Guys, stop the RX100 BS, please !
With its f/4.9 at tele end, it has to resort to ISO1600 when these small-sensor marvels can use ISO400 to keep the same shutter time for the same scene.
This ISO1600 vs IS0400 handicap can not be offset by the advantage provided by its larger sensor.
So: enjoy your "invention", and let the rest of us enjoy the fast lens.
Rachotilko: I posted this three days ago in the 'XZ-2 samples' article's comments section, but I think it's relevant here as well:
XZ2 vs RX100 == f2.4 vs f4.9 == ISO400 vs ISO1600= massive XZ-2 IQ win at 100mm !!!
I doubt that is the case. ISO100 images from Sony look quite a lot better. Assuming DPR takes the studio shots with cameras tripoded, focusing of the two RX100's shots (with ISO100 and IS01600) is the same.
The only explanation why RX100's ISO1600 shot is so poor is the excessive noise & NR taking place.
@mosc: The most commonly used prime is 50mm f/1.8. When used on APS-C (by far its most common application), it makes FOV equivalent to 75mm.
On the other hand, your assumption (that the 28mm eq is the most used prime) is quite absurd, as it requires 18mm lens on APS-C. Not quite most common I would say
I posted this three days ago in the 'XZ-2 samples' article's comments section, but I think it's relevant here as well:
XZ2 vs RX100 = = f2.4 vs f4.9 = = ISO400 vs ISO1600= massive XZ-2 IQ win at tele-end !!!
Elaka Farmor: XZ-2, LX7, S110, P7700. All very similar image quality. Choosing between these is more about personal preference, thats it.
If you want another compact with better IQ and higher resolution than these above, there is camera for that too.....
The apperture equivalence calculation you used is valid *ONLY* with respect to the DOF.
When determinig the shutter speed, f/1.8 is f/1.8 regardless of the sensors size.
It means, if your full frame sensor & scene requires 1/100s @ ISO800 with aperture f/1.8, then the same scene requires 1/100s @ ISO800 even with sensor sized 1/2.33" with aperture f/1.8.
@MichaelKJ: I do not see a contradiction to my post. What I said was that S110's low light capability @tele is hampered by having both narrow aperture & small sensor.While P7700, G15, X10, LX7 achieve low-light @tele by virtue of fast lens, RX100@G1X by their sensor size.S110 and XF1 have advante of being small, but their low-light capability list limited to the widest angle.
This feels a bit lite "odd one out" type quiz. S110 does not belong to this category, G15 and Fuji X10 does, as this is a group of fast-lensed enthusiast compacts. Even at portrait focal lengths (60-100 mm eq), fast lens (combined with image stabilization) allow for low-light usage.
The other category - slow-lensed enthusiast compacts - is populated by S110, Fuji XF1, Sony RX100, Canon G1X. This group is oviously subdivided into two sugdivisions (S110, XF1) vs (RX100 G1X). Former subdivision is characterized by limited low-light capability at tele end. The latter has advantage of bigger sensor, offsetting the small-aperture deficiencies.
Marty4650: I never did get the point of superzoom lenses. If your object is to "never have to change lenses" then why not just buy a Panazonic FZ200 and call it a day?
The whole point behind buying a more expensive ILC is "changing lenses."
Even though zoom lenses have gotten better, good prime lenses really deliver the best image quality. And even among zoom lenses, a 3X zoom generally will perform a lot better than a 15X zoom will. This is simply because ANY zoom lens is a compromise, and the wider the range, the bigger the compromises involved.
Personally, I feel you are paying too large a premium for having the convenience of not changing lenses. A Nikon 2 lens kit would cover the same range at 1/4th the cost... and probably deliver better image quality.
But that's just my opinion. Others will certainly disagree.
"Also those super zoom lens on cameras like the FZ200 are inferior to the type of lens being reviewed here"I am not sure you can back your words with evidence. FZ200 is equipped with lens of superb quality.
HubertChen: In the following question I am completely out of my field of expertise. I am wondering:
What is the point of this Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR ?It has VR, but it is not working on the long end in the shutter speeds you need. It works on a DSLR, but can not harvest the DSLR quality. It is an All in one lens, meaning people buy it for convenience, but it is so big and heavy that it is inconvenient. It is meant for the casual shooter, but it has so many issues which you need to be aware while shooting which usually only pros do. I hope I managed to write this without sounding cynical.
So here comes my question out of curiosity and ignorance: Would not be a dedicated small sensor super zoom camera serve the purpose better ? Or who would buy this thing doing what ? Nikon usually makes sense to me. What am I not getting ? Why reboot the lens review with this thing ? I am really curious :-)
Very well put !
And while I appreciate your effort to stay away from cynical tone (which is quite rare in the current insultation-infested communication style), I cannot resist the temptation to be cynical myself:
Superzoom lens are mostly for those folk who base their appreciation of owning a DSLR not on its photographic (IQ or DOF or lowlight performance) merits, but rather on other benefits (mostly social ones) associated with its ownership. Yet they want to have a perceived convenience of all-in-one package. In this respect an above average price tag of such a lens is surely not discouraging for this class of prospective buyers.
On the other hand, operating a small sensor camera superzooms have become somewhat of a social stigma lately. Nobody wants to be seen with one !
CameraLabTester: And to think there's so many soothsayers out there shouting that the DX (and EF-S) lenses are all dead since the coming of the cheaper Full Frame cameras...
Full frame vanity can and will be defeated ! Well, I am ready to sacrifice my life in the fight against the full frame evil
Is this thing a gimmick, an insult, or an evident proof of upcoming idiocracy ? Actually, all of this at the same time.
I quite liked the DR section of the review, disspelling the myth DR is about highlight tonal curves of the JPEG output. DR of the sensor is fully determined by the SNR. All the rest is about curve tweaking done either by the in-camera development subsystem (also errorneously called "the JPEG engine"), or a computer development software.
The fact that tonal response curves vary so much even between technologically similar image sensors is mostly due to the firmware differencies.
There's only one thing missing in this package: attachable EVF. That would've made it spotless !
zinedi: Are the big players Ca/Ni/So so stupid or deaf and blind? Don't they see the way that Fuji shows in mirorless field? For cell-phones and similar toys there's Apple and Korea toy companies. Have you really understand what PHOTOGRAPHERS want?Try think about this :- big sensor => excellent high ISO IQ- fast prime lens and zoom = > excellent IQ- excellent viewfinder- through 100 years' proved handling design - range-finder style...It's so simple.
Well, how do you know this thing has low IQ. From sensor size ? C'mon, there are other factors.
This thing wipes the floor with the 5 years old APS-C sized sensors IQ-wise. And don't tell me those were unsuficient for quality photography.
Of course, todays APS-C have far surpassed it, but if you get D60-ish performance from this 1V2 thing, I'd say it is good enough.
altugo: What an ugly camera! ;-(
what an ugly comment ;-)
!@#$%, is this section an online herd mentality experiment or what ???
The DPR have done the 1V2 the worst disservice they possibly could by not displaying the camera's body in holding hands. I completelly changed my opinion regarding its aesthetics after seeing it held.
1, I don't mind the design2, Even if I minded it, cameras are not about looks. It's about taking the pictures & usability & ergonomics. In this respect it supposedly does the job very well.
Hi, maybe I am missing something ... why do we need FF ? I mean, current sub-FF cameras have IQ, dynamic range (after some PP), resolution etc. greatly surpassing anything a film could have dreamed of. The only exception is DOF. But that could bee remedied by larger apperture lenses, could it not ?Let's be realistic here: it is very expensive to manufacture a FF sensor. This comments section could have been an outstanding opportunity for letting manufacturers know, what we want, *within a realm of realistic expectations*. Instead it is plagued by all the unrealistic "sub-$800 FF" demands. Because it *is* expensive to manufacture a digital FF sensor.