Marty4650: It might have been interesting to see how well the Nikon 1 AW1 performed against these cameras. Compared to the four cameras reviewed, the Nikon 1 has a "huge sensor."
@mike fl aperture area is not an absolute value. It's relative to focal length. focal length/aperture is aperture diameter. Bigger sensors have longer focal length's and consequently larger aperture diameters.
Rod McD: I'm getting deja vu......... Why can't at least one camera manufacturer offer a decent WP camera? There seems to be an assumption inherent in these designs that outdoors types aren't interested in IQ or camera controls. The alternative of DSLRs in housings are simply impractical for water sports, climbing, caving, skiing and so on. And the housings are often more expensive than the camera...... Surely there it would be feasible to offer something in between - a decent size sensor (1", APSC?) a fixed high quality zoom lens, raw and reasonable ergonomics?
Nikon 1 AW1
Not much happening is this market. You might as well have put last years model from Panasonic an Sony in ass well. Fuji also has one XP70. I don't see much news from Samsung and Casio though. Manufacturers should make more of the video function of these camera's otherwise they will be shot out off the water by actioncams.
thx1138: This will be a race to the bottom and hopefully literally and not metaphorically. Send them all to Davy Jones' locker I say!
I reckon you should have thrown in the Nikon AW1 as a reference just to see how the tiny sensored jpg only monstrosities compare, not that the AW1 is without issues.
Sony needs to make an UW version of the RX100III.
I'd get a waterproof keyboard first.
D1N0: Aluminum lenses would look better in this.
Gravitational lenses would also be cool. You could really suck in your subject.
Aluminum lenses would look better in this.
Beavis and Butthead should comment this video.
pgphoto_ca: Be carefull....it's not a f2.8-f4 with this sensor (2.7x crop)....it's f5.6-f8 or more.......the crop factor need also to be apply to the aperture :)
A real 400mm f4...is much bigger ! :)
A FF with a 9.1-146mm lens or one with a 25-400mm lens? (That would be a monster at 2.8-4) It's not just the crop factor of the sensor that matters (relative DOF) also the difference in focal length (absolute DOF). This is not a 25-400 zoom, it's a 9.1-146mm zoom so DOF is different in both relative as absolute sense.You can only use crop factor to calculate relative DOF when the focal length is the same in absolute sense. (Like you can between aps-c and FF with the same lens. When FOV is the same but focal length different. (9.1 vs 25) you also have to take into account to fov of those focal length's.
marc petzold: The FZ1000 does have a better EVF, higher resolution as the RX10, but the Body doesn't seem to be weather-sealed as the RX10...at last, i've read nothing about it. The Top Display of a RX10 does come in handy, i'd say, too. Like that feature on my DSLR.
The RX10 has a fixed lens, it is part of the body. So it is entirely weather sealed.
@tjbates of course an that is why solar panel size doesn't matter. They're just pulling your leg to sell you more of them :p.
You get the same amount of light per mm^2 but a FF has more mm^2 and gets more light. That's not reinventing physics but pure arithmetic.
A bigger sensor gathers more light than a smaller one at the same aperture. Same as a bigger sail gathers more wind than a smaller one at the same wind force. Strangely nobody is talking about equivalent beaufort.
Somebody I don't know stops impersonating somebody else I don't know. How intriguing.
Now we know why dish washers have no window. They would need a parental advisory badge.
D1N0: Coolpix A? Who ever heard of that. It's price $200 more at launch has now dropped below that of the GR
That's different. I am omniscient!
Coolpix A? Who ever heard of that. It's price $200 more at launch has now dropped below that of the GR
D1N0: It's already being dumped on iBood.nl for €549,95 (including kitlens).
So when a source is in favour of Sony it must be wrong obviously. In that way you can always be right. I waste my time discussing with the likes of you.
plasnu: Does anyone still choose DSLR over this at this price point?
It's just that people who shoot mirror less have to ridicule DSLR users to justify their choice. According to them mirror less has no disadvantages and people who can't see that are clearly very stupid. Very narrow minded of them. I can see a use for mirror less, but it's just not for me yet.
based on the iq comparison tool on this website. Also DXO-mark rates the sony higher. The samsung clearly has less detail at base iso.
I think the a6000 blows this out of the water IQ-wise
D1N0: These sony camera's should be used with compact light weight prime lenses. (this probably goes for any compact mirrorless ilc except the Pentax Q-7.)
IBIS would be better since you can use a lot of legacy glass on it with the right adapter.