Canon has great lenses and cameras but trail in sensor tech. The "old" Nikon D7000 beats it badly in exposure latitude. That is a big advantage in my book.
Never cared for JPEG2000. It seems to create a whole new set of artifacts from JPEG. At higher compression, it didn't make those visible 8x8 squares like regular JPEG, but it softens some parts of the image and tries to show detail in other parts, making a glitchy looking image.
This new BPG format does do a better job, but gives a smeared look to detail at higher compression.
Like the audio compression formats, there is always a compromise. Better to use them at the least compressed setting possible.
I don't see much benefit to higher bit levels in a compressed format. If I was going to edit the image, I'd use raw and use the compressed format as the end result.
nicolaiecostel: Could this be the nail in the coffin ?
I bet Leica is still around when they're putting nails in yours.
The lens seems pretty sharp (for a super zoom). Contrast is fair but the color fringing is tremendous at wide and tele settings.
For a 1/1.7 camera the Nikon P7800 nails the JPEGs. Nice sharpness without the sharpening halos of some of the other cameras that look like they over sharpen a too soft image. High ISO noise is handled well also. Perhaps the extra processing is what slows the camera down.
The Fujifilm X30 is an over priced joke. The images look like they upscaled a lower res one with noise. I'm not against Fujifilm, as the X100T looks really nice (a bit pricey though).
The Panasonic super zoom lens does no justice for its sensor. The Sony is much better.
Right at the sweet spot with reasonable resolution (for full frame), low noise and fast shooting speeds. Should be on a lot of people's Xmas list.
They seem to be following Canon with the JPEG processing. A soft image with strong halos. One problem I see is a stepping pattern (aliasing) along certain diagonals and along areas of some of the round objects. Shooting raw is the way to go.
I also have issues with the quality of the lens. It is not producing the border quality I'd expect from a camera in this class.
Limited edition doesn't work because the term has been badly abused in the marketplace. It has been used on just about everything including food items!
Probably stems from those silly "limited edition" prints that people would spend just as much money on. They were essentially glorified posters and peddled as investment art. These days most are worth pennies on the dollar.
munro harrap: It is just a machine, a box that took a few important photographs, but apparently not the "earthrise" series. Here they are still used by students in college.But there were no black lenses, and I believe that as nobody in a helmet could focus accurately enough, the images were made using 50mm f4 Distagon lenses, and the machines were Hasselblad ELs with 70mm film magazines -because you could not change the film outside either.
I have not ever seen a photograph of this model in use in space, but the lens is not original as it is black, and it is missing its viewfinder attachment ( they had made special ones for helmeted folk).
I can remember these things as I was so thrilled at the time and we had the official heavily illustrated books from the States in the house as soon as they became available.
I venture to propose it is a fake
I don't think that it is fake. As to it being a just a box, well yes it is, but the Mona Lisa is just a wooden panel with paint on it. Probably worth a couple bucks at a garage sale if it weren't known the world over.
Marty4650: What you are witnessing is a fundamental change in the market.
Obviously, not enough people were paying for Microsoft cloud storage, and their sales for Office 365 weren't going well, so they decided to give you one product for free if you would buy the other.
This is very much like the cell phone companies giving you "unlimited minutes" to entice you to buy more data bandwidth from them.
Microsoft's real problem is people like me who are still using Office 2003 and happy with it. After 25 years of MS Office, there aren't that many improvements needed. My 11 year old copy works just fine.
Incidentally, the same exact thing will happen to Adobe. At some point people will get sick and tired of monthly subscription fees and find a copy of CS5 or CS6 instead.
MS laid off a very large number of employees. They are still a large company that sell a lot of product but unless they come up with a "killer app" they are no longer a growing company.
Lots of businesses depend on MS software and OS because a lot of applications only run on the platform. Don't expect them to be going away anytime soon.
Apple seems to be the king of the hill these days, but eventually, someone else will take over.
Simon97: Microsoft is looking like a whipped dog these days. As for MS Office,Open Office Org forever.
I run a small materials fabrication business and find Open office more than adequate for my needs. I have spreadsheets set up for invoicing and handling the complex calculations of material use for quotes. No need to send hard earned money off for the MS "rentware".
Every dog has his day. MS had theirs. The rapidly changing tech market has left many companies stirring in its wake including MS. They are trying to keep revenue incoming, but the monthly subscription scheme is a poor way to do it. Many people have voiced their disagreement to what is essentially month to month renting software. Adobe should have learned.
Microsoft is looking like a whipped dog these days. As for MS Office,Open Office Org forever.
I love the dramatic sky in the first shot. It is what makes it for me. I just don't like the crooked horizon. It is something I see in many of my own shots and drives me crazy why I can't hold the camera straight!
Raw at 1600 looks like Canon has made some improvement in noise performance. It is small, but along with more pixels it is evident. My favorite APS-C sensor is the Sony 16mp. I kind of wish they'd improve upon it rather than go with more pixels. Still waiting to see how the Sony 20mp sensor looks on this test scene.
I expect the camera will be reviewed as a group of entry level SLRs as before. The K500 is history and the K50 seems to be discounted for discontinuation as well. Apparently, this is the Pentax entry model. I don't get the pricing. It is $200 too high.
D1N0: Another camera that will never get a full review on dpreview. Not a single camera with the sony 20mp aps-c sensor has been reviewed yet by dpreview.
Agree. Would like to see this 20mp sensor compared in their studio scene. Although the Sony 24mp APS-C sensor gives 8mp more than the well regarded 16mp sensor, it gives up a stop worth of noise performance. I'd estimate that this 20mp sensor is a good compromise between resolution and noise.
I never could come to terms with Canon's JPEGs that have rather intense sharpening halos around contrasting edges. Best to shoot raw. Something might be up with the lens as the upper right area is sharp but the other three corners have an issue. Hopefully not another Canon decentered lens lottery.
Panasonic does JPEGs really well. They are sharp yet don't have the thick sharpening halos like certain other brands. They should stand up to large size prints for those who don't want to deal with raw.
The 4/3rds sensor does struggle a bit when the ISO is turned up but other than that, it is good stuff.
Despite its lower pixel count, at ISO 1600 the LX100's images don't turn to mush. Look at the text on the grey background. The LX100 stays legible while the Canon and Sony have become mushy. Megapixel race anyone?
I don't care for Canon's soft approach with very strong sharpening halos. The LX100 has more "snap".