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 ?
What a sad year,
We've experiencing yet another substantial decrease in P&S quality, with focal lengths on travelzooms being pushed into unrealistic ranges. Megapixel race seems to be revived (after its refreshing stagnation - and even reversal - in 2011).
At the same time the prices of the newly introduced cameras in the higher categories (DSLRs, mirrorlesses, premium compacts) increased more than noticeably.
Let them dump the compacts & concentrate on introductio of a wide variety of reasonably priced lenses for Q system. That win them minds&hearts.
Thank you for great reaview. This is how the proper DPR should look like.
I still think, that camera as unique as for example FZ150 deserved the same: proper analysis of noise, DR, lenses.
I have only one small request regarding this review: the 6MP output (at DR100 & DR400) should be added to the studio comparison tool.
The same was done in case of F80exr. For a reason.
Rachotilko: When reading the comments, I keep being amazed by how many people can not grasp simple fact:
X10 can do f2.8 at 112mm, with ISO800 still giving great results with excellent DR.
I think that alone makes X10 surpass RX100 & G1X in terms of usability.
@GaryJP: 1.4 stops higher ISO (at the same noise evel). At the same time 1 stop slower lens. So, you're right, X10 does not surpass G1X. But the advantage of G1X is not that dramatic.
When reading the comments, I keep being amazed by how many people can not grasp simple fact:
Do I understand right that all this fuzz is 'bout some kind of American ritual of producing a heroic-looking perfect (in the commercial sense) portraits of the olympic athletes for symbolic purposes ? Kind of like the portraits of cosmonauts ?
If this guy's task was to create that kind of American "perfection" that can be seen in TV series from 70s, then he failed miserably.
Once upon the time, there was a camera named Coolpix 8800 ...
Just imagine that optics coupled with current CMOS sensors. Instead of that, they force us going the interchangeable lens way
Thank you for the review.
I understand why the reviews are much shorter then they used to be 5 years ago: there's simply much more models being launched now then it used to be in the past. And that's especially true in the category of P&S cameras.
In the past, almost every review included at least a brief quantitative evaluation of sensor (noise, DR) and the lens (sharpness, distortions, CA). So I understand some readers are unhappy with the verbal-only a assessments.
Anyway, P&S cameras are much less interesting these days than they used to be, with manufacturers gradually lowering the quality of optics & pushing the sensors to extremes.
But in that light, dear DPR, I would really like you to do much more lens reviews. Especially in the mirrorless domain.