photolando: I've been shooting jpegs most of my pro career. I have never once had a problem with "jpeg artifacts". I've sold 24"x30" and have seen larger made from jpegs. They look fantastic. And yes, I shoot raw as well if I feel it is needed so lets not start that stupid amateur argument.
Maybe this is aimed at pixel peepers because I've yet to hear anyone really complain all that much about the look of a jpeg image. Ever!
@Lambert: I totally agree, but that's what I said. The M9 renders very good DNG files, and by PS, LR or Capture One you can get very good JPG from it. But the in-camera generated JPG files are at least one quality level below.
Then you are lucky to have a camera with a good jpeg engine There are quite a few cameras out that show lots of artifacts or other problems leading to sub-par image quality. Examples are the Leica M9 (lousy jpg but very good dng output), diverse Sony cameras (artifacts), Panasonic GX7 (too aggressive noise reduction at higher ISO). So some people see these artifacts in their images. I assume, you don't use one of these cameras for your business. But I agree so far, that these problems do not lie in the jpeg format itself. They are caused by the in-camera processing used by their manufacturer.
Kekal B Hollow: sigma dp2Q is the best camera of all time...nothing beats it, no D810, no 645Z, no NX1, no phase one, sigma is the best camera ever made
I assume, this post is a joke.
Summi Luchs: My guess is that they will use the sensor-shift to de-Bayer the image. They can move the red, green and blue pixels between the exposures so, that they get a full RGB sample for every pixel (like a Foveon sensor). This would not give us 'true' 40MP resolution, it is simply the same calculus of 'equivalence' Sigma uses for its cameras. (Sigma uses a factor of three, Oly gets a lower factor of equivalence, as the Bayer sensor is not RGB but RGGB).The gain would be better color information, that what makes Foveon images special.
I don't think they do the same as Hasselblad and other earlier attempts to increase true resolution by sensor movements. Earlier sensors had more blind gaps between the photosites making such techniques meaningful. Newer sensors have a dense array of microlenses (to gather more light per photosite), so there is not much left to sample in between.
@duartix: I agree that increasing the sample rate leads to a higher resolution even if you get highly overlapping samples. Some spatial highpass filtering then could generate some more 'distinct' pixels from the blurry raw sample. But it would be tough to increase resolution by a factor of 2.5 without the need of too many samples leading to much longer exposure times. Only if there would be strong light falloff of the microlenses towards their edges the overlap would be smaller and the gain per additional sample would be higher than my initial guess. So let us see an wait what approach Olympus will go.
My guess is that they will use the sensor-shift to de-Bayer the image. They can move the red, green and blue pixels between the exposures so, that they get a full RGB sample for every pixel (like a Foveon sensor). This would not give us 'true' 40MP resolution, it is simply the same calculus of 'equivalence' Sigma uses for its cameras. (Sigma uses a factor of three, Oly gets a lower factor of equivalence, as the Bayer sensor is not RGB but RGGB).The gain would be better color information, that what makes Foveon images special.
Price is much too low for the targeted audience.
Volkan Ersoy: From Sony website, on 5-axis IS:
"When using a third-party mount adapter, performance, functionality and operation are not guaranteed and Sony will take no responsibility if a malfunction occurs."
I take this as an indication that 3rd party mount adaptor producers can work it out with their new models.
Doesn't surprise me. One of the usual blahblahs to keep users from using off-brand parts. And maybe the technical issue already mentioned by Smeggypants. I don't know if Sony will provide manual input for focal length lkie Olympus or Pentax.
Good news for all waiting for a D300 replacement: This camera did not take engineering time from other projects. One might even doubt that it took designer time...
At least logical step in the evoluton of digital cameras. Most of today's digital cameras are more or less conventional cameras where electronics have replaced film. This is one of the ways to use electronics more creatively. Time will show if this device will be useful. It is like evolution of life. There were several periods of high radiation (many new kinds of species appeared within a reletively short period) but only few of them survived.
Summi Luchs: What surprises me most is the mediocre quality of the (prime) lens. Making good lenses is Leica's core competence. Lens quality is the first reason to buy a Leica (or is it second to prestige today ?). I assume Leica engineers know that and can do much better. So I have to ask if the tested camera was a dog - probably a misaligned lens ? Even that would put a shame on their QC (at least in relation to their price level). If not, I get more and more difficulties to understand Leica's business model.
Good center sharpness today is not the main differentiator of good and mediocre lenses. Even cheap kit lenses often offer good center sharpness wide open. I would have expected better edges for a premium price and the corners do not catch up very well even at f 5.6.
What surprises me most is the mediocre quality of the (prime) lens. Making good lenses is Leica's core competence. Lens quality is the first reason to buy a Leica (or is it second to prestige today ?). I assume Leica engineers know that and can do much better. So I have to ask if the tested camera was a dog - probably a misaligned lens ? Even that would put a shame on their QC (at least in relation to their price level). If not, I get more and more difficulties to understand Leica's business model.
Summi Luchs: Good news. So I can employ the designers and make a new luxury car based on a Subaru.
Subaru is a good car, as well as Sony makes good cameras. But it would be ridiculous to turn a Subaru into a $300K luxury car as it was with the Lunar etc.
Good news. So I can employ the designers and make a new luxury car based on a Subaru.
marc petzold: nothing bad meant - but the two first woman pictures could have been made with any other camera, too..there's no special "Leica" Feeling from it, either way - also, these compositions are in nothing short any kind of something special, no offence...the 2nd picture also looks like blown out highlights into the hairs of the model, too.
I understood the picture with blown-out highlights as an illustration for the text (whe the author complains about blown out highlights). It is not meant as a "good" photo.
Everlast66: I think it is laughable to call anything associated with the M4/3 system "PRO"!!
Surely there would be one or two enthusiasts, but no normal professional will rely on a M4/3 sensor for their professional work.
@maxnimo: So all professional sports photographers are amateurs as they don't use 8x10" ?
Your article suggests it's good news that you no longer have to buy a GX7 and a 2.8 12-35mm lens if 12-35mm is all you need and want a m4/3 sensor + built-in EVF. But, honestly, I doubt that this ILC-body-lens combo would have been taken as a serious alternative to a premium compact.
OTOH, for photographer needing the full flexibility of an ILC a fixed lens 24-70 equiv. camera makes no sense. You can easily get equivalents for 14-600mm focal lengths (and more with adapters) using the ILC. The only point is, that before large sensor compacts became available you HAD to buy a DSLR or (later) an ILC if the image quality of a small sensor compact wasn't enough. But this problem has gone - at least since the first RX100.
So, this comparison looks somewhat anachronistic to me, even if these cameras share some of their guts.
Richard Murdey: A deeply conservative camera, upgraded but not modernized. Which is fine, this is the D400, the D300 replacement Nikon APSC owners keep pleading for but has withheld so far. It's pitch is really simple: big, heavy, fast, and ASPC. 910g! The new Nikon D750 is 755g! And full frame! And close enough in price to fall under consideration.
What I'm trying to say is you really have to want the 7DmkII - you have to need the very specific features it gives you: 10 fps, basically, and a buffer to match, and the reach of ASPC - for this camera to be in play. Otherwise you might as well buy into full frame.
Hey, maybe Nikon has a "D9000" lined up for next year or the year after. Maybe. But its facinating that they have so far diverged here where traditionally they match one-to-one across the board. Different strategies for once, and it will be interesting to see how these pan out.
In times of sinking DSLR sales I ask if it would be wise for Nikon to compete in 7D's segment. The D7100 represents the higher end of the mass-market allround DSLR and is placed more against the 70D than the 7D. In the (smaller) prosumer market Nikon now has a wide range of FF offerings and shines with high resoulution DLSRs. Canon targets action/sports/wildlife shooters with the 7DII who benefit from its crop factor, AF capabilities, frame rates etc. Canon does not participate in the high res FF pixel race. Likely, such a diversification will save R&D costs for both companies. Of course I understand all D300 users sitting on their lenses and getting angry for a missing update. But Nikon's ambitious FF activities and the already half-hearted D300/D300s update indicate that this companies might have chosen this way. I also may be wrong and Nikon comes with a D400 and Canon with a 50MP FF next year.
Summi Luchs: I see the 4/3 sensor walking. Since its introduction it walks to ever lower camera classes. It started as DSLR sensors for cameras, that even had some pro ambitions (though not really well accepted by pros). Then, it entered the m4/3 interchangable lens cameras and 4/3 DSLRs were given up. Now it starts to enter the compact camera class.
Not bad, if you look for a capable compact. But the 4/3 world is stuck with the 16.3MP sensor design, that is around for a couple of years. DxO ranks Sony's 1" 20 MP sensor higher, in spite of the 4/3 sensor's larger pixel areas.
Again, it is good news, that the 4/3 is available in compacts now, but I miss the sensor innovation in higher end m4/3 cameras. In the Sony/Nikon/Pentax APS-C world higher end ILCs and DLSRs use higher resolving sensors than entry models and the entry is where the high end was a few years ago.
Does the 4/3 consortium need this walking as they aren't able to improve their sensors ?
I didn't complain about the "walking" itself. Only about the problem, that the top level m4/3 cameras are not equipped with sensors that catch up to the level of Sony sensors. Its not only about pixels, it is dynamic range, noise etc. I have a m4/3 system and I like it for portability, usability and lens quality. But I need considerably more efforts to avoid highlight clipping (or visible shadow noise) than in my actual and past Nikon cameras. And its a shame that Sony's 1" sensor is regarded better in this respect.
ZhanMInG12: People here complaining about the F4 should note that no other major mirrorless system has a UW zoom faster than F4 in equivalent DOF. The Fuji 10-24mm is F4 and also rather big and heavy.
If you absolutely need F2.8 there is the much revered Zeiss 15mm Distagon ZM. True German optics at the lowly price of $4600...
And don't forget the size and weight penalty for f 2.8. With the comparatively small A7 series cameras the smaller f4 lens makes much more sense. Fast and small FF UWA lenses are only available as primes.
I see the 4/3 sensor walking. Since its introduction it walks to ever lower camera classes. It started as DSLR sensors for cameras, that even had some pro ambitions (though not really well accepted by pros). Then, it entered the m4/3 interchangable lens cameras and 4/3 DSLRs were given up. Now it starts to enter the compact camera class.