coso dp: Not considering price it's basically a Canon EOS M in an awesome metal chassis.
@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.*
@mostlyboringphotog - I don't own the DPR and I'm trying not to enforce my own opinion on everyone, that's why I'm asking. The problem is that there are multiple opinions on the matter.
I realise you don't like the term equivalent F-number, since you're not comfortably with describing it in terms of F-numbers. However, while I understand the semantic concerns, I think suddenly trying to use a different metric to describe almost all of the behaviour associated with the aperture would be perverse (personally).
I was under the impression that 'equivalent aperture' was less objectionable than 'equivalent F-number' on that basis, but other people are telling me otherwise.
That's why I'm checking.
beavertown: Best 1' sensor in the Market:
What makes you think there are that many 1"-type sensors on the market?
We know that Sony and Aptina make them. Who else does?
The intent of the article is to provide the information to assess any two pieces of equipment (neither of which are necessarily full frame).
It doesn't presuppose one starting point or one end point.
For instance, compare the Olympus XZ-2 and Sony RX100 II:
Olympus has a 1/1.7" sensor, a 6-24mm (28-112mm equiv) F1.8-2.5 lens
Sony has a 1" sensor, 10.4-37.1mm lens (28-100mm equiv) F1.8-4.9 lens
Which offers shallower depth-of-field at wide angle? How about at the long end? How different/similar are they?
At which point, saying:
Olympus, 6-24mm F1.8-2.5 lens (28-112mm F8.4-11.7 equiv)
Sony, 10.4-37.1mm F1.8-4.9 lens (28-100mm F4.8-13.2 equiv)
Tells you something useful, doesn't it? (Being able to see [how they progress]( http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/E~articles/6489685206/EnthusiastAperture0314.png) is arguably even more useful.
Hi Kociasek. No problem.
I agree a hyphen would help, but enough places on the web (including us, from time-to-time, embarrassingly), forget to even include the word 'equiv.' let alone a hyphen, so I'm just expressing it the way it's most commonly encountered.
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?
Personally, when I shoot, I try to compose the final image I want (regardless of format). As such, it's useful to understand to which extent what equipment in another system would allow me to take a similar photo (if I was choosing between systems, which is what this is primarily useful for).
It seems much more likely that I'd use an 85mm on FF and a 32mm on 1"-type, shooting at the same distance (since they offer the same field-of-view), and it's easier for me to imagine than it is to try to think about shooting a 32mm lens on FF but standing at portrait-shooting distance, then trying to think of where the crop would be.
Cropping an image also *does* change the per-image noise performance, if you view/print both images at the same size.