aerorail: i see 2 of almost each pic. they look different but have the same exif caption. too confusing for this americani'll keep using my cellphone cam
If you look at the Details, the explanation is there - first image results from RAW, the second one is a SOOC JPEG.
Mark9473: If those samples are representative for the camera, I wouldn't shoot with it even if they paid me to do it. They look like images that were upsampled from even smaller thumbnails.
"Check pentax.com - there, the images appear sharper."
Not to my eyes.
If those samples are representative for the camera, I wouldn't shoot with it even if they paid me to do it. They look like images that were upsampled from even smaller thumbnails.
M Jesper: I'm the last person to have anything against grain or even grain simulation, but the effect in that last image is absolutely horrible !
Oh man. Shame on you Olympus.
Looks a lot like Tri-X did when pushed.
"Shutter shock has been an issue we've encountered with recent Olympus Micro Four Thirds releases, especially at speeds around 1/60 and 1/80 sec, but judging from our initial testing, this issue appears to have been resolved on the PEN-F."
Is this with the mechanical shutter or does it require an electronic first-curtain shutter?
eazizisaid: At 0:48, HCB ?
Carey, HCB = Henri Cartier-Bresson
What surprises me is that we don't see cameras being marketed where the customer can choose the features included and can compile his/her own menu structure.
Choosing a camera used to be simple. I bought my first film camera only on lens mount, flash sync speed and top shutter speed. I bought my first DSLR simply on the, at that time unique, combination of IS, supersonic dust removal, live view and legacy lens compatibilty.
Nowadays potential buyers (speaking for myself) get lost in an increasing range of features, most of which are not needed or poorly understood.
tom1234567: I must have upset the SONY FANBOYSsaying it needs a 24meg aps-c sensor,
so they say it can not be done it would have to be bigger,they could do it and make it smaller technologies are already here to do this,
yes they built the first computer in a room almost the size of a room.now they can put more power in an iPhone.Now Hear This don't say it can't be done your just being silly.
RX10ii IS A VIDEO CAMERA NOT A photographers camerasorry to all the Sony Fan boys
the FZ 1000 IS BETTER VALUE FOR MONEY AT £499
a friend of mine bought the Sony RX10ii camera used it for 3days, now on its way back to shop, photos to much noise at 200iso never mind going higher with the iso.Have a nice day
So are you saying there's technology out there to make a 24-200 eq. f/2.8 zoom lens covering a sensor as large as APS-C, and still end up with a smaller lens than the 24-200 eq. f/2.8 that Sony put on the RX10 to cover a 1" sensor? I'm interested, please tell us more.
obsolescence: DPR -- please, you can't just put up a camera test without stating the lens used. How obvious can that be? If I recall correctly, you previously did this test for the Olympus E-M5 MkII in the Hi Res capture mode with a lens that wasn't up to snuff, and later corrected it by using the 75mm lens. Maybe that lens wasn't available at the time, but in this case, the top performing Panasonic 42.5mm Noctricron lens IS available. IMO there's no excuse for not using that lens for this test. I really want to see what this camera can deliver with the best lens designed for it. Thank you for all you do.
Click on the "i" below the image to see the lens used.
Now that they allegedly will take the pro market more serious, perhaps we're a step closer to getting lossless raw compression on Sony cameras.
Jock Elliott: Those who practice what I call "wildlife photography for the rest of us" -- ie, long-range photography with (relatively) light, nimble superzoom cameras and generally without tripods -- might be interested in the "figure of merit" calculations for this camera.
Figure of merit calculates the total reach potential of a camera/lens combo by multiplying the equivalent focal length squared times the number of pixels. It does not factor in the quality of the pixels.
Here are some of the numbers for various cameras and combos (the higher, the better):
FZ200 -- 4.320FZ1000 -- 3.216D3300 with 70-300 -- 4.860Olympus M5 with 100-300 -- 5.760Nikon D810 with 400mm tele -- 5.760Nikon 1 V3 with 70-300CX -- 14.580Canon G3X -- 7.272
So the G3X comes off pretty well. I own and shoot with the FZ200.
For more about this concept, check out this: http://www.photographerslounge.org/threads/30576/ Be sure to check out the link to the original article.Cheers, Jock
Very interesting concept. Perhaps DxO's "perceived megapixels" could be used as a way to introduce sensor quality and system sharpness into the mix?
ThomasH_always: 600mm without a viewfinder... Good luck to use 600mm at arms length. They are becoming totally insane. I said it before and I say it again: For me "No Viewfinder=No Buy". That simple, that decisive, that final. Another criterion of same kind is: "No Raw=No Buy". Either one of these disqualifies the device from being for me an object of interest.
Well, if you can manage to get an EVF built into the Mk.II two years from now, that would be an achievement.
kodakrome: The samples from the camera look very good. Neither Sony nor Nikon have a camera like this...so it's no wonder that the trolls are all percolating.
This is at full tele:http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/dcam/lineup/powershot/g3x/img/sample/photo01-org.jpg
Then buy it with the EVF and stop complaining about it.
sdh: I think Canon should have given this camera a built-in EVF.Between the protruding lens and handgrip, the camera is already bulky. (I'm not at all saying that's a bad thing.) Why not go all in and include the EVF too?
More generally, I think once it's established that the camera will have a non-fully-collapsing lens barrel, it innately becomes a "bulky" camera. At that point I think a handgrip and EVF should automatically get included.
Conversely if the lens fully retracts then it can go either way, although built in EVF's are still nice (Sony RX100), and it's still possible to create a subtle but effective grip (Canon G15/16).
No need for bets on lens retraction; just look at image 3 in the overview above.
Of course you can't. The images above are crystal clear aren't they?
W5JCK: The original G1 X remains the only decent "X" model of the "G" series. And even it had a lackluster Canon sensor, compared to Sony sensors. But it did have a VF and a fully articulating LCD and plenty of dials and buttons. The other "X" models of the "G" series have all been too compromised by cost saving design changes to be worth buying. And while 600mm f/5.6 sounds good to the uninitiated, that translates into a slow lens that would be as dark as an f/10 on an APS-C sensor camera. So if you are going to shoot at 600mm the subject better be well lit, otherwise you better use a tripod and a long shutter and hope nothing moves within the FoV. And at 600mm f/5.6 I bet it is not sharp anywhere but perhaps in the center. Most likely that lens will need to be stopped down to at least f/8 and possibly f/11 to get a reasonably sharp image beyond the center.
You didn't notice I was quoting W5JCK.
MarioV: Check out the samples. Looks great.http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/dcam/lineup/powershot/g3x/image-sample.html
"Very soft images"
I'm betting that model doesn't agree with you.
"And while 600mm f/5.6 sounds good to the uninitiated, that translates into a slow lens that would be as dark as an f/10 on an APS-C sensor camera. So if you are going to shoot at 600mm the subject better be well lit, otherwise you better use a tripod and a long shutter and hope nothing moves within the FoV."
Back to school for you! ;-) Completely wrong.
Drewpy: Any EVF available...
Did you actually read the announcement?To answer your question: yes.