IvanM: something looks wrong, the whole image looks soft and some edges have a double edge. Probably 'default' jpeg processing instead of 'proper' raw files and processing...doesn't really help in determining image quality...
Are you talking about the sharpening halo along the edges? That's probably because the default sharpening is too high. The Powershot line of cameras tend to do that.
KW Phua: Canon and Nikon will wait until they see Reporters use smart phone or mirror less to shoot Olympic or world cup then yes the enemies are here. For now, Smart phone only kill PnS, will come to mirror less before DSLR, so why invest in mirror less? Anyone can shoot F1 with smart phone or mirror less? LOL!
T3, I seem to think the rise of tablets and fall of the laptop have more to do with user experience rather than weight. There are some very lightweight 8" Windows tablets around but they don't nearly sell as well as iPads nor Android tablets. Not to forget the Apple Newton was very light as well but did not take off. It is all about user experience.
Talking about user experience, I find some of the mirrorless user interface to be abysmal (eg, NEX ..). Canon cameras on the other hand have decently thought through user experience. Even Canon's touch screen interface was better implemented than some competitors when it was first introduced.
Lastly, as you mentioned mirrorless functions almost like DSLR except for their weight. This explains why it did not take off in markets like the US where weight may not matter as much.
Talking about mirrorless, I am just glad that Canon did not do what some of their competitors did - abandoning their DSLR customers overnight and switching to SLT/MILC.
In fact, I see Canon's strategy to develop a unified strategy for CDAF capable dual pixel sensor that can be used in both DSLR and mirrorless to be brilliant. This way, they can keep their DLSR customers happy while position themselves to compete in the mirrorless market. Provided they decide to put the dual-pixel sensor in their mirrorless, that is.
Lensjoy: The human eye is most sensitive to green. When calculating luminance (Y) from the respective RGB values for gamma 2.2, the formula is: Y = 0.2126*R^2.2 + 0.7152*G^2.2 + 0.0724*B^2.2Blue is only 7 percent of perceived luminance! So if I were to design a sensor doing what Sigma is purporting to do, I would put the high resolution four pixels in the center green layer, not the top blue layer.
Perhaps Sigma is doing something more complex than the schematic in the article above implies, but from the above description I expect this sensor design to have faults that we'll see remedied in a future version. I wouldn't buy the camera yet.
It is indeed slightly more complex. In reality, things do not work exactly as shown in the Foveon RGB layered diagrams. It is important to know that there is no color filter, so the top layer gets all the colors, not only blue. It is only when the light travels further down the sensor that blue, followed by green starts to decrease in intensity. The image processor then applies some complex algorithm to extract (or subtract) the RGB values for each layer.
The top layer on its own can thus also function as a very good B&W sensor that records light intensity for the combined RGB values. With Quattro, since the top layer has 4x the resolution, it records a much higher resolution B&W image. When high resolution image is overlaid onto the color information calculated using the TRUE algorithms, there should be much better details. At least theoretically...
All Nokia had to do was to update the OS of the original 808 and release it a few months after it was first launched.
Instead they took a very long time, frustrating customers and giving time for competitors to react, only to release a product which is.. well.. slimmer but inferior to the 808. Inferior in the main aspect that excites pureview users in the first place - the camera. By the way, the 1020 is still rather bulky and heavy when compared to its competitors.
I guess this is expected from a guy who engineered his own return to Microsoft (with a huge payout) at the expense of the company he is supposed to be turning around. RIP Nokia... You got stabbed by the Ambulance medic who was supposed to be resuscitating you.
A quick test of the Dual Pixel AF on youtube:
Jefftan: "The big unknown right now is image quality - the 70D uses a 20.2MP sensor but the image is formed from 40.3M photodiodes, which is a lot to fit onto an APS-C chip."
not just noise, what about diffraction
The dual photodiodes collect light from a pixel which is the same size as a pixel in a 20mpx sensor. The diffraction characteristics should be the the same or better than any 20mpx APS-C sensor.
I wonder if Canon will implement a single shot HDR with Dual Pixel like Fuji did with EXR. Basically one of the dual pixel records at a positive bias and the other one at negative. They will then combine to produce an image with high DR....
Combatmedic870: Im guessing looks just like the 700D and 60D and 7D and 600D and...EOS M*shrugs*
Reminds me of a joke that goes - Images from Canon, Pentax and Nikon cameras were printed at A2/A3 sizes and compared. The winner turned out to be... Epson. All the printouts were so good it had to be the printer.
Benarm: Canon's second failed attempt at taking a jab at mirrorless market. The longer they avoid producing something competitive to NEX/Oly/Panny, the more Canon will lag behind. And why would they put a 2009 sensor on it? Fail.
Benarm, just because it has the same pixel count does not mean it is the same sensor as 2009 :-) Besides, I do not recall any of Canon's sensor from 2009 having PDAF pixels.
Ironically Canon's mirrorrless strategy hinges on that sensor. With AF points covering 80% of the sensor and if it performed up to scratch then Canon's next mirrorless would not be that far behind Sony and Oly anymore, would it?
lbpix: They just wrote themselves out of the equation - no viewfinder even as an option. Why would I buy a camera when I can't see to compose in sunlight?Shame.
I understand your point but if they were to add an OVF, then there would be the considerations on accuracy, size, weight, focus point display, price etc....
If they added an EVF, then there would also be the considerations on size, weight, resolution, battery life etc. But most importantly, price.
With all these factors to consider, it is very unlikely that Nikon will design a camera that draws no complains. Since there will always be complains, I suppose the engineers went ahead and took the simplest option, drop the viewfinder together with price/weight/size.
But regulation should step in, or chaos and anarchy will rule the cosmos.
In an urban setting, one cannot just plop advertisement billboards anywhere they like. They are regulated by the powers that be.
Probably the same with remote photography.
In a stadium or arena, those powers are the property owners.
In a sky space, it might be the Civil Aviation authority.
Media helicopters hover over Olympic venues day and night. In due time they might just be RC drones.
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
lightsculpture: I wonder if there is a good wide-angle converter for this camera. If Sigma makes a good 0.6x converter, we can get 27mm. If I am not mistaken, the f-stop would then go down to about f1.7....
27mm f1.7 with WA Converter45mm f2.8 without WA
That would be really useful
Combatmedic870, that is interesting. I always thought that the f-stop is f/D where f is the focal length and D is the pupil size of the aperture.
Since in this case, the imagined WA adapter will convert the focal length from 45mm to 27mm with the pupil size remaining the same, I thought it should decrease the f-stop by the same factor....
I wonder if there is a good wide-angle converter for this camera. If Sigma makes a good 0.6x converter, we can get 27mm. If I am not mistaken, the f-stop would then go down to about f1.7....
I definitely prefer this to the release of a new camera model with minimal upgrades, like the GF5 over GF3 or even the EOS 600D over the EOS 550D.
da5nsy: Help me out guys:
So pixel pitch is 1.4um right? 1.4um * 7728 = 10.8192mm1/1.2 = 0.830.83'' = 21.1667mm10.8192mm≠21.1667mm
What are we thinking? It would seem rather odd to have so much dead space on the sensor unless there was something else going on in there right? Have I done my maths right?
There is a common misunderstanding on the sensor size when this old convention is used. 1" or 1/1.2" does not actually refer to the sensor size. It is referring to outside diameter of the glass envelope of the video camera tube.
A 1/1.2" sensor measures 10.67mm x 8.0mm.
1.4um * 7728 = 10.8mm1.4um * 5368 = 7.5mm
The pixels may not be gapless or perfectly circular or 1.4um could be an estimate.
I wonder if painters go to websites like this and argue till their faces turn blue about "my brush is 5 points softer than yours" or "my canvas is 20% finer than yours'... hmmm
Still no AE Lock button?...
This is one of the reasons why I stopped buying Panasonic cameras...
Those who went and bought the GF3 a couple of months back would have felt like fools for paying so much. They would have a problem selling their cameras in a second hand market (at a decent price), because with this launch, the new GF3 has dropped so much in price.
In the Amazon listing for GF3 above, there is even an entry that says 'Too low to display', whatever that means.
And looking at "Differences between the GF5 and the GF3" above, I seriously doubt there is enough justification for Panasonic to release a new camera based on these new features.
Unless ofcourse the dpreview sample images tell another story. Maybe dpreview should start giving us a high ISO preview with that furry toy mouse and that Chinese figurine. But I am not hopeful....
There are many in this forum who wish for a zoom lens starting at 24mm/f2.0 on the G1X. The fact is, if Canon were to choose a 24mm/f2.0 on the G1x, they would probably also use the 1/1.7" sensor from the S100 in order to maintain a sensible size. The image quality for the G1X would then be very close to the S100, just like the G12/S95 pair. So, for those who want a 24mm/f2.0 lens and do not give a hood about the sensor size, then why not consider the S100?