Looking at the RAWs, they are better than the 4/3rds cameras and a bit behind the NEX in the comparison. It makes me wonder why the jpegs look like a crappy P&S at higher ISOs. If it has NR control, turn it way down.
Where do you insert the mini DV tape?
Interesting technology. I can see this combine with perhaps a 2 or 3x zoom lens so that pixel count does not need to be reduced as much with zooming and lens quality not sacrificed as well. The images here are much better than the current crop of 16mp compacts that are just atrocious.
Dynamic range is my only concern. It won't be adopted by serious shooters with that highlight clipping issue.
Looks good. The lens is sharp in the center but struggles mightily near the edges to the point I'd call it unacceptable. Being a 7.5x zoom comparable to the 28-200mm zooms of the film days, you can't expect it to be perfect.
Resizing the images to 10 mp makes them usable, but there is still a lot of mottling around edges. The $350+ price is way to much to ask for such a lousy image quality. The 12 mp BSI sensor, while not great, was better then this.
After viewing the sample images, I can see that the lens is very good. No chromatics and only a slight loss of sharpness near the edges. Seems to retain sharpness at wider apertures and at telezoom. As I recall, the LX5 lost sharpness when zoomed.
OTOH, shadow noise is higher than expected in available light shots at ISO 200 or less. To be honest, I don't mind some "grain". In fact I prefer them letting it show rather than trying to smudge the detail with aggressive noise reduction. It is a small sensor camera, so don't expect miracles.
Hopefully the street price is reasonable. This is another enthusiast compact in a crowded market and others are trying larger sensors.
You can't have a camera this small having such a zoom range with a larger sensor. The problem is that they choose to put in a 16mp sensor that must have heavy NR to clean up the image. Problem is, it cleans up the detail as well. The Canon SX230 has less MP count and shows more detail in the studio shot. Not splitting hairs either.
chris_j_l: And with this, Sigma signals that they have abandoned K mount for macro lenses.
Because Pentax is too small of market. I think Tamron makes some of Pentax's lens anyway
Very good audio. One of my biggest gripes with point & shoot video is the crappy audio. Most compact cameras compress the sound dynamics to make the softer sounds seem louder and it makes mush of live music. It make bass seem nonexistent. My Canon S95 records stereo, but the compression makes live music recording shameful.
This camera phone did very well. There is bass and DR. The compressed nature of loud rock music may not be the best test, but again, this looks good.
This is a wake-up call to the point and shoot camera makers. A camera phone that trumps most P&S camera photo, video and audio!
On a proper gimbal mount, the mass of the lens helps with vibration. Should be similar in weight to a 600 f/4. I rather have a 600 f/4 because the 800mm lens can be too long in some cases. f/4 is faster and can be matched up with a quality 1.4x TC for 840mm/5.6
I would like to see this "pixel oversampling" technology in an actual point & shoot camera using a real zoom lens. Gone would be the days of the "Bayer softness" when viewing images zoomed in (or close cropped). No need for sharpening and the ugly halos it can produce. Noise reduction, while still necessary at higher ISOs may not be as intrusive since pixel binning would reduce the noise.
Today's P&S cameras make truly awful images, especially the 14 and 16MP ones. The larger sensor compacts, like the 1/1.7 sensored ones are better, but not quite there for me.
Kind of funny seeing this appear in a phone first. Camera makers are asleep at the wheel.
Lens looks soft on the right side. How many tries will Nikon get, DPR?
MDwebpro: Nice shot, Nazir! The spraying water droplets convey a sense of dynamic tension and really make the shot.
The only thing I'm not wild about (pun intended) is the horizon line running through the exact middle of the frame. That's always a turn-off for me and a lot of other photographers I know. I probably would have crouched closer to the ground, which would have made the tigers appear taller and more imposing, while at the same time pushing the horizon line lower in the frame. Then again, the surrounding environment might have made such an angle logistically impossible. Only you were there and know what you had to work with.
Great job, nevertheless!
Nothing wrong with the horizon. It is really subdued in this shot. The horizontal steak of lighted green grass is the primary background element and is positioned just fine. If the horizon were lower, the strip of green would be too low in the frame and unbalance it. Sometimes the textbook ideals can be ignored.
A great camera for shooting RAW. I don't understand why Canon goes for that heavier NR and haloed looking sharpening in the jpegs. The Nikon D800 lets a little noise show at higher ISO and the images look more natural.
Stunning resolution not having the demosaicing to deal with. One could get crisp detail in color with landscapes and still lifes by making 3 exposures using RGB filters. Would be interesting to see how the resolution compares.
The processed RAWs have so much noise for ISO 100. The jpegs are so incredibly soft. Canon really needs to work on sensor design. I normally leave positive comments, but I am disappointed with what I see.
I have no issue with the size. It is just thick enough for a comfortable grip. With a set of pancake lenses, it is still pretty small and I can pop on my 300mm lens without having to buy some rip off $250 adapter.
The problem for me is the price. $900 is too much. $600 makes more sense.
Amazing resolution for the price. Gives up little to the 645D in terms of resolution. Only in the smallest print and detail does the 645D show the edge.
At high ISO, it simply can't match the 645D in noise performance, but that's expected. For 1/3rd the price you get a pretty good camera.
Impressive image quality. I was wondering about the 4/3rd format sensor with higher MP counts, but my concerns are at ease.
jj74e: I don't see what advantage flexible screens will provide for camera designs. A curved screen would skew what an image would look like on any other flat screen (unless for some reason people start wanting curved screens on their laptops, TVs, etc.), so flat screens would still be the practical choice even if flexible screens mean different body shapes? But maybe I'm missing something
Also, is this article saying that AMOLED screens only save energy when there are black parts present (because then they can simply turn off)? I thought AMOLED technology was inherently more efficient than LCDs regardless of what the image is presenting.
Flexible means the screen won't be cracked if the device is dropped. Probably the biggest problem with cell phones. This can mean more durable cameras can be engineered at a lower cost.