Chris Noble: A full-frame vs. u43 comparison is silly. Far more useful and relevant would be a GH4 vs. Olympus E-M1 comparison.
We're looking at the two stills cameras with the most comprehensive set of video features we've ever seen.
Lassoni: You shouldn't convert dollar price to euro. Instead, you should look up how much a product costs in europe. Where I live, the A7s costs 2300 euro, and GH4 1500.
We haven't concerted the dollar price. On page 1 we list the prices at €1499 for the GH4 and €2399 for the a7S. Both are the German list prices, I believe.
Where are you seeing figures that look like converted dollar prices?
Polytropia: It does not give "a 16-29mm equivalent range". That makes no sense. 16-29mm equivalent to what? Depth of field is not the same as a 16-29mm lens. A 16mm lens would have a different angle. How is that equivalent?
Stop lying to people, DPReview. And stop promoting 135F-format every freaking chance you get. Only a small minority even cares anymore about 135F-format. It's not helpful to continually relate focal lengths to a format that only represents a tiny percent of the market.
It's 2014 not 2004. Please get with the times and start using degrees to describe angles, instead of relating everything to a format few people use anymore.
I will bet anyone here $10,000 USD that less than 5% of photographers have ever looked through a 16mm lens on a 135F camera, let alone owned one or taken a picture with one. So how is it useful to make the analogy of this lens to that particular focal length and not even state that's what you're doing?
Your point: *'Why refer to something that someone may or may not understand?'* is a good one.
How many Sony RX100 users think of their camera as having a 10.4-37.1mm lens?
How many think of it as a 75.4-20.4°?
How many think of it as 28-100mm equivalent?
Given the camera reports its focal lengths (both on-screen and in EXIF) in 35mm equivalent terms, I'm pretty confident of the third option being by far the best understood. Irrespective of whether the user in question has ever shot film.
@Polytropia your point that there are now multiple formats only reinforces the need to use a common basis.
The point is: in the early days of digital a lot of photographers knew things in 35mm terms. But its subsequently been used so much that I strongly believe most people, if you asked them, would tell you the zoom range of their camera in 35mm-equivalents.
Yes, if we were starting with a blank piece of paper it wouldn't be the best solution but, given that it has a relatively high level of acceptance and understanding, it makes no sense to try to get our entire audience to learn a new system.
Nothing about using 35mm equivalents should be taken to imply the primacy of that system over another. It's simply a common (as in: shared) reference point. 'Full frame' DSLRs are still a tiny niche in today's industry, despite less expensive models appearing - the use of 35mm is purely historical.
Getting rid of 'inch-type' sensor naming is more of a priority from my perspective.
We're not promoting any one format over another. However, it has been industry standard for *many* years to use the 35mm equivalent as a common reference point.
The point being: even if you've never shot 35mm then you'll still have been using cameras whose focal lengths are expressed in terms of that format.
We didn't invent it but neither are we going to reject it in the hope that our entire readership suddenly becomes familiar with angular fields of view.
coso dp: Not considering price it's basically a Canon EOS M in an awesome metal chassis.
I have no idea about the EOS M2 (and would love to know, since a faster-focusing EOS M would be a rather nice camera).
It's not so much that we've decided it doesn't exist, just that it's a little hard to get full images and info about it, since it's still Japan-only, so far as we know.
@67gtonr - I've not used the 11-22mm (which I'm not sure has even been formally announced in the US) - I was comparing the 18-55 and 32mm to the 18-55 and 22mm.
It's faster at focusing and has a better sensor but I see your point.
Timmbits: I am thinking that for the APS samples, any camera with a bayer pattern sensor would have been a much better choice! In the night scene, the Fuji is very noisy! (Sony, Samsung, Canon, Nikon... so many choices)
Timmbits - that's why we used the Bayer-based X-A1 model.
None of the brands you mention offers an 85mm equivalent, F1.2 lens, so actually there are very few choices. (Nikon's 58mm F1.4 is the closest any of those brands offers to a fast 85mm equiv lens for APS-C and that's priced as a high-end lens mainly for full frame users).
Weide: The Text contains significant Errors. Of course the total amount of light is in fact the same at 50mm/f2 MFT and 100mm/f2 FF, because the distance from the image plane to the lens plane is now different (otherwise the image would be out of focus). Therefore, the term f-stop was introduced!! With the same aperture number, regardless of the focal length gets the same amount of light to the Sensor(section).
Sorry for my bad english
*Reposted again to correct error highlighted by mosc.*
I'm afraid you're wrong: A MFT 100mm f/2 and MFT 50mm f/2 would project the same light (and same intensity) to the sensor.
However, a full frame 100mm f/2 lens would project the same intensity as a MFT 50mm f/2 lens and, because the full frame sensor is four times bigger, it would have the opportunity to record four times as much light in total (assuming the same framing and shooting distances).
Carlton Foxx: I'm coming a little late to this discussion, but did anyone mention that the graphic of the image circle of the lens is incorrect? It shows the image circle as being smaller on the smaller sensor, but the lens itself casts the same size circle regardless of the size of the sensor because for a particular camera brand, the flange is the same distance from the sensor (otherwise you wouldn't be able to use a full-frame Canon lens on a cropped-sensor Rebel). To be correct, you need to delete the bronze cones and just show how the light falls on the area outside the bounds of the smaller sensor.
I don't think I understand your point - you seem to contradict yourself, the way I'm reading your comment.
I agree that the lens casts the same size image circle, regardless of sensor size (hence the outer, bronze cones are still visible). However, the smaller sensor is only able to make use of the inner, reddish cone - hence a Rebel gets a narrower field of view when using a full-frame lens. The outer, bronze cone is still being cast, it just can't be collected - this is the point the diagram is trying to make.
Let me know if rephrasing the image caption would make this clearer.
Cheng Bao: page 11, no primary camera is selected in studio comparison tools.And the reason is v3 is not in drop down list
That should now be fixed.
Cheezr: page 11 does not allow me to select the v3 for the comparison.
Reload - it should do now.
Kipplemaster: Could DPReview please start listing lack of USB charging a a con rather than the current practice of listing "lack of included charger" as a con for cameras with have the advantage of USB charging. Particularly for cameras which might be used for travel, for those of use who are not fans of packing random proprietary massive plastic accessories USB charging is a major plus.
Kipplemaster - I'm not sure we're yet at the point where it's the default position, so I'm not sure it's yet fair to criticise the majority of cameras for doing things the way they've always been done (especially as that way has some significant advantages: speed, ability to keep a spare battery charged).
I'll bring it up at our next reviews meeting and see what the team thinks, though.
@Kipplemaster - in theory all reviews for cameras that USB charge should have the convenience of USB charging as a 'Pro' and the lack of external charger as a 'Con.'
If you've seen one that doesn't also acknowledge the benefit, please let me know and I'll correct it.
dyoon153: Funny how Nikon 1 v3 review has Panasonic GM1 pricing on the bottom... or is that intentional?
That was an error - it should now be fixed.
EduardoKleinFichtner: Why do not put the 'equivalence' in reviews?????
We should definitely do [something like that](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/#equiv).
kociasek: The caption under the photograph of the four lenses seems to be wrong. It says:"These four lenses are all 85mm equivalent F1.2s. However, this does not mean they're all 85mm F1.2 equivalent."Unless I'm mistaken, "equivalent" should be dropped from the first sentence.
Yes it tells you depth of field.
However, subject to several assumptions about sensor performance:
Set the Olympus to F1.8 at 28mm equivalent and a full frame camera to F8.4 (or, more pertinently, in this case, the RX100 II to F3.1), and all to the same shutter speed, then the necessary ISO settings for those apertures (ISO 100, 2174, and 298 respectively), and you'll get very, very similar noise levels at the image level.
But, more to the point, it's clear that you've got scope for opening up the aperture on the RX100 II and get a cleaner image. 1.6 stops, in this case.
Richard Butler: It's been suggested to me that people would be happier if we used the term 'Equivalent F-number' rather than 'Equivalent Aperture.' Is this the case?
mostlyboringphotg - I appreciate that. That's why I tried to ensure that the article was as approachable as possible - so we can link to it every time we need to mention equivalent apertures in future (most often it'll be in comparing high end compacts that tend to have different sensor sizes).
At this point I'm trying to find the least alienating terminology to use, specifically to increase that engagement. (Or, at least, not decrease it).
*That's the conundrum. Invoke f-value, and people complain that it's not. Don't invoke f-value, and no-one will know what you're talking about.*