Sdaniella: nothing wrong with padding filler models on the LOW END eco-budget lines, that's where the volume sales aimed at beginners predominate.
no need for 'lead innovations' whatsoever on these models, but the odd one now and then; so 'carry over' or 'trickle-down' features from higher models more likely than having 'exclusive innovations' in abundance on the lowest and thus cheapest models.
detractors should get over it; this isn't a new practice for any mfr; they all do it.
It's just that other manufacturers (Nikon, Sony, Olympus) have made enormous progress in sensor performance (in terms of DR mostly) since 2009; and this progress has transpired into their entry-level modellines as well.
Canon has made no such progress in 4 years now. Currently this technological lag translates to 14Ev (Sony, Nikon) versus 11Ev (Canon) of DR.
And it has serious implications even for JPEG shooters: the in-camera DR expansion modes (DRO, ADL) work much better with 14Ev sensors than with 11Ev sensor.
Rachotilko: Hopefully for Canon (but also for their vendor-locked-in customers) this performs much better in terms of noise floor - ie. the dynamic range - than 650D. In case is does not (and this seems likely), then their trailing behind the competition is truely woeful. But maybe Canon thinks we don't need shadow details @ low ISO.
well, RAW is not the whole story. Sensors with low noise floor give manufacturers more freedom when implementing the various tonecurve (aka "DR-expansion") tricks (such as Nikon's ADL, Canons HTP, Sony's DRO, etc) in JPEG engine.
Hopefully for Canon (but also for their vendor-locked-in customers) this performs much better in terms of noise floor - ie. the dynamic range - than 650D. In case is does not (and this seems likely), then their trailing behind the competition is truely woeful. But maybe Canon thinks we don't need shadow details @ low ISO.
This feels like they admit the EOS M did not do it. So they try to fight M43 from different direction.
RAW is great, no doubt about that. However, Panasonic should work hard on improving their NR algorithms.
Rachotilko: f/1.8-f/5.6 ? I'm no Olympus fan, but XZ-10 will destroy it in low-light, despite the smaller sensor.
But for me, having f/2.7 @ 140mm eq is much more attractive than 50% larger sensor. The number f/5.6 is so unpleasant to read and think of.
Ad "smallest of the small": well, pocketability is the main point of both P330 & XZ-10. If the strict pocketability is not a hard constraint, then there are multiple options (P7700, MX-1, XZ-2, X10, X20, EX2F ...)
And then there is RX100
Timmbits: hmmm...LOVE the image...
but on a humorous note, I don't know which is worse: wearing nylons in a field, or running with scissors. ;-)
Ido love the pic though. ;)
In that case I have to say, that we admire here not only a good work done by the photographer, but nature's masterpiece as well.
f/1.8-f/5.6 ? I'm no Olympus fan, but XZ-10 will destroy it in low-light, despite the smaller sensor.
shaocaholica: Resetting a photosite mid exposure is still 2 exposures.
But not all of them at the same time ! That's the trick ...
- in conventional sensor, there is one readout time
- in Fuji EXR, there are two different readouts for two groups of the sensor pixels.
- in this Rambus tech, each pixel is reset when it needs it. Much more efficient use of the sensor area than the Fuji approach
I won't criticize it since I don't understand the details. However, I do have some superficial hypothetical opinions regarding the idea.
1, From the short description it seems as if it actually choses to overexpose and takes care of the overexposed pixels via their resetting mechanism.
2, It sounds as a smarter version of Fujifilm EXR mechanism. Similarly as in the case of EXR sensor, one group of the pixels is used for capturing the shadows, the other group is used for capturing the highlights. But in the case of the EXR, membership of a pixel to either group is predetermined (the well known EXR pixel layout), while in case of the Rambus' BinaryPixel technology the membership is decided based on the actual exposure process taking place.
3, Practice has shown that EXR approach works in expanding the DR, but some sensor area is actually wasted. The Rambus technology essentially means you'll get the benefits of EXR without the infamous EXR drop in resolution.
Hugo808: So the advertising department gets to say it's a sharper camera because of the lack of an OLPF, which you wont notice unless you blow your pics up to 6 foot wide.
But no OLPF means you might get moire which ruins your pics permanently (no matter what they say). Are we supposed to be happy about this? I've waited ages to upgrade my D90 but I am not going to risk moire as I shoot a lot of weddings. You can hardly ask the bride to remove her veil because Nikon can't make a decent camera any more.
I think photographers should be put back in charge of camera design at Nikon. Or at least give us a D7100e which has the OLPF put back where it's supposed to be!
The fact is that with resolutions this high the risk of moire is almost negligible.
But you're right: weddings are a special case because of the veils.
Rachotilko: I don't understand people complaining over the sensor size, when it's actually IQ that matters.
Of course, IQ depends on sensor size, but it is not the only parameter determinig it. There is the technological advancement thing, which many forget about.
This device beats Olympus XZ-1 in IQ, and yet XZ-1 was such a spectacular success. I don't see why XZ-10 should be priced any less than the XZ-1 was.
There are however very good reasons to believe the sensor will be significantly better on XZ-10 than on XZ-1.
About the lens: yes, I think the lens will perform the same.
The DOF control on sub-1" devices ? C'mon ! Maybe for close-ups.
SX50 beating XZ-1 is no speculation, but the hard numbers. See DxOMark.
Regarding XZ-10: Yes, it's speculation, but given the current state of the technology and the market, the opposite outcome will be very unlikely.
Best 1/2.3" sensor of today (Canon SX50) beats XZ-1 hands down. There's no reason for XZ-10 to do any worse, when in fact both Canon and Olympus use Sony P&S sensors these days.
I don't understand people complaining over the sensor size, when it's actually IQ that matters.
This market segment does not deserve to survive.
Macx: More megapixels does not equal less resolution guys and girls. You HAVE to compare the final output. Looking at it on a pixel-per-pixel basis is meaningless in a photography context.
Now, I agree that 20 megapixels behind a comparatively tiny lens aperture sounds like trouble, and it obviously isn't marketed for enthusiasts, but maybe Casio uses the extra data-points for some clever automatic noise reduction and sharpening which is appreciated by the snapshooters this is marketed for.
Or maybe they just want to distinguish it from other P&S in its price range.
Hey, but what about diffraction ? Such a tiny pixels are more sensitive to the effects of diffraction. You can combat the resulting loss of sharpness by using larger apertures, but this thing has also tiny aperture: f/3.5-f-6.5.
BTW, this thing has CCD sensor. It's very well known that CCDs are particularly badly affected by high pixel density.
K_Photo_Teach: The Nokia 808 Pureview showed that high megapixel counts on small sensors can work.
Nokia 808 Pureview had 1/1.2" sensor => three times the area of 1/2.3"
It's hard to do simple things, but you've managed it !
ilya82: Got mine yestersday. The first thing I can say -for me this camera is a reincarnation of the legendary 5D :) Pictures has the same charm as 5D had.Very happy!
After reading your comment I've got a bit curious and went through DPR sample gallery of 5D. While the samples were certainly great visually, I am astonished how much shadow noise was present in higher ISO images in those days.