I have yet to see a good review of a Tamron superzoom. In case that happens, I am ready to buy.
io_bg: For this price it should've been f/2... And I hope it won't be as soft as the 16mm f/2.8.
Panasonic does 20mm f/1.7. Pancaked !
naththo: Still can't beat Nikon D800 and D600 by dynamic range unfortunately in dxomark test. But the dpreview has different view of point of testing the dynamic range using different method than dxomark me think. I see Canon 5D MK III only just beat Nikon D800 by one stop in dynamic range on this forum here. But in the dxomark it seems that D800 beats 5D MKIII by a few stops. So something is fishing to me really. The rest of other test are pretty much similar mostly toward ISO and colours per bit though. I am not sure which one is more accurate in test. ;)
DxOMark's notion of "dynamic range" is much more sensible than DPR's.
Dynamic range is not about "highlights cliping" - as that part can (and is) be corrected by exposition and tone-curve adjustment.
Dynamic range of the sensor is determined solely by the noise in the dark shadows - that part cannot be improved upon by any tweaks.
Rachotilko: Regarding sensor improvement: grils&guys, you can use DPR studio comparison tool to compare Canon SX20 vs Canon SX50: you'll see that 1/2.33 sensors have improved, quite substantially.
@iudexI'm with you on the lens speed issue completely. But I spotted some comment below saying that the pinheads don't improve - which is obviously not true, at least not for Canon.
Well, actually, I am wrong: FZ200 is noisier than FZ150, which is actually sad.
Regarding sensor improvement: grils&guys, you can use DPR studio comparison tool to compare Canon SX20 vs Canon SX50: you'll see that 1/2.33 sensors have improved, quite substantially.
in high-ISO studio comparison, SX50 shot is ISO800, while other cameras have ISO1600 selected. I doubt it was intended.
forpetessake: In the final analysis what it means is that APS-C and m4/3 lens manufacturers have no excuse creating lenses same size as FF but faster proportionally to the crop size. If the typical f/3.5-5.6 zooms were ok on FF, the APS-C typical zooms should be f/2.3-3.7 and m4/3 should be f/1.7-2.8 to collect the same light on smaller surface. Why do Olympus/Panasonic/Sony produce those terribly slow APS-C/m43 lenses instead?
Don't know where you've got your info about the sizes from, but you are wrong: http://camerasize.com/compact/#312.289,183.336,ha,t
These two lenses provide the same FOV. Had Panasonic make it f/1.4, it would have been the same size as FF Canon lense.
Mssimo: Take a look at this: Nikon E SeriesFrom Wikipedia:The E series uses a unique additional optical system that enables the small sensor to capture the field of view of a 35mm film, with a crop factor of 1. This comes not at the expense of the lightness of the lenses, because the light is bundled to the 2⁄3 inch CCD sensor with approximately 1⁄16 smaller area. The result is approximately 4 stops (24 = 16) more light at the small sensor compared to a full-frame sensor. Therefore the camera has a minimum full-frame sensitivity of ISO 800 which is equivalent to ISO 50 at 2⁄3 inch. As a result the noise of the camera at ISO 800 full-frame is equivalent to ISO 50 of the 2⁄3 inch CCD sensor. Nikon could not reduce sensitivity below 800 ISO full-frame, because the little sensor will be overexposed below 50 ISO.
Yes ! Fry the bloody sensor, fry !
aardvark7: I am sure that someone will be able to explain why we can't have our cake and eat it...
My immediate reaction is why wouldn't the lens manufacturers offer this, along with their existing line up? I presume there is a good reason.
There's a sequence in the article that reads:
"It has the effect of shrinking the lens's image circle, which means that it only works with optics designed for larger formats."
It can transform a FF lens to APS-C and APS-C to M43 and make it faster.
The end of sanity in travelzoom domain.
cyuill2007: I am convinced that, in general, those who dis the Nikon 1 system have never shot pictures with a Nikon 1 camera, or even picked one up. I have a Nikon D7000, and I get great images from it. Good camera! I have owned and been shooting with a Nikon V1 for 3 weeks, and I can get shots with it, when used right, that approach those I get with the D7000. I much prefer the videos I can get with the V1. And if I have to carry around a camera for an entire day I'd much rather carry around a V1 than a D7000.
These very nice test shots (which I recognize as being taken in and around Victoria BC Canada) indicate to me that the V2 produces similar images to the V1. I doubt I'll pick one up as I'm satisfied with my V1. But I am convinced that Nikon created a very viable mirrorless system that will only improve with age.
I don't think the Nikon 1 cameras will be to everyone's taste. That's why it's good there are lots of good alternatives.
My $0.02 worth.
According to DxOMark, RX100's sensor is better in DR (and that in low-ISO settings). Noise-wise they are equal. BTW, DxO mark normalizes the results with respect to resolution.
When talking of lenses: RX100 optics have some shotcoming (mostly sharpenss, @wide-angle, closeup), an inevitable result of being a zoom packed in a small volume.
With Nikon1's lenses definitely offer more, in terms of quality and versatility. You can't do tele with RX100, and sharpeness of Nikon1 primes is clearly superior.
That means, I do not bash RX100. I just don't agree that Nikon1 system was made irrlelvant by it.
Size comparison, if you wanna go tele (equivalent FOV range 70-300mm):
What does the DxOMark says about the sensor:
Compared to RX100:
- high ISO noise is almost identical. - at low ISO's, Nikon1's DR is slightly worse.
Compared to older (12MPix) M43, such as E-PL1
- Nikon1's high ISO noise is very slightly worse than E-PL1 - Nikon1's DR at any ISO is much better than E-PL1 (!!!)
I do not get this prejudice against this wonderful camera !
autoy: Actually I find noise pretty well controlled. On the other hand, it blows highlights like crazy, just like any bridge system. Dynamic range is terrible. No match for equally priced APS-C or even m4/3 mirrorless cameras.
DR of the sensor has nothing to do whatsoever with blown highlights. It is all about the noise in the shadows.
Tonecurves and exposition can be (and indeed are) adjusted by camera manufacturers to prevent blown highlights. The only limiting factor in doing so is : shadow noise.
I (politely , at your request) ask for XE1 inclusion.
gsum: Thanks for the review - very useful.
I'm beginning to lose faith in dxo. How can they give this milk bottle such a high rating? Looking at the real world samples, this lens doesn't resolve anywhere near the sensor resolution at any focal length.
Yeah, to me this thing relegates a DSLR into a small-senzor travelzoom category (aka Panny TZ-series) IQ-wise.
Nothing wrong with that, but a decent travelzoom is quite a lot more pocketable, I think.
Rachotilko: To DPR team:
to reduce the confusion, would you not consider an article about the f-number equivalence ?
The question "does the need to apply f-number equvalence apply to DOF calculation only or to shutter speed calculation as well" has been hotly debated here for quite a long time.
Some basic lesson in photooptics would silence this, I hope.
Thank you, that was my understanding as well. But it's worth considering to have a short article on this: discussing cameras would be much more fun if I could get rid of explainig the issue over and over again just by passing an url of such an article (preferably published by DPR).
RogerCooke: @RACHOTILKO: I found this article helpful http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
@ Beach Bum: Please mind your tone, or sign off.
Thank you ! Article is nice, but I am afraid it does not answer this specific question.
To DPR team: