hermanofarias: I think there is some kind of demosicing. If you use dcraw to extract a B&W tiff file from the raw, of any dslr, without demosicing, at 1:1 view, you actually see the the pixels, and not a smooth image such the examples in the DPR preview.
The lens alone does most of the aliasing; most lenses will not be able to out-resolve this sensor.
bigdaddave: 1930's throwback intentionally crippled and they want how much for it?
If I ever see someone with one of these I will make sure I laugh at them
Petka, bigdadave, you guys need to learn what a bayer filter is, and what a photosite is as well. This is entirely different to post processing, think of it as an entirely different type of film.
It is NOT stupid. There are technical and objective reasons behind B&W versus colour.
It saddens me how not technical minded most people who use cameras are. I'm not even going to call them photographers.
A potentially better sensor but I have a feeling they deliberately cheaped out on the ADCs because at higher gain levels the sensor starts having hot pixels (ISO3200 onwards). This is crippleware.
I'm pretty sure the D5200 and D7100 will have the same sensor, but with enhanced ADCs to stop that kind of crosstalk from occuring.
Tape5: One of the greatest attributes of this site is that you can click on just about any article and find people discussing issues totally unrelated
Batteries …. Prejudice against Chinese workers Lenses…..nature vs nurture ISO sensitivity……psychosocial problems in Central AmericaTethering …..18th century German philosophy
It is funny.
This is certainly one of the best posts I've seen on this site.
sensor clearly outresolving the lens here. Still obscene amounts of detail!
topstuff: It's quite obvious that the sensor is Sony. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. It is totally illogical to imagine any other scenario, especially given the fact that Nikon have used Sony made sensors in the past.
But that is not the whole picture. Nikon will have their own processor and supporting tech architecture plumbed into the sensor. As a result, I think we can expect excellent IQ.
Nikon have already demonstrated with the D800 that they can make high MP sensors produce decent noise performance. The D800 is way too close to the 5D3 in noise performance than it should be considering it has 60% more pixels. The difference is not large. This means that the extra MP comes with little sacrifice in terms of noise.
Expect the cheap little D3200 to perform the same trick? Probably.
Well done Nikon.
Now over to you, Canon. What ya got ???
@lensberg, have you grabbed D800 files and downsized them to 22mpx? At the same resolution the 5d mk III is outclassed by the D800. Furthermore you have more control over how much detail you have at the same resolution at higher sensitivities.
for android please
thewhitehawk: It's a shame that the compact models don't seem to have as many manual controls as the Nex cameras, at least the Nex 7's. This seems more user-friendly oriented than enthusiast-oriented, it seems to be more in line with the Nex 5 or the Olympus Pen series.
They do look nice though. Not that it matters much to some photographers, but the construction quality and design seems to rival (or borrow heavily) from Sony's cameras, like Samsung usually does.
the NX200/210/1000 have more manual controls than most CSCs, especially the NEXs, bar the NEX7. :) Two dials.
magneto shot: just give it up samsung. stick to wifi compacts...
Why? When they're better equipped than their competitiors (micro four s***)
snake_b: I can't wait to see the shortcomings of these cams, likely unsolved and covered up with gadget features.
Arent I surprised its snake here.
Stop the libel.
thethirdcoast: The ISO range is pretty interesting to me. The standard range is 100-6400, with 12800 listed as the boost. That seems to indicate this 24 MP sensor may not be quite the high ISO monster that the 16 MP unit in the D5100 and D7000 is.
Personally, I have no idea what I'd do with 24 MP at this point. 12-16 are plenty for me to feel comfortable cropping if necessary. The size of the 24 MP RAWs is also likely to start taxing my laptop's ability to process them, and that's one item I'm not looking to upgrade at present.
I think that is just for market segmentation purposes, rather than being a true reflection of real performance. I'm sure oversampling will allow for noise to be brought down to a relatively similar level though.
snake_b: Wish they and Sigma would come up with weather resistant lenses.
"Moisture-resistant construction helps prevent water from penetrating the lens."
Jack A. Zucker: price is too close to canon. The IS feature won't be enough to cut into canon's sales IMO. At this focal length, IS is not as important. It needs to be $1k to tempt folks from canon's offering IMO unless canon discontinues the 24-70 2.8 MK I
pretty sure with the MK II the MK I will be discontinued.
Jon Stern: Looking at low and high ISO (raw) what impresses me is how good my 5D Mark II is.
I think I'll keep it!
That studio comparison says otherwise.
This camera oversampled to 16mp is very close to the D4 in noise performance. What is stunning is that the sensor even at 12800ISO seems to retain colour information fairly well, compared to the 5d mk II, and D700.
I suppose its not that impressive if you crop a D4 to DX frame and compare it to a D7000 though.
Telefoto: Why would this lens be attractive at that weight? Its weight is in the same ballpark as the Nikkor 14-24, which is the lens I'm looking for a smaller, cheaper alternative to. My 20/2.8 AF rocks, except for the fairly horrendous image quality :) But otherwise perfect, great size, price, and angle of view. Along comes this prime and it weighs almost as much as the probably sharper, just as fast, but AF-S 14-24. Scratching my head over the value prop here. If this lens were 300 or 400g, I'd be seriously interested.
All because its heavy does not mean its sturdy. In fact there are many issues with a lens that uses materials like steel, such as sensitivity to temperature changes, air pressure, etc. Lenses that use light alloys/plastic combinations (such as those from mainstream manufacturers) are nowhere near as heat sensitive and nowhere near as mallable.
healer81: Lens looks interesting, especially for canon shooters since nikon already has a 14-24 which is spectacular. Canon doesnt have an answer for super wide angle at this moment so this lens will accommodate.People in this site is always complaining about something, dont mind them.
the 14-24 can use filters if you install them on a frame.
Pete_Murrell: I have only one question that may not be answerable by people in this forum however I will ask it anyway.I currently use 4/3rds stuff and obviously I love it. I was just wondering if anyone has heard rumours about Olympus releasing a camera with this sensor in the 4/3 lens mount range (Maybe an E-6 or 7)? ... because I can't see myself investing in a whole new range of lenses but based on this small snippet, this sensor is pretty special. Fingers crossed. Can't wait for the full review.
I doubt that theres demand for 4/3rds gear right now, but you do have the option of retaining your lens kit because olympus does make an autofocusing adaptor for 4/3rds lenses.
However, with that said if a m43 company uses a random sensor layout (xpro 1 style) there would suddenly be a demand for low noise, high speed AF prioritised cameras imho.
Bart Aldrich: These Zeiss lenses don't even get especially good reviews from independent reviewers, like Photozone or Bjorn Rorslett.Like someone also said, they are made in the same plant as Cosinas; not bad, but also not the old Zeiss whose prices they are extrapolating onto these.
he's saying they're just average lenses in general; nothing special for their price bracket. However reason escapes most people as soon as they see the Zeiss badge.
They seem more of a fashion item, which is fine, although that does speak words of many photographer's aesthetic sense.... having a 50 1.4 zeiss looks great by itself, but having it with a normal DSLR body, well, i think they're aesthetically blind.
But seriously, a 50 1.4 EF-S or even a 50 f1.4 minolta will take the same if not better image than the Zeiss 50 1.4. Why do we have to pay so much?!
Hugo808: I have a bag full of Zeiss T* lenses, the image quality is vastly superior to my Nikons. More power to Zeiss, the more lenses they make for my D700 the happier I will be.
please provide objective examples.