Nikon D7000Nikon D3000Nikon D40Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSMTokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LDTokina AF 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DXNikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR EDNikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VRNikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DXNikon 85mm f/3.5 DX VR Micro-NIKKORTamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LDNikon SB-600 Speed light
Skipper494: Full frame sensors in compact cameras are long overdue. 1" and m4/3 are band aids. We had 35mm film in little cameras like my Chinon Bon Ami. Miniaturisation is not a problem. Having space for human sized controls is. 1" and m4/3 are just a way for the industry to gradually introduce larger sensors and milk as much money along the way.
It's already here. It's called the Sony RX1. Not very pocket-able though.
I own a Nikon D7000 and love the image quality from the 16MP APS-C Sony sensor. However, the size of the D7000 and lenses is often bothersome and attracts too much attention so when Adorama started selling the Nikon V1 with 10-30mm lens for $399 I jumped on it. So what do I think of the 1" sensor's IQ? I found it is surprisingly good, with high ISO image quality better than my previous DSLR (Sony a700), and a huge step up from a small sensor pocket camera. I don't agree at all with the disparaging remarks about the image quality from some posters on the forums regarding the 1" sensor. The IQ of the Nikon System 1 cameras is very good indeed, and more than adequate for most camera buyers in the price range of the J1/J2. Now that Sony is on board with the great marketing success of the Sony RX100, I now believe the 1" sensor will displace the current tiny sensor used in current pocket cameras, and may even displace the m4/3 format at some point.
jonikon: The worst of the lot by far is the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS, which does not even come close to doing an APS-C sensor justice. Only the very center is reasonably sharp and it quickly gets softer going out from there. I was surprised how much distortion the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS has, even at 50mm. I have pocket cameras that have better lenses than that!
Yep, the distortion is very obvious even without downloading the originals,(which I also did to check for sharpness). Just look at the photo of the guy in the red shirt holding the wine glass. Now look at the vertical elements in the scene and you will see the high degree of distortion even here at 50mm. Given a decent lens, there should be very little or no discernible distortion in at 50mm on an APS-C senso.. Also in the window sill there is a lot of veiling flare, which reminds me of the problem of using my old Minolta lenses on the a700. Not a very good performance for this particular Sony lens, I'm afraid.Sony needs to do a lot of work to improve their NEX lens quality.
The worst of the lot by far is the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS, which does not even come close to doing an APS-C sensor justice. Only the very center is reasonably sharp and it quickly gets softer going out from there. I was surprised how much distortion the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS has, even at 50mm. I have pocket cameras that have better lenses than that!
Shamael: NEX-6 runs without AA filter too, like NEX-7 and RX 1. Look the picture 2264079 in full size, and look how many moire pattern you find in the curbs of the leafs of the Pampa grass. They are all excellent cameras, but they have all that problem, same as D800E from Nikon.
I think what you are seeing is not moire, but rather the affects of processing high levels of CA out of the image.
TonyC5D: Sorry guys but, yet again, a very poor set of pictures. Lots of out of focus or blurry shots, and why the very high ISO samples, or is this a joint test of camera and lens. If so I think it would be much better to do these separately. Many shots are at low shutter speeds which will not help unless you were using a very sturdy tripod. This is supposedly the best review site on the web and your technical write ups are excellent but you do keep letting things down with poor quality galleries. Sorry but more attention needed I think. Having worked for camera manufacturers for many years I would feel rather aggrieved with the apparent lack of effort and technical skill put into the gallery shots.
Some nice artsy pics, but it would be more informative if your photographers selected scenes that allow comparison between center sharpness and edge sharpness. Lots of lenses are sharp dead center these days, but it's how they perform across the frame that separates the good from the ugly.
Does anyone care about these pencil eraser sized sensors anymore? Most of the lenses that are installed in front of them are cheap junk anyway, so what's the point of improving these tiny sensors? Sony should be putting their efforts into the further development of the 1" sensor with PDAF. That's where the future of pocket cameras lies.
John Carlson's forced smile is not any more convincing or reassuring than the current Pentax product lines and prices. Suddenly doubling the price of their DSLR lenses in the US will almost certainly put the final nail in the coffin for Pentax in the USA anyway. Too bad, since Pentax was once a respected name in photography in the USA. At the very least Pentax should put their horrible Q system out of it's misery, and kill it before it dies a slow and miserable death and reduces their credibility as a camera maker even more.
keltos: Is the Af on par with the D7000's now ? or better ? I shoot jet fighters and already hesitated between a k5 (good price now) and the D7k, but now comes the K30... if the AF is better than that of the K5 I might just wait for the 25th of June..
Nope. Only 11 focus points in the K30 and 39 in the Nikon D7000. Also the D7000 has excellent 3D continuous focusing, which Pentax lacks. Auto-focus has always been the Achilles heel for Pentax cameras. They just can't seem to get it right.
The P7700 is too much camera for such a tiny sensor. Tiny sensors are just too limited for DOF control, high ISO image quality and dynamic range. With all the better alternatives of larger sensor compact cameras available today, it is hard to believe anybody would still be interested in these sensor size crippled cameras anymore. The Sony RX-100 is a much more attractive camera to photography enthusiasts. Time for Nikon to wake up and make a compact camera with a 1 inch sensor and leave the tiny sensors to the cell phones..-Jon
Erot: Looking at the comparison table the column "Aperture range (equiv.)" is very interesting. It shows beside the possible most narrow DOF also the light gathering capability of lens-sensor-comibination.
At the short end of the zoom the Sony has the best value (4,9). So the Sony is more capable to take pictures at available light than all other cameras in the table, including the Nikon D3200 with the kit lens.
But at the long end of the zoom the RX100 shows a completly different behavior. The aperture value 13,4 (at 100 mm equiv.) is worse than the G1X, XZ-1 and X10 (at 112mm equiv.). You have to rise the ISO setting at available light, so the picture will probably be more noisy than the other cams, depending on the performance of the sensor.
This seems to be a drawback of the compact conctruction.
You have misinterpreted the information supplied. The aperture equivalents are only for DOF comparison and not useful for determining lumen per unit area at the sensor. In other words the aperture equivalents can not be used to compare ISO requirements at any given focal length.
This Sony RX100 is a BIG improvement over all the other truly pocketable cameras and should be well received by many. Cameras like this should have been made years ago, as the demand has been there for some time now. Although the RX100 is definitely a Canon G1X killer, it is not perfect however. I would like to see Sony add:1. an EVF2. Phase detection auto focus for acceptable continuous AF of moving subjects.3. Less megapixels. 10MP is enough, but 20MP is unnecessary and results some IQ issues (like color accuracy and diffraction limiting, noise reduction smearing), that could have been avoided with a 10 or 12 MP sensor.4. A way to remove the lens for sensor cleaning.5. Lower price.
That said, I think the RX100 is good enough to take away a lot of sales from their NEX line of cameras that are definitely NOT pocketable with a zoom lens attached, and offer little more than lens interchangeability over the RX100.
The 69% review score is a gift for this deeply flawed camera.No viewfinder and slow and dodgy auto-focus in a $900 camera?Pentax, what were you thinking?
I own the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF non-VC lens in a Nikon mount and bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC version to replace it. However, after comparing the sharpness of these two lenses, I decided the non-VC lens was noticeably sharper at f2.8-f4.0. I could not justify the loss in sharpness for the occasional usefulness of VC in a lens of such short focal length, so I returned the VC version and kept the sharper non-VC version. There is little doubt in my mind that this new 24-70 VC Tamron would have been sharper without the VC. I'll bet the reviews of this lens will find the center sharp and the edges soft at f2.8-f4.0. The only good reason to have VC on a lens of this type is for shooting video where it matters, and softness does not.
Manfred Bachmann: this rating is ridiculous! OK, imagequality is good, but all the other things are very bad against the Nikon V1, which earns 69 points.
I agree. the Nikon V1 is a much better camera with interchangeable lenses, an EVF and super fast phase detection auto-focus capability. All of which the Canon G1X lacks, (along with a long list of other features common to cameras these days).
After checking the samples for image quality, the $800 price tag, and reading the review describing the sluggish performance and numerous shortcomings of the G1X, I think DPReview was in a VERY generous mood when they wrote the conclusion and rating for this camera! ;)
No viewfinder and no phase detection auto focus is a deal killer in a camera like this. If this were a rumor, I would not have believed it. Using traditional SLR lenses on the K-01 means the auto-focus will be maddeningly slow and no viewfinder is just totally unacceptable for telephoto lenses. The ill conceived tiny sensor Q system from Pentax along with this poorly designed K-01 make Nikon's new V1 camera look like pure genius by comparison. Sad to say, but it is obvious that Pentax's best engineers left years ago, along with most of the Pentax camera customer base.
" Making practical use of this ability, the A57 also has a mode that will re-process your people pictures with what it thinks is a better composition." -DPReview
Seriously? A camera that overrides your own thinking for you. How nice is that! Leave it to Sony to make a camera that is idiot-proof! No doubt it will become a "must have" camera feature for the Sony crowd!
The Lytro camera looks like another one of those "Gee-Whiz" products that has interesting technology, but will never make it as a viable consumer product. Some things are best left as only imaginings in an inventor's mind, and the Lytro camera appears to be one of those.-Jon
With the release of the G1X studio images, it's now obvious to anyone who has eyes that the mediocre slow focusing lens in the G1X puts it at a huge disadvantage to the latest state of the art interchangeable lens cameras like the Nikon System One, Olympus Pen, and Sony NEX cameras. No doubt the Canon G1X will be a the first and last of it's type, soon to be replaced by a compact interchangeable lens camera in the genre of the Sony NEX cameras.
The two-fold question is why is Canon taking so long to enter the very fast growing compact mirror-less ILC market, and will their entry be worth the wait?