Does RAW actually offer benefit in smartphone-size sensors?RAW has real benefit with DSLRs and regular point-and-shoot type cameras because the image sensor can capture a larger range of information than the jpg format can store. But the margin decreases as sensor size decreases (decreasing dynamic range).Do smartphone sensors actually have headroom beyond what jpg can store?
And separately I can't help thinking that if you're fussy enough about your images to manually post-process RAWs (because there's no point shooting RAW if you don't) then you probably should be doing photography on a device with a proper handgrip and shutter button (ie a real camera even if only a compact and not a smartphone).
sdh: To those who are making a fuss over the level gauge: WHY?
Activate the grid, pay attention to horizontal or vertical elements in the composition and visually align them to the grid.
In my experience a physically level camera yields an image that looks tilted, more often than not.
Interesting replies. I agree on principle, that it generally sucks when a new version of something loses a feature that a previous version had. But I can't help feeling that the level gauge was marketing fluff from the beginning. A lot of these comments left with an unanswered question: How can physical level-ness of the camera be more important than visual & compositional level-ness of the image?
To those who are making a fuss over the level gauge: WHY?
On page 7 in the Raw Improvements section they state that their RAW-processed version of a picture had "less false color" than the corresponding camera jpg. What is "false color"? I've never read that term before.
Retzius: For those who are confused as to why this lens is relevant, compared to the Nikon equivalent it is smaller, lighter, and much cheaper, with equal to better optical performance.
It is not targeted at your average Dpreview brick wall shooter who examines his sensor for dust particles. It is targeted at a first time Dslr shooter with an intro level body who doesn't want to change lenses that often.
And they sell alot of these
There's the mount conversion service too, which I believe the 18-250 does not offer. Fair enough. I still like my 18-250. (And actually prefer its cosmetics. :-)I wonder if the focus ring on the new 18-200 will rotate during AF. I bet yes! :-)
Retzius, Sigma's 18-250 serves the purpose you describe. So what's the point of this new 18-200? It will need to be either substantially better than the 18-250, or substantially cheaper. But the 18-250 is already pretty affordable and good.
What is even the point of this lens? Sigma's 18-250 is still pretty new, far from obsolete. Is this new 18-200 supposed to be better? Or just cheaper? But the 18-250 is hardly expensive. I have the 18-250, bought it for ~$100 more than it currently goes for, and Im very happy with it.
What's the point of this new 18-200??
Let's see, same lens, sensor and IIRC processor as the P7700. Is there any reason to expect image characteristics to any different from the P7700?
Antonio Rojilla: Best ergonomics and set of controls in a compact camera ever. Now if its sensor and lens were like those of the RX/QX100...
I never indicated preference of zoom range vs sensor size. 28-200 (equivalent) range is a foundational spec of the P7xxx series. If they were to drastically upsize the sensor at a cost of reducing lens range & brightness (or, drastically enlarging the whole camera), then they'd essentially be creating a new line. I'm not saying one approach is whoelsale better than the other; everything's a tradeoff. My point is simply that, going large-sensor w/ less lens range would make the camera not really a P7700 successor.
Good luck fitting a "compact" f/2.0 - 4.0 lens with 7x zoom in front of that sensor...
abortabort: No eye sensor is a bit of a downer on an otherwise very good camera. Also hope it isn't the 921K dot EVF from the Samsung NX10 and Olympus VF3 - They were just awful. 921K dots is fine, but it needs to have good solid colour reproduction and brightness that other 921K dot EVFs to date have lacked.
IMO no eye sensor is a deal breaker, not a downer.
I used a P7700 as my carry-everywhere camera for 6 months and never used that settings dial on the upper left corner (where the EVF will live now in the P7800.) IMO this is a superb change. I hope they improved the poor operational speed of the P7700.And maybe if the P7900 has an eye/proximity sensor to switch between EVF & LCD, then they'll have homerun IMO.
This review states the Oly XZ-2 has optical IS. Everywhere else I read it's sensor-based IS (same as in the XZ-1). I suspect this review is mistaken. Can dpreview confirm?
sdh: I cannot figure out a reason for this camera's existence. What does it offer over an entry-level SLT model (or generic entry-level DSLR for that matter)? Is the price floor that different? And even if it is, once you start buying lenses, like you're supposed to with any I.L.C., then body price differences diminish further.
And FWIW I'm generally a fan of Sony. In the MILC world I like the shape and feel of the NEX's over the most of the m43's bodies, outside of Pana's mini-DSLR early G models. And I still don't understand why the SLT system didnt become a game changer. (Because on-sensor phase AF will supercede it soon?)
But I just don't see the point if this new model...
peevee1:I'm not convinced. Is a lowest-spec'd SLT really that much lighter? Once you accept the bulk of a camera like the A3000 (holster-type case, space in your backpack/carry-everywhere bag/whatever) you're not going to notice a few ounces.Flopping mirror, Separate focussing/metering sensors > So what? My Canon Rebel meters and focusses as well as the Sony A33 and Pana G2 & GF3 I had for a while. The notion of SLR lens front/back focussing is soooooo overhyped.
I cannot figure out a reason for this camera's existence. What does it offer over an entry-level SLT model (or generic entry-level DSLR for that matter)? Is the price floor that different? And even if it is, once you start buying lenses, like you're supposed to with any I.L.C., then body price differences diminish further.
Am I the only one finds "street photography" generally insipid and uninspiring? This just takes it to a new level of tastelessness.
RobertPaul1956: what happens whena. Police pull him overB. someone shoots back
b) someone shoots back
If you mean with a gun, then justice will have been served.
This insipid trend of "street photography" can't fade soon enough IMO.
How about a *true* fullscreen loupe view (where the image extends fully to the screen edge, with no flyout bars on the edges or blank background space). Instant access to the UI (folders, filmstrip, etc) in Loupe mode is nice but it's crazy that LR still doesn't have a true full screen view.
Is this something one stops caring about with a huge monitor??
AndreyT: In Library mode, with single-photo preview:
When one hits a portrait photo in the film strip and then hits a landscape photo in the film strip, the preview for the latter will be displayed blurry. The only way to make 4.3 display landscape previews properly (sharply) is hit landscape photo before another landscape photo.
This bug is present in Windows version of 4.3. It sounds quite similar to the "fixed" bug mentioned above, but for some reason they say it is "Mac only". I surely hope they fixed it in Windows version as well.
+1 I see this too and very much hope it's fixed in 4.4. Interestingly, I see the bug 18MP images but not 12MP. wierd..
I sincerely hope DPR will clearly address operational performance in the P770 review. The P7000 was criticised harshly for being slow compared to its peers. The P7100 was noted to be improved, but I don't remember a clear message about whether the problem was truly resolved or if the P7100 was still slow for its class. Please answer this for the P7700!