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! ;)
Looking forward to the studio shots on this one!
I had it
I'll have to eat my words. I said 16mp was the golden spot for APS-C because Sony's 24mp sensor is quite a bit more noisy than the 16mp that came before it, indicating the progressive improvements were coming to a halt. Now this new sensor has more resolution and better noise performance, so there is clearly room for APS-C to advance. I forgot about that thing called BSI.
Trk: What does it mean "16MP Four Thirds sensor starting to look a bit dated"? It will have always the same physical size, only technology can change but I do not believe that it will mean significantly better quality. More megapixels? I do not need them with micro 4/3.
I agree! No more megapixels for this format. It has plenty. Nikon made the mistake of stuffing too many in the latest N1 cameras with the much smaller sensor and the picture quality suffers for it.
webrunner5: Heh, I can see it now. Some Chinese site selling Black Dots for Nikon 750's for 99 cents on Ebay. What a crazy world we live in lol.
I can't spell today lol.
Here are some black dots to get 'em going. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Good stuff. I usually find something to complain about, but not here. Even the zoom lens is good. I believe 24mp is the sweet spot for FF as there is plenty of resolution and great high ISO performance.
When sensor area was taken into consideration, Apple came in dead last :)
EXX: Did the camera used in photo #1 survive?
At least the memory card did!
Most important to me is the loss of telephoto reach you incur going to full frame. My largest lens was a 300mm f/4 which has the same reach of a 450mm on FF.
The later APS-C sensors shows that the cropped format has adequate image quality for most work.
Nice handling of JPEGS. No sharpening halos. Contrast seems a bit low but that helps to prevent blown highlights. Canon and Nikon need to be schooled here.
Pritzl: Is anyone still buying cheap compacts? And if they are, is it happening in enough numbers to justify 5 new models of the same old tripe?
Yes. They have optical zooms (cell phones mostly do not) and around about next holiday season, will be discounted. I got an Elph 115 IS for $40 and it is an okay bang around camera that zooms out to around 200mm.
I don't have or want a smart phone. I have a Nexus 7 tablet and don't take it everywhere. Although the market has dwindled, there still is a market for these.
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.