Regarding review: LX7 is obviously a concept based on optical performance of the lens, inviting user to choose low ISO even in low light situations. That's why some quantitative testing of the lens performance (edge-to-edge sharpness with aperture wide open) would be very wellcome. The image stabilization efficiency test is missing as well.
This thing has *fast* lens (even on the long end) of very high optical quality. That makes it an outstanding device, in some aspects more usable than Sony RX100.
I am really tired of the 1" and RX100 mantra claiming this to be the sole way to achieve good low-light capability. This is different approach ("small sensor+fast lens") to achieve low-light capability.
Bridgecam with 1" sensor, quality optics 28-300eq f2.8-4.5, manual zoom.
Will it come true ? Panasonic: are you listening ?
Well forum's more or less functional. It is the galleries that need improvement. Search by camera&lens model would be awesome. Or fulltext search in the tags, at least.
Mescalamba: Dying breed. Eventually extinct due increasing performance of cellphones and lowering price of mirrorless. Even today you can buy second-hand mirrorless for price of new PnS.
They should either do mirrorless, or try cellphones. Or leave business. It wont happen from day to day, but it will happen quite soon.
Lowering price of mirrorless ? That would have been great, but it's not true, unfortunatelly. Every generation of mirrorlesses gets more expensive, not to mention the lenses.
Rachotilko: I would like to ask the informed ones here (people with actual experience with different sensor formats):
Herr Schulz talks about different image characteristics of the bigger formats compared to the 35mm FF. I take his claim seriously - at least because there are some supporting comments in this discussion.
My question is: what is the primary cause of the difference in image characteristics ? Herr Schulz used an analogy: S is better than FF the same way as FF is better than small sensor compact. Which I think is completelly wrong: excessive noise of compacts is sufficiently demonstrable in common print sizes. But D800E is capable of taking high ISO shots without noticeable drop in IQ.
The only part that can bring about advantage in terms of IQ to "above FF" (such as S or MF) systems is *optics*. There simply are limits on what FF lens can do (in terms sharpness, distortions, CA, diffraction), that can be overcome only by means of the format enlargement.
Is this assertion right ?
@Rage: I actually opened the DPR's studio comparison tool, comparing Nokia 808 with D800 and D800E. Both at ISO50.
Nokia (not an innocent camera phone, actually, but almost 1" sensor with sharp prime lens) is utterly destroyed by resolution D800E. But even D800 resolves significantly better than Nokia.
That means size matters when it comes to the resolution.
I would like to ask the informed ones here (people with actual experience with different sensor formats):
I can't believe it ! Is the phrase "full frame compact" alone sufficient to excite so many people so much ? Given all the downsides (price, odd VF, 35mm lens) ?
I guess fullframed NEX with EVF & lens interchangeability will be much more useful.
Earthlight: So much for "pure view" then...
@Bruno: The 808 brought so much excitement because of the 1" sensor. People here know, what kind of results one can possibly get from 1/3" sensor. Regardless of OIS.
1/3" with PureView ?hahahaha
PS: I remember visiting Finland in years 99/00. What a proud and serious company it was ! For example, I saw what an impact it had on technical education system in Finland.
It is so sad to see it in the hands of characterless lying charlatains nowadays.
Heie2: I find the 3 months it is taking to review this camera and the ensuing "trickle" of sections within a complete review (which gives none of these "installments" any substance and context) insulting - how many cameras have you guys reviewed in the mean time?
DPReview - Fair and Balanced, right?
Compared to previous years, the quantity (& partly quality) of DPR's reviews has dropped recently.
They have probably cut costs, and therefore lack the competence and/or productivity of staff.
JacobSR: It's a bridge camera, it's suppose to look like a DSLR. Don't they all? So what's all the fuss here.
You missed one thing from your comparison: IQ. I am sure A2 would fall short in this respect to modern CMOS sensors. It was 2004-generation CCD.
Regarding ergonomics & prosumer feel: I am sure Sony X-S1 would be at least a good match to it.
Rachotilko: I applaud the choice of 1/1.7" BSI-CMOS. Up until recently, 1/1.7" CCD was the standard enthusiast-compact sensor type, with BSI-CMOS produced in 1/2.3" format only. But those 1/1.7" CCD compacts have often been sufficient in providing quite good IQ. I guess introduction of BSI-CMOS in 1/1.7" format will make quite dramatic improvement in low-light capability of enthusiast compacts.
Regarding those of you demanding 1" sensor: Sony RX100 is f4.9 at 100mm eq, this Nikon is f4.0 at 200 mm eq. Furthermore, Sony's sensor is FSI-CMOS, which implies lower sensor surface area utilization compared to BSI. Let's see how will the lens and BSI advantages of P7700 translate into offseting the larger sensor area of RX100.
- Nikon P7700 lens is probably quite brighter than f4.0 at 100mm eq. It is f4.0 at 200mm eq.
- no, f4.9 on 1" has much shallower DOF than f4.0 on 1/1.7". But it is not brighter in terms of sensor surface illumination. That means that for a given scene and a contant ISO, RX100 will require longer shutter time than P7700. Regardless of the sensor size.
I applaud the choice of 1/1.7" BSI-CMOS. Up until recently, 1/1.7" CCD was the standard enthusiast-compact sensor type, with BSI-CMOS produced in 1/2.3" format only. But those 1/1.7" CCD compacts have often been sufficient in providing quite good IQ. I guess introduction of BSI-CMOS in 1/1.7" format will make quite dramatic improvement in low-light capability of enthusiast compacts.
Can any kind fellow reader explain, what are the main points of difference - in terms of features and general usability - between this device and - say - Panasonic G3 ?
It seems to me that they are priced similarly, yet - at sensitivity level of ISO3200 - the output from G3 provides remarkably more detail, despite much lower nominal resolution. What does this Nikon DSLR provide that Panasonic provides not ?
I compared the output from HX20V to the output from its predecessors, HX9V. I saw an increase in the luma noise level, but no increase in definition of the details.
What was exatly the point of raising the pixel density ?
Guys, it's f1.4-2.3 ! ISO400 is completely clean (cleaner than larger LX5). You think you need more ?
1, re apperture: great, great , great news !
2, sadly, no manual zoom. That would make it a dream machine.
locke_fc: Everything looks great on paper, except for the sensor size. This has put a dampener on it for me, at least until we get to see what noise looks like at high ISO. If it's equivalent to the competition (mainly RX-100 and EX2F), then my LX3 will have found its successor!
Why would you need high ISO with such a fast lens ?
Ben O Connor: Images does not show nicer DOF than before. There is no low light fotos to see benefit of F 1,4.
I feel a bit doubt that, is that a good strategy now? everyone highers their sensor size, Panasonic making it smaller !
To make lens the faster ?