Alphoid: That's a pretty impressive camera. In the review, please review the lens quality. Bokeh, CA, distortion, coma, the full gamut. That's critical with a non-ILC camera.
So that's actually what makes shopping for fixed lens cameras hard. The lens matters more than the camera. I like the aperture vs focal length curves, but beyond that, buying a fixed lens is buy-and-pray.
I'd be happy to give up a lot of the review for something about the lens aside from sharpness (which I don't much care about). Flare, bokeh, I think, are the most important, followed by uncorrectable CA and distortion.
Not including these was reasonable for point-and-shoots when they were cheap cameras with tiny enough apertures everything was in focus regardless, but now that the background blurs as well as a basic dSLR, excluding it is criminal*.
* Not literally; for literal criminal, see the threads on ADA/WCAG
Tungsten Nordstein: 'Nikon's *freshly-revived* flagship APS-C line'
you make it sound bad - like it was on the verge of expiring or something.
This is an impressive piece of camera. The D7x00 series were competent, but not impressive. Nikon had not released a state-of-the-art APS camera since the D300 series expired.
That's a pretty impressive camera. In the review, please review the lens quality. Bokeh, CA, distortion, coma, the full gamut. That's critical with a non-ILC camera.
Alphoid: This is a serious question: Could someone explain a specific application which is better served by the Hasselblad 50c than by a Sony A7RII? By that, I mean technically and concretely describe a setting where a photo taken by the Hasselblad would be superior to one taken by the A7RII, and why?
I can (kind of) see the merit of 100MP for specialized applications, but the 50c just confuses me. I'm genuinely trying to figure out if this is a serious product, or if it's designed for the same market which would buy a Stellar/Lunar/etc., but a little less obvious.
@Hasselblad The PDF, honestly, sounds a lot like the material from audiophile companies.
@Revenant All else isn't equal. Lenses for dSLRs are better due to economies of scale. They have better IQ and much wider apertures. More light hits the sensor, overall.
The wider dynamic range does sound like a potential advantage. The advertised spec is 15 bits. Sony A7RII has 13.9 bits, actual measured as per DxOMark. It's a place a bigger sensor ought to have an advantage, but we'll see whether this holds in practice once DxO measures the Hasselblad. All else being equal, it should be a 0.7 bit advantage, I think.
But, with dynamic range, you need enough. Beyond some point, it's more than my monitor or printer can handle, unless I do some pretty grotesque transformations on the colors of the image to make it look like one of those cheesy high HDR prints. I don't find myself limited even on my RX100 with 12.5 bits.
With regards to "mid-tone gradations," can you post a side-by-side?
luisflorit: 10 seconds in photoshop.
Photoshopped wide aperture looks very artificial compared to the real thing.
@AlexCHStudio Colors are not a question of sensor size. It's a question of the types of materials used in the filter for the Bayer array, and whatever further post-processing happens. Sensor is Sony, so presumably same Bayer mask. Sony has much more coin to invest in a good processing pipeline.
@mosc The A7RII gives better depth-of-field control, actually. The Hassy has no fast lenses like the Sony-Zeiss line does. When you combine lens speed and sensor size, the Sony wins.
@Revenant There won't always be IQ benefit to a larger sensor. This is a technical question. A lot of people believe $5000 audio cables sound better than $25 ones, but that doesn't stand up to double-blind tests, or to any evidence. I'm trying to figure out if there's any actual reason why the Hassie should perform better, or if it's the same psychosomatic type of belief that it ought to perform better because it costs so much.
Real advantages named so far: Leaf shutter and flash sync speed.
Nope. You can't do this in Photoshop. This is bokeh. It's based on distance to lens. The subject isn't (or shouldn't be) swirled, even if towards the edges of the image. The background is blurred, even if in the center. To do this in post, you'd need a lightfield camera.
Making a lens like this is a good idea, it's just that this has way too much swirl.
kelstertx: Waaay too much swirl. I have a couple of FSU lenses, and I'm not even sure I like the small swirl I'm getting. Like most things, it's best in moderation.
My old Minolta 70-210mm lens gives a slight amount of swirl to the bokeh, and it's a beautiful effect. I was excited when I saw the headline. When I saw the photos, I felt like puking. The boy looked almost okay.
This is way too much swirl.
This is a serious question: Could someone explain a specific application which is better served by the Hasselblad 50c than by a Sony A7RII? By that, I mean technically and concretely describe a setting where a photo taken by the Hasselblad would be superior to one taken by the A7RII, and why?
Yup. That's what we needed in the consumer space. This takes can take photo and video editing from requiring a pro to where anyone can do it.
Lytro failed to execute in the consumer space. Let's hope they succeed here, and can bring it back to ordinary mortals.
If not, I expect some of the camera array cell phones will. Same result, different implementation.
ciybersal: Hi all. Im novice.
Was wondering would this thing give better IQ then A7rII combined with FE 1.8?Not that I can afford either. But just curious. Thanks all.
For most purposes, no. For most purposes, an A7RII with a good lens will beat the Hassie for normal photography. That's the magic of mass market engineering and production. Hassie will be better for a few specific applications -- landscape, large format prints, some product photography, and rich but clueless oil princes.
The Hassie will win on dynamic range and resolution. The A7RII will have better low-light. That A7+FE will have as good as or better depth-of-field control than any Hassie lens except for the HC 2.2/100mm. A7 will have much better autofocus, ergonomics, etc. The Sony Zeiss prime lenses (I don't know about the FE) are also generally a little bit better than the Hassie lenses, again, thanks to mass market economics.
Hassie tried to cater to the rich audience by rebranding Sony cameras, ultimately making a better product, but found that destroyed it's brand, so they're back to making overpriced objects themselves.
fmian: It was a terrible business decision for them to market and make their products for consumers in the first place. I still don't understand why they didn't push the technology in the security, investigation and surveillance realm.Instead they ended up making toys for peoples curiosity.
Security and surveillance now does a lot with machine vision and object recognition. That's radically easier if you have depth data. Lytro gives that.
Some of the surveillance systems are quite impressive. They'll track people from camera to camera, detect patterns of suspicious activity, and even be able to do things like locate the moment when a piece of merchandise goes missing.
It's no longer just a rent-a-cop in front of a TV screen.
vadims: I'd give Lytro all props in the world for innovation, but to say "product requirements had been firmly cemented in the minds of consumers by much larger more established companies" instead of a humble "we screwed and are going to learn from our mistakes while starting over" is a bad omen... I can see a quote like "Hollywood got brainwashed by larger companies and did not appreciate our excellence" in their future.
I was thinking about getting original Lytro to just play with it, but what finally stopped me was their insane inertial zoom touch-slider. I can barely live with anemic zoom ring of my Sony RX100II, and zoom-by-touch is definitely too much for me. Taking into account all the other craziness of the design, my weird-o-meter went into red zone, and I bailed out.
Sure, it's more noble to think they went against Canikon et. al., but fact is, they got lucky to be able to "compete" only with themselves, and still lost.
Yup. Great idea. Completely failed execution. Poor camera. Poor software. Poor marketing/understanding of the market.
I'm not sure the pivot will do much. Companies that fail to execute usually fail to execute. It's usually a management problem, often combined with corporate culture problem.
The only result of this is likely to be a patent minescape that will make it that much harder for any other company to follow along.
Lars V: Strategy perspective:
No surprise here. While Lytro is innovative, in the consumer and pro photographer space their products are a solution to a non-existent problem.
Compare the strategy to that of Pelican Imaging, which with its depth-aware sensors pursued machine vision, gesture recognition, automotive and military applications. Though in the end, Pelican broke its own back trying to pursue the consumer market. Go figure.
Refocus is not something I find useful if it means reducing resolution of ALL my photos to 2-4 Mpx. Throughout my life and career, whenever I could use refocus due to missed focus it would be with an otherwise spectacular photo that demanded full resolution.
In summary... Silicon Valley's recent focus on disruptive technologies and business ideas sometimes lead to a loss of contact with reality and market. True, you can sometimes educate the market but in this case it seems that Lytro has simply ignored the actual needs of consumers.
It's a solution to many clear-and-present problems. They just haven't finished it. Light field technology can make photo editing an order of magnitude faster and easier. You want to cut the subject out of the photo? No more messing with magic wand tool or masks or similar things. Want to blur selective objects or the whole background? Done. Want to combine two photos? Easy.
I was very excited by the technology, but they never got around to shipping anywhere close to a finished product. I'm hoping Canon will do RAW mode for dual pixel at some point, since it's the same basic technology, and I expect a huge market of aftermarket software would come up.
Entrepreneur here: It's a lot harder to sell to consumers, actually. Making an inroad with the right few people is very easy in comparison. You can network or cold call there. That's easy for a small company, even, but trivial for a VC-backed company with tens of millions of dollars in funding.
In comparison, the consumer space is brutal. You need millions to know about you to make sales, and you're competing not just with Canon and Nikon, but the likes of Disney and Coca Cola for building branding in the consumer space.
As I'm growing as a photographer, I'm growing increasingly frustrated with dpreview reviews like this. Lens quality can't be evaluated without looking at bokeh, coma, flare, and all that jazz. As superzooms become serious cameras, that ought to be included in some way.
Alphoid: I am distinctly underimpressed, albeit unsurprised -- there's a tradeoff between zoom range and IQ. I kind of hoped Sony got around it, given the spectacular IQ of the RX100 series, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't care much about sharpness, and actually not even as much about ISO. For me, it's about overall aesthetic. None of the images were actually all that pleasant. It's hard to tell all the reasons why, but certainly unpleasant flare and bokeh have something to do with it.
1. You're confused about the physics of lenses. f/stop will tell you light intensity at the sensor. If you're trying to get reasonable noise levels at reasonable shutter speeds, that doesn't matter. Total light at the sensor matters. For the same generation sensor (say, top-of-the-line Sony sensor from the same year), if you go from 1/3" to full frame, equivalent aperture predicts noise+shutter to within maybe 20% across sensor sizes. f/stop is off by a factor of almost 100.
2. My complaints weren't about sharpness, but about overall aesthetic. I've almost never found myself limited by lens sharpness as much as all the other aspects of IQ. For birding, it might not matter quite as much -- the background is often out-of-focus enough for bokeh to not be quite so important. But for what I do, I'm not sure I'd find IQ acceptable.
It's not fair to compare aperture like that. f/4 on 1" will behave like f/11 on full frame or f/6.9 in APS. Likewise, 300mm f/5.6 on APS can be cropped to to 520mm f/5.6, while still giving 1" sensor area.
However, up to this point, all of my comments were about personal disappointment. It's not a camera I'm interested in. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it. Different strokes for different folks and all that.
What I will also say is I've seen a lot of newcomers buy cameras like this expecting good image quality (big lens, big price), and only learn much later that they paid for zoom range they never use, but get photos worse than a smaller $400 camera.
Well, let me put it this way. Before the RX100, I never expected decent performance out of a point-and-shoot sized camera. The RX100 blew me away. It fit all the image quality of a basic dSLR with kit lens into a pocket-sized package. It was unique.
Traditional superzooms had mediocre quality, but were also cheap consumer items at $300-$500 or so.
When the RX10 III was announced, I hoped it was a similar kind of step as the RX100. The RX10 III weighs and costs more than a dSLR with superzoom lens. At $1500, I had hoped it made a step in optics to make it worth it. It doesn't seem like that happened.
Honestly, I expect a lot from a 1" sensor. I'm very pleased with the photos from the RX100 and LX100.
My expectations for a superzoom lens are more mixed. As I said, I was disappointed, but not unsurprised. I had kind of hoped Sony had pulled out some magic to make a 25x zoom lens do okay, but it's apparent they didn't. I'm not actually sure what the point of all that flexibility is if the photos aren't worthwhile. I'd gladly take a more conservative 12x zoom with decent images over 25x zoom.