same exposition time and f-number, an unit of area (such as square milimeter) receives the same amount of light, regardless of sensor size. Hence for the same ISO, scene, f-number, the *same* exposition time is required for proper exposition for all sensor sizes.
you're right that it was mostly about clarification: that in some respects (namely the exposition time) the f/2.8 = f/2.8 regardless of sensor size.
But I disagree that it is irelevant to making purchasing desicions: since exposition times surely are relevant.
Sirandar: Finally a successor to what Panasonic started with the FZ30 and abandoned.
If I didn't already have a camera that produces better images than the RX10, I would probably buy one when the price drops.
Looking at the image quality it does seem that the RX10 has a considerable penalty in both high ISO detail and dynamic range compared to M4/3 BUT in terms of actual use, in many ways the weather sealing and the flexibility on not having to change lenses all the time offsets the reduced image quality and slightly slow AF.
If you have to change lenses you have missed the picture opportunity.
I loved my Pana FZ30 and still have it, and I used it long after cameras with much better image quality and dynamic range were available for the simple reason that when the light was good it was always up to the task. The lack of dynamic range and the slow tele end were what made me move on.
I really think that having a good M43 standard zoom (3.5x) gives you much better versatility than the 10x zoom of FZ30 (or FZ50).
The missing default reach can be easily compensated for by cropping: this is what the smaller sensor size does anyway.
regarding equivalent aperture, You have to differentiate :
Thank you for nice review of a nice cam.
However, I expected that after reading it I'd be informed about how good the lens is, esp. wide open. After all, that's the most significant selling point of the product - since the whole concept stands&falls upon the lens resolution @F2.8.
Unfortunatelly, almost all of the samples are taken with aperture narrower than F4. Why is that ?
AKH: Impressive that the IQ is about the same level as the almost 7 year old Nikon D300.
Are you uninformed or do you spread the fallacies purposely ?
According to DxOMark ISO-dependent SNR and DR curves, E-M10 is (compared to D300):
1, by 1/3 stop better in terms of signal-to-noise ratio all over the ISO range
2, by almost 1 stop better in terms of dynamic range - with the exception of lowest ISO values.
Besides that, you'll get much smaller/sexier cam, with fast video&live-view AF and other goodies.
Retzius: For those who are confused as to why this lens is relevant, compared to the Nikon equivalent it is smaller, lighter, and much cheaper, with equal to better optical performance.
It is not targeted at your average Dpreview brick wall shooter who examines his sensor for dust particles. It is targeted at a first time Dslr shooter with an intro level body who doesn't want to change lenses that often.
And they sell alot of these
I agree, that is the most likely scenario the manufacturers have in mind when producing this kind of optical devices.
Yet there is a question: would not such a shooter be better served by Oly Stylus 1, Sony RX100 or even by Nikon 1 V2 with 10-100 ?
IMHO, these lenses in many ways erode the bigger sensor advantage of APS-C DSLRs. The resulting combo is a clumsy camera with IQ almost in the P&S realm.
RichRMA: It looks (on the long end) pretty much like most of those 10:1 or more zooms; just ok. Plus, poor Canon has noticeable sensor noise, even at 100 ISO in daylight. You can buy a used Nikon 18-200mm for as little as $350.00, so it'll be interesting to see what the Sigma costs.
No, by 'limited DR' I mean the same thing as DxO Mark does: the high shadow noise level. That's the only sensor-imposed limitation on DR.
I'm no (anti)fanboy, but the levels of shadow noise reveal how much did Canon fall behind the competition in APS-C sensor tech department.
Frankly, the whole Rebel+Sigma combo gives almost PS-ish performance. Sensor's poor DR combined with lens' softness and CA look yield very un-2014 look.
Nikon2011: the russian Las Vegas?, drive capitals-and world attention for a place which is more interesting in summer than winter have you ever seen a winter olympics in such an hot place ? either russians are s**** (i dont think so) either there are secondary interests.perhaps you could have made the olympics in the 99.9999% of the rest of Russia.
they picked a place even southern than Crimea (the ukraino-russian Florida)
The thing is: there are of course many places in Russia much colder than Sochi. But very few of them are located near major mountain range necessary for downhill skiing.
The Florida analogy is seriously flawed; have a look at the climatic data of the region.
For example the sea in northern part of the Black see freezes - something that does not happen even in the vincinity of the Nordkapp (northernmost tip of the Norway). The summer temperatures are of course much higher.
In general, the region (as most of the Russia) has deeply continental climate, with huge temperature swings.
And don't forget that Caucasus (even the parts close to Sochi) is a major mountain range, with various types of alpine landscapes (up to deeply glaciated 5000+ meter elevations).
Besides the deep respect for majestic perfection of current human achievements in the field of precision mechano-opto-electronics, there is yet another feeling that these images bring to my soul:
satisaction that the bloody mirror is gone from inside of Oly OMs !
G Sciorio: Small body with a larger sensor means larger lenses. If the majority of the weight and bulk is in the optics...and if there are so few native lenses I don't see any major advantage over a DSLR.
- the fact that much smaller flangeback distance translates to more compact lens design
- even with FF, there will be some (relatively) small lenses (think primes). Huge sizes of FF DSLR bodies make the combination quite unbalanced.
- MILC lenses typically focus much faster in video (and LiveView) mode.
reginalddwight: I like Sigma's forward thinking. Sooner than later, all smartphones will look like this.
Meh, nothing new here: electric razors manufacturers have been utilizing this design for decades.