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!
The shot with the three lion cubs is great. Coming to a poster near you (or smart phone/computer wallpaper).
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! ;)
I had it
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.