Donald Duck: If you wonder what the face of the queen on that bill really looks like - go to the comparison tool and compare with the NEX-7 or any other camera with a Bayer sensors. You will be amazed how fake the X-Trans image looks like.
Non-existing black spots, non-existing diagonal lines on the face, etc.
The only reason I mentioned the NEX-7 is because it is there already, in the comparison tool. Choose the D5100 then. Night and day. Fuji renders false color and false detail in the both faces. The color moire on the coin is replaced by a zig-zag junk which cannot be cleaned up.
About the noise - you have to know how the scene was exposed. The ISO does not mean much. BTW, most cameras of this class have and should have ISO 100.
Henry M. Hertz: so what is it worth?
you have no AA filter so your images look sharper.... but then your images look like crap because no software knows how to handle your damn sensor.
The X-Trans reduces (color) moire, which is easy to fix. It creates mess everywhere else. Almost every part of the image where you expect detail, you see a mess.
It is not because "raw developers cannot handle it". It is more like: junk in - junk out.
If you wonder what the face of the queen on that bill really looks like - go to the comparison tool and compare with the NEX-7 or any other camera with a Bayer sensors. You will be amazed how fake the X-Trans image looks like.
ulfie: The quirky Sigma DP1 & 2 Merrills outresolve these for sure. Seems as if Nikon took off the low-pass filter but ... so what?
It does not, it only produces terribly aliased images. The Nikon images look but they are all stopped down to mask possible aliasing problems.
thx1138: None of the images has that impressive 45 f/1.8 sharpness. Whether that's the photographer or the lens or both I don't know, but I was hoping for a better given the price. I'd like to see more shots first before committing. Might just get the Panasonic 12-35, even though it is much slower.
You cannot expect much better sharpness at f/1.8, WA. If they manage to squeeze a bit more but this would hurt the bokeh.
I am an FF shooter but I like what I see. The bokeh is superb. Sharpness is adequate. The fist thing that catches the eye is not the sharpness because you still did not have the time to pixel peep. The portrait photos look very good.
I see similar technologies as a promising way to avoid light absorption but ... the Panasonic marketing department went too far with this claim:
"For example, if the structure separates light into a certain color and its complementary color, color pixels of white + red, white - red, white + blue, and white - blue are obtained and, using the arithmetic processing technique, are translated into normal color images without any loss of resolution."
Mixing red of one pixel with that of another (and removing it from the original one) IS loss of resolution. No arithmetic can recover missing data. You may need a AA filter stronger than those used in the Bayer sensors. It may over-saturate the pixels easily.
Still, this is a good direction, IMO.
Can you download (sync) images from the cloud?
Dyun27: Just downloaded the trial version of DXO Optics Pro 8 and compared a couple of photographs that I processed in DXO and in Lightroom 4.3. I have a Nikon D600. As far as I can tell, I much prefer the results I get in Lightroom 4.3 to DXO. DXO isn't bad and maybe has some advantages that I can't see, but in my opinion and at this point I would take Lightroom 4.3 over DXO any day. Lightroom is easier to use, faster, more intuitive, and in my eyes produces better results. It felt a little painful working with DXO due to the constant lagging each time I applied a change to the RAW file. As if that wasn't enough, Lightroom is also much cheaper. Nearly half the price, especially if you're a student and can buy it at less than $100.00.
It helps with moderate WA as well, to cure the "this lens makes me look fat" phenomenon for people away from the center. LR should have it as well.
Donald Duck: I have been using DXO and LR for many years with several Canon bodies. I have processed tens of thousands of images with either software. My conclusions are more or less opposite of the DPR findings.
1. DXO has really bad colors. Skin colors cannot be salvaged.
2. LR has much better highlight control. DXO actually got worse with its latest version.
3. Detail recovery is not important with today's high resolution cameras.
4. DXO has really good high ISO NR.
Not all of my conclusions are opposite to DPR, you are right. But DPR says "WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 typically provides more pleasing saturation at its default settings." I disagree with this (for Canon RAWs), and not only when it comes to skin colors. LR renders much more pleasing colors with landscapes as well, for example - there is certain warmth to the image that DXO cannot reproduce regardless of the WB settings. Also, the tint and the luminosity of the blue skies is much more pleasing with LR (DXO tends to blow them); yellows become lemon type of yellows with DXO instead of slightly gold ones, etc.
DXO has several dozens of color rendering choices, and many Film Pack ones, as well. None of them can do what LR can. LR looks better sometimes with the Camera Standard profile - improves the reds.
Moderate ISO NR is better with LR but super high ISO NR is better with DXO.
You can do perspective and distortion corrections with LR as well. What DXO does but LR does not are Volume anamorphosis corrections.
I have been using DXO and LR for many years with several Canon bodies. I have processed tens of thousands of images with either software. My conclusions are more or less opposite of the DPR findings.
morepix: Kodak branding seems like a poor choice from a marketing POV. It's something like Ford introducing a new model line named Edsel.
Donald Duck: New trend: interchangeable cameras instead of a cameras with interchangeable lenses...
What next - wide Sigma camera, fisheye one, etc.?
You need three pockets to cover a reasonable range.
New trend: interchangeable cameras instead of a cameras with interchangeable lenses...
GoremanX: None of this explains why I can't just use some other cataloging software and use Lightroom solely for image processing. I find the Lightroom catalog features to be sorely lacking, my preferred catalog software does a much better job of organizing and retrieving my images (yes, even different versions of the same image). But every time I want to process a photo in Lightroom, I have to trudge through the tedious import process, even for ONE STUPID PICTURE.
This forced Adobe cataloging crap is merely a means to lock users into a purely-Adobe workflow. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's insulting.
JohnyP: a few issues:- Adobe LR is an ugly and slow product. I can forgive ugly, but can't forgive slow. That's on a Intel Quad Core CPU with enough RAM and an SSD drive (images are on a conventional 7200RPM drive)- Tagging of pictures takes time that i don't have- LR interface is not intuitive (at least to me).- Junk Adobe installs along with LR is troubling (all kinds of executables get started ever time you boot a computer after LR installation)- it costs too much- doesn't solve the physical location issue (backups of my computer still contain just folders organized by some other method, not what is shown in LR)- import process is annoying- adobe bridge is a half joking attempt to recreate a Windows Explorer- meta-data is not my best friend (maybe yours), not everyone needs to tag a blue flower picture with words "blue" and "flower". - Creating a logical structure inside the LR vs physical structure on the HD is not really different or faster.
Article is not really useful
Also, LR is such a lousy viewer that cataloging with its is pointless, even if you like that feature.
Excellent shot! How do you make panorama of fisheye frames?
itsastickup: Totally hopeless bokeh test.
For me it's a deal-breaker: bad bokeh means unusable portraits.
Closing down the aperture can get rid of hard edged rings but also double-line 'nissen' bokeh which make for poor/disturbing bokeh as in the two pics (I would call this bokeh 'poor' and unusable). Typically I shoot f1.4 lenses at f2 for bokeh reasons. But in addition, you are more likely to get rings where the focus is at a distance and the blur moderate, as with these pics, while at close portrait distances the rings may not be so hard; which is the type of photos I am most interested in.
On top of that: a closed down aperture can be useful (one doesn;t always want obliteration-bokeh) but the bokeh can deteriorate.
So effectively we need a range of apertures and distance to know what the bokeh situation is.
Bokeh is so neglected that I have to do a lot of research to work out whether a lens is any good. It's a pain.
DPR are incorrect. Most criticism (of users) comes from double lines and other harsh rendered bokeh when the blur is not strong enough. The OOF highlights can hint what you can get, if they are not too big but this is not really a reason for complaints.
DPR had a few shots showing this clearly but they removed them a few weeks ago. Do not blame them - they are here to sell ads, not to help you.
"The 'bokeh' criticisms of this lens seem to centre on out of focus specular highlights - bright points of light - which are rendered as little circles."
This is incorrect.