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.
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.