FodgeandDurn: Apologies for putting this here instead of the 'report issues' button wherever that is - the intro says this has a "23mm f/2 lens". This actually got me excited, but unfortunately it is an error. If you've divided 35 x 1.5 to give some 35mm equivalence wouldn't it be 50mm equiv?
Lou P Dargent: you need to specify more of the assumed conditions in order to draw a conclusion.
On the same sensor, your point about a 23mm F2 and 35mm F2 is correct = the 23mm F2 will capture light from a wider field-of-view, in direct proportion to how much smaller its physical aperture is, meaning you get the same amount of light *per unit area*.
The problem comes when you use a smaller sensor and don't collect all the light projected by the lens. A 23mm F2 lens on an APS-C camera still projects the same light intensity as a 35mm F2 lens on full frame, but your sensor doesn't see all of it. (You have the same light per unit area but only sample a smaller area). Or, to refer back to your first case: the smaller sensor can't 'see' the wider field of view from which the 23mm would capture the additional light.
At which point, the 23mm on APS-C and the 35mm on full frame are seeing the same view and the same number of photons per square mm. But the full frame sensor has more sq mm
regordyoll: Why a 1" sensor when a Sony A7 has a full frame sensor or a Sony A6000 has an APS-C sensor? I'd like to understand the reason. Thanks!
Lots of popular high-end camcorders are based around much smaller 1/2.8"-type chips. A Super 35/APS-C camera with a 27-270mm equiv zoom would be much larger, a Full Frame camera with one, still larger.
Bjorn_L: This reads like it was written by a fanboy not an analyst.
If you need 4k, then the lack of stabilization would seem to be a deal killer on this. Particularly when combined with the slow lens. The Gh4 simply seems a better solution. It too has all-in-one solutions which cover the same range but don't give up stabilized 4k video. Sealed lenses too, if you want that. Plus you have the option of using f/1.4 or even f/0.95 lenses and high end add-ons. Ultimately the gh4 seems to be a better solution and while you can add many $1000s in add-ons to it, to achieve the modest specs of the xc10 you could do so at a lower price point.
If you don't need 4k video (and very few really do) then the Sony rx10 seems a better solution. The lens takes in 4x as much light at the long end. It is wider and about as long. The rx10 has the same DR & bit rate, stabilized zoom, sealed lens.
I fail to see how this is worth considering by anyone not just in love with it because of the brand.
It's written by someone with a video background who is enthusiastic about the *concept* or the product and what it represents (another step towards convergence).
I wouldn't extrapolate from that to assume fanboyism of this particular product, less still the brand. I believe Dale would have written the same thing, regardless of which company produced it.
John C Tharp: Some goofy points:
-305Mb/s is still possible on the faster SD cards-That baseplate looks like it will get in the way of gearing for zoom and focus pulling-The type of AF motor used isn't mentioned- if it's a USM-type with direct manual override, cool, but if it's an STM-type, focus pullers will likely be frustrated!
The current fastest speed class is the U3 rating for UHS-I and II cards. These only promise that they can maintain *at least* 30MB/s, which is some way short of the 38MB/s that 305Mbps represents.
So some SD cards might be able to cope with those data rates but there's no way of being certain, at present.
ttran88: Sony sensor? Good camera!
Sony doesn't currently list a 12MP 1" type sensor as being available to customers (though this isn't always immediately made public).
We've not seen a 4:3 aspect ratio 1-type sensor before, which is what this camera's currently using.
mosc: weren't soft portrait lenses 85mm?
56mm is an 84mm equivalent on APS-C (nearer 90mm equiv on Canon).
jefrs: The aperture controls the amount of light. If you use the same shutter speed and the same f-stop and the same focal length(!) then the same amount of light hits the sensor irrespective of its size. The F-stop is defined as focal.length / iris.diameter. It's simple optical physics and I am a professional physicist: it's like a funnel where the smallest hole determines how much stuff goes through it, it has nothing to do with the size of the bucket below.You reviewers really, really, really need to get this or go back to school to learn your stuff.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say, here.
If you wish to continue this conversation, please send me a private message - it will avoid the huge lag between responses and won't add clutter to the bottom of an article that's about something else.
Clearly I don't feel the examples I gave were misleading, or I'd not have linked to them. Regardless of whether you like the 'equivalent aperture' terminology, the actual f-numbers are stated and it should be clear that there is *a difference* between what the same F-number means on each format, and that this difference is directly proportional to sensor size.
Yuvalm: So, the bottom-line of this whole discussion is that in terms of Noise-Level, any DSLR with bigger sensor-pixels is better, be it FF or APS-C, or any other crop format.
In that sense of Noise-Level, bigger formats do have an advantage, as long as their given resolution, is not over it's advantage-limit, overshot by smaller sensor-pixels.
Still, bigger formats, suffer from expensive, bigger, heavier gear, which is an innate disadvantage to field photography (studio photography excluded), and not with noticeably better picture-quality than smaller formats, given the same size of sensor-pixels, and lens optical quality.
Since on my current 16 and 18 megapixel APS-C cameras, I use APS-C, FF and medium-format lenses with great results, my previous FF had a more limited choice of optics, and since my APS-C gear only use the central portion of the image on my FF and bigger lenses (as seen on any MTF), I'm in fact able to get sharper overall results, than I could on my previous FF gear.
A 36MP full frame sensor will produce a cleaner, more detailed image when compared with a 16MP APS-C sensor, despite both cameras having the same pixel size.
But you're right in saying that a larger format sensor will tend to be bigger, heavier and more expensive. I make reference to there being a size/price/image quality trade-off between formats (and consequently the 'sweet-spot' will vary, person-to-person and situation-to-situation).
Luke Kaven: Quick spelling catch in the conclusion section: "comprises" -> "compromises"
"While there were certainly comprises made to separate the D5500 from the D7200, most users in the former's target audience should be able to 'get by' without them. "
Now fixed. Sorry about that.
Jorginho: Nx1 review...just wonder if we will see it after the nikkn v4 review somewhere in november...
We ran out of March, but the final touches are being put to the review now. It should be our next camera review.
Testing a more complex camera with a sensor that isn't well understood and whose firmware is still being updated takes a long time.
@jefrs - while your logic is correct, we're talking about different cases.
Noticeably, when you fit a full-frame lens on a Micro Four Thirds camera, you mount it at the same flange back distance as its original mount, you don't adjust to gain all the light projected by the lens. The give-away is that you only see a cropped field of view (because the rest of the light is 'missing the sensor,' as you put it).
If this were not the case, then SpeedBoosters (adapters with lenses that condense the full image area back down to the smaller sensor), wouldn't work.
Clearly the lens has no understanding of what sensor you put behind it (or if you've done so at all). However, by changing sensor size, you change how much of its light you're able to capture, hence you get a different field-of-view and a different depth-of-field.
If this were not the case, then [the examples on this page](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/3) wouldn't work.
knowneuropean: I'm not sure it's been pointed out before (I only took a quick peek to check), but I think the lens referred to as a 15-450mm is actually a 150-400mm ;-)
I've correct that. Thanks for highlighting it.
jvt: This is a somewhat poor review. The reviewer basically used this camera like a point & shoot...I guess that's what all cameras are...but this camera offers so much more after you learn how to use it.
And while the high ISO sample shots look superb, it would have been nice to include more than 1 shot taken at the basic 200 iso.
That said, I agree with the "silver" award. A digital camera these days, for that price, should have a better than average video function...certainly not a poor one.
jvt: that's a big conclusion to draw from seven images.
I can assure you that I've shot with the X100T (and S) extensively, as well as the many months I spent when we reviewed the original X100.
bumblebeezack: It's great that DPR took the time to write a review for the X100T, although I felt that somehow, the reviewer isn't exactly sure what to make of the camera. It was mentioned that the camera is great tool for documenting life and in a way that's true with it's relatively fast lens and large sensor in a small form factor. So much so that many felt this was a great camera for "street". However I feel that the camera is so much more. I had it for a few months and used it for almost any kind of shooting, I can.
Have a look here https://flic.kr/s/aHsk6DDj2k
It's by no means the best example, of course, but seriously, I have a D810 that I use mainly for work as comparison and this camera blows me away quality-wise if one takes a more deliberate approach to taking a photo.
Don't miss an opportunity to own a great "point and shoot". Try the camera first, if you can. It's pretty amazing and can be so much more, I'm sure, in worthier hands then mine!
I think we are saying the same thing in different ways (in which case I'll see if there's a good way to re-phrase my shooting experience).
I see the X100 series as cameras that let you get what used to be DSLR-only image quality wherever and whenever. It's the serious camera you actually have with you.
I'd be fascinated to know what makes you draw this conclusion.
I think there's a risk that you're misunderstanding me and I'm misunderstanding you.
By documenting my life, I mean shooting everything I do and everything that goes on around me. I'm not clear how this differs from what you're suggesting.
Dougbm_2: 81% and only Silver seems pretty mean. Should the score and award have some sync? eg Gold over 80% Silver over 70%
If they were directly linked, then the award wouldn't tell you anything: it'd just be the score repeated with less precision.
The award is the reviewer's overall perspective, based on the factors spelled out in the conclusion. Logically it ties very closely to the score (it's hard to imagine a camera scoring in the low 70s getting a gold and anything scoring in the high 80s would have to be physically painful to use to stop it getting a Gold if its images gained it such a high grade).
chillgreg: Ren Kockwell called the X100T the best camera in the world. Which gives even more credence to the DPR Silver award. Well done Richard!
Sadly I can only give you one 'Like.'
vadims: Very nice review *size*, DPR.
I have to say this tells me all I really need to know. All those charts with minute differences in dynamic range and such? Not my cup of tea.
DPR, IMHO, has developed a bit of schizophrenic nature over time (please understand I'm not using "schizophrenic" pejoratively here): on one hand, you produce so overwhelmingly detailed reviews these days that I wonder if there are any people reading all of them; on the other hand, you post more and more completely non-technical stuff.
Real issue with both is that it means lesser number of tech reviews; and, which is much worse, by the time a review do appear, it is irrelevant.
So, again, thanks for the sane approach you've taken with x100t (even though I do understand it was caused by the the fact the camera is a relatively minor upgrade more than by anything else...)
That's what we're aiming for, yes.
captura: Maybe the X100S and T should compared to their APS-C rivals, the Ricoh GR and the Nikon Coolpix 'A.'