I'm not sure if the premium Tamron thing will play out. Virtually all of their lenses fail with moderately heavy use, and they don't really honor warranties. That's not the kind of reputation higher-end consumers would go for. Moving up-scale from there would either involve dramatically shifting economics on their low-end craptics, and starting to make things out of materials which don't fail with a bit of use, starting to honor warranties, etc. It would break economics on everything they make, and it would take years for reputation to catch up.
Price leader is where they are, and probably where they should stay. Or a clear split in branding.
duckling: Next time you visit an exhibition put a polarizer in your pocket. It might help with them reflections.
Indeed. I'm consistently disappointed with dpreview's photographic technique...
Not a bad idea. Horrible implementation...
Speaking of photography, this would be a good time for a showcase of your skills. The things-cut-in-half photo was horrific. I'd love to have a nice, high-res shot to appreciate the lens internals.
Seems nearly perfect. I'll wait for reviews. A few questions remain:
1. Is it programmable? 2. Does it have full manual controls? 3. Will it break in my pocket after 15 minutes regular use? How is that nice lens protected?
I'd actually much rather have the whole thing be the thickness of the lens, and perhaps fill that extra body with battery. I wouldn't mind a thick phone nearly as much as I would one with a lump sticking out for the most delicate part.
So close, and yet just not there at all. No manual mode? Come on....
If they add that in a firmware update, and if my A-mount lenses work well, and if doesn't have connectivity issues, I'll probably get one.
Alex Sarbu: "The K-S1's closest competitors are the Canon SL1 (EOS 100D) and Nikon D3300, both of which have lower MSRPs (not to mention street prices) and are equally capable.""Equally capable"? Even the viewfinders, or the AA-less viewfinder (with AA filter simulator)?Street prices shouldn't even be mentioned when talking about a newly announced camera's MSRP.
The K-S1 seems to blow the SL1 and D3300 out of the water. I would agree the K50 is just better, though. I do like all the innovation, and I wouldn't be surprised if the K-S2 added a second dial, and was a blockbuster.
Now if there were only laptops with sensible resolution screens. It's funny to see cell phones get this far ahead of Microsoft. That's a (former) 20-year old monopoly for you.
Polytropia: It does not give "a 16-29mm equivalent range". That makes no sense. 16-29mm equivalent to what? Depth of field is not the same as a 16-29mm lens. A 16mm lens would have a different angle. How is that equivalent?
Stop lying to people, DPReview. And stop promoting 135F-format every freaking chance you get. Only a small minority even cares anymore about 135F-format. It's not helpful to continually relate focal lengths to a format that only represents a tiny percent of the market.
It's 2014 not 2004. Please get with the times and start using degrees to describe angles, instead of relating everything to a format few people use anymore.
I will bet anyone here $10,000 USD that less than 5% of photographers have ever looked through a 16mm lens on a 135F camera, let alone owned one or taken a picture with one. So how is it useful to make the analogy of this lens to that particular focal length and not even state that's what you're doing?
@Richard Although I bought a FF camera a few weeks ago, I'm actually with Polytropia here. I have an intuitive feeling for what "18mm FF equivalent means" simply because I've been shooting for half my life. Even I get confused at the ultrawide (8mm vs 4mm? I'm clueless). My wife? My mom? My kid? My coworkers? None of them will have any idea. It's a broken nomenclature. The instant you start talking about 45 degrees or 90 degrees or 5 degrees, more people will understand. That's only a good thing.
Us geeks? We'll figure it out too, with time.
On a sidenote, thumbs up for finally adopting equivalent aperture. That also simplifies things.
Michael Ma: Instead of shrinking the sensor size to a fraction of what it is now, why not just put a 4x4 array of existing 1/3.2" sensors? Wouldn't that be cheaper than building your own sensor from scratch?
@Rishi you're very confused here. It's the combined surface are of the sensors that determines shot noise performance. Period. That accounts for all light loss due to inter-sensor spacing, etc.
The only things it does not account for are aperture, and any losses in the lens (difference between f/stop and t/stop).
If it's waterproof, Android-based, has a large sensor and fast lens, and full manual controls, I'll buy it, effectively no matter the price. If Sony marks at $2k, I'll drop it in a second.
Beat Traveller: Meh. I've tried to use MIT's MOOC stuff before, from the neuroscience courses, and I found it to be massively over-hyped. It's basically just the slides, lecture notes and references from each course: material that costs them nothing extra to produce because they put it up for the students anyway.
Without more detailed explanations it's useless as a learning tool. You might as well borrow a textbook from a public library.
You're confusing MIT MOOC stuff with MIT OCW. The MOOC stuff is pretty good. Of course, the photography stuff is not the MOOC stuff (yet).
Ramjager: So where is the test of the AF performance like tracking etc.There is more to a lens test than lines per millimetre.Take a browse around the forums to see the more important part of the review DXO completely omit.Its not pretty.When oh when will DXO start testing properly and include AF performance which is far more important than an extra 5lines per mm of sharpness.Try tracking a bird with this lens..good luck.
DxO is not a camera review site. They make software for correcting issues with lenses and camera sensors. They collect data to help allow that. They generously share some of the data with the public.
If you'd like to see a culprit, it's dpreview.
m_o_b_y: What is the reason to discuss about completly exaggerated and useless ISO ?To stupefy the poor client ?:-)
Because it depends on the application. Not everyone is a studio photographer.
aerorail: shoot some hard scenes like snow capped mountains on a clear blue sky day with dark foreground rock/trees
I'm wondering how it would do for photojournalism. Would you mind some shots in the Niger Delta region?
I'd like to see how video compares with limited light. Full frame readout should help there substantially.
Tord S Eriksson: Encouraging others to steal copyrighted pictures is still a criminal offence, I bet, not only in the US.
And why would this seem to be applauded by Facebook is not that surprising, as that company tell you explicitly that Facebook have the right to freely access your uploaded photos, to do what they want with them! And they always strip the EXIF from your photos for that reason only, I bet!
If anyone here believed the water-stamp on your pictures was fraud-proof, then you have a very naive conception of the world around you!
I do not believe you. To the best of my knowledge, contributory liability is a common law concept which requires a much more substantial enabler (for example, the original Napster passed the test, but even then, barely). Please cite the law.
Alphoid: This may seem like a highly unusual request, but please do compare digital zoom in the review. The RX100 is a bit short on the telephoto end. It has a 1" sensor, high megapixels, and a fast lens. A 2x digital zoom would still place it at, hypothetically, identical performance to a 5 megapixel image 1/2.3" camera with f/2.8 lens at 140mm equivalent, or a 1/1.7" 7MP sensor camera with an f/2.8 120mm-equivalent lens.
That's plenty for portraits in most settings if it works well.
"If it works well" is the key question. How does the autofocus system hold up? Do issues with lens sharpness kick in? Is it usable in that mode? Etc.
@PicOne Digital zoom isn't the same as a crop. In terms of RAW image to JPEG, it is, but before then, the camera has an autofocus system, an EVF, etc. Digital zoom is supposed to behave the same as normal zoom -- without, for example, reduced resolution or refresh in the EVF. If you're in automatic mode, it shouldn't pick a focus target outside of the zoomed-in area. Because you're cropping, it's a bit more sensitive to focus errors. Etc. I don't care about 'Clear Image' upscaling, but I do care about how all those other things work. At least on paper, a crop from an f/2.8 lens should outperform an f/4.9 lens, so the RX100III may just be better than the I/II. But if the ergonomics or AF or similar are broken, it might not be.
This may seem like a highly unusual request, but please do compare digital zoom in the review. The RX100 is a bit short on the telephoto end. It has a 1" sensor, high megapixels, and a fast lens. A 2x digital zoom would still place it at, hypothetically, identical performance to a 5 megapixel image 1/2.3" camera with f/2.8 lens at 140mm equivalent, or a 1/1.7" 7MP sensor camera with an f/2.8 120mm-equivalent lens.
Alphoid: Seems like another home run. Sadly, not quite worth the upgrade for me. There's a half dozen possible ifs that would push it over, but most likely, I'll go for the IV. If Sony can keep up this momentum, it'll be hard to resist whatever that upgrade will bring.
If it was a few hundred less, I'd do it. If it had a mike input and audio levels, it'd replace carrying video equipment. I'd do it. (I'm especially excited by this with the full frame readout)
The EVF certainly does justify the price hike, as does the faster glass. If I were buying new, I'd get the MKIII for that alone, not to mention wifi, full frame video readout, etc. There's nothing else in the class. It's definitely worth the $350 more than the RX100 to me. It's just not worth the $800 more for someone who already owns an RX100.