fuxicek: back in film days I used compact minolta http://www.amazon.com/Minolta-Freedom-Zoom-150-camera/dp/B0000AUFK7.. I wonder, how did they squeeze the full frame into tiny body with tiny lens and why its not possible with digital?
1. It's not a dslr (and is it that smaller than the sony a7)?2. That lens: 37.5-150mm f/5.4 - 11.9, 6 element/6 group constructionWell... you get what you paid for I guess? :)
It would be interesting to see some image at base iso 200
Zoron: no IBIS? about time Fuji....before it is too tale
Sony mirrorless don't have IBIS afaik
The link to the 10-24mm is broken:}http://www.dpreview.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf10_24mmf4_r_ois/
StephenTee: It was recently commented that at a given ISO of 3200, a longer exposure was needed for the Sony RX-100 II than the Fuji x20 (1/8s vs 1/15s for roughly the same f-stop).
However, since the RX-100 II "base ISO" is 160 vs the Fuji's 100, you could claim that it's expected for the ISO or exposure values to be about 2/3 different in the exact same light/exposure conditions.
Again, not really. If you set the iso 3200 on both cameras, what the "base iso" is doesn't matter. It's just 3200 for both sony and fuji. My observation was that you can't compare them on the same ISO value when the other values (F, speed) turn out to imply that sony needs to get more time, hence possibly needing a further ISO increment
Causio: I just noticed that the RX100 II overestimates ISO to the point where - being iso the same - it shoots at half speed as the Fuji X20. You can download the night shots at iso 3200 for both and check yourself: Sony is 1/8 sec f5, Fuji 1/15 f4.5. Sony shot at iso 6400 brings it at 1/15 sec (f5). Even considering the tighter aperture, sony overestimates iso more than Fuji does (2/3 stops?). In real world, this would translate as shooting at lower iso with Fuji, being the desired speed and aperture the same.It would be nice if dpReview made people notice in an OBVIOUS way on their comparison pages, that there is some iso overestimation going on for all cameras, and varying from model to model.
Doesn't make much sense, at least explained that way. I can reply that it needs more light because the sensor is bigger... if you put the same light received at the same time by a smaller sensor, distribute that amount of photons all over the bigger sensor and the photo will be darker. Hence, it captures more light because it is physically necessary for achieving the same exposure. And guess what? The sony needs in fact LONGER...
I just noticed that the RX100 II overestimates ISO to the point where - being iso the same - it shoots at half speed as the Fuji X20. You can download the night shots at iso 3200 for both and check yourself: Sony is 1/8 sec f5, Fuji 1/15 f4.5. Sony shot at iso 6400 brings it at 1/15 sec (f5). Even considering the tighter aperture, sony overestimates iso more than Fuji does (2/3 stops?). In real world, this would translate as shooting at lower iso with Fuji, being the desired speed and aperture the same.It would be nice if dpReview made people notice in an OBVIOUS way on their comparison pages, that there is some iso overestimation going on for all cameras, and varying from model to model.
JohnMatrix: Does the screen flip past 90 degrees? i.e. can the social media slave who uses this camera easily take a picture of themselves?
I think you can use your phone for that, with the canon app
tommy leong: can this do self portraits?the entitlement generations MUST have....
I think you can use the phone app to use it as a remote - including framing.
Daniel from Bavaria: I just compared it to 5dmkII and the Fuji X-Pro1 (as I have these two) to bring it in some context for me.So the results for the D600 are very good, a tat better then the mkII and in Raw from 1600 on also better than the mkIII - but it is clear visible that the improvement of the SN-ration is not as fast as in the last years. With one exception: The Fuji X-Pro1 with it's APC-sized x-trans sensor really shows to big two what is possible nowadays. Kudos Fuji - great job against the FF-sensors! In RAW it keeps up with the most recent FF-DSLRs up to Iso3200, and only looses margins after that. And in Jpeg it is just easily ahead up to Iso6400. Wow!
Now, please Adobe, get rid of the last bit of folliage issues in RAW, and the X-Pro1 is near to perfect in terms of image quality, especially regarding the sensor size!
The X-Pro overrates its iso value, if you compare it with Nex 7 in the studio shots, you'll notice that the sony shots at double speed. So you set your high iso value on x-pro only to discover that you'd need a stop higher iso to have the same speed as the counterparts...
nalex: 24MP full-frame CMOS Sensor with on-chip phase detection AFAND...Fixed-mirror design SLT
How dumb is it? Sony put phase detectors ON SENSOR and put semi-transparent mirror IN FRONT OF IT.Why not mirrorless then?
...Because the dedicated AF phase shift detection sensor is better?
Charlie Jin: I don't think that DPR really understood the purpose of theweight of K01. It was intended for "professional feel". ;-)
So what's the point of a mirrorless camera then? The decision of making this camera compatible with slr lenses defies the whole mirrorless idea. Except for Pentax's marketing department very personal idea of product design, the only thing they achieved here is lower price. So basically they invested a lot of money in defining the Q standard (with new lenses etc) and couldn't afford to define another mirrorless standard with other lenses. And about the design, this is gadget-thinking (even the designer's signature is there... good for his reputation isn't it? :D), not camera thinking, yet with pro-quality expectations (including buying more "serious" lenses for it). Weird to say the least
Dave Peters: Not compatible with Lightroom 3 ? So I can't load my existing catalogues and even if I re-import the photos to a new catalogue they will appear different and require reprocessing. I think forward compatibility is an essential feature. They should have kept all the old processing routines so that the program could detect old files and show the images correctly.
The release version can now import LR3 (and older) catalogs.
I made a test with the cityscape photo:http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1352344/dsc00429?inalbum=sony-slt-a77-preview-samplesShot with Carl Zeiss 16-35 F2.8 at F8.0, iso 200.
Downloaded it, reduced the size to 16Mp, scaled up again to 24, overlapped with the original on a new layer. Enabling/disabling the layer, I could see NO DIFFERENCE at all at 100%. My friends had to hear the mouse click to realize that I was changing from original to down-up-scaled.So, either we'd better wait for the raw files, or the question is: what are those 24 Mp for, if not just marketing strategy? They can't even be useful for cropping... And the sensor is more expensive. The quintessence of the market driven megapixel race? Or the lens is really that inadequate? I can hardly believe that the raw will have such a big room for improvement