IvanM: What I see here, looking at the high iso RAW's is that there is not much difference between the Canon (new and old), Nikon & Sony. One can pixel peep till one's eyes bleed but they all look much the same to me. That goes for sharpness as well, even against the Nikon the 7d2 holds up fairly well. So whats the difference then between these brands?I would say Canon gave us a very competent sports wildlife camera that taps into the vast and may I say mostly very good Canon lens system. Ditto probably for Nikon as far as lenses go, except this new 7D2 is probably king of the hill for now ito AF and frames per second. I would buy one as a 2nd camera to my 6D...The Sony looks great on paper and in the hand but I have yet to read a lens review where the corners were not unacceptably soft. The Sony lenses just don't stack up imo...So if all these sensors are more or less on par for now what is left to differentiate? AF, frames per second, lenses, price and backup.....
You're the only person who thinks Sony is not the leader.
Mikael Risedal: the 6400iso are different exposed, Nikon 1/3200sec f5,6 and Canon as usual longer exposed 1/2500sec f 5,6There are higher resolution in d7100 picture at 6400Iso compared to Canon 7Dmk2 and with a shorter exposure.
I agree cameras with similar sized sensors are all pretty close in noise performance nowadays, so unless you print (high ISO in low light) large posters or crop heavily, pixels will be "binned" and noise will be averaged out. What amazes me is that the smaller 16mp M43 sensor's performance is so competitive. Remember when they came out, we all thought they were nuts to have a smaller sensor (and the 12MP sensor, was pretty mediocre). Their new "pro" lenses look fantastic.
miles green: Well there you have it: compare RAW at a common-for-birding ISO 800 with the Sony 24 mpx sensor found in the Pentax K3 & Nikon D7100 & (i think) the Sony A6000.
What i'm curious to see is how the new Samsung NX1 will perform, as it has a BACKLIT sensor. Maybe it will be the "quantum leap" some are talking about?
The improvement was noticeable on the Sony, go back and read the review. I doubt it will be noticeable on the larger sensor though, and if a camera doesn't have god lenses, then it's all moot anyhow..
Seems like they are simply copying the human eye which is a good idea.
maxnimo: I was just browsing the GoPro website and apparently all their cameras have a fixed super wide-angle lens. They don't even mention the focal length, nor do they give you a choice. They must think everyone wants, needs and loves super-distorted ultra wide angle views.
This probably explains why all GoPro videos look so terribly distorted.
"Eyes rolling in disbelief!"
The "#808" camera and perhaps Mobius can swap out their lenses...not a quick swap though. They are lighter, preferred for usage on R/C vehicles.
tedolf: I have decided I will wait for the E-pm3.
Maybe it will have a 4:3 screen and buttons you can push with gloves on.
BTW, my first digicam was the 3MP (but had constant F2.8 lens) Oly C3000 (cheaper version of the C3030 but still paid around $600 for it is my recollection). I think that had to be back in 1999 (my son was a year old when I got it is my recollection). Only competitors were Nikon and Canon back then, and slightly less so, Kodak had a very good camera too (and fell behind not long after).I think Steves-digicams (I preferred his site back then), dpreview, and imaging-resource were all around back then...started visiting the sites around a year earlier when I think they just started. Steve gave prizes if you got the 100,000 page hit, and 1m was a big deal back then - and it took awhile to hit 1m.
PM2 is out of stock now and even getting harder to find on ebay as cheap as it was a month ago. I like the size and IQ of the PM2..and price. newegg had it with kit lens for $200 (the white version) Seems white did not sell well. Everyone was dumping them a month ago.
W5JCK: These drones are little more than a nuisance in residential areas. Plus the whole issue of privacy comes to mind. Way out in the countryside away from other people they are okay I guess, but not in our cities. I suspect that as the numbers of urban drones increases, so will the numbers of BB and pellet guns, at least I hope so. I don't even like photographers walking the streets taking my photo, much less a drone spying on me from above. I'm seeing and hearing a lot of opposition to even PD using these.
yep, probably, but the AMA rules (which often are based on FAA regulations) say you are not to fly over people. I'm not sure how legally binding FAA regulations are. A recent court case decided that a FAA regulation carried no legal authority. Those multi-rotor "drones" (I own one but haven't finished building it form parts/scratch) fall out of the sky like a 2+ lb rock when the battery dies, unlike a R/C airplane.
Kim Letkeman: About as useful sounding as the ridiculous commercials that try to convince us that curved TVs "surround" the viewer ...
You'd have to be sitting about 6" from the set to feel surrounded.
Just examples of solutions looking for problems ...
I agree on TVs. My dad worked on early rear projection TV's for Sylvania (we had a large one at home way back in 1980!). When they left town, he brought home a competitor's (I think Panasonic) curved screen (front projected, like an outdoor movie). It was not good off-center - of course! But cameras ARE "in center" - the imager is the "audience". I really don't see how they get around the fact that different lenses would require different curvature. Maybe a curved sensor lessens the complexity of lenses, but it does not get rid of the issue of the lens and sensor curvature differing.
Good lenses are expensive and we own multiple lenses. So maybe overall it would be cheaper to have two (selectable) sensors in the camera, each having different curvature. More realistic - have one sensor in the camera, and put a sensor in the lenses which are at the extremes (either long or short lenses - I'm not sure which would make the most sense).
I don't blame you for feeling that way...and it would be illegal for the person to shoot such images as your fenced in back yard is literally the legal definition of a private area. It's 100x more realistic for some kid to climb a tree or simply look out his/her 2nd story window to take pictures over your fence though.
CNY_AP: Wow, it's depressing how short sighted people are, and scary how ignorant people are as I read these posts...and the posts are from supposed photographers who are scared of cameras!!! It's like when the wimps in Europe let Hitler take over other countries...nobody really cared until it was them who were at risk. Wait until it's YOUR hobby that gets restricted and see who is left to stand up for you!!!
Hardly are "drones" louder than a lawnmower or 100 other common things, or kids playing games, swimming in their pool (yelling hours on end). And it you can here the vehicle, then you know they are there, so hardly can they "spy" on you, which is illegal anyhow - we already have privacy laws on photography.
Even the paparazzi whackos haven't used multi-rotors. A SLR and telephoto lens is 10x better and more realistic. And what would you be doing in public that you wouldn't want photographed? If in public, by definition, people can see you, so what's the difference...that's the USA's laws' logic anyhow.
Keeping giving rights away, and before you know it, we'll have no hobbies left. What's the point in living with nothing fun to do - just to be alive is enough? Eating and watching TV is that much fun?
You cannot photograph someone who has an expectation of privacy, such as in their back yard. As for "spying" when a person is in public, hardly is a multi-rotor the way to do it - clearly none of you own a multi-rotor.
It would be VERY difficult to get a good picture, yet be far enough away for it to not be heard..simply physics and photography 101. In order to be far enough away to not be heard, it would need to be a telephoto lens. Any photographer knows the more you zoom in, the more the camera shake blurs the picture. I shoot pictures with no motor/prop spinning at all (I turn the airplane's motors of and glide), yet if I zoom in from the widest setting at all (still zoomed wider than 1:1), there is blurring at 1/500s shutter speeds.
Wow, it's depressing how short sighted people are, and scary how ignorant people are as I read these posts...and the posts are from supposed photographers who are scared of cameras!!! It's like when the wimps in Europe let Hitler take over other countries...nobody really cared until it was them who were at risk. Wait until it's YOUR hobby that gets restricted and see who is left to stand up for you!!!
Noise is annoying but privacy issues are ridiculous--do you get your shorts all twisted whenever you see a person with a camera? It's 100x easier to get a shot of someone standing on the ground with a good camera than shooting (usually blindly) from a vibrating "drone". And you can hear a quad-rotor, but you'd never know if someone takes your picture while they are standing on the ground using a telephoto lens. And I would hope anyone on this site has some common sense - you can't see through windows during the day, for one example.
CameraCarl: Every time I see a drone flying overhead, I wish I had done better in my antiaircraft marksmanship in the Army
Why's would they bother you??? Privacy concerns? A SLR with a good lens takes much better pictures from much further away.
Been doing it as a hobby since 1997 (with a Fuji F20 which works perfectly) using an electric powered RC airplane. Advantage of the airplane is that I
Can power off the motor and glide - no motor or prop vibrations. Disadvantage is I need a large spot to land, so I am putting together a large quad-rotor
BTW, "drone" (which implies automatically/autonomously guided) is not really correct term, and has a military connotation to it, adding that much more craziness to the ignorant public, so us hobbyists wish the term wasn't used.
Thematic: Some very bad advice in this video.
Like another member mentioned - do not use a cloth to clean the camera body and lens.
Most pros NEVER clean lenses with a reusable cloth anyway. Use a disposable lens tissue - you can buy boxes of Zeiss disposable cleaning tissues/wipes for very little money. That way you are not rubbing the same dirt you removed back onto the front lens element.
Not sure why Canon would show things like this in a corporate video unless it is a spoof or joke.
I dislike the idea of using a thin lens tissue. If there is "dirt" on the lens, how would a paper thin tissue keep the dirt from being rubbed all over the lens? A micro-fiber cloth will however sort of absorb the dirt due to the lens pushing against the dirt - pushing the dirt into the cloth instead of on the surface (unless you press hard on the cloth, but the same is true of a lens tissue). If your argument is why would there be dirt, then I counter that the cloth would never get dirty in the first place (ie: filled with harmful stuff) if the lens never has dirt on it.
Continuous AF in DSLRs isn't very good either unless they've greatly improved recently. I therefore use single shot AF for everything with my SLR.
Boky: It is puzzling, really. I get more pleasing photos with my S90. The RX100 series is way too big to compete in size. I tried RX100 I and returned it immediately due to cold cast over all the photos it produced + not to mention the brick-like feel and size. If I go to an important event or holiday (or want to pixel peep) I take dslr and L glass with me in addition to S90. For P&S needs -> I have a camera that gives beautiful photo’s and I hardly know (or feel) it is with me. RX100 will have to shrink substantially to be able to compete with P&S cameras size-wise.I did want to like RX100 III very much. But Sony needs to get the processing sorted and give us pleasing results that do not require couple off minutes processing per each photo to make them look nice. At the moment, to me at least, the RX100 is lost in space: way too big to compete with P&S segment, and with picture quality that is nowhere near dslr quality – yet it cost more than basic dslr and kit combos.
Doesn't it have a RAW mode? What serious photographer shoots JPEGS and/or expects to not edit images?
Rx100 is too expensive for my taste, but it's a fantastic camera.