Photoman: What the?! I thought they closed that stupid Italian studio down. It's not even the RX100M3! Not to be judged against others...cause the other cameras laugh at it ;)
to be fair to them I doubt they need an entire studio to design wooden handles for sony cameras
Sannaborjeson: "...not intended to be judged against other cameras..." LOL :-)
Anastigmat: I am still hoping for an interchangeable lens Pentax auto 110 sized digital camera with the same tiny lenses. Those mirrorless cameras have lenses that are anything but tiny.
You can use the 110 lenses on a Q quite easily I believe!
Where is the MF camera?!?!
I LITERALLY only clicked this article to ogle that thing, and you couldn't be bothered to show the single best thing on the stand? WTF dpr
What did he actually want or expect to gain from posting to Reddit, I wonder?
(unknown member): "And this means that, for the same shutter speed, F-number and ISO, the camera with the largest sensor will have more total light to measure. And, unless the large sensor is significantly worse than the smaller one, it will produce a cleaner, less noisy image. It's likely that the large sensor camera will be bigger, heavier and more expensive, but it should provide cleaner images."
That is not right. Noise happens at pixel level not "sensor level". Noise is affected by how much light EACH SENSEL collects and NOT the total light gathered by the sensor.
f/5.6 is f/5.6 in terms of light transmission, not light gathering. As Great Bustard pointed out there is a rather large difference between the two!
Yeah I don't think that people who understand equivalence would suggest that lol.
Anyway dtmateojr I though this thread was about noise and the effect of image size on noise, not about basic exposure relationships
Is this actually meant to be a joke, or is it unintentional?
Great Bustard has posted an excellent example and thought exercise of why the mathematics and physics is correct and you are wrong here, you can either 'go back to basics' and read the reason I gave with film or perform GB's thought experiment/real experiment with a digital set up - both will show the same thing.
You can argue with us all you like and publish all the articles you like, but nature cannot be fooled.
Using your 120 vs 135 film example: the 120 film will perform better precisely because the grain structure is the same as the 135, grain is the same size but the image is larger - the grain has less impact on resolution because it is smaller RELATIVE to the image itself.
You shouldn't be so arrogant with things like this, you will only look like a tit upon being proven wrong if you act like one in the first place
Cloud technology AKA the internet
FinDERP: The actual Kodak company still make (amazing!) film.
This is just a brand name :/
The film division is owned by ex kodak employees as you say, and is still produced in their US based production facilities with the exact same specifications to my knowledge. Sounds more like they're actually still Kodak the film company that I know and love than this random name grab branding malarky!
The actual Kodak company still make (amazing!) film.
Good that they finally took some responsibility for this I suppose, but I would think this has come just a little bit too late for many people and is definitely loooong overdue.
I had a giggle over this, imagining that it actually took them this long to work out what on earth caused those sensor spots! Also, I guess the 'certain circumstances and settings' must be those ones where the shutter fires - I had no idea you could turn that off lol!
There seems to have been a marked increase in price (and presumably demand) for film cameras and lenses on the second hand market over the last 1-2 years, an interesting (if entirely unempirical) correlation!
Doesn't Sigma have the highest image quality and lenses (recently) of any manufacturer?
That's a pretty damn sweet achievement really...
The more you lot talk about how mediocre film era lenses are....
THE CHEAPER THEY GET ON THE 2ND HAND MARKET!
thanks guys :DDDD
This comment section is a weird read!
We should have another poll: Who are the biggest photographic trolls of dpreview 2013?
Who wins? YOU DECIDE!!!
These articles are laid out so badly!
Hire a web designer, seriously