Canon, how about some lenses for the M?
Simon97: The rectangular aperture looks too small for a 1" sensor. Looks more like a 1/1.7" sensor would fit there. Compare to Nikon 1 camera. The inner circle of contacts would be in the way. Why so many contacts for the lens anyway? This almost seems to be some kind of joke.
I understand that there is no sensor that is why I said "the aperture" and "sensor would fit there". Now look at the inner contact rings. No way will a 1" sensor fit. In the plastic mock up, there is only room for a 1/1.7 sized sensor (or less). Look at a Nikon 1 body. The sensor and recess are much larger. If you tried to set a Nikon 1 senor in that mock-up, it would touch the pins of the inner circle at the corners (or nearly so). Just no room for it and that seems odd to me.
The rectangular aperture looks too small for a 1" sensor. Looks more like a 1/1.7" sensor would fit there. Compare to Nikon 1 camera. The inner circle of contacts would be in the way. Why so many contacts for the lens anyway? This almost seems to be some kind of joke.
Not crazy about the soft jpegs that Nikon, Canon and some others seem to like. Panasonic got the message with the LX7. While you do get some noise with the raws, the difference in sharpness is night and day.
plasnu: Why RAW mages are so blurry?
This camera uses a different color array pattern on the sensor. The RAW converters need updating to handle the conversion properly. This was covered in the preview.
Very little to complain about the images from this camera. High ISO colors are a little muted, other than that, this camera does a great job.
Something amiss with this lens. Lens looks decentered at wide angle at wider apertures settings in the corners. Look at the window shot 9250. Also has some weird busy double image bokeh near the edges (tree branches in some shots).
The center is pin sharp and contrasty so my fingers are crossed that the edge issue is not the way it was designed.
I don't care for Canon's fat sharpening halos at low ISOs. The Nikon jpegs are better. At high ISOs, the tables turn and the Canon does better. If you shoot raw, select the camera with the features you like.
The RX100 is a bit of a disappointment to me. Better resolution and a bit better noise performance but the lens is a let down as you move away from the center of the image.
Looks sharp and contrasty. No annoying color fringing (maybe just a hint in some shots). Bokeh looks somewhat busy at some settings, good in others. I can't judge edge performance due to the limited DOF but overall I'd say it is a promising lens. You can't ask too much more from a zoom.
I think it is neat that they can do all these filters based on the depth information.
I still think they should also make an ordinary camera based on the light field camera shape because it is very discreet.
So the D600 looks to have slightly less noise than the D800 sampled down to 24mp, although the D800 has better detail? This would seem to indicate, at least for high ISO shooting, the MP race has ran its course.
If this has the 1/2.3" sensor that is in all the current cheap P&S cameras that produce horrid looking pix even in bight outdoor light, this thing is overpriced even if it has the "smart" functions.
neo_nights: Wow! The K5-IIs is the new High ISO king for APS-C cameras! Impressive, indeed!
Looking at the raw images, the X-Pro 1 is applying a heavy NR. At ISO 3200 it has a water color painting effect (look at the feathers). Some details are lost. I've heard that Pentax uses a light amount of NR too. I think the raw output should be left alone so that the potentially more sophisticated converting/editing software can be left to handle the NR to the desire of the user.
It is quite normal for a product to have parts sourced from many different companies. Thank about the different types of plastics, glass, metals, motors, microphones and other electronic components that make up a camera.
In some cases the only thing a company will do is to put their name on it (and it was probably stamped on in a factory somewhere else.
I do small scale manufacturing. I design and do a lot of my own manufacturing to get my final product, but I still had to source parts and materials from other companies. It is how this stuff works.
The Nikon P7700 looks better with low ISO jpegs, but Canon looks better at 1600 (not sure why DPR uses 3200 to show default high ISO with these smaller sensor cameras). Raws are more even. I'd say look at the camera's other features and decide that way.
The RX100 doesn't really distance itself from these smaller sensor cameras here. It does have the resolution advantage but it makes softer images (especially off axis) and noise performance isn't much better. Of course resizing the RX100 image to 12mp will show its clear advantage but you pay the price in the wallet and zoom range.
Sony missed the mark (but was quite close). 20mp is overkill. It is actually rather noisy at high ISOs. 16mp 4/3rds and Nikon 1 are much cleaner. Go to raw comparison tool, select ISO 1600 and see for yourself. I think the RX100 would have been better served with a sensor in the 15mp range.
Secondly the lens is disappointing off axis. Looking at the samples, even stopped down the softness of the images that starts about half way to the edges is a shame. This is what drives my crazy with Sony. They make all these great cameras, yet some of their lenses are disappointing.
If Sony could shave $100 of the price, they would own the enthusiast P&S market.
Glad to have lens test back!
This lens extends quite long. The girls will be impressed.
This Sony sensor continues to amaze. And in a capable camera it is a bigger plus. Canon has yet to answer the low shadow noise / recovery capability it possesses.
I like the jpeg rendering. They give it a little "bite". Lens looks good too. Nikon is doing a good job luring me away from Canon.