Nice work Nikon. A stillborn camera. Hardly a camera at all. Just a gadget and way overpriced at that.
DPR, will this be the sole review in Feb like the Canon P&S super zoom was the sole review in Jan? Why are the reviews so sparse on dpREVIEW?
marike6: I didn't read the whole review, but from the conclusions and looking at the JPEG comparisons, I actually thought the reviewer was a bit hard on the camera. I think that in the context of what the camera represents, a better smartphone, IQ is fine, and honestly, except for the Canon, IQ is as good or better than the other 3 test cameras.
Of course there is heavy NR and if you pixel peep images you will surely find flaws, but few owners of such a camera are going to be photographing test scenes and zooming to 100%. Like most of the lower tier 1/2.3" sensor cameras, it seems to produce bright, well exposed snaps, no more, no less.
No, in the lower key parts of the image, you can see how bad the camera does. You can hardly read anything on the globe. Shadows are smeared.
D800 users will be wondering how to get the Canon lens on their Nikon body to have the best of both worlds!
I'm going to wait foe the reviews. The 12mp BSI in the Pentax Q was a match with the G12, so it has potential.
CCD or BSI CMOS? So which is it DPR? I hope it gets the BSI sensor. The camera feels great in the hand and is rugged (it is based on the same body as in 2011. Unfortunately the image quality is not much better than a cell phone, so hopefully things improved.
After reading the posts here makes me sad to realize this site has some of the biggest dopes and "Brand Bois" I've seen on any photo site. Shameful.
How are the newer EVFs in bright sunlight for eyeglass wearers? My only experience is with an old 4mp camera from 2004. The EVF becomes too hard to see unless I cup my hand around the eyepiece. OVF, of course doesn't have this issue.
Simon97: I use RawTherepee. I'm not converting raw files in any large volume, but when I do have a few to process, this program does everything I ask of it. I'm very happy with the results I get. Makes me wonder why I even fool around with JPEGs anymore.
I'm running RT4 on Windows 7 64 bit. Works fine.
I use RawTherepee. I'm not converting raw files in any large volume, but when I do have a few to process, this program does everything I ask of it. I'm very happy with the results I get. Makes me wonder why I even fool around with JPEGs anymore.
This 12mp camera makes images that are sharper and cleaner than the ones with more photo detectors. It goes to show you how pointless it is stuffing more pixels on these pin head sized sensors. Yet, there will be more P&S models released with 16+ MP sensors. Bummer.
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.