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:
You base your judgements on a mistakend notion that sensor size is to be taken into account when calculating the lens speed.
Consider situation when you're using XZ-2 @ISO800, f2.4, l=100mm eq. Taking the same scene with RX100 would require you to use IS3200.
That's a lot of a difference, don't you think ?
The fact that f-number equivalence applies only to DOF calculation and not to the shutter speed, is just plain fact in photographic optics. Anybody knowledgeable in the photooptics will confirm that.
My point is that: RX100 and XZ-2, when both set to f4.9, ISO1600, taking the same scene, will require the same exposition time. But with XZ-2, you have freedom to go f2.4, and select ISO400 - without actually changing the shutter speed ! In other words, XZ-2 is two stops faster @100mm eq
There is not any ISO tweaking going on. It rather has something to do with focal lengths:
f-number is "the ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil". Without going into detail (you can find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number), you can notice f-number is dependent upon the focal length used.
The confusion wrt sensor size is thus caused by the usage of the "equivalent focal lengths", which IMHO is a bit misleading from optics point of view. It is better to trear small sensors in term of cropping.
Try it experimentally: take a full-frame camera and a pinhead compact (both should be well calibrated), set both to fully manual mode, select the same ISO, same f-number, same shutter speed. Do a shot of the same scene with both cameras.
You'll see the scene is exposed roughly the same - no sensor size was taken into account.
Both DOF and shutter speed (exposition) are influenced by the f-number. But while for DOF calculation you have to factor-in the sensor size, shutter speed is unaffected by it.
Tape5: It was nice seeing RX100 at the end of the list which is what you expect if it is the best in the list right? Best IQ and smallest.
The sensor size is NOT to be taken into account ! That means, if a scene requires 1/30s @ISO800, f/1.8 for 5DMkIII (full frame), then it requires the same 1/30s @ISO800, f/1.8 for G15.
In other words, f-number has twofold impact on your photography: a) it determines DOF, b) it influences shutter speed.
But while for a) you have to account for the sensor size, b) is not influenced by the sensor size.
"Best IQ" is oversimplification. RX100 has best IQ under two conditions:
- you stay away from the subject (the lens does not like close-ups)- you avoid tele-end (the lens is quite a lot slower @tele than the LX7, XZ-2, P7700 and G15, forcing you to use high ISO).
Do we have any English or Latin linguists around here ? I am neither (not even a native speaker), so I am confused:
"Compact" surely implies "holding together". Does it also necessarily mean "small" ?
I sympathize with DPR staff, really. First, they are nice guys and they do the very good job !
But this article just feels like an (hopeless) attempt to tame the rabid RX100 fans who polute all the comment sections with their resolute demands for an immediate annihilation of every camera with sensor smaller than 1".
At the same time, the article falls victim to the absurdities of the camera industry terminiology that developed over the years. "Compact" and "P&S" are terms introducing far more confusion than benefits in camera categorization.
- "P&S" is a terminological fossil from 1960s, as instead of camera's capabilities it describes the camera's operating mode.
- the disadvantage of the term "compact" is that one is not clear whether it describes the size or atomicity of a camera.
I think the most reasonalbe way out of this mess is to accept the situation that we have several (possibly overlapping in particualr aspect) categories of cameras.
FartIng: i bought and returned the G15 for a G1X - Why?Articulated screen, larger sensor, but I found the G15 still has awful noise on photographs and HD video above 800 ISO (like the G12 I had before that).
The only awful thing now I find about the G1X - Macro close up photography is impossible which is heartbreaking.
Now I use my Nokia Lumia 920-which seems to take better photos than the G1X!
Do you really suppose anybody can take you seriously here when you claim 920's 1/3"-sized sensor takes better pictures than APS-C ?
Rachotilko: I still don't get how so many people can't get that capability to shoot in low light can be achieved by any of these:a, high ISO,b, fast lensc, efficient image stabilization.
In case you have b) or c), you don't need a).
In the ideal world, all of us would get a)-z). But in this world it is pretty expensive to do a), and if b) provides the same benefits with lower cost, I am glad that b) exists.
Stephen_C: Given the RX100 and the G1X, why does this camera exist? The RX100 has pocketable with great IQ nailed perfectly. The G1X is larger with an articulating screen. The G15 is large with a small sensor and no articulating screen. Also, giving the G15 a gold and the RX100 a silver looks very much like favoritism.
This camera has better IQ on than RX100 in some situations (such as shooting @ tele end or closeups)
I still don't get how so many people can't get that capability to shoot in low light can be achieved by any of these:a, high ISO,b, fast lensc, efficient image stabilization.