fberns: When I took a look at the NEX-6 in a shop when it was new, mostly it was the viewfinder that I found less good than a DSLR's one. So I thought I might go mirrorless possibly even with the very next model because of a step-up in terms of viewfinder resolution and -speed (lag). But gosh - now it's a step down instead of an improvement. Seems I'll still have to stay for some time with my chunky DSLR...Thank you Sony, this way I won't spend any money on a mirrorless. Not yet.
> do you read other reviews, all reviews I saw so far stated the evf had less lag, better optics, better image. <
If I found the 2.4 MP viewfinder's resolution too low to give me a nice viewing/shooting excerience, I'm sure the 1.4MP will not please me more, won't it?I'm aware an EVF has a few advantages over OVF, but most important for me is that I do like looking through it and for me personally, EVFs aren't there yet.(Very unfortunately, though. I'm sure I'll switch to mirrorless one day)
When I took a look at the NEX-6 in a shop when it was new, mostly it was the viewfinder that I found less good than a DSLR's one. So I thought I might go mirrorless possibly even with the very next model because of a step-up in terms of viewfinder resolution and -speed (lag). But gosh - now it's a step down instead of an improvement. Seems I'll still have to stay for some time with my chunky DSLR...Thank you Sony, this way I won't spend any money on a mirrorless. Not yet.
this camera will be a success!But the price is a bit high to me.
The lens/sensor module for smartphones is a great idea!But if the bigger & better version doesn't feature aperture priority, nor RAW mode (and will possibly have a long viewfinder lag?) it's not ready in my opinion.
naming it Alpha is plain stupid - Anything Sony... Alpha... was until now defined by the Alpha mount!
nice, works well. The bits in the corners are a welcome addition.Seems to be optimized for further increasing resolutions.Will still have to find my prefered comparison spots that I had in the old scene.It's the first time I say it: The whole test scene funtionality was one of the main reasons I got to love your camera review site and that made me always come back!
itsastickup: I'm really quite perplexed. There's no real testing for moré here.
Are you sure it's moiré on the globe? I was wondering, but the fine lines look the same on the D800E and the Pentax 645D also... In my understanding, moiré lines shouldn't be exactly at the same position on different cameras? So in my guess the lines are already on the real-world globe. Are they?
SeeRoy: All this stuff - OLP vs no OLP etc - is just yet more marketing guff intended to differentiate products that are essentially functionally identical. It keeps the churn going, with people replacing perfectly serviceable products with marginally different "latest" versions. Of course the companies are only partly to blame; there's a constant demand expressed in sites like DPR for features and "improvements" to enable "better IQ" in snaps of dogs, cats, kids and cut flowers.
Let's rather talk photography here. :)If you start with the plow and the moon, I'd say that pushing a plow makes much more sense to me than landing on the moon...
While I am glad about the move (Canon's Rebel T series had become bigger and bigger) the statement "comfortably the smallest DSLR" is clearly wrong. The Pentax k-x was in the same league - and that has been a few years ago with a bigger viewfinder and in body shake-reduction! While a bit wider and a hint higher, it was a tiny bit slimmer, probably resulting in pretty much the same volume.
I'm really glad about this addition to the camera market!
While I don't understand the reviewer's statement:"The P330 (left) is exactly the same size as the P310, which is pretty impressive, given the increased dimensions of its sensor"
It's finally quite exactly the same lens and sensor specs that Canon puts in the Powershot S series since years, and those are even a bit slimmer. I certainly won'T exchange 2.0 against 1.8 or 5.9 for 5.6 given the S110's body is 5mm slimmer. The aperture difference would have to be bigger to get me excited.
Ben O Connor: ...there is a place in the foto, where the houses were zigzagging with trees, etc.
I think i find a point which shows its not a flawless pano :D
just wanted to post about it, but you were faster...there had probably been a little earthquake near St. Pancras :)
"...sensor must be bigger and the lens brighter than it is today."
Great!Aiming from my Powershot S95 I would love a bigger sensor and a brighter lens (for low light performance, but also for more "shallow depth of filed capability") in a not too big size.Sonys RX100 needs more concurence!
mpgxsvcd: I like how the manufactures now think that F6.9 is appropriate for small sensor cameras. They just completely ignore diffraction and the fact that smaller apertures require more light.
Way too long of a zoom is the new Megapixel race.
exactly what I think.Those (small sensor/small aperture) long zoom ranges are only useable in very bright light, lots of people will be disappointed by the tele results in less bright conditions.In these small sensor cameras I'd prefer a 4x zoom with f 2.0 to 2.8 or so
AngryCorgi: 6 different p&s cams? Why do companies do this?? Canon is bad about it too. Way too many models.
I agree, five cameras with a 1/2.3 sensor, that's a waiste, especially while everyone says compact cameras (Apart from enthusiast models) don't sell well anymore since the smartphones' cameras do get better and better.
Feature-wise a great camera.But the viewfinder is lowest entry level!And the viewfinder is one of the most important parts of a camera, isn't it?
Mescalamba: Dying breed. Eventually extinct due increasing performance of cellphones and lowering price of mirrorless. Even today you can buy second-hand mirrorless for price of new PnS.
They should either do mirrorless, or try cellphones. Or leave business. It wont happen from day to day, but it will happen quite soon.
I pretty much agree. Or, if they would port their high speed functions to an enthusiast compact, like the Fuji X10, Sony RX100, or such...But mirrorless... why not? I would suggest that they joined another already defined system, like the EOS M? Or Sony's NEX?
oh, does Hasselblad have new loeaders?I've see that quite often that a new headquarter doesn't either care or understand who are the firm's customers...
iudex: As an S100 owner I can think of some features to be improved; however adding a wi-fi or a touchscreen are not the ones. The biggest problem of S100 is the lens, slowing down to terrible f5,9 at the tele end (what makes the camera unable to focus anywhere but in bright light). The newest enthusiast comacts showed the direction: fast lenses are the right way (EX2f, LX7). Although RX100 and the new XF1 don´t have fast lenses at the tele end as well, but f4,9 is still much better than f5,9 (cca. 1/2 EV) and they both have bigger sensor to offset the disadvantage. And giving away the handgrip was a mistake too, although small, it helps handling of the camera a lot.
I own the S95 and I still think it's a great camera.But just like judex, I find that the biggest minus is the aperture at the tele end!I would even sacrifice a bit of the zoom range (or a tiny tiny bit of the small size) for a faster tele end.
peevee1: "Note that this hybrid AF technology is not compatible with any of the fixed focal length E-mount lenses except the high-end Sonnar T* 24mm F1.8 ZA."
Why is that?
This struck me too. Bad news.I'm very much considering the NEX-6 but the poor choice of lenses is a big downside.
fberns: It was a good decision to stay with 16MP!Thank you Pentax for designing USEFUL cameras and not just being after numbers that your MARKETING department would love!
Looks even slightly better than its peers and K-5 and K-01. It even pleases me best in APS.C sensors, except maybe for the X-Pro1.
I think the number of cases are low where you'd wish for the increased resolution of 24MP against when you'd be glad about the increased IQ from 1600ISO onwards.And - lower file sizes are a good thing too. Here - like often - less is more!
I definitely agree. I often checked k-x/k-r high ISO test images for comparison with new cameras, because they were my prefered performers in APS-C at 3200 ISO.