DPReview007: OK, so this one was clearly designed by marketing people, not photographers. It was designed to sell, not to take great photos. Two astounding choices:- they crammed 16 Megapixels on a 28mm2 sensor... Ahhhmmm- they crammed a 10x zoom into it...
It'll basically give you the same image quality as a crappy little "super zoom" compact...
Let's hope Nokia, Sony and Google Nexus (i.e. Nikon) will make more intelligent choices when they show their hands later this summer / year.
Thankfully, 2013 will be the year of the real camera phone finally.
As an anecdote, I bought my ex GF a Sony RX100 for her birthday. She complained that her sister had a much better little Sony camera because that had a 20x zoom... The fact that the lens in that 20x zoom camera was slow and its sensor was tiny didn't bother her at all :). Clearly, she would have been much happier with a $200 camera with a soft 20x zoom than with the superb $650 camera she got...
Whatever makes the customer happy. Long live capitalism!
Hmmm, I have never seen a high quality lens that had 10x zoom. The reason is simple. It's impossible to make one.
The sad thing about this camera (from my perspective / for my needs anyway) is that it has a twice as big sensor as the average cell phone camera. But that is completely cancelled out by a high pixel count and a lens that is a stop slower than the lens in an average cell phone camera. The IS should compensate hopefully.
Still, my point is, a lot higher IQ could have been jammed into this device. Samsung opted to please the crowd that understands headline numbers only, and not what makes for high IQ. Which makes perfect business sense.
That's precisely the point. The priorities should be:- large sensor- fast lensThat give you good low light performance (90% of cell phone photos on my FaceBook are taken at parties / in restaurants in the evening / at night.)
As opposed to a large zoom range (and corresponding slow lens as space is limited) and a large Megapixel count (corresponding to small photo sites...)
Sadly, even most tech reviewer sites today quoted the Mpix count and the zoomX number without saying anything about sensor size as if that was irrelevant...
OK, so this one was clearly designed by marketing people, not photographers. It was designed to sell, not to take great photos. Two astounding choices:- they crammed 16 Megapixels on a 28mm2 sensor... Ahhhmmm- they crammed a 10x zoom into it...
How does this compare to the Nikon D600's or D800's uncompressed video output? Is this better? Still worse?
If it is better, how much better and why?
Could this be done on the 6D or is the 6D's buffer too small for this / it's image processor too slow?
huyzer: I hope they come out with Nikon RAW video output. But it looks like they're focused on Canon, and getting that done right, first?
The Nikon D600 does have raw video output out of the box, without having to hack it. Is that not the same as what this is? If not, how is it different?
DPReview007: How does this compare to e.g. the Nikon D600's uncompressed video output? Is this better? Still worse?
Could you please elaborate? Why is the Canon's video "by a massive gulf" better than the Nikon's? Also, I'm not finding any comparison video on youtube comparing the Canons and Nikons. Could you please add a link?
How does this compare to e.g. the Nikon D600's uncompressed video output? Is this better? Still worse?
If this or the Coolpix A had an f1.8ish lens, I would already own one. Hoping Sony or Canon will come out with an APS-C sensor pocketable camera with a faster lens before Christmas. (Rumor has it, Canon may announce one in June?) That RX10 would be nice to see.
Until such time though, my pocket camera remains the RX100. Yes, the sensor is three stops smaller, but the lens is 1.3 stops faster, and it's a zoom lens = not enough of an advantage for the Ricoh GR / Nikon Coolpix A to upgrade. Especially not at the Nikon's list price...
Anybody disagrees? Am i doing the math on this right?
1. Is the 6D better in low light than the D600 Nikon?
2. How much better?
3. Is it better only in JPEG or also in RAW?
4. If it is better, why does DxO Mark have a much higher ISO rating on the D600 (all high end Nikons)
5. (bonus question to DPReview,and for the record, I love you guys) What's the ETA of the full review please?
DPReview007: Could somebody please explain why Sony didn’t include a built-in flash?
Please no smartass comments about the camera’s low-light performance. One may want to use a flash for all sorts of reasons, and one may not want to carry one around at all times.
True. And my friend who is a professional and uses a 5D Mark II absolutely hates that. The Nikon D800 and D600 both have built-in pop-up flashes. We’ll see if the Canon 6D also has one when it comes out. I would not be surprised if it did.
The question remains: why no built-in flash in this one?
Could somebody please explain why Sony didn’t include a built-in flash?