Simon97: I have always admired wildlife photographers who pack up and head off to some remote corner of the earth to photograph some rare or endangered creatures. They are often gone for months on end, deep into the wilds. Something I find interesting but would never do myself.
Well, I am wearing a pair of Nike shoes.
I have always admired wildlife photographers who pack up and head off to some remote corner of the earth to photograph some rare or endangered creatures. They are often gone for months on end, deep into the wilds. Something I find interesting but would never do myself.
Finally, a glimpse into this Sony (?) 20mp sensor. Seems on par with the fabled 16mp APS-C sensor and a bit less noise than the 24mp sensor.
Sigh... Wish I had kept that 200mm 2.8L prime. Sharp as a tack and had the reach of a 300mm on APS-C SLRs. Slap on a quality 1.4x converter for even more.
justmeMN: $700 for a 1/1.7 sensor sounds like a tough sell.
300mm-equivalent is short compared to other zooms. The upside is that it may have better optics than more extreme super zooms.
Exactly what I was thinking. ~$400 makes more sense.
AngryCorgi: I'm assuming this is an Aptina sensor still. Can anyone verify?
Technically it can't be because ON Semiconductor bought Aptina. But does it matter? The final image quality is what I'm concerned with. I was very critical of the 18mp sensor in the J4/V3 as it is too noisy even at base ISO.
2eyesee: Can someone please explain to me why people find these retro designs appealing? Am I just not 'old school' enough (I got into photography about 15 years ago)?
Some people like cupcakes better. I, for one, care less for them.
The 2/3" sensor does hold on to detail better the 1/1.7" sensors at higher ISO. A shame more camera makes don't use it in compact models which could help differentiate the image quality from the smart phones cams.
basujayanta0: Where's the final score????
Also the red "review" tag missing.
Transparent aluminum! (oxide)
Not crazy about the JPEGs. The noise reduction seems aggressive. perhaps there is a setting to reduce it. In the library shot you can see the mottled look around detail edges. It is better to let a little noise show through rather than screw up the pic. Would have hoped for better noise performance from this sensor.
I had a Sigma 300mm f/4 APO and their higher quality teleconverter back in the film camera days. I was very pleased with the performance. Wish I still had it today.
I picked up a Lowepro "Tahoe 10" compact camera case for fifty cents at a closing Radio Shack store. This puts it into perspective!
AKH: IQ is not very good for such an expensive camera. Made me think of the images presented in a resent review here on Dpreview of the Fuji 16-55mm with the Fuji X-Pro1. Those images were in a completely different league.
I was talking about the 40mp multishot high res mode vs the normal 16mp mode. It is clearly visible that the multi shot mode resolved more detail.
The shot with the three lion cubs is great. Coming to a poster near you (or smart phone/computer wallpaper).
AlexisH: I think he meant to direct his question at me. The camera has a hi res mode. You can see extra detail in areas, such as the lines in the engraving.
He didn't use an aperture below F9 for the architectural shots so it's hard to say, really. The studio scenes do show the JPEGs rendered rather soft. The RAWs are quite nice. The high res mode looks soft but does show quite a bit of added detail.
Surprise, surprise. Pathetic image quality. Why bother reviewing cameras with pin-head sized sensors. I thought DPR stopped this awhile ago. There are many good cameras that need a review. Please put the effort into that.
Hopefully DPR will eventually put up some studio shots with it. I have wondered how this sensor compares to the Sony 16 and 24mp sensors.
Where's the review already! ;)