nikon power: For all the cameras with zoom power that I've owned, my first shots with them was the moon. God had placed the moon up there in synchronous orbit for a reason. It's easier to compare the same moon's face as seen by all eyes and all cameras.
First of All, the moon is not on (geo)synchronous orbit, it's on a high orbit. You are confusing with TIDAL LOCKING, which doesn´t mean it's always perfectly aligned to the earth, google "libration", Second, God didn´t place anything in the sky, The moon was formed after a collision of a large Kuiper Belt Object with earth roughly 4 billions years ago. Google: "giant impact".
gLOWx: There is a common confusion between HDR needing TONE MAPPINGAnd EXPOSURE FUSION.I don't even speak about FAKE HDR with a single picture...
True HDR create an HDR image (usually 32bits) witch is not visible on any media (screen, print...).Then apply "Tone Mapping" to "compress" the "over"dynamic to visible image format like a JPEG, TIFF...
Exposure Fusion is NOT True HDR.Because it don't create any HDR (32bits) intermediary image.It just "pick" the bests pixels on each picture and create directly the final one.And it is faster.
So i can tell you one thing : there is NO camera doing True HDR nowadays ;)-They do fake HDR with a single picture by raising the contrast/saturation/etc...-They do Exposure Fusion with multiple bracketed pictures.
But they DON'T do True HDR.
True HDR, for now, is limited to more powerful devices like computers and may be tablets, phones.
Use any Exposure Fusion for natural result.And you can try SNS-HDR (my fav) if you want True HDR natural result.
Technically, any consumer monitor can only display 8 bit of colors, so anything above that, like a 14bit raw, already is a "HDR".
I allways tought this was possible, never belivied the excuse " a larger sensor would make the lens of a superzoom unpratical", and in fact, fujifilm proved those that argued that, completely wrong.
I was imagining a 1/1.6 10mpx sensor like those of the S90, but they did it even better with a 2/3.maybe this kinda of quality for a superzoom would canibalize on sales of bulky expensive zoom lens thenselves and some photographers would rather had a second camera just for zoom and as backup instead of a bulky lens for that matter. ANyway, price is a little killer tough.
Pavel Sokolov: Who need an unscratchable lens when you should buy new iphone every year? ;)
Let me gess pumeco, you live in Korea.
Sony allways have some interesting products. But their almost allways have a ridiculous price range. I'm out of this one too.
Is it even possible for such a tiny lens to resolve 8 megapixels of detail to the sensor? Yes i know this question is old and was asked when the 4s came out, but never read a response to it
LiSkynden: Just watched a video where Phil Schiller guy bragged about their new product and i dont know ... is it kind of sad that the main thing seems to be that "we made the thinest smartphone ever" and wow, its 18% thinner. I mean that is something. ... or is it?
That is lie. There is about 2 or 3 phones out there that are thinnest. So what?
Apple stated is the same sensor. Same specs. Lower iso is just software/firmware updates.
Especulating things that go against official statements from a mere EXIF sounds very unprofessional inmho. But that is now the basis with all the blind hype surrouding apple. The differences could easily be explained by revised processing software.
If indeed there is a new sensor with the same mpx, it's probably the worst gain in a revised sensor in history.
Omg 16mpx? Im disapointed. FZ40 was a total fiasco in IQ thanks to the increase from the previous FZ35, from 12 to 14mpx. I can´t see this having better IQ than the FZ47.
C'mon panasonic, you're better than sony. Now if i want a superzoon i will have to spend more on the FZ200.
Michael_13: Image quality is very limited - size and zoom range cause this. One of the few "superzoomers" with decent iq is (or better was) Panasonics FZ38.
SX260 for small superzoon will beat this crappy 18mpx any day.
yet, i miss my FZ35 quality. Even FZ150 hardly beats it with a much higher price point.
iae aa eia: well, they gotta have to continue to supply the consumers-led-by-the-megapixel-race market, right? i will not spend much time here saying how stupid is an 18mp camera with such a tiny sensor. i would never buy it (unless it had 10mp) and think rx100 is THE compact now.
but being positive about it, i liked the effectiveness of its image stabilisation system at full tele... and for not stopping here, i also liked dpreview using some dcr data to complete this review. and i didn't know dcr was the first review website. interesting to know that.
Even the RX100 has too much megapixel.
They should stop already at 10mpx at 1/2.3 Ant 12~16mpx on larger1/1.7~1 sensor.
Instead of phisically increasing sensor size, why don´t they cread some kind of marketing gimmick like "super sample 20mpx", with software sharpening + super sampling process like oldschool cheappo chinese interpolated cameras used to do? Would catch some ignorante casual costumers, and appeal to more enthusiast who when read that the camera is not really 20mpx, but only 10mpx, would be pleased.
G Davidson: Ouch, why the 18mp?! Keeping things in perspective might have made for a good camera, are consumers really so fooled into thinking this really measures resolution with such a minuscule sensor? Apparently so!
18mpx, ouch. Sony will NEVER learn.
Lame. Won´t buy. Next?
ericsan: What a boring new camera...such a long wait for a very basic product !!Will not wait for the upcoming & upgraded models...bye bye Canon, hello Panasonic/Olympus you will get my money for my needed backup mirrorless camera, your models are much more exciting,innovative...Cheers !!
Who needs APS-C, anyway? GF-5/PEN + pancake all the way.
CameraLabTester: There is just so much limited QUALITY that one can cram into a typical1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) SENSOR that camera companies use (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, etc)
The selling points are then waged on features, menus, bells and woots.
For a sensor size of 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm), the best balance is just 5 to 7 Mp!
But because camera companies have zombied buyers into thinking more Mps is more good, they don't DARE do a 5 or 7 Mp modern camera.
A 5 Mp or 7 Mp P&S with a 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor can set outstanding standards, but they won't do this... (maybe Leica, because they think OUTSIDE the mirror box...)
Each following year, revisions in sensors make then better than last generation in a pure PSNR account. So comparing a 4 years old 7mp camera to a 14 mpx contemporany is not a good thing, it doesn´t imply a camera twice worse in noise.
So is it true, that enthusiast larger pixel-dot cameras, aren´t 7mpx, they are 10, wich in fact, if you analise comparing to entry level APS, has a decent quality at low base iso. (LX5, s95, s100, G12, etc).
Also, i've found this article posted by camera lab tester, not very cientific. The artifcacts of looking like a "blurry aqua" background seens to me much more related to pure optic perfomance to this fable "theoretical minimum size for a light spot as 1.5 micron".Proof of that is the enthusiast compacts cameras at 10 mpx with more than proven exceptional quality outside the dslr world.However, each new gen in the last years, SONY INSIST IN KEEP THE MPX race, ALONE may i add. I will never buy a sony camera while others options wich SMALLER PPI
vtinitus: i had never planned to use sony equipment exclusively, but whenever i want something new, sony provides the best overall solutions for my needs. i'm very happy with my a55 and lenses (including some decent minolta glass, which is technicaly the same breed) and this little could be the ideal replacement for my aging dsc-h20. I also like its lines - let's hope it keeps up with its promises.
I have a suspect the IQ will be smaller than the S100 or even the LX5, specially at higher ISO.
jgoring: Looks like there's space... A little tab of double sided sticky foam, and my hot shoe optical view finder will fit right between the two microphones. Looks like Sony just obsoleted the S100.
so what that the sensor is 2.5x bigger? The dot pix is ridiculous small, smaller than the S100 and in par with any regular 12~14mpx 2/2.3 camera.
I'm the only one hat would rather have a bigger dot pix instead of those nearly pointless extra "8mpx" (or should i say, only 800pixels in horizonta?.)
Shutterbug108: I am hoping they will put a 1-inch sensor into a bridge camera with a big zoom lens.
i'd like that too, but i also think the 1 inch would need a lens too big. Maybe a quality sensor, 1/1.6 or 2/3 with 12mpx could make a good balance. And a 25-450 zoom would be more than enough for most pratical cituations.
Maybe using the Panasonics pancake zoom design could help reduce the lens size? That 14-42 lens is amazingly sharp.
i've missed and always wanted something like this for years now. A intermediary sensor betwen APS-C and 2/2.3 with compact body, fixed quality clear lens (altough i would expect a little bit extra zoom) for years.
But the only reason i wanted one of these, as a backup to my DSL, would be, apart from the size, for the reduced price. At 650USD this becomes pointless to me. Nearly the same price of my GH2, with hardly half the quality of it. I'd rather buy a GF3 for 350 usd.
Also, 20mpx? less than 1.5dot pix? That's even smaller than regular high quality 12mpx compact! What's the point of making the big sensor then? Come on sony, you never learn? All the other companies STOPPED bumping megapixels in small sensors. Why don´t you?