Low Battery: Will dpreview ever finish the K3 Review? or will they just keep releasing a new page each month??
As I've said in both the forum and further down on this comment thread, my aim is to get the review finished within a week.
Menneisyys: The "Video Stills Comparison" tool on the "Videos" page doesn't have the K-3 test images.
It should now be visible - the 'publish' feature appears to have a bug.
rxbot: Though it is not wide enough for most I really like that 20-40, would be perfect walk about lens for me even though I can't afford it. Could make do with a Sigma 17-50. Don't know why all the fuss about waiting for this review as there are lots of other sites with completed reviews that have all the answers you need to make a decision to purchase or not. Still hoping to hear more on the shooting experience and remaining bits that are still forthcoming. If any camera could convince me to buy a 24mp APS-C instead of a 16mp one it is this one. I have no interest at all in video so I have a lot less to consider in different formats and camera lines.
Personally I'd go for the Sigma, simply because I find the 20-40mm range too limiting at both ends of the zoom.
Meuh: "The camera does offer sensor shift-based shake reduction (Movie SR) during video capture"
The k3 loses the mechanical shake reduction in video found in the k5 in favor of electronic based (movie SR) which isn't as good and is prone to artifacts (one of the reason's I haven't yet update).
I wish they would update the firmware to enable the option of mechanical SR in video as I don't care about the noise it makes when doing video as sound is recorded externally anyway for the stuff I do.
I've confirmed with Ricoh that the K-3's Movie SR is mechanical.
The last thing I did before publishing this piece was to speak to the product manager for the K-3 and he said the shake reduction is mechanical.
D1N0: Never shoot at maximum video capability unless it is a dedicated video camera. Panning will be much smoother at 24p or 720p.
This doesn't get you of the hook dpr. Roll out the entire review asap!
As I tried to make clear in the Pentax forum, I'm still working on the camera and it'll be my focus until the full review is published.
wkay: Where do we see which lens/ f-stop/iso is used for these studio comparisons, has as much influence as the bodies they portend to compare.
Click on the little 'gear' icon at the bottom right of each image - you should find the information you need there.
Northgrove: Again, please, pretty please make the focal length graph logarithmic. The huge distance between 100-300 mm just corresponds to a 3x zoom, exactly like the much smaller distance between 24-70mm.
It's now changed.
tlinn: The very interesting discussion of "equivalent" aperture on page 1 left me with a question. I totally understand that f/2.8 on a smaller sensor provides less control over DOF than the same aperture on a larger sensor. But Jeff seems to state that there is also a difference in the amount of light let in. Is he simply stating the obvious—that more photons are allowed through the larger opening thereby improving image quality? If so, am I correct in assuming that the conversion table of equivalent apertures only seeks to account for the difference in DOF?
@dpburgel - I think I need to more clearly state the assumptions:
We're comparing lenses with *equivalent* focal lengths (ie same field of view at the same distance). This means a smaller sensor is using a shorter focal length to give the same FOV. In turn, this means an aperture of the same f-number is physically smaller.
Eg: Full frame sensor, 100mm F2 lens (50mm aperture)Quarter frame sensor, 50mm F2 lens (25mm aperture)
At which point, it's *not* the same amount of light spread across a larger area, it's the same light-per-square-mm of the sensor, but the two sensors have different areas.
We'll work on this. A calculation error meant I was getting strange results when I plotted on a log scale. Now I've found the error, I'm happy to rework it.
It's about the combination between sensor size *and* aperture size. F-number tells you about the light per-unit-area, but ignores the how big the area of the sensor is.
Equivalent aperture takes this into account. It tells you about depth-of-field, in comparison to a full frame sensor and it gives you an idea of how much total light (light-per-area x area) is available to the sensor, during a given exposure.
peevee1: DPR, I think you have a small error in you equivalent aperture table. Although Canon G1X II does have 1.5" type sensor, the lens does not cover it completely (it is used in MAR mode). I suppose it should make the apertures something like F3.9-7.7 rather than F3.8-7.5, but it is hard to calculate precisely.No that it changes anything much.
In terms of understanding depth-of-field - which is what most people associate with aperture values - using comparable AOV seems more meaningful than trying to normalize image area (regardless of the noise-per-area implications).
Oddly enough, I also calculated from 'maker spec.'
Based on [this image](http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/0528662139/520/G1XMarkII.png), the 18.7x12.4mm figure given by Canon makes sense as a proportion of the full 1.5"-type sensor used in the original G1 X.
From here you find the 4:3 area is around 17.9x13.4 (it's hard to know exactly, given the low precision of the original numbers), which is around a 1.94x crop (the diagonal AOV of a lens doesn't care what the aspect ratio of the sensor is).
Since the whole point is that the multi-aspect ratio system is meant to give the same AOV with both the 4:3 and 3:2 crops, we've (rather charitably, I think), assumed a 1.92x crop for both 3:2 and 4:3, since I'm not confident enough in the stated figures to be certain otherwise.
However, I'd struggle to get to 1.883x by any means.
The F3.8-7.5 figure we gave is based on the G1 X II's 1.92x crop factor, rather than the 1.85x crop factor that using the full area of the 1.5" type would give.
Mirfak: "First and foremost, the RX10 uses the entire sensor to capture video, resulting in 1080/60p video quality that is right up there with the best digital cameras"
It's good to know that you didn't experience the flaws in video quality and codec that Andrew Reid bitterly complained about in his review of the RX10. Obviously, these issues have been fixed in the production model, which is a good thing!
We go on to say that it's limited by its adherence to the AVCHD standard - something Reid is better qualified to discuss than us, since his video needs are considerably more demanding.
Just another Canon shooter: "... with its 24-200mm F2.8 lens". No, it has an 8.8-73.3mm, f/2.8 lens, as it can be seen from the picture. If you want to convert the FL into 35mm equivalent (but not the f-stop?), this should be made clear. The casual visitor to this site would be very confused.
In the news story, do you mean? I've clarified it.
Cheng Bao: "The high resolution sensor on the RX10 can compensate for the 200mm zoom. The shot above is a crop of the original and still has about 3.5 megapixels left to work with. ISO 200, 1/200 sec, f/2.8, 199mm equiv., brightened."
I assume you crop the picture from 200mm end, so, doesn't the cropped picture has longer equivalent focus length than 199mm?
It means that the original image was shot at 199mm equiv. I'll clarify the text.
KerryBE: When I go to image quality compared the Stylus 1 shows but it says Please Select a Camera instead of automatically bringing up the RX10. If I go to select the RX10 it is not in the list. Running IE 8.0.
That should now be fixed. Sorry about that.
droplet: X-sync (external flash) for E-M5 should be 1/250s in your comparison table.
Not according to [Olympus's specifications](http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/digitalcameras/omd/e-m5.html):
Synchronization speed: 1/250sec. or less* (using the bundled flash)* It depends on flash models or flash modeFL-50R: 1/180 sec.Exept FL-50R: 1/200 sec.Super FP: 1/125-1/4000 sec.
peevee1: "E-M10 Video ModesImage comparison tool"
How to access actual comparison, between different cameras that is?
Reload the page and you'll now find a link to a standalone page that lets you select the cameras you want to compare.