Is it just me or there is a red tinge to the 5D3 image? All the grey or black object has a reddish hue over them.
It seems like the additional amount of details from the D800 is not nearly as much as the numbers suggest. Given real life usage scenarios with various apertures setting, ISO settings, lens flaws and camera shake, I believe the difference output resolution between the 5D3 and the D800 may be even less.
It would be interesting to see what the D800E is capable of...
On the other hand, the high ISO performance of the D800 when downsampled is as good or may even be better than the 5D3. Provided one can look pass the extra bytes in file size, advantage Nikon.
Given one of the major target markets for both the 5D3 and D800 are journalists who may need to upload photos from the field... I wonder what is the impact of a large file sizes. And ofcourse the other group are wedding photographers who are always short of memory cards and time to process photos.
There is definitely more details from the D800. But here is the thing, the file size of D800 is more than 2x that of the 5D2. Sure there is more details but it is definitely not 2x more. In fact, most of the time one has to look closely at 100% magnification to observe that extra details in the cloth or some texture on a surface.
In the noise department. At full resolution, the noise grains on the D800 RAW images seem coarser than the 5D2's finer grain patterns. However, when down sampled to 21mpx, the D800 image is considerably cleaner than the 5D2. This also means that D800 users would be carrying 2x the file size of the 5D2 but would only really benefit from the high ISO performance if down sampled.
The high resolution sensor and good noise control are advantagous to the D800 but large file is definitely a disadvantage. The fact that the 5D3 shoots at 6fps and has improved noise performance over the 5D2 makes the choice between the D800 and 5D3 even less straightforward.
It is true that the G1x has its fair share of critics. It is also true that there is room for improvement.
However, I noticed that the G1X has been hogging the no. 1 spot on the chart called 'Cameras receiving the most clicks in reviews and specs in the last five days' since it was announced. It was briefly unseated by the D800 after its announcement, after the Panasonic GX1 review and on a few other occasions. But, every time it bounces back and now it is back on top again.
Canon is definitely not immune to making mistakes but this time, they must have at least done a few things right...
It would be interesting to see the high ISO performance of the 36mpx sensor. As of now, it seems to me that the only real upgrade to the D700 is the sensor resolution.
Bomple: Please dpreview, if that camera has the same restriction about shooting raw as the s95 and s100 (no raw in full auto and scene modes), at least mention it somewhere in the review.
This is really annoying and a big "con" for me.
Another surprise for you, Bomple - It is the same for most Canon dSLR as well!
Yes, the 60D, 600D, 7D and anything else that comes with a fully automatic mode will only spit out JPEG (although I think 5D2 allows RAW in full auto). This is done by design, not a 'flaw'.
Carel: Surely you guys below are just being sarcastic?? Come on people, this emperor does not have any clothes on. This is just a super agressive and kind-of intelligent noise reduction algorithm doing its thing. Even at lower magnifications it looks like a water painting after a mild shower. As one should expect: no fine detail, some retention of borders hence an illusion of sharpness after heavy noise reduction, in short - no better than other similar sized sensors out there.
I think this is a very respectable performance at ISO 12,800. Even if it were 'only' as good as other APS-C sensors, it would still be remarkable. The point is, can you find another large sensor camera out there with comparable compactness and a comparable zoom range?
The closest is the Panasonic GX1 (with the X kit lens) but I believe this high ISO image quality trumps the GX1 by quite a significant margin... Ofcrouse we are talking purely about high ISO image quality here. The GX1 brings with it other strengths such as AF speed, etc.
The JPEG images looks pretty ok but I prefer to look at the raw output. Also, there are no other camera samples to compare against.
Focus Numerique actually shared the RAW images that can be used to compare with the RAW images of other cameras.
To my surprise, when converted using the dcraw based converter, the G1X images seem cleaner than the NEX5N at ISO 1600 and beyond.
Where it lost out slightly is in resolution (partially due to pixel count) and in corner sharpness. However, this tiny G1X lens seems to control CA much better than the larger NEX kit lens (when uncorrected), especially at the corners.
It seems like the G1X engineers do focus on quality when designing this camera and I respect that. I believe it was possible to go a little wider or a little longer, maybe even a faster lens at f2.0 and reduce the sensor size a little. The thing is, being a non-interchangeable lens camera, Canon can change anything they want in the next version without impacting current users.
I noticed that the maximum sync speed for the popup flash is 1/2000. I suppose this is the result of the lens shutter system. Note that no other mirrorless cameras can do this with their popup or bundled flash system.
This is one of my major gripe with my EPL2 in bright sunlight. It is difficult to use the popup flash as fill flash in bright daylight when the max sync speed is 1/180. I had to use f16 on one occasion and filters are just to cumbersome when I am on holiday and switching between indoor and outdoor environments frequently.
The built in ND filter is cool as well.
Hi Barney, is there any plan to replace the samples in the Studio Comparison tool with the best samples? I think that would do the sensor justice. Since the quality control issue has been highlighted extensively in the review, I think there is no need to further illustrate that in the Studio Comparison tool. Now, we would really see what the sensor is capable of in high iso... That would also give us some idea on what to expect for G13. Thanks.
Menneisyys: Wow.... check out the watch face in the lower right corner... way worse than that of the S95. And it's not even extreme corner.
Interestingly, shots in the center of the image are certainly better than the S95, particularly at higher ISOs, and the batteries in the lower left corner aren't that much worse than those of the S95. I'd say the lens of this camera is decentered; hence the dreadful softness in the lower right corner.
EDIT: compared to the LX5, the latter is way better in the corners. Noise-wise, a BIT worse at ISO 3200. At ISO1600, there's absolutely no difference, noise-wise, between the LX5, S95 and S100. I'd say the differences between the S95 and S100, noise-wise, at ISO 3200 are minimal.
Frankly, I've expected better... Now, I'll surely wont get this camera.
The yellow hair at the bottom right hand corner is practically out of focus. The CA and corner softness is very clearly a lens issue. The sensor itself is very impressive. Comparing the portions which are in focus (eg, the paper money) at ISO1600 against the GF3 and EPL2 will show that this new sensor can hold its own very well against much larger sensors.
Barney, I noticed you are using 78mm equivalent to shoot these photos. Another website, Imaging Resource, used 26mm (120mm equiv) and the corners look pretty sharp. Perhaps you can experiment shooting at other focal lengths just to verify if it only happens at this specific focal length.
Mssimo: I hope Panasonic or richo (aka pentax) buys off Olympus camera/health division.
I am pretty sure it is Legit. It passed all the major audits, did it not? Spending $1billion on a lousy acquisition or investment is legit...
Whether the investors see that as a sound management decision and would continue to have the confidence in putting their money with Olympus is a separate matter. Like it or not, to a public company, this is more important than anything else. Judging from the stock market reaction to the news.... I do not believe Olympus or its management can escape this one unscathed.
Besides, this does not look like a simple accounting and asset transfer, we are looking at an acquisition of a cosmetic company, hyperinflated consulting fees, etc. All of which will not go down very well with investors.
Tim in upstate NY: I'm thinking that Olympus Imaging will survive this crisis no matter what the outcome of this dispute. I'm just worried that it might get swallowed up by another camera company the way that Minolta was by Sony. It would actually be better for us Olympus users if Olympus Imaging was bought by a non-photography-centric company like Apple for example. That way, there'd be no compulsion by the new owners to cherry pick what assets they find useful and then discard everything else including the unique traits of Olympus cameras and optics which are so much appreciated by those of us who love our Olympus equipment. And I'm not necessarily suggesting Apple as a buyer as there are likely other companies that could possibly be interested in getting into the photography business.
Apple will likely only acquire companies that helps in their supply chain or components for the current products. I don't see them venturing into the camera business. If they did, they would build their own iSLR or something...
Kodak is fighting for their own life so we can pretty much write them off. Samsung is an APS-C company, so they may not see value in Oly's m43 technologies. HP, well they've got their own CEO mess to clean up.
I think if Oly were to be acquired, IMO a likely buyer could be Panasonic. They can they consolidate the m43 lenses, camera technology and market share.
nobblynoel: Eight megapixels...3264x2448. Backside illuminated sensor...73% more light per pixel than iPhone 4. 33% faster capture. Hybrid IR filter, better color accuracy and uniformity. Five element lens, 30% more sharpness, f/2.4 aperture. Face detection, better white balance, and fast photos.
"The best camera is the one you have with you". I hated the iPhone and used the Sony Ericsson C905 for the longest time.
But I use an iPhone now and it is the only camera I have with me literally all the time, even when I am using my dSLR. Even for professional photographers, it is impossible to have your dSLR with you all the time, but it is possible with a phone.
Therefore, in those moments without your dSLR, the phone is your best camera, unless you can paint really well. And any single iPhone model probably has more users than any other single model of phones out there. This is why the iPhone tops the Flickr chart and this is why iPhone camera is important and worth looking at. I hope dpreview can do a group test for a bunch of 8mpx phones like they did for PnS and long zoom compacts.
Now what is lacking in a camera phone is NOT Flash. It is OPTICAL ZOOM. This is the single thing that is keeping PnS alive.
I really have no issue with the size of the sensor. However, this market segment is about making different compromises to get the right balance of size, image quality and price.
Image quality aside, the sacrifice that Nikon made in the area of sensor size here doesn't seem to translate to significant gains in the other aspects such as a smaller size or lower price (than competing NEX or m43 cameras). This makes one wonder, why bother with such a considerably smaller sensor then?
I hope Nikon and Canon take their time to design a proper MILC system that is well thought through and practical. The current MILC market is a huge mess if you ask me.
Models being released every few months to 'correct' mistakes of previous models. Olympus and Panasonic is releasing the 3rd version of their kit lens within a couple of years. Sony's 18-55mm has some serious sharpness issues and their NEX5/3 does not even have proper AEL button. No one can decide if they want a flash hot-shoe or a popup flash, etc. People buy them because of the sense of novelty. In terms of picture true quality and usability, few of them make the cut.
I bought at least 3 MILC in the past 3 years and feel they are still under engineered and somehow inadequate. Finally, Sony came out with a seemingly well designed NEX7 and they went and add 9mpx worth of noise into their well designed 16mpx sensor and created the 25 mpx.
Seriously, I would rather Canon and Nikon take their time and design a proper MILC
Causio: I made a test with the cityscape photo:http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/1352344/dsc00429?inalbum=sony-slt-a77-preview-samplesShot with Carl Zeiss 16-35 F2.8 at F8.0, iso 200.
Downloaded it, reduced the size to 16Mp, scaled up again to 24, overlapped with the original on a new layer. Enabling/disabling the layer, I could see NO DIFFERENCE at all at 100%. My friends had to hear the mouse click to realize that I was changing from original to down-up-scaled.So, either we'd better wait for the raw files, or the question is: what are those 24 Mp for, if not just marketing strategy? They can't even be useful for cropping... And the sensor is more expensive. The quintessence of the market driven megapixel race? Or the lens is really that inadequate? I can hardly believe that the raw will have such a big room for improvement
As far I know, the 24mpx sensor does server one purpose... drives the sale of Sony memory cards. Brilliant isn't it? Sell you a camera with a ridiculously high res sensor with a very nice spec but does absolutely nothing more than blowing up the size of your image files with noise. Then sell you more memory cards... It's a Sony.