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.
InTheMist: Sigma: excellent sensor, WEIRD implementation.
Excellent sensor ? Up to ISO400 only. Ergo: of limited use
Rachotilko: So the camera manufacturers clearly think that they can ask fortune for the aged looks of the bodies.
They should have brought this briliant idea to its logical consequencies and ask progresivelly higher prices for the baroque, mediaeval, Doric Greek, Summerian and stone-age stylings.
@Naveed: surely, I am myself convinced that 1600s/1700s era have - in some respect - reached cultural achievements not matches since.
I just find it really amusing that camera makers charge premiums for the design cues from 1950s.
So the camera manufacturers clearly think that they can ask fortune for the aged looks of the bodies.
gunther35: I actually think the G16 might compete well with my RX100II.
In favor of the G16:
1) Built in viewfinder2) No buffer at 9 fps!3) IQ will be pretty close at the tele focal lengths because the lens is almost 2 stops faster at the tele end.4)Better ergonomics ( I always prefer a smaller lens to body ratio)5)A second custom setting on the dial6)longer telephoto reach7)A remote cable switch
In favor of the RX100II:
1) Better IQ at wide focal lengths and lower light2) Pocketable3) 20MP4) tilting LCD
@KariIceland: aperture and IQ unrelated? The main advantage of large aperture (smaller f-number) -beyond the shallow DOF gimmick- is that it reduces the shutter time, allowing for lower ISO values.
The only reservantion against this camera is that it should have EVF instead of OVF. It alone would make the camera probably smaller and certainly much more usable.
Re "ridiculously small sensor" comments: you guys are ridiculously uninformed. Despite the RX100 1" sensor, it can provide serious IQ advantage over 1/1.7" on wide end only. The lens is not bright enough at mid-to-tele, and does not resolve closeups well enough
The single most important reason leading to Nokia demise was the rise of Android. Google was smardevelopment model to make two crucial desisions:- invite Asian manufacturers to join Android production by offering attractive licensing conditions.- well chosen subset of Java as the primary development environment.
This contrasted sharply with Nokia's Europe based manufacturing and unfortunate choice of l tools offered to application developers (the options being rather exotic dialect of C++ for native development or the very crippled Java in the form of J2ME runtime).
The situation was not helped by Nokia's distracting and consufed encounters with the open source movement: neither the brief episode of open-sourcing the Symbian nor absurd migration of traditional desktop Linux to smartphone environment (MeeGo) produced any business value for Nokia.
It's so human to look for scapegoats, but the truth is that Nokia was doomed before Stefan Elop became its CEO.
I don't get it. By definition, you can't add any DR to camera by firmware update, as it's given by the noise levels of the sensor in the shadow areas.
In other words, this is JPEG tweak, it does not translate to DxOMark results, since these are RAW based.
dennishancock: I find Nokia's whitepaper on the Lumia 1020 to be pseudo-engineering without any math--a.k.a marketing hype--and only serves as the latest example of elucidation through obfuscation. It might serve to make the clueless feel they're purchasing some advanced technology, but really, how is Bayer sensor interpolation noise overcome by (electrically noisier) oversampling?
I noticed marketing-style dishonesty of the text when it tried to convince that cropping-based zooming is better than optical zoom because in case of optical zoom the aperture typicaly narrows down as you zoom in, forcing higher ISO.
They forgot to mention the fact that in case of cropping-based zooming the IQ gets lost at even faster rate, because it reduces the active sensor area used.