stuntmonkey: Here's a question... this is basically an e-mount dressed up to look like an a-mount. That's fine and all, price will find it the right customers... but in principle, how is this any different than dressing up an NEX-7 into the Hasselblad Lunar? Both seem to be gilding the lily here... if you want small and e-mount, working off of something like the NEX-3 seems like a more logical idea. Unless, of course, you want to "play" at shooting a "real" DSLR....
Your Hasselblad reference was idiotic. Now to answer your question about the differences between Nex-3 and this camera, some people prefer larger camera with better grip. Others prefer smaller and lighter cameras that are are less conspicuous. It's a choice.
Second, some people use Nex cameras to mount manual focus lenses via adapters, some of which are large full-frame lenses. The larger body with better grip might be more balanced with large full-frame lenses, for those users. Again a choice. Sony should release higher spec A5000 for those users, especially for users who use Metabones Speed Booster adapter.
So there. I answered you.
yabokkie: okay Sony still need time to get Canon style dual-pixel PDAF but it doesn't say high-speed imager CDAF either. why not they just get a Panasonic sensor?
Sony has their own technologies. They can make their own on sensor PDAF better. The rumors are that that is exactly what Sony is planning for their A-mount cameras next year.
"how is this any different than dressing up an NEX-7 into the Hasselblad Lunar? "
Seriously? Are you for real? Hasselblad Nex-7 version costs $6,000. The original Nex-7 is $1,200. This is cheaper than Nex-3n. D you not see a difference in that?
Jim Salvas: Huffington Post has announced that all new commenters will be required to use real names. I always have, but I wonder what that would do here.
If HP asks users to use real names, that doesn't mean people will use real names! How are they going to enforce it? Would they demand that internet users submit valid licences so that they can verify names? Even that can be faked, as you can generate IDs in photoshops.
Sean Nelson: Too little, too late. I've been waiting for what seems like forever for Canon to get with the 1080p60 video programme, but I just bought a Sony RX100M2 because it's the first compact to have both that and a flip LCD.
Sorry, Canon - you snooze, you lose!
"60 fps will make video look too much like TV vs. movies"
60p will give you SLOW MOTION when played at 30 fps.
Biowizard: The funny thing is, with today's technology (which of course has come a LONG way since then), this might be doable. Using low-energy WiFi or BlueTooth to connect/control the device while in-camera, for example. And of course, a full frame sensor. I'd love to get some more life out of my OM-1 and Contax S2 and film is such an expensive way to go these days ...
The link in the article details all the reasons why it won't work
lester11: The Paul Smith watch told me everything I wanted to know (for my particular taste in snaps). How the letters were sharpened (or not), how the dial ticks were resolved (or not), how the particular glittery blue of the face was smeared (or not), how the second hand suffered aliasing (or not), how the glass reflections affected the render. Every time I saw a better rendering, I bought the camera and dumped the previous (smile) or lived with the difference 'cos it was smaller than the bank balance... Can you not tuck it into a blank space somewhere, please?
No, because this scene is so much larger than the old one, the watch would be tiny. It won't look anything like the last scene. Just look at the Queen of hearts in previous scene and compare how much smaller the cards look in this scene.
petr marek: Comparsion with older cameras is crucial. Older test scene was good enough, I think better (especially shaded things in box) and not so flat.
"Older test scene was good enough"
No, it wasn't. That's why it was replaced.
The older scene was too small, requiring the cameras to be too close to the scene. That introduced focusing and DOF issues.
Another problem was that some lenses (like RX100 lens) didn't perform optimally as not all lenses are optimized for close focusing performance. That meant the older scene was not representative of real world performance.
RX100 easily out resolves cameras like XZ2 in real life performance, but the older scene wouldn't tell you that.
sadwitch: Pretty impress with the GX7 it's clearly showing nex 6 has no advantage even though its equipped with a larger sensor and EP5 don't look so hot against it. Even the RX100II is impressive. Would be the second panasonic camera I really like to own after the L1.
Funny when you were trolling in favor of D600 several months ago, you were constantly telling people how IBIS doesn't help when you need faster shutter speed to stop motion blur.
bzanchet: Excelent work DPReview!I am very happy to see the RX-100 II slightly better than the m4/3s up to ISO 400! The best pocketable camera ever!
"Look at the RAW files - I don't think that's true"
Put the kit lenses on all three larger sensor cameras and reshoot this scene, RX100 will probably beat all three.
Steen Bay: Looks good, nice work. The only remaining problem now is that the exposure (the amount of light/photons hitting the sensor) can vary quite a bit between the tested cameras. For example, according to DPR's ISO accuracy tests, then the 'measured ISO' on e.g. the E-M5 is 1/3 stop lower than indicated, and on e.g. the NEX-6 the measured ISO is 1/3 stop off in the opposite direction (1/3 higher than indicated). That means that if comparing the two cameras at e.g. ISO 1600 with the OOC JPEG brightness matched (like DPR does), then the exposure will be app. 2/3 stop higher for the E-M5 than it is for NEX-6, and that's of course not quite fair (because the exposure determines the amount of shot/photon noise in the image). The problem could (theoretically) be solved by matching the exposure (the lighting, shutterspeed and T-stop) instead of the OOC JPEG brightness, and then adjust the brightness of the RAW/JPEG images afterwards.
"The problem could (theoretically) be solved by matching the exposure (the lighting, shutterspeed and T-stop) instead of the OOC JPEG brightness, and then adjust the brightness of the RAW/JPEG images afterwards."
Yeah, and then you have to first measure the T-stop of lenses and then tons of work in post, just for 1/3 stop difference?
1/3 stop is within specs, and so tiny that I won't lose sleep over it.
StefanW: Regarding the scene:Having twice the brushes, color tubes and cards in the scene doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Instead I would prefer additional objects, something like the globe (of the old scene). The different text sizes on the globe were nice for comparison of resolution and high ISO capabilities of different cameras side by side and which texts can still be read. Different text sizes are relevant to allow also a distinction or comparison for the future when the cameras in maybe 4 years come with the a 100MP sensor.
If you haven't noticed there is plenty of text in these scene. Far more than the older version
ET2: RX100 has much smaller sensor and a zoom lens (compared to primes on other cameras), but still, I have to say it competes really well.
The old RX100 with 20 MP sensor definitely out resolved XZ-2 in IR studio shots. The problem with DPR's old studio scene was that it was too small, requiring them to shoot from closer distance, which was a problem for RX100 lens.
With the new studio scene, I am pretty sure the 20 MP RX100 would easily outresolve 12 MP cameras you listed (at least outside of the extreme corners).
RX100 has much smaller sensor and a zoom lens (compared to primes on other cameras), but still, I have to say it competes really well.
Simon97: I like the new test scene, but it would seem not to challenge a D800 or a 645D much as these could out resolve much of the detail in this scene. The 645D in raw mode is amazing in the detail it pulls out. The next generation of high end cameras won't be challenged at all.
There is plenty in the scene that 24 MP 5D III can't resolve ...
Print and web size are great features.
Is there a reason why Nex-6 new shots were not shot with the new Zeiss 50mm?
Zvonimir Tosic: I don’t get it; the smartphone is already so thin. Attach a large lensor onion on it, means, the lensor must be carried around somewhere, in a bag I presume, as a delicate, large size onion.If one has a smartphone, and an RX100, the whole 2-piece combo is easier and less fragile to carry than this 2-piece combo, and — hey! — the lens in RX100 can hide itself inside the RX100 body. Plus, the RX100 body is already better designed for shooting than a smartphone. And no one is carrying a bulging onion hidden in the bag.At Sony, I wonder who is using family's brain cell at the moment?
"If one has a smartphone, and an RX100, the whole 2-piece combo is easier and less fragile to carry than this 2-piece combo,"
This package would be even easier (and cheaper) as the lens-camera is smaller than RX100
Peter1234: So, if Sony thinks that even a tiny sensored 10x Zoom camera is a worthy upgrade to your smartphone camera, then to my mind this is not innovation but a big step back.
The "tiny sensor" (still bigger than cell phones) has 10x optical zoom (25–250 mm) -- that phones don't have.
And the second version has bigger 1" sensor that phones don't have.
Two different versions for different needs.
Mark Schretlen: Hmm ... I wonder if they will make a super-dorky iPad version.
This should with iPad